Bressler Risk Blog

“Law firm Quinn Emanuel accused of turning on ex-client in fintech case” —

• “A financial technology provider previously represented by Quinn Emanuel accused the law firm of betraying its loyalties and violating ethics rules by taking the case of a former executive suing the company over his termination.'”
• “In a filing in the case in California federal court on Thursday, Pagaya Technologies asked a judge to disqualify Quinn Emanuel from representing Hugh Edmundson in the lawsuit he filed in June.’
• “In the new filing Pagaya and its hedge fund affiliate Theorem Technology accused Quinn Emanuel of breaking attorney ethics rules in its new work for Edmundson, a former top executive at Theorem. Pagaya had acquired Theorem last year.'”
• “‘The firm is a repeat offender, having been disqualified multiple times for this exact misconduct,’ lawyers for Pagaya and Theorem at law firm Gibson Dunn wrote. Pagaya said Quinn Emanuel had ‘brazenly violated its ethical obligations by turning around and suing its own client.””
• “Quinn Emanuel in a statement on Friday said ‘Pagaya is no longer a client, and our current work is not related to what we did for them before.””
• “In a statement on Friday, a spokesperson for law firm Gibson Dunn said ‘Quinn Emanuel is suing its former client over matters about which it previously advised — a clear conflict of interest that courts have not hesitated to disqualify firms for in the past.””
• “In an April letter from Quinn Emanuel to Edmundson’s attorneys, which was included in the court file, the firm had said the ‘suggestion of a conflict on the part of Quinn Emanuel is false and inaccurate.””
• “The firm also said it had set up ‘appropriate ethical screens out of an abundance of caution’ to separate its prior work for Pagaya with its representation of Edmundson.'”
  Edmundson’s lawsuit accused Pagaya and Theorem of wrongful termination, retaliation and other claims stemming from his firing in April from Theorem, where he was chief investment officer. Edmundson founded Theorem in 2014.'”
• “Edmundson alleged that ‘almost immediately after the merger closed, defendants began systematically dismantling Theorem’s independence and strategic decision-making authority.””
• “Quinn Emanuel provided legal work last year to Pagaya on non-compete and non-solicitation provisions related to Theorem employees, Pagaya said. It further alleged that Quinn Emanuel’s prior work for the company has created a ‘direct and incurable conflict of interest.”

“West Vancouver demolition order halted after appeal court finds judge had conflict” —

• “B.C.’s appeal court has overturned an earlier decision upholding a demolition order for a West Vancouver mansion.”
  “Homeowner Rosa Dona Este was successful in her bid to overturn the earlier court decision, after it was found the judge who allowed the order to go ahead had previously worked for a law firm representing the municipality and had consulted on the matter of Este’s home.”
  “Este had argued against the judge’s decision about the validity of the demolition order but also raised concerns over the judge’s involvement in the case before being appointed to B.C.’s Supreme Court.”
  “‘According to Dr. Este, the judge also erred by failing to recuse herself based on a reasonable apprehension of bias,’ said the appeal court’s decision, handed down earlier this month.”
  “‘Este raised this issue prior to the hearing and advanced an application asking the judge to recuse herself on this basis. The judge dismissed the application, noting that almost seven years had elapsed since she had worked at the firm and stating she could not recall having ever been involved in the file or related matters.'”
  “While Judge Francesca Marzari had said previously that she did not recall working on the case involving Este’s home, a lawyer for the West Vancouver district later filed an affidavit that said Marzari ‘had sent an email to employees of the District advising them on matters related to the possible demolition of Dr. Este’s home.'”
  ‘This information about the judge’s prior involvement in the matter under appeal is clearly relevant to Dr. Este’s allegation of apprehension of bias. For the reasons that follow, I conclude Dr. Este’s applications must be granted,’ wrote appeal court Justice Bruce Butler.”
  “Butler noted that if the appeal were refused, ‘steps could be taken that could lead to irreparable harm to Dr. Este.'”
  “‘The balance of convenience, and particularly the overriding concern for maintaining judicial independence and impartiality, weighs in favour of granting a stay,’ he wrote.”
  “The property in question is a 6,000-sq.-ft. waterfront home at 2668 Bellevue Ave. and was bought in 2003 by Este and her mother, Mina Esteghamat‑Ardakan. Este lived in the home until 2015 when a fire caused extensive damage.”
  “The home remained uninhabited and in a derelict state until 2020 when, following a number of neighbour complaints, the district ordered it demolished.”
  “Complications arose when the district found Este had rebuilt parts of the home without having sought proper permits or permission from her co-owner.”

“OptumRx Moves To DQ Motley Rice In Utah Opioid Case” —

• “Pharmacy benefit manager OptumRx has moved to disqualify Motley Rice LLC from representing the state of Utah in an opioid crisis lawsuit, claiming the firm clearly violated ethical rules by investigating OptumRx on behalf of government entities, then suing OptumRx in a private capacity.”
  “In a motion filed Thursday, OptumRx said Motley Rice’s representation of Utah blatantly violates Rule 1.11(c) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, which prevents attorneys from using ‘confidential government information’ obtained when they were ‘a public officer’ in private lawsuits.”
  “A few years ago, Motley Rice represented Hawaii, Chicago and Washington, D.C., as those governmental entities investigated whether to sue pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, like OptumRx for allegedly exacerbating the opioid crisis.”
  “In that capacity, Motley Rice attorneys were deputized as special assistant attorneys general and were acting on behalf of the government with powers not available to private litigants, OptumRx said. In that capacity, Motley Rice sought and obtained troves of confidential information from OptumRx, the motion said.”
  “Now, Motley Rice represents Utah as a private client suing OptumRx over the exact same issue and could very well use that confidential information to its advantage, OptumRx claimed.”
  “‘The rule is designed to protect against abuses of government power and the erosion of public trust,’ OptumRx said. ‘The concerns are so grave that the rules prohibit a former government lawyer from taking on a representation in which they theoretically could use confidential government information to their opponent’s material disadvantage — even if they do not use the information at all.'”
  “Anticipating the common rebuttal that its disqualification motion is nothing but a cynical ploy to disadvantage Utah in the litigation, OptumRx urged U.S. District Judge David Barlow to take its allegations seriously.”
  “‘Simply put, this motion is not a litigation tactic,’ OptumRx said. ‘It is grounded in legitimate and clear-cut ethical concerns.'”
  “To bolster its case, OptumRx pointed to an ethics opinion it commissioned from two legal ethics experts, Sari Montgomery of Robinson Stewart Montgomery & Doppke LLC and Wendy J. Muchman, a professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. Muchman is on the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility.”
  “”There can be no more obvious violation of Rule 1.11(c)’ than Motley Rice’s violation here,’ the motion said, quoting from Muchman and Montgomery’s opinion.”
  “OptumRx has previously attempted to disqualify Motley Rice on the same basis in other cases. Thus far those attempts have all failed.”
  “Motley Rice plays a leadership role in the national multidistrict litigation over the opioid crisis, and OptumRx moved to disqualify the firm in late 2023.”
  “Before OptumRx filed its disqualification motion in the MDL, U.S. District Judge Dan Aaron Polster warned OptumRx’s attorneys that doing so would damage the ‘level of professional cooperation’ among the attorneys in the case and ‘will clearly have negative repercussions for your clients,’ according to a transcript.”
  “Judge Polster ultimately denied the motion in March 2024, finding that while Motley Rice’s previous investigations of OptumRx on behalf of government entities do raise troubling ethical questions, ultimately those concerns are moot because OptumRx is required to turn over the same documents Motley Rice obtained in civil discovery for the MDL anyway.”
  “‘The MDL Repository Orders require OptumRx to produce the investigation documents in the MDL, where all other plaintiffs’ attorneys can use them,’ Judge Polster wrote. ‘It is obvious that Motley Rice’s possession and knowledge of the Investigation documents cannot, by itself, cause a material disadvantage to OptumRx, when every other plaintiff’s attorney also has them.'”
  “OptumRx begged to differ, however.”
  “‘So far, the courts that have ruled on the motions have denied them based on several legal and factual errors, all of which trace back to the MDL court’s ruling,’ OptumRx said. ‘Each of those decisions was wrong.'”
  “On a straightforward letter-of-the-law basis, OptumRx said that whether the information Motley Rice obtained while deputized as a government attorney ultimately ends up available in civil discovery shouldn’t matter.”
  “That information is clearly ‘confidential government information,’ so Motley Rice is clearly prohibited from suing OptumRx from the get-go.”
  “‘If a government lawyer could use confidential government information to the adverse party’s material disadvantage in the civil litigation, then the lawyer must decline the representation,’ OptumRx said. ‘The potential for misuse is so acute and the concerns are so grave that the mere possibility that the attorney could use the information requires disqualification.'”
  “Beyond that, OptumRx said Motley Rice did obtain information in the course of its investigations that still hasn’t been turned over in discovery in the MDL or other lawsuits, including ‘mental roadmaps and strategic insights about OptumRx.'”
  “Neither party responded Friday to requests for comment.”

“How Trump’s personal attorney wound up investigating the Epstein case at DOJ” —

• “Five months ago, Todd Blanche was asked at his Senate confirmation hearing whether being President Donald Trump’s lawyer in his hush money trial and other cases meant he would have a ‘continuing duty of loyalty and confidentiality’ to his former client even after becoming deputy attorney general.”
• “‘Yes,’ Blanche responded, citing his ‘attorney-client relationship with President Trump.'”
• “Now that loyalty — and the question of a potential conflict of interest — has become a key component of the questions swirling about Trump’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, who was charged with sex trafficking and died in prison in 2019. The second-ranking Justice Department official is at the center of a controversial effort to reexamine the Epstein case, the results of which could reopen high-stakes litigation that concluded years ago and play a role in defining aspects of Trump’s legacy.”
• “After weeks of furor about whether the Justice Department would release much of its file on Epstein — and amid speculation about whether the file had information about Trump and others — Blanche traveled to Florida to interview Epstein’s longtime partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking.”
• “Maxwell spent nine hours over two days last week answering every question posed by Blanche, according to Maxwell’s attorney, David Oscar Markus. But the details of the interview have not been released, and Democrats said they feared it was the kind of conflict they had been concerned about when Blanche was nominated.”
• “Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) said last week in a floor speech that ‘Trump is sending his personal lawyer, Todd Blanche, to try and execute a corrupt cover-up, potentially offering leniency to a woman who also abused the victims.’ Schumer said this and other actions by Justice officials represent a conflict, but he did not provide evidence of an alleged cover-up.”
• “The relationship between Trump and Blanche has been a financially significant one. Blanche’s law firm was paid $9.2 million by Save America, a pro-Trump political action committee, between April 2023 and December 2024, for work on cases that included the trial about payment of alleged hush money to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, according to federal election records. Trump was found guilty in the hush money case, which has been appealed and is being handled by other attorneys.”
• “The Justice Department did not respond directly to questions from The Washington Post about whether Blanche consulted a government ethics official regarding an interview with Maxwell. Instead, the department sent a written statement from spokesman Gates McGavick that said, in full: ‘Any suggestion that Todd Blanche has acted unethically while serving as Deputy Attorney General is baseless and defamatory. This gossip column relies on innuendo and the word of an agenda-driven political hack to push a false narrative. This is not a serious article.'”
• “Some of Blanche’s ex-colleagues are surprised by what they see as his transformation from the independent litigator they knew to one they say seems willing to prioritize his loyalty to Trump.”
• “Mimi Rocah, who previously co-led the White Plains division in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York with Blanche, said that it is ‘completely inappropriate and wrong’ for him to interview Maxwell — both because of his relationship to Trump and because it is a job that should be reserved for prosecutors on the case, not a Justice official at the highest level.”
• “If a top Washington official had injected himself into a case Blanche handled as a prosecutor, he would have gone ‘running to Main Justice,’ Rocah said, referring to the department’s headquarters in Washington that oversees U.S. attorneys offices and other units.”
• “‘That just shows how completely far gone he is as an actual prosecutor,’ Rocah said. ‘He’s really more akin to a political player at this point.'”

“Law Firms Are Eyeing Lateral Hires’ Social Media—But Vetting Isn’t Without Risks” —

• “Seven or eight years ago, legal investigative intelligence firm Decipher received ‘very few’ inquiries from Big Law firms about backgrounding the social media profiles of potential laterals, according to chief data officer Greg Hamman. Since then, law firms’ interest in learning what potential hires have posted online has gone up substantially, such that Decipher has now worked with roughly half of the Am Law 200, Hamman estimates.”
• “The issue of lawyers’ social media activities became relevant again this summer when Mayer Brown fired partner David Kreisler this month after hiring him in May and then discovering lewd social media posts on his personal X account. Kreisler’s most recent post occurred in February. It’s unclear when the account was deleted, but a Mayer Brown spokesperson said the firm learned about the posts in early July from a June 25 Medium post that included screenshots of Kreisler’s X account.”
• “Hamman estimates that roughly one-third of Big Law firms are conducting a thorough review of social media profiles for potential hires, with another third conducting minimal reviews and a final third doing nothing.”
• “For the firms that conduct searches, requests that Decipher review social media profiles for associates are a new development.”
• “‘A trend that we’ve been seeing in the last year, given the political climate, is that firms are also looking to vet associates more than they ever have before,’ said Julie Henson, Decipher’s chief growth officer. ‘Firms just kind of assumed that the law schools were doing a little bit of vetting on their students, but they really don’t. So, firms are wanting to make sure something wasn’t said on campus.'”
• “However, social media background checks also come with risks, employment lawyers said. A hiring manager’s discovery of a protected characteristic or stigmatized fact that could influence the hiring decision may open a firm up to litigation, said Jackson Lewis employment principal Susan Corcoran. ‘An employer is generally supposed to put the blinders on and not consider non-job-related information or other factors that may be prohibited by law,’ Corcoran said.”
• “The targets of a social media background check vary by the firm, Hamman said. ‘Some are sensitive to political material, some don’t care,’ he said. ‘We are essentially giving the firm information with which they can make a decision.'”
• “Some firms don’t police political speech but also don’t want to see anything vulgar or threatening on a candidate’s public socials, Hamman said, while other firms consider it bad judgment to wade into polarizing political issues online.”
• “Employers also open themselves up to the risk of taking factors into account that don’t directly pertain to whether a candidate is suitable for a role. ‘Some of these state laws also protect activity that may appear in candidates’ public or private social media postings, like lawful possession of firearms, certain political activities, use of marijuana, and participation of other recreational activities during non-work time,’ Drenosky added.”
• “A candidate who gets turned down for a role also could argue that a firm’s review of their social media uncovered a trait against which a hiring manager is biased. ‘The drawbacks of conducting a social media search include the potential disclosure of a protected characteristic that may make a hiring manager uncomfortable with hiring the person,’ Corcoran said.”
• “To minimize risk, firms should conduct the social media check through a third-party or human resources, keeping the hiring manager removed from the process, Drenosky said. The check also should occur at the end of the hiring process, when the candidate’s membership in a protected group is already known, and it should be systematized so it can be performed consistently. Drenosky also recommended that firms reach out to their employment counsel before taking any action based on a review of a candidate’s social media profiles.”

David Kluft always spots great stuff: “If the state indicts my law partner, can I represent the state in another matter?” —

• “A NJ plaintiff brought employment-related civil claims against NJ state agencies, and the state hired a law firm to represent it.”
• “While the case was still ongoing, a firm partner who had an appearance in the case was indicted for alleged fraud in connection with the Camden waterfront development.”
• “The indicted partner withdrew from the employment case, but the plaintiff claimed the whole firm should be disqualified because it could not be adverse to the government while representing it.”
• “The NJ Appellate Division held that, even assuming the indicted partner had a personal conflict of interest with the state, personal interest conflicts are not imputed to the other firm lawyers. Denial of Disqualification affirmed.”
• Decision: here.

“Is top lawyer in Sandie Peggie tribunal facing a conflict of interest?” —

• “In March Jane Russell trotted two and a half miles on horseback through the busy streets of central London. Her journey, from a Westminster Hall ceremony to her chambers in Lincoln’s Inn Fields on a steed named Jupiter, was a celebration of her elevation to King’s Counsel, the culmination of a stellar legal career.”
• “Last week, the barrister, more accustomed to the grand surroundings of London’s High Court, found herself in a small, stiflingly stuffy tribunal hearing room in Endeavour House, Dundee. Representing both NHS Fife and the transgender doctor Beth Upton, who are opposing the nurse Sandie Peggie’s employment tribunal claim, the nondescript 19-year-old office building has quickly become the setting for the most high-profile case of Russell’s career.”
• “Questions have been raised over whether the lawyer, who is married to a hereditary peer who is a direct descendant of the Victorian era prime minister Lord John Russell, might be faced with a conflict of interests if she is representing two clients whose positions no longer align. “
• “Peggie, an experienced nurse, has claimed to have been a victim of harassment and discrimination as a result of having to share a female changing room at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, with Upton, a biologically male doctor who identifies as female. ‘NHS Fife had separately investigated Peggie for a ‘hate incident’, after she confronted Upton for using the women’s facilities on Christmas Eve, 2023. The nurse was suspended for several months.”
• “In February, when the first public tribunal hearings took place, NHS Fife and Upton, its employee, both separately named as respondents to Peggie’s litigation, appeared to be in lockstep. Russell, representing both NHS Fife and Upton jointly in the case, set about cross examining Peggie in a line of questioning which wholly endorsed the doctor’s account.”
• “Last week, however, the positions of NHS Fife and Upton appeared to dramatically diverge.”
• “Peggie was told on Tuesday evening, hours before hearings were due to resume, that the internal NHS Fife disciplinary investigation, separate to the tribunal, had found there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to support findings of misconduct against her.”
• “As one observer noted, the situation had left Russell on Thursday leading Gillian Malone, the health board’s head of nursing, painstakingly ‘through the details’ of an allegation NHS Fife said there was not enough evidence to conclude happened, referring to the fallout of the supposed ‘hate incident’ in the changing rooms for which Peggie is now in the clear.”
• “In Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates’s rulebook states that an advocate ‘may not advise, represent or act on behalf of two or more clients in the same matter if there is a conflict, or a significant risk of conflict, between or among the interests of those clients’.”
• “The Law Society of Scotland has similar rules, while the Bar Standards Board handbook, for English barristers, states that if there is a conflict of interests between clients, they should not accept instructions unless all parties have given their informed consent to doing so. There is also a broad duty in the English rules, the ones Russell is bound by, stipulating that barristers ‘must act in the best interests of each client’.”
• “One practising lawyer, who did not want to be named, said Upton has a reputational interest to keep fighting the tribunal, and dispute Peggie’s version of events. NHS Fife, meanwhile, ‘has an interest in retaining some freedom of manoeuvre’. The lawyer added: ‘It would be extraordinary for an employer to seek to relitigate an issue on which its own internal process had cleared the employee.'”
• “‘The board’s interest in settling now looks clearer than ever, not least because maintaining public and ministerial confidence is an important consideration for the board’ they added.”
• “Jonathan Brown, an advocate at Axiom Chambers, said he was ‘bemused’ at the ‘apparent view that there is no conflict of interest between Fife Health Board and Dr Upton’.”
• “Addressing the case on X in advance of Peggie’s acquittal in the disciplinary case, he said that in his view, Russell should have refused to take on both clients. ‘One of the standard tests for conflict is whether you’d give different advice to each of two clients,’ Brown said. ‘That’s clearly the case here.'”
• “Michael Foran, who will in September become associate professor of law at the University of Oxford, said the fact that Russell was representing both clients could potentially make it harder for NHS Fife to seek to settle. ‘I can’t see how Upton could have settled this and admitted liability, but I could see NHS Fife doing that,’ he said. ‘But if they come as a joint package, then that makes it difficult.'”
• “He added: ‘The internal investigation clearing Sandie Peggie of all allegations raises serious questions about the legal approach of NHS Fife and Dr Upton, not least because it highlights a potential conflict of interest between each respondent.”
• “‘Jane Russell, counsel for both respondents, may need to consider whether it is in the best interests of both clients to share representation or for Dr Upton to obtain separate counsel, given NHS Fife has not upheld Upton’s version of events.'”
• “A spokeswoman for NHS Fife said: ‘NHS Fife is jointly represented with Dr Beth Upton in the ongoing employment tribunal proceedings, in line with standard legal practice where an employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of an employee.”
• “‘This approach has been taken following detailed legal advice and reflects the nature of the claims raised. We are satisfied there is no impermissible conflict of interest.”
• “‘The appointment of legal representation was made by the CLO, on behalf of NHS Fife, based on professional expertise and experience relevant to the case. It would be inappropriate to comment further.'”
• “In a brief statement, Russell said that she did ‘not comment on, or in connection with, cases in which I am instructed.’ She added: ‘I follow the cab rank rule.'”

“Judge Scraps Opinion After Lawyer Flags Made-Up Quotes” —

• “A New Jersey US district court judge withdrew his decision in a biopharma securities case Wednesday after lawyers complained that his opinion contained numerous errors, including made-up quotes and misstated case outcomes.”
• “Judge Julien Xavier Neals of the US District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 30 denied CorMedix Inc.’s request to dismiss a lawsuit by shareholders. ‘That opinion and order were entered in error,’ according to a notice the court posted in the case docket on Wednesday. ‘A subsequent opinion and order will follow.'”
• “Willkie Farr & Gallagher partner Andrew Lichtman, who represents CorMedix, wrote Neals on Tuesday, telling the judge he may want to ‘consider whether amendment or any other action should be taken’ in regard to errors he made in his June 30 decision.
• “Lawyers in a separate case earlier this month also pointed out flaws in Neals’ CorMedix opinion, saying it ‘contains pervasive and material inaccuracies.'”
• “The case shows a rare example of a judge being called out for the sort of elementary mistakes in legal drafting that courts have more frequently pointed out in the work of lawyers. Such flaws have come to the fore as lawyers increasingly rely on artificial intelligence to assist in case preparation, though there is no mention of AI in the complaints the attorneys have directed at Judge Neals.”
• “Neals in his June 30 denial of CorMedix’s motion to dismiss referred to the court in Dang v. Amarin Corp. as describing defendants’ conduct as ‘classic evidence of scienter,’ though that case didn’t contain the quote. He also quoted a court in a case involving tech consulting firm Intelligroup as saying that certifications by company executives became ‘false statements in their own right,’ though that quotation doesn’t exist in the case.”
• “Neals’ opinion referenced a case captioned Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v. Verizon Commc’ns Inc. in the Southern District of New York, though Lichtman said no such case exists in that venue. ‘We believe the court was referring to a case with the same caption from the District of New Jersey,’ the lawyer wrote.”
• “Several lawyers have made news for AI-generated case citations that turned out to be false. Two Manhattan lawyers in 2023 were fined $5,000 for filing a ChatGPT-generated court brief. Last month, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas imposed a $2,500 sanction against a lawyer for submitting a brief that cited non-existent cases.”
• “‘The use of AI or other technology does not excuse carelessness or failure to follow professional standards,’ the panel of judges wrote.”
• “Bruce Green, a legal ethics professor at Fordham Law School, noted that judges, too, can face sanctions for the kind of errors they find in lawyers’ work. Discipline rules state that a judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently, according to Green.”
• “Neals’ June 30 opinion has already influenced a parallel case also playing out in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey. That case also centers on allegations by shareholders that a biopharma company—in this instance, Outlook Therapeutics Inc.—lied to them about a product.”
• “Citing Neals’ decision as a ‘supplemental authority,’ lawyers for Outlook shareholders argued against the company’s motion for dismissing the class action. A team of lawyers at Cooley who are defending Outlook raised the false citations in a July 15 response.”

“Slim Chickens bid to disqualify attorneys lacks merit, plaintiff says” —

• “R Solution, a franchisee suing Slim Chickens, says the chicken chain’s attempt to disqualify R Solution’s attorney and Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP for conflict of interest lacks merit and should be denied.”
  “St. Louis-based R Solution includes three entities that share common ownership and management of a total of 10 Slim Chickens franchises operating in Illinois, Missouri and Kentucky. R Solution filed suit in Washington County Circuit Court in June claiming Slim Chickens painted a picture of a lucrative and scalable franchise opportunity while the reality was ‘starkly different.'”
  “Slim Chickens responded to the suit earlier this month, arguing the action should be dismissed, saying it is an attempt to shift blame for the franchisee’s poor performance and that agreements between the two entities invalidate the suit.”
  “In a separate filing, Slim Chickens asked the court to disqualify R Solution’s legal counsel because of a ‘clear’ conflict of interest. Slim Chickens noted it has been a long-time client of the Friday law firm, with the firm serving as counsel for Slim Chickens in transactions and litigation for more than 20 years.”
  “In its response filed recently, R Solution’s counsel contends the disqualifying attempt is invalid since Slim Chickens is not a current client of the Friday firm and that the cases where the firm did represent Slim Chickens are not substantially related to the current suit. R Solution argued Slim Chicken’s relationship with the Friday firm occurred in 2012 and revolved around matters of internal governance and fiduciary duty, while this case involves allegations of fraud and contract breeches.”
  “‘Yet Defendant now claims that information obtained over a decade ago — before it had even begun franchising — is so sensitive that it could unfairly prejudice them in this litigation,’ the response reads in part. ‘This inconsistency reveals the Motion for what it is: a litigation tactic intended to burden Plaintiffs and deprive them of their chosen counsel and not a genuine attempt to protect confidential information.'”
  “In its initial suit, R Solution said it invested more than $15 million developing the stores and $450,000 for development rights in Missouri and Illinois. It claims Slim Chickens also breached its franchise agreement in several aspects, including how Slim Chickens calculates royalties and its rejection of poultry product suppliers who were more cost-effective.”
  “In documents filed earlier this month, Slim Chickens said the suit by R Solution should be dismissed with prejudice since the plaintiff’s claims of fraud are actually disguised breach of contract arguments. It also notes the parties signed agreements that contained both general and specific releases of liability and a covenant not to sue.”
  “When a suit is dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff cannot refile the same claim against the same defendant going forward.”
  “Slim Chickens competes in the fast-casual segment, where restaurants provide a slightly more formal dining experience compared with fast-food operations. While fast-casual restaurants don’t have a wait staff, servers generally carry food to tables. The company has more than 300 locations, including overseas locations in the United Kingdom, Turkey and Germany.”
  “According to court documents, R Solution is involved in commercial development including retail, warehouses, offices and restaurants, and its leadership team had experience in franchise operations across multiple brands prior to its deal with Slim Chickens.”
  “R Solution acquired its first Chickens locations in Illinois in July 2019, between 2020 and 2022 it added six more, and in 2024 it acquired controlling interest in two locations in Kentucky.”

David Kluft notes: “Tidbit: If the judge says he doesn’t like me, can I move for his recusal?” —

• “In a dispute between a restaurant and a commercial landlord, an OH judge granted summary judgment for the landlord on the morning of trial. The restaurant won on appeal and the matter was remanded back to the judge.”
• “On the day of the new trial, the judge made off the record comments about the merits of the case and the restaurant asked him to recuse. The judge sanctioned the restaurant $40k in attorneys’ fees for a frivolous recusal motion. The attorneys’ fee order was reversed on appeal. On the day of the third attempt to conduct the trial, the judge turned to the restaurant’s counsel and said ‘I don’t like you… and you don’t like me.'”
• “The restaurant moved to recuse again and the court denied it. The judge then encouraged the landlord to move for a directed verdict, which he granted. The OH Supreme Court noted that adverse rulings are not normally sufficient grounds for recusal, except when the ruling ‘is accompanied by words or conduct that call into question the manner in which the proceedings are being conducted.’ The judge was disqualified.”
• Decision: here.

“Judge disqualifies three Butler Snow attorneys from case over AI citations” —

• “A federal judge in Alabama disqualified three lawyers from U.S. law firm Butler Snow from a case after they inadvertently included made-up citations generated by artificial intelligence in court filings.”
• “U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco in a Wednesday order reprimanded the lawyers at the Mississippi-founded firm for making false statements in court and referred the issue to the Alabama State Bar, which handles attorney disciplinary matters. Manasco did not impose monetary sanctions, as some judges have done in other cases across the country involving AI use.”
• “Fabricating legal authority ‘demands substantially greater accountability than the reprimands and modest fines that have become common as courts confront this form of AI misuse,’ Manasco said. ‘As a practical matter, time is telling us – quickly and loudly – that those sanctions are insufficient deterrents.'”
• “The case is the latest example of a judge sanctioning or admonishing lawyers as AI-generated ‘hallucinations’ have continued to crop up in court filings ever since ChatGPT and other generative AI programs became widely available. Professional rules require lawyers to vet their work however it is produced.”
• “The three Butler Snow lawyers were part of a team defending former Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner Jeff Dunn in an inmate’s lawsuit alleging he was repeatedly attacked in prison. Dunn has denied wrongdoing.”
• “The judge said the three lawyers’ conduct was ‘tantamount to bad faith.’ She sanctioned partner Matthew Reeves, who admitted to using AI to generate the citations and including them in the filings without verification. Reeves in a May filing apologized to the court and said he regretted his ‘lapse in diligence and judgment.'”
• “She also disqualified partners William Cranford and William Lunsford, who each signed their names onto the filings. The lawyers said in May filings that they did not independently review the legal citations that were added.”

“Another LLC Attorney Disqualified Due to ‘Conflict of Authority’” —

• “A prior LLC Jungle post covered the Court of Appeal’s seminal opinion in the Jarvis v. Jarvis case here: Why Having ‘Co-Managers’ for Your LLC is a Terrible Idea. In the Jarvis case, the Court of Appeal affirmed the disqualification of an attorney not on the typical grounds of an ethical ‘conflict of interest,’ but rather, based on a ‘conflict of authority’ — i.e., the attorney was hired by one of the two 50/50 general partners of a partnership, over the other partner’s objection.”
• “In a case recently filed by California’s Sixth Appellate District — Altva Capital Management Limited v. Chung — the Court of Appeal followed the framework from Jarvis and affirmed the trial court’s disqualification of an attorney representing an LLC. While the Altva case is unpublished and therefore not binding precedent, it still provides a useful guidepost and confirms the impact of Jarvis on this area of the law.”
• Facts: LLC co-managed by divorcing spouses; wife hires attorney to represent the LLC in her own derivative action”
• “Elizabeth Chung and David Chung were a married couple. Title to their home was held by their LLC – Bend Capital, LLC. Elizabeth and David were the only two members of the LLC. Each held a 50% interest, and each was a managing member.”
• “During their divorce proceedings, Elizabeth and David disputed whether the LLC owed money on a loan then held by Altva Capital Management Limited (‘Altva’). David contended that the loan was legitimate; Elizabeth contended the loan was a fraud perpetrated by David.”
• “Elizabeth filed a lawsuit against David, Altva, and other parties, and included a derivative claim on behalf of the LLC seeking to invalidate the loan. Her lawsuit alleged that David, in violation of his fiduciary duties to the LLC, fabricated the loan to extract money from the LLC. Altva filed cross-claims against the LLC, Elizabeth, and David.”
• “Without David’s consent, Elizabeth retained attorney Mikael Abye to represent the LLC in the action. Abye filed a demurrer on the LLC’s behalf against Altva’s cross-complaint. The next day, David filed a motion to disqualify Abye.”
• “The trial court granted the motion to disqualify Abye from representing the LLC.”
• “The court observed that while the LLC’s operating agreement allowed either member to bind the LLC ‘in all matters in the ordinary course of business,’ the representation of the LLC in a case featuring a dispute between the LLC’s two members was ‘outside the ordinary course’ of the LLC’s business.”
• “The Court of Appeal affirmed, following the framework of the Jarvis case.”
• “The court started by reviewing the LLC’s operating agreement. Section 4.1 of the agreement stated that the LLC would be managed by its members, and that any member could bind the LLC in all matters ‘in the ordinary course’ of business. Matters outside the ordinary course were to be resolved by a ‘majority’ vote — which here would be a unanimous vote since there were only two members who each held a 50% interest. The agreement contained no tie-breaking mechanism, and the court refused to infer one, holding that ‘devising a tie-breaking procedure would rewrite the operating agreement.'”
• “The LLC, the court noted, ‘is embroiled in litigation because its two equal members disagree about the subject matter of the lawsuit.’ The court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that ‘the defense of this lawsuit, pitting equal member against equal member, is not a matter in the ordinary course’ of the LLC’s business. As such, the operating agreement did not permit Elizabeth to ‘unilaterally retain counsel’ and direct the LLC’s defense.”

“Verizon Faces Legal Setback as WilmerHale Disqualified in High-Stakes Patent Case” —

• “In a significant development in the ongoing litigation between Verizon and Headwater Research, a federal magistrate judge in Texas has disqualified the law firm WilmerHale from representing the telecommunications giant. This decision was made just before what promised to be a contentious trial over allegations that Verizon had infringed on patents related to wireless communications technology held by Headwater Research.”
• “The disqualification reportedly stemmed from WilmerHale’s prior representation of a party with interests adverse to Verizon, raising questions about the firm’s ability to impartially and effectively advocate for its client. The implications of this development extend beyond the immediate case, highlighting the potential for conflicts of interest to disrupt legal strategies and client relations in complex, multi-party litigations.”

“NFLPA exec in conflict-of-interest controversy with private equity firm approved for NFL ownership stakes” —

• “NFL Players Association executive director Lloyd Howell Jr. is facing a new round of scrutiny after ESPN reported on Thursday that he is working as a paid, part-time consultant for one of the league-approved equity firms looking to take a minority stake in an NFL team. Howell has been working with The Carlyle Group since March 2023, three months before he was hired as the NFLPA executive director, the report said.”
• “A senior lawyer for the players union reportedly had asked Howell to consider resigning from the private equity firm to avoid any conflict of interest, though part of that is being disputed in a separate report from The Athletic. The alleged conversation between Howell and the union lawyer occurred a month after the NFL had given The Carlyle Group approval to pursue minority ownership of an NFL team last August. “
• “Howell declined to step down from his role, according to the report; however, The Athletic cited five sources that disputed that he was ever advised to step down by an NFLPA attorney. “
• “One NFLPA source told the outlet that they challenged the characterization that Howell refused to follow the union attorney’s request, and three other sources told The Athletic that they weren’t aware of any NFLPA lawyer approaching Howell about the issue.”
• “The Athletic report also indicated that Howell had met with lawyers from the NFLPA and The Carlyle Group, with both agreeing that his role in the aerospace and defense division was enough separation from the sector that would work with the NFL.”
• “‘He had no access to information about the NFL and Carlyle process beyond public news reports due to strict Carlyle information barriers in place,’ a spokesperson for the firm said in a statement to ESPN. ‘Carlyle was not aware of the request from union lawyers for Lloyd to resign from Carlyle.'”
• “A separate source told ESPN that Howell had only remembered that any concerns were brought up by a ‘union employee,’ and he responded that he would ‘do his due diligence’ before making any decision regarding his involvement with The Carlyle Group. “
• “The NFLPA executive already had been under the microscope after it was reported that the union had struck a confidential agreement with the NFL to keep details of a January arbitration ruling from the players. “
• “But it noted in the 61-page ruling that the NFLPA had shown ‘by a clear preponderance of the evidence’ that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and league general counsel Jeff Pash impressed upon owners to restrict guaranteed money in player contracts. “
• “Beyond that, the NFLPA hired lawyer Ronald Machen of the law firm WilmerHale last month to work with a group of players to look over Howell’s activities as executive director following reports in May that the federal investigators were probing the union’s financial dealings.”

“Mandelson in ‘conflict of interest’ row as he retains £6m stake in lobbying firm” —

• “Peter Mandelson [UK Ambassador to the United States] still owns shares worth millions of pounds in a corporate lobbying firm – despite the company saying he would be selling them to avoid a conflict of interest, The i Paper can reveal. When the former Labour cabinet minister was appointed US ambassador in February, it was reported he would sell his stake in Global Counsel, although no deadline was set.”
• “New documents registered at Companies House disclose that Lord Mandelson retains a 21 per cent stake in Global Counsel, a worldwide lobbying company which currently represents corporations including US data giant Palantir and BMW. It has previously worked for Tik Tok, Shein, Open AI and Shell. Mandelson’s shareholding is estimated to be worth more than £6m.”
• “It was understood the former minister in Tony Blair’s Cabinet agreed to sell his shareholding when he was appointed ambassador to the US by Sir Keir Starmer.”
• “It has led to calls from anti-corruption campaigners for the Foreign Office to review how it handles his business interests.”
• “Rose Whiffen, senior research officer at Transparency International said: ‘When our country’s top diplomats have a stake in the promotion of private companies, it raises the question as to whether they use their privileged position to further corporate interests.”
• “‘We urge the Foreign Office to review how it is managing potential conflicts of interest, including how it ensures the UK’s ambassador to the US does not present an inappropriate channel for influence.'”
• “A Government spokesperson said Mandelson has no ‘operational involvement’ with Global Counsel and the firm’s website says ‘in early 2025, Peter Mandelson stepped down from Global Counsel to assume the role of UK ambassador to the USA’.”
• “When Starmer went to Washington this February to meet Donald Trump, the Prime Minister also visited Palantir’s offices, a trip arranged by the UK embassy in Washington. Mandelson accompanied Starmer on the visit. There is no evidence to say Mandelson was directly involved in the trip’s arrangement of the trip.”
• “An FCDO spokesperson said: ‘There is an established regime in place for the management of interests held by ambassadors or high commissioners. This ensures that steps are taken to avoid or mitigate any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.'”
• “They added that Mandelson has no ‘operational involvement’ with Global Counsel. The lobbying company was also approached for a comment but referred The i Paper back to the Foreign Office.”

Also touching Palantir & PR: “Davis Polk Axes Associate Over Writings Criticizing Trump” —

• “Wall Street’s Davis Polk & Wardwell fired a junior attorney following warnings over his op-eds knocking the Trump administration, according to the lawyer.”
  “Ryan Powers, a former Davis Polk associate, says the firm fired him June 12. His profile was removed from the site immediately, Powers said in an interview.
• “The Harvard Law graduate joined the firm’s tax group October 2023 and worked on deals for Cintas Corp. and Penske Truck Leasing.”
• “Powers’ op-eds included critical takes on the federal government’s surveillance of the public, which highlighted Palantir Technologies. Davis Polk lawyers advised banks involved in Palantir’s 2020 stock listing. A firm human resources representative notified Powers that his content violated the firm’s internal policy because he was not granted prior permission, he said.”
• “‘The firm needs to do what it needs to do to protect whatever interests that they choose to support,’ Powers said in an interview. ‘I understand why they are doing what they’re doing. At the same time, it’s very sad on a personal level because it ends my Big Law career sooner than I had anticipated and in a very different way than I had anticipated.'”
• “Davis Polk declined to comment.”
• “Davis Polk has so far avoided the vitriol the president has directed at rival operations. Trump issued directives that threaten five firms’ ability to interact with the federal government, reached agreements with nine others and targeted 20 with investigations through the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”
• “The firm is helping Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. and Crypto.com launch a series of exchange-traded funds later this year. Davis Polk hired former Trump White House lawyer Stefan Passantino as an outside lobbyist in March and removed website references to its lawyers’ work on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.”
• “‘The firm should be embarrassed about it,’ Powers said of the work for Trump Media. ‘We tout our commitment to social responsibility through our pro bono partners and the kind of causes that we take up as part of official firm practice and then we are partnering with a namesake organization to a sitting president who has not supported those values.'”

Hat tip to Jim Burns at Latham for sending word of an update on this one: “‘Little Is Gained by Disqualification,’ Law Firm Concedes in Related Efforts Against GM’s Counsel” —

• “Following a magistrate judge’s ruling this week that denied a boutique Chicago law firm’s efforts to disqualify Fish & Richardson from representing General Motors Co. in a patent dispute, attorneys with Irwin IP withdrew similar attempts in a related but separate case.”
• “Attorneys from Irwin IP, a Chicago litigation firm, represent LKQ Corp. and its subsidiary, Keystone Automotive Industries, in patent disputes against GM. In one matter pending before U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso of the Northern District of Illinois, the plaintiffs’ attorneys accused Fish & Richardson of poaching one of its former paralegals, Gloria Rios. Rios oversaw all LKQ matters, including the present adverse suit against GM, and is now working for the automaker’s counsel of record. Irwin IP moved to kick opposing counsel off the case, questioning whether Fish & Richardson’s screening and safeguards were enough to protect LKQ’s confidential information, among other things.”
• “U.S. Magistrate Judge M. David Weisman agreed that Rios’s permanent deletion of nearly 17,000 emails from her Irwin IP email was ‘troubling,’ but concluded this week that Irwin IP failed to allege that confidential information had been turned over to Fish & Richardson, or why an ethical wall should have been established sooner than three days before the paralegal’s start date.”
• “‘What is clear from this evidence is that F&R did not ‘target’ Ms. Rios for employment. Rather, she was one of twenty-five people [recruiter Dené] Maloney messaged about the paralegal vacancy at F&R. Further, though plaintiffs contend that F&R should have implemented the ethical wall sooner than the Friday before Rios’s Monday start date, they do not explain why doing so was necessary,’ Weisman wrote in an order filed Tuesday.”
• “‘In short, F&R has rebutted the presumption that Rios and F&R are sharing confidences with respect to LKQ/Keystone cases. Accordingly, the court denies plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify,’ Weisman added.”
• “In response to Weisman’s decision, Irwin IP attorneys withdrew a similar disqualification motion against Fish & Richardson in a related patent case pending before U.S. District Judge Jeremy C. Daniel.”
• “‘Accordingly, LKQ does not plan on objecting to Magistrate Judge Weisman’s order,’ Michael P. Bregenzer wrote in Wednesday’s filing. ‘As such, while it would be inappropriate to take advantage of this knowledge, GM’s counsel herein will be employing and working daily with an individual with intimate knowledge of LKQ’s litigation strategies and thought processes whether they are disqualified in this matter or not. Therefore, LKQ believes little is gained by disqualification in this matter at this point.'”
• “According to Irwin IP, Rios, who joined the boutique Chicago firm in January 2022, did not disclose that she was leaving for a role working with opposing counsel. It was no secret that Rios worked on the matter, as she sent ‘virtually every single one’ of the documents and pleadings, among other things, on behalf of LKQ to Fish & Richardson, Irwin IP said in a motion to disqualify opposing counsel in March.”
• “After Rio’s departure, Irwin IP said it discovered that Rios allegedly ‘spent hours’ permanently deleting at least 17,000 emails from her work email account, among other things. Irwin IP accused Fish & Richardson of violating professional obligations and questioned whether the firm’s screening methods and safeguards were sufficient, particularly because Rios was privy to LKQ’s confidential information across multiple matters.”
• “Fish & Richardson denied targeting Rios, as a recruiter reached out to the paralegal on LinkedIn during a ‘routine search for candidates’ with relevant experience, and Rios was one of nearly 25 potential candidates to respond to an initial inquiry. Rios went through the interview process and was hired to work for Louis Fogel, GM’s counsel of record in the patent suit, LKQ Corp. v. General Motors Co. Rios said that she informed Fish & Richardson about her participation in adverse litigation, and she executed a declaration acknowledging her ethical obligations on Jan. 28, the day before she put in her two-week notice with Irwin IP.”
• “On Feb. 21, Fish & Richardson sent a firm-wide email with a screening memorandum and notification to all personnel about the ethical wall and their obligation not to share any covered information with Rios. Fish & Richardson’s ethical wall software blocks an employee from accessing the litigation document management system, according to the opinion.”

And to industry consultant and former biglaw risk director David Skweres for noting: “Lateral Partner Vetting Intensifies as Compensation Creeps Upward” —

• “As Big Law partner hiring—and compensation packages—grow increasingly expensive, lateral vetting has generally grown more complex over the last several years, recruiters and lawyers say.”
• “Law firms are becoming more inquisitive about laterals, asking them to go beyond basic background checks and routine lateral partner questionnaires (LPQs). They are asking lateral candidates much more probing questions about their client lists, originations, and profitability of practice, as well as explicit questions about the percentage chance specific clients will move with them, industry observers say. Some laterals, in turn, have hired lawyers to represent them in moves.”
• “Amid an exponential increase in partner compensation, especially that offered to ‘superstar’ lateral partners, making the wrong lateral investment can be costly to a firm’s bottom line these days. Depending on overall revenue and profitability levels, some firms have even less room to hire unsuccessful laterals than others.”
• “‘Compensation has skyrocketed, and [firms are] just trying to do as much due diligence as possible,’ said Brian Davis, a recruiter who is a Major Lindsey & Africa partner and global liaison for New York and London partners. ‘Laterals can be a big investment for firms. They want to make sure they get it right.'”
• “Jon Lindsey, New York founding partner at MLA, also said some firms do a ‘mini’ questionnaire, earlier in the process than ever before. Even something as simple as ‘‘Tell us your top 10 clients and what you do for them.’ That sort of a thing, as a conversation-starter,’ Lindsey said.”
• “Questions pertaining to profitability and portability—for instance, if anyone else gets origination credit for clients that a lateral lists as their own, and how likely a client is to follow along if a lateral makes a move—are part of firms’ move toward making savvier evaluations. Already, some in the industry have sought to create universal or common lateral questionnaires, Law.com has reported. But those efforts for a standard questionnaire come as firms are increasingly inquisitive as part of their own hiring process.”
• “‘As the lateral market has become very robust in the last 10 years, the firms have each become far more sophisticated than they used to be in terms of which metrics and other mechanisms they use to assist them in their lateral partner process,’ said Tina Solis, a litigation partner at Nixon Peabody who routinely counsels lawyers and law firms on their ethical and fiduciary obligations in connection with lateral partner moves. ‘Because the firms have become more sophisticated in how they recruit laterals, they’ve become far more inquisitive in the types of questions they ask the lateral partner candidates.'”
• “Jennifer Gillman, a lateral partner recruiter and president of Gillman Strategic Group in Westfield, New Jersey, said some firms will ask laterals to estimate the percentage chance specific clients will move with them. Others will tell them to describe what they think their business will look like on the new platform and what the range of outcomes might be. What does a great year look like? How about an average year and a terrible year?”
• “‘We usually counsel our candidates to think long and hard about those numbers,’Gillman said. ‘We don’t want them just to guess, because those are kind of the levels they’re going to be held to.'”
• “She added, though, that it’s a ‘delicate dance’ for firms. Make the process too onerous, and you risk alienating the candidate, particularly if they’re already deciding between multiple firms.”
• “Dan Binstock, a recruiter and partner at Washington, D.C.-based Garrison, agreed, although he described firms walking a fine line between gathering enough data to make an informed decision on a lateral hire with the ethical and fiduciary duty obligations of that candidate.”
• “‘Overall, I do see firms asking more explicit questions, or at least better defining their questions,’ Binstock said. ‘Firms have to balance their LPQs so they ask the right questions to help them evaluate a partner’s practice and find the sweet spot on compensation, while not digging too deep such that it goes beyond what’s ideal from an ethics and disclosure standpoint. It’s a delicate balance.'”
• “As such, candidates have taken to bringing ethics counsel into the mix during this stage of the lateral hiring process to avoid crossing any disciplinary boundaries.”

“FaceTec Fails to Disqualify Morrison & Foerster in Patent Dispute Amid Conflict of Interest Concerns” —

• “In a recent ruling, FaceTec Inc., a company focused on 3D face authentication, encountered a setback in its legal battle against legal giant Morrison & Foerster LLP, as the U.S. District Court refused to disqualify the firm from continuing its representation in a patent infringement case. FaceTec had previously sought to disqualify Morrison & Foerster, arguing potential conflicts of interest due to the firm’s prior engagement with FaceTec on unrelated matters. However, the court determined that the connections were not substantial enough to warrant disqualification.”
  “The ruling from Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo in the Southern District of California emphasized that the prior interactions of the firm did not pose any serious risk of revealing confidential information that might disadvantage FaceTec in the current proceedings. This decision provides a noteworthy instance of how courts evaluate the intricacies of attorney-client relationships and conflicts of interest, maintaining a delicate balance between past engagements and current representation. Details of the case can be found through Bloomberg Law.”
  “Patent disputes like those faced by FaceTec underscore the complexities surrounding representation in intellectual property law, especially when previous client interactions come into play. The decision showcases the rigorous standards applied by the judiciary to ensure fair representation without granting the potential for misuse of sensitive information.”
  “This case adds to a series of recent rulings that highlight similar issues of conflict in legal representation. For example, a recent decision involving Qualcomm Inc. illustrated how courts approach potential conflicts with a view to preserving the integrity of legal counsel, a critical aspect given the increasing intricacies of modern legal practices. More information about how courts handle such disqualification attempts can be found on Law.com.”
  “Overall, FaceTec’s attempt to disqualify Morrison & Foerster from the case encapsulates ongoing challenges in patent litigation and the broader legal landscape’s efforts to navigate the complexities of attorney-client relationships. As the case progresses, it will be closely watched by legal professionals who seek to understand the evolving standards for conflict management in high-stakes litigation.”