Bressler Risk Blog

“Big Lots’ Ohio Attys Wrongfully DQ’d From Calif. Wage Fight” —

• “A California appellate court has vacated the disqualification of several Ohio attorneys representing Big Lots in an overtime pay dispute, determining that a state court jumped the gun by revoking their temporary admission to work on the putative class action after they solicited current and former employees.”
• “Rather than disqualify the Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease LLP attorneys, the San Diego County Superior Court could have temporarily barred them from continuing to solicit the discount retailer’s current and former employees in the case while it sorted out the dispute, the Fourth Appellate District held Friday.”
• “The lower court could have determined whether by contacting store and district managers who could prospectively be deposed in the case, Vorys lawyers Michael J. Ball, Jocelyn M. Hoffman and Daniel J. Clark were engaging in ethical misconduct that called for a corrective action, the three-judge panel determined.”
• “‘But in advance of such a hearing and appropriately supported findings, the circumstances did not justify barring all further participation by Big Lots’ counsel of choice based on conduct that occurred before the issue was ever presented to the trial court,’ the opinion said.”
• “‘The evidence adduced so far merely shows that Vorys and Big Lots innocently misinterpreted two pro forma orders granting routine pro hac vice applications,’ the opinion said. ‘Without more, that is an insufficient basis to effectively disqualify Big Lots’ counsel of choice.'”
• “A California federal court also weighed in on the dispute involving the Vorys attorneys in a related case. It determined in May that the lawyers did not exceed the scope of the authority the federal court granted them when they asked the workers if they wished for the firm to represent them as they participated in depositions as nonparty witnesses.”

“Alleged Pillow Talk Via Email” —

• “An attorney who allegedly provided his spouse with unfettered access to his law firm email account has been charged with violations of the duty of confidentiality by Ohio Disciplinary Counsel.”
• “The spouse is not an attorney and was not employed by the law firm. She is a ‘content metadata specialist for a large corporation.'”
• “The conduct was discovered by the firm shortly after the attorney moved to another firm when one of the attorney’s former clients sought the case file. An associate with access to his computer files found “derogatory” comments about firm employees.”
• “He allegedly gave his user name, password and firm domain information to his spouse one week after starting there. He was at the firm for nearly four years. The remarkable allegations are that he shared client confidential financial information with his spouse, that she had regular access to “client names, case types and descriptions of their legal issues,” and that she reviewed and sometimes edited his work emails.”

And Noel Semple is Assistant Professor at the University of Windsor Faculty of Law writes on SLAW: “If You See Something, Say Nothing: Why Lawyers Don’t Report to the Law Society” —

• “In identifying professional misconduct, legal regulators are heavily reliant on client complaints and receive relatively little help from practitioners. For example, 71% of complaints to the Law Society of Ontario in 2019 were brought forward by members of the public (typically clients) while only 12% came from legal professionals. The problem is that there are many forms of professional misconduct that only professionals, and not clients, can readily identify. Misconduct therefore goes undetected, leaving clients and others to be victimized by bad lawyers who should have been caught after previous offences.”
• “Lawyers have a duty to report certain types of misconduct, which listed in Rule 7.1-3. This includes any ‘conduct that raises a substantial question as to another licensee’s honesty, trustworthiness, or competency as a licensee’ and ‘any situation in which a lawyer’s clients are likely to be materially prejudiced.’ It is not clear that this rule is sufficiently understood and appreciated by practicing lawyers. I have personally heard lawyers describe professional misconduct which they would undoubtedly characterize as passing these thresholds, without any sense that reporting it might be an ethical obligation.”
• “Why don’t legal professionals complain more often about the bad eggs? I have asked lawyers this question. Some do not think the Law Society will do anything even if they do complain. Others are reluctant to play the role of ‘snitch’ or ‘tattle-tale.’ They perceive that their professional relationships will suffer if they complain about a fellow lawyer, even if the complaint is amply warranted. A complaint might create a grudge which would make it difficult to work with the individual in the future.”
• See the complete article for recommendations and community commentary

“NY Ethics Opinion on Judicial Screening: Ethics Opinions 1209” —

• “A former appellate judge, who was on a panel which issued a dispositive order about the scope of an easement, is personally disqualified from representing the owner of the servient estate of the same easement with respect to legal questions involving obstructions to the easement, equitable relief, adverse possession, and “overburdening” of the easement. However, the firm to which the former appellate judge is counsel may, pursuant to Rule 1.12(d), undertake the representation upon appropriate screening and notification.”
• “The inquirer is a New York lawyer who formerly served as a New York State appellate judge. Ten years ago, inquiring counsel was on a panel which issued a dispositive order confirming the validity and scope of an easement. Inquiring counsel, having retired from the bench, is now “of counsel” to a firm. That firm has been approached by the owner of the servient estate of the same easement with respect to questions involving the potential legal effect of obstructions to the easement, the possible availability of equitable relief to the owner of the dominant estate, the applicability of adverse possession, and whether subdivision of the dominant estate would result in an “overburdening” of the easement.”
• “Rule 1.12(a) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”) provides: ‘A lawyer shall not accept private employment in a matter upon the merits of which the lawyer has acted in a judicial capacity.'”
• “‘A conflict under Rule 1.12(a) is a non-waivable conflict’ (N.Y. State 1064, ¶ 4 (2015)), and should be read in conjunction with both the New York Code of Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 100) and Judiciary Law § 17”
• “If the inquirer’s law firm complies with Rule 1.12(d) by promptly and properly screening off the inquirer and by providing the specified notifications, and if no other circumstances in the particular representation create an appearance of impropriety, then Rule 1.12 will not prohibit the firm from accepting the representation despite the inquirer’s personal disqualification.”

“Calif. Judge DQ’d From Atty Fees Fight In Water Plan Dispute” —

• “A California appeals court Tuesday ruled that a lower court judge should be disqualified from hearing a dispute over attorney fees after the Imperial Irrigation District fended off a challenge to its water distribution plan, ruling the district had the right to request a new judge after its initial loss in the case was overturned on appeal.”
• “After Abatti won an initial judgment overturning the plan in superior court, the judge awarded him costs and attorney fees. That order was then reversed and the case remanded by California’s Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One for a new decision on fees and costs.”
• “The district subsequently filed a motion to disqualify the superior court judge overseeing the remanded case, as it was his judgment that awarded the fees to the opposing party. But that judge denied the disqualification bid on the basis that a second peremptory challenge cannot be made before a ‘final judgment’ is declared.”
• “Justices Judith McConnell, Patricia D. Benke and Patricia Guerrero for the Fourth Appellate District, Division One granted a post-appeal motion in favor of the district, writing in an unpublished opinion Tuesday that because its reversal on appeal resolved a monetary dispute, the remanded order constitutes a ‘final judgment’ as well as a ‘new trial’ and therefore allows for new peremptory challenges.”
• “In its petition to the appellate court, the district said Abatti was initially awarded over $300,000 in attorney fees and over $25,000 in costs. It further alleged that the judge overseeing the decision, the Honorable L. Brooks Anderholt, had ‘deep connections’ and a ‘proclivity toward’ Abatti.”
• “While not addressing those accusations specifically, the panel asserted the district’s right to disqualify the judge.”

This month’s sponsor thank you to our supporter Accuity features an interview with Mike Guernon, Global Director of Intake, Risk & Compliance at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

Listen to him explore: “How COVID-19 will Affect Risk Functions in Law Firms” —

• “We’ve got a large global footprint so we’re always dealing with a number of compliance issues that arise out of new legislation, new laws, new rules, new opinions. And my role has been and throughout my career is just to identify ways to improve the workflow and find the right tools. Whether it’s resources or technology that really take the sting out of the bureaucratic delays that can come with some of the compliance issues. Our focus has always been making it very efficient, making it painless and really raising the overall amount of compliance that we get… our forucs is really to be proactive about these risk issues.”
• “…everyone had to take drastic steps. We found ourselves in an unique position in that we had to be responsive to all of our clients’ needs. They had many questions, whether it was the state by state policies or some of the federal policies as they as they came about. And there was a concern to really be super responsive to what new markets and new demands were arising. At the same time, in our experience on the risk mitigation side, we were well familiar with similar events like the 2008 recession where you had similar reactions from the markets and from clients. And this very, very vocal need to get things done quickly. But our takeaways and I think risk management throughout law firm and legal.”
• “A key takeaways from 2008 was the amount of claims that would exponentially rise like 12 to 16 months after an event like that are alarming because people are anxious to get to the work. Sometimes in an attempt to do that, some of the risk protocols can sort of be overlooked. So our focus right from the jump was to be very, very responsive to our attorney needs, while at the same time making sure we were missing any of the critical steps from the basic to run the conflicts analysis within our database to make sure we didn’t have an ethical issue.”
• Listen to the complete podcast here.

See Also: Past Interviews from Accuity (in PDF form):

• Exploring issues including: strategies for making the case to invest in risk management, training and developing conflicts staff and navigating Outside Counsel Guidelines: “In Discussion with A Law Firm Risk Expert“
• Discussing topics including: current conflicts trends, the pressures facing conflicts teams, the opportunity for innovation in staffing model and technology: “In Discussion with A Law Firm Conflicts Expert”

“Reality of law firms’ approach to AML not living up to their policies” —

• “There is a difference between many law firms’ anti-money laundering (AML) policies and procedures, and what actually happens in practice, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has found.”
• “It also revealed that nearly two-thirds of the firms it reviewed in the first year of a new programme of AML checks needed ‘some form of engagement’ with the regulator as a result.”
• “The regulator said, in a report published this week, that these failings included ‘a lack of an effective compliance framework, or indeed a lack of any AML policies, controls, and procedures at all.'”
• “In other cases, at least half the files reviewed had “serious issues” such as a lack of due diligence, or the firm had a money laundering compliance officer who ‘did not appear to understand their obligations and was failing to carry out their role properly.'”
• “The SRA said that a large number of files showed differences between the firm’s policies and procedures and ‘what actually happened on the ground.’ However, the regulator said the law firms were ‘for the most part, united in their determination to keep the proceeds of crime out of their client accounts, and we were able to assist many of them in meeting their obligations.”
• “Speaking at the SRA’s virtual COLP and COFA conference yesterday, Zoe Allen-Robinson, its AML proactive supervision manager, said the majority of law firms ‘took their obligations seriously.'”
• “Suzie Ogilvie, global head of financial crime and sanctions at top City firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, said the pandemic had created ‘a number of challenges’ in terms of AML, such as a rise in impersonation frauds because lawyers were not meeting people face-to-face.”

“NJ Judge Disciplined for Refusing to Step Down From Her Landlord’s Cases” —

• “Lilia Munoz, a municipal court judge in Union City and Guttenberg, has been reprimanded by the state Supreme Court for a long-running and undisclosed conflict of interest.”
• “Munoz violated the canons of judicial conduct by presiding over multiple cases in which parties were represented by Ramon Gonzalez, an attorney who rented office space to her, the court said in an order made public on Monday.”
• “Gonzalez, who has his own law office in the same building, received rent payments from Munoz from 2008 to 2018 for a law office in a building in Union City that he and his spouse owned. And during that time, Gonzalez appeared before Munoz as counsel of record numerous times, in both Union City and Guttenberg, according to the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct complaint.”
• “Munoz, through her defense attorney, Robert Feder, admitted to the allegations in the complaint and that those facts constituted violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, according to a stipulation issued by the committee.”
• “The court also found Munoz violated an ethics rule requiring judges to disqualify themselves in proceedings where any factor might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead attorneys or parties to believe so.”
• “Among the various levels of discipline imposed on judges who commit ethical violations, a reprimand is more serious than an admonition, but less so than a censure, although each has a similar practical impact on the life of the judge.”

“Greenberg Traurig Clears Conflict Inquiry In $1B Fraud Case” —

• “A Tennessee federal judge on Friday found that potential conflicts of interest do exist between several attorneys representing a pharmacy owner and pharmacies accused of a $1 billion insurance scheme, but waived the conflicts pertaining to a pair of Greenberg Traurig LLP lawyers.”
• “In the suit, the government alleges that pharmacy owner Larry Smith, seven pharmacies and several other individuals conspired to deceive tens of thousands of patients and more than 100 doctors across the country in an elaborate scheme that attempted to bilk private health care insurers out of $931 million.”
• “Prosecutors raised concerns about possible conflicts of interest in the case in March, asking the court to further probe the matter. Specifically, they said Greenberg Traurig shareholder Gregory Kehoe, who represents Smith and two associated companies, previously represented a pair of potential witnesses in the case when they were deposed in a related civil suit in Florida.”
• “U.S. District Judge J. Ronnie Greer on Friday granted the government’s motion for judicial inquiry into possible conflicts of interest but found that the potential conflicts involving Kehoe and fellow Greenberg Traurig shareholder Danielle Kemp were waivable.”
• “‘Kehoe and Kemp properly obtained waivers from Smith and the two potential witnesses,’ the judge said. ‘The court has hereby accepted the waivers… [T]he content of the waivers reasonably ensure Smith made an informed decision to accept their continued representation'”
• “Specifically, the waivers Kehoe and Kemp obtained contained explanations and disclosures that adequately informed their client and former clients of the material advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of action, according to the order.”

“Ex-NRA Execs Fear Attorney Is Shielding LaPierre at the Group’s Expense” —

• “In early 2018, the National Rifle Association, alarmed by growing scrutiny from oversight agencies in New York State, hired attorney William A. Brewer III and his firm to fend off the threat. Rather than compromise, Brewer attacked. Today, the NRA — once considered the most powerful interest group in American politics — faces the prospect of extinction.”
• “Some NRA members and a handful of the gun group’s former leaders have long charged that Brewer has imperiled the organization by prioritizing the interests of chief executive Wayne LaPierre. Only recently has LaPierre gotten his own attorney in cases that involved both the NRA boss and the organization. LaPierre’s new attorney and Brewer share history: Both have worked for a development group behind a proposed ice skating complex in the Bronx that has been described as the largest in the world.”
• “In Brewer’s first year of service, the NRA paid his firm $19 million, or roughly $1.6 million a month, according to court filings and internal correspondence. If that monthly average has held, the firm has collected upward of $50 million to date — a conservative estimate given how the firm’s NRA workload has grown.’
• “In 2018, the NRA’s audit committee, at Brewer’s direction, started to retroactively approve financial transactions that had benefited insiders. Committee chairman Charles Cotton has defended the approvals, telling The Wall Street Journal that the committee had ‘confirmed that the services were rendered at fair market value and worked in the best interests of the Association.’ According to James’s complaint, however, the committee did not review any relevant records, such as contracts, so it failed to meet a state requirement that nonprofits approve only insider transactions that are determined to be ‘fair, reasonable and in the corporation’s best interest.'”
• “Arulanandam [NRA Public Affairs Director] said the firm has ‘helped the NRA prevail in a wide range of matters’ and pointed to the legal bills dispute, a recent settlement with a New York regulator, and a lawsuit that the NRA filed in 2019 against the city of San Francisco. (The NRA withdrew the San Francisco suit, which was not handled by Brewer’s firm.) ‘We are proud of the firm’s track record for the NRA,” Arulanandam said. “The firm’s scorecard is phenomenal.'”

Wanted to take a moment to wish every reader a Happy Thanksgiving. (And that goes for you international folks too, please find an excuse to eat some pie and hug a loved one this week as well.)

Very thankful for the engaged reader community that’s grown with this blog over the past 18+ months since launch.

I’m grateful in particular to the many who have sent in notes of support, referred friends and colleagues to sign up for updates, emailed articles and links of interest, and generally been nice people on the Internet. (I think more of that, and all of the above is generally a good thing to encourage.)

With hopes of a bit of relaxation and refreshment for all within eyeshot of these pixels, and optimistic wishes for a smoother 2021 and beyond, signing off for a few days.

(Unless there’s a crazy conflict making news. Then I’ll post. >smile<)

db

“King & Spalding M&A Leader Woolery Launches Boutique” —

• “Jim Woolery, the former Cravath, Swaine & Moore dealmaker who recently led the M&A practice at King & Spalding, launched this week a new boutique focused on representing families and family offices in blockbuster transactions.”
• “‘Increasingly, as law firms become like the large accounting firms, there’s going to be a role for the independent boutique model in the way there wasn’t before,’ Woolery said Thursday.”
• “Woolery said he brings with him roughly 20 ‘blue chip’ clients, including 10 that he described as ‘very significant.'”
• “The firm’s independence will allow it to work quicker, Woolery boasts, sparing it from extensive conflict checks that touch not on just other deal work but also the efforts of litigators and those handling investigations into special matters. These checks cannot only slow down the work flow but also compromise the confidentiality of deals within a law firm. Woolery was quick to emphasize that he had no particular issues with King & Spalding and painted these challenges as inherent in all large firms.”

“Former Federal Prosecutor and AmLaw 100 Partner, David M. Chaiken, Launches National White Collar Trial Boutique” —

• “Top white collar trial partner and former federal prosecutor David M. Chaiken announced today the formation of ChaikenLaw Ltd., a boutique national white collar litigation and investigations law firm based in Atlanta.”
• “said Chaiken: ‘Our goal is to provide the highest quality legal representation to our clients—equal to that of any top firm in the country—but with some of the efficiencies that can be achieved in a smaller setting, such as lower overhead, fewer conflicts, and more flexible fee arrangements.'”

“Ex-Faegre Attorney’s Past Work for Biomet Not Disqualifying” —

• “Thompson is an associate at Bachus & Schanker LLC, the Bayeses lead counsel. She began her legal career several years earlier at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, where she did routine, entry-level work on products liability cases involving Zimmer Holdings Inc.’s Durom Cup metal-on-metal hip implant.”
• “Zimmer and Biomet were rivals at the time, but merged shortly before Thompson left the firm. Thompson entered an appearance on behalf of the merged firm in one case in Utah state court. That case involved a different hip implant and didn’t raise defective design claims, the court said.”
• “The court undertook an extensive look at six factors relevant to determining if Thompson’s representation of the Bayeses was substantially related to her representation of Biomet in the Utah case. It concluded this wasn’t ‘a close call.'”
• “Only one factor arguably weighed in Biomet’s favor—the knowledge of Zimmer’s negotiating strategy Thompson gained during the Utah case, the court said Thursday. The court said it doubted Thompson’s knowledge of or contribution to those strategies was significant and, in any event, an adverse finding on a single factor wasn’t enough to disqualify her.”

“Quinn Emanuel no longer represents Steve Bannon after he suggests beheading Dr. Fauci” —

• “Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan has said it is no longer representing Steve Bannon after the former strategist for President Donald Trump made controversial remarks on a podcast.”
• “Quinn Emanuel partner William Burck did not disclose the reason for withdrawing from Bannon’s defense on charges that he defrauded donors to an online crowdfunding campaign to help pay for the border wall.”
• “Burck’s Nov. 6 letter to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York merely said Bannon is in the process of retaining new counsel, and Quinn Emanuel intends to move to withdraw.”
• “The New York Times spoke with Stephen Gillers, a professor at the New York University School of Law, about the withdrawal. Speaking generally, Gillers said lawyers will withdraw when a client sabotages their work. ‘Bannon’s public comments made Burck’s job more difficult,’ Gillers said. ‘Burck was hired to fight the prosecutors and should not also have to do battle with his own client.'”
• “The New York Law Journal also points out that prosecutors had raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest because Quinn Emanuel lawyers were involved in work for the crowdfunding campaign, called We Build the Wall. Burck had responded that none of the lawyers working on Bannon’s criminal case had been involved in that work.”

It’s Friday, so I’ll start with a personal anecdote and a bit of thought on the subject of lawyer email. (Don’t worry, we’ll have plenty on meat and potatoes conflicts news next week, I’m sure.)

Last year, out of the blue, a lawyer emailed me, at my personal address, draft trust documents meant for a client. I wrote back noting the error, and deleted the documents — which contained obviously sensitive client financial and family information. The lawyer didn’t respond…

A few weeks later, I received another round of documents, now ready for execution. I called the local Bar in his state to understand what I should do here about this lawyer. I ended up writing back to him, suggesting he acknowledge the error and promise to fix it, before creating further risk for his client and himself. (I might have mentioned that I asked the Bar what to do… That got his attention and quick response. Teachable moment accomplished.)

Questions of email diligence and issues like encryption often touch on inadvertent disclosure to someone like me (or in the case below opposing counsel). And the article linked below covers the basics, ABA rules, and latest thinking.

But one element I have yet seen really considered is the extent to which our email providers may be indexing data, storing information and building profiles — and how that might or should factor into this equation.

In my situation above, did Google scan the trust document in question? And does it now know that user X with social security and identifying information Y has net worth Z? Or even that a particular lawyer or firm is representing a particular client on a matter? (We all know it’s scanning and analyzing files, it tells you as much when you click that attachment download button.)

If a lawyer sends documents via Gmail or the like, do or will recipients start seeing more “relevant” ads based on the content — perhaps in this case more exacting detail on their net worth, assets and personal relationships? Or based on other factors we mortals don’t understand but the algorithms do?

In sending unencrypted email and attachments, did the lawyer just disclose/reveal confidential information to Google? I guess the rules don’t think so, at least not today. Will they one day? Or am I still reading too much sci-fi?

(Interestingly, it’s my layperson’s understanding that you can’t do this sort of thing with health information. Per HIPAA and related rules, if a medical provider sends an email that says: “Your test results show X” over Gmail, that’s a no-no. Providers set up encrypted portals with logins and whatnot for communication beyond generic scheduling and such. I’m sure no reader will be shocked to hear I have a similar story to share about an exchange with one provider’s lawyer in this regard. Perhaps for another day…)

Okay, back to the article. Here, Lawyer Irwin Kramer summarizes the rules and developments: “Encryption Ethics” —

• “After emailing several documents to opposing counsel, she slammed me for failing to encrypt the message and exposing records on her client’s medical history. Must I encrypt these emails?”
• “There are no rules which expressly require an attorney to encrypt email messages. But you must still make reasonable efforts to protect the privacy of sensitive data and communications.”
• “Where attorney-client communications are concerned, the Rules of Professional Conduct provide that an ‘attorney shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client.’ In response to the increasing threat of data breaches among law firms, many states have begun to implement a rule requiring lawyer to ‘make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.’ Modifying its Model Rules to account for technological change, the American Bar Association has commented that ‘competent’ lawyers ‘should keep abreast of … the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.'”
• “But what about information pertaining to adversaries and other third parties? To date, most of the literature focuses on attorney-client communications. But the rules recognize an attorney’s duty to respect the rights of third persons. Just as Rule 4.4(b) requires a lawyer to notify the sender of ‘electronically stored information … relating to the representation of the attorney’s client’ that may have been ‘inadvertently sent,’ the same degree of professionalism should apply to sensitive information on these individuals.”

“Maxell Scoffs At DLA Piper’s ‘Ethical Screen’ In Apple IP Suit” —

• “Maxell, represented by Mayer Brown LLP, and Apple, represented by DLA Piper, have been locked in the disqualification dispute in the run-up to a Dec. 7 patent trial, arguing over whether DLA Piper can still participate after it was found that former Mayer Brown lawyer Justin Park, who went to DLA Piper in January, allegedly brought privileged Maxell documents with him.”
• “‘DLA Piper’s opposition is devoid of any adequate response to Maxell’s allegations that DLA Piper failed to implement a timely, effective ethical screen for Mr. Park … DLA Piper had and has in its possession Maxell highly confidential and attorney-client privileged documents which it previously denied having,’ Maxell said.”
• “According to Maxell, it found out DLA Piper had been hired by Apple regarding an International Trade Commission matter at the end of July. DLA Piper says it began a screening process on July 30 with regard to Park and Maxell, and completed it “well before August 28,” the date the firm says Apple hired it for this Maxell case. But Maxell says this screen was “insufficient” and didn’t prevent the sharing of documents.”
• “Maxell said that from 2016 to January 2020, Park worked on all of Mayer Brown’s smartphone matters for Maxell and was an ‘integral part’ of the company’s litigation team, billing hundreds of hours.”

“Atlanta Law Firms Deny Conflict In Georgia Election Suits” —

• “Atlanta-based law firms Taylor English Duma LLP and Robbins Ross Alloy Belinfante Littlefield LLC on Thursday denied an alleged conflict of interest over their involvement in representing Georgia election officials in one voting suit and the Donald Trump campaign and Georgia Republicans in another.”
• “The law firms have drawn fire for what critics say is an untenable position: both defending the Georgia election process while also representing Republicans who’ve alleged problems in the state’s count of 2020 presidential ballots.”
• “‘Taylor English attorneys have not brought any litigation asserting voter fraud, nor are we representing any entity in a challenge to or contest of Georgia election results,’ the firm said in an emailed statement. ‘We have taken no action on behalf of any client adverse to the legal interests of the Georgia secretary of state, and vice-versa. We have no conflict of interest.'”
• “Taylor English and Robbins Ross lawyers both are defending Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and state election board members in a three-year federal court case challenging the state’s election process. The same lawyers also represented Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party of Georgia in a post-Election Day suit alleging 53 ballots were wrongly counted in the Savannah area, which was promptly dismissed by a Chatham County Superior Court judge.”
• “Cunningham [Georgia State University College of Law legal ethicals professor], who is not involved in the election litigation, said he was astounded that lawyers who had for years represented the state in defending its election process would simultaneously challenge that process on behalf of Trump’s campaign and the Georgia Republican Party. ‘How can that be anything than entirely inappropriate? I think it’s appalling,’ Cunningham said. ‘Even if the representation of the secretary of state and the Trump campaign were completely unrelated, I think it would still be a problem, but they’re closely related. And right now the secretary of state needs to have unimpeachable integrity in dealing with this election.'”
• “Cunningham said at minimum the Taylor English and Robbins Ross attorneys should have asked for Raffensperger’s permission to represent Trump and Georgia Republicans, but that regardless the conflict was too serious to be waived by consent.”

A local paper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution also covers the story: “Does representation of both Trump and state create a conflict of interest?“