Bressler Risk Blog

“Edgio counsel faces UST objection to retention” —

• “The US Trustee in Edgio’s bankruptcy filed an objection to the debtors’ application to employ Milbank as counsel, marking the third big retention battle this year — the other two taking place in Enviva and Invitae.”
• “Edgio, a technology services company filed for bankruptcy on 9 September in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Karen Owens, with an application to employ Milbank as debtors’ counsel.”
• “The US Trustee’s objection arose from Milbank’s representation of the debtors’ current and former officers as defendants in litigation actions. The US Trustee views this representation of directors and officers as ‘interests adverse to the estate’ which would disqualify the firm under Section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The debtors disclosed this relationship in their declaration and stated ‘Milbank’s joint representation of Edgio, Inc. with certain of its current and former directors and officers is not adverse to the Debtors or their estates.'”
• “Section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides: Except as otherwise provided in this section, the trustee, with the court’s approval, may employ one or more attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, or other professional persons, that do not hold or represent an interest adverse to the estate, and that are disinterested persons, to represent or assist the trustee in carrying out the trustee’s duties under this title.”
• “The Bankruptcy Code does not define ‘adverse interest.’ The US Trustee cites a number of cases which have set precedent for what ‘adverse interest’ means and suggests the phrase can be defined as ‘when counsel has a competing economic interest tending to diminish estate values or to create a potential or actual dispute in which the estate is a rival claimant,’ or where ‘the representation of another interest may cause the debtor’s attorneys to act any differently than they would without that other representation.’ According to the US Trustee, these circumstances create a conflict of interest such that the firm must be disqualified under section 327(a).”
• “The US Trustee argues that Milbank’s clients in the securities and derivative actions have opposite interests to the estate, since the officers and directors ‘want to minimize their liability on the same claims that the Debtors have a fiduciary duty to maximize.'”
• “Addressing certain arguments the US Trustee expects Milbank to offer in reply, the US Trustee says even if the debtors argue that this is only potentially a conflict and not an actual conflict, it should still result in disqualification, since potential conflicts are only a defense if every competent professional in the field is already employed in the case, which is not the case here. Also, even if Milbank asserts that it has a conflict waiver from the debtors and its directors and officers, the US Trustee argues that the code does not allow for an adverse interest to be overcome by a conflict waiver.”
• “Notably, this issue arose in Enviva’s retention battle as well, where Vinson & Elkins was representing officers and directors in shareholder and derivative actions, but the judge ultimately ruled that this issue did not present an impermissible conflict. In Enviva, the directors and officers were also entitled to indemnification, including defense costs, and under the RSA debtors’ management was entitled to 3.5% of the equity in the reorganized entities. After weighing the risk of any potential conflicts and the potential advantages to the bankruptcy estate such as savings of time and money, the court found that at least at the time of the opinion, this did not disqualify counsel.”

“Shipman & Goodwin Atty Needed As Witness, DQ Bid Claims” —

• “A Connecticut company wants a Shipman & Goodwin LLP partner disqualified from representing a rival in a bond dispute surrounding a garbage sorting facility permit, saying the attorney was personally involved in some of the conduct in question.”
• “In a motion filed Monday [9/23] in Connecticut Superior Court, Country Holding Company LLC asked the court to remove attorney Joseph P. Williams of Shipman & Goodman from serving as trial counsel representing defendants Covanta Projects of Wallingford LLC and Covanta Energy LLC. Country Holding argued that Williams previously served as counsel for the defendants amid the two sides’ negotiations regarding a contentious permit transfer, and is needed as a witness at trial.”
• “In its motion to disqualify Williams, Country Holding said the Shipman & Goodwin partner ‘was personally involved’ in conduct that led to one of the tortious interference claims.”
• “Because Williams was involved in the ‘scheme’ to use the DEEP permit needed to operate the Wallingford facility as ‘leverage’ in the ongoing legal tussle, Country Holding said, his testimony would be needed at trial, and therefore, he could not appear on behalf of the Covanta parties.”

“An Australian company now owns one-third of Canada’s patent law market, drawing concern over conflicts of interest” —

• “Australian intellectual property services company IPH Ltd. now controls about a third of the Canadian patent and trademark law market following its recent acquisition of Bereskin & Parr.”
• “That deal, which was announced in late August, is IPH’s fourth Canadian acquisition in the past two years. The company’s aggressive push into Canada has raised concerns in some quarters about the impact on the country’s intellectual property market. Some in the sector have warned that this level of consolidation will drive up costs and create conflict of interest headaches, while others warn that the IPH business model is going to harm small domestic innovators.”
• “In 2013, a law changed in Australia allowing patent attorney firms to incorporate. This was the genesis of IPH, which grew out of Australian intellectual property firm Spruson & Ferguson. The partners sold the business into IPH and then listed the company on the Australian Stock Exchange.”
• “The way the ownership is structured in Canada is as follows: IPH purchases the firm’s intellectual property agency practice – the component that handles patent prosecution and trademark work – and then assumes an ownership stake in the legal practice through the agency.”
• “IPH’s entrance into the Canadian market has some lawyers worried. Among them is Louis-Pierre Gravelle, who left Bereskin & Parr recently after the buyout was announced. He is now with Dipchand LLP. ‘The incursion of IPH on the Canadian market will have long lasting ripple effect, some of which is predictable, some of which isn’t,’ Mr. Gravelle said.”
• “Gunars Gaikis, a senior counsel at Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, who left Smart & Biggar after nearly four decades shortly after the sale to IPH, raised a similar concern. ‘Their focus is profit,’ he said. ‘Not everything is always about money … I know in my own career, somebody calls, they have an idea, you help them out, you quickly realize they really can’t afford very much, but you help them to the extent you can. I think a lot of that is likely to go by the wayside.'”

“What France’s ‘McKinsey Gate’ scandal revealed about the four major types of consulting’s conflicts of interests“–

• “McKinsey & Company and other consulting firms have long faced criticisms for their involvement with governments. Investigative journalists and academics alike have flagged their growing influence, citing cases like the staggering expenses of up to £1 million per day on private consultants for the UK’s Covid-19 Test-and-Trace service, or the €10.7 million in contracts paid to McKinsey by the French government during the same crisis.”
• “Yet there is broader criticism that consulting firms have lost their professional ethos. Investigative journalist Duff McDonald, in his 2014 book The Firm, argued that McKinsey veered far from the ethical standards set by its founder, Marvin Bower, in the 1950s, who invented management consulting by taking inspiration from the law profession.”
• “This shift has led to a long series of scandals involving corruption, unethical work, and conflicts of interest. Other consulting firms, including Bain & Company and BCG, have also faced their fair share of scandals. In 2022, they were banned from bidding on South African government contracts for their role in a state capture scandal, and BCG recently agreed to forfeit $14 million in profits in Angola after admitting to bribery scandal.”
• “A closer look at recent scandals that strategy consulting firms have faced in advising governments reveals four types of conflicts of interest:
  • Personal interests and relationships: As the Cash Investigation episode revealed, Karim Tadjeddine’s connections with Macron’s party allowed McKinsey to establish a strong foothold within government decision-making. This not only advanced Tadjeddine’s career but also underscored a deeper conflict – where consultants build relationships or align themselves with key networks to secure future contracts, bonuses, or other rewards. One common avenue for such conflicts is their pro bono work, which Cash Investigation exposed as a tool that Tadjeddine used to forge connections that later led to profitable contracts.
  • Working with conflicting clients and assignments: McKinsey & Company’s involvement in the opioid crisis is a striking example. The firm provided strategic advice both to opioid manufacturers like Purdue Pharma and to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates the opioid market. An investigation by the US House of Representatives revealed that McKinsey failed to disclose these conflicts over a 10-year period, impacting 37 FDA contracts at a cost of over $65 million. Although Cash Investigation did not address such overlapping contracts, similar conflicts likely exist in France, where McKinsey’s work with both public and private clients raises red flags. According to the French Senate, those advising the government are legally required to declare potential conflicts of interest, yet in most cases McKinsey failed to submit these declarations.
  • Profit-centered advice: In a highly publicised case, the South African Government Commission found that Bain & Company acted unlawfully colluding with private companies to manipulate government procedures and shape policies in their favour. This highlights a crucial issue overlooked by Cash Investigation: private consultants often pursue financial interests that conflict with the government’s responsibility to serve the public good. When such firms work for governments, these their profit motive can undermine social welfare goals.
  • Revolving doors: Another conflict of interest involves leveraging personal connections within government to influence decisions. Largely overlooked by the documentary, this issue is significant: around 1% of McKinsey’s employees in France previously held high-ranking positions in the government, and several have transitioned into government roles. In an industry where networks create opportunities, this revolving door between consulting firms and government raises serious concerns about impartiality. A notable example outside France is Deloitte’s role in the UK’s Covid-19 Test and Trace program, as detailed in ‘The Big Con’. Deloitte’s close ties to government officials, including Cabinet Office minister Chloe Smith – who previously worked for Deloitte – likely fast-tracked the firm’s £279.5 million contract during the pandemic.”

“Honigman Not Conflicted Out Of $40M Detroit Embezzling Suit” —

• “A Michigan state judge said Friday [9/27] that the law firm that investigated suspected fraud at the Detroit Riverfront Conservancy can also represent the organization in its civil suit against its former chief financial officer, who is accused of embezzling $40 million.”
• “Wayne County Circuit Judge Muriel D. Hughes denied accused co-conspirator Darrell Greer’s motion to disqualify Honigman LLP from representing the Detroit Riverfront Conservancy. The judge found the firm’s involvement in the investigation that supported criminal charges against former CFO William A. Smith is not in conflict with its ability to pursue civil claims against Smith, his family and Greer.”
• “Greer and his construction business, You Services LLC — which is accused of accepting transfers from Smith to shield assets from the conservancy after the theft was discovered — had asked the court to disqualify Honigman from representing the conservancy, alleging the firm will have a conflict because it was involved in the fraud investigation.”
• “Todd Russell Perkins of the Perkins Law Group, one of Greer’s attorneys, told the court Friday that the attorneys involved in the investigation also turned over information to law enforcement, and that they could potentially need to be deposed or called as witnesses at trial.”
• “Perkins said the information Honigman learned has been used to prosecute others and that because his client is accused of being connected to the scheme, the firm’s involvement could prejudice Greer.”
• “Jeremy Lockhart of Honigman said disqualification would be of ‘severe consequence’ to the conservancy. If Honigman were to be disqualified, the nonprofit would have to spend money on catching another firm up to speed and the case would be unnecessarily delayed, he said.”
• “Disqualification would also be unwarranted, Lockhart said. Law firms often conduct pre-lawsuit investigations, and if that were enough of a basis to disqualify a lawyer, courts would see these motions all the time, he said. He referenced Michigan professional conduct rules that allow other lawyers to act as advocates in a trial if another lawyer from the same firm could be called as a witness if no other conflict exists.”

“Jackson Walker Lawyers Spoke of Secret Judge Romance, Texts Show” —

• “Two Jackson Walker LLP attorneys exchanged text messages in 2021 showing they knew about, and discussed the potential fallout of, an undisclosed romantic relationship between a firm lawyer and a former Houston bankruptcy judge.”
• “The texts, which were displayed in records viewed by Bloomberg Law, appeared to be the subject of debate during a bankruptcy court hearing Tuesday over discovery related to the Justice Department bankruptcy unit’s claims that the Texas law firm breached its ethical duties. The bankruptcy monitor, the US Trustee, says Jackson Walker should disgorge at least $18 million because the firm failed to disclose what it says is a clear conflict of interest.”
• “The texts viewed by Bloomberg Law, which indicate the Jackson Walker attorneys who sent them were trying to ‘protect’ Freeman, are notable in light of the firm’s statements that it took appropriate actions when it learned of the relationship. Jones regularly presided over Jackson Walker’s cases in bankruptcy court before he resigned.”
• “‘What the employees did is they came up with a plan, and the plan was to get documents sealed so that it wouldn’t be public,’ [US Trustee attorney] Charboneau said. ‘The evidence is going to show that the employees spoke about this—Freeman and former Judge Jones—in a way that shows that no less than three of the employees of Jackson Walker had knowledge that they were in a relationship.'”
• “Rusty Hardin of Rusty Hardin & Associates LLP, representing Jackson Walker, told Chief Judge Eduardo V. Rodriguez on Tuesday that there’s been no evidence that ‘anyone in management’ at the firm knew about the relationship. He said there’s a “strong disagreement” about the meaning of the texts.”

“AI assistants are blabbing our embarrassing work secrets” —

• “Corporate assistants have long been the keepers of company gossip and secrets. Now artificial intelligence is taking over some of their tasks, but it doesn’t share their sense of discretion.”
• “Researcher and engineer Alex Bilzerian said on X last week that, after a Zoom meeting with some venture capital investors, he got an automated email from Otter.ai, a transcription service with an ‘AI meeting assistant.’ The email contained a transcript of the meeting — including the part that happened after Bilzerian logged off, when the investors discussed their firm’s strategic failures and cooked metrics, he told The Washington Post via direct message on X.”
• “Companies are pumping AI features into work products across the board. Most recently, Salesforce announced an AI offering called Agentforce, which allows customers to build AI-powered virtual agents that help with sales and customer service. Microsoft has been ramping up the capabilities of its AI Copilot across its suite of work products, while Google has been doing the same with Gemini.”
• “Sometimes AI note takers catch moments that weren’t meant for outside ears. Isaac Naor, a software designer in Los Angeles, said he once received an Otter transcript after a Zoom meeting that contained moments where the other participant muted herself to talk about him. She had no idea, and Naor was too uncomfortable to tell her, he said.”
• “Other times, the very presence of an AI tool makes meetings uncomfortable. Rob Bezdjian, who owns a small events business in Salt Lake City, said he had an awkward call with potential investors after they insisted on recording a meeting through Otter. Bezdjian didn’t want his proprietary ideas recorded, so he declined to share some details about his business. The deal didn’t go through.”
• “Too often, the executives who decide to implement companywide AI tools aren’t well versed in the risks, said cybersecurity consultant Will Andre. In his previous career as a marketer, he once stumbled across a video of his bosses deciding who would get cut in an upcoming round of layoffs. The software recording the video meeting had been configured to automatically save a copy to the company’s public server. (He decided to pretend that he never saw it.)”

“Judge Rejects Company’s Attempt to Boot Former Lewis Rice Counsel From Representing Competitor” —

• “A federal judge in Missouri this week declined to boot an NLJ 500 firm from defending an orthodontic appliance manufacturer in a trademark dispute, finding that the defense counsel’s former client, who is now the plaintiff, likely knew of the firm’s involvement well before the lawsuit was filed.”
• “The plaintiff had claimed that Lewis Rice served as its ‘general counsel and only attorney for two decades.’ Its president also claimed he discussed issues regarding the present lawsuit with Lewis Rice partner Brian Pezza.”
• “However, Pitlyk agreed that evidence showed the plaintiff likely had knowledge of the firm’s involvement with the competitor, leaving the plaintiff little room to attempt to explain a justified delay for its motion to disqualify.”
• “‘Defendant had Lewis Rice as counsel for at least 11 months of back-and-forth between the parties to this litigation. At no point during those 11 months did plaintiff seek to disqualify Lewis Rice. Compelling defendant to find new counsel that far along in the litigation would be prejudicial,’ Pitlyk said in Monday’s order.”
• “According to Pitlyk, Ordont did not raise the conflict of interest issue until after Lewis Rice filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in July 2023.”
• “Lewis Rice further argued that its present representation of DynaFlex was well beyond any professional conduct violations. The firm claimed it never represented Ordont in trademark matters, and that Ordont used other law firms for such matters, as shown by public filings of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”
• “‘Under these circumstances, characterizing Lewis Rice as Ordont’s ‘general counsel’ is hyperbole and misleading,’ the defendant’s counsel said. ‘Lewis Rice properly declined to take on a new representation of its former client, Ordont, in December of 2021 when Ordont reached out asking that Lewis Rice represent it, for the first time, in a trademark matter.'”
• “Ultimately Pitly rejected the plaintiff’s reasoning for the delayed disqualification request.”
• “‘Plaintiff concedes in its reply that it ‘could have raised this motion before the TTAB, a tribunal,’ but contends that it was ‘required to raise the motion within a reasonable time of the commencement of this litigation,'” Pitlyk wrote. “Plaintiff’s suggestion that the delay should be measured from when this particular action commenced rather than when plaintiff learned of the potential conflict is in tension with the rationale for prohibiting untimely motions to disqualify—i.e., to prevent litigants from using such motions ‘later as a tool to deprive his opponent of counsel of his choice after substantial preparation of a case has been completed.””

“Arnold & Itkin DQ Bid Says Zeta Defense Atty Is Ex-Employee” —

• “Arnold & Itkin has asked a Harris County judge to disqualify the law firm representing a drilling rig owner in litigation spurring from Hurricane Zeta, alleging a defense lawyer previously worked for Arnold & Itkin and improperly sent herself confidential information about the litigation before leaving the firm.”
• “In a 25-page motion filed Tuesday, Arnold & Itkin LLP says that Karina Sanchez-Peralta of Ahmad Zavitsanos & Mensing PLLC, who represents Transocean Ltd., worked as a law clerk at Arnold & Itkin from Aug. 29, 2022, to Oct. 4, 2022. By that point, Arnold & Itkin had for two years been representing plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation created to handle seamen’s claims surrounding Hurricane Zeta, the firm states. The crew members claim they were injured after Transocean forced their ship to remain in the path of the hurricane when it hit the Gulf of Mexico in October 2020.”
• “Ahmad Zavitsanos ‘recruited’ Sanchez-Peralta before the end of her employment with Arnold & Itkin, the firm says, adding that she became an associate with Ahmad Zavitsanos in September 2023 and became attorney of record for Transocean in the Hurricane Zeta MDL in March 2024.”
• “Sanchez-Peralta, has been chosen by her employer to serve as ‘lead attorney on all issues related to medical damages, witnesses, and records,’ took work product from Arnold & Itkin related to the Hurricane Zeta MDL “in the final minutes” of her employment, according to Arnold & Itkin.”
• “‘Namely, Ms. Sanchez attached multiple confidential work-product documents to an email she sent to her own personal email literally in the last few moments before she walked out of the door,’ Arnold & Itkin asserts.’ Then, according to her own LinkedIn profile, she took a job at AZA. Plaintiffs just discovered these violations and the conflict of interest after feeling compelled to investigate other potential ethical and professional violations based on Transocean and its counsel’s recent conduct in the media.”
• “In its motion Tuesday, Arnold & Itkin also accuses Sanchez-Peralta of saving trial strategy and a list of ‘hot docs,’ or documents considered to be the plaintiffs’ best evidence, for the Hurricane Zeta MDL litigation before leaving the firm.”
• “‘Perhaps most damning is the fact that Ms. Sanchez also directly assisted in trial preparation and strategy related to Dr. Henry Small (‘Dr. Small’), an orthopedic surgeon who provided treatment for some of the plaintiffs in this case and a witness AZA intends to crossexamine at trial,’ Arnold & Itkin states. ‘Ms. Sanchez was intimately involved with [Arnold & Itkin attorney Roland Christensen] in researching and discussing information contained in a Texas Medical Board report — which is by Transocean’s own admission a critical component to Transocean’s defense in this case as evidenced during the days of pretrial hearings.'”

“Clifford Chance Acted for Three Clients on a Single Deal Process—Is it a Problem?” —

• “On the face of it, the €14 billion transaction was a sizable if unexceptional European mega-deal. Last week, Deutsche Bahn sold off its logistical arm DB Schenker to another well-established European transport group, Danish company DSV, in an effort to reduce debts, which have reportedly climbed to as high as €34 billion.”
• “The matter reignites the long-running conversation around the risks of conflict of interest when multiple teams are deployed on the same deal, as well as questions around the information barriers law firms have in place to prevent conflicts from arising.”
• “Earlier in September, it emerged, unannounced, that Clifford Chance was advising bidding parties Saudi logistics firm Bahri—with a team including corporate partners Christian Vogel in Düsseldorf and Guy Norman in Riyadh—as well as another bidder, Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund ADQ.”
• “Then, a few days later, Clifford Chance announced that it had successfully advised the lenders backing the company that became the final buyer, DSV, led by partner Jim MacHale in London.”
• “It meant that, throughout the deal, including the bidding process, the firm deployed three separate teams in the bidding process. One person with knowledge of the situation pointed out that the firm had client consent and that it acted in accordance with regulations. They added such things were not uncommon.”
• “Yet while not unheard of in high stakes M&A with multiple bidding parties, several people that commented for this article said it was ‘unusual’ to have three separate teams, with some even positing that it teetered on the edge of what is ethical and what is not.”
• “Although this has become commonplace in private equity transactions in recent years, one London partner explained the nature of public M&A makes it far more complicated.’
• “‘It is becoming quite a problem in PE because [clients] all seem to want to use the one or two sponsor shops, and have persuaded themselves its all fine, and to an extent because of the private nature of the sector, it can work.”
• “‘But ‘Chinese walls’ and ethical screens can’t really work in the context of a public deal. They would have to be really creative and have gone through a number of loops to get comfortable doing this.'”
• “But, in the same way that PE houses have consolidated relationships with various ‘favourited’ firms, if you build up a strong enough relationship with banks and bluechip companies, then your clients can also essentially become open to this approach.”
• “‘If your client knows you can do the job, and that you will succeed, they will likely be willing to accept that your firm might be acting for another party on the same matter,’ another London partner said.”
• “But others argue that, so long as potential conflict is well managed, then there are ways of circumventing risk, ‘as I’m sure will have been the case at Clifford Chance,’ as one partner at a rival put it.”
• “One partner also noted that, within one firm, allocating a major transaction to a specific partner or team can also lead to competition within the partnership. ‘If you tell one partner they can’t take on the deal because someone else is already on it, then obviously you open the door to potential arguments between partners at the firm. You need a firm with a good culture to be able to navigate these issues.'”

“Lawyer Wields Blank Rome Atty Voicemail To Bolster DQ Bid” —

• “An attorney who is suing three lawyers from Blank Rome LLP and has asked a federal court to disqualify the firm’s other attorneys from representing their colleagues — alleging they contacted one of her witnesses — told the court Friday she accessed a phone message that strengthens her arguments.”
• “In a brief filed in Pennsylvania federal court, attorney Veronica Turner said she secured an audio recording and a transcript of a voicemail left by Jeffrey Rosenthal of Blank Rome, who is representing his three colleagues at the firm. Turner accused Rosenthal of improperly contacting Dr. Richard S. Goldberg, an expert witness for Turner and her husband.”
• “‘The voice mail was left on September 23, 2024, acknowledged that attorney Rosenthal was aware Dr. Goldberg was serving as an expert witness for plaintiffs, asked if there was an intention to supply Mr. Rosenthal with documents and if so when that would occur, provided Dr. Goldberg with attorney Rosenthal’s direct dial telephone number, and stated ‘feel free to call me back,” according to the filing.”
• “Earlier this week, Turner filed a motion for disqualification and sanctions that sought to have Rosenthal, Blank Rome attorney Brian Paszamant and the firm tossed from her lawsuit. Rosenthal and Paszamant are representing Blank Rome attorneys James T. Smith, Rebecca Ward and Heidi G. Crikelair.”
• “Turner, along with her husband, Kevin Turner, sued the three lawyers, as well as aircraft motor manufacturer Avco Corp. and its parent company, Textron Inc., for retaliation after she switched from corporate defense to the plaintiffs bar. She previously represented Avco’s Lycoming Engines division in “major aircraft crash litigation” from 2005 through November 2017.”

“DoorDash Seeks More Information About NLJ 500 Firm’s Connections With Chicago” —

• “In a service fees dispute between DoorDash and Chicago, the online delivery service’s counsel with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher have asked for more evidence that may shed light on the working relationship between the city and its NLJ Top 500 firm.”
• “DoorDash claims it is seeking more evidence from the city that could be relevant in its due process defense in the pending suit, Chicago v. DoorDash, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. DoorDash asked for documents that may be related to the city’s oversight of its counsel with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, claiming the firm ‘is improperly acting as a city official or employee exercising the city’s prosecutorial powers,’ according to an opinion filed in the case last week.”
• “On behalf of DoorDash, Gibson Dunn relied on a March 2015 decision in Chicago v. Purdue Pharma from the Illinois federal court to argue that it has the right to a ‘financially disinterested prosecutor.’ The court previously denied Cohen Milstein’s motion to strike DoorDash’s defense, and in the city’s renewed attempt, DoorDash asked the court to deny the city’s motion or defer a ruling on it until after the close of fact discovery.”
• “On Friday, U.S. District Judge Jeremy C. Daniel agreed with DoorDash, finding that the additional discovery Gibson Dunn is pursuing through a pending motion to compel could be relevant to its defense, even if the information is privileged. Gibson Dunn is seeking documents related to the city’s oversight and control of Cohen Milstein, its compliance with the city’s outside counsel guidelines, and admissions regarding Cohen Milstein’s contributions to Chicago political campaigns and candidates.”
• “‘The question of whether retained counsel is financially interested in the outcome of the litigation may involve a wider range of materials than the retention agreement alone,’ Daniel said. ‘For example, even if the agreement contains adequate safeguards, the arrangement may still violate DoorDash’s due process rights if DoorDash presents evidence the city failed to exercise ‘absolute and total control over all critical decision-making.'”

“PwC Lead Advisory team advises Stowe Family Law on its sale to Investcorp” —

• “The PwC Lead Advisory team is pleased to announce the sale of Stowe Family Law, the largest specialist family law firm in the United Kingdom, to Investcorp, a leading global alternative investment firm. The transaction represents a successful exit for Livingbridge, which has backed Stowe Family Law in its growth journey since 2017.”
• “[The firm] operates from 90 locations across the United Kingdom, with nearly 400 staff supporting 5,000 clients a year.”
• “PwC acted as lead financial adviser to the shareholders of Stowe Family Law, providing Corporate Finance, Debt & Capital Advisory, Vendor Commercial Due Diligence, and Data Insights & Analytics advice. This landmark transaction highlights PwC’s position as one of the leading financial advisors in the professional and legal advisory sector.”

Herbert Smith Freehills published: “Modernising Australia’s AML/CTF regime” —

• “On 11 September 2024, amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) were introduced into Parliament through the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 (Cth). The Bill includes significant proposals to expand the application of the AML/CTF Act to additional sectors of the Australian economy, including lawyers, real estate agents, accountants and others.”
• “In this paper we look at the amendments to the AML/CTF Act that we expect to be of most importance to existing reporting entities. These include:
  • updates to requirements around AML/CTF Programs including a new definition capturing risk assessments, policies, procedures and controls;
  • reform to governance requirements including a new “lead entity” concept;
  • a new approach to regulating offshore operations;
  • modified customer due diligence obligations including legislating customer risk assessment requirements;
  • reformed virtual asset service provider requirements;
  • significant changes through the introduction of obligations connected to the “transfer of value”;
  • updates to the regime when assisting an investigation of serious offences; and
  • new AUSTRAC investigation and enforcement powers.”

“Sullivan & Cromwell Didn’t Ignore FTX Red Flags, Second Examiner Report Concludes” —

• “After an initial inquiry cleared Sullivan & Cromwell of allegations that the firm knew—or should have known—of the fraud at FTX prior to representing the company as debtors counsel, a second report from a bankruptcy court-appointed examiner cleared the law firm of a disqualifying conflict of interest in the case.”
• “Wednesday’s report from independent examiner Robert J. Cleary of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler found no disqualifying conflict of interest in Sullivan & Cromwell’s pre-petition work helping FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried acquire the shares of the Robinhood trading platform, which Cleary described as regulatory in nature.”
• “Cleary also found that the April 2022 matter did not make Sullivan & Cromwell aware of the fraud and that the firm didn’t ignore any ‘red flags.'”
• “After creditors, academics and U.S. senators criticized Sullivan & Cromwell’s representation of FTX as debtors counsel, alleging a potential conflict of interest due to the law firm’s 20 pre-petition matters for FTX, Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo of the Third Circuit said the prepetition work was among several reasons why an independent examiner was warranted.”
• “An initial report from Cleary in May found that Sullivan & Cromwell was unaware of the fraud during its pre-petition work for FTX, but Cleary called for an additional investigation into whether Sullivan & Cromwell had a conflict of interest (or knew of the fraud, or should have known of it) during its work for Bankman-Fried personally as he sought to acquire shares of Robinhood.”
• “The second report came after a review of more than 700 documents, mostly email exchanges between FTX Group in-house counsel and Sullivan & Cromwell partners, as well as interviews with partners Andrew Dietderich, Mitch Eitel, Joseph Hearn and Eric Queen.”

“Attorney Can Take Business Without Compensating Former Firm” —

• “A [Colorado] state supreme court recently rejected an attempt by a law firm to charge a departing associate attorney for lost “marketing expenses” when the associate took clients to a new firm.”
• “In Johnson Family Law, P.C. v. Bursek, the court refused to enforce a ‘reimbursement agreement’ when a resigning associate took clients with him, concluding the agreement unreasonably restricted the attorney’s ability to practice law.”
• “The court reasoned that charging undifferentiated fees to departing attorneys substantially disincentivized lawyers from continuing their representation of clients. ABA Litigation Section leaders agree with the decision but note law firms may still be permitted to recover fees in limited circumstances. Litigation Section leaders further note that law firms can seek to retain associates—and thus clients—in other ways that do not run afoul of ethics rules.”
• “When an associate left his former family law firm in Denver, 18 clients followed. But the firm claimed the attorney owed $18,936 for the privilege of taking clients. The firm argued it should be repaid $1,052 per client for ‘marketing expenses’ under the reimbursement agreement. These expenses, the firm asserted, represented ‘historic costs’ for promotion.”
• “The associate challenged the agreement, claiming it violated Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6, which prohibits a lawyer from entering into an agreement ‘that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the [employment] relationship.'”

“Cooley Sued for Malpractice After Representing Carbon IQ” —

• “Cooley LLP and several of its attorneys are being accused of committing legal malpractice and fraud in a suit filed in federal court Thursday.”
• “Jason Gould and Gould Ventures LLC are suing Cooley and its attorneys after investing in Carbon IQ Inc. and after Gould became a board member of the startup—both based on information Gould received from Cooley’s attorneys, who represented Carbon IQ at the time.”
• “Gould alleges that the attorneys knew that Carbon IQ and its chief executive officer, Benjamin Cantey, were being sued for fraud in Texas and didn’t reveal that information. “
• “The defendants ‘deliberately and/or recklessly concealed from Plaintiffs critical information regarding fraud allegations being asserted against Cantey,’ the complaint says. ‘These included both Cantey’s fraudulent activities related to Carbon IQ and an active investigation by the Texas State Securities Board into securities fraud violations tied to Cantey’s previous involvement with another company in Texas.'”
• “Because the defendants didn’t disclose the fraud allegation against Cantey, the plaintiffs invested another $140,000 in Carbon IQ, the complaint says.”
• “Gould further alleges that he asked the defendants if Carbon IQ had directors and officers insurance. ‘Although Cooley Defendants knew Mr. Gould’s acceptance of a Board position was contingent upon the existence’ of adequate insurance, they failed to disclose to Gould that they ‘never actually received any evidence confirming the existence of such insurance,’ the complaint says.”
• “Cooley eventually withdrew from representing Carbon IQ, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs allege securities fraud; common law fraud; legal malpractice; aiding and abetting fraud; negligent misrepresentation; and breach of fiduciary duty.”

Hat tip to Simon Chester at Gowlings for noting: “An ‘Utterly Bonkers’ Miscarriage of Justice in Texas” —

• “There are individual court cases that are perfect symbols of larger injustices, and this month a Black woman named Erma Wilson lost a Court of Appeals decision that highlighted decades of judicial distortion of American civil rights law.”
• “In 2001 a Texas jury convicted Wilson of cocaine possession. It was a nonviolent drug offense, and she was sentenced to eight years of community supervision. She appealed her conviction, but she lost. She never served jail time, but her conviction still had profound consequences on her life. Wilson was never able to achieve her dream of becoming a nurse.”
• “Then, 20 years after her trial, she learned that she had been subject to a monstrous injustice. To quote a Fifth Circuit panel that reviewed her case, something happened at her trial that was ‘utterly bonkers.’ A judge in the case called it a ‘DEFCON 1 legal scandal.’ A prosecutor in the case, Weldon ‘Ralph’ Petty Jr., was also working as a clerk for the judge during her trial — and hundreds of others.”
• “As Jessica Priest reported in USA Today in 2021, Petty ‘performed legal work for at least nine judges involving the convictions of at least 355 defendants whom he prosecuted.’ The defendants’ sentences in those cases ‘range from probation to the death penalty.’
• “The violation of Wilson’s rights was so egregious that no one believes she received a fair trial. The prosecutor lost his law license. The truth is that it’s hard to imagine a more obvious violation of her rights.”
• “In plain English, [42 USC Section 1983] means that government officials who violate your rights are liable for damages. There are very limited exceptions to this rule, but none of them apply to Wilson’s case.”
• “Petty violated Wilson’s rights. He destroyed her career dreams. She lost financial opportunities because of his brazen misconduct. So this is open and shut — she wins, and he loses, right?”
• “Wrong. She lost. After an en banc hearing (when all the judges on the court hear the case), the court ruled against Wilson. Twelve judges ruled against her, and six dissented.”
• “The reason was simple. The court held that she can’t receive damages for the constitutional violation until her conviction ‘has been set aside, expunged or otherwise favorably terminated.’ That requirement isn’t in the statute. It’s a judge-made rule that places a roadblock on the path to justice.”
• “The outcome is absurd, but it’s not entirely the Fifth Circuit’s fault. The real fault lies with the Supreme Court, whose long decades of jurisprudence have gutted Section 1983 to the point where it no longer means what it clearly says. Rather than granting citizens a right to compensation when state officials violate their rights, it’s astonishingly difficult to hold public officials accountable for constitutional violations, and this lack of accountability perpetuates injustice and undermines confidence in American criminal justice.”

“Judge Aileen Cannon Failed to Disclose a Right-Wing Junket” —

• “Federal Judge Aileen M. Cannon, the controversial jurist who tossed out the classified documents criminal case against Donald Trump in July, failed to disclose her attendance at a May 2023 banquet funded by a conservative law school.”
• “Cannon went to an event in Arlington, Virginia, honoring the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, according to documents obtained from the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University. At a lecture and private dinner, she sat among members of Scalia’s family, fellow Federalist Society members and more than 30 conservative federal judges. Organizers billed the event as ‘an excellent opportunity to connect with judicial colleagues.'”
• “A 2006 rule, intended to shine a light on judges’ attendance at paid seminars that could pose conflicts or influence decisions, requires them to file disclosure forms for such trips within 30 days and make them public on the court’s website.”
• “It’s not the first time she has failed to fully comply with the rule.”
• “In 2021 and 2022, Cannon took weeklong trips to the luxurious Sage Lodge in Pray, Montana, for legal colloquiums sponsored by George Mason, which named its law school for Scalia thanks to $30 million in gifts that conservative judicial kingmaker Leonard Leo helped organize.”
• “The rule for paid seminars is among the policies set by the Judicial Conference. Federal judges are also required by law to file annual financial disclosures, listing items such as assets, outside income and gifts. Cannon’s annual disclosure form for 2023, which was due in May and offers another chance to report gifts and reimbursements from outside parties, has yet to be posted.”