Bressler Risk Blog

Bill Freivogel notes recent decisions:

 L.D. v. Seymour, No. 8:20-CV-1203 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2022).

• “Plaintiff appears to be suing several local government entities arising out of an alleged sexual assault by an individual defendant (‘Seymour’). Law Firm represents one of the entities (‘County Services’), which evidently was Seymour’s employer. Plaintiff moved to disqualify Law Firm in this case because some twenty-five years earlier Law Firm had represented Plaintiff in ‘a matrimonial action.'”
• “In this opinion the magistrate judge denied the motion. Lawyers who represented Plaintiff in the matrimonial action (‘Team One’) are still with Law Firm, but they are not the lawyers (‘Team Two’) working on this case.”
• “On balance, the magistrate judge seemed to feel that the information, if any, that might flow from Team One to Team Two, would not prejudice Plaintiff in this case. The court alludes to the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, screening, the substantial relationship test, notions of confidentiality, etc. It cites a potpourri of New York federal court cases, many of questionable relevance here, and most of which predate New York’s adoption of the Rules.”

Diagnostic Affiliates of N.E. Hou, LLC v. United Health Grp., Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00131 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2022).

• “Plaintiff seeks to recover ‘payments for COVID-19 testing and related services’ from three groups of defendants, totaling dozens of entities. Law Firm seeks to represent all the defendants. Plaintiff moved to disqualify Law Firm because of conflicts among the defendants. Standing is an issue.”
• “In this opinion the court followed those authorities that recognized the right, in some instances, of parties to raise conflicts of law firms that never represented the moving parties. However, the court found that, on balance, the possible conflicts here were not substantial enough, or real enough, (our characterizations) to interfere with the defendants’ right, as a matter of strategy, to continue with one law firm.”
• “[Our note: The relationships among the defendants are not clear to us from the opinion, so we are unable to articulate why the conflicts are not substantial enough, or real enough to justify disqualification.]”

“Bid To DQ BB&K Is ’11th Hour Litigation Tactic,’ City Says” —

• “A California city that sits on an island off the coast of Los Angeles fought efforts to disqualify its counsel from litigation over contamination on school property, urging the court to reject the ‘eleventh-hour litigation tactic’ because it was no secret that Best Best & Krieger LLP advised the local school district years ago.”
• “The city of Avalon and its attorneys from BB&K told the court Monday that the Long Beach Unified School District’s motion to disqualify is out of turn and uncalled-for. The city told the court that the school district has always been aware that BB&K attorneys — one of whom left the firm well over a decade ago — represented the district in an ‘exceedingly limited scope’ regarding contamination at the Avalon School.”
• “The district’s claims that it only recently became aware of the apparent conflict are not true, the city argued, saying ‘the district has known every fact it now alleges in support of its motion since 2012.'”
• “The city argued the district cannot now use information it has been sitting on to seek disqualification, saying the prior representation does not pose a conflict of interest, but even if it did, precedent dictates that litigants can’t hold off on seeking disqualification until it is convenient for them. The city called the district’s disqualification bid ‘a litigation tactic aimed at depriving the city of its chosen attorneys who have been successful in this litigation,’ which should be denied.”
• “In its disqualification motion, the school district further argued that the timeliness issues central to the court’s ruling in August were directly related to the law firm’s past work advising the school district. The district argued the law firm ‘injuriously affected its former client’ since it successfully argued many of the district’s claims were time-barred.”

In this Law Gazette feature, “Joanna Goodman looks at the everyday perils that give compliance officers sleepless nights.” — “The watchful hours” —

• “Law firms need to manage risk and compliance effectively to meet their legal, financial and professional obligations, to keep their – and their clients’ – money and data secure and protected from fraud. Achieving that will safeguard their reputation and professional status.”
• “As legal processes and resources have moved online, not least with the introduction of government portals, the compliance burden has grown more complex…The key message from the SRA conference, and from compliance officers across the sector, is that compliance is a shared responsibility across the firm and all its stakeholders. Good policies, systems and processes, which are the domain of compliance officers, need to be supported by awareness and action across the legal services supply chain.”
• “Cybercrime is the top threat keeping compliance officers, partners and managers awake at night, attendees at the SRA conference heard. Law firms are targeted by cybercriminals because they manage the financial element of transactions and hold valuable corporate and financial data.”
• “COLPs are worried about loss of data through hacking, phishing and ransomware, and even the biggest firms are not immune. DLA Piper’s high-profile ransomware attack in 2017 was down to third-party vulnerability, underlining the significance of managing supplier risk.”
• “While the SRA does not take enforcement action against firms which report incidents, it emphasises the need for firms to assess and manage transactional risks and avoid breaches that are distressing to victims and damage the reputation of firms and their clients.”
• “Chun Wong, partner and COLP at consumer litigation firm Hodge Jones & Allen, deems cybersecurity even more important in today’s hybrid world, as lawyers and clients working from home may be more exposed to risk. As cybercriminals are becoming increasingly sophisticated, it is impossible to eliminate risk entirely. ‘When you get so many emails every day, you need external help: investment in IT and third parties supports seamless hybrid working, systems security and compliance.'”
• “To some extent, anxiety around risk and compliance is holding back digital transformation. While some regulations have been relaxed temporarily to allow for online identity checking and electronic witnessing and signature, firms are evaluating how much to digitise from a risk management perspective. ‘We accept electronic signatures for some legal documents, such as client care letters, but we decided the risk was too high to witness wills over Zoom, because we are not prepared to take the risk when large estates are involved,’ explains Wong.”
• “For larger firms, risk and compliance can be integrated into core policies, processes and systems. Weightmans, which handles both volume and bespoke work, has incorporated compliance and risk into the firm’s governance model.”
• “Partner and business services and innovation director Stuart Whittle heads the risk and compliance team. He explains that over the past two years, the audit risk committee chaired by one of the firm’s executive directors has developed a risk register to evaluate the severity and potential impact of different risks. Whittle’s team then decides on a course of action: to accept the risk, to insure against it, or to take mitigating action. The biggest consequence of risk is professional indemnity insurance, where premiums have increased significantly over the past year. ‘In a hardening insurance market, insurers want to understand your policies and processes for managing risks,’ he adds.”
• “Additionally, Weightmans’ quality standards team remotely audits a selection of files across all teams against criteria including statutory and regulatory requirements, AML, KYC and so on, and reports back to each team manager with recommendations for corrective action if this is needed. Whittle’s IT and innovation teams follow a detailed procurement process, which includes a data protection impact assessment (DPIA).”
• “Reputation risk is becoming a higher priority. ‘Solicitors trade on their professional reputation for honesty, integrity and client confidentiality, and compliance measures that protect client data and funds are critical to that,’ observes Whittle.”
• “The fallout of investigations into the Pandora Papers highlighted the need for firms to balance protecting the right of individuals and organisations to legal representation against their own risk of being associated with certain people and industries.”
• “Law firm risk management is starting to reflect the flipside of ethical consumerism, in that a firm might have to decide whether to represent particular clients on the grounds of its own reputational consequences, in terms of its ability to attract clients and talent.”

In the UK: “Why is it crucial for lawyers to identify and verify source of funds?” —

• “The growing number of frauds, tax evasion, investment scams, and money laundering cases across the country has once again turned the spotlight on the importance of complying with anti-money laundering (AML) policies.”
• “Nonetheless, financial institutions are not the only ones subjected to AML regulations. Law firms are also required to monitor and investigate the source of funds they accept from their clients in legal transactions.”
• “As a lawyer, you may already have information about the bank account your client has been using to make payments. However, investigating the source of funds goes beyond collecting financial documents. Law firms must also determine how their client came to possess that money and where it was used.”
• “According to the latest report by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the officials received a total of 273 reports of potential AML violations in the past year. As a result, the authority visited 85 firms to offer guidance on tax-related issues, with more than 150 desk-based reviews taking place. Moreover, the SRA took 29 enforcement actions and issued £160,000 in fines. The officials also made more than 30 suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency.”
• “It is no secret that law firms are among the biggest targets for money laundering. Lawyers who handle excessive amounts of funds confidentially are at the risk of non-compliance with the anti-money laundering regulations. It is also worth mentioning that their actions may weaken the public confidence in legal professionals.”

In the US: “Treasury Department Rules Could Help Strengthen AML Whistleblower Program” —

• “The U.S. Treasury Department is currently drafting proposed rules to implement the whistleblower provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Act of 2020. These rules will help determine the future success of the newly created AML whistleblower program. By crafting commonsense regulations, the Treasury Department can strengthen the program, despite shortcomings in the law that need to be fixed by Congress.”
• “The AML Act became law on January 1, 2021 as part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act. Included in the AML Act were provisions establishing a whistleblower reward program for individuals who report money laundering violations to U.S. authorities.”
• “Modeled off the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA), which established the highly successful SEC Whistleblower Program, the whistleblower reward provisions of the AML Act were meant to establish a program which incentivized insiders to blow the whistle by offering anti-retaliation protections and monetary awards. However, the AML Act strayed from the model of DFA in a number of ways, creating devastating loopholes which are undermining the potential of the program.”
• “Given these loopholes, which include the lack of a mandatory minimum award, the apparent inability for the Treasury Department to actually pay awards, even where justified, and the exclusion of all employees at FDIC insured financial institutions and credit unions from coverage under the law’s anti-retaliation provisions, urgent legislative reform is needed to make the AML Act effective.”
• “The AML Act does not mandate regulations and thus there is no deadline for the Treasury Department to adopt them. It is expected, however, that they will do so this year. Currently, there are no regulations in place. Thus, the Treasury Department can draft rules without being restricted by any existing, outdated or ineffective regulations.”
• “Money laundering was recently recognized by the Biden Administration as one of the key drivers facilitating international corruption, and its most harmful impacts, including terrorist and drug cartel financing, bribery, tax evasion, and undermining the rule of law. The Treasury Department must take advantage of the AML Act to administratively design the most effective transnational anti-money laundering whistleblower program consistent with the official United States Strategy to Countering Corruption.”

“Software Co. Wants Amazon Atty DQ’d From Patent Suit” —

• “MasterObjects wants a California federal judge to disqualify Amazon’s in-house lawyer and its outside counsel in a suit accusing the e-commerce giant of infringing search engine patents, saying the company’s staff attorney once worked for the law firm that filed a MasterObjects patent application in the early 2000s.”
• “Scott Sanford, a senior in-house patent lawyer at Amazon.com Inc. who is leading the company’s defense case, once worked for MasterObjects Inc.’s long-standing patent prosecution firm, Fliesler Meyer LLP, according to a memo to disqualify him filed Monday. The software company said it only recently and “serendipitously” discovered Sanford’s two-year employment at the boutique firm that began in 2000, a job MasterObjects said he neglected to disclose.”
• “‘Despite having dozens if not hundreds of calls or meetings about MasterObjects and its patents, including motions to depose Mr. Sanford’s former Fliesler Meyer colleagues, Mr. Sanford not once said, ‘Oh, by the way, I worked at Fliesler Meyer when the firm drafted the MasterObjects parent patent,” the motion said. ‘Why on earth not?'”

“Chapman University says it didn’t authorize law prof’s representation of Trump, yet work was on server” —

• “Law professors often use school emails when representing clients, but they may want to rethink that, following a recent subpoena sent to Chapman University from the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack, seeking documents from former faculty member John Eastman.”
• “The Jan. 20, 2022, subpoena relates to the constitutional law professor’s legal representation of former President Donald Trump and the 2020 election, and includes emails, contact lists and calendar entries on the university server.”
• “Eastman had no expectation of privacy on the university server, and a written school policy said as much, according to the government’s Jan. 21 motion opposing Eastman’s TRO request.”
• “Also, when Eastman logged on to the Chapman network, he was greeted with a splash screen message, stating that use of the system constitutes consent his activities or information could be subject to monitoring, according to the government’s filing. Eastman is a former dean of the law school, and has served on the faculty for more than 20 years.”
• “‘I suspect most law professors assume their emails are private. This surprises me a bit because I often comment publicly that people too frequently are lulled into carelessness about what they say in emails and then are shocked that emails are discoverable—in situations ranging from divorces to congressional subpoenas,’ Catherine Ross, a George Washington University Law School constitutional law professor, told the ABA Journal in an email.”
• “He [Michael O’Brien, an Anchorage, Alaska-based partner at Perkins Coie who represents colleges and universities in employment matters] adds that universities usually vet any legal work a law professor wants to take on, and the process includes a conflict-of-interest check… Eastman has argued that this was a service component of his academic work. Based on my review, I doubt it was pitched that way.”

Having spent about two years of my early career swimming in this area, this is a topic near and dear to my heart. Interesting related information risk issues to consider when it comes to addressing internal access management and confidentiality controls within the firm tied to these obligations. Perhaps we’ll see a future article on that. In the meantime, Dentons partners Shari L. Klevens and Alanna Clair share: “What to Know About Protective Orders” —

• “Protective orders are a tool used by litigators to help manage and prevent the public dissemination of sensitive documents and information a party receives during the course of litigation. Although such orders are very commonplace in commercial litigation, they are rarely ‘one size fits all.'”
• “Indeed, most protective orders or confidentiality agreements governing discovery will require some tailoring to the specific needs of the case and client. This article provides some tips for lawyers considering the use of protective orders.”
• “An effective protective order would typically be designed to protect financial information, trade secrets, or other proprietary information. To the extent the litigation is expected to involve production of documents or testimony that would otherwise be considered ‘confidential,’ a protective order will help minimize the risk of exposure.”
• “In addition to the specific subject matter of the litigation, most lawyers will also consider whether the case calls for two tiers of protection. Two-tiered protection generally involves designating a broad category of documents and information as confidential and then designating a more finite subset as ‘Attorneys’ Eyes Only.’ Typically ‘Attorneys’ Eyes Only’ information is not permitted to be shared with the actual parties to the litigation, but only their lawyers. That heightened designation may be appropriate for cases involving trade secrets, patent infringement or other competitive commercial disputes.”
• “If the client does not appreciate that it will not be permitted to access ‘Attorneys’ Eyes Only’ information, it could lead to some tension or even frustration on the part of the client. By taking time to explain the ramifications of that level of protection before the client agrees to the parameters of the protective order, lawyers could avoid such disputes.”
• “In addition, some protective orders will include provisions that impose obligations on the litigants after resolution of the lawsuit. This could include provisions governing the destruction or return of materials exchanged during discovery. Advising the client of those obligations could help reduce the risk of violating the agreement by failing to comply.”
• “Although many protective orders follow similar templates to protect confidential information, there are situations in which exceptions or carve-outs are appropriate. For example, most protective orders require the parties and their counsel to return or destroy confidential information after a lawsuit ends or settles. But what if the lawyer later receives a malpractice claim from the client involved in the suit?”
• “If the lawyer followed the terms of the protective order, the lawyer may no longer have access to documents or transcripts that would assist the lawyer in proving what happened in the case. Absent a carve-out in the protective order, the lawyer could be deprived of one of the best defenses available to a malpractice claim: the full and complete file. To mitigate such risks, some lawyers will include carve-out provisions in protective orders to allow the lawyers to retain a copy of the file for use in malpractice actions.”

“Judge Exits $1B Nigeria Award Case Over Chevron Stock” —

• “A New York federal judge who for almost four years presided over a lawsuit seeking to enforce a $1.1 billion arbitral award against Nigeria’s state-owned oil company has recused himself after discovering he owned stock in Chevron Corp., the parent company of one of the awardees.”
• “U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman informed Ruby J. Krajick, court clerk of the Southern District of New York, on Thursday that he sold the stock he owned in Chevron’s Texaco Nigeria Outer Shelf Ltd. while overseeing the case, but he will no longer oversee the dispute. Krajick updated the parties in the case on Friday.”
• “The letter referenced Advisory Opinion 71 from the Judicial Conference’s Codes of Conduct Committee, which provides guidance for addressing disqualification that is not discovered until after a judge has participated in a case.”
• “The guidance also suggests the ‘parties may then determine what relief they may seek, and a court (without the disqualified judge) will decide the legal consequence, if any, arising from the participation of the disqualified judge in the entered decision.'”
• “The letter does not say how or when Judge Berman learned about his Texaco Nigeria Outer Shelf stockholding nor why he was not aware of his stockholder status.”
• “Judge Berman’s recusal comes amid congressional efforts for more stringent stock trading disclosure requirements from federal judges. It follows a recent Wall Street Journal report revealing that more than 130 federal judges failed to recuse themselves from cases in which they or an immediate family member held stock in a company involved in a dispute. Following the report, several judges across the country have stepped back from cases they were overseeing.”

“Ethics opinion addresses responding to online criticism from nonclients” —

• “Florida lawyers now have guidance on how to respond to negative online reviews posted by those who are not current or former clients — keep it brief, factual, and don’t reveal information concerning a client’s representation without the client’s informed consent.”
• “That’s the advice from recently approved Ethics Opinion 21-1 that was adopted by the Board of Governors in December.”
• “‘If accurate, the lawyer may state that the person who made the post is not a current client or former client,’ the opinion, put forth by the Professional Ethics Committee, reads. ‘The lawyer may generally note that the comments in the review are inaccurate but that the lawyer’s response is constrained by the lawyer’s ethical obligations.'”
• “The PEC had been asked by the Board of Governors to give an opinion on responding to negative online reviews posted by individuals that are not clients or former clients after the earlier adoption of Ethics Opinion 20-1, which discusses a lawyer’s response to a client or former client’s negative online review.”

“Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla faces criticism over new law firm gig” —

• “A number of Hoboken council members have called on Mayor Ravi Bhalla to provide more transparency about his position at a law firm he joined at the end of last year, a firm in which the city’s assistant corporation counsel also serves.”
• “Bhalla joined Schenck, Price, Smith & King on Dec. 30, 2021, two days before he was sworn in for a second term as mayor. The firm issued a press release that day, but the news had not been publicized by either the mayor nor the city. The matter was brought up over the weekend by former City Council candidate Paul Presinzano.”
• “The firm said Bhalla will help them in diversity and inclusion efforts as a member of their Diversity & Inclusion Committee. He will earn a salary of $60,000 there, along with his current salary of $116,950 as mayor.”
• “When asked about why the mayor didn’t publicize his new role, Horowitz said that ‘since the fact that the mayor has been serving in the very limited role ‘of counsel’ to a law firm has been public for the past four years, the movement to a different firm in our view didn’t require a separate announcement from the mayor.'”
• “Schenck, Price, Smith & King is the law firm where Assistant Corporation Counsel John Allen, who was Bhalla’s former Chief of Staff, also serves, which the council members say is a potential conflict of interest.”
• “‘This once again reignites our long standing concern that Mayor Bhalla’s second job with a politically connected law firm will compromise the city’s interests in favor of his own,’ said the council members. ‘Mr. Allen may have solicited work for the firm in question, but the administration has blocked access to public records which would prove or disprove this accusation.'”
• “The council members had brought up past concerns over other previous conflicts of interest regarding Allen, where he had formerly served as an attorney for the city’s Alcohol Beverage Control board.”

“Shell Says Intra-Class Conflict Prevents Cert. In ERISA Suit” —

• “Shell Oil Co. urged a Texas federal court to block a group of retirement plan participants from bringing their lawsuit over alleged 401(k) mismanagement on behalf of a sprawling class, claiming the proposed class improperly includes members with contradictory interests.”
• “The oil and gas giant and its retirement plan trustees slammed a January motion for class certification lodged by three former Shell employees, pointing out in a filing Friday that the group contains members who the workers claim unfairly benefited from certain investments at the expense of putative class members who were harmed.”
• “‘Plaintiffs’ proposed class is riddled with irreconcilable conflicts. Indeed, plaintiffs actually feature those conflicts as a centerpiece of their theory of the case,’ Shell said Friday.”
• “The plan participants claimed in their January 2020 Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit that Shell saddled its 401(k) plan with high fees and let Fidelity Investments Institutional Operations Co. Inc., the plan’s record-keeper, use participants’ personal information to market financial products.”
• “A key issue with the proposed class is that putative members who invested in a specific tier of funds wound up in a very different position from those who didn’t, since the plan’s record-keeper was only paid fees from certain funds in this tier, Shell argued.”
• “‘It is hard to imagine that absent class members, who did not invest in [this tier of funds], would (or could) be satisfied with being represented by a named plaintiff … who did, and whose counsel has maligned such absent members as free-riders,’ the oil and gas company continued.”
• “This discrepancy between class members would come into sharp relief if a potential settlement would need to be split up between participants, Shell said.”

“Leon Black drops racketeering claims against law firm Wigdor” —

• “Billionaire investor Leon Black has dropped the Wigdor law firm as a defendant against civil racketeering claims in his lawsuit against a former model who accused him of rape, and dropped the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan after it identified a potential conflict.”
• “The changes were disclosed in Black’s amended complaint filed on Monday night in Manhattan federal court against Guzel Ganieva, with whom the former Apollo Global Management Inc chief executive has admitted to having had a consensual 6-1/2-year relationship, and the Wigdor firm.”
• “Black has forcefully denied Ganieva’s rape and sexual abuse claims, and accused her of extortion. He sued Ganieva last Oct. 28, four months after she sued him in a New York state court for alleged defamation and sexual violence.”
• “According to court records, Quinn Emanuel obtained the presiding judge’s permission to withdraw after partner John Quinn said the firm had identified a ‘potential conflict of interest’ that might implicate issues of privilege.”

“The curious case of the Quinn Emanuel partner and the alleged conspiracy against Leon Black” —

• “Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan withdrew this week as counsel to Apollo Global Management Inc founder Leon Black in a lawsuit claiming that an ex-model who has accused Black of rape conspired with his business rival in a smear campaign to bring down the billionaire financier.”
• “Quinn’s withdrawal letter to U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan federal court cited a potential conflict of interest. The letter provided no additional details about the conflict.”
• “But Black’s amended complaint, filed at the same time as Quinn’s withdrawal request, contains some intriguing assertions about contacts between purported participants in the alleged anti-Black conspiracy and Quinn litigation partner Alex Spiro.”
• “There is a one big clue that the conflict is linked to Black’s conspiracy allegations: Quinn has not asked to withdraw as Black’s defense counsel in the New York state court sexual assault and defamation case brought by the ex-model, Guzel Ganieva. The firm’s email statement confirmed that Quinn continues to serve as Black’s counsel in the state case.”
• “And regardless of the reasons for Quinn’s withdrawal from the federal case, it’s notable that Black’s own complaint asserts unusual incidents involving Quinn partner Spiro – or, at least, people wielding his name – and purported participants in a vast conspiracy to defame and extort Black, who remains a client of Spiro’s firm.”
• “You need some background to understand those incidents. The lawsuit asserts that Black’s onetime protégé, Josh Harris, was incensed that Black spurned him as a successor to lead Apollo. The complaint claims that Harris orchestrated a retaliatory legal and media blitz against Black, conspiring with Ganieva and a public relations expert to ruin Black’s reputation with false claims of rape and kidnapping.”
• “In early 2021, Black’s complaint alleged, ‘confederates’ of Harris called Spiro to find out if Quinn Emanuel was interested in taking a case against Black. The amended complaint does not specify the identity of these purported confederates, except to describe them as ‘an unidentified shadowy internal faction at Apollo that was involved in ‘cagey business’ there.'”

“Widow Wants Lowenstein Sandler DQ’d From Estate Fight” —

• “A pharmaceutical executive’s widow has called on a New Jersey state appeals court to ban Lowenstein Sandler LLP from representing one of its attorneys as co-executor of her late husband’s estate in a probate matter, as she and the lawyer are battling over the handling of assets once valued at more than $170 million.”
• “Lowenstein Sandler previously represented Angela Krivulka as co-executor of the estate along with Lerner, her interests are ‘materially adverse’ to Lerner’s, and the firm never obtained her ‘informed consent’ to its prohibited representation of Lerner, according to Wright.”
• “With respect to such consent, the firm has pointed to a 2018 joint engagement letter that ‘at best seeks a future conflicts waiver, which is not enforceable,’ Wright said. As examples of their adversity, she noted that Lerner sued Krivulka in probate court to, among other things, remove her as a co-executor and to have the her marriage to Joseph declared invalid.”
• “‘It’s the same matter. They’re adverse. They did not obtain informed consent,’ Wright told the panel. ‘So they should be disqualified.'”
• “Lerner has countered that Krivulka consented in the engagement letter to Lowenstein Sandler continuing to represent him, court documents state. The letter included a provision stating that, if a conflict of interest arose between them, the firm may have to withdraw as counsel to one or both of them, court documents show.”
• “After the firm began representing Lerner and Krivulka as co-executors, she raised the issue of Lowenstein Sandler’s purported conflict of interest, and Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP stepped in to represent her, court documents state.”

“Bankrupt Brooklyn Hotel Gets to Keep Its lawyer” —

• “A bankruptcy judge overseeing the Williamsburg Hotel bankruptcy case Thursday opted not to rule on a motion filed by the U.S. Trustee, who urged the court to disqualify law firm Mayer Brown LLP from representing the hotel owner, 96 Wythe Acquisition.”
• “The U.S. Trustee argued in his motion that the law firm’s role in a separate bankruptcy case involving the same developers behind the hotel, Toby Moskovits and Michael Lichtenstein, poses a clear conflict of interest because a court-appointed examiner is now investigating fund transfers from the hotel to different entities owned by the developers.”
• “Judge Robert Drain said the motion, based on the current evidence, was premature. But he also didn’t dismiss it, leaving a chance for a future discussion.”