“Indictment Of Partner Does Not Disqualify Firm” —

• “The New Jersey Appellate Court affirmed the denial of a motion to disqualify a law firm based on the indictment of a partner who withdrew after the criminal charges were brought:
  • ‘Plaintiff Penelope Mauer appeals from the trial court’s July 31, 2024 order denying her motion to disqualify the law firm of Brown & Connery LLC (B&C) as counsel for defendants. The primary issue on appeal is whether the indictment of William Tambussi, Esq. (Tambussi), a law partner at B&C, creates a conflict of interest requiring the disqualification of the entire law firm from representing defendants in this action. We conclude no conflict of interest exists under the circumstances presented and therefore affirm the trial court’s decision.’
  • ‘In June 2024, the State indicted Tambussi, alleging that he participated with George Norcross in crimes related to the development of the Camden waterfront. The indictment states Tambussi ‘is an attorney and partner’ at B&C and ‘the long-time personal attorney to’ Norcross. It alleged Norcross and his associates extorted and coerced others to acquire property and development rights and that Tambussi ‘was an active participant in the Norcross Enterprise’s plot to use . . . Camden’s government to bring a condemnation action’ against a developer.’
• “Tambussi then withdrew and was replaced by other counsel from his firm:
  • ‘Against the backdrop of Tambussi’s indictment and B&C’s continued representation of defendants, plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify the law firm. Specifically, she contended B&C had an unwaivable conflict of interest due to the Attorney General’s indictment of Tambussi. Relying on Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.7(a)(2), plaintiff argued Tambussi’s indictment created a ‘significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person, or by a personal interest of the lawyer.’ She asserted this conflict was imputed to the other lawyers associated with B&C under RPC 1.10.’
  • ‘Contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, the indictment of Tambussi does not create a positional conflict requiring B&C’s disqualification. Notably, the DOL has not determined a positional conflict exists, as required by the AG Guidelines. Id. at 3. Indeed, Cohen, who is fully aware of the underlying litigation and plaintiff’s motion to disqualify, certified the DOL has not terminated B&C’s representation of defendants or requested their withdrawal. Defendants also certified they desired the continued representation by B&C. ‘
  • ‘Moreover, the indictment named Tambussi individually as a defendant. Tambussi did not perform any substantive work in this case prior to the indictment. Additionally, the allegations against Tambussi regarding certain real estate transactions in Camden are far afield from plaintiff’s underlying CEPA and breach of contract claims in this consolidated matter.’
  • ‘Thus, in defending against plaintiff’s employment-based claims, B&C will not be required to advocate a position that is inconsistent with or prejudicial to the State’s interest in prosecuting unrelated criminal charges against Tambussi.’
  • ‘Plaintiff’s argument presupposes Tambussi in fact had a conflict based on his indictment. However, we need not reach that issue because even if we assume, for the purposes of this appeal, he had a conflict under RPC 1.7(a)(2) based on ‘there [being] a substantial risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited . . . by a personal interest of the lawyer,’ that does not end the inquiry. A finding that Tambussi had a conflict based on his ‘personal interest,’ in turn, requires us to consider whether his purported conflict under RPC 1.7 is imputed to B&C under RPC 1.10. Assuming a conflict exists for Tambussi under RPC 1.7(a)(2) because of a personal interest as a result of the indictment, there would be no imputed conflict to B&C under RPC 1.10 because no conflict is imputed when the purported conflict is ‘based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer,’ provided the personal interest ‘does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.’ Plaintiff has made no such showing here.’

“Judges cannot provide analysis on executive orders, MD ethics panel says” —

• “Maryland judges cannot provide bar association members with information or legal analysis on White House executive orders, the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee found in an opinion published on Tuesday.”
• “The opinion, published in response to a judge and a Maryland State Bar Association section council member’s inquiry, states that a judge’s participation in providing legal analysis on the White House executive orders ‘might reasonably raise a question of impropriety,’ contrary to the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct.”
• “‘Although judges appropriately participate in general educational activities through the MSBA and other bar organizations, in our view, for the current and recalled/senior judges who serve on these MSBA committees, the evaluation and analysis of White House Executive Orders is so specific that it would constitute the practice of law and, moreover, can be seen as indirectly advising the members’ clients themselves,’ the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee wrote.”
• “The ethics committee added that providing legal analysis on executive orders could also be viewed as engaging in ‘partisan political activity,’ which is prohibited by the judicial conduct code.”
• “In the opinion, the ethics committee also recognized that the executive orders have spawned numerous lawsuits nationwide, mostly in federal courts, but noted that similar lawsuits could be filed in Maryland courts—a fact that could potentially call into question a judge’s independence, integrity and impartiality.”
• “Raphael Santini, president of the MSBA, said the ethics committee’s opinion addresses a limited issue and has a narrow application.”
• “‘We respect the opinion of the Judicial Ethics Committee, and it should be observed in this narrow application by all members of our profession,’ Santini said in a statement on behalf of the MSBA. ‘We will continue to welcome judicial participation in a wide variety of MSBA activities, including continuing legal education, events, leadership and more as allowed under this opinion and prior opinions.'”

“Big Law’s Peril From Trump Orders Is Shown in Court Filings” —

• “WilmerHale and Jenner & Block laid bare the existential risks Donald Trump’s orders pose as the law firms rushed into court to stop the president. Trump’s directive to cut companies’ federal contracts for which WilmerHale has done work could affect 21 of the firm’s top 25 clients, the firm said in its March 28 lawsuit. The order threatens ‘the very viability of the firm’s business model,’ WilmerHale said.”
• “WilmerHale’s loss of clients who are contractors ‘would be a devastating blow,’ US District Judge Richard Leon said late on March 28. ‘This says nothing of the potential clients who may not even consider hiring’ the firm because of contract worries, he said.”
• “Leon temporarily blocked Trump’s order against WilmerHale in part, while in a separate courtroom US District Judge John Bates for now halted the directive against Jenner & Block. The blocking actions late on March 28 follow Perkins Coie’s March 12 win of a temporary order stopping part of Trump’s directive against that firm.”
• “Despite the temporary wins, details about the orders in the March 28 lawsuits filed by WilmerHale and Jenner & Block show the devastation the directives threaten for the firms’ bottom lines. Together the two firms collected more than $2 billion in revenue in 2023, according to the American Lawyer.”
• “More than 40% of Jenner & Block’s revenue last year came from clients who are US contractors, subcontractors, or affiliates, the firm said in its lawsuit. ‘If we lost that business, or even a portion of it, it would be a serious threat to the firm’s financial health,’ firm chair Thomas Perrelli said in a court filing.”
• “The devastating effects spelled out in the firms’ lawsuits show why big law operations have been so quick to fight Trump’s orders. They also help explain why Paul Weiss and Skadden moved so fast to strike deals with the president.”
• “A key question going forward for law firms facing Trump’s ire is what clients prefer they do—and whether those customers will stand by them in a fight with the president.”
• “‘The critical question is how will the clients respond,’ said Jeffrey Gordon, a professor at Columbia Law School. ‘It’s up to them in a certain way.'”
• “Trump’s orders targeting law firms cut to the heart of their operations by limiting lawyers’ access to federal buildings—access they need to do their jobs—and by discouraging companies with US contracts from using the firms’ services.”
• “WilmerHale showed how much is at stake by the lawyer it hired to battle Trump—Paul Clement, a conservative who is one of the top US Supreme Court litigators of this era.”
• “Jenner & Block said the portion of Trump’s order that restricts firm lawyers from accessing government buildings is particularly painful.”
• “Unlike many other law firms, nearly 90% of Jenner’s attorneys focus on litigation, the firm said in a court filing. It currently has around 540 active matters pending before US courts and agencies that require access to federal buildings and officials, Perrelli said.”
• “Part of the order barring Jenner’s lawyers from federal spaces is already being enforced, the firm said. The Justice Department told a firm client not to bring Jenner to an April 3 meeting.”
• “Clients are already asking about how the order will hurt the firm’s ability to attend future meetings with other government agencies, according to Jenner’s filing.”
• “‘Partners at the firm have spent hundreds of hours, collectively, speaking with clients about the order and its implications,’ said the firm, which is being represented by Cooley’s former litigation chair Michael Attanasio.”
• “Like WilmerHale, Jenner expressed concern over preserving the confidentiality of attorney-client relationships.”
• “‘I can understand the short-term capitulation,’ said Adam Badawi, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. ‘But you’re putting yourself under the thumb of this administration for the next four years.'”