Risk Update

Conflicts, Clients & Risk — Lateral Leaver’s Alleged Client Poaching Provokes Protest (and Push for Payment)

Posted Dan Bressler

Always with thanks for his work, here’s some of the latest from Bill Freivogel:

Chian v. Meng, No. HHD-X03-CV-22-6165940-S (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford Dist. Oct. 30, 2024).

  • “Plaintiff had donated $1.9 million to a Chinese-oriented religious organization for purchase of real estate. In this case Plaintiff is claiming Defendant wrongfully obtained ownership of the property. Plaintiff moved to disqualify Defendant’s lawyer (‘Lawyer’) in this case.”
  • “In this opinion the trial court granted the motion. Lawyer had handled the original property purchase and was involved in the conveyance to Defendant. In a lengthy analysis of Connecticut cases the court concluded it was ‘patently clear’ the earlier conveyances and this case are substantially related.”

Hill v. SHR Luxury Condo. Assoc., Inc. No. 09-22-00339-CV (Tex. App. 9th Dist. Nov. 14, 2024).

  • “Trial Court denied a motion to disqualify because the movant waited eleven months, and until one month before trial, to make the motion. In this opinion the appellate court affirmed.”

Gil-White v. Alterna Capital Partners, LLC, No. 655864/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Oct. 25, 2024).

  • “Plaintiffs, represented by Law Firm, have sued five defendants for ‘conspiracy to seize’ Plaintiffs’ oil rigs. Defendants include AMA Capital and Paul Leand. Earlier, in 2023, Plaintiffs, represented by Law Firm, filed, in Florida, a nearly “identical” case against all Defendants (but, not Leand).”
  • “In the Florida case, Defendants moved to disqualify Law Firm, because Law Firm was representing AMA in an unrelated arbitration. The Florida court granted the motion. This opinion deals with Defendants’ motion to disqualify Law Firm in this case. This motion raised issues of jurisdiction and preclusion. We are skipping those.”
  • “In this opinion the court found New York Rule 1.7 (current client) applied. Law Firm attempted to avoid that finding by noting it had previously dismissed AMA in the Florida case, and terminated its relationship with AMA. This court said ‘nothing doing’ because it looked to the relationship when Law Firm first sued AMA in Florida. The court found a conflict regarding Leand because Leand was head of AMA, and said ‘it follows’ disqualification must extend to all Defendants.”

Kneeshaw v. Super. Ct., No. G064831 (Cal. App. Unpub. 4th Dist. Nov. 7, 2024).

  • “In this unpublished opinion the appellate court reversed a trial court’s exclusion of Plaintiff’s expert. The trial court had noted the expert was a “distant” relative of Plaintiff and Plaintiff is paying the expert. The appellate court said, in effect, all that was grist for cross-examination.”

 

“Clifford Law Sues Ex-Partner For Allegedly Poaching Clients” —

  • “An Illinois firm specializing in personal injury and wrongful death cases has accused a former partner of stealing clients when he left the firm in February and not making appropriate arrangements for his former firm to get fees for certain cases.”
  • “In a Thursday complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Clifford Law Offices PC said its former nonequity partner, Jack J. Casciato, took files from certain cases the firm was engaged in ‘without securing an agreement as to’ the firm’s ‘proprietary interest.'”
  • “‘At the heart of this matter are seven known cases for which plaintiff CLO seeks a declaratory judgment from the court as to its proprietary interest and its proper compensation,’ the complaint says.”
  • “Clifford Law also seeks an ‘equitable accounting and damages for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, interference with a contractual relationship’ related to ‘two recently uncovered cases.'”
  • “Casciato, who joined Clifford Law in 2018, left in February to start a new firm, the complaint says. He resigned ‘suddenly’ via email, according to the complaint.”
  • “Clifford Law contends Casciato ‘conceived of and took all necessary steps to establish a new law firm which began operation on the very day he gave his resignation via email suddenly and without notice.'”
  • “‘For a yet unknown period of time before his resignation, defendant Casciato engaged in a scheme to build up a stable of cases that he would bring along to his new firm,’ the suit alleges.”
  • “Clifford Law says Casciato convinced clients to leave for his new firm, delayed at least one case so he could file it as his new firm and misled Clifford Law about the status of certain cases.”
  • “‘Without knowledge of the aforesaid efforts, plaintiff CLO made accommodations to see to the orderly transfer of case files that defendant Casciato indicated he wanted to bring to his new firm,’ the complaint says. ‘Plaintiff CLO further sought to negotiate in good faith the appropriate division of attorney’s fees on those cases.'”
  • “However, Clifford Law contends its former attorney’s ‘misconduct is still being uncovered through an effort to piece together his cryptic communications and activities for a period of months before his sudden resignation via email.'”
  • “At issue are seven cases Casciato asked to take to his new firm involving clients who signed a contingency fee representation agreement with Clifford Law, according to the suit.”
  • “After the clients in those cases told Clifford Law they would be ending their relationship with the firm and following Casciato to his new firm, communications between the parties commenced as to how Clifford Law would be compensated, according to the complaint. Clifford Law contends that per policy, it ‘is entitled to a percentage of the attorney fees on each case that ultimately leaves with the departing attorney.'”