Bressler Risk Blog

“Fox Rothschild Blocks DeepSeek’s AI Model for Attorney Use” —

• “Fox Rothschild LLP blocked its lawyers from accessing tools from DeepSeek, the Chinese artificial intelligence startup, citing concerns about the privacy risks it may pose to client data.”
• “The swift action comes as other Big Law firms, such as Polsinelli and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, are responding to the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence by implementing guardrails on their lawyers’ use of new technology.”
• “Fox Rothschild’s 900-plus attorneys use AI tools and, like many other firms, it doesn’t generally bar its lawyers from using ChatGPT, although it imposes restrictions on the use of AI with client data, Mark G. McCreary, the firm’s chief artificial intelligence and information security officer, said. But DeepSeek, launched by a Chinese investor, poses unique security challenges.”
• “‘It’s one thing to have a risk that somebody makes a mistake with ChatGPT,’ McCreary said. ‘It’s a completely different risk for someone to make a mistake with China.'”
• “McCreary, who chairs Fox Rothchild’s artificial intelligence practice and co-chairs its privacy and data security practice, said it was prudent to ban the app while details are still emerging, like how and where DeepSeek stores data.”
• “DeepSeek in its privacy terms says it collects and stores data in servers in China, Bloomberg News reported. ‘Hundreds’ of companies are working to block DeepSeek, whose AI chatbot recently rocketed to the top of Apple Store app downloads.”
• “A data breach this week illustrates further security concerns with DeepSeek, aside from the technology’s national origin, McCreary said. The cloud security company Wiz on Wednesday revealed it had discovered chat data and ‘highly sensitive information’ from DeepSeek on a public platform.”
• “AI concerns aren’t limited to Wilson Sonsini’s own use of new models, Datesh said. Vendors that law firms use rely on AI models on the back end and there could be an issue if those vendors switch from a known entity like ChatGPT to DeepSeek’s R1, she said.”
• “‘We expect them to kind of make sure that they’re alerting us when LLMs are changing that are not on our approved LLM list,’ Datesh said about vendors.”
• “Vendor concerns are less acute with the legal world’s leading technology tools, because the companies that make them understand that the protection of law firm data is integral to their ability to retain customers, McCreary said.”
• “‘I’m not real worried about somebody deciding they’re gonna save some money and go use DeepSeek,’ he said.”

See also: “DeepSeek data breach: A grim warning for AI security”

“DC Judge Declines To DQ Jenner & Block In Casino Dispute” —

• “A D.C. federal judge on Wednesday [1/22] rejected a bid from three Native American tribes to disqualify Jenner & Block LLP from a lawsuit that seeks to block the operation of a new casino in Oregon.”
• “The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, Karuk Tribe and Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation had accused the firm of switching sides by representing the Coquille Indian Tribe in the D.C. litigation, having previously advised the three tribes in connection with the challenged casino. But U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled during a hearing that no such attorney-client relationship was ever established, so Jenner & Block is free to represent the Coquille tribe.”
• “The concurrent disqualification clash centered on Jenner & Block’s prior dealings with the plaintiff tribes.”
• “The three tribes alleged in a disqualification motion that Jenner & Block attorneys, including partner Keith Harper, had represented them in 2022 in connection with their opposition to the planned Medford casino. Allowing the firm and Harper to now represent their opponent would ‘give Coquille an ‘unfair advantage,” the tribes said.”
• “The Coquille tribe, on the other hand, contended in court filings that Jenner & Block’s discussions with the plaintiff tribes ‘were part of a business-development effort that never progressed to an attorney-client relationship.'”
• “Judge Mehta agreed Wednesday, finding that an attorney-client relationship never existed.”

“Law Firms Caught Up in Litigation Over Cannabis Grower’s Troubles” —

• “A battle is intensifying between law firms connected to an insolvent New Jersey cannabis cultivator known as the Harmony Foundation. Two law firms, Lowenstein Sandler of Roseland, New Jersey and Cyrulnik Fattaruso of New York, are accused of legal malpractice in a suit filed Tuesday by a trustee for Harmony Foundation. The suit claims the two firms have a conflict of interest because they simultaneously represented Harmony and Jeshayahu Brodchandel, who allegedly sought to gain control of over the cannabis company.”
• “The latest suit, filed by Greg Trif of Trif & Modugno in Morristown, New Jersey, also names attorneys Peter Slocum and Christopher Porrino of Lowenstein Sandler and Jason Cyrulnik of Cyrulnik Fattaruso as defendants, along with Brodchandel and others. The filing comes on the heels of another, filed in November 2024, in which Lowenstein Sandler alleges that Trif & Modugno and partner Louis A. Modugno drove Harmony Foundation into insolvency and receivership.”
• “Harmony Foundation started out as a grower and seller of cannabis, and Brodchandel was one of its partners, according to the latest suit. Its dispensary in Secaucus closed in 2023 after the state revoked Harmony’s cultivating and manufacturing licenses due to unpaid fees. Brodchandel sought to squeeze out other investors who put up millions of dollars to make the operation grow, the suit alleges.”
• “The latest suit alleges that Brodchandel retained Lowenstein in 2020, and the firm, ‘in exchange for millions of dollars in fees, disregarded the Rules of Professional Conduct, deployed their unchecked attorneys, and touted alleged political influence to enable and aid Brodchandel in his unsuccessful attempt to seize control and ownership of Harmony to the company’s significant detriment.'”
• “The suit also alleges that Brodchandel sought to convert Harmony from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity, but a company that invested a large sum of money in Harmony, Secaucus Investors, ‘uncovered and then thwarted Brodchandel’s plot by securing an order enjoining Harmony from effectuating the conversion, thereby preventing Brodchandel and the Lowenstein Defendants from completing the final step of Brodchandel’s subversion of Harmony’s assets.'”
• “According to the suit, Lowenstein’s attorneys advanced Brodchandel’s interests in the name of Harmony, ‘despite the non-waivable conflict that prohibited their dual representation.’ That allegedly left Brodchandel unchecked to cause great harm to Harmony and its assets through self dealing, wasting its assets, mismanaging it, breaching his fiduciary duties and ‘effectuating his scheme to seize harm to Harmony and its assets through countless misdeeds for himself and his co-conspirators,’ the suit asserts.”
• “Kevin Marino of Marino, Tortorella & Boyle in Chatham, New Jersey represents Lowenstein Sandler, Slocum and Porrino in connection with the suit by Harmony Foundation. Marino said in an email, ‘this is a frivolous complaint filed by a disgruntled litigation adversary. It was filed in response to our lawsuit against that same adversary for the payment of legal fees. We will seek to collect the full amount of our unpaid legal fees as well as the costs incurred in defending against this meritless and obviously retaliatory claim.'”
• “In November 2024, Lowenstein sued Harmony Foundation, Trif & Modugno and others in an attempt to recoup $766,276 in unpaid legal fees. Lowenstein was retained to defend a hostile takeover lawsuit initiated by Harmony’s lender, Secaucus Investors.”

“Connell Foley Fights DQ Bid In Investment Firm’s Bias Suit” —

• “A group of current and former New Jersey state officials blasted a motion to disqualify their counsel at Connell Foley LLP in a discrimination suit from a Black-owned investment firm in New Jersey federal court, calling the move a frivolous and bad faith stalling tactic.”
• “Blueprint Capital Advisors LLC moved in December to disqualify the firm because one of its attorneys, prominent real estate attorney Elnardo Webster, allegedly represented Blueprint in the discrimination litigation before he moved to Connell Foley in 2023.”
• “The state defendants — including New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and George Helmy, former chief of staff for Gov. Phil Murphy — however, shot down that argument in a Tuesday brief filed in a New Jersey federal court.”
• “The disqualification motion from Blueprint and one of its owners, Jacob Walthour, concealed the fact that far from representing him, Webster had, at most, a handful of social interactions with Walthour over the timeframe in question and never provided any legal advice, the state defendants alleged.”
• “Walthour ‘resorts to using conclusory buzzwords such as ‘mental impressions,’ ‘advice,’ and ‘confidential information’ that demonstrate his claim of a conflict is an empty one,’ the memorandum said. ‘These buzz words cannot bridge the factual gap. The law is clear that such conclusory statements are insufficient to disqualify opposing counsel,’ they added.”
• “Blueprint claimed Webster began representing it as far back as 2016. However, the state defendants argued, and Webster himself certified, that the 2016 meeting was nothing more than a brief social interaction between Webster and Walthour that did not involve legal advice. Blueprint did not file the suit for four years after that meeting, and when it did, the case had nothing to do with Webster’s specialty of real estate.”
• “‘Plaintiff’s suggestion that incidental social conversations with a non-litigating real estate and land use attorney who was completely unfamiliar with the status of the litigation somehow rose to the level of an ‘attorney-client relationship’ is not credible,’ the state defendants said.”
• “Blueprint and Walthour did not respond to multiple requests from the state defendants for evidence that Webster ever represented them, and the investment firm waited for months after learning Connell Foley was representing the state defendants to file the disqualification motion, the state defendants argued.”
• “The state defendants told the court Blueprint’s motion approached the level of sanctionable behavior, but that they chose not to pursue sanctions. They also said the disqualification bid appears to be a form of retaliation for the state of New Jersey filing a separate complaint against Blueprint and Walthour in November 2024.”
• “The Connell Foley attorneys on the case — John Lacey and Lauren Iannaccone – have spent significant time preparing for about 40 depositions and reviewing tens of thousands of documents, the state defendants said. Disqualifying them now would require any new counsel to take months to get up to speed and delay the deposition schedule, they said.”
• “Blueprint sued the state defendants and the investment firm BlackRock in 2020, alleging the state cast it aside for a contract and instead gave the contract, along with confidential information, to the ‘overwhelmingly white’ financial giant.”

“No Duty To Report Client Fraud” —

• The Ethics” Advisory Panel of the Rhode Island Supreme Court opines on an attorney’s ethical obligations when learning of client fraud in a matter where the attorney did not represent the client”
  • “The inquiring attorney represented a client with a potential Social Security Disability (‘SSDI’) claim pursuant to a referral from the client’s workers’ compensation attorney. During the representation, the inquiring attorney filed an application for SSDI benefits on the client’s behalf in February 2024. The application was denied in April 2024, at which time the inquiring attorney requested reconsideration of the denial. The request for reconsideration was denied in August 2024. On September 9, 2024, the inquiring attorney filed a request for hearing, which remains pending.”
  • “The inquiring attorney reports that during this time his or her client was receiving workers’ compensation benefits. The inquiring attorney did not represent the client in the workers’ compensation matter. On November 14, 2024, the inquiring attorney learned that the client had settled the workers’ compensation matter pursuant to a settlement agreement signed in October 2024 in which the client affirmed that he or she had not applied for SSDI benefits and did not intend to become Medicare eligible within the next thirty (30) months. In response, the inquiring attorney terminated his or her representation of the client on November 15, 2024, and has not communicated with the client since.”
• “Is there a duty to report?”
  • “The Panel’s inquiry now turns to whether Rule 3.3 imposes such a duty of disclosure on the inquiring attorney here. By its plain language, Rule 3.3 ‘governs the conduct of a lawyer who is representing a client in the proceedings of a tribunal’ or who is ‘representing a client in an ancillary proceeding conducted pursuant to the tribunal’s adjudicative authority, such as a deposition.’ Rule 3.3, Comment [1]. Thus, the existence of a proceeding is a condition precedent for the applicability of Rule 3.3. This requirement attaches even in cases where ‘[a] lawyer . . . knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding . . . .’ Rule 3.3(b). In this case, the inquiring attorney asks whether he or she must report the false attestation the client made in the affidavit settling his or her workers’ compensation matter; however, the inquiring attorney does not now, and never did, represent the client in that case. Accordingly, the duty of candor under Rule 3.3 does not attach here.”
  • “This conclusion is supported by the Panel’s past precedents. In Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 94-19, the inquiring attorney was retained by an insurance company to file suit to suspend workers’ compensation payments to a recipient who was allegedly operating a home business. The inquiring attorney confirmed the allegation following an investigation. The inquiring attorney also learned, however, that his or her law firm provided legal services to the recipient’s home business. On this basis, the inquiring attorney sought to withdraw from both matters. He or she asked the Panel whether he or she was nonetheless obligated to inform the Workers’ Compensation Court of the fraud.”
  • “As an initial matter, the Panel agreed with the inquiring attorney’s decision to withdraw from both matters due to the evident conflict of interest. With regard to the question of the inquiring attorney’s duty of candor, the Panel determined that the inquiring attorney was under no such obligation because he or she did not represent the recipient before the Workers’ Compensation Court. The Panel noted, however, that ‘[t]he attorney’s obligation would be different if the attorney were representing the recipient in the Workers’ Compensation proceeding.'”

“Accused Mexican Drug Kingpin Retains Attorney Who Represented His ‘Turncoat’ Son” —

• “The criminal prosecution involving the Sinaloa drug cartel has all the makings of an epic mini-series. Power! Untold riches! Dramatic arrests! Betrayal! Court battles! The latest ingredient added to the mix involves a defendant choosing to retain an attorney who represented his son when he testified against the defendant’s former partner. Need more? There’s a possibility of that same son testifying against the defendant father if the current case goes to trial.”
• “The defendant is Ismael ‘El Mayo’ Zambada, age 76. Zambada was believed to be a co-founder and leader of the notorious Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico, assuming control after Joaquín ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán was arrested in 2016. Guzmán was convicted in U.S. federal court in 2019 in a trial that included testimony against the druglord from Zambada’s son Vincente Zambada Niebla.”
• “The charges against Zambada are numerous and serious. He’s accused of leading a continuing criminal enterprise for 35 years. Under his control, the Sinaloa Cartel allegedly manufactured and distributed ‘massive quantities of narcotics’ that generated billions in illegal revenue. The feds allege murders through groups of hitmen called ‘sicarios’ were common. Zambada is also alleged to be responsible for money laundering and creating corruption through bribes and intimidation.”
• “At the very least, Zambada faces a minimum of life in prison. Given the type and number of charges against him, the death penalty is also on the table.”
• “During a hearing in a Brooklyn federal court on Jan. 25, 2025, Zambada gave his informed consent to retain his attorney, Frank Perez, acknowledging the attorney’s previous representation of his son in the case against his former partner. It’s an interesting choice.”
• “There’s no doubt it’s a potential conflict of interest for Perez. The prosecutors for the case have indicated Zambada Niebla will be on their list of potential witnesses. While this doesn’t guarantee he’ll be called, it sets up a situation where Perez might have to defend his current client from the testimony of his former client, who also happens to be his client’s son.”
• “District Judge Brian Cogan didn’t try to block Zambada’s request. There’s speculation that given his advanced age and the possibility of ending up on Death Row, Zambada may opt for a plea bargain instead. The court encouraged the parties to work on an agreement before the next court date in April.”
• “Any deal will likely find Zambada behind bars for the rest of his life. At least he won’t have to worry about attending awkward holiday gatherings with his son.”

“Attorney-general admits recusal over conflicts of interest” —

• “The attorney-general [for England and Wales] has admitted that he has had to recuse himself ‘from certain matters’ when giving advice to the government because of potential conflicts of interest.”
• “Lord Hermer KC, who became the government’s top law officer last July, was paid £30,000 to represent Gerry Adams against IRA bomb victims in a High Court case that is due to go to trial next year.”
• “Sir Keir Starmer is preparing to repeal the Legacy Act, which would open the door to taxpayer-funded compensation for hundreds of Republicans including the former Sinn Fein leader.”
• “Labour has already abandoned an appeal against a ruling by Northern Ireland’s High Court that declared that the 2023 act, which included clauses denying payouts to terrorism suspects detained without trial in the Seventies, breached human rights laws.”
• “Hermer has refused to tell MPs whether he was involved in the decision to drop the appeal or to repeal the legislation, citing rules in the ministerial code.”
• “The Conservatives called on Hermer to remove himself from any involvement in all cases in which he previously acted as a lawyer, including the Afghanistan inquiry where he represented Afghan families.”
• “Hermer admitted for the first time on Monday that he has recused himself from some decisions in response to an urgent question in the House of Lords.”
• “He told peers that there is a ‘rigorous system’ for dealing with potential conflict of interest, adding that his department will ‘always err on the side of caution’.”
• “He said: ‘It is vital that the public are reassured that the highest standards of propriety are applied by my department and I welcome the opportunity to answer questions today.”
• “‘As the House will be aware, I am constrained by the law officers’ convention which prohibits me from identifying particular instances in which law officer advice has been sought even by implication.”
• “‘But I hope reassurance can be found in the description of the rigorous system for managing conflicts provided by the solicitor-general [in the Commons]. And may I make plain, if ever there is or will be reasonable doubt as to whether a law officer should be recused, my department will always err on the side of caution.'”
• “‘I can assure the House that recusals have no material impact on my department’s work. Where one law officer is conflicted, another is asked to act instead. And I am fortunate to have the support from a solicitor-general and an advocate-general for Scotland with highly successful careers in law.'”
• “The Cabinet Office has rejected calls for an investigation into Hermer’s potential conflicts of interest over his past clients. Sir Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary, has written to Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, insisting that appropriate arrangements are in place.”

“Dechert sues former lawyer for alleged salary overpayment” —

• “Dechert has sued a former senior project attorney for more than $90,000, the money that the law firm said it is still owed after a $132,250 salary overpayment.”
• “The suit says senior project attorney Kathleen Fay continued to receive her regular salary for a 7½ month period ending in May 2024, even though she wasn’t performing billable work at that time. A temporary employment agreement in effect during that period provided that Fay would be paid only for billable work assigned to her and performed.”
• “The agreement was reached in late September 2023 after Fay asked to remain listed on the firm’s website. Fay’s contract as a project attorney ended without an extension June 30, 2023, but she continued to be paid for three months and was offered consulting services to help with her job search, the suit says.”
• “When Dechert discovered its mistake in mid-May 2024, it demanded its money back. Fay did not comply, the suit says.”
• “Fay told Law.com that the suit allegations ‘are baseless and its actions are unethical.’ She worked on the firm’s product liability team for more than a decade ‘and am now a law librarian earning less than a paralegal,’ she said.”
• “‘It is unfortunate that Dechert has chosen to remove my vested funds from my 401(k) account and to bully me in public,’ Fay told Law.com. ‘However, the equities and the law favor me and I look forward to vindicating my rights and reputation in court.'”

Above the Law updates and weighs in: “Sullivan & Cromwell Attorneys Are NOT Happy The Firm Decided To Suck Up To Trump” —

• “Back in the day, S&C reportedly refused to represent Trump, allowing them to avoid having to trade deep-pocketed clients anxious to distance their brands from the most toxic client in America, in exchange for the honor of getting stiffed on the bill.”
• “But this time around, corporate America appears actively interested in currying favor with the White House any way they can and a cozy relationship with Trump is not only no longer a negative, it might actually be a firm selling point. And so Sullivan & Cromwell publicly announced that it’s going to represent Trump as he challenges the hush money conviction.”
• “Firm leadership might see this matter as an opportunity to show clients that they have Trump’s ear, which remains surprisingly pristine one for a guy who swears it was shot off by a sniper. But the decision is already alienating the firm’s attorneys.”
• “According to one S&C attorney who purports to have spoken with multiple S&C colleagues, the mood is that everyone is ‘upset with the announcement that we’ll be representing Trump.’ Another notes that it will ‘likely to grow into a morale drain among associates.'”
• “And while there may be general dismay with representing Trump as a person, for one S&C lawyer it’s less about the client than that client’s history of forcing his lawyers to publicly debase themselves by litigating cases his way.”
• “‘It does not appear that we are treating this like a normal S&C appeal where we stay quiet and do great legal work. To have the head of the Firm talking about D.A. Bragg ‘target[ing]’ President Trump is completely antithetical to anything I have experienced in my time at the Firm before. I had always been proud that we emphasize precision and accuracy in what we say—eschewing exaggerations, hyperbole and personal attacks. Very alienating to see senior management abandoning that.'”
• “S&C pays market and provides matching bonuses so they’ll not find themselves bereft of talent right away. But when the next up-and-coming talent weighs their summer offers or a thriving associate gets a call from a recruiter… are they going to be interested in a career with Roy Cohn Lite, LLP or somewhere else?”

“Court Reveals Madigan Vetted His Client List Assiduously, Excluding the Times He Didn’t” —

• “Former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan’s longtime law firm partner Vincent ‘Bud’ Getzendanner testified in Madigan’s defense against numerous federal charges last week.”
• “One of the main themes of Getzendanner’s testimony was the property tax firm’s process of weeding out clients and potential clients who could pose a conflict of interest to Madigan.”
• “Getzendanner testified ‘there would be a meeting once or twice a year involving Madigan’s statehouse legal staff regarding Madigan & Getzendanner clients,’ Sun-Times reporter Jon Seidel reported from the courtroom. Getzendanner would also periodically send the firm’s client list to some of Madigan’s Statehouse staffers so that they could check it against legislation that was currently before the Illinois House, Seidel noted.”
• “The jury was also shown emails from Madigan’s legislative staffers to Getzendanner regarding inquiries about the firm’s clients, or whether some entities with issues before the legislature were clients.”
• “‘There was a constant back and forth between Mike’s legislative staff and the law office,’ Getzendanner told jurors, according to Dave Byrnes with Courthouse News.”
• “Getzendanner also testified that he had the final say about whether to bring in clients.”
• “As an example, in a memo shown to jurors from Getzendanner to Madigan, Getzendanner wrote, ‘No file is accepted and opened until I do a review to determine if the firm’s representation would constitute a conflict, or the appearance of a conflict, with your legislative duties,’ reported the Tribune’s Jason Meisner.”
• “Jurors were shown a chart of Madigan clients with notations from various folks about potential conflicts. ‘Most entries on the chart say, ‘no conflict,’’ reported Seidel. Madigan attorney Dan Collins highlighted one email that read, ‘possible appearance of conflict; principal owner of Walton is Neil Bluhm who is principal owner of Rivers Casino. Very thin connection, but err on side of caution.'”
• “This thorough and nearly constant vetting process is why the people who thought they knew Madigan well firmly believed that he understood where the legal lines were and that he had never crossed them. Some still believe that’s true today.”
• “Clients with land-transfer issues would definitely be screened out, Getzendanner testified, according to Seidel. ‘That’s a category where you absolutely could not take on a client.'”
• “And yet, the prosecution has shown jurors evidence that Madigan did, indeed, work on legislation to help a real estate investor by trying to move a Chinatown land transfer bill through the House. The feds also presented evidence that allege a successful transfer would’ve resulted in legal business for Madigan & Getzendanner from that developer.”
• “The deal was being put together by then-Chicago Ald. Danny Solis, who became a mole for the FBI after being confronted with his own lawbreaking. As I’ve told you before, Madigan instructed Solis to reach out to Michael McClain to see if he could help. McClain was Madigan’s top advisor and the trial’s Madigan co-defendant.”
• “OK, wait a second. Didn’t Getzendanner testify under oath that he had the final say in taking on new clients and that there was no way a client with a land transfer bill would ever be accepted? And wasn’t there a massive and ongoing client vetting process?”
• “It doesn’t matter to the feds. Policies can be changed, after all. And they have enough recordings to suggest Madigan was pushing the bill and was being told he’d get a new client out of it.”
• “‘One of my regrets is that I had any time spent with Danny Solis,’ Madigan told jurors, according to the Sun-Times.”

More on this matter: “Closing arguments begin in Mike Madigan federal corruption trial”

“V&E Law Firm Defense Team’s Annual Review of Texas Professional-Liability Opinions” —

• “V&E’s Law Firm Defense team constantly monitors Texas judicial opinions that could impact liability for attorneys and law firms practicing in Texas and around the country. We summarize here what we considered to be the most important Texas judicial opinions of 2024 about which law firm general counsel and loss-prevention attorneys with regional, national, or international practices should be aware.”
• “The Beaumont Court of Appeals Held That an Out-of-State Law Firm Was Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Texas for Having Communications with a Prospective Texas Client About a Texas Matter. Oshman v. Wilkison, No. 09-23-00201-CV, 2024 WL 1100005 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 14, 2024, pet. filed)”
• “Here, the out-of-state firm’s website advertised that it handled personal injury cases in all 50 states and invited potential clients to submit online case evaluation forms. The plaintiff, a Texas resident, submitted a form regarding a potential wrongful death matter in Texas. Lawyers at the firm had follow-up communications with the plaintiff and asked plaintiff to submit various other documents from Texas. Ultimately, the firm declined to take the matter. The plaintiff sued the firm in Texas arguing that the firm failed to properly advise plaintiff about a looming limitations issue.”
• “Reversing the trial court on an interlocutory appeal, the court found that the firm was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas and rejected several arguments routinely employed to establish jurisdiction over an out-of-state firm. Among other things, the court held: (1) legal work done out of state did not establish jurisdiction in Texas, even if done on behalf of a Texas resident; (2) mere communications between an out-of-state firm and a Texas resident did not establish jurisdiction in Texas; (3) a firm website that is accessible to Texas residents did not establish jurisdiction in Texas when it was nationally accessible; and (4) discussing a prospective Texas matter with a Texas resident did not establish jurisdiction in Texas because the matter was never filed.”
• “The plaintiff has asked the Texas Supreme Court to review this decision, but the Texas Supreme Court has not decided if it will grant a discretionary review.”
• “The Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals Held That a Law Firm Was Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Texas for Work on an Out-of-State Matter Because It Solicited the Client (and its Affiliates) for Unrelated Work in Texas. Akerman, LLP v. Landry’s Seafood House-Florida, Inc., No. 14-23-00778-CV, 2024 WL 5051198 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 10, 2024, no pet. h.)”
• “This opinion reached the startling conclusion that a Florida-based law firm was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas for alleged legal malpractice committed when Florida attorneys performed legal services in Florida for a Florida-based plaintiff on a matter involving Florida real estate. The court acknowledged that no legal work on the underlying matter was performed in Texas, that the client was the one who reached out to the Florida attorneys for representation on the underlying matter, and that, although the firm had Texas offices, no Texas attorneys were involved in the underlying matter. Despite these facts, however, the court found the firm was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas because there was evidence that the firm previously solicited unrelated work in Texas from the client and its Texas-based affiliated companies and that these solicitation efforts led to the firm’s hiring on the underlying matter.”
• “The time period for the law firm to request a discretionary review by the Texas Supreme Court has not passed.”

“RFK Jr.’s referral fees in litigation over Merck’s Gardasil raise conflict-of-interest questions: reports” —

• “Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to continue to receive referral fees from a law firm that is suing pharma powerhouse Merck & Co. over the marketing and sale of one of its vaccines.”
• “RFK Jr.’s plan—which was revealed (PDF) in a signed ethics agreement that was made public earlier this week—raises conflict-of-interest issues as he is seeking confirmation to run an agency that regulates Merck and other drugmakers.”
• “The law firm, Wisner Baum, represents clients who are suing Merck for not warning that its HPV vaccine Gardasil could cause cervical cancer. RFK Jr. has played a key role in organizing Gardasil litigation in the U.S., according to Reuters, and has rights to 10% of fees recovered in certain cases.”
• “The New York Times was first to make the link between Wisner Baum and the action it is taking against Merck and to report the associated concerns with RFK Jr. given his ethics statement.”
• “Upon his potential confirmation, RFK Jr. said he would resign as a consultant for the firm but would still collect referral fees for cases that the company won, provided—per HHS and ethics committee review—that they don’t involve the U.S. “
• “‘I will retain a contingency fee interest in cases that the ethics office of the Department of Health and Human Services has determined do not involve the United States as a party and in which the United States does not have a direct and substantial interest,’ RFK Jr. wrote in the document. ‘I am entitled to receive a portion of future recovery in these cases based upon the set percentage as set forth in the referral agreement.'”
• “Conversely, in cases that do involve the U.S. government, RFK Jr. pledged to divest his financial interest, according to the filing. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program—a special legal system for suspected vaccine-related injuries—falls under HHS authority, so RFK Jr. would presumably divest his interest in any of those petitions.”
• “RFK Jr. collected $856,000 from Wisner Baum last year, according to his financial disclosure form (PDF).”
• “Besides the Gardasil litigation, Wisner Baum is active in lawsuits concerning Pfizer’s injectable birth control drug Depo-Provera, Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic, Indivior’s pain drug Suboxone and other medicines. The firm has a history of litigation involving the drug industry, according to its website.”
  “With RFK Jr. appointment for HHS, biopharma industry could face powerful adversary in government”
• “RFK Jr., for his part, has a decades-long history of spreading anti-vaccine rhetoric and conspiracy theories, including the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism. When his HHS nomination was announced, stock prices for many of the world’s top vaccine makers dropped.”

“Trump hires new lawyers to appeal his hush money conviction” —

• “President Donald Trump has hired the elite white-shoe law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to appeal his criminal conviction in the Manhattan hush money case.”
• “The most prominent member of Trump’s new legal team is Robert Giuffra, the firm’s co-chair… ‘President Donald J. Trump’s appeal is important for the rule of law, New York’s reputation as a global business, financial and legal center, as well as for the presidency and all public officials,’ Giuffra said in a statement. ‘The misuse of the criminal law by the Manhattan DA to target President Trump sets a dangerous precedent, and we look forward to the case being dismissed on appeal.'”
• “In the hush money case, Giuffra and his firm’s other lawyers will replace Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, who represented Trump during the trial last spring. Blanche is Trump’s nominee to become deputy attorney general, and Bove has already joined the Trump Justice Department as acting deputy attorney general. Once Blanche is confirmed, Bove will step into the No. 3 spot in the department.”
• “The decision to represent Trump by Sullivan & Cromwell, one of the most prominent firms in the country, represents a departure from the legal community’s attitude toward him in recent years. When Trump hired Blanche to represent him in the spring of 2023, Blanche had to quit the elite firm where he was a partner, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.”
• “In his resignation email at the time, Blanche said he was unable to take Trump as a client while remaining at the firm. ‘Obviously, doing this as a partner at Cadwalader was not an option,’ he wrote, ‘so I have had to make the difficult choice to leave the firm.'”
• “Giuffra has worked as a litigator representing companies like Volkswagen AG and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. He also has held a handful of New York state government-appointed positions, including on several ethics boards.”
• “Last spring, Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of concealing a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels. He was sentenced to ‘unconditional discharge,’ a sentence that carries no punishment, earlier this month, shortly before he took office.”

“Troutman Pepper Locke Navigates Sticky Conflict After Merger” —

• “Troutman Pepper Locke is using an ‘ethical wall’ within the firm so its lawyers can represent clients on opposing sides of a bankruptcy proceeding, a firm partner told a Texas court.”
• “The firm’s lawyers are seeking to collect legal fees from a bankrupt client while simultaneously representing some of that client’s creditors. The client and creditors had been represented by separate firms, Troutman Pepper and Locke Lord, until those two operations merged Jan. 1.”
• “‘The firm has created an ethical wall completely separating legacy Locke Lord lawyers working on matters for the debtors from legacy Troutman Pepper lawyers working on matters involving the debtors,’ partner Thomas Yoxall told a Texas bankruptcy court in a Jan. 8 filing in a case involving Steward Health Care System. Yoxall and the firm didn’t respond to requests for comment on the filing.”
• “Lingering conflicts are an increasing problem for law firms that choose to balloon in size through mergers. They pose a risk to the new firms that lawyers will need to quit to resolve the situations or that clients will file malpractice suits over the representation issues.”
• “The merger between Troutman Pepper and Locke Lord created one of the 50 largest US legal operations, manifesting a trend in which firms merge to achieve scale and remain competitive. The predecessor operations reported more than $1.5 billion in combined revenue in 2023, and leaders of the two firms touted that post-merger they’d have 1,600 lawyers and 35 offices in the US and Europe.”
• “Resolving potential conflicts led to a delay in finalizing Troutman Pepper Locke’s merger, with Locke Lord ultimately showing the door to some lawyers with conflicting clients, according to two sources familiar with the deal.”
• “‘It’s axiomatic in these big law firms that as they get bigger, they get more conflicts of interest,’ said Ashley London, director of bar studies and assistant professor of law at Duquesne University.”
• “Bankruptcy law requires professionals seeking payment from an estate to disclose potential conflicts. Merging firms resolve such situations by asking clients to sign conflict waivers or by creating an ‘ethical wall’ that prevents attorneys from representing clients with adverse interests to other clients.”
• “If firms don’t get a client’s consent regarding conflicts, they may have to drop out, said Laura Saklad, former chief operating officer of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, who now leads the legal division for software provider Intapp. ‘Conflicts are one of the most challenging parts for getting a merger through, especially with bigger firms,’ Saklad said. ‘If they can’t clear the conflict, they have to make difficult choices sometimes.'”
• “Clients are sometimes unimpressed with ‘ethical walls’ and firms risk malpractice claims. In the last year, Cooley was sued with such claims, and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher was accused by a former client of dropping them to represent an adversary with deeper pockets.”
• “Troutman Pepper is another of several Big Law firms facing malpractice claims from former clients over alleged conflicts of interest. Judlau Contracting is suing the firm for $59 million.”

“Prosecutors Ask Judge to Question Charlie Javice Lawyer Over Alleged Conflict” —

• “Federal prosecutors are asking a judge to investigate whether or not an attorney for Charlie Javice, the founder of the student loan fintech start-up Frank, may have a conflict of interest, given that he represented her in a prior investigation unrelated to her pending fraud case.”
• “David Siegal of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo is not accused of wrongdoing, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. But prosecutors do want the judge to bar Siegal from cross-examining witnesses or making arguments relating to matters in which he was personally involved.”
• “The case is before U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York. Prosecutors claim Javice willfully misled JPMorganChase into acquiring her start-up for $175 million. She has pleaded not guilty.”
• “Prior to starting Frank—a student financial aid start-up—Javice was employed by JPMorganChase, where multiple colleagues accused her of misconduct unrelated to her federal indictment. Javice was twice interviewed by investigators at Morgan, and Siegal represented her in connection with that investigation and questioning.”
• “The alleged misconduct included misuse of corporate credit cards for personal use, and use of personal emails and devices for business purposes. While Siegal at that point turned over some of Javice’s texts to Morgan investigators, prosecutors say they now know her messages contained significantly more responsive communications—including about the alleged fraud on J.P. Morgan.”
• “Siegal has agreed not to cross examine one of the investigators from Morgan, but has not agreed to ‘refrain from arguing to the jury regarding matters to which he was a witness,’ the letter reads.”
• “Though they do not seek to disqualify him, prosecutors ask Hellerstein to hold a Curcio hearing, to address any potential conflicts that may arise as a sworn or unsworn witness at trial.”
• “Meanwhile, Javice is seeking to sever her case from her co-defendant and former colleague Olivier Amar, claiming they have antagonistic defenses and that he will turn on her.”
• “Prosecutors oppose the motion, saying the request identifies no prejudice and is unsupported to warrant such a request so soon before trial.”

“Cleveland fires law firm after it agrees to assist Brook Park on Browns stadium” —

• “Mayor Justin Bibb is firing a law firm that was helping Cleveland raise funds for waterfront development as well as ballpark and arena repairs — since that law firm is now representing Brook Park as it tries to attract the Cleveland Browns.”
• “Cleveland’s Law Director Mark Griffin sent a letter to Bricker Graydon LLP on Wednesday saying he ‘was extremely disappointed’ with the law firm’s decision to represent Brook Park on the Browns’ stadium issues. Griffin said Bricker Graydon can’t represent both cities without a conflict of interest.”
• “‘Bricker’s access to Cleveland’s confidential information renders it impossible to now represent Brook Park in such an adversarial posture,’ Griffin wrote.”
• “The Browns are looking at building a $2.4 billion domed stadium in Brook Park that would be part of a much larger entertainment district on a 176-acre plot. Cleveland, meanwhile, wants the Browns to stay on the lakefront and has invoked the ‘Modell Law’ to try to stop the football team’s move to the suburbs.”
• “Bricker Graydon said in a statement that many legal issues it will help Brook Park with — including zoning, permitting and real estate — don’t present a conflict of interest.”
• “‘We see no scenario where the City of Cleveland will be on the other side of those issues,’ the statement from Bricker Graydon said. The law firm added that it values its relationship with Cleveland and plans to work with the city on these concerns in the coming days.”
• “Griffin said in his letter that keeping the Browns in downtown Cleveland was an important element of these plans. Bricker was privy to Cleveland’s strategy when it comes to both funding sports stadiums and retaining teams, Griffin said.”
• “Bricker Graydon didn’t tell Cleveland it was considering working with Brook Park, according to Griffin’s letter. Cleveland is now ending three contracts with the law firm and asking it to address the potential conflict of interests.”
• “‘The interests of Cleveland and Brook Park are direct and indirectly adverse with respect to providing a stadium for the Browns,’ Griffin wrote. ‘The team can only play in one city.'”
• “Bricker Graydon said it was never retained by Cleveland for work related to the Browns, the Haslams, the Modell lawsuit or the ongoing stadium issue. The firm said it also has not been hired by the Browns or Haslam family, and only took the Brook Park job months after the team announced its intention to move.”

“US law firm accused of ethics breach in Blue Cross antitrust lawsuit” —

• “A prominent U.S. law firm has been accused of misusing confidential information it obtained in antitrust litigation against insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield to woo new health care provider clients to sue the company.”
• “The accusations against Zuckerman Spaeder were made on Friday in a U.S. court filing in Alabama by a group of lawyers representing hospitals and other providers in a proposed $2.8 billion settlement with Blue Cross.”
• “The attorneys said Zuckerman Spaeder was disparaging the class action settlement while urging hospitals to bring their own lawsuits. The attorneys asked a U.S. judge to bar the Washington, D.C.-based law firm from representing providers.”
• ‘This motion is completely without basis,’ Zuckerman partner Cyril Smith said in a statement. ‘Neither I nor my firm has violated any ethical rule or standard.'”
• “Smith was named to the five-person plaintiffs’ steering committee that helped direct the litigation in federal court in Alabama. Blue Cross agreed to a $2.7 billion settlement with the subscribers in 2020, and the U.S. Supreme Court last year upheld the accord. Blue Cross has denied any wrongdoing. In October, Blue Cross said it would pay another $2.8 billion and implement a series of reforms to resolve claims from health providers that they were underpaid for reimbursements. That deal won preliminary approval in December.”
• “The providers’ lawyers told Chief U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor in Birmingham on Friday that Smith was ‘affirmatively advertising’ his prior access to confidential litigation information to drive new business to his firm, in violation of prior obligations as a class counsel for the subscriber settlement.”
• “‘Mr. Smith has already been well paid for his work for the subscribers; he should not be allowed to monetize his violations of his ethical obligations,’ the attorneys told the court.”
• “The case is In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, No. 2:13-cv-20000-RDP.”