“FaceTec objects to Jumio’s replacement law firm in liveness IP dispute” —

• “FaceTec is not saying Jumio can’t have legal representation in a dispute over IP for biometric liveness detection, just not the firm it had before, or the replacement it has chosen. The 3D face biometrics developer has filed a motion opposing Jumio’s selection of a replacement for Perkins Coie, after the law firm was disqualified and Jumio was ordered by the court to replace it.”
• “Jumio has requested a status conference to name Morrison Foerster as its representation.”
• “But the firm is not ‘new,’ FaceTec argues. Instead, FaceTec describes Morrison Foerster in the motion as ‘Perkins previous co-counsel,’ alleging it represented Jumio in the same case for ‘approximately two months.'”
• “Morrison Foerster Partner Kenneth Kuwayti approached FaceTec’s representation in June, 2024 in his capacity as Jumio’s lead counsel in arbitration. He told FaceTec’s lawyer that he was representing Jumio in requesting an extension to respond to the litigation, and that his firm was awaiting a decision from Jumio on whether it would represent the biometrics provider at trial. Two other attorneys with Morrison Foerster also appeared as Jumio counsel before Perkins arrived on the scene in August.”
• “The Answer and Counterclaims filed by Jumio on August 23, 2024 listed both law firms.”
• “FaceTec says Jumio did not meet or confer with it prior to filing its administrative motion, according to the court document, and has not complied with the court order.”
• “‘Jumio here plainly seeks to rely on the abbreviated administrative motion procedures to improperly hamstring FaceTec’s ability to properly raise this issue to the Court through a properly noticed motion and supporting briefing,’ the filing by FaceTec (shared by Bloomberg Law) states.”
• “FaceTec is seeking a ‘properly briefed motion’ and an extension of the disqualification to include Morrison Foerster.”

“J&J Renews Bid to Remove Beasley Allen From Talc Leadership” —

• “Johnson & Johnson has filed a new motion to remove Beasley Allen from leadership of the talcum powder litigation, citing ‘serious ethical lapses.'”
• “Johnson & Johnson failed in a previous attempt to disqualify Birchfield and his Montgomery, Alabama-based firm on the grounds of a partnership he struck with one of its former lawyers to resolve the talc litigation. Judge John Porto, in New Jersey’s Atlantic County Superior Court, denied Johnson & Johnson’s motion last year. “
• “Now, in an April 16 motion, Johnson & Johnson wants to remove Beasley Allen from the plaintiffs’ steering committee in the talc multidistrict litigation, citing an April 10 letter to Chief Legal Officer Liz Forminard and Erik Haas, vice president of worldwide litigation, in which Birchfield offered to set up a meeting to restart settlement negotiations. In a letter the next day, Forminard called Birchfield’s communication with her ‘inappropriate and unethical’ and accused him of ‘ethical breaches.'”
• “‘It is unfathomable that you would expect us to disregard such dishonest behavior and engage with you in any negotiation, having acted in such an ethically vacuous manner,’ she wrote in an April 11 letter to Birchfield. ‘In the event we were to engage in settlement negotiations with counsel on behalf of the talc claimants writ large, we would certainly not do so with you or your firm, but rather with one of the other counsel and firms that have not evidenced such lack of credibility, integrity and ethics.'”
• “Johnson & Johnson’s new motion also cited Birchfield’s testimony during a key hearing earlier this year that focused on confirmation of its subsidiary Red River Talc’s $10 billion bankruptcy plan to resolve the talc litigation. Birchfield, who represented 11,000 talc clients, falsely testified that he had the consent of his clients when voting ‘no’ on their behalf, according to Johnson & Johnson’s motion.”
• ‘There is simply no way that a firm that has engaged in such conduct can sit in a leadership position in this litigation,’ Johnson & Johnson’s lawyers, O’Melveny & Myers partner Steve Brody, in Washington, D.C., and Jessica Brennan, of Barnes & Thornburg in Morristown, New Jersey, wrote. ‘Beasley Allen has demonstrated itself unfit to represent its own clients’ interests, let alone the interests of clients represented by other firms. Its continued presence on the PSC would be an intractable impediment to the fair progression of this litigation.'”
• “Birchfield and Beasley Allen, in a Tuesday response, denied the allegations. ‘J&J’s effort to remove Beasley Allen from leadership is nothing more than a calculated attempt to eliminate a firm that has repeatedly worked to block its bad-faith bankruptcy schemes,’ wrote their lawyer, Jeffrey Pollock, of Pollock Law in Trenton, New Jersey.”
• “He wrote that Birchfield had informed his clients about the bankruptcy plan and that he would vote ‘no’ if he didn’t hear from them. He also noted that U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez, of the Southern District of Texas, in his March 31 order dismissing the talc bankruptcy due to ‘significant voting and solicitation irregularities,’ concluded that Birchfield did not act in bad faith. As to the letter to Forminard, Pollock said Birchfield never discussed the merits of the litigation.”

“Biglaw Firms Surrendering To Trump Furiously Backpedaling: ‘LOL, What Pro Bono Deals?’” —

• “Remember when a handful of Biglaw firms committed tens of millions of dollars in pro bono promises to the Trump administration causes hoping to trade some benign charitable work for a reprieve from potentially devastating White House retaliation? BECAUSE THE FIRMS SURE DON’T!”
• “The firms involved — Paul Weiss, Skadden, Willkie Farr, Milbank, Kirkland, Latham, Simpson, A&O Shearman, and Cadwalader — thought they were so clever: do some free legal work for veterans, avoid a potentially insurmountable executive order and protect their bottom lines. In reality, the executive order proved almost comically simple to defeat, the Trump administration publicly explained that the pro bono deal would include representing police in brutality cases, and deep-pocketed clients started dumping the firms to avoid the stench of cowardice.”
• “If only someone had predicted this from the start!”
• “Add in law school students pledging not to work with capitulating firms and law school administrations openly encouraging interviewees to consider these deals when making job decisions, and you can understand why the firms might be trying to get out from the mess they’ve created for themselves.”
• “It turns out, they might be. Congressional Democrats wrote the firms asking some pointed questions about the nature of the deals and firms basically responded ‘What deals?’ Sam Stein at The Bulwark has seen the responses and it seems the hot new trend this summer is claiming that those upwards of $125 million deals didn’t really mean anything at all:”
• “In fairness, you’ve got to appreciate the work here. As Homer Simpson would say, ‘weaseling out of stuff is what separates us from the animals… except the weasel.'”
• “‘Complete independence’ is just an outright lie. Assuming arguendo that the firm does not agree with the Trump administration’s repeated assertions that the deals functionally deputized the firms to make tariff deals or negotiate coal leases, the firms at the very least agreed to do some pro bono work that they otherwise hadn’t formally committed to perform. Not to get too pedantic about it, but that means the firm no longer has ‘complete independence.'”
  “Anyone who did not, in fact, fall violently from the back of a turnip truck this morning can see through these sniveling responses. If they didn’t want to sign over the power to dictate or restrict pro bono matters, then they could have not made any pro bono commitments at all. Of course they intended to sign over their freedom to dictate what pro bono matters they take on! Granting them the benefit of the doubt, they presumably did so in a limited, negotiated fashion that the administration has shown zero interest in respecting, but it was a sacrifice of flexibility in any event. While technically true that there’s no indication that they agreed to ‘restrict’ any pro bono matters, Biglaw firms aren’t made of money (regardless of how it may seem when reading the Am Law 100 numbers) and when they commit $125 million in free services to bucket A, they are necessarily restricting it from bucket B.”
• ” The letter from A&O Shearman was perhaps the most detailed. It notes that ‘the Agreement’ requires the firm to provide $125 million pro bono and other free legal services to ‘three specified areas’ (emphasis ours). Those areas are assisting veterans and other public servants, ensuring fairness in our justice system, and combatting [sic] antisemitism. ‘The Agreement does not call for, or permit, the administration or any other person or entity to determine what clients and matters the Firm takes on, whether they be pro bono matters or otherwise,’ the letter reads.”
• “It might seem nice that these firms are willing to put in writing that they don’t agree with the promises the White House very clearly thinks they made, but if none of these firms really believed they were giving any skin off their nose in these deals it’s actually worse. It means that they willingly agreed to be used as props for the administration to deploy to strongarm even more firms that resistance was futile and that they needed to swear fealty fast to get the best terms. As each firm gave in, they made it just a little bit harder for the next firm to stand up.”
• “And now that they’re willing to say they don’t believe in the deals, what happens if they actually try to act that way. ‘It doesn’t take much to imagine Trump going nuclear after the firms he browbeat start declining to take on cases like police officers accused of excessive force or ICE officials sued for not following proper procedures,’ Stein writes. When that happens, the firms making up the Order of Obsequious will just have to hope Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block have done all the necessary work to protect them from a future retaliatory order.”