Bressler Risk Blog

“Beyond Confidentiality: The AI Data War Between Law Firms and Clients” —

• “As generative AI transforms the practice of law, an outstanding question remains around who owns and controls the data that fuels these systems. For decades, law firms and corporate legal departments have operated under well-defined boundaries of client confidentiality and work product protection. But as firms begin using AI tools that rely on data aggregation and fine-tuning, those boundaries blur. The value of legal data has shifted from evidentiary substance to strategic infrastructure. Understanding who can use it, and under what circumstances, is now a defining issue of the modern legal industry. “
• “The Core Tension: Clients Own the Data and Firms Create the Work Product. At its simplest, data powering legal AI falls into two categories: ‘client’ data and law firm-generated data. Clients own their underlying information, such as contracts, discovery documents, communications, transaction details, and case files, and output/deliverables from outside counsel that clients have paid for. Law firms, on the other hand, may own derived work product such as drafts, research notes, and summaries, though those too may be governed by confidentiality and professional conduct rules. “
• “This distinction matters because many law firm AI use cases like contract review, litigation analytics, due diligence, and e-discovery depend on training or otherwise using (e.g., for fine tuning) large language models (LLMs) and/or retrieval augmented generation (RAG) code with a mixture of both deliverables to the client and internal work product. “
• “If a law firm builds or fine-tunes an AI model using client data, it could inadvertently violate client confidentiality or intellectual property rights unless expressly permitted.In contrast, in-house legal departments that sit closer to the data source often view that same dataset as a corporate asset. “
• “They are more likely to want to use their data to train proprietary AI tools that enhance decision-making, risk prediction, or portfolio management. So, the questions emerge: can both the law firm and the client use the same data to train AI models? What happens if they both do? Is enforcement possible? Probable? The answers may depend less on technology and more on contract language. ”
  The Contractual Layer: What Provisions Matter “
• “The key provisions that govern data use in AI are scattered across several types of documents. These typically include engagement letters, outside counsel guidelines (OCGs), vendor and cloud agreements, and AI pilot or development agreements. “
• “Engagement letters and OCGs set baseline terms around confidentiality, data retention, and use of client information. Increasingly, OCGs include explicit prohibitions on uploading client data into AI systems that might use the data to train underlying models. ”
  “Vendor and cloud agreements determine whether data is stored in private environments, whether it leaves a specified jurisdiction, and whether it may be used to train or improve the provider’s services. AI pilot or development agreements typically define who owns derivative outputs and improvements. “
• “Key clauses to watch include data ownership and license-back rights, use restrictions, and confidentiality and anonymization standards.”
• “Law firms often assume that anonymization resolves the data ownership and usage concerns. After stripping identifiers or aggregating data, many believe the resulting dataset can be freely used for internal AI training. In reality, anonymization is a moving target and does not automatically remove client-sensitivity or eliminate contractual restrictions. Even when direct identifiers are removed, matters can remain re-identifiable, particularly when (1) the underlying dispute is public, (2) the dataset is small or unique, or (3) the fact patterns themselves function as identifiers. As a result, anonymized data does not guarantee firm ownership or unrestricted reuse unless the client agreement expressly allows it. “
• “A better lens is data governance, where processing occurs within a firm-controlled or vendor segregated cloud instance under contractual guarantees that client data will not train external foundation models. It is crucial to note that most current enterprise-grade tools do not use inputs to improve their base models and maintain strict data-isolation controls. Firms must leverage security documentation (SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, DPAs, DPAs with model-training exclusions, and environment architecture diagrams) from vendors to dispel this persistent confidentiality concern. This distinction separates technical reality from common client fear. The safest path ultimately relies on consent and transparency, moving beyond reliance on de-identification alone. This means clearly documenting: (1) how data will be used, (2) where it is stored and processed, (3) whether it remains in a single-tenant or region-locked environment, and (4) confirming that no third-party model training or cross-matter data blending occurs. This governance-first approach substantially mitigates risk. “
• “Even with clear rules, enforcement is tricky. How can a client verify that its data isn’t being used to train a firm’s internal or vendor model? And how can firms prevent well-intentioned employees from inadvertently breaching these boundaries through tool usage? “
• “Policing this requires a combination of technical controls (segmented instances, audit logs, and data usage dashboards) and contractual accountability (attestations, audit rights, and breach remedies). “
• “Firms should implement governance layers that track which datasets are used to fine-tune models, who authorized their use, and whether consent was obtained. From the client’s side, periodic audits or certifications, such as SOC 2 or ISO 27001 attestations, can provide assurance that their data remains quarantined from model improvement cycles. “

“Law firms in Canada need to collaborate on a vendor-neutral cybersecurity framework” —

• “What am I doing about it? What could we do about it? And who is actually doing anything right now? These were the questions I kept asking myself in the summer of 2025. I was working inside one of the world’s largest law firms, assessing our cybersecurity practices against well-known information security frameworks. The deeper we went, the clearer it became that the legal sector is not where it needs to be. Not because people don’t care or leadership isn’t paying attention, but because almost every firm is trying to solve this problem on its own.”
• “That is the core issue. Cybersecurity in law is still treated as a firm-specific project, when in reality it affects the entire profession.”
• “Firms don’t work in isolation. We work together on matters. We exchange sensitive files with opposing counsel. We rely on shared platforms, vendors, and cloud infrastructure. If one firm is hit, clients don’t say, ‘Oh well, that was just that firm.’ They question how legal data is protected holistically. That is where the real risk lies.”
• “Most firms I’ve spoken to are acting: buying tools, tightening policies, hiring consultants, conducting training, and commissioning assessments. But they are doing all of this in silos. There is no shared baseline. No commonly accepted definition of what ‘good’ looks like for a Canadian law firm – or, frankly, for any law firm.”
• “According to 2024 IBISWorld data, Canada has roughly 35,000 law firms of varying sizes. They hold highly sensitive client data but typically lack cybersecurity teams, threat intelligence functions, and security engineers. They are data-rich and resource-poor – and attackers are aware of this.”
• “The risk is not theoretical. In 2024, a Florida law firm faced a class action after a breach exposed client information. The firm reportedly settled for US$8.5 million, becoming one more example in a growing list of law firms targeted by ransomware and data theft.”
• “Meanwhile, Canadian law firms are increasingly interdependent. We share clients, documents, systems – and, critically, risks. A compromise in one environment can easily spread to another, particularly in a digitized and interconnected ecosystem.”
• “This leads to a simple question: if we are all connected, why are we defending ourselves separately?”
• “We do have organizations in the legal technology space. ILTA exists. The Canadian Bar Association has groups. Provincial law societies publish guidance. But none of these bodies solves the collaboration problem.”
• “ILTA, for example, is excellent but paywalled and primarily serves medium and large firms that can afford the fees. No single group reaches the thousands of small and mid-sized firms that make up the majority of Canada’s legal market. And none provides truly actionable, operational ‘knowledge and skills’ that firms can plug into their day-to-day work.”
• “Instead, we end up with scattered pockets of collaboration, mostly among well-resourced firms, while the majority are left to fend for themselves. That divide is precisely where the collective risk sits – and where bad actors thrive.”
• “Confidentiality is the foundation of the profession. But it does not stop at one firm’s firewall.”
• “If one firm in a multi-firm matter is breached, everyone is exposed. If one firm transmits compromised files through a shared DMS or client portal, everyone is exposed. If a small firm working on a high-stakes matter is compromised, the fallout can affect clients, courts, regulators – even governments.”
• “Clients already understand this. Many in-house legal teams now assess the cybersecurity posture of external counsel before engaging them. Insurers are tightening their requirements, and audits are becoming more frequent. Firms of every size, including solo practitioners, are expected to have reasonable safeguards and a working incident response plan.”
• “The pressure is here. The risk is real. The only question is whether the profession responds collectively or continues to duplicate effort and go it alone.”

“Investors Lament ‘Anti-Foreign’ Litigation Funding Push in US” —

• “Federal legislation targeting foreigners who invest in US lawsuits is raising concerns among international financiers. The bill by Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.) bans sovereign wealth funds from backing US litigation, potentially disrupting operations of funders such as Fortress Investment Group, Burford Capital, Omni Bridgeway, Ares Management Corp., Ellington Management Group and BlackRock Inc.”
• “Funders that lack sovereign wealth backing would also be affected. The Cline bill requires overseas investors to disclose their roles in US lawsuits, which the funders say could delay court proceedings as defendants seek information about them in discovery.”
• “The emphasis on foreign funders is an approach by the US Chamber of Commerce and other opponents of litigation finance to stymie the nascent industry. The legislation has sparked an intense lobbying campaign in the new year, with a pro-industry lobbying group forming after the House Judiciary Committee voted 15-11 in November to recommend the bill.”
• “The practice of investing in lawsuits with the hope of winning proceeds from successful cases has become popular for financiers, who seek returns uncorrelated to the stock market. The litigation funding market is expected to grow to around $50 billion by the mid-2030s from nearly $21 billion last year, according to a report from boutique asset management firm Katch Investment Group.”
• “The threat of US legislation has forced some foreign fund managers to reassess their growth strategies. ‘This lack of certainty and safety it is not helping anybody to feel happy about investing in the USA,’ said Ignacio Delgado, the general counsel for Loopa Finance, formerly known as Qanlex, which doesn’t currently fund US litigation and primarily operates in Latin America and Europe.”
• “The US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control already restricts investment from countries of concern such as Iran and Russia, ‘so why do you need more law?’ asked Susan Dunn, founder of UK-based Harbour Litigation Funding.”
• “‘There’s so much anti-foreign that’s going on in the US at the moment,’ said Dunn, who also chairs the Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales. From US lawmakers’ perspective, ‘it’s like if I use the ‘foreign’ word then that’ll get me’ bill passage.”
  Cline’s Momentum”
• “Cline’s proposal is the second version of legislation that singles out foreign funding. After the House panel passage it is the farthest along of three federal bills attempting to regulate litigation finance. The Chamber and other industry opponents have pressed for regulation because they say litigation finance results in frivolous lawsuits that raise the cost of doing business.”

“Lawyer for accused drug trafficking boxer Goran Gogic challenges bid to throw him off the case” —

• “Joseph Corozzo Jr., the lawyer for boxer Goran Gogic, says he shouldn’t be spiked from the pugilist’s drug trafficking case based on ‘baseless’ jury tampering and witness intimidation allegations — arguing that the feds have been trying to get him since the 1990s.”
• “Corozzo Jr. — son of the late reputed Gambino crime family consigliere Joseph (Jo Jo) Corozzo — laid out his argument in a court filing Friday, two weeks after federal prosecutors called him a ‘subject’ of a criminal investigation and moved to have his firm disqualified from Gogic’s case.”
• “Corozzo’s co-counsel Angela Lipsman pushed back in a letter to Brooklyn Federal Court Judge Joan Azrack Friday.”
• “‘If being the subject of a criminal investigation barred Mr. Corozzo from representing defendants, his decades-long legal career would have been stunted in its infancy as the FBI’s fruitless attempts to find evidence of him engaging in racketeering date all the way back to the 1990s, when [law firm] Rubinstein & Corozzo was only a few years old,’ she wrote, in a letter co-signed by Corozzo.”
• “Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have repeatedly sought to prevent Corozzo from representing mob defendants over the decades.”
• “Prosecutors in 2005 tried to spike Corozzo from the murder and racketeering trial of Gambino captain Dominick Pizzonia, citing his status as Gambino ‘house counsel,’ his loyalty to his father and his uncle, Nicholas ‘Nicky’ Corozzo, and contending he was a subject in two separate criminal probes.”
• “The feds contended in court filings that Corozzo was once proposed for induction into the Gambino crime family in 2000, but then-Bonanno family boss Joseph Massino, who famously turned cooperator, ‘withheld his approval on the grounds that he believed attorneys should not be permitted to become full-time members of La Cosa Nostra.'”
  Brooklyn Federal Court Judge Jack Weinstein kept him on the case.”
• “The government managed to get Brooklyn Federal Judge John Gleeson to agree to block Corozzo from representing reputed Gambino soldier Gaetano Napoli Sr. at trial in a 2010 fraud case, after the lawyer faced a witness-tampering probe. Napoli pleaded guilty before the case went to trial, though.”
• “‘Neither the FBI’s prior investigation of Mr. Corozzo for racketeering nor the alleged ongoing investigation for obstruction of justice is going to impair our zealous advocacy of Mr. Gogic in any way,’ Lipsman wrote.”
• “Gogic’s trial was cast into disarray in November, when the FBI uncovered an alleged plot to bribe a juror with $100,000 the weekend before opening statements.”
• “After a probe, the feds said they found protected legal documents, including a photo of a witness’s daughter, in Gogic’s cell in the MDC Brooklyn jail, and detailed instances of apparent witness intimidation in the runup to the trial, according to court filings.”
• “The defense team contended that it didn’t intentionally leave any protected documents with Gogic, though some pages might have inadvertently been mixed in with the reams of nonprotected documents the law firm brought during jail visits.”
• “Gogic faces charges he played a key role in an operation that trafficked more than 20 tons of cocaine through U.S. ports.”

“Ex-MSG Worker Says DQ Attempt Is ‘Clear Misdirection’” —

• “A former employee pursuing wrongful firing claims against Madison Square Garden Entertainment has asked a New York federal judge to reject the company’s request to remove his counsel based on his potential need to testify, arguing that key facts are available from other sources and his lawyer will not need to take the stand.”
• “In an opposition brief filed Friday, Donald Ingrasselino said MSG’s attempt to boot his attorney Ethan M. Krasnoo and his firm Reavis Page Jump LLP from the suit was ‘a clear misdirection of the court’s energy and resources from the real disputes at play.'”
• “Even if there were grounds to disqualify Krasnoo, doing so would cause substantial hardship for Ingrasselino, he further argued, because MSG’s reputation made it difficult to find any lawyer willing to represent him.”
• “Of five lawyers he contacted, four declined to take the case ‘because of defendants’ reputation in litigation and their lawyer ban imposed on lawyers at firms that sue MSG from attending their venues (through exclusion by use of facial recognition software),’ he said.”
• “Ingrasselino sued MSG and Chief Security Officer John Eversole in September. In the complaint, he said he was hired as senior director of security for Tao Group, which was owned by MSG, in 2021, and he was fired in 2024 after allegedly enduring hostile working conditions, discrimination based on his age and disability, and retaliation.”
• “Ingrasselino is now fighting a motion to disqualify filed in November alongside a motion to dismiss. According to the defendants, Krasnoo’s testimony is integral to the majority of Ingrasselino’s claims, as Krasnoo communicated directly with the company after Ingrasselino was fired, particularly over the disputed mediation agreement.”
• “MSG called the suit a ‘desperate’ attempt to get media attention, arguing the claims should be thrown out. It denied Ingrasselino’s allegations, saying he was fired for breaching company policy by moonlighting as a security guard and not responding to emails in a timely manner.”
• “On Friday, Ingrasselino told the court that MSG and Eversole’s argument for disqualification comes down to a single phone call, which was later memorialized in an email between Krasnoo and former MSG counsel Kevin Leblang that has already been provided as evidence.”
• “‘The remainder of Krasnoo’s communications to Leblang are short, unambiguous written statements provided in emails, which speak for themselves,’ Ingrasselino said in the brief. ‘The existence of these emails and other documentary evidence should be all the court needs to assess the related legal claims, but should testimony be required regarding the terms and performance of the parties’ agreement to mediate, which is highly unlikely, it can be obtained from [the] plaintiff and defendant MSG’s own witnesses.'”

“Practus Faces DQ Bid In Lacrosse Glove Patent Fight” —

• “Sporting goods company STX LLC has asked a Delaware federal court to disqualify Practus LLP and one of its attorneys from representing competitor StringKing Inc. in a patent infringement case related to lacrosse gloves, arguing that the firm has a conflict of interest.”
• “In a filing on Monday [1/5] in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, STX asserted that Practus should be barred from representing StringKing because one of its partners previously represented an STX affiliate in the prosecution of an application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that ‘matured into’ the patent in suit.”
• “‘This side-switching places Practus on the opposite side of the same matter and triggers an unwaivable former-client conflict’ under ethical rules, STX argued.”
• “In an answer to STX’s patent infringement complaint, StringKing has asserted counterclaims ‘full of vitriol and unfounded allegations against STX and its patent prosecution counsel,’ including ‘claims related to inequitable conduct, invalidity, false marking and unfair competition,’ the filing said.”
• “Those claims are ‘based on supposed fraudulent actions taken at the [USPTO], including during prosecution of the asserted patent’ by S. Scott Lloyd, who is now a partner at Practus, STX said.”
• “‘Because StringKing now attacks that same patent, Mr. Lloyd’s conflict is imputed to every lawyer at Practus, and no ethical screen can cure it,’ STX argued.”
• “STX contends that Practus and its partner Jesse Camacho should be barred from representing StringKing in the case ‘to protect STX’s confidences, preserve the integrity of these proceedings and maintain public confidence in the bar.'”
• “Since he prosecuted the application related to the patent at issue in the litigation, Lloyd ‘accessed confidential information concerning claim strategy, inventor communications, prosecution history positions and patent scope, all of which bear directly on infringement, validity, enforceability and damages issues in this litigation,’ STX said.”
• “His access to STX’s confidential information regarding the patent at issue ‘could be used to STX’s detriment here,’ the company said.”
• “Practus and Camacho should be disqualified per an ethics rule that prohibits a lawyer from representing another client in ‘a substantially related matter’ in a way that is materially adverse to the interests of a former client, STX said.”
• “That is the case in this instance, STX said, as Lloyd had an attorney-client relationship with its affiliate and Practus now represents StringKing, which has interests that ‘are materially adverse to STX.'”
• “‘The only question is whether the current matter is the same or substantially related to Mr. Lloyd’s prior representation,’ STX said. ‘It is, and it is not a close question.'”
• “Given StringKing’s counterclaims, Camacho is now ‘in the posture of accusing his own partner’s prosecution conduct of being fraudulent, creating a direct and unwaivable conflict that threatens the integrity of these proceedings,’ STX asserted.”
• “STX alleges that StringKing’s Flyer 1 lacrosse glove infringes ‘on one or more of the claims of the ‘930 patent.'”
• “But in its counterclaims, StringKing argues that the patent is invalid ‘for incorrect inventorship’ and unenforceable for multiple reasons, including that misrepresentations were made to the Patent and Trademark Office during the application process.”

“Supreme Court removes recalled judge amid bar group complaints about column, podcast” —

• “The Illinois Supreme Court on Monday rescinded its decision to return a retired Cook County judge to the bench, where he was to help address a backlog of cases. Judge James R. Brown was one of seven retired circuit court judges from Cook, Will, and Pope counties who were recalled last month to help address a judge shortage in Cook County by handling cases in the high-volume traffic division.”
• “In late December, two local bar associations petitioned the state’s highest court to reverse Brown’s recall. Brown had served as a judge for 18 years and received endorsements from every bar group in the county during his tenure, including both organizations that sought his removal.”
• “Early Monday morning, the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order rescinding Brown’s reappointment without elaboration.”
• “The Cook County Bar Association, which identifies itself as the nation’s oldest bar association of Black lawyers and judges, announced its opposition to Brown’s appointment in December, citing a column he authored in September for John Kass News, a news and commentary website run by former longtime Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass.”
• “The association alleged Brown’s column and a subsequent appearance on Kass’ podcast violated the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct. According to the state, the code sets standards for the ethical conduct of judges and judicial candidates. Brown’s supporters noted that he was neither a judge nor a judicial candidate when the column and podcast were published.”
• “In his column, Brown argued there was ‘renewed faith in the American justice system’ following what he characterized as an era of political ‘lawfare’ and ‘progressive prosecutors’ who ‘blatantly violated their oath to uphold the law.'”
• “In seeking Brown’s removal, the bar association objected to multiple passages from the column, titled ‘His Judgement Cometh and That Right Soon,’ including assertions that ‘justice awaits those who brazenly and viciously demonized the 77 million Trump supporters’ and that ‘accountability, in one form or another, is coming to the George Soros-funded progressive prosecutors who waged lawfare against President Trump.'”
• “The group also cited other portions of the column, including references to a United States Supreme Court nominee who ‘could not articulate the definition of ‘woman’ at her confirmation hearing’ and an assertion that ‘American citizens have been senselessly murdered by illegal aliens.'”
• “In a statement approved by its executive committee, the Cook County Bar Association said Brown’s writing ‘undermines confidence in the entire justice system’ and ‘erodes confidence, promotes harmful and divisive discourse, and damages the respect for our justice system.'”
• “In 2014, the last time Brown ran for retention, every bar association in the county recommended him for retention. The Chicago Council of Lawyers, which is now calling for his removal, said he was ‘considered to be a diligent judge with a good demeanor. He is reported to be prompt in starting his call, and is praised for being fair to all parties. The Council finds him Qualified for retention to his current position.'”

NYSB: “Opinion 25-124(B)” —

• “Facts/Issue: A new full-time judge asks about disqualification based on his/her prior employment as a sole practitioner. The judge represented defendants in a wide variety of criminal cases in courts throughout the county, including the court where the judge now presides. The judge asks for clarification about instances where the judge served as assigned counsel.”
• “Discussion: As always, a judge is permanently disqualified, without the possibility of remittal, in any case where the judge previously participated as an attorney.”
• “In other matters involving former clients, a judge is disqualified, subject to remittal, for two years. The two-year period runs from the time the attorney-client relationship completely ends, including any extension due to ongoing connections with the client such as unpaid legal fees. It is understood that, as assigned counsel, the judge was or will be compensated by the designated governmental department(s) at legally specified rates based on vouchers submitted. Accordingly, where the judge served as assigned counsel, the two-year period runs specifically from the end of the attorney-client relationship, just as it does for a judge who served as an assistant public defender.”
• “Conclusion: Where a judge previously served as assigned counsel, the two-year disqualification period for former clients runs from the end of the attorney-client relationship.”
• “Authorities: Opinions 24-168; 21-151.”

“‘Ill-Advised and Questionable’: Judge Leaves Arbitration Award in Place, Despite Allegations Over Neutral Umpire” —

• “A Manhattan judge has declined to set aside an arbitration award despite questionable behavior by one of the arbitrators in the case, finding respondents failed to meet the high bar required to prove their rights were prejudiced by his actions.”
• “Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Moyne found that, while a representation by neutral umpire Eli Mattioli ‘was at best misleading if not outright false,’ he could not disturb a unanimous final award to which respondents own party-arbitrator had agreed.”
• “That ruling, which concerns a long-term ground lease for Carnegie House on West 57th in Midtown Manhattan, allowed a 450 percent rent hike to take effect. The historic coop property was considered one of the last affordable buildings on what’s now dubbed ‘Billionaires Row.'”
• “The building’s tenants sought to vacate the decision from the tripartite arbitration panel last year, alleging party misconduct and arbitrator impartiality, and sought a preliminary inject to prevent the rent reset from taking place.”
• “Their counsel alleges that Mattioli, while acting as a neutral umpire in the matter, accepted a paid, unrelated engagement from the landlord’s lawyer and then made an incomplete and misleading disclosure about the offer.”
• “When the tenants requested Mattioli recuse himself, they allege he instead suggested a ‘quid pro quo’ in which he would not accept the other job if they withdrew their recusal motion.”
• “‘While the conduct surrounding the neutral umpire’s acceptance and later refusal of an unrelated engagement offered by Landlord’s counsel created an appearance of impropriety, this conduct, when assessed against the stringent standards of CPLR Article 75, does not constitute the corruption, fraud, misconduct, or partiality necessary to justify the extreme remedy of vacating a final arbitral award,’ Moyne wrote.”
• “Morrison Cohen partner and retired judge David Saxe, who represents the tenants, called Moyne’s decision ‘misguided.'”
• “‘In our mind, once the developer’s counsel reached out to the arbitrator and offered him a job while our arbitration was pending, it was very problematic,’ said Saxe, who previously served as an Associate Justice at the Appellate Division, First Department. ‘The arbitrator’s decision to try and accept that additional retention really created the appearance of ethical impropriety.'”
• “Mattioli was appointed as neutral arbitrator, or umpire, in the matter in February 2025.”
• “Court records show he was then approached by Nixon Peabody partner Thomas Mealiffe, who serves as primary counsel for the landlord, 57th & 6th Ground LLC, to serve in an unrelated appraisal proceeding identified in filings as the ‘Durst engagement.’ Mealiffe did so, the judge wrote, without notifying counsel he was offering Mattioli a paid job or that he was communicating with Mattioli on the side.”
• “‘By itself, this action posed a significant ethical risk that the integrity of the arbitration could be called into question,’ Moyne wrote in his ruling. ‘This is particularly true given that the parties previously agreed that ex parte communications with the Umpire were prohibited.'”
• “In a subsequent disclosure to the parties that Moyne called ‘demonstrably imperfect,’ Mattioli told the parties he’d been ‘invited’ to serve on the unrelated proceeding but did not say he’d been approached by Mealiffe. ‘In fact, he claimed that he had not had any ex parte communications with Mr. Mealiffe, a claim that was at best misleading if not outright false,’ the judge said.”
• “Saxe described the umpire’s email to parties as that of someone ‘trying to ‘kosherize’ the situation.'”
• “‘He was in fact trying to give the impression that this was all above board to get the referral for other business,’ the attorney added.”
  When the tenants sought his recusal, Saxe said Mattioli did every ‘everything in his power to disadvantage the coop,’ including expediting hearings and issuing a final award before the proceeding concluded.”
• “Though a severe appearance of partiality existed in this matter, Moyne wrote, the tenants failed to show objective facts linking any impartiality to the final award.”
• “‘While the Umpire’s initial attempt to bargain with the Tenant was ill-advised and questionable, particularly since it came at the suggestion of the Landlord’s counsel, the record does not establish that the conflict resulted in financial motivations or actual prejudice affecting the final valuation, particularly given the unanimous nature of the award,’ Moyne said.”

“Complaint Accuses Trump’s Criminal Attorney of ‘Blatant’ Crypto Conflict in His Role at DOJ” —

• “An ethics watchdog group filed a complaint Thursday seeking an investigation into whether President Donald Trump’s criminal defense attorney — now the No. 2 at the Justice Department — broke federal conflict-of-interest law when he issued a new prosecution policy that benefits the cryptocurrency industry.”
• “The complaint comes after a ProPublica investigation revealed last month that Todd Blanche owned at least $159,000 worth of crypto-related assets when he ordered an end to investigations into crypto companies, dealers and exchanges launched during President Joe Biden’s term. Blanche, the deputy attorney general, issued the order in an April memo in which he also eliminated an enforcement team dedicated to looking for crypto-related fraud and money-laundering schemes.”
• “Blanche had previously signed an ethics agreement promising to dump his cryptocurrency within 90 days of his confirmation and not to participate in any matter that could have a ‘direct and predictable effect on my financial interests in the virtual currency’ until his bitcoin and other crypto-related products were sold.”
• “Later ethics filings show Blanche divested from the investments more than a month after he issued the memo. Even when he did ultimately get rid of his crypto interests, his ethics records show he did so by transferring them to his adult children and a grandchild, a move ethics experts said is technically legal but at odds with the spirit and intent of the law.”
• “In its complaint this week, the Campaign Legal Center asked the Justice Department’s acting inspector general to launch an investigation. The complaint alleged that the evidence suggests that Blanche ‘blatantly and improperly influenced DOJ’s digital asset prosecution guidelines while standing to financially benefit.'”
• “The Campaign Legal Center is a nonpartisan government watchdog group dedicated to addressing challenges facing democracy in the U.S. Its trustees and staff include Democrats and Republicans, including Trevor Potter, a Republican former chair of the Federal Election Commission, who serves as president of its Board of Trustees.”
• “Under the federal conflicts-of-interest statute, government officials are forbidden from taking part in a ‘particular matter’ that can financially benefit them or their immediate family unless they have a special waiver from the government. The penalties range from up to one year in jail or a civil fine of up to $50,000 all the way to as much as five years in prison if someone willfully violates the law.”
• “In the complaint, Payne alleged that Blanche’s orders violated the law because they benefited the industry broadly, including his own investments. He estimated that Blanche’s bitcoin alone rose by 34%, to $105,881.53, between when he issued the memo and when he divested. At the time he issued the memo, Blanche also held investments in several other cryptocurrencies, including Solana and Ethereum, and stock holdings in Coinbase.”

“Private Credit Deal Gone Bad Spawns Court Fight Over Conflicts” —

• “Planet Networks Inc. thought it had landed a $50 million private credit deal to finance the fiber internet company’s expensive push into New York’s Hudson Valley. Instead, its founder now says a private equity firm dangled the loan to access his trade secrets while its own competing startup tried to swoop into the region.”
• “The financing gone bad with Wafra Inc.-backed private equity manager Post Road Group has landed in New York state court, with a lawsuit filed earlier this month by Planet.”
• “The fiber internet company accused the Connecticut-based manager and its co-founder Michael Bogdan of misrepresenting their involvement in Post Road portfolio company Archtop Fiber, founded only months prior, and using the pretext of an investment in Planet to steal competitive information and stall its growth plans.”
• “‘PRG never intended to enter into a deal with Planet, and it never did,’ the company and its founder Robert Boyle said in the lawsuit.”
• “Private credit has boomed into a $1.7 trillion industry in part on the pitch to borrowers that expert specialty firms understand their businesses and can reduce the hurdles to completing loans. But as more private equity investors with their own portfolio companies have also become lenders, the potential for conflicts of interest has also grown.”
• “‘We believe the lawsuit is meritless and plaintiffs’ claims are completely baseless,’ Jeff Kramer, an attorney for the defendants, said in a statement. ‘We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this case.'”
• “Planet says Post Road provided a $12 million bridge loan in January 2023 and committed to $50 million in long-term debt that would be hammered out in a 90-day window. The package was more attractive to Planet than competing equity investments because it would allow the 30-year-old company to grow and its founder to retain control.”
• “According to the lawsuit, Post Road slow-rolled its potential investment in Planet and used ‘bait-and-switch tactics’ to steal its trade secrets, including sensitive information related to permitting maps, technologies, business opportunities and vendor relationships. That helped Archtop, created and controlled by Bogdan, expand into the Hudson Valley, Planet alleges.”
• “While Planet acknowledges that it knew Post Road had committed hundreds of millions of dollars to Archtop, the private equity firm represented itself as a ‘mere passive’ investor in the competitor, according to the complaint. Planet said it relied on Post Road’s assurances that it could manage any conflicts of interest.”
• “‘PRG sought to entice Planet with the allure and facade of funding and a beneficial relationship while actually intending to bully Planet into ceding its New York operations to Archtop, misappropriate Planet’s confidential information for Archtop, and bleed it dry while it was reliant on PRG for cash,’ the company said in the lawsuit.”
• “Now, the type of financing that pitches privacy as a virtue is spilling out in court in what amounts to a rare public rebuke within the close-knit world of digital infrastructure investing.”

“Zachary Zayas, former law clerk in alleged conflict of interest in LI inheritance dispute, working for Nassau law firm” —

• “A law clerk whose relationship with a Uniondale attorney prompted conflict of interest allegations during a contentious inheritance dispute between two siblings has left his position with Queens Surrogate’s Court Judge Peter Kelly to work at an influential Nassau law firm.”
• “The Uniondale firm of Ruskin Moscou Faltischek P.C. announced earlier this month that Zachary Zayas, of Massapequa, was now an associate in their trusts and estates department.”
• “The move came less than a month after Newsday reported that Kelly had failed to disclose for several months that Zayas, his principal law clerk and the son of Joseph Zayas, the state court system’s chief administrative judge, was living with attorney Cheryl Katz as she was arguing cases in his courtroom.”
• “Those cases included an inheritance dispute between Shannon Hynes, a Franklin Square-based matrimonial attorney and her brother Sean Hynes, a Bellerose-based NYPD detective.”
• “In early 2023, a Kelly ruling made Sean Hynes the sole executor of his father’s roughly $2.1 million estate. The ruling also gave Sean Hynes the authority to use money from the estate to pay his attorneys, including Katz. Court records show Sean Hynes paid nearly $423,000 to three law firms where Katz worked between 2020 and 2024.”
• “In its Jan. 6 announcement, Ruskin Moscou Faltischek said Zayas’ practice at the Uniondale firm would focuses on estate, trust and fiduciary litigation, including Surrogate’s Court matters.”
• “In an interview Tuesday, Shannon Hynes described Zayas’ exit from Kelly’s courtroom as ‘a step in the right direction toward promoting confidence in the justice system,’ but added that she was ‘unsure if my case affected his employment.'”
• “The investigator discovered Zayas and Katz were in a romantic relationship and sharing a home together in Massapequa. At the time, neither Zayas, Katz nor Kelly had disclosed the relationship to Shannon Hynes or her attorneys.”
• “But after Shannon Hynes’ attorneys brought the relationship to the court, Kelly disclosed that he’d been aware the two were living together since late 2023, court transcripts show. “
• “In a sworn affidavit, Katz said the relationship was disclosed to Kelly shortly after it began in June 2023.”
• “Shannon Hynes said Zayas was in court for most conferences and appearances in the case.”
• “In May 2024, with most of the major issues already resolved, Kelly recused himself from the case, framing the decision as ‘discretionary’ and adding that Zayas had no decision-making authority or influence over the outcome of the case.”
• “In 2024, Shannon Hynes said she filed a complaint against Kelly with the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates allegations of wrongdoing by the judiciary.”
• “Commission officials have declined to comment while Kelly told Newsday that he ‘acted properly and in compliance with all governing rules and statutes.'”

David Kluft asks: “Should the Judge recuse herself when she no longer trusts the lawyers?” —

• “In an ugly spat between a hospital and a former hospital executive, the hospital’s lawyers accused the executive’s lawyers of trying to extort the hospital, and the executive’s lawyer’s clapped back by filing defamation claims, making themselves parties.”
• “In September, the hospital’s lawyers informed the executive’s lawyers that their filings contained false citations (probably fabricated by #AI). Voluminous motion practice followed in which the executive’s lawyers ‘never addressed’ the false citations and doubled down with more.”
• “After months of this, in early January the Magistrate judge issued a show cause order, noting that even though the false citations were discovered months earlier, the executive’s lawyers ‘were still obligated to acknowledge their transgressions to the court,’ and their ‘lack of accountability def[ies] explanation.'”
• “The judge further announced that because this episode had resulted in her ‘completely losing trust’ in the executive’s lawyers, and because the court was going to report those lawyers to disciplinary authorities regardless of the outcome of the show cause hearing, she was going to recuse herself as soon as the show cause proceedings were over.”
• Decision: here.

“Judicial Ethics Opinion 25-124(A)” —

• “Facts/Issue: The inquiring judge has been subpoenaed for a deposition in civil litigation, concerning a matter the judge previously handled as an assistant district attorney. The plaintiff is suing the police department that arrested him/her, claiming that the police engaged in improper actions that led to his/her conviction. There are no claims against the District Attorney’s office, and the judge is involved only as a witness or potential witness, not a party. As the testimony involves his/her former official duties as an assistant district attorney, the judge is represented by an assistant county attorney in the civil litigation. The judge asks about his/her obligations when attorneys from the County Attorney’s office and the District Attorney’s office appear.”
• “Discussion: In our view, the situation is fully addressed by Opinion 22-168, notwithstanding that the present inquirer is being represented as a witness rather than a party.”
• “Conclusion: Where a judge is represented by an assistant county attorney as a witness concerning a matter the judge handled during his/her former employment as an assistant district attorney:
  • (1) During the representation, the judge is disqualified, subject to remittal, from matters involving the specific county attorney who represents the judge.”
  • (2) After the representation concludes, the judge may preside in matters involving that attorney, provided the judge can be fair and impartial. Disclosure of the former attorney-client relationship is discretionary.”
  • (3) Both during and after the representation, the judge has no obligation to disclose or recuse with respect to other county attorneys not involved in representing the judge.”
  • (4) The judge’s representation by an assistant county attorney creates no obligation to disclose or disqualify in matters involving the District Attorney’s office.”

“Kirkland and Jackson Walker Sued in Judge Romance Lawsuit” —

• “Two of the United States’ most established law firms, Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Jackson Walker LLP, have been named in a high-stakes federal lawsuit alleging they concealed a secret romantic relationship that influenced the outcome of a major corporate bankruptcy. The proposed class action complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston, raises serious claims tied to judicial ethics, bankruptcy procedure, and investor losses tied to energy giant Chesapeake Energy’s Chapter 11 restructuring.”
• “EJS Investment Holdings, a private investment firm and creditor in the Chesapeake Energy bankruptcy, alleges that Kirkland and Jackson Walker, along with additional parties, failed to disclose a long-running romantic relationship between a Jackson Walker attorney and the judge overseeing the case. The lawsuit argues that this concealment undermined the fairness and integrity of the bankruptcy process, unfairly favoring some creditors over others and resulting in significant financial harm to junior investors like EJS.”
• “According to the complaint, the undisclosed relationship between former U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David R. Jones and then-Jackson Walker partner Elizabeth Freeman played a role in shaping legal strategies and court outcomes that benefited large institutional creditors, while leaving junior creditors with diminished recoveries. EJS claims these actions caused approximately $64 million in damages to its stake of roughly $150 million in Chesapeake Energy’s bankruptcy.”
• “The suit contends that all defendants were aware, or should have been aware, of the relationship between Freeman and Jones during their work on the bankruptcy, yet failed to disclose it to the court and interested parties. This alleged nondisclosure, EJS asserts, deprived junior creditors of the opportunity to object or seek recusal based on a conflict of interest.”

David Kluft asks: “Can I represent a long-term care facility at the same time I represent a resident’s guardian?” —

• “WA Bar Opinion 2025-01 addresses lawyers for long-term care facilities who are asked by their clients to petition a court to have a guardian or conservator appointed for a resident, for example when the resident no longer has capacity to make informed decisions. Sometimes the lawyers are asked also to represent the guardian or conservator once they are appointed.”
• “The WA Bar opines that because a guardian’s fiduciary responsibilities to the resident are broad, there are many instances in which the interests of the resident, as identified by the guardian, will conflict with the interests of the facility. Therefore, there would be few cases in which such conflicting representations would be consentable/waivable.”
• “The WA Bar felt there was a little more leeway for conservators, who have a narrower focus on money, and therefore if there are no disputes over money the dual representation may be consentable.”
• Opinion: here.

“Client accuses Willkie of conspiring to commit $735M fraud scheme” —

• “A Willkie Farr & Gallagher client has accused the law firm of aiding and abetting a $735 million fraud scheme related to a take-private deal for another one of its clients.”
• “In a complaint filed in New York state court Tuesday, BRC Group Holdings said Willkie allegedly helped former Franchise Group Inc. CEO Brian Kahn hide federal investigations into earlier fraudulent conduct while assisting with a take-private deal that involved both clients.”
• “According to Law.com, BRC Group Holdings also alleged that Willkie and Kahn worked together to hide crucial information and move the deal forward, which caused BRC Group Holdings to lose $735 million and Franchise Group to go bankrupt in 2024.”
• “At the time of the deal, Kahn was under active investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for committing fraud against another now-defunct company, Prophecy Asset Management, and had substantial debts related to a settlement agreement, the complaint says.”
• “Law.com reports that Kahn pled guilty to conspiring to commit securities fraud against Prophecy Asset Management in federal court in December.”
• “‘Willkie’s misconduct is particularly egregious,’ according to the complaint. ‘While simultaneously representing BRC as litigation counsel, Willkie prepared transaction documents for Kahn containing representations Willkie knew to be false, failed to disclose material conflicts of interest, and actively assisted Kahn in obtaining consents from the Prophecy settlement trust—all while remaining silent about these facts to its client BRC.'”
• “In an email to Law.com, a Willkie representative said ‘the facts will make clear that our firm acted appropriately and with integrity at all times, consistent with our values and all ethical obligations.'”

“Manufacturer Files Self-Dealing Lawsuit Against Former Deputy GC” —

• “The San Jose, California-based arm of Singapore electronics giant Flex Ltd. has accused a former deputy general counsel of self-dealing—alleging that while employed as Flex’s lead IP attorney, he transferred company patents to a startup he co-founded called AutoConnect while keeping his tie to that business secret.”
• “In a 28-page suit filed last week in federal court in San Francisco, Flex accuses Christopher Ricci of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement and misappropriation of trade secrets.”
• “After obtaining the patents, AutoConnect filed patent-infringement suits against Flex customers Ford, General Motors and Toyota. Some of these patents involved Ford’s SYNC voice-activated entertainment system—parts of which were supplied by Flex.”
• “In the suit, Flex said it wasn’t aware that Ricci had ties to Manassas, Virginia-based AutoConnect until last year, when it responded to discovery requests from GM and Toyota as they prepared a defense against AutoConnect’s patent-infringement suits.”
• “Flex said that process unearthed documentation that Ricci co-founded AutoConnect in 2015 with two partners—an arrangement that put him on both sides of the patent-transfer agreement. ‘Unsurprisingly,’ the suit says, terms of the agreement were ‘unreasonably favorable to AutoConnect.'”
• “Ricci—whose LinkedIn account makes no mention of working for AutoConnect—today is CEO of Marco Island, Florida-based Impel Advantage, which he describes as an insurtech startup.”
• “At the heart of the dispute is a portfolio of patents Flex sought to monetize. As Flex’s lead IP attorney in 2015, Ricci divested the portfolio to AutoConnect in exchange for a $500,000 promissory note, the complaint states.”
• “Last June, Flex sent AutoConnect a written notice of default on the note. It said AutoConnect failed to pay or transfer the patents within 10 days. AutoConnect failed to comply, the suit states.”
• “The complaint alleges Ricci took a number of actions that constituted self-dealing. For example, the patent-transfer agreements required Flex to pick up costs of patent prosecution and maintenance fees.”
• “More significantly, the suit alleges Ricci did not include in the promissory note or in subsequent addenda a ‘grant-back’ clause that presumably could return the patents to Flex if AutoConnect defaulted.”
• “‘No reasonable attorney acting in Flex’s best interests would have proposed, let alone agreed to, the terms of the note and the first addendum.'”
  Flex also alleges Ricci reached a deal with AutoConnect partners to become a one-third owner of the company after he left Flex.”
• “‘At no point did Ricci inform Flex AP of Ricci’s financial interest in AutoConnect or the fact that Ricci was also providing legal advice to AutoConnect,’ wrote an attorney for Flex, Ashley Hyun-Jeong Kim of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.”
• ‘This conflict of interest was in violation of several ethical rules governing Ricci’s conduct as Flex and Flex AP’s lawyer.'”

“DOJ Moves to Eliminate Attorney Recusals in Sweeping Power Shift” —

• “The Trump administration is preparing to upend a foundational safeguard of the Department of Justice, according to three senior administration sources, by proposing a rule that would effectively bar DOJ attorneys from recusing themselves from cases due to conflicts of interest.”
• “The rule, expected to be filed in the Federal Register as early as this week, would grant Attorney General Pam Bondi final authority over all recusals. Under the proposal, career prosecutors and political appointees alike would be required to remain on assigned matters unless personally excused by the attorney general. There will be a period for public comment once the rule appears in the Federal Register.”
• “Legal experts warn the move would dismantle a century-old norm designed to insulate federal prosecutions from political pressure and personal bias.”
• “Current DOJ standards require attorneys to step aside from cases that present even the appearance of a conflict of interest, a principle codified in federal statute and reinforced through decades of internal ethics rules. The proposed policy would reverse that presumption entirely, transforming recusal from a duty into a privilege controlled at the top of the department.”
• “Once published, the no-recusal rule is expected to face immediate legal challenges on multiple fronts.”
• “Opponents are likely to argue that the change violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires a reasoned explanation for abrupt reversals of long-standing policy. Civil liberties groups are also expected to raise due process concerns, arguing that forcing a conflicted prosecutor to remain on a case undermines a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.”
• “Additionally, critics point to federal law requiring the attorney general to maintain regulations governing disqualification for conflicts of interest, a mandate the new rule may directly contradict.”
• “If the rule is formally proposed, it will trigger a mandatory public notice-and-comment period. Legal professionals, advocacy groups, and members of the public will have the opportunity to submit objections and analysis through the Federal Register.”
• “Whether the courts ultimately block the policy or allow it to stand, the proposal signals a dramatic redefinition of prosecutorial ethics, one that shifts power away from professional judgment and firmly into political hands.”

“ABA Clarifies Lawyers’ Duty to Share Information With Former Clients” —

• “The American Bar Association has issued new guidance clarifying that lawyers may be ethically required to provide former clients with important information related to their representation even when that information is not contained in the client’s official file. The guidance, issued in ABA Formal Opinion 520, addresses lingering questions about lawyers’ post-representation responsibilities under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.”
• “At the center of the opinion is Model Rule 1.16(d), which requires attorneys to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests when representation ends. Traditionally, this has included returning client papers, property, and unearned fees. However, the ABA now makes clear that simply handing over a physical or electronic file may not always be enough.”
  Information Beyond the Client File May Be Required”
• “According to the ABA, lawyers may need to provide former clients or their new attorneys with material information that exists outside the formal client file if that information is reasonably necessary to protect the client’s interests. This can include key factual details, procedural history, or strategic insights that were never documented but are known to the lawyer through experience with the matter.”
  “For example, an attorney who withdraws from a case may possess critical knowledge about upcoming deadlines, settlement discussions, witness credibility, or procedural risks that are not reflected in written records. If withholding that information would disadvantage the client, the lawyer may have an ethical obligation to disclose it.”
• “The opinion emphasizes that the duty is context-specific. Lawyers are not required to recreate entire case histories or provide exhaustive recollections. Instead, the focus is on whether the information is reasonably necessary and practicably available to safeguard the former client’s legal rights.”
• “The ABA also outlines important limits to this obligation. Lawyers are not required to provide information that the former client or successor counsel can easily obtain through other means, such as court dockets or publicly available records. Additionally, attorneys are not expected to conduct new research or generate new materials after the representation has ended.”
• “Confidentiality obligations remain intact. Any information disclosed must comply with applicable ethical rules, including those governing client confidentiality and privilege. The opinion does not authorize attorneys to reveal protected information beyond what is necessary to protect the former client’s interests.”
• “The ABA further notes that lawyers are not obligated to volunteer irrelevant impressions, personal opinions, or speculative assessments. The duty applies only when disclosure is reasonably required to avoid harm to the client during a transition in representation.”
  Clarifying a Longstanding Ethics Gray Area”
• “Legal ethics experts say the opinion provides much-needed clarity on an issue that has long created uncertainty for attorneys. While most lawyers understand their duty to return client files, fewer have been certain about what obligations exist regarding unwritten knowledge or informal information.”

“Potential conflict of interest disqualifies co-conspirators’ counsel” —

• “A federal court has disqualified an attorney from representing two defendants in a drug distribution and firearms trafficking conspiracy because it found a conflict prevented him from providing comprehensive advice to one client where it may be detrimental to another client.”
• “The attorney maintained that both defendants had waived the conflict and had no desire to cooperate with the government. The court said that his disqualification was appropriate to protect the integrity of the judiciary and to avoid the appearance of impropriety.”
• “‘The prudent decision, and the only correct decision is for a lawyer to decline representation of closely related co-conspirators,’ U.S. District Judge Robert S. Ballou held in United States v. McCoy (VLW 026-3-005).”
• “Matthew Felty of Abingdon, the attorney disqualified from representing the defendants in this case, told Virginia Lawyers Weekly that he consulted with the state bar as soon as the conflict was brought to his attention.”
• “‘Both of my clients were adamant that I continue with the representation and signed waivers in open court waiving any conflict,’ Felty said. ‘I complied with all of my ethical obligations to my respective clients and to the court.'”
• “Despite his compliance with ethical rules and his clients’ written waivers after consultation, Felty said the court ‘applied a different, more expansive rule in a case where there was no actual conflict, but only potential, hypothetical or theoretical conflicts.'”
• “‘I am confident that none of those theoretical conflicts would have turned into actual conflicts,’ he said. ‘I respect the court’s decision and have complied with my ethical obligations in ending my representation of both clients.'”
• “When the government advised him of the potential conflict in representing both McCoy and Headen, Felty maintained that both understood the conflict, that they did not want to cooperate in any manner with the government or be adverse to each other and that both wanted Felty as counsel.”
• “The Virginia State Bar later advised Felty that the conflict appeared to be more theoretical than actual, since his clients did not want to cooperate against one another, but said he should inform them he may be conflicted out of both representations if the situation changes.”
  ‘Prudent decision’”
• “Whereas he undertook representation of two closely related co-conspirators charged in separate criminal complaints, Felty owed a duty to each client to advise them regarding their legal jeopardy, their liberty interests and those factors which could affect their potential sentences.”
• “Ballou pointed out that factors which could affect the clients’ sentences included ‘providing substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of others for their criminal activity and the acceptance of responsibility if pleading guilty.”
• “‘This duty does not end,’ he continued, ‘upon a client refusing at some point during the representation to cooperate with the government in its investigation or prosecution of others or a client deciding not to acknowledge relevant conduct.'”
• “Under federal sentencing guidelines, ‘a client who accepts responsibility for his criminal activity must truthfully admit the conduct comprising the offense of conviction and additional relevant conduct for which the client is accountable. …”
• “‘A lawyer representing intimately intertwined co-conspirators has a conflict that prevents the lawyer from providing comprehensive advice to one client where it may be detrimental to another client,’ Ballou held.”
• “Therefore, the judge said, a lawyer should decline representation of closely related co-conspirators.”

“Lawyer’s disqualification in LLC member dispute upheld” —

• “The lawyer for a cannabis business organized as a limited liability company could not represent a member in a dispute with another member — notwithstanding the client member’s claim that the LLC lacked an actual, independent interest in the outcome of the litigation, the Appeals Court has found.”
• “The case involved a dispute between Sean Morrison and Robert Bujold, who both held a 50 percent interest in Cannaburg Cultivation Cooperative when the LLC was sued for breaching a contract with an architectural and engineering corporation. The corporation had been hired to convert a property owned by a company owned by Bujold — 310 Broad Street II, LLC — into a cannabis cultivation facility.”
• “In the course of the litigation, Bujold asserted third-party impleader claims against Morrison for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Bujold later moved to disqualify Morrison’s counsel in the impleader action, Katherine Bierwas, who also represented Cannaburg.”
• “According to Bujold, by taking up Morrison’s case, Bierwas was in violation of Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7, which prohibits the simultaneous representation of adverse parties.”
• “But Morrison contended that Cannaburg’s interests were not adverse to Morrison’s because the LLC was a ‘nominal’ party in the impleader action with no independent interest in the outcome of the litigation.”
• “Superior Court Judge Valerie A. Yarashus in a July 2024 decision concluded that Rule 1.7 prohibited Bierwas from representing both Cannaburg and Morrison because their interests were directly adverse and could not be waived.”
• “An Appeals Court panel affirmed in a per curiam decision.”
• “‘Here, Attorney Bierwas has a duty to act in the interests of Cannaburg and ensure the directors are acting in the interests of the company, while she also has a competing interest in defending her client, Morrison, from claims that he was breaching his duties to Cannaburg,’ the panel wrote. ‘Thus, as the judge below points out, Attorney Bierwas’s claim that Cannaburg has no viable action against Morrison is the very reason Rule 1.7 exists.'”
• “The 15-page decision is Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. v. Cannaburg Cultivation Cooperative, LLC, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 81-004-26.”

“PR in Professional Services: Navigating Conflicts Without Going Quiet” —

• “In professional services, trust is everything. Whether you’re advising on legal, financial, or strategic matters, clients expect discretion—and that extends to how your firm communicates publicly. PR and media relations are powerful tools to build brand visibility and showcase expertise. But when client relationships are sensitive or commercially complex, conflict risks can make media engagement tricky.”
• “Here’s how to navigate those challenges effectively. Common Conflict Triggers. Before engaging with the media, firms should assess whether public statements:
  • a) make direct or indirect reference to a client or matter (or new business prospect)”
  • b) are addressing—or advocating a position on—a subject-matter which is particularly sensitive to a client or ongoing matter”
  • c) appear to be advocating a position on a subject which is likely to preclude them from future new business opportunities (for instance due to procurement rules, tender processes, panel criteria, etc.)”
  • d) reference existing clients which are happy to be named publicly but which are likely to present conflict issues for the firm when it comes to new business opportunities”
  • e) include insights which have been gleaned from the experience of advising a particular client who may be uncomfortable with details of their experiences being discussed publicly (even if fully anonymised)”
• “Conflict considerations can present obstacles to a PR and media relations campaign. For instance, when a news story relates to or has features in common with an existing client or matter, it can prevent the firm engaging with what otherwise could have been an opportunity to project expertise to the market and raise brand profile.”
• “Some PR opportunities will be a definite no-go based on conflict factors. Other times, an opportunity may involve some potential sensitivities, but the issue or story is significant enough that the firm chooses to accept the risk – though proceeds with caution.”
• “Detailed consideration of conflicts can also present a practical barrier to delivery of PR opportunities when they require a swift turnaround of content, as the process of internal coordination and approval from client relationship holders can be lengthy.”
  Practical solutions”
• “Ultimately, conflict issues are inevitable in B2B communications. Here are some tips to successfully manage them in a professional services PR campaign:
  • 1. Conflict mapping: When designing a PR strategy, it is valuable to involve both your spokespeople and business development teams to identify which organisations in a target sector, industry, or market should be excluded from media discussion on conflict grounds. This process clarifies which organisations remain viable targets, enabling the PR team to focus resources on monitoring news and pitching stories or commentary related specifically to them. Since it is unlikely that an advisory firm will represent all major players in an industry, there should always be viable options available.
  • 2. Media due diligence: Where conflicts are a particular concern, additional PR due diligence can help assess potential media opportunities. This may include clarifying the reporting angles, identifying sources to be quoted, and understanding which organisations are likely to be mentioned elsewhere in the write-up. Journalists may be willing to share these details in advance of an interview or commentary submission, allowing firms to better evaluate the risks of engagement from a conflict perspective. In addition, it may be useful to review previous media reports, as well as court records, public databases, and other resources to determine what information is already publicly available. This helps guide decisions about what can be appropriately disclosed in the media.
• 3. Spokesperson briefing and support: Before any direct media engagement, the firm’s spokespeople should be thoroughly briefed and supported by the PR team to ensure they fully understand the relevant conflict requirements and can navigate them confidently in discussions with journalists. This is where media training techniques come in useful, as well as providing comprehensive briefing materials, key messages, and FAQs for a spokesperson to review ahead of any encounter. A preparatory call or mock interview can also be an effective way to build confidence and reduce risk.”
• “Every professional services organisation has its own culture around how it publicises its work and its clients. Some adopt a more open approach which reflects their appetite for courting publicity, while others are more reserved. This is often shaped by the nature of their client relationships, as clients themselves vary in their attitudes toward PR and publicity. The role of PR professionals is to balance these considerations – adapting media strategies to protect client relationships, minimise risk, while still ensuring consistent brand visibility.”
• “A firm that represents multiple clients within a particular industry or market is likely to have deeper insights than one that does not. By sharing those insights with the media in a considered and responsible way, the firm can create value not only for its clients but also for the wider industry. With the right strategy, conflict-sensitive PR can still be bold, effective, and trusted.”

“CoStar Seeks to Disqualify Quinn Emanuel from Antitrust Case Over Alleged Conflict of Interest” —

• “… CoStar Group has asked a California federal judge to disqualify Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP from representing a competitor in an antitrust counterclaim. This litigation arises in the context of CoStar’s ongoing copyright infringement case against the rival commercial real estate platform. CoStar raises concerns about potential conflicts, given that Quinn Emanuel has previously represented CoStar in unrelated matters.”
• “The dispute centers on Quinn Emanuel’s prior service to CoStar and involves the law firm’s desire to terminate its ongoing representation of CoStar in separate litigation. The backdrop to this legal entanglement is an intricate battle over intellectual property and antitrust allegations in the competitive commercial real estate data market. CoStar’s motion aims to mitigate risks associated with a law firm holding material confidential information from previous representations.”
• Text of motion: here.