“McCarter & English Fights DQ Bid In NJ Food Biz Quarrel” —

• “McCarter & English LLP pushed back on a disqualification bid from a New Jersey food industry executive in federal court this week, arguing that the plaintiff is attempting to ‘fabricate’ a previous attorney-client relationship to demand disqualification.”
• “Samil Ozavar told the New Jersey federal court in March that McCarter & English previously represented him around 2018 in a business negotiation and therefore should not now be allowed to represent his former business partner’s estate, which Ozavar is suing.”
• “However, McCarter & English told the court in a brief Monday that its engagement letter for its work on the previous deal made clear that its only clients were Ozavar’s business partner and his company – not Ozavar.”
• “‘Ozavar was never sent an engagement letter, he never executed one with the firm, and no legal services were rendered for him personally,’ McCarter & English said. ‘Ozavar points to no contrary evidence because it does not exist.'”
• “Ozavar is suing the estate of William Louttit and a company that he alleges he and Louttit shared ownership of, WAL & Associates, for over $3 million, with McCarter & English’s legal work at the heart of the dispute.”
• “Ozavar owned 15% and Louttit 85% of WAL, according to Ozavar’s lawsuit, and the two were also employees of New Jersey consumer food company Cibo Vita. In November 2018, Louttit reached out to McCarter & English about negotiating a deal for WAL to buy Cibo Vita, and signed an engagement letter with the firm for that work. The deal went through in May 2020.”
• “Cibo Vita was later sold again to a third party, which Ozavar claims should have entitled him to 15% of the proceeds under the agreement McCarter & English negotiated. Ozavar has said he was denied that money and he sued WAL and the estate of Louttit, who died in 2023, in December 2024.”
• “Ozavar moved to have McCarter & English dismissed as counsel for Louttit’s estate on the basis that it was representing him when it negotiated the deal for WAL to buy Cibo Vita. McCarter & English, however, poked several holes in that argument in Monday’s brief.”
• “The firm told the court that Louttit owned 100% of WAL, not 85%, and that therefore Ozavar did not receive any benefit from the legal work McCarter & English did per the agreement letter. The firm also did not bill Ozavar for its services, and Ozavar did not pay anything for the firm’s work, McCarter & English argued.”
• “Ozavar claimed that he was included on hundreds of emails and took part in dozens of conversations about the deal with counsel from McCarter & English. The firm did not dispute that, but maintained to the court that that did not change the fact that Louttit, not Ozavar, was its client.”
• “McCarter & English also told the court that Ozavar left out a relevant exchange in his disqualification motion: Ozavar at one point submitted an unsolicited proposal for the Cibo Vita deal to the McCarter & English attorney on the deal, but the attorney refused to review the proposal or discuss it because Ozavar was not his client.”

Board Of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court Of Tennessee: “FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 2025-F-171” —

• “The Board of Professional Responsibility has been requested to issue a Formal Ethics Opinion regarding the ethical propriety, in a products liability case, of a non-disparagement clause in a settlement agreement which makes the lawyers in Firm A parties to the settlement agreement proposed by Firm B.”
• “The inquiring lawyer has encountered a condition to settlement, in a product liability case against a certain defendant, which makes lawyers from the inquiring lawyer’s law firm parties to the Settlement Agreement which includes a non-disparagement clause prohibiting them from taking any action or making any statements, verbal or written, to any third party that disparage or defame Defendants.”
• “It has long been held in Tennessee that the attorney’s signature on a release should vouch only for the fact that the client releases the defendant. A requirement that a plaintiff’s attorney become a party to a release might cause a conflict of interest between the plaintiff’s attorney and the plaintiff in violation of DR 5-l0l(a), [Now RPC 1.7]. Therefore, these clauses are prohibited except in cases where the plaintiff’s attorney releases a claim for attorney fees.”
• “Notwithstanding the earlier Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion’s guidance on this issue, there is also a basis in the Rules of Professional Conduct to find non-disparagement clauses improper in a products liability case. Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6 (b) says “A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy.”
• “A non-disparagement clause as part of a settlement agreement requiring the firm’s lawyers to become parties would restrict the plaintiffs firm from using or discussing any information learned during the case that sheds a negative light on the Defendants, thereby indirectly restricting the plaintiffs’ counsel from informing potential clients of their experience and expertise, making it difficult for future clients to identify well-qualified counsel.”
• “Requiring a plaintiff’s attorney to become a party entering into a settlement agreement containing a non-disparagement clause in a products liability case raises ethical concerns and creates a conflict between the interests of the plaintiff’s attorney and those of their client. Consistent the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct and with Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinions 97-F-141 and 2010-F-154, an attorney cannot ethically agree to become a party to such agreements or clauses.”

“Irwin Mitchell ditches asset management arm after judge’s conflict criticism” —

• “National firm Irwin Mitchell has shed its asset management business one year after a damning ruling on a potential conflict of interest.”
• “Financial adviser Shackleton today announced it had set up its own personal injury and Court of Protection division after acquiring IM Asset Management (IMAM) from the Irwin Mitchell Group. The deal is subject to approval by the Financial Conduct Authority.”
• “The legal group sold the business notwithstanding the outcome of a directions hearing in Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation v PW & Anor which was held in October. Her Honour Judge Hilder had scheduled the hearing to determine whether the appointment of IMAM to handle client PW’s affairs could be ratified.”
• “PW, a mother of four, developed permanent brain damage after contracting viral encephalitis in hospital and settled a claim with the NHS trust for £1.85m and £151,000 per year in periodical payments. Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Irwin Mitchell LLP, was appointed as property and affairs deputy for PW. The deputy then determined to appoint IMAM as investment manager for a significant part of PW’s damages award.”
• “IMAM was wholly owned by Irwin Mitchell Holdings Ltd, which was also the controlling member of Irwin Mitchell LLP.”
• “IMAM told the Court of Protection at a hearing in January 2024 that the conflict of interest rule did not apply on the facts of the case. IMTC invited the court to have regard to the fact that it was a highly experienced deputy used to taking decisions about the investment of assets and appointment of advisers.”
• “Deputies from other firms gave evidence to the court about how financial advisers were appointed, but the judge said it was striking how none of them supported instructing a related investment manager. She concluded the appointment by IMTC of IMAM to manage PW’s assets ‘clearly conflicts’ with rules against self-dealing, and there was an actual conflict of interest in that the Irwin Mitchell group gained financially. This amounted to a ‘beauty parade in which a family member of a protected person participates’, and none of the processed adopted by IMTC could extinguish that conflict.”
• “Irwin Mitchell today said the sale of IMAM was not related to the case, where a ratification judgment is awaited, and was instead part of its strategy to focus and invest on its existing services.”
  “Craig Marshall, group chief executive at Irwin Mitchell, said: ‘This deal aligns with our strategy to simplify our structure and allows us to invest further to grow our core offer as a full-service law firm. We’re the leading complex personal injury firm, we have one of the largest national private client practices in the UK, and we provide comprehensive legal advice for mid-market corporate businesses.’”
  “Irwin Mitchell said the asset management sale was a continuation of a strategy showcased in 2021 when it sold its low-value volume PI business to focus on more complex cases. The firm, which exceeded £300m in annual revenue for the first time in 2024, has expanded in the past four years with office openings in Brighton, Cardiff, Liverpool and Nottingham.”
  “IM Asset Management Limited has performed well, according to accounts for the year ended 30 April 2024, with revenue just below £10m and pre-tax profits rising slightly to £3.48m. “