Bressler Risk Blog

“Yelp’s Failed Attempt to Block Paul Weiss From Google Antitrust Case Shows Obstacles to Big Law DQ Bids” —

• “A recent ruling allowing Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison to continue representing Google in antitrust litigation, despite not seeking a waiver from former client Yelp, shows it takes more than alleging an inherent client conflict to get a large firm kicked off a case.”
• “Nonparties Yelp and News/Media Alliance had filed a motion to disqualify the Am Law 50 firm, with Yelp arguing that it retained Paul Weiss in 2016 to provide legal counsel on several antitrust matters. That representation, Yelp argued, included communications between counsel and federal antitrust enforcement officials regarding Google’s business practices and how that alleged conduct impacted Yelp’s business decisions, according to the opinion filed Oct. 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. “
• “Paul Weiss never sought a conflict waiver from Yelp or NMA for the present litigation, which the U.S. and eight states commenced in January, seeking substantial damages on behalf of federal agency advertisers, equitable relief and divestiture of Google’s digital advertising business, the opinion said.”
• “However, in ultimately rejecting Yelp’s motion, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema first considered whether Paul Weiss violated Virginia’s Rules of Professional Conduct pertained to former clients and representing a person with interests directly adverse to those of a client represented by a lawyer who formerly was associated with the firm.”
• “‘Here, Paul Weiss represented Yelp and NMA three years ago, primarily to communicate with federal antitrust officials regarding Google’s purported anticompetitive conduct in the Internet search industry,”’ Brinkema wrote in her opinion. ‘That representation was led by lawyers who are no longer at the firm—with one exception, Daniel Crane, who is no longer participating in the Ad Tech litigation… As such, Yelp and NMA have failed to provide ‘patently clear’ evidence demonstrating how specific confidential information Paul Weiss may have obtained during the previous representation is substantially related to the dispute in the instant litigation.'”
• “However, as an apparent precautionary measure, Brinkema ordered Paul Weiss to screen its attorneys and support staff to see if any of them participated in the previous representation of Yelp or NMA in relation to Google’s alleged anticompetitive conduct. If so, Paul Weiss is ordered to prohibit those members from participating in the present action, the judge ordered.”
• “Still, Brinkema said that a violation of the rules ‘does not automatically yield disqualification of counsel.’ In Google’s case, disqualification of Paul Weiss ‘this late stage in a complex, and fast-moving case would impose unnecessary expense, risk a delay in the trial and waste both plaintiffs’ and Google’s resources,’ she wrote.”
• “The ruling in the Google case is the latest example of a judge deciding a large law firm had taken adequate steps to avoid a conflict. The ruling in Google’s case is the latest example of a judge taking mitigating steps around an issue, rather than completely disqualifying Paul Weiss.”
• “In another case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in September 2022, that White & Case was not conflicted out of a bankruptcy case after hiring a partner from opposing counsel Sidley Austin who previously worked on the matter.”
• “When Jessica Boelter, who had participated in the initial pitch by Sidley to represent YPF and billed 300 hours on the representation, moved to White & Case, she went through a standard conflict-screening process. On Boelter’s first day, White & Case implemented an ethical wall, obtained Boelter’s agreement to comply with that wall and periodically certified that compliance, according to the opinion.”
• “But YPF ‘never thought any screen could be good enough’ and moved to disqualify White & Case, according to Judge David J. Porter, who wrote the opinion for the Third Circuit. The bankruptcy court denied YPF’s motion after applying a multifactored test, finding no exceptional circumstances existed to impute Boelter’s conflict to the entire firm despite a screen, according to the opinion.”
• “More recently, over this past summer, a federal judge denied Coca-Cola Co.’s motion to disqualify its longtime outside counsel Paul Hastings from representing a startup that filed a $100 million lawsuit against Coke. U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Norway of the Middle District of Florida found that Paul Hastings’ representation of the startup was a conflict, but that Coke signed an enforceable conflict waiver in 2021.”
• “There’s a laundry list of potential conflicts law firms must watch out for, from attorneys having their own financial interest from a separate business to lawyers needing to serve as witnesses.”
• “But University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law Professor Keith Swisher found that nearly half of federal motions filed for disqualifications tracked in civil cases between 2003 and 2013 were related to a former client, he wrote in ”The Practice and Theory of Lawyer Disqualification,” which was published in the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics in 2014.”
• “For that same decade, nearly 74% of civil disqualification motions were denied, Swisher’s research showed.”

And more on the aforementioned research (curious how the last decade compares to the 2003-2013 data presented in here): “The Practice and Theory of Lawyer Disqualification” —

• “Lawyer disqualification is commonly feared as a ‘strategic,’ ‘tactical,’ and ‘harassing’ ‘potent weapon’ depriving clients of their trusted counsel of choice. Although disqualification comes with costs, fundamental misunderstandings fuel this common fear.”
• “This Article finds that disqualification is a uniquely effective remedy for lawyer misconduct and makes the following contributions to the law and practice of lawyer disqualification:
  • (1) an exhaustive study surveying disqualification cases and refuting the common misconception that disqualification motions are uncontrollably on the rise and uncontrollably bad;
  • (2) an accessible analysis of lawyer disqualification doctrine that permits lawyers and judges to begin assessing common disqualification questions efficiently and comprehensively; and
  • (3) specific suggestions for practical improvements, including cost-shifting, legal presumptions, and better procedures in disqualification proceedings.”

“Nevada Walgreens Lawsuit Raises Conflict of Interest Concerns” —

• “The law firm chosen for the Walgreens opioid-related lawsuit was Egglet Adams, the firm where Attorney General Aaron Ford worked as a partner before taking up his current office. Now some are raising concerns about a conflict of interest.”
• “In July, Attorney General Aaron Ford announced the state had settled with Walgreens for $285 million, holding the pharmacy chain responsible for its role in the opioid epidemic in Nevada. Of that $285 million awarded, at least $65 million went to attorney fees. The law firm chosen for the lawsuit was Egglet Adams, the firm where Attorney General Aaron Ford worked as a partner before taking up his current office. Now some are raising concerns about a conflict of interest.”
• “Additionally, Senate Minority Leader Heidi Seevers Gansert told 2 News that the cap for outside attorney fees increased from $10 million to 25% in 2017 when Ford was the Senate Majority Leader. The statute change happened in the final hours of the 2017 legislature when normal legislative oversight rules were lifted. Two years later in 2019 when Ford was Attorney General, his office selected Egglet Adams, his former firm, for opioid-related lawsuits.”
• “The Communications Director for the Attorney General’s office told 2 News that Attorney General Aaron Ford did not play any role in selecting Egglet Adams. The selection was based on the fact that Egglet Adams is one of the few firms that can bear the upfront costs of lawsuits where evidence gathering costs tens of millions of dollars. Additionally, Nevada received more money by pursuing its lawsuit with the help of Egglet Adams than it would have by joining a multistate case.”
• See the video report from local TV news KTVN: Here.

“Prosecutor: Fred Daibes faces conflict of interest with lawyer in NJ bank fraud case” —

• “Fred Daibes, the prominent North Jersey developer charged alongside Sen. Bob Menendez in alleged bribery scheme, faces a conflict of interest with the attorney who represents him in a New Jersey bank fraud case that dates back to 2018, federal prosecutors say.”
• “Daibes is one of five people indicted in an alleged corruption scheme involving Menendez and his wife, Nadine Arslanian Menendez, in a separate case. Daibes pleaded not guilty last week to the superseding indictment.”
• “An attorney representing the United States in the bank fraud case said he believes there is a potential conflict of interest with Daibes’ attornies, Lawrence S. Lustberg and Anne Collart of Gibbons P.C., related to the Menendez indictment.”
• “The indictment shed light on Menendez’s alleged interference with Daibes’ bank fraud charges, saying Menendez nominated a U.S. attorney he believed he could influence in Daibes’ favor.”
• “Hana is represented by Lustberg in the Menendez indictment. ‘Mr. Lustberg knows certain facts allegedly relevant to those charges,’ wrote Vikas Khanna, first attorney for the United States in the district of New Jersey, in a letter to United States District Judge Susan D. Wigenton on Wednesday.”
• “The government requested that Daibes be made aware of the potential conflict of interest and if appropriate, sign a voluntary waiver to continue with Lustberg as his attorney. U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein repeatedly asked Hana if he wanted new representations at the arraignment last week.”
• “Stein noted that Lustberg could be called as a witness because he serves as Daibes’ attorney in a different federal case based in New Jersey. Hana said he was satisfied with Lustberg even after Stein reiterated that he would not be able to appeal on the grounds that Lustberg was conflicted at the end of the trial.”
• “That same day, Hana signed a waiver of any potential conflict of interest caused by Lustberg’s potential conflict of interest by counsel’s concurrent representation of Daibes, according to court documents.”
• “A status conference hearing — originally a sentencing date before a judge withdrew a plea deal for the bank fraud charges — was held for Daibes on Thursday. During the hearing, the potential conflict of interest was discussed for 45 minutes, court records show. The hearing is scheduled to continue on Nov. 16.”
• “Last month, corruption and bribery charges were filed against Menendez by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. The unsealed indictment said Menendez accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from three New Jersey businessmen, including Daibes, in exchange for helping them enrich themselves and trying to get them out of trouble.”

“Why Arbitration Spinoffs Are ‘Part Push, Part Pull’ for Big Law” —

• “For Yas Banifatemi, practicing international arbitration at a large law firm had stopped making sense.”
• “She and her colleagues had for years operated ‘a firm within a firm’ that had become Shearman & Sterling’s ‘crown jewel,’ she said, but as the firm expanded its U.S. presence the global arbitration practice was feeling some unfortunate side effects. As Shearman grew its focus on the energy sector by adding dozens of partners in Texas, Banifatemi and the arbitration team found themselves increasingly conflicted out of matters for longstanding clients.”
• “‘Shearman had a very expanded view of what a conflict is,’ Banifatemi said.””When the firm’s finance team represented a bank as an underwriter, for example, its arbitration practice had to bow out of disputes in which the bank had been involved as a lender but was no longer a party.”
• “‘We lost extremely interesting, prestigious matters to that view of conflict of interest,’ Banifatemi said. ‘That ended up being very annoying. You cannot expand your work and the work you have is losing ground because you have so many conflicts.'”
• “Conflict concerns coupled with the desire to be free of the bureaucracy of Big Law—all those meetings and red tape—led Banifatemi and Emmanuel Gaillard, co-heads of Shearman’s practice, to leave with a 38-lawyer team to start GBS Disputes in 2021.”
• “Their exit was perhaps the loudest and most notable in recent years, but the past decade has seen a growing trend of international arbitration practitioners ditching large firms to branch out on their own. As the arbitration market has matured, small-scale specialist and boutique firms have found clients receptive to the streamlined service they can offer, and many attorneys are finding that the grass truly is greener outside of Big Law.”
• “But in fact, the recent spate of arbitration exits from large firms is ‘part push, part pull,’ according to the head of an international arbitration practice at a global firm. The race toward maximum profitability has become particularly pronounced, and as that’s happened arbitration has lost some of its luster, given its nature as a long-term play with limited margins compared with more lucrative and reliable practices. At certain large firms, the practice leader said, ‘arbitration is no longer the shining star in the firm.’ Those circumstances can open the door to a firm accepting an arbitrator’s exit or even offering a gentle push.”
• “More significant, though, is the pull that arbitrators are feeling, the practice leader said. As the arbitration market has matured and the club of prestigious practitioners has grown, many have seen the proof of concept offered by firms like GBS and Three Crowns and determined that they have better options.”
• “The pressure to maintain profitability in large firms presents itself in other ways, too, according to Weijia Rao, assistant professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, who previously practiced international law at Sidley Austin and worked at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Representing a country in investor-state arbitration often involves a capped fee, she said, which means it isn’t usually as profitable as representing investors or companies. For some arbitration practitioners, that creates an unwelcome tension.”
• “For international arbitrators who have left big firms in recent years, freedom and flexibility were among the most important factors. From avoiding conflicts to selecting clients and even choosing how to hire and train, exiting Big Law allows practitioners a sense of clarity that can be hard to find as part of a full-scale enterprise.”

Colette Best, Director of Anti-Money Laundering at Solicitors Regulation Authority, introduced several new resource:

• “We have recently published a suite of information to help firms put in place good client/matter risk assessments. These are an essential block of your AML controls to decide what level of customer due diligence is needed to mitigate the risk.”
• We have published a report setting out the findings of our thematic review: “Client and matter risk assessments“
• We have also published a template for client/matter risk assessments for those firms which wish to use it: “Completing the client and matter risk template“
• And a warning notice setting out what firms are getting wrong and what good practice looks like: “Warning notice: Client and matter risk assessments“

“Va. Judge Nixes Defense’s Expert Witness, Finding Previous Work With Opposing Counsel Created ‘Serious’ Conflict of Interest” —

• “A federal court in Virginia has ruled that an expert witness for the defense is conflicted out of a personal injury lawsuit because she previously discussed serving as an expert in a Pennsylvania case with plaintiffs counsel, who shared privileged communications and attorney work product about the Virginia matter.”
• “According to the Oct. 10 opinion by U.S. District Judge Thomas T. Cullen of the Western District of Virginia, the John Doe plaintiff was as student at Turner Ashby High School when then-principal Phil Judd and school guidance counselor Sandy King allegedly failed to protect him from sexual abuse at the hands of former drama teacher Wesley Dunlap, according to the opinion.”
• “Before the court was Doe’s motion to disqualify Dr. Charol Shakeshaft from serving as an expert witness for the defendants, Judd, King, Dunlap and the Rockingham County School Board, about sexual-assault prevention and training.”
• “Doe argued his counsel had previously engaged Shakeshaft to serve as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the case, disclosing privileged communications and attorney work product to her, and therefore the court should bar Shakeshaft from testifying.”
• “According to the court, Doe’s counsel contacted Shakeshaft to gauge her interest in serving as Doe’s expert witness… Shakeshaft and Doe’s counsel went on to speak over the phone, where Doe’s counsel argued they revealed ‘a trove of confidential information about this case,’ including privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product, according to the opinion.”
• “Doe contended that, during the call, Shakeshaft confirmed she didn’t have any conflicts that would preclude her from serving as an expert in either of the litigations, leading counsel to explain both cases in detail, including confidential and privileged information, the opinion said.”
• “Shakeshaft claimed that little-to-no substantive information about the Virginia case was shared, including no privileged or protected material, with defendants arguing ‘scant details’ were provided about the Virginia case, including no confidential or privileged information, according to the opinion.”
• “But the court held it was undisputed that Doe’s counsel worked with Shakeshaft on the Pennsylvania case, with counsel claiming it occasionally discussed the Virginia matter during this time. Doe’s counsel went on to pay Shakeshaft for the Pennsylvania expert report.”
• “Defense counsel went on to execute a written agreement with Shakeshaft for her to serve as their expert, paying her a $2,500 retainer. Shakeshaft billed defendants for 58 hours spent reviewing documents and drafting the report, the court said.”
• “After learning that the defendants had retained Shakeshaft and intended to use her as an expert, Doe’s counsel filed a motion to disqualify her. The court granted the motion, concluding that a confidential relationship existed and confidential information had been shared.”
• “‘In support of her representation to the court to this effect, Plaintiff’s counsel provided an affidavit and six-page in camera letter that describes, in detail, the nature and extent of the information shared. This included the substance of two key, privileged communications with her client about a determinative issue in the case,’ the court said. ‘Plaintiff’s counsel also attests that she shared with Dr. Shakeshaft details of her litigation strategy.'”

“Judge’s Recusal Isn’t Needed After Ex-Firm’s Deepwater Cases” —

• “A US judge did not need to recuse himself from cases over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill despite his former law firm’s previous work on the case, a US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit panel ruled.”
• “The New Orleans-based appeals court on Friday affirmed the decision by US District Judge Barry Ashe of the Eastern District of Louisiana to not step away from the cases. The appellate panel said there was ‘no evidence’ that Ashe previously worked on the litigation when New Orleans law firm Stone Pigman represented a decade earlier Cameron International, the manufacturer of a blowout preventer that failed ahead of the oil spill.”
• “The appeals court on Friday said that while Cameron International was ‘directly adverse’ to the plaintiffs in a 2013 liability trial, it is not involved in the ongoing litigation. It also said that Ashe’s longtime partnership at the law firm was well known, but that the parties did not move to disqualify him from the cases until he rejected the inclusion of an expert report in the litigation.”
• “‘Nonetheless, as the arguments on this appeal support, potential conflicts of interest must be taken seriously by every member of the judiciary,’ the court wrote. ‘The litigants and the public need to be confident in the impartiality of those who will decide legal disputes. This appeal is fair warning to each of us of the importance of assuring the reality and appearance of that impartiality.'”

Hat tip to the folks at AON, who just hosted their Law Firm Symposium and were kind enough to post an extensive set of speaking slides, materials, and references for those of us not in the room where it all happened. Those are all available on this overview page.

There are several risk related resources relevant to readers I’ll highlight below for those who don’t want to parse the entire page. And while several are a few years old (to be generous), I suspect folks will still be interested as I am:

New Business Intake (and Outtake)

• The Aon Client Intake Survey, by Matthew K. Corbin
• What Lawyers Can Say in Motions to Withdraw, by Matthew K. Corbin
• Dishonest or Unworthy Clients: Pink Flags, by Douglas R. Richmond
• Risk-Related Thoughts on the Corporate Transparency Act, by Matthew K. Corbin
• Core Concepts for Evaluating Concurrent Conflicts of Interest, by Matthew K. Corbin

Client Risk

• Avoiding Professional Liability and Responsibility Traps in Transactional Practice
• Taking a Closer Look at Scope of Representation and Related Issues, by Matthew K. Corbin

Lateral Hiring

• Looking Again at Lateral Hiring Risk, by Douglas R. Richmond
• Lateral Hiring Red Flags, by Douglas R. Richmond
• A Departing Lawyer Checklist, by Douglas R. Richmond

Personnel and Partner Risk

• “Partner Problems” PowerPoint Presentation
• The Right to Suspend Law Firm Partners Pending Internal Investigations, by Mark A. Webster
• Expelling Law Firm Partners

International/UK Practice

• [Slides] How Global Law Firms Navigate the Increasingly Complex Regulatory Environment in the U.K. and the Effect on International Offices
• Useful Links to Additional Resources

Law Firm General Counsels Discussion

• Session Slides
• The Aon General Counsel Survey, by Matthew K. Corbin
• Touring Deposition Conflicts by Rail, by Douglas R. Richmond
• Essential Principles for Law Firm General Counsel, by Douglas R. Richmond

Insurance

• A Review of the Most Recent Aon LPL Claims Data, by Mark A. Webster
• How Underwriters Evaluate and Price Law Firm Risk

“Pras Michel of Fugees seeks new trial, contends former attorney used AI for closing argument” —

• “Fugees star Pras Michel, who was convicted in April on charges of conspiring to make straw campaign donations, witness tampering and acting as an unregistered foreign agent for China, appears to be breaking new legal ground by calling for a new trial by claiming his defense attorneys allegedly relied on artificial intelligence to compile their final argument for the jury.”
• “In a withering motion filed Monday night with a federal judge in Washington, Michel’s new attorneys argued that his Los Angeles-based lawyer David Kenner relied on the fledgling technology at critical points in Michel’s trial, contributing to ‘prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel.'”
• “Kenner ‘used an experimental artificial intelligence (AI) program to draft the closing argument, ignoring the best arguments and conflating the charged schemes, and he then publicly boasted that the AI program ‘turned hours or days of legal work into seconds,’’ Michel’s new defense team from D.C.-based ArentFox Schiff wrote.”
• “‘It is now apparent that Kenner and his co-counsel appear to have had an undisclosed financial stake in the AI program, and they experimented with it during Michel’s trial so they could issue a press release afterward promoting the program — a clear conflict of interest.'”
• “Zeidenberg pointed to a press release a firm called Eyelevel appears to have issued in May, which included a photo of Michel and boasted that the company’s technology ‘made history last week, becoming the first use of generative AI in a federal trial.’ The release quotes Kenner calling the AI tool ‘absolute game changer for complex litigation.'”
• “Beyond the claims related to AI, the motion also makes a slew of other arguments criticizing Kenner’s handling of the case. Michel’s new attorneys argue that Kenner had a conflict of interest due to potential contempt of court citation over claims the defense leaked stamped grand jury exhibits to a Bloomberg reporter just prior to the start of the trial.”

“Bar Cybersecurity Panel Considers Data Privacy Certification Course” —

• “The Cybersecurity & Privacy Law Committee has agreed to sponsor an intensive, two-day training seminar that would help Florida lawyers become internationally certified in data privacy.”
• “‘I think we should be thinking about making as many Florida Bar members IAPP certified as possible,’ said Co-Chair Franklin Zemel, referring to the International Association of Privacy Professionals. ‘I’ve been through the training in the past. They’re top-notch in every way.'”
• “Although no agreement has been reached, the proposal would have Privacy Pro offer Florida Bar members a two-day, in-person training seminar at the Hilton Orlando Bonnet Creek, two days before the Bar convenes its Annual Convention there on June 19.”
  “Some committee members expressed a concern that the test, which requires 40 hours of preparation, might be too rigorous for lawyers who aren’t tech proficient.”

Blog reader and former chair of the Minnesota Lawyers Board Chuck Lundberg has published: “Quandaries & Quagmires: It’s important to know when not to use email” —

• “‘When not to use email?’ is a relatively recent ethical inquiry, barely 20 years old. Do you remember the practice of law before email? (Depending on the size of the law firm, email use became prevalent at various stages during the 1990s.) Back then, the only ethics issue was whether information about a client’s matter could EVER be sent by unencrypted e-mail without violating the ethics rules.”
• “It was not until 1999 that the ABA ethics committee acknowledged that a lawyer may transmit some information relating to the representation of a client by unencrypted email over the internet without violating the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. ABA Formal Opinion No. 99-413, May 10, 1999, (citing at footnote 40 an impressive full-page string cite of numerous state opinions and commentary to the same effect in 1996 – 1998). “
• “Today, however, email is so commonplace, so easy to use, that emailing reflexively — without even thinking about it — has become the new default. This can be a serious problem. Precisely because email is the default, lawyers are all too complacent about best practices for using email effectively and proficiently. Email can be a great communication tool, but it can also be dangerous. ”
  “Avoid email when:
  • The message is extremely important or confidential and you cannot risk it falling into the wrong hands.
  • The message is emotional or sensitive or in nature.
  • When a back-and-forth conversation will be required, or when the receiver deserves the opportunity to give immediate feedback or response.”
• “Consider this real-life scenario from the Ethical Emergencies column:
  • Sally Associate has just realized that she has made a serious and possibly damaging mistake in one of her client’s cases. [Think missing a mandatory deadline — a statute of limitations or an expert witness disclosure order.] Sally is very concerned that there may be ethics or malpractice issues, and she needs to talk with someone at the firm immediately about the mistake, about what to do now, about whether disclosure or other action is required, etc.
  • Before we get to the email issue, think about this: To whom at the firm should Sally report this emergency? Her supervising partner on the case? Her mentor? The firm’s managing partner? The firm’s ethics partner?
  • The only correct answer on these facts is the ethics partner.”
• “Accordingly, Sally should call or meet with the ethics partner immediately. But she should not use email. Not to report the incident, or to describe or explain the problem, or to give the details, or to answer the inevitable ‘how did this happen?’ questions, etc.”
• “But nothing in writing until then. No email. Always remember what the ‘e’ in email stands for (‘Exhibit’). The sender should imagine that the transmitted message or document has an exhibit sticker on the bottom right.”

Quite excited to announce that the 2023 Law Firm Risk Staffing Compensation Survey report is now fresh off the presses! (And now on file with the US Copyright Office.) Coming in at 15 pages, this year’s exercise builds on last year’s success in several ways:

• As hoped, we saw strong participation from “director-level” risk leaders, and have included a section on those salary details.
• What’s more, overall participation shot up from last year. In 2022, we saw 80+ participants contribute data on 375+ individual risk staff positions. In 2023, we saw 126 participants share data on 517 risk positions. (That’s a 50% jump in participation and a 37% increase in data — for those of us who have putting everything into Excel over the past few weeks.)

I’d like to thank everyone who participated. I hope the results and analysis provide fresh insight and support to those looking for greater clarity on industry compensation practices and trends.

As many readers have shared over the past year, this project is creating value, insight, and opportunity on several fronts:

• Risk and operational leaders are using this data to advocate for and ensure that their teams’ compensation is kept in line with industry averages.
• HR and hiring managers are using this data to inform their staff recruiting and review policies.
• Individual contributors are using this data to self benchmark and support their personal career efforts and growth.

A note on distribution: 

• If you’re a “manager” participant, providing data on your team/multiple positions, you’ll be receiving the report in your inbox today (if you haven’t already).
• If you’re an “individual” participant, providing data on your position, you’ll be receiving your personal benchmark shortly as well.
• Finally, if you/your law firm did not participate in the survey, we’re making copies available for a fee. Please get in touch for details. 

As more than one risk leader shared with me, several of you are looking to this data to benchmark your existing team’s compensation, inform potential adjustments (it’s budget season for many), and support future recruitment efforts. I hope the report doesn’t disappoint.

I’m quite interested in community response and feedback — particularly if there’s appetite and interest in a 2024 follow up exercise. (I already have notes and thoughts on where we might go from here…)

Thanks!

“Ex-ArentFox client claims law firm secretly prepared to sue it on rival’s behalf” —

• “A government contractor has sued its former counsel at U.S. law firm ArentFox Schiff, alleging the firm failed to disclose that it was preparing a lawsuit against it on behalf of one of the contractor’s business rivals.”
• “Peraton, a contractor owned by private-equity firm Veritas Capital, alleged that ArentFox secretly fed information about it to CACI International, another ArentFox client. ArentFox used that information to help prepare a lawsuit against Peraton on behalf of CACI, Peraton alleged.”
• “The law firm shot back against Peraton’s claims in a statement, saying the government contractor ‘knowingly consented to the firm pursuing litigation against it.'”
• “It added, ‘Peraton is a sophisticated company whose own general counsel signed the consent on its behalf.'”
• “ArentFox and Brand represented Peraton in licensing and sponsorship deals, netting the firm nearly $500,000 fees. Meanwhile, ArentFox was representing CACI in a trade secrets lawsuit in Virginia state court against two of CACI’s former employees, the Peraton lawsuit alleged.”
• “Peraton alleged that ArentFox came to it with a conflict waiver under the pretense that the law firm was being served with a subpoena.”
• “‘Had Peraton known that Arent Fox wanted permission to investigate legal claims against Peraton, sue Peraton, disclose its confidential information to CACI, or participate in a government inquiry against Peraton, then Peraton never would have consented to such a waiver,’ the lawsuit said.”
• “Peraton signed off on the waiver in July 2022 and obtained a protective order that would limit the disclosure of its sensitive business information to ArentFox lawyers, not CACI. The lawsuit alleged that ArentFox had the order modified so that a pair of CACI executives could see the information from Peraton. ArentFox in its statement said it ‘certainly did not misuse any confidential Peraton information.'”

Follow up on this story: “Opioid Special Master Who Hit ‘Reply All’ Protected by Judicial Deliberative Privilege, Judge Rules” —

• “A federal judge, invoking a judicial privilege to freely deliberate on matters, refused to disqualify the special master in the opioid multidistrict litigation.”
• “In a Tuesday order, U.S. District Judge Dan Polster rejected a motion filed last month by two pharmacy benefit managers to disqualify David Cohen after the special master inadvertently sent an email to lawyers in the case. Cohen, who meant to send the email to himself, has been a special master in the opioid multidistrict litigation since 2018.”
• “Polster sided with the plaintiffs’ executive committee in concluding that the email falls under the judicial deliberative privilege, which protects confidential communications among judges and their staff.”
• “‘Special Master Cohen’s email, which consisted entirely of his own mental impressions, personal notes, and private musings about the submitted status reports, was unquestionably a privileged judicial deliberative memorandum to himself,’ Polster, who sits in the Northern District of Ohio, ruled.”
• “He added, ‘For the judicial system to function, judges must view the arguments presented to them with an appropriate degree of skepticism. If judges were subject to accusations of bias and potential disqualification based solely on private, skeptical thought about a party’s position, there could be no judges.'”
• “Polster questioned the motivations behind the disqualification motion, in which the pharmacy benefit managers ‘repeatedly and misleadingly attempt to convert the Special Master’s private thoughts into public comments.’ Such actions, he wrote, did not follow the standards of professional conduct outlined in his protective order.”
• “In a footnote, he added: ‘The court also notes that, were the email from opposing counsel rather than the Special Master, and the PBMs responded that not only would they not allow counsel to claw back their inadvertent disclosure but intended to use it to attempt to gain some tactical advantage in litigation, such conduct could be the subject of a motion for sanctions.'”