Neither rain nor snow nor sleet nor hail shall keep Bill Freivogel from catching conflicts and crafting commentary. Here’s his latest:

• In re Edison, No. 2025-SC-0193-KB (Ky. June 20, 2025).
  • Lawyer discipline. We rarely report on discipline cases because the alleged conflict of interest is usually secondary to something more serious like stealing client money. Here, the conflict is key.
  • Client A went to Lawyer because a neighbor’s dump truck was damaging a road adjacent to Client A’s property. Lawyer advised Client A the road was public and the neighbor could legally drive his truck on it.
  • Two years later Clients B and C hired Lawyer to bring an action to remove a gate blocking that same road. Lawyer sued the adjoining land owners, including Client A. In that case Client A moved to disqualify Lawyer, and the trial court granted the motion. Client A then filed a Bar complaint against Lawyer.
  • The trial commissioner found that Lawyer had violated Kentucky Rule 1.9 and should receive a public admonition. In this opinion the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Matturro, No. A-0711-24 (N.J. App. Div. June 16, 2025).
  • Plaintiffs are six insurance companies who paid PIP auto accident benefits to various health care providers. Plaintiffs claim that the defendant providers (42 of them) are liable for fraud for claiming payments for unnecessary care, or for no care at all. Law Firm purports to represent 32 of the defendants.
  • Plaintiffs moved to disqualify Law Firm claiming its joint representation was a conflict of interest. The trial court denied the motion, in part because none of the defendants had made claims against each other or sought separate representation. In this opinion the appellate court vacated the trial court’s denial and remanded for “further analysis.”
  • Two instigators brought in various individual doctors and caused the creation of entities in which the doctors participated in the alleged billing fraud. The appellate court ruled that the claim of no conflict did not “pass the straight-face test” (our phrase). All sorts of cross-claims seem inevitable, not to mention the apportionment of liability under New Jersey’s Comparative Negligence Act. Moreover, neither the defendants nor Law Firm provided any agreements or waivers regarding the joint representation.
• Hreish v. Pappas, 24-CV-2284 (JHR)(BCM) (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2025).
  • In this case various current and former officers of, and investors in, a corporation, ECC, are fighting for control of ECC. ECC’s only asset is a Delaware Chancery Court derivative action claim.
  • Defendants moved to disqualify the lawyer for Plaintiffs (“Lawyer”), primarily because Lawyer is representing individual plaintiffs as well as ECC. In this opinion the magistrate judge denied the motion to disqualify.
  • The history of ECC and the claims and cross claims in this case are bewilderingly complex, and the court’s findings appear to us to be of little precedential value. Essentially, the magistrate judge seems to be saying that because a conflict among the plaintiffs may surface is not enough at this stage to find a violation of N.Y. Rule 1.7.

“Justice Department Challenges WilmerHale’s Role in 23andMe Bankruptcy Over Conflict of Interest Concerns” —

• “The legal landscape surrounding 23andMe’s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings took a new turn as the U.S. Justice Department’s bankruptcy watchdog challenged the participation of law firm WilmerHale in assessing privacy matters related to the potential sale of the company’s genetic data. The Department of Justice has expressed concerns over potential conflicts of interest arising from WilmerHale’s dual role. The firm, while representing a law professor tasked with making important privacy-related recommendations, is simultaneously involved with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. on unrelated matters.”
• “The core of the DOJ’s argument is centered on the risk of WilmerHale compromising their duty of loyalty. This concern stems from the notion that WilmerHale may inadvertently downplay critical privacy considerations concerning the sale of genetic data from 23andMe’s customers, given its obligations to its client Regeneron. According to the DOJ’s filing on the matter, the potential conflict of interest is significant enough to warrant the firm’s removal from these proceedings.”
• “Complicating the scenario further is the outcome of a recent auction where Regeneron was edged out by a nonprofit organization overseen by 23andMe’s former CEO. Despite the auction results, the situation puts a spotlight on WilmerHale’s role and emphasizes the inherent complexities of managing fiduciary duties amidst overlapping professional engagements.”
• “Legal experts within the industry will be closely monitoring the developments of this case, as it underscores the delicate balancing act firms face when grappling with multiple client commitments. The DOJ’s stance invites scrutiny and raises broader ethical questions regarding how law firms manage dual loyalties and potential conflicts.”

“Vancouver lawyer Steve Alexander Parr fined $20,000 for professional misconduct” —

• “Vancouver lawyer Steve Alexander Parr has been fined $20,000 and ordered to pay the Law Society $1,000 in costs for professional misconduct.”
• “In a joint submission to a Law Society Tribunal hearing panel, Parr admitted to acting in a conflict of interest in the course of representing his clients. In May 2020, he represented two clients in relation to a partnership venture but failed to obtain written consent to a joint retainer, advise either client that both had asked to retain him, or explain that information shared by either client would not be confidential. Parr did not advise them that if an unresolvable conflict developed, he would have to withdraw from representing both clients. In addition, from July 2020 to July 2022, Parr continued to represent one client while acting against the interests of his former client in relation to the same partnership venture in which he had jointly represented both.”
• “In accepting his joint submission, the hearing panel Law Society took into consideration an Agreed Statement of Facts, a letter from Parrrs containing his admissions, and the outcomes in prior, similar cases.”
• “The full decision of the hearing panel can be read here. “