Bressler Risk Blog

“Why Documenting What You’re Not Retained to Do Can Be Important Too” —

• “In my experience, too many lawyers appear to be quite comfortable running with an assumption that their client’s understanding of what the scope of representation is aligns with theirs. This is one of the reasons why I suspect trying to convince lawyers to document scope of representation on all new matters is a never-ending task. Getting buy-in on documenting what one has been retained to do is hard enough. Now, I’m going to add to this advice a recommendation that lawyers should also be thinking about documenting what one has not been retained to do. It’s an uphill battle, I know; but it’s a battle worth fighting. Here’s an example of why.”
• “A nonprofit regularly reaches out to a plaintiff personal injury lawyer on behalf of clients of the nonprofit. After a family member was shot and killed by police, this nonprofit retained the lawyer for the purpose of gathering as much information about the shooting as he could, to include obtaining video footage of the shooting from the police department. The purpose was to provide the nonprofit’s client with information that would help her understand what led to the shooting. While the lawyer worked with the nonprofit’s client, the nonprofit paid his fee. Documentation of the lawyer’s role was minimal, consisting primarily of a few emails with both the nonprofit and its client, none of which properly addressed the issue other than to say he would take care of gathering information.”
• “…This is when things went off the rails. The nonprofit’s client reached out asking about the video and also raising concerns about what the recent running of the statute of limitations means for her case. Of course, in the lawyer’s mind he never agreed to pursue this claim. He viewed his role to be limited to information gathering. However, the nonprofit’s client appears to see it differently.”
• “The lawyer’s immediate concern was how his reputation might be damaged when the nonprofit’s client complains to the nonprofit. His fear was referrals might now go elsewhere. And then there’s the possibility of a grievance being filed and/or a malpractice claim, all for the want of proper documentation of his scope of representation.”

“Judge’s secret romance triggers courtroom conflict of interest” —

• “The failure of a Victorian judicial officer to disclose a secret personal relationship with a lawyer has been found to breach basic conflict of interest, but an investigating panel said the conduct is not serious enough to sack them.”
• “A panel of the Judicial Commission of Victoria (JCV) recommended that the judge not be kicked off the bench, despite their silence on an occasion when a lawyer they were romantically linked to appeared before them in court.”
• “The panel found the judge’s ‘personal and intimate relationship’ with the lawyer, and subsequent omissions about it during court proceedings, amounted to a conflict of interest. ‘The [judicial officer] failed to use the multiple opportunities when the prospect of an appearance arose to identify and respond to the potential issue. Instead, the officer promoted or condoned further appearances,’ a statement from the JCV said.”
• “The panel also said that when asked about the relationship and the failure to address the obvious ethical problem, the judge’s response tended to water down the significance of the conflict.”
• “The judge’s choices reflected poor-decision making, the panel said, and they must to attend at least one counselling session to ‘explore the stressors that contributed’ to this ethics breach.”
• “This latest JCV finding comes after another similar issue was addressed in the High Court about the relationship between a judge and barrister involved in a family court trail. That case has prompted the Australian Law Reform Commission to undertake a review of the laws on judicial impartiality and bias.”

Dentons Partners Shari L. Klevens and Alanna Clair remind us: “Watch Out for Risks When Moving Offices” —

• “As the practice of law adjusts to a post-pandemic world, many firms are evaluating their current office space and the lasting impact of the sudden transition to work-from-home over the last year. Because of anticipated changes to the office environment, some firms may look elsewhere for an office that better suits their needs.”
• “But a successful move requires overcoming numerous logistical challenges. Law firms may view the move as an opportunity to ‘clean house’ by discarding old or seemingly unneeded files that do nothing more than take up space. However, the decision to destroy files can be complex and may implicate the ethical obligations attorneys owe to their clients.”
• “If documents needed to protect client interests have been destroyed, the law firm risks not only the ability to defend against a legal malpractice claim brought by that client, but also may receive a bar grievance or other complaint for failing to take the steps necessary to surrender papers and property to which the client is entitled.”
• “This typically does not require law firms to maintain all records and papers indefinitely, however. Law firms can consider the costs associated with storing old files. For every law firm, the level of risk the firm is willing to take when disposing of old files versus the price it is willing to spend to keep them in storage will vary; there is rarely a one-size-fits-all solution to this issue.”
• “Generally, documents from closed files can be divided into three categories. The first category is documents, such as originals, that have special legal significance (wills, leases, contracts, etc.)… The second category includes documents subject to a “litigation hold” … The third category encompasses nearly all other documents… Those documents can be retained for the number of years required by state bar rules or until the statute of limitations for any legal malpractice claims has lapsed, whichever is greater.”
• “The ABA, in Informal Opinion 1384, identifies some additional considerations for attorneys deciding how long to hold onto materials or documents.”

ABA INFORMAL OPINION 1384: GUIDELINES FOR CLIENT FILE RETENTION/DISPOSITION —

• “Unless the client consents, a lawyer should not destroy or discard items that clearly or probably belong to the client. Such items include those furnished to the lawyer by or on behalf of the client, the return of which could reasonably be expected by the client, and original documents (especially when not filed or recorded in the public records).”
• “A lawyer should use care not to destroy or discard information that the lawyer knows or should know may still be necessary or useful in the assertion or defense of the client’s position in a matter for which the applicable statutory limitations period has not expired.”
• “A lawyer should use care not to destroy or discard information that the client may need, has not previously been given to the client, and is not otherwise readily available to the client, and which the client may reasonably expect will be preserved by the lawyer.”
• “In determining the length of time for retention or disposition of a file, a lawyer should exercise discretion. The nature and contents of some files may indicate a need for longer retention than do the nature and contents of other files, based upon their obvious relevance and materiality to matters that can be expected to arise.”
• “A lawyer should take special care to preserve, indefinitely, accurate and complete records of the lawyer’s receipt and disbursement of trust funds.”
• “In disposing of a file, a lawyer should protect the confidentiality of the contents.”
• “A lawyer should not destroy or dis pose of a file without screening it in order to determine that consideration has been given to the matters discussed above.”
• “A lawyer should preserve, perhaps for an extended time, an index or identification of the files that the lawyer has destroyed or disposed of.”

Interesting story from Canada: “Professional Negligence Claim Dismissed Against Lawyer Despite Conflict Of Interest And Breach Of The Standard Of Care” —

• “The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, sued their former lawyer, who had been disbarred by the time of the hearing. Their claim had nothing to do with allegations of missing trust funds or dishonesty which led to the lawyer being disbarred. Rather, it was a claim for professional negligence and breach of retainer.”
• “In mid-2011, the lawyer was asked to prepare documents in order to secure the outstanding loans from the plaintiffs. The lawyer prepared a General Security Agreement (GSA) over the assets of Maplesoft and registered the security under the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (PPSA). The plaintiffs were not directed to obtain legal advice, and the lawyer did not obtain written consent to the joint retainer or otherwise comply with the rules concerning conflicts of interest as required by Rule 3.4 of the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct.”
• “At first blush, it may have appeared that the plaintiffs had a strong claim. There was no doubt that their lawyer had acted in a conflict of interest and had failed to document the consent and instructions of his various clients. The lawyer admitted that he should have prepared a promissory note in 2011 in order to “paper the loan.” There was little doubt that the lawyer’s actions and omissions were careless and fell below the standard of care required of a reasonable and prudent lawyer in the circumstances of the retainer.”
• “None of this was sufficient, however, to establish liability for negligence. In that regard, the plaintiffs failed to show how the lawyer caused their alleged damages. Proof of loss is an essential element of an action for professional negligence. As stated by Justice MacLeod, “there can be no liability for negligence unless some consequential damage has been suffered by the plaintiff.”
• “Similarly, conflict of interest is not an independent cause of action without proof of damages resulting therefrom: Lacroix v. CMHC and McCann v. CMHC, 2016 ONSC 2641 (Div. Ct.)… it was not clear how the lawyer’s conflict of interest gave rise to any losses. The male plaintiff negotiated directly with the CEO of Maplesoft and there was no evidence that the plaintiffs had relied on the lawyer for business or financial advice. The male plaintiff had signed a release and subordination of security interest at Maplesoft’s request without seeking any advice from the lawyer before doing so.”
• “The decision affirms the principle that a finding of a breach of a duty of care or conflict of interest by a professional does not end the question of whether the professional was negligent or caused the plaintiffs any losses. Negligence requires proof of foreseeable damages that result from the alleged error or omission. Plaintiffs who focus on the alleged error or omission without taking steps to quantify and prove the damages that allegedly result therefrom may face a summary dismissal of their claim.”

“Christian Porter’s barrister discussed conflict of interest before taking ABC defamation case” —

• “Former attorney-general Christian Porter’s top barrister in his defamation case against the ABC has revealed she had key conversations about whether she should continue in the case while running on a treadmill in a Melbourne hotel.”
• “Sue Chrysanthou is being challenged over an alleged conflict of interest in the Federal Court, after she gave legal advice to someone linked to the allegations against Mr Porter before taking on his case.”
• “Mr Porter is suing the ABC over a story about an unnamed cabinet minister accused of a historical alleged rape. The article, published in February, did not name the attorney-general as the subject of the complaint, but Mr Porter’s legal team claim he was easily identifiable. He has strenuously denied the allegation.”
• “The hearing into Ms Chrysanthou’s alleged conflict of interest has been running for three days.”
• “It was also revealed that Mr Porter’s barrister had given some advice to Ms Dyer and others about a separate legal matter, before taking on Mr Porter’s defamation case. Ms Chrysanthou gave evidence at the hearing today and told the court she initially hesitated before taking Mr Porter’s case. ‘I said ‘I have to check, because of a conference I had,’ Ms Chrysanthou told the court. She also confirmed her junior solicitor told her taking the case was a bad idea. But Ms Chrysanthou said she took advice from more senior lawyers and decided there was not a problem.”
• “Ms Chrysanthou did agree there might be a question about whether the information Ms Dyer gave to her in the meeting was confidential or not, but said she accepted legal advice that said that was not an issue.”
• “She said she discussed an undertaking not to cross-examine Ms Dyer or another witness with instructing solicitors and possibly Mr Porter, while she was on a treadmill in a Melbourne hotel.”
• “During the three-day hearing into the alleged conflict of interest, the court has been closed several times while the confidential material said to have been exchanged between Ms Chrysanthou and Ms Dyer was discussed.”

“Gunster Out: Miami Judge Disqualifies Shareholder and Law Firm in Insurance Suit” —

• “The Miami-Dade Circuit Court has approved a motion to disqualify a statewide law firm and one of its shareholders from multi-year insurance litigation.”
• “Anthony V. Alfieri, the founder and director of the Center for Ethics and Public Service at the University of Miami School of Law, is not involved in the case. But Alfieri said Miller’s decision will be required reading for teachers of legal malpractice and law firm management, and for courts and practitioners in the field.”
• “‘Putting aside the prominence of the litigation teams and the widely respected expert witness Robert M. Klein, the decision [full text here] stands out not only because of its wide-ranging analysis of Florida ethics rules governing conflicts of interest (4-1.7, 4-1.8, and 4-1.9), and mandatory withdrawal (4-1.16), but also because of its vigorous application of the Daubert standard for expert testimony,’ Alfieri stated in an email Tuesday. ‘Equally important, the decision addresses both the doctrine of waiver and appearance of impropriety standard.'”
• “Part of the issue is that the law firms represent more than 80 insurance companies, including USAA Casualty Insurance Co. and USAA General Indemnity Co., who are the defendants in this underlying action.”
• “The law firms have argued since October that Ruiz did not have standing to raise issues primarily based on the conflict of interest arguments. But after multiple hearings, Miller denied motions to dismiss the disqualification motions.”
• “An appeal to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal also proved futile, court documents show. And after Miller held an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court ruled that Gunster and one of its shareholders, Angel A. Cortinas, a former Third DCA judge, should be disqualified from the litigation in the circuit court.”
• “Now, Miller ruled in the order that Gunster and Cortinas also cannot represent Akerman and Greenberg in the appeal of the circuit court order, finding that the law firm and Greenberg had a conflict of interest, and that they failed to produce information and data they were legally required to produce.”
• “‘The impact of the defendants’ actions are enormous,’ Ruiz said. ‘These lawyers and their clients have to think long and hard how they are representing multiple parties that have conflicts of interest with each other and it’s all to the detriment of the Medicare trust fund.'”

A little bit of everything, and everything new today. First, an interesting webinar from Clyde & Co: “Where next for the professions? Unintended consequences and unexpected opportunities in the new era: a keynote lecture”

Tuesday June 8 (12pm EDT)

• “This event should be of interest to senior management, GCs and those in risk roles at professional service firms and to GCs running in-house teams, as we all reflect on the challenges and opportunities which lie ahead.”
• “Professor Laura Empson [is] one of the world’s leading academic specialists in the management of professional services. Professor Empson is a Director and Professor at Cass Business School, Senior Research Fellow at Harvard Law School, was formerly an Independent Non-Executive of KPMG LLP and acts as an advisor to many of the world’s leading professional organisations. She is the author of books including ‘Leading Professionals: Power, Politics, and Prima Donnas,’ presenter of a BBC Radio 4 documentary ‘Insecure Overachievers’ about elite professionals and she co-hosts the podcast series ‘Empson & Morley – Leading Professional People.'”
• “Her speech will examine the changes to professional life and work which were prompted or accelerated by the pandemic. While many practical changes were made of necessity – and with speed and agility – by professional service firms in response to the lockdown, their unintended consequences present a profound challenge to some established ‘truths’ about professionals and the way they work together. Laura will explore the implications for both organisations and individuals, focusing on issues of knowledge, ethics, governance, organisational culture, and what it means to be a professional. The lecture will be followed by a Q&A facilitated by Simon Konsta, our global Head of Clients and Markets and former Senior Partner.”

Next a reminder that calendaring, docketing and deadline risk is real: “Milberg Clients Get Cert. In Recently Revived Malpractice Row” —

• “U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins said in an order filed Wednesday that the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by plaintiff Philip Bobbitt could proceed with class status on behalf of investors who hired Milberg years ago to represent them in a securities suit against an AIG subsidiary, only to lose class certification in that case after their attorneys missed the deadline for disclosing expert witnesses.”
• “‘In the very least, the factual basis for all the putative plaintiffs’ claims is the same,’ Judge Collins said. ‘For the legal malpractice allegations, defendants’ offensive actions are applicable to all putative plaintiffs: Milberg missed the expert witness deadline, so the class was decertified, and Milberg failed to notify the putative class.'”
• “First filed in 2009, the lawsuit claims Milberg dropped the ball on an underlying investor class action against AIG subsidiary Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. Investors had accused Variable of illegally selling them tax-sheltered annuity contracts to be included in individual retirement plans that already qualified for favorable income tax treatment, such as a 401(k).”

And, unrelated to law firm risk but an interesting story about risk management, mitigation, and more, I found this video a fascinating exploration and analysis, for those who might be interested on engineering risk: “What Really Happened at the Oroville Dam Spillway?” —

• “February 2017 saw one of the most serious dam-related engineering incidents in history with the failure of the service spillway at Oroville Dam. Whether they realized it or not, the people living and working downstream of Oroville Dam put their trust in the engineers, operators, and regulators to keep them safe and sound against disaster. In this case, that trust was broken. This video provides a summary of the event, including an explanation of the engineering details behind the failure.”

“Why It’s Worthwhile to Look for the Learning with Problem Clients” —

• “When it comes to problem clients, we all have a story or two to share; but what if it becomes more than that? What if a lawyer comes to realize that he or she is dealing with a problem client far more than once in a blue moon? It can happen, and if and when it does, it’s time to stop and do a little problem solving. It’s time to look for the learning.”
• “Problem clients are often described as having several of the following characteristics. They can be demanding, confrontational, disrespectful, angry, unreasonable, needy, highly emotional, entitled, vengeful and the list goes on. They may have unrealistic expectations, have a personal agenda, be difficult to stay in touch with, and they are often problem payors at a minimum.”
• “What am I to look for? Start by reviewing your intake process. This is where the “fail to establish” problem arises. While I believe most lawyers have learned to effectively screen potential new matters, not as many are quite as effective when it comes to screening potential new clients. Every new matter comes with a client and taking the time to try and determine if the potential new client is someone you can create a productive attorney-client relationship with is going to be time well spent. Understand that relationships that start out on the wrong foot rarely improve over time and accept the fact that no one is able to work well with everyone that walks through the office door. Look for and learn to recognize when it simply isn’t a match. That’s when you should be thinking about to saying thanks but no.”
• “In order to address the “failure to maintain” problem one needs to go a bit further. Step back and ask yourself whether your own actions throughout the representation helped create the problem client. Perhaps the client had some legitimate emotional needs (e.g., recently received some devastating news such as a cancer diagnosis) and you’re not one who relates well to highly emotional individuals. In other words, could your own inability to meet your client’s legitimate, yet non-legal needs have caused the client to be dissatisfied enough to become a highly volatile problem client? Have this discussion with everyone at your firm that interacted with the problem client. Be open to identifying communication shortfalls. Try to determine how the relationship went south. Take any learning that’s to be had from the experience and use it to improve your skills in successfully managing effective attorney-client relationships.”

With the Colonial Pipeline attack making front page news, this caught my eye: “CNA Financial Paid $40 Million in Ransom After March Cyberattack” —

• “CNA Financial Corp., among the largest insurance companies in the U.S., paid $40 million in late March to regain control of its network after a ransomware attack, according to people with knowledge of the attack.”
  “The Chicago-based company paid the hackers about two weeks after a trove of company data was stolen, and CNA officials were locked out of their network, according to two people familiar with the attack who asked not to be named because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly.”
• “In a statement, a CNA spokesperson said the company followed the law. She said the company consulted and shared intelligence about the attack and the hacker’s identity with the FBI and the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, which said last year that facilitating ransom payments to hackers could pose sanctions risks.”
• “In a security incident update published on May 12, CNA said it did ‘not believe that the systems of record, claims systems, or underwriting systems, where the majority of policyholder data – including policy terms and coverage limits – is stored, were impacted.'”
• “According to the two people familiar with the CNA attack, the company initially ignored the hackers’ demands while pursuing options to recover their files without engaging with the criminals. But within a week, the company decided to start negotiations with the hackers, who were demanding $60 million. Payment was made a week later, according to the people.”
• “Hades was created by Evil Corp. in order to bypass U.S. sanctions placed on the hacking group, according to research published in March by the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike Holdings Inc. In December 2019, the Treasury department announced sanctions on 17 individuals and six entities linked to Evil Corp. At the time, the Treasury department said Evil Corp used malware “to infect computers and harvest login credentials from hundreds of banks and financial institutions in over 40 countries, causing more than $100 million in theft.” The designation by the Treasury Department made it illegal for a U.S. company to knowingly pay a ransom to Evil Corp.”

And for those who read to the end, and worry about Ransomware, see: “Try This One Weird Trick Russian Hackers Hate” from security expert Brian Krebs.

“Jones Day Loses Bid to Squeeze Rival Orrick Over Firm’s Paris Partner Poach” —

• “A District of Columbia judge has refused to force Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe to disclose certain internal information to Jones Day, which accused a former longtime practice-leading partner in Paris of breaching his partnership agreement after he departed for the rival law firm two years ago.”
• “Jones Day lawyers asked a District of Columbia Superior Court judge in November to enforce an arbitral subpoena against San Francisco-based Orrick as part of an underlying proceeding involving the former partner. Many of the filings in the court case were redacted, leaving very little information available publicly. A judge sealed a telephonic hearing in April, denying ALM the opportunity to listen to the proceedings.”
• “Bühler, according to the newly filed court order, ‘transacted his employment arrangement with Orrick around the time he was representing a Jones Day client before an arbitral tribunal.’ An Orrick partner was a member of the arbitral tribunal. Jones Day asserted that Bühler did not tell the firm about a potential conflict of interest.”
• “One of the parties involved in the arbitration—the court ruling did not reveal any client names and attorney names—questioned the fitness of the arbitrator to remain on the panel, and the arbitrator was replaced. The arbitrator’s name also was not revealed in court papers.”
• “Jones Day has accused Bühler of a material breach of his partnership agreement and has argued he must forfeit any compensation that is due to him. Jones Day also contends that the firm is entitled to a ‘set-off of all costs incurred and damages arising out of Mr. Bühler’s purported actions.'”
• “The Williams & Connolly team for Orrick asked D.C. Superior Court Judge Alfred Irving Jr. to spurn Jones Day’s effort to enforce the arbitral subpoena. Irving concluded he did not have ‘general jurisdiction’ over Orrick and could not therefore compel the firm to respond to the subpoena Legg issued.”

“Lawyers, Colleagues Can’t Ignore Impairment, Ethics Opinion Says” —

• “Lawyers whose mental impairment affects their ability to practice law, as well as their colleagues who are aware of the problem, can’t ignore it because of ethical duties to firm clients, a California State Bar ethics advisory opinion said.”
• “‘These ethical obligations may include, but are not limited to, communicating significant developments related to the lawyer’s conduct to the client and promptly taking reasonable remedial action to prevent or mitigate any adverse consequences resulting from an impaired lawyer’s actions,’ the bar said.”
• “The California opinion proposed a scenario involving a rainmaker at a law firm who appeared confused about a client matter that had been ongoing for two years, couldn’t argue a motion on the client’s behalf; and didn’t communicate a settlement offer to the client. A subordinate attorney at the firm noticed the behavior and approached the impaired attorney, who denied any problems existed and stressed that the firm couldn’t lose the client.”
• “The impaired lawyer’s “proposed course of conduct involves, at a minimum, reckless, grossly negligent or repetitive violations of the duties of competence and diligence,” the opinion said. Further ethics rules that may be implicated include ones on client communication; conflicts of interest; and terminating representation, it said.”
• “Even though the impaired attorney won’t take any steps to deal with the issue, every lawyer in the firm who knows about it has an ethical obligation to protect the firm’s clients, the opinion said.”

The latest conflicts updates and analysis from friend of the blog Bill Freivogel:

• Wis. Memo. Op. EM-19-02 (Feb. 2, 2021).
  • “Bank #1 hires Law Firm to document a loan. The deal will involve a number of yet-unidentified additional lenders. As the deal progresses, Banks 2, 3, and 4 agree to participate. Law Firm is representing Bank 2 on other matters. Bank 2 may, or may not, wish to negotiate special terms for this deal.”
  • “Under what circumstances may Law Firm participate in such a negotiation for Bank 1? That is one of several scenarios discussed by this opinion. When is this a conflict? What if anything can be done about it? (advance consent, concurrent consent, withdrawal, etc.)”
  • “Your situation may not fit any of the scenarios neatly, but the opinion provides a list of issues likely to arise. A companion pair of opinions considers a law firm’s malpractice liability to the other lenders in a syndicated loan. Are they clients with privity? The cases are Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609 (2009), and McIntosh County Bank v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 745 N.W.2d 538 (2008). Context for all this is in the article cited by the Wisconsin opinion, Reade H. Ryan, Jr., The Role of Lead Counsel in Syndicated Lending Transactions, 64 Bus. Law. 783 (May, 2009).”
• Feinstein v. Freedman, 2021 ONSC 1493 (CanLII) (Ont. Super. Ct. April 12, 2021).
  • “Lawyer is acting as trustee of a family trust. This case involves Lawyer’s compensation as trustee. One objection to his compensation is that Lawyer had a conflict of interest in hiring his own law firm to do work for the trust. The trial judge approved Lawyer’s compensation. In this opinion the Divisional Court affirmed, holding, among other things, that ordinarily, it is not a conflict for a trustee to hire his own law firm to do work for the trust.”
• Stevens v. Brigham Young Univ. Idaho, 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 78879 (D. Idaho April 23, 2021).
  • “Lori Stevens is suing BYU Idaho (“BYU”) for sexual harassment arising out of Stevens’ intimate relationship with a now-deceased professor. BYU is seeking discovery of Stevens’ communications with LDS Church (“Church”) leaders relating to that relationship. Church intervened to protect those communications from discovery under the priest-penitent privilege. The church is represented by the Kirton Firm. Initially, BYU was represented by the Anderson Firm.”
  • “In the fall of 2020 the lawyers at the Anderson Firm, representing BYU, moved to the Kirton Firm. The Kirton Firm formed a screen between the lawyers representing BYU and Church. Stevens moved to disqualify the Kirton Firm from representing BYU in this case. In this opinion the court denied the motion with unremarkable conditions fortifying the screen at the Kirton Firm.”

An interesting story from the accounting world: “Grant Thornton in conflict of interest as was forensic auditor for Greensill-GAM investigation” —

• “The collapse of Greensill Capital, the supply chain financing firm, is still having repercussions with Grant Thornton, the administrator appointed to probe the collapse, facing the conflict of interest charges. Grant Thornton was apparently also involved in the investigation of Greensill’s relationship with Swiss asset manager GAM, according to sources.”
• “A trail of associations has come to light that ties Grant Thornton to the long chain of misdoings of Greensill. While conducting a forensic audit of GAM’s dealings with Greensill in 2018, Grant Thornton was also working for one of Greensill’s biggest customer, GFG Alliance, for which it was paid nearly £6 million(€6.96 million ) from 2016 to 2020. Grant Thornton has not publicly disclosed its role in the GAM investigation.”
• “GAM was a major investor in supply chain finance deals arranged by Greensill, including investing millions of dollars in metals magnate Sanjeev Gupta’s GFG. Sanjeev Gupta earlier had some share in Greensill too. There are questions about Grant Thornton’s role and involvement in GFG, Greensill and GAM’s triangular relationship. GFG’s relationship with Greensill is now subject to a Serious Fraud Office probe.”
• “Grant Thornton told the High Court in London after being appointed to audit Greensill that it had undertaken about 80 “diligence related instructions” in the past few years for GFG, for which it was paid £5.8 million from 2016 to 2020 for this work. Grant Thornton also reiterated before its appointment as administrator that it had given ‘careful consideration to the code of ethics relating to such matters’ and satisfied itself that there was ‘no threat to its independence as a result of any prior relationships.'”