“Sullivan & Cromwell Didn’t Ignore FTX Red Flags, Second Examiner Report Concludes” —

• “After an initial inquiry cleared Sullivan & Cromwell of allegations that the firm knew—or should have known—of the fraud at FTX prior to representing the company as debtors counsel, a second report from a bankruptcy court-appointed examiner cleared the law firm of a disqualifying conflict of interest in the case.”
• “Wednesday’s report from independent examiner Robert J. Cleary of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler found no disqualifying conflict of interest in Sullivan & Cromwell’s pre-petition work helping FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried acquire the shares of the Robinhood trading platform, which Cleary described as regulatory in nature.”
• “Cleary also found that the April 2022 matter did not make Sullivan & Cromwell aware of the fraud and that the firm didn’t ignore any ‘red flags.'”
• “After creditors, academics and U.S. senators criticized Sullivan & Cromwell’s representation of FTX as debtors counsel, alleging a potential conflict of interest due to the law firm’s 20 pre-petition matters for FTX, Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo of the Third Circuit said the prepetition work was among several reasons why an independent examiner was warranted.”
• “An initial report from Cleary in May found that Sullivan & Cromwell was unaware of the fraud during its pre-petition work for FTX, but Cleary called for an additional investigation into whether Sullivan & Cromwell had a conflict of interest (or knew of the fraud, or should have known of it) during its work for Bankman-Fried personally as he sought to acquire shares of Robinhood.”
• “The second report came after a review of more than 700 documents, mostly email exchanges between FTX Group in-house counsel and Sullivan & Cromwell partners, as well as interviews with partners Andrew Dietderich, Mitch Eitel, Joseph Hearn and Eric Queen.”

“Attorney Can Take Business Without Compensating Former Firm” —

• “A [Colorado] state supreme court recently rejected an attempt by a law firm to charge a departing associate attorney for lost “marketing expenses” when the associate took clients to a new firm.”
• “In Johnson Family Law, P.C. v. Bursek, the court refused to enforce a ‘reimbursement agreement’ when a resigning associate took clients with him, concluding the agreement unreasonably restricted the attorney’s ability to practice law.”
• “The court reasoned that charging undifferentiated fees to departing attorneys substantially disincentivized lawyers from continuing their representation of clients. ABA Litigation Section leaders agree with the decision but note law firms may still be permitted to recover fees in limited circumstances. Litigation Section leaders further note that law firms can seek to retain associates—and thus clients—in other ways that do not run afoul of ethics rules.”
• “When an associate left his former family law firm in Denver, 18 clients followed. But the firm claimed the attorney owed $18,936 for the privilege of taking clients. The firm argued it should be repaid $1,052 per client for ‘marketing expenses’ under the reimbursement agreement. These expenses, the firm asserted, represented ‘historic costs’ for promotion.”
• “The associate challenged the agreement, claiming it violated Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6, which prohibits a lawyer from entering into an agreement ‘that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the [employment] relationship.'”