Bressler Risk Blog

David Kluft notes: “If I consult briefly with a fellow attorney representing a pizza shop, can I later be adverse to the pizza shop?” —

• “A CT lawyer knowledgeable in eviction law gave some general information to a fellow attorney who was defending a pizza place against a commercial eviction, including listing some possible defenses and providing a sample motion to dismiss.
• “When the fellow attorney asked her to work on the case, she declined. The fellow attorney sent her some more information unsolicited to tempt her to take the case, but she remained firm. A few years later, she appeared in a commercial eviction matter for a different landlord but against the same pizza place.”
• “The pizza place moved to disqualify. The Court found that because the lawyer never spoke with or formed an attorney client relationship with the pizza place, there was no reason to ask if the matters were substantially related. She also had no duties to the pizza place as a prospective client, because she received no significantly harmful information, and any unsolicited information after she clearly declined representation doesn’t count.”

ALAS notes this twist in Winter v. Menlo —

• “When does disclosure of confidential information by a prospective client require disqualification under California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.18?”
• “In a case of first impression, the California Court of Appeal decided that materiality should be evaluated at the time a party moves to disqualify. It also held the information must be materially harmful to the prospective client, declining to define ‘material’ to mean the information is directly at issue in the case or of critical importance.”
• “In this case, the potential client disclosed not only his intention to sue the law firm’s client, but also his theory of the case and documents supporting it. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed disqualification.”
• Decision: here.

“It’s illegal in most states for private equity to buy a law firm. Lawyers have figured out a workaround” —

• “Nearly every state has adopted a professional ethics rule from the American Bar Association forbidding lawyers from working for nonlawyer-owned firms.”
  “Lawyers, of course, have figured out a way around it.”
• “The loophole, known as a ‘managed services organization’ — or MSO — allows non-lawyers to effectively own part of law firms through a second corporate entity.”
• “Business Insider spoke to two attorneys who advise law firms on the arrangement, which they said is becoming increasingly common.”
• “In June, Puerto Rico’s high court allowed non-lawyer investment in law firms in order to spur economic development in the territory. Arizona, the only state that has done away with the ABA rule, in 2020, now has over 100 law firms that are open to outside investors, according to a recent Stanford Law School study. Large companies like KPMG and Rocket Lawyer now own law firms in the state outright.”
• “The MSO model, which isn’t limited to only Arizona, could appeal to law firm owners who want to retire or who don’t want to hand their firms over to a law partner.”
  “‘We’re in the midst of the largest rolling retirement of lawyers in history,’ said Lucian Pera, a legal ethics attorney at Adams & Reese who advises lawyers and businesses about setting up MSOs.
• “Using an MSO can give private equity firms — or other kinds of companies — a chance to effectively buy a slice of legal practices. And it gives lawyers the chance to sell stakes of their companies for cold, hard cash.
• “Traditionally, law firms have operated as partnerships among attorneys, where equity partners own shares in the firm and help manage it. That’s partly because of ethics rules designed to maintain attorney independence, such as ABA Model Rule 5.4(d), which largely prevents nonlawyers from owning law firms or from having the right to control the professional judgment of a lawyer.”
• “The ABA’s rules have made law practices distinct from many other white-collar professions, like finance or consulting, which may have robust ethical rules and norms but don’t impose such stringent limits on ownership. There are plenty of publicly traded banks and consulting firms, but no publicly traded law firms.”
• “As a workaround, the law firms can set themselves up as two corporate entities, Pera said. One is the law firm itself, composed exclusively of lawyers and owned only by lawyers. The second is the service organization, which can be owned by anyone and acts as a vendor for the law firm. It is essentially the back office, taking care of all non-lawyer tasks, including marketing, accounting, human resources, real estate leases, and employing paralegals. The two corporate entities enter into a long-term contract.”
• “Under this MSO arrangement, non-lawyers can invest in the service corporation, though not the law firm itself. Presto! You have an ethically independent group of lawyers who are exclusively working with a company that can sell shares, Pera says.”
• “According to Pera, no state bars have issued ethics opinions that expressly bless the MSO model, but no court or regulator has found a problem with it, either.”
• “‘The pieces fit well, and there’s no regulatory approval required for a law firm to do it, just like there’s no regulatory approval required for a law firm to take out a bank loan,’ Pera said.”
• “A spokesperson for the American Bar Association said its Center for Professional Responsibility doesn’t have any ethics opinions on non-lawyers investing in MSOs.”
• “Because law firms aren’t required to disclose their use of service organizations, it’s difficult to know how widespread the practice is.”
• “Pera said he knows of one firm that used the structure as far back as 2006. In more recent years, more law firms and investors have become interested in using MSOs, Pera and Lenfestey said.”
• “‘There are many more that are in process right now, and some of them are quite large,’ Pera said. ‘There’s a fairly large insurance defense firm in this country that’s looking at doing this. There’s a fairly large AmLaw-ranked law firm that’s looking at this. So there’s a non-trivial number of these that are going on.'”

“23andMe Privacy Reviewer Defends WilmerHale as Choice of Counsel” —

• “The consumer privacy ombudsman in 23andMe’s sale of customers’ genetic data is defending his choice of counsel against objections from the Justice Department’s bankruptcy watchdog. Neil Richards, a Washington University School of Law professor appointed by the court to make privacy recommendations in 23andMe’s asset sale, denies that WilmerHale has disqualifying conflicts of interest in the case.”
• “The US Trustee in June objected to Richards’ choice of counsel, citing a possible conflict of interest due to the firm’s work for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. on unrelated matters. Regeneron was named a backup bidder in the asset sale.”
• “‘To disqualify WilmerHale now, based on a remote and hypothetical possibility of a conflict that never presented itself, would be to create an unworkable rule,’ the filing said.”
• “The filing argues that WilmerHale’s work for Regeneron in matters unrelated to the Chapter 11 case doesn’t create an actual conflict and that the US Trustee is holding WilmerHale to a higher standard than prescribed by bankruptcy law. “Because Regeneron was not one of the original parties in the interest list, WilmerHale had no prior knowledge of the company’s involvement before it submitted a bid, over which the law firm ‘had no control,’ the filing says.”
• “This scenario doesn’t even require disqualification and would ‘upend the orderly operation of large chapter 11 cases,’ it said.”
• “The fees WilmerHale collected from Regeneron in 2024 accounted for less than 0.04% of the firm’s revenue, no other party objected to the firm’s retention, and Richards’ work has concluded, the response said.”
• “‘The CPO’s role, and WilmerHale’s representation of the CPO, has concluded,’ the response says. ‘Denying the CPO’s retention of WilmerHale would not change the Report, the selection of TTAM as the successful bidder, the CPO’s testimony at the sale hearing, or the Court’s approval of the sale to TTAM.'”

“Conflict Forces Transfer Of Seton Hall Whistleblower Case” —

• “Seton Hall University’s former president’s whistleblower suit against the school will be heard in a New Jersey state court in Hudson County after an Essex County judge confirmed her decision to move the case due to a potential conflict of interest involving the daughter of one of the defendants.”
• “Judge Venable moved the case originally when a law clerk in the Essex County civil division reported a potential conflict because her father, Michael Lucciola, is a member of Seton Hall’s Board of Regents and a defendant in the case.”
• “Seton Hall fought that move on the grounds that Lucciola’s daughter was not clerking for the judge handling the litigation brought by the university’s former president, Joseph Nyre, and that nothing in the Code of Judicial Conduct or the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees requires transferring a case in such a situation.”
• “The school also pointed out that it filed its motion to dismiss in March 2024 and that the parties had already had a hearing on it in September 2024. Moving the case would require duplicating a significant amount of effort, Seton Hall argued.”
• “In Wednesday’s opinion Judge Venable wrote that the court properly considered all evidence presented in various lengthy filings in deciding to move the case.”
• “She wrote that Canon 2.1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which directs judges to avoid the appearance of impropriety, is the best guide for handling the situation. She clarified that the court relied on that canon not because it fits the exact facts of the situation, but for guidance about appearances of impropriety.”
• “‘It was not a misunderstanding of the court that Canon 2.1 applied to law clerks, but rather the misunderstanding of the court’s reasoning by moving defendants,’ Judge Venable wrote.”
• “‘Moreover, the absence of a specific canon addressing law clerk conduct does not preclude the possibility that a law clerk’s actions or relationships could create an appearance of impropriety; however, citing the lack of a rule as justification essentially invites the court to conclude that such situations can never arise, which is not the case,’ she went on.”

“Boston firm hit with pair of data breach class actions” —

• “A Boston law firm is facing two class actions alleging that a failure to take appropriate cybersecurity measures resulted in a March 2024 data breach that exposed nearly 13,000 clients, former clients and others to the risk of identity theft.”
• “‘Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by … intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that its network servers were protected against unauthorized intrusions,’ states the complaint in Frawley v. Casner & Edwards, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston.”
• “A second putative class action filed days later on June 2 alleges the law firm exacerbated the potential risks from the 2024 breach by waiting until last month to begin informing those whose personally identifiable information had been compromised.”
• “‘Casner took over a year before informing Class Members even though Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen,’ the complaint in Glavin v. Casner & Edwards states.”
• “Casner managing partner Michael F. Zullas said his firm had yet to be served with the complaint in Glavin. He said the breach involved only a ‘small, separate’ segment of his firm’s computer database.”
• “‘It didn’t affect the majority of our data,’ Zullas said. ‘As soon as we became aware [of the breach], we engaged in a lengthy investigation to determine exactly what happened, we notified federal law enforcement, [and] we implemented additional technical safeguard to help ensure this wouldn’t happen. And out of an abundance of caution, we identified anyone whose data may have been tangentially affected, notifying each of those individuals.'”
  “The Casner breach is an example of a shift in the nature of threats from the ransomware attacks that were the bane of law firms several years ago, said Brian J. Lamoureux, a Providence litigator who handles cyber cases. That shift occurred once law firms and other businesses figured out they could defeat ransomware attacks by continuously backing up their data, he said.”
• “‘Once cyber hygiene and cyber backups became [the norm], bad actors shifted over to what is called the ‘double extortion’ scheme where they not only get access to your system but then threaten the release of customer, client and patient data,’ Lamoureaux explained.”
• “Lawsuits like the ones facing Casner & Edwards are not surprising, according to Boston attorney Seth P. Berman. ‘As we have seen over the past several years, we can expect to see that many law firms and other companies will get hacked and will get data stolen,’ Berman said. ‘There really isn’t a perfect way to protect yourself from this problem.'”
• “The negligence per se claim is premised on an alleged breach of duties imposed under the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §45. According to the complaint, Casner failed to use reasonable measures to protect Personally Identifiable Information entrusted to it in violation of §5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits ‘unfair … practices in or affecting commerce.'”
  “The Frawley complaint similarly alleges that Casner breached duties established under 15 U.S.C. §45, FTC guidelines, and other industry standards.”
• “In terms of liability for a data breach, the standard of care for law firms is one of ‘reasonableness,’ Lamoureux said. ‘Did the law firm take commercially reasonable steps to avoid the incident?’ he said. ‘That’s a moving target. Two-factor authentication was not a thing 10 years ago. Now, if you don’t have two-factor authentication or other backup security measures, someone can get on the witness stand and testify that that fell below the standard of care depending on the type of business.'”
• “‘Just the idea of having to let your clients know that you were victimized creates enormous trust and relationship issues, because lawyers, like doctors, are in the ‘secrets’ business,’ he said. ‘We get paid and are obligated to hold secrets.’ “

“Goodwin, Eckert Seamans Faced Data Breaches in April” —

• “Two Am Law 200 firms suffered data breaches in April, according to data security notices submitted to the Maine Attorney General’s Office.”
• “Goodwin Procter experienced a data breach on April 29 that impacted the personal information of approximately 363 individuals. The second firm, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, was sued Tuesday over its own data breach dating to April 17 that impacted the information of over 9,000 individuals associated with a singular client, the Wheeling Jesuit University.”
• “According to Goodwin’s notice, which was filed on the firm’s behalf by Erez Liebermann of Debevoise & Plimpton on July 2, the firm discovered the breach on May 2. The letter indicates that the breach was caused by an incident related to a firm vendor, Commvault, and that the breach impacted a small number of firm email accounts; the firm is offering two years worth of credit monitoring through Experian.”
• “Pittsburgh-based Eckert Seamans, meanwhile, faces a negligence suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The suit claims that the names and Social Security numbers of approximately 9,400 alumni of Wheeling Jesuit University alumni were exposed in the data breach as a result of the firm failing to update its technology security practices.”
• “A data breach notification letter submitted to the attorney general of Maine confirms that the Eckert incident occurred on April 17 and additionally indicates that the firm did not discover the data breach until May 20. The data breach notification further indicates that the firm did not notify those impacted in the breach until June 18, which is also noted in the suit.”
• “‘Plaintiff’s notice letters were dated nearly one month after Defendant discovered the Data Breach and nearly two months from the actual breach,’ the suit, filed by attorneys from Kimmel & Silverman and EKSM LLP on behalf of Wheeling Jesuit University alumna Lara Williams, reads, alleging that the delayed notification impacted the plaintiffs’ ability to mitigate the breach’s harm.”
• “The suit further alleges that Eckert Seamans did not adequately protect its clients’ confidential information, thereby contributing to the breach.”
• “The firm ‘negligently maintained its computer network system in a condition that failed to meet the industry standards recommended by the ABA, the FTC, industry guides, and information technology security recommendations and manufacturers,’ the suit alleges.”
• “‘These foregoing frameworks are existing and applicable industry standards in the legal industry, and Defendant failed to comply with these accepted standards, thereby opening the door to and causing the Data Breach,’ the suit claims. ‘As the result of computer systems needing security upgrading, inadequate procedures for handling emails containing ransomware or other malignant computer code, and inadequately trained employees who opened files containing the ransomware virus, Defendant negligently and unlawfully failed to safeguard Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Private Information.'”

“Judge Won’t Disqualify Attys In AmeriMark Control Dispute” —

• “A Utah magistrate judge declined to disqualify attorneys from Venable LLP and Parsons Behle & Latimer PC from representing Swiss plaintiffs Capana Swiss Advisors and AmeriMark Automotive in a lawsuit over who controls AmeriMark Group, finding there is no clear conflict of interest and that disqualification would unfairly disrupt the case.”
• “Defendants Rymark Inc. and Nicholas Thayne Markosian asked the court in January to remove the attorneys from the case, claiming there was a conflict of interest because the attorneys were representing both Capana and AmeriMark.”
• “The lawsuit boils down to a dispute over who controls AmeriMark Group and AmeriMark Automotive. Capana claims it has about 13 million shares in AmeriMark Group or a 65% stake, but Markosian alleges in a countersuit that those 13 million shares were stolen from him and that he is, in fact, the largest shareholder in the company.”
• “‘In the ordinary course, AmeriMark would be agnostic as to the dispute between Capana and Mr. Markosian … but in this litigation, AmeriMark is represented by the same attorneys representing Capana,’ the January motion said. ‘Those attorneys are being paid by Capana, not AmeriMark. The upshot is that AmeriMark is essentially at the mercy of Capana and Capana’s attorneys. It is not receiving independent or unbiased legal advice.'”
• “However, in an order issued June 6, U.S. Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero said the defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating a conflict of interest or that there has been an ‘interference’ in the suit from Capana paying the legal fees.”
• “Additionally, the judge said that even if the defendants had demonstrated a sufficient conflict, their motion would still fail because they did not ‘diligently pursue disqualification,’ and did not file their disqualification in a timely manner.”
  “John Worden of Venable LLP said: ‘The motion was untenable from day one. It was strategic and it was filed by lawyers who when they filed, they were also representing multiple parties and entities. And so by the terms of their own motion they should have been disqualified, too… We never feared much that the judge would grant it, but it was an inconvenience … we are hopeful that the new motions moving forward will be of a more substantive nature,’ Worden added.”
• “The attorneys who filed the disqualification motion in January on behalf of Rymark and Markosian are no longer serving as their counsel. According to the court docket, the defendants alerted the court in May to a substitution in their legal representation.”

In Massachusetts: “Attorneys – Duty to disclose – Rule 1.13(b)” —

• “Where a plaintiff limited liability company has alleged that a defendant attorney was negligent in not disclosing to the plaintiff’s board of directors certain information that the company’s chief executive officer shared with the attorney regarding a federal investigation, the attorney is entitled to summary judgment because he did not have and did not breach any duty to disclose directly to the board the information that was already known to its CEO.”
• “‘Massachusetts Premier Soccer LLC ran a for-profit youth soccer business under the name Global Premier Soccer. The parties refer to the plaintiff as ‘GPS.’ Many of GPS’s coaches were foreign nationals who were present in the United States under temporary, non-immigrant visas. During 2018, federal agents began to investigate GPS’s use of these visas for its coaches. Attorney Perry Henderson and his law firm Burns & Levinson were doing a broad array of corporate legal work for GPS, but not representing or counselling GPS with respect to its visa pro0gram. GPS’s chief executive officer, Joseph Bradley, knew about the apparent federal investigation and shared some of that information with Henderson. In October 2019, federal agents executed a search warrant at GPS’s headquarters. GPS contends that its reputation and business were severely harmed by this surprise raid, and that it could have avoided this harm if Henderson had told other board members about the investigation.”
• “‘GPS has three remaining claims against Burns & Levinson and Henderson. First, it alleges that Henderson was negligent in not disclosing to GPS’s board of directors the information shared by CEO Bradley about the apparent federal visa investigation, that if the Board had been aware of what was going on it could have managed the situation and avoided the surprise execution of a search warrant, and that Henderson’s alleged breach of a duty of disclosure to the Board substantially harmed GPS. Second, GPS claims that Burns & Levinson had a conflict of interest because it was representing Bradley and GPS at the same time. Third, it also claims that Burns & Levinson improperly billed GPS for worked done solely for Bradley.”
• “‘The Court will allow the motion by Burns & Levinson and Henderson on these claims. As for the first claim, the summary judgment record establishes that these defendants did not have and did not breach any duty to disclose directly to GPS’s board the information that was already known to its CEO. GPS did not articulate any substantive opposition to the summary judgment motion with respect to the other two claims. …”
• “‘Though GPS has sued Burns & Levinson and Attorney Henderson for legal malpractice, it does not contend that these defendants were negligent in providing legal services or advice. Instead, GPS asserts in count I of its complaint that these Defendants were negligent because they allegedly had and breached an affirmative obligation under Mass. R. Prof. Conduct 1.13(b) to notify other board members that federal officials seemed to be looking into the GPS visa program. The Court will allow Defendants’ request for summary judgment on this claim because the summary judgment record establishes that Burns & Levinson and Henderson did not have and did not breach any such duty under the circumstances of this case. …”
• “‘GPS contends that Burns & Levinson and Henderson had a duty under Mass. R. Civ. P. 1.13(b) ‘to disclose to the non-conflicted members of the GPS board of managers the existence of the criminal investigation as a corporate crisis involving ongoing business practices at the core of the business.’ The Court is not persuaded. It concludes that, as a matter of law, Defendants did not have and did not breach any such duty. …”
• “‘The summary judgment record establishes that Defendants had no duty under Rule 1.13(b) to inform other board members about the apparent federal investigation for several, independent reasons.”
• “‘Second, Henderson had no actual knowledge — or, for that matter, any reason to believe — that the federal investigation into GPS’s visa program concerned ‘a matter related to the representation’ of GPS by Burns & Levinson. As discussed above, Burns & Levinson was not involved in designing the visa program and did not submit any petitions seeking visas. Nothing in the limited information shared with Henderson by Bradley suggested that the apparent federal investigation was related in any way to matters or issues as to which Burns & Levinson had done legal work for or provided legal advice to GPS.”
• Read the order: here.

“RND Contractors, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) E084508 [Cal.App.4th Dist., Div. Two, July 1, 2025]” —

• “The Court found that a party may oppose a co-defendant’s motion for summary judgment even if the plaintiff does not oppose it, and even if there are no cross-claims between the parties, so long as the parties are adverse to each other.”
• “Specifically, the California Court of Appeal found:
  • When a defendant moves for summary judgment and the plaintiff does not oppose, another party—such as a co-defendant—can oppose the motion if that party is adverse to the moving defendant.
  • There is no requirement that cross-claims exist between the parties for them to be considered adverse.
  • The trial court erred by refusing to consider the oppositions filed by RND and Balfour (co-defendants), on the basis that they lacked standing due to the absence of cross-claims.”
• “The appellate court granted the petition for writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate its order granting summary judgment and to reconsider the motion after taking into account the oppositions of the adverse parties.”
• “This decision clarifies California law on summary judgment procedure in multi-defendant cases, ensuring that adverse parties have the opportunity to oppose summary judgment motions, regardless of whether the plaintiff participates or cross-claims exist.”

“Union Loses Atty DQ Bid In NJ Wrongful Termination Dispute” —

• “A longshoremen’s union has lost its bid to disqualify an attorney from representing a former member in a wrongful termination suit in New Jersey federal court that alleges the union gave him bad advice that prevented him from properly fighting claims that led to his termination.”
• “‘The crux of the disqualification motion is that Till previously represented Garcia in 2018 in connection with an inquiry by ILA Local 1235 related to his run for president, and is therefore conflicted from now being adverse to him,’ the opinion summarizes.”
• “But the magistrate judge ruled that ‘there is no basis for disqualifying Till under applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.'”
• “Although Till had advised Garcia in connection with a 2018 interview regarding an investigation into whether certain of Garcia’s ‘familial relationships’ should bar him from running for the union presidency, that matter isn’t ‘substantially related’ to Pagan’s suit, the magistrate judge ruled.”
• “‘Here, there is no dispute that Garcia is a former client of Till, and that plaintiff’s interests in this lawsuit are materially adverse to Garcia,’ the opinion said. ‘As defendants have satisfied this initial burden, the burden then shifts to Till [to] demonstrate that the [previous] matter and the instant matter are neither the same nor substantially related. There is no question that this matter is not the same as the former matter.'”
• “The previous matter was limited to Garcia’s vetting for the union presidency, while ‘the current matter involves allegations made 6 years later by an unrelated union member concerning the termination of his employment,’ Judge Adams wrote.”
• “In her ruling, the judge also wrote: ‘Beyond his familial relations, there may have been minimal discussion between Till and Garcia about how Garcia intended to lead the union if elected, but that information was widely publicized to the union members who ultimately elected him. Till confirmed he has not conferred with Garcia since 2018.'”
• “The union and Garcia failed to identify ‘any confidential information disclosed by Garcia to Till during the course of the 2018 representation that would be relevant or material to the instant matter,’ the magistrate judge wrote.”

“Could GM’s Attorneys Be Kicked Off Patent Case for Recent Paralegal Hire?” —

• “A federal judge in Chicago has weighed in on the fate of a patent dispute against General Motors Co. but punted on the question of whether to disqualify the NLJ 500 law firm representing the auto manufacturer in the case.”
• “Beyond claims that GM engaged in ‘anticompetitive efforts’ by patenting several exterior body paneling of its vehicles, the plaintiffs’ attorneys with Irwin IP accuse opposing counsel of poaching one of its key employees: Gloria Rios, a former paralegal who handled all LKQ matters, including the matter against GM.”
• “Rios had worked for Irwin IP from January 2022 until the beginning of this year, when she took a role with Fish & Richardson to work for GM’s counsel of record, Louis Fogel, who is one of the attorneys representing the auto giant in the case, LKQ Corp. v. General Motors Co. 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, her former employer said in a March motion to disqualify defense counsel.”
• “‘In other words, Fish & Richardson has not explained why, out of the thousands of Chicago-based paralegals, Fish & Richardson specifically sought to hire Ms. Rios. Of course, the explanation seems clear; Fish & Richardson desired Ms. Rios’s unique knowledge concerning this case and LKQ’s confidential information and legal strategies garnered while working for LKQ,’ wrote Michael P. Bregenzer, one of the Irwin IP attorneys representing LKQ.”
• “In court filings, Irwin IP claims Fish & Richardson violated professional obligations, questioning whether the opposing firm’s screening methods and safeguards were sufficient. Rios was privy to LKQ’s confidential information across multiple matters, and she had access to the client’s confidential documents and attorney-client communications and participated in dozens of internal meetings about litigation strategy, Irwin IP claimed.”
• “Fish & Richardson’s efforts to ‘lure’ Rios to the opposing firm started in early January, when a talent acquisition manager allegedly sent the paralegal a direct message on LinkedIn, leading to an interview with Fogel, Irwin IP alleged. Neither Rios nor Fish & Richardson disclosed information about the paralegal’s job change, according to the plaintiff’s firm.”
• “‘Although Fish & Richardson began discussing the possibility of Ms. Rios joining Fish & Richardson on Jan. 8, 2025 (Fish & Richardson first contacted her on January 6), Fish & Richardson did not implement an ‘ethical wall’ between itself and Ms. Rios until February 21, 2025—the Friday prior to Ms. Rios’s Feb. 24, 2025 start date at Fish & Richardson,’ Irwin IP’s brief said. ‘Putting this deficiency aside, Fish & Richardson’s too little, too late ‘ethical wall’ is deficient for an additional reason. It only listed GM’s involvement in LKQ’s cases. But Ms. Rios also has knowledge of at least five other design patent litigations between LKQ and other automakers, and LKQ’s confidential and privileged information related thereto. The issues in those cases were nearly identical to the issues in this case.'”
• “Irwin IP claims neither Rios nor Fish & Richardson disclosed that it hired the paralegal to work for Fogel. Irwin IP said it later discovered that during her last week with the plaintiff firm, Rios ‘spent hours’ permanently deleting at least 17,000 emails from her work email account, according to the plaintiffs’ brief.”
• “‘Indeed, Irwin IP cannot conceive of an innocent explanation for these deletions. Was Ms. Rios trying to cover-up her communications with Fish & Richardson? Did Ms. Rios seek to prevent Irwin IP and LKQ from using her work product? In any event, Ms. Rios’s conduct evinces a clear understanding that she was engaged in harmful and unethical conduct and wanted to cover her tracks,’ Bergenzer wrote.”
• “Fish & Richardson, through its attorneys with Holland & Knight, denied any wrongdoing, attempts to solicit confidential information, and opposed disqualification in a response filed in April. The defense firm maintained that Rio’s LinkedIn profile came up during a ‘routine search for candidates’ with experience as an IP litigation paralegal in Chicago. Rios was one of nearly 25 potential candidates, and in responding to the talent acquisition’s initial inquiry, the paralegal disclosed that she worked on two adverse cases. Rios also attested that she has maintained professional ethics, according to the filing by Trisha Rich, a Chicago-based partner with Holland & Knight.”
• “‘Once an ethical wall is in place, the employee subject to the wall cannot be added to the litigation document management workspace for any matter impacted by the ethical wall. With respect to Ms. Rios, this means since before the time she started work at F&R, all F&R employees were electronically blocked from providing Ms. Rios with any access (even inadvertent access) to any litigation case file containing electronic materials for this matter (or any other LKQ matter),’ Rich wrote.”

“FIFA Slams Atty’s Bid To ‘Circumvent’ DQ In Puerto Rico Case” —

• “A Puerto Rican attorney may not sidestep a disqualification order by dropping his personal claims from an antitrust case against FIFA in which he is both counsel and plaintiff, the organization told a federal judge Wednesday [6/4], arguing the lawyer is a ‘necessary fact witness’ and therefore a conflict is unavoidable.”
• “José R. Olmo-Rodríguez of Olmo & Rodriguez Matias Law Office PSC cannot be a fact witness and counsel, FIFA argued, calling Olmo-Rodríguez’s request to resume his role as counsel after being disqualified in April a ‘tactical maneuver’ that U.S. District Judge Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach must deny.”
• “Olmo-Rodríguez brought the suit in April 2023 on behalf of several plaintiffs, including the now-defunct Puerto Rico Soccer League NFP Corp., accusing the international soccer governing organization and a local affiliate of corruption and violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. The suit accuses FIFA of attempting to block Puerto Rican soccer associations from operating, and plaintiffs listed Olmo-Rodríguez as counsel, plaintiff and fact witness.”
• “FIFA moved to disqualify Olmo-Rodríguez and another lawyer, Ibrahim Reyes of Reyes Lawyers PA, arguing that in addition to Olmo-Rodríguez’s alleged conflicts, both attorneys have a financial stake in the Puerto Rico soccer league.”
• “In an order issued on April 10, Judge Arias-Marxuach disqualified Olmo-Rodríguez, citing his hybrid representation. Because Reyes is based in Florida, the court later determined new local counsel must be secured.”
• “In May, Olmo-Rodríguez asked the court to allow him to continue representing the plaintiffs. According to the lawyer, ‘despite diligent efforts,’ the plaintiffs had been unable to find a lawyer to take over the suit due to conflicts, costs and a lack of interest in contingency fee agreements among local counsel.”
• “In order to remove the conflict, Olmo-Rodríguez said, he would permanently and voluntarily dismiss his claim against FIFA, ‘thereby eliminating his status as a plaintiff and allowing him to serve solely as counsel for the plaintiffs.'”
• “FIFA slammed the move in its Thursday filing, saying his bid to dismiss his claims was made ‘for the sole purpose of circumventing his disqualification as local counsel.’ Calling it a ‘tactical maneuver,’ FIFA told the court that dismissal of the lawyer’s claims would not solve the underlying issue that Olmo-Rodríguez is a fact witness.”
• “Olmo-Rodríguez is the sole witness identified by plaintiffs to speak on certain topics that underlie their claims, FIFA told the court, making him a ‘necessary witness.’ According to FIFA, the plaintiffs had not shown how the dropping of his individual claims cures this conflict.”

“Referral barred based on training relationship with law firm” —

• “A nonprofit that maintains a legal training relationship with a law firm may not refer prospective clients to that firm unless affected prospective clients give informed written consent, the Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel has found.”
• “The panel decided the issue in response to an inquiry from a staff attorney for the nonprofit, which provides pro bono legal representation primarily to domestic violence victims. The inquiring attorney’s employer maintains a business relationship with a law firm, under which the firm’s attorneys have trained the inquiring lawyer for a fee.”
• “The inquiring attorney’s employer intends to craft a referral list of law firms to which prospective clients presenting a conflict of interest may be referred. The inquiring attorney wishes to add the firm to the referral list but is unsure whether doing so would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
• “‘It is the Panel’s opinion that the inquiring attorney may not refer prospective clients presenting a conflict of interest to the Firm unless the parties’ training relationship is terminated or, if it continues, unless affected prospective clients give informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the referral,’ the panel wrote.”
• “The panel noted that the issue turned on whether the inquiring attorney and the firm are ‘associated in a firm’ under the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
• “‘In this case, the Panel finds significant the fact that the training relationship between the inquiring attorney and the Firm involves the regular, direct discussion of the inquiring attorney’s ongoing cases, providing the inquiring attorney with document drafting and hearing preparation assistance as needed (including having a Firm attorney sometimes accompany the inquiring attorney to hearings in a supporting role), and answering the inquiring attorney’s practice questions as they arise. Such routine intermixing of the inquiring attorney’s practice with the Firm’s attorneys — particularly, the sharing of information from the inquiring attorney’s cases — creates substantive connections sufficient in the Panel’s view to constitute a ‘firm’ relationship for the purposes of imputation of conflicts of interest under Rule 1.10,’ the panel stated.”
• “‘Accordingly, prospective clients presenting conflicts of interest for the inquiring attorney will also do so for the Firm, thereby prohibiting referral. … This prohibition may be lifted only under two (2) scenarios. First, the parties may terminate their training relationship, eliminating the facts binding them together as a ‘firm’ under Rule 1.0(c) and obviating the application of Rule 1.10. Second, should the training relationship remain referral is possible if each affected client gives his or her informed consent to the referral, confirmed in writing,’ the panel concluded.”
• “The three-page decision is Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 2025-7, Lawyers Weekly No. 75-011-25. “

“Florida Judge Denies Bid To DQ Boies Schiller In Fee Suit” —

• “A Florida state court judge on Monday [6/23] denied a bid to disqualify Boies Schiller Flexner LLP in a lawsuit brought by pharmaceutical mass tort companies to block their former counsel from collecting fees after he was dismissed for alleged insufficient representation.”
• “Judge Ariana F. Orshan of 11th Judicial Circuit Court denied the motion to disqualify brought by John H. Ruiz of La Ley Con John H. Ruiz PA, which does business as MSP Recovery Law Firm, after he argued that a Boies Schiller attorney disclosed confidential information about money that was owed while improperly contacting an MSP third-party investor.”
• “Judge Orshan denied the motion in a ruling from the bench, saying that Boies Schiller’s interests were aligned with the MSP entities’ former counsel and that the companies lacked standing, according to Ruiz.”
• “The Coffin defendants represented the plaintiffs between 2017 and 2021 in numerous litigation matters before the firm was fired for alleged substandard legal representation. The representation involved various confidential agreements, including a joint venture agreement with the goal of litigating pharmaceutical and Medicare Secondary Payer Act claims held by the plaintiffs.”
• “Ruiz claimed in this June 6 motion to disqualify that the Coffin defendants, through Boies Schiller and its attorney Sashi Bach, had notified Hazel Partners Holding LLC that they were owed attorney fees and were interfering in a business relationship.”
• “During the hearing before Judge Orshan, Ruiz argued that Coffin ‘learned about every transaction and every deal’ the MSP-related plaintiffs were involved in and that Boies Schiller and Bach improperly used that information to assert a lien. He added that ‘material non-public information’ was disclosed about a public company, in addition to arguing that not only is Coffin not owed any fees, but also that sharing attorney-client confidentiality could violate ethical rules.”
• “‘There’s no way this law firm can represent Coffin and themselves when they know things about [MSP],’ Ruiz said during the hearing, arguing that the conflict can’t be waived. ‘You can’t breach fiduciary duty of loyalty just because a client didn’t pay a fee. A lawyer can’t essentially disregard confidences of their client if there’s a dispute.'”
• “Jason Gonzalez of Lawson Huck Gonzalez PLLC, who is representing the Boies Schiller clients for the purpose of the disqualification motion, told Judge Orshan that there is no confidentiality provision in the joint venture agreement Ruiz referred to. Gonzalez added that the initial 2018 joint venture agreement preceded the nondisclosure agreement that was added months later and that the NDA was prospective, and only lasted one year.”
• “Gonzalez added that his clients had informed consent and that rules don’t preclude Coffin as a co-defendant if he is sued. ‘The confidentiality is waived when Coffin is fired for malpractice,’ Gonzalez said. ‘We can defend ourselves and pursue funds we are owed.'”
• “Judge Orshan told Ruiz that the joint venture agreement appeared to be between his MSP entities and the Coffin Law Firm, saying that the agreement said nothing about confidentiality. Addressing Ruiz, Judge Orshan said, ‘If there is an NDA, am I supposed to legally interpret that as a catch-all? I do believe this is a poorly written NDA.'”

“Kirkland Stops Repping Novartis After Regeneron Sought DQ” —

• “A New York federal judge accepted the withdrawal Thursday of the entire Kirkland & Ellis LLP team that recently joined Novartis Pharma’s legal team battling antitrust allegations over the eye medication Eylea, just a week after plaintiff Regeneron Pharmaceuticals sought their disqualification over an ‘unthinkable’ conflict of interest by the lawyers, whose firm previously represented Regeneron.”
• “In endorsing the withdrawal of all five Kirkland attorneys, U.S. District Judge Philip M. Halpern put an end to the brewing fight sparked by Regeneron’s June 17 notice it would move to disqualify the lawyers because Kirkland had spent more than two years helping Regeneron ‘devise a global strategy for protecting its product Eylea’ intellectual property from proposed biosimilars.”
• “The Kirkland team had only begun appearing for Novartis May 30, stepping in beside Novartis’ main counsel at White & Case LLP to defend against the five-year-old suit accusing Novartis of concealing the true history of an eye syringe treatment’s development from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to edge Regeneron out of the market.”
• “Kirkland’s entry set off alarms at Regeneron, according to the June 17 letter brief from an attorney the company hired for the disqualification bid, Kimo S. Peluso of Sher Tremonte LLP. In it, Peluso pointed to the ‘billable work’ Kirkland attorneys performed for Regeneron from March 2020 to June 2022 helping devise a global legal strategy for ‘addressing possibly infringing biosimilars,’ especially in Europe and the United Kingdom.”
• “‘This case concerns Regeneron’s claims that Novartis and Vetter Pharma colluded to exclude Eylea prefilled syringe formulations from the market, in part through fraudulent patent filings. It should be unthinkable that Kirkland would litigate this case against Regeneron,’ Peluso said at the time.”
• “According to Peluso, Regeneron raised a conflict of interest objection to Kirkland’s appearance June 3. He said Kirkland responded with assertions that ‘its U.S. litigators were screened from Regeneron confidences.’ It wasn’t enough for Regeneron.”
• “‘Kirkland’s purported screens offer zero comfort. The screen imposed on June 3 (this month) was obviously a belated scramble, imposed after Kirkland had already appeared in this case, likely weeks after it was hired. More troubling is Kirkland’s assertion that it has screened the prior representation since September 2019. That screen has not been effective,’ Peluso said, pointing to a June 2020 email from a Kirkland U.K. patent attorney, Nicola Dagg, encouraging Regeneron to hire her U.S. partners to defend the since-nixed syringe patent.”
• “Peluso also said the conflict of interest issues directly implicate Hurst, who was copied on a January 2020 email from Dagg encouraging Regeneron to meet with Kirkland’s U.S.-based antitrust litigators. According to the letter, Hurst attended a meeting in London ‘under the calendar subject line ‘Kirkland Eylea – antitrust discussion.””

“Quinn Emanuel faces another [conflict charge] by Binance founder” —

• “The founder of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange is accusing Washington, D.C.-based law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan of representing him while having a conflict of interest. In a Florida court filing, Binance founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao said that after he sought to address the alleged conflict, Quinn Emanuel partner William A. Burck terminated his representation of Zhao.”
• “On Monday, June 9, Burck filed notices to withdraw as counsel for Zhao in a looming State of Florida Office of Regulation administrative trial, as well as other civil and regulatory matters, Zhao’s filing says.”
• “In a response filed the same day, Zhao said the withdrawal came 24 hours after Burck ‘threatened Mr. Zhao that (Quinn Emanuel) would terminate its engagement of all matters’ with him unless Zhao abandoned a confidential arbitration he had initiated to address the conflict of interest.”
• “Zhao’s filing states that Quinn Emanuel has represented both him and an unnamed opposing party in a foreign arbitration since 2020. Zhao asserts that the dual representation placed the firm ‘on both sides of the same matter,’ a situation he argues is barred by the District of Columbia’s Rules of Professional Conduct. He asked the Florida administrative judge to postpone his July 31 hearing by six months, and to order immediate transfer of his files, stating that the withdrawal, coming ‘on the eve of critical deadlines,’ will otherwise impair his defense.”
• “In April, President Donald Trump urged his sons to fire Burck, who represented the Trump Organization, after learning Quinn Emanuel simultaneously represented Harvard University in litigation against the Trump administration.”
• Filing: here

“Inside the fallout at Paul, Weiss after the firm’s deal with Trump” —

• “Three months ago, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison was under attack. The global law firm had just become the target of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump directing the firm and its clients to be cut off from government contracts, and for firm lawyers to lose their security clearances and be restricted from entering government buildings or dealing with federal employees.”
• “Paul, Weiss wasn’t the first firm to be the focus of such an executive order, but it would go on to be the first to negotiate a deal with the White House in order to get it lifted. At the time, the firm’s leader Brad Karp said he was trying to save his team from an ‘existential crisis.'”
• “Since then, the firm has endured. But the decision to strike a deal has led to high-profile departures among partners and drawn condemnation from Democrats and others in the legal community.”
• “After Karp made a deal with Trump, at least 10 partners in the litigation department have resigned from the firm, including several with close ties to Democrats. A group of the departing partners have joined together to start their own firm where they will continue to represent tech giants like Meta and Google, and another has jumped ship to one of the four firms that chose to fight the administration in court. While the firms that have fought Trump have been vindicated in multiple swift rulings, Paul, Weiss has been dealing with fallout in the aftermath of the deal, according to three former attorneys and five others with knowledge of the firm granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal dynamics.”
• “‘They made a calculated decision,’ said Elizabeth Grossman, executive director of government watchdog group Common Cause Illinois and a former Paul, Weiss associate who helped organize alumni opposition to the deal. ‘They were thinking about their bottom line… I think what we’ve seen is that they made the wrong decision.'”
• “In recent weeks, five additional partners and at least eight associates, the majority of whom worked with Dunn at her previous firm and moved to Paul, Weiss around the same time as she did, have left Paul, Weiss to join Dunn and her colleagues at the fledgling firm Dunn Isaacson Rhee. Dunn and her partners have filed notices in multiple ongoing cases indicating they will continue representing big tech clients they were already representing at Paul, Weiss.”
• “‘Paul, Weiss used to be the gold standard for litigation,’ said Bryson Malcolm, founder of legal recruiting firm Mosaic Search Partners. ‘I think that reputation is waning.'”
• “Earlier this month, Paul, Weiss lost another recognizable name when the former chief federal prosecutor in Manhattan, Damian Williams, decamped to Jenner & Block, a much smaller firm by annual revenue. That firm had also been targeted by an executive order but successfully fought the administration in court instead of making a deal — something Williams seemed to allude to in the announcement of his move.”
• “‘I’ve seen firsthand how this firm expertly tackles the toughest cases and lives its values,’ Williams said in a press release. ‘I’m excited to join a team with an extraordinary depth of legal talent that doesn’t shy away from hard fights — and delivers results that matter.'”
• “‘We would never do anything to compromise our ability to advocate zealously on behalf of our clients, and we certainly reject any suggestion that any element of the agreement is contrary to law,’ Karp wrote in a response letter obtained by POLITICO.”
• “Meanwhile, all the firms that have fought Trump’s orders have so far won in court. Four federal judges have struck down Trump’s executive orders aimed at firms Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey as unconstitutional. The Justice Department has not taken steps to appeal those rulings and the window of time for them to do so will soon close.”
• “There may be more departures to come for Paul, Weiss. The nature of profit distribution at large firms gives partners an incentive to stay through the end of the fiscal year and the process of moving firms for partners is more lengthy and complicated than simply finding a new job willing to hire them.”
• “‘It’s a very financially unattractive time to leave and you need several months to make the move anyway,’ said a partner at a separate firm granted anonymity to speak candidly about the industry.”
• “And while top talent walks out the door, it may prove harder for Paul, Weiss to attract the next generation of lawyers.”

David Kluft notes: “Can I be adverse to my own client in a lawsuit if they don’t contest liability?” —

• “A VA attorney appeared in a contract action for a Father against his Son and the Son’s Wife. Three days later, he appeared for the Son in a divorce matter against the Wife. There was no informed consent.”
• “He argued that this was not a conflict because the Son never contested the debt to the Father. The lawyer moved for a default in the contract action against the Son (his own client) and the Wife. The wife had moved away by then so she wasn’t properly served with the Father’s complaint or the default motion, but the attorney falsely told the court she had been served.”
• “License revoked for the conflict, the false statement to the court, and other misconduct.”
• The order: here.

Three Skadden lawyers write on: “Navigating the maze of conflict of interest laws for corporate employees taking government roles” —

• “It has been hard to miss the headlines in recent months involving a number of high-profile, high-net worth individuals taking senior positions in the federal government. There have always been wealthy individuals who go into the government, but the sheer number of such appointees and also ultra-wealthy business owners being appointed are testing the conflict of interest laws.”
• “These laws attempt to prevent self-dealing and preserve the objectivity of public officials. However, what often goes overlooked are the significant impacts they can have on not only the appointees but also the companies at which they work (or in which the appointees have significant ownership interests).”
• “For an appointee’s company, the challenges extend far beyond the headlines and into the realm of operational, legal, and reputational risk, as the obligations imposed by conflict of interest statutes can create unexpected complications for businesses whose employees seek or hold public office at the federal, state, or local level. Understanding and navigating these risks is essential not only for the individuals involved, but also for the organizations that may find themselves dealing with new restrictions, disclosure requirements or even prohibitions on doing business with government entities as a result of an employee’s public service.”
  Federal disclosure, recusal and divestment requirements”
• “At the federal level, the primary conflict consideration is the prohibition, contained in 18 U.S.C. § 208, on federal officials participating in decisions (even broad policy decisions) that can affect companies or businesses in which they have financial interests. In addition, Office of Government Ethics rule 5 CFR § 2635.502 covers not only companies in which an official currently has a financial interest but also any company that employed or retained the official during the one-year period before joining the government. However, this rule requires recusal merely from matters where the company is an actual party, as opposed to broad policy decisions.”
• “These prohibitions underpin requirements that incoming officials disclose their financial interests (publicly for senior officials) going back a full calendar year before joining the government, agree to recuse themselves from matters that impact those interests and, where recusal is not feasible given the responsibilities of their office, divest holdings that conflict with those responsibilities. The premise is simple enough, but these requirements can present daunting and unanticipated challenges for both the incoming officials and, in some cases, their employers.”
• “Disclosure forms require not just a list of holdings but the official must assign them a value as well, which can be unwelcome news for the official’s employer if that would result in disclosing sensitive information regarding employment-related assets. For example, this can be particularly problematic for those coming from a private equity background with significant holdings in PE funds and related carried interest vehicles, which are notoriously difficult to value.”
• “Moreover, in many cases the law may require identifying a fund’s underlying holdings, information which is commonly viewed as proprietary and protected by confidentiality agreements. As for the recusal requirement, agreeing to divest from these interests may be the only resolution, but even that step can be challenging if the assets are illiquid.”
• “It can also impose significant costs on the official who may be forced to sell quickly or at an inopportune time. For example, having to suddenly divest a significant ownership interest in a closed-end private equity fund could be a dealbreaker given the difficulty of quickly identifying a qualified buyer acceptable to the fund sponsor. It is generally advisable for potential appointees – even if they do not fall into the ‘ultra-wealthy’ category – to work with the relevant ethics officials early in the process to determine what they may need to sell off in order to determine whether accepting their appointment is financially feasible.”
• “While most of the media attention focuses on federal officials, similar conflict of interest laws exist at the state and local level. Every state has its own rules governing the conduct of public officials, as do many cities, towns and counties — and in many cases, they can be even more stringent than the federal rules with more consequences for an official’s private employer.”
• “Moreover, given that these laws tend to apply broadly to most, if not all, elected and appointed positions in a given state or locality — including, for example, school boards, town councils and zoning commissions — from a company’s perspective, it is far more common to have employees seeking state or local positions that can trigger these consequences than employees entering federal office.”
• “While these laws can present similar disclosure, divestment, and recusal considerations as the federal regime does, many state and local conflict laws impose restrictions well beyond requiring an official to recuse from certain matters. These restrictions can create real risk for a company, particularly when an employee intends to keep their job and serve as a part-time state or local official. For example, in some jurisdictions, an employee may be prohibited from appearing on behalf of his or her employer before not just their own agency, but any agency within their jurisdiction. If the employee’s job duties include regularly interacting with the government, such a restriction may be unworkable.”
• “State and local laws also may bar an official from sharing in any profits generated from government contracts, even if they had no involvement in negotiating or approving the contract in question while wearing their government ‘hat.’ Successfully navigating these types of restrictions could require imposing special compensation arrangements and/or limitations on the employee’s involvement with the work being done under government contracts.”
• “Most importantly, under the strictest laws, the company could face an absolute prohibition against maintaining or entering into new government contracts with the employee’s agency — or even other agencies in the same jurisdiction — regardless of whether the employee has any involvement in the process. For example, California Government Code § 1090 generally prohibits an agency from entering into a contract with a company that employs a member of the agency’s board, even if the employee recuses entirely from the agency’s contract discussions and approval process.”
• “Given the significant risks highlighted above, it is essential for companies to maintain a policy requiring employees to obtain prior approval before seeking or accepting any government position — no matter how minor it may seem. This requirement allows a company to properly vet those requests to protect the company from unforeseen consequences, both legal and reputational.”
• “A particular concern when faced with this dilemma is the fact that many states have labor laws that limit an employer’s ability to restrict the outside activities of its employees, and some specifically protect employees’ rights to serve in public office or participate in political activities. Such laws must be taken into consideration when evaluating potential restrictions or requirements to impose on an employee as a result of conflict laws.”

“Member of RFK Jr’s new vaccine panel withdraws over conflict of interest” —

• “A member of the health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr’s newly overhauled federal vaccine advisory panel withdrew after a conflict of interest review, a spokesperson has told the Guardian. Dr Michael Ross, who was involved in multiple private healthcare companies, withdrew after review of his financial holdings.”
• “Kennedy unilaterally fired all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP) in June, arguing they had too many conflicts of interest.”
• “Ross was among eight of Kennedy’s ideological allies appointed to the committee, after the secretary argued the old members of the committee were subject to too many conflicts of interest.”
• “‘Yesterday, Dr Michael Ross decided to withdraw from serving on ACIP during the financial holdings review,’ a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said.”
• “The spokesperson made the comments after Guardian inquiries about conflict of interest disclosures for new members of ACIP. Although the Trump administration and Kennedy developed a conflict of interest tracker specifically for ACIP members, Kennedy’s appointees have not been added.”
• “The new members of the committee were asked to disclose conflicts of interest before the meeting began on Wednesday. The committee chair Dr Martin Kulldorff and committee member Dr Robert Malone omitted widely reported work in vaccine litigation, and nurse Vicky Pebsworth said she was ‘asked to read’ a statement disclosed ownership of a healthcare stock but said it was below the government ethics office threshold for reporting.”

The conflicts tracker itself is fascinating, and is accessible here: “Conflicts of Interest Disclosures of ACIP Members”

“California AG is sued by his office’s lawyers for outsourcing climate case” —

• “California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s decision to hire an outside law firm to handle a high-profile climate lawsuit has drawn its own legal challenge — from lawyers in his office.”
• “The labor union that represents attorneys in Bonta’s office has filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court, saying the California State Personnel Board wrongfully sided with Bonta (D) who enlisted the law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in the state’s lawsuit against some of the world’s largest oil companies.”
• “The union — California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE) — argued that hiring outside lawyers violates state law and is dispiriting for the 1,100 attorneys on staff. The climate lawsuit, the union said, ‘are the kinds of cases that attract attorneys to come to work for the state in the first place.'”
• “‘To go hire a high-end law firm, as interesting as the litigation might be, it’s a run-of-the-mill, garden variety legal theory,’ CASE president Timothy O’Connor said in an interview. ‘Why they would need to go out to $1,600-an-hour attorneys for work that we feel is completely within the expertise of our very good and dedicated civil service attorneys is beyond me.'”
• “In court filings, the union said hiring an outside firm ‘deprives civil service attorneys of once-in-a-career opportunities’ and reduces ‘the few incentives that currently exist to entice young attorneys to come to work for the state.'”
• “‘Illegally outsourcing this work will do incalculable damage to the state’s legal workforce,’ the petition states, adding that it would ‘ironically lead to a greater need to outsource more legal work in the future due to a lack of expertise and experience that could be gained on a case like this.’ Bonta should have made certain he had the resources and staff to prosecute the case before it was filed, the union said.”
• “Bonta’s office said in court documents that although it has assigned five lawyers from the office to the case, its attorneys ‘lack sufficient experience and expertise in litigating such a massive lawsuit against an entire industry with nearly limitless legal resources at its disposal.'”
• “In a letter to the union, Bonta’s office called the lawsuit ‘one of the largest, most high-profile, and most significant cases the Department of Justice has ever litigated.’ If the climate cases are successful, the oil industry could be forced to pay hundreds of billions of dollars for harming the public — like tobacco and opioid manufacturers before it.”
• “Judge Shelleyanne Chang has scheduled a hearing in the case for June 27.”
• [UPDATE: At this hearing, the judge issued a tentative ruling rejecting the petition.]