“Ont. Superior Court orders estate’s lawyer to withdraw over conflict of interest in fraud case” —

• “In a dispute over alleged fraudulent conveyance, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered the estate’s lawyer to step down due to a potential conflict of interest.”
• “The case stemmed from a 2010 incident in which a married couple allegedly attempted to commit fraud in a loan application to the Royal Bank of Canada. Authorities laid criminal charges but later stayed them. In 2012, one of the applicants filed a lawsuit seeking damages for negligence, malicious prosecution, and related claims.”
• “After years of litigation delays, the court dismissed the original claim in 2023 and awarded significant costs against the estate of one of the original plaintiffs, who had passed away in 2021. During this period, the estate transferred property to its sole beneficiary, prompting the bank to file a new legal action alleging the transfer was fraudulent and aimed at avoiding payment of the outstanding cost awards.”
• “The estate and its representative filed a counterclaim alleging defamation and discrimination by the financial institution and its legal counsel.”
• “The Superior Court ordered the estate’s lawyer, Peter Callahan, removed as counsel, citing his potential role as a necessary witness. Key evidence in the case revolved around whether Callahan communicated court orders regarding cost payments to the estate’s representative before the disputed property transfer.”
• “The court determined that Callahan’s involvement in these communications created a conflict of interest. It also noted that his continued representation could compromise the fairness of the proceedings, as he might be required to cross-examine witnesses or address matters in which he had direct knowledge.”
• “In its decision, the court noted that the threshold for removing counsel is exceptionally high, and it should grant such motions only in rare circumstances. While the court acknowledged the inconvenience and expense its decision may cause, it concluded that removing Callahan was essential to ensure the proper administration of justice.”

Massachusetts: “Evidence – Peer review privilege – Bias” —

• “Where the peer review privilege was found to apply to the termination of a plaintiff’s privileges in 2021, the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration should be denied because he has not presented evidence of an actual conflict of interest.”
• “‘As explained in my prior ruling, there is a ‘single, narrow exception to the peer review privilege,’ which applies when ‘a member of a peer review committee did not act ‘in good faith and in the reasonable belief that based on all of the facts the action or inaction on his part was warranted’ during the peer review process.’ …”
• “‘I previously concluded the privilege properly applied to the termination of Holick’s privileges in 2021 (2020-2021 Proceedings). In the instant motion, Holick asserts that discovery has revealed that Dr. Pierre Cremieux (Cremieux), the President of Analysis Group, who chaired the Ad Hoc Committee (AHC) of the Board of Trustees, was biased against Holick. The AHC reversed the Medical Executive Committee’s (MEC) decision and recommended that the Board terminate Holick’s privileges, which recommendation the Board adopted…”
• “‘Holick argues that the evidence shows ‘that Dr. Cremieux was chosen to chair the Board ad hoc committee precisely because of his view against Dr. Holick, and in discharging his role, did not bother with even a pretense of objectivity or fidelity to the rules.’ I am not persuaded.”
• “‘The 2020-2021 Proceedings were initiated because Holick agreed to certain restrictions and failed to comply with them. Although it is mildly disturbing that Cremieux was not able to describe the AHC’s standard of review, and it would have been preferable for the AHC to have been chaired by someone who had not previously expressed concern about Holick (albeit more than two years before), this evidence, alone or in combination with other evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the requisite bad faith. This is particularly true given that: (1) Cremieux’s views in 2018 were expressed in connection with the negative press coverage Holick was receiving at the time and the reputational harm BMC could suffer as a result; (2) Cremieux testified that ‘none of the emails’ he sent in summer 2018 suggested that he had concluded that BMC should fire or cease association with Holick at that time but were about ‘strategizing’ actions in response to the bad press; and (3) Cremieux’s deposition statements were not entirely inconsistent with the standard of review the Board AHC was required to apply. Put elsewise, Holick has not presented evidence of an actual conflict of interest that interfered with the actual operation of the AHC.”
• “‘The evidence is not irrelevant to the issues in the case. It simply does not rise to the level necessary to invade the medical peer review privilege.'”
• See: full text of the opinion.

“Ethics Disclosure Fail Sinks Firm’s Coverage, NJ Panel Says” —

• “A law firm that failed to reveal an attorney’s ethics case when applying for malpractice insurance coverage effectively secured the policy using misrepresentations, the New Jersey state appeals court ruled, declining to revive the firm’s suit over the rescission of its policy.”
• “The two-judge appellate panel upheld on Friday the 2022 ruling of Superior Court Judge Owen C. McCarthy that Allied World Insurance Co. was right to rescind policies issued to Schibell & Mennie LLC because firm partner Richard D. Schibell made a ‘material misrepresentation’ on coverage applications when he failed to disclose an ethics case against him.”
• “‘An insurer may consider a policy void as of its inception when it discovers the insured has made material misrepresentation, upon which it reasonably relied in issuing the policy,’ the appellate panel said.”
• “In 2013, the state’s Office of Attorney Ethics filed a disciplinary complaint against Schibell. Nearly four years later, the state Supreme Court accepted the Disciplinary Review Board’s recommendation for a censure.”
• “The review board found Schibell had commingled personal funds with client funds and had provided falsified documents to the Office of Attorney Ethics.”
• “In 2016, Schibell & Mennie did not reveal the OAE complaint when it filled out the Allied World application, according to court documents.”
• “For one question — ‘Has any attorney been the subject of any bar complaint, investigation or disciplinary proceeding within the past five years?’ — the firm answered no, court documents said. The firm answered no to similar questions on applications over the next three years.”
• “In 2017, the estate of deceased firm partner Mark D. Kentos launched a complaint against the firm and Schibell over life insurance policy proceeds. After a legal malpractice claim was added to that case in August 2019, Allied World conditionally agreed to cover the matter, according to court documents.”
• “About two months later, however, Allied World rescinded the policies after the company said it determined that the firm made misrepresentations in its applications by not disclosing the disciplinary action against Schibell.”
• “In fighting the insurer’s summary judgment bid, the firm argued that its responses to the application questions were accurate, since Schibell’s ethics case did not meet the definition of a ‘disciplinary proceeding’ under the policies, which refers to a proceeding ‘alleging professional misconduct in the performance of or failure to perform legal services,’ court documents state.”
  “But Judge McCarthy rejected that argument, saying, ‘This strained and overly narrow construction is an attempt to find and/or create coverage where none exists.'”

“Prominent Bay Area lawyer skewers Mark Zuckerberg, fires Meta as a client” —

• “For most people angry at Meta or Mark Zuckerberg, the options for recourse are limited. You could delete your Facebook account or complain about the billionaire with like-minded friends. But Bay Area lawyer Mark Lemley has taken a far more noticeable approach: He fired the company as a client.”
• “Lemley, a prominent intellectual property attorney and professor at Stanford Law School, was one of a gaggle of lawyers representing Meta in a legal battle over the tech giant’s alleged use of copyright texts for training artificial intelligence. It’s a high-profile case, pitting Sarah Silverman, Ta-Nehisi Coates and other authors against one of the world’s largest companies, and has the potential to create formative case law. But Lemley was too displeased with his client to continue.”
• “On Monday, the lawyer withdrew from the case and Meta’s roster, according to a docket entry. Lemley explained his reasoning with a thread on Bluesky, writing that he has ‘struggled with how to respond to Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook’s descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness.’ (More context on those roasts in a moment.)”
• “Then came the hammer. ‘I have fired Meta as a client,’ Lemley wrote. ‘While I think they are on the right side in the generative AI copyright dispute in which I represented them, and I hope they win, I cannot in good conscience serve as their lawyer any longer.'”
• “SFGATE reached Lemley over email and asked what specifically prompted his decision to sever most of his Meta strings. The lawyer referenced changes to the company’s content moderation system — as of last week, Meta specifically allows ‘allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation’ in posts. Axios also reported Friday that Meta was ending major diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The overhauls appear aimed in part at currying the favor of President-elect Donald Trump in the run-up to his inauguration; Zuckerberg is also scheduled to co-host a reception before the inaugural ball, Puck News reported.”
• “Meta’s CEO provoked more ire still with comments on a new episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast released Friday, complaining that corporate culture is getting away from ‘masculine energy.’ Lemley referenced that statement in a Sunday post, writing ‘Oh yeah, that’s the problem with tech companies — not enough testosterone,’ alongside an eye-roll emoji. (In 2023, Meta’s workforce was 64.2% male and 35.8% female, the company reported.)”
• “‘I decided that I could not in good conscience be associated with a company that made those decisions, so I decided to withdraw,’ he wrote. ‘Meta remains represented by outstanding counsel in this case, and I believe they should and will prevail in the case. But they will have to do it without me.'”
• “Lemley had been working on the copyright case since 2023, via the firm Lex Lumina, and his name appears in more than 100 docket entries. The tech giant still has legal firms Cooley and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton on the case.”