Bressler Risk Blog

David Kluft, Assistant Bar Counsel at Massachusetts Office of Bar Counsel, consistently spots interesting stories: “Can a judge order me to stay in a case despite a clear conflict of interest?” —

• “A NE court appointed a public defender’s office to represent a client on a drug charge. The client sought a lighter sentence by cooperating and becoming a confidential informant, purchasing illegal drugs at the police’s behest from a drug dealer.”
• “The court later appointed the same public defender’s office to represent the drug dealer. The public defender tried to refuse the case, but the judge would not let them withdraw.”
• “The NE Ethics Advisory Committee opined that this was a non-waivable conflict of interest because one client will be testifying against the other, and it would normally require withdrawal from both matters. However, under Nebraska’s version of Rule 1.16(c) (which is the same as the ABA Model rule), the public defender was required to keep both cases despite the conflict if the judge ordered it.”
• “The Committee opined that the public defender must be especially mindful of its confidentiality obligations in this unfortunate scenario, including that it was not allowed to warn the drug dealer about any information learned about him as the result of its work on the informant’s case.”

“Attorneys cautioned not to read too much into cooling of ‘hot potato doctrine’” —

• “Though a recent American Bar Association ethics opinion arguably weakens the so-called ‘hot potato doctrine,’ attorneys should not take false comfort that withdrawal from an ongoing representation has become any easier, lawyers who handle professional discipline cases say.”
• “In issuing Formal Opinion 516 on April 2, the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility sought to provide additional guidance on what Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(1), governing the voluntary termination of a client relationship, means when it says withdrawal is allowed when it ‘can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client.’ “
• “Whether the opinion achieves that goal is open to debate. Indeed, two members of the standing committee, Brian Faughnan, a former president of the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers based in Memphis, and Wendy J. Muchman, a Northwestern University law professor, wrote a dissent, which acknowledges the majority’s helpful guidance to lawyers on many of the situations it addresses.”
• “‘However, the portion seeking to argue why the ethics rules do not prohibit a lawyer from firing one client in order to sue another client is something that we fear will prove more harmful than helpful to lawyers,’ they write.”
• “Missing from the majority opinion but incorporated into the hot potato doctrine is the principle that loyalty to the client is an essential part of the withdrawal equation, said Boston attorney Thomas F. Maffei. In his view, the ethics opinion is a nod toward a worrisome trend of viewing the law as more of an industry than a profession.”
• “‘What’s clear from this opinion is that loyalty alone does not protect the integrity of the attorney-client relationship,’ Maffei said.”
• “When a client hires a lawyer, he added, ‘the client makes the judgment and assumes that the lawyer is going to stick with the client through thick and thin, through the end, and only withdraw if I don’t pay him or he’s getting sick or some other reason, but not because [the lawyer] just wants to go with some other more lucrative client.'”
• “The ‘good news’ is that it is and will remain hard to terminate a matter — especially a litigation matter — without causing ‘significant adverse effect’ on the client, Maffei said. ‘Nothing in this ABA opinion should cause lawyers to think it is now easier to withdraw,’ he said.”
• “The ABA opinion offers several examples of circumstances in which withdrawal will likely have a ‘materially adverse effect.'”
• “‘In some transactional representations, for example, delay caused in the search for substitute counsel may result in scuttling a deal or reducing its value,’ the opinion notes. That example illustrates one question a lawyer considering withdrawal should be asking: Does timing matter to the client?”
• “‘Where timing is objectively important to the client, significant delay can itself be a material adverse effect even if the representation can otherwise be completed successfully,’ the opinion notes.”
• “Material adverse effects may also result from the original lawyer having unique abilities or knowledge, or the significant additional expense of getting successor counsel ‘up to speed,’ the opinion notes. It adds that a lawyer ‘may be able to remediate these adverse effects and withdraw in a manner that avoids the harm the Rule seeks to prevent.'”
• “It offers the examples of the withdrawing counsel helping the client find and then working with the new lawyer and/or returning or forgoing legal fees for work that will have to be duplicated.”
• “‘None of that’s realistic,’ Maffei commented.”
• “On the other side, the ABA highlights circumstances unlikely to have a ‘material adverse effect,’ such as ‘where the representation has barely gotten off the ground’ or ‘where co-counsel can successfully complete the remaining work.’ Those are obvious, attorneys say.”
  “Nonetheless, the standing committee thought it was important to stress that Rule 1.16(b)(1) does not protect a client’s interest simply in maintaining an ongoing client-lawyer relationship, protect against the client’s disappointment in losing the lawyer’s services, or prohibit withdrawal based on the client’s perception that the lawyer is acting disloyally.”
• “Rossi also cautioned that, as helpful as the guidance may be for lawyers in analyzing the potential adverse effects of a withdrawal on a client’s interest, the ABA opinion also provides a roadmap for clients to oppose a lawyer’s withdrawal.”
• “‘It is hard to envision many scenarios in which a lawyer’s withdrawal would not result in additional costs and delays for clients, and now there is authority indicating that this is problematic and may be a basis to prevent an attorney from withdrawing,’ he said.”
• “To the extent that Formal Opinion 516 has made news, it is through its attempt to weaken the ‘hot potato’ doctrine, attorneys said.”
• “‘A majority of the committee takes the view that dropping a current client to represent a more favored client is not in itself a violation of the ethical rules,’ Rossi said.”
  “But he was quick to note that the opinion only addresses the issue in the rules context. ‘A court dealing with a disqualification motion or a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a lawyer may apply a different standard,’ Rossi said.”
• “The ABA opinion allows that, ‘[i]n the context of litigation, some courts have held that without the client’s consent, a lawyer may not withdraw from a representation to litigate against the now-former client. Lawyers who end a representation for this reason have sometimes been disqualified from representing the new client.'”
• “The dissenters call that portion of the majority’s opinion ‘incomplete.'”
• “‘The opinion fails to address the breadth of precedent on the ‘hot potato’ doctrine, and we are concerned that by seeming to dismiss this judicial doctrine as involving a handful of outlier cases, the opinion may mislead lawyers about the law,’ Faughnan and Muchman write.”
• “The ABA opinion dodges the real reason the courts adopted the hot potato doctrine — the allure of a bigger payday that incentivizes lawyers to ditch one client in favor of another, according to Maffei.”
• “Rossi added the ABA opinion also reinforces the importance of closing files.”
• “‘One way to avoid the ‘hot potato’ problem altogether is to distinguish between current clients and former clients,’ he said. ‘Just as we have certain administrative steps we follow when we take on clients, we also need to be sure to take steps necessary to close files when our work on a matter is complete.'”
• “That could be as simple as sending a disengagement letter and providing a final bill, he said.”

“Judge DQs Atty Suing FIFA Over Antitrust Allegations” —

• “A Puerto Rican federal judge on Thursday disqualified an attorney suing FIFA and local affiliates over allegedly blocking rival soccer leagues, saying the lawyer cannot simultaneously be a plaintiff, counsel and factual witness.”
• “The order by U.S. District Judge Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach said that, while hybrid representation is sometimes allowed, it is not guaranteed and should happen sparingly.”
• “José R. Olmo-Rodríguez of Olmo & Rodriguez Matias Law Office PSC was representing several plaintiffs in the suit, including the now-shuttered Puerto Rico Soccer League NFP Corp., and is also listed as a plaintiff himself.”
• “‘While disqualification should not be granted lightly, the court finds that Mr. Olmo should not be an exception to the general rule against hybrid representation,’ the order said. ‘Mr. Olmo is a named plaintiff and is identified as one of plaintiffs’ factual witnesses in the joint case management memorandum.'”
• “Olmo and co-counsel Ibrahim Reyes-Gándara of Reyes Lawyers PA found themselves in hot water recently after appearing to use artificial intelligence to help write briefs — including one fighting FIFA’s disqualification bid — that included nonexistent cases. Judge Arias-Marxuach threatened sanctions against the men after verifying multiple incorrect citations, saying while AI is not forbidden, attorneys ‘have a duty of competence to their clients and a duty of candor to the tribunal.'”
• “Meanwhile, the judge stopped short on Thursday of disqualifying Reyes, as well. The defense had argued the court should disqualify the attorney because he had served as co-chair, chief operating officer and general counsel of PRSL, and may also be a witness in the lawsuit.”
• “‘Unlike Mr. Olmo, Mr. Reyes is not identified as a factual witness by plaintiffs. Although Mr. Reyes may have personal knowledge of key factual allegations, as alleged by defendants, that does not mean he is a ‘necessary witness’…,’ Judge Arias-Marxuach said.”
• “The order went on to say that the defendants have not articulated a conflict of interest between PRSL and Reyes, and they appear to be on common ground.”
• “Olmo and other plaintiffs had in turn filed a motion to disqualify the Adsuar Muñiz Goyco Seda & Pérez-Ochoa PSC law firm, which is counsel for defendant Federacion Puertorriquena de Futbol and its directors. The plaintiffs argued it was a conflict of interest to represent the organization and its director, but Judge Arias-Marxuach did not agree. He denied the motion on Thursday, ruling there was no conflict.”

“Pera Publishes ‘The Playbook’ on Expanding the Geographic Reach of an Arizona ABS” —

• “Adams & Reese Partner Lucian Pera, one of the nation’s leading legal ethics practitioners, has published “The Playbook: How to Extend the Reach of an Arizona ABS Law Firm to the Entire United States.” Pera provides a practical survey of tools and models now used by innovators to deliver legal services and extend the reach of ABSs – short for Alternative Business Structures.”
• “The primary roadblock for ABSs is the prevailing interpretation of ABA ethics rules. ABA Formal Ethics Op. 91-360 (1991) found that nonlawyer-owned law firms cannot establish branch offices in jurisdictions that prohibit nonlawyer ownership. And lawyers licensed in jurisdictions that prohibit nonlawyer ownership cannot practice with ABSs. Every jurisdiction that has addressed this issue has followed these principles. Arizona ABSs are essentially ‘landlocked.'”
• “Still, despite this restriction, Pera says at least four techniques allow ABSs to expand their work beyond Arizona, including a fifth technique to allow nonlawyer support of a law firm without implicating ABSs at all. Pera discusses approaches that include:
  • The Co-Counsel and Referral-Fee Model;
  • The Pro Hac Vice Admission Model;
  • The Temporary Practice Model;
  • The Staffing Company Model; and
  • The Two-Company Law Firm Model.”
• “These techniques are explored in more detail in Pera’s “The Playbook” – a 36-page guide that discusses how to extend the reach and operations of an Arizona ABS to other U.S. jurisdictions, while acting within current U.S. law and ethics rules. Click here to download the full version.”

“McCarter & English Fights DQ Bid In NJ Food Biz Quarrel” —

• “McCarter & English LLP pushed back on a disqualification bid from a New Jersey food industry executive in federal court this week, arguing that the plaintiff is attempting to ‘fabricate’ a previous attorney-client relationship to demand disqualification.”
• “Samil Ozavar told the New Jersey federal court in March that McCarter & English previously represented him around 2018 in a business negotiation and therefore should not now be allowed to represent his former business partner’s estate, which Ozavar is suing.”
• “However, McCarter & English told the court in a brief Monday that its engagement letter for its work on the previous deal made clear that its only clients were Ozavar’s business partner and his company – not Ozavar.”
• “‘Ozavar was never sent an engagement letter, he never executed one with the firm, and no legal services were rendered for him personally,’ McCarter & English said. ‘Ozavar points to no contrary evidence because it does not exist.'”
• “Ozavar is suing the estate of William Louttit and a company that he alleges he and Louttit shared ownership of, WAL & Associates, for over $3 million, with McCarter & English’s legal work at the heart of the dispute.”
• “Ozavar owned 15% and Louttit 85% of WAL, according to Ozavar’s lawsuit, and the two were also employees of New Jersey consumer food company Cibo Vita. In November 2018, Louttit reached out to McCarter & English about negotiating a deal for WAL to buy Cibo Vita, and signed an engagement letter with the firm for that work. The deal went through in May 2020.”
• “Cibo Vita was later sold again to a third party, which Ozavar claims should have entitled him to 15% of the proceeds under the agreement McCarter & English negotiated. Ozavar has said he was denied that money and he sued WAL and the estate of Louttit, who died in 2023, in December 2024.”
• “Ozavar moved to have McCarter & English dismissed as counsel for Louttit’s estate on the basis that it was representing him when it negotiated the deal for WAL to buy Cibo Vita. McCarter & English, however, poked several holes in that argument in Monday’s brief.”
• “The firm told the court that Louttit owned 100% of WAL, not 85%, and that therefore Ozavar did not receive any benefit from the legal work McCarter & English did per the agreement letter. The firm also did not bill Ozavar for its services, and Ozavar did not pay anything for the firm’s work, McCarter & English argued.”
• “Ozavar claimed that he was included on hundreds of emails and took part in dozens of conversations about the deal with counsel from McCarter & English. The firm did not dispute that, but maintained to the court that that did not change the fact that Louttit, not Ozavar, was its client.”
• “McCarter & English also told the court that Ozavar left out a relevant exchange in his disqualification motion: Ozavar at one point submitted an unsolicited proposal for the Cibo Vita deal to the McCarter & English attorney on the deal, but the attorney refused to review the proposal or discuss it because Ozavar was not his client.”

Board Of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court Of Tennessee: “FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 2025-F-171” —

• “The Board of Professional Responsibility has been requested to issue a Formal Ethics Opinion regarding the ethical propriety, in a products liability case, of a non-disparagement clause in a settlement agreement which makes the lawyers in Firm A parties to the settlement agreement proposed by Firm B.”
• “The inquiring lawyer has encountered a condition to settlement, in a product liability case against a certain defendant, which makes lawyers from the inquiring lawyer’s law firm parties to the Settlement Agreement which includes a non-disparagement clause prohibiting them from taking any action or making any statements, verbal or written, to any third party that disparage or defame Defendants.”
• “It has long been held in Tennessee that the attorney’s signature on a release should vouch only for the fact that the client releases the defendant. A requirement that a plaintiff’s attorney become a party to a release might cause a conflict of interest between the plaintiff’s attorney and the plaintiff in violation of DR 5-l0l(a), [Now RPC 1.7]. Therefore, these clauses are prohibited except in cases where the plaintiff’s attorney releases a claim for attorney fees.”
• “Notwithstanding the earlier Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion’s guidance on this issue, there is also a basis in the Rules of Professional Conduct to find non-disparagement clauses improper in a products liability case. Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6 (b) says “A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy.”
• “A non-disparagement clause as part of a settlement agreement requiring the firm’s lawyers to become parties would restrict the plaintiffs firm from using or discussing any information learned during the case that sheds a negative light on the Defendants, thereby indirectly restricting the plaintiffs’ counsel from informing potential clients of their experience and expertise, making it difficult for future clients to identify well-qualified counsel.”
• “Requiring a plaintiff’s attorney to become a party entering into a settlement agreement containing a non-disparagement clause in a products liability case raises ethical concerns and creates a conflict between the interests of the plaintiff’s attorney and those of their client. Consistent the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct and with Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinions 97-F-141 and 2010-F-154, an attorney cannot ethically agree to become a party to such agreements or clauses.”

“Irwin Mitchell ditches asset management arm after judge’s conflict criticism” —

• “National firm Irwin Mitchell has shed its asset management business one year after a damning ruling on a potential conflict of interest.”
• “Financial adviser Shackleton today announced it had set up its own personal injury and Court of Protection division after acquiring IM Asset Management (IMAM) from the Irwin Mitchell Group. The deal is subject to approval by the Financial Conduct Authority.”
• “The legal group sold the business notwithstanding the outcome of a directions hearing in Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation v PW & Anor which was held in October. Her Honour Judge Hilder had scheduled the hearing to determine whether the appointment of IMAM to handle client PW’s affairs could be ratified.”
• “PW, a mother of four, developed permanent brain damage after contracting viral encephalitis in hospital and settled a claim with the NHS trust for £1.85m and £151,000 per year in periodical payments. Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Irwin Mitchell LLP, was appointed as property and affairs deputy for PW. The deputy then determined to appoint IMAM as investment manager for a significant part of PW’s damages award.”
• “IMAM was wholly owned by Irwin Mitchell Holdings Ltd, which was also the controlling member of Irwin Mitchell LLP.”
• “IMAM told the Court of Protection at a hearing in January 2024 that the conflict of interest rule did not apply on the facts of the case. IMTC invited the court to have regard to the fact that it was a highly experienced deputy used to taking decisions about the investment of assets and appointment of advisers.”
• “Deputies from other firms gave evidence to the court about how financial advisers were appointed, but the judge said it was striking how none of them supported instructing a related investment manager. She concluded the appointment by IMTC of IMAM to manage PW’s assets ‘clearly conflicts’ with rules against self-dealing, and there was an actual conflict of interest in that the Irwin Mitchell group gained financially. This amounted to a ‘beauty parade in which a family member of a protected person participates’, and none of the processed adopted by IMTC could extinguish that conflict.”
• “Irwin Mitchell today said the sale of IMAM was not related to the case, where a ratification judgment is awaited, and was instead part of its strategy to focus and invest on its existing services.”
  “Craig Marshall, group chief executive at Irwin Mitchell, said: ‘This deal aligns with our strategy to simplify our structure and allows us to invest further to grow our core offer as a full-service law firm. We’re the leading complex personal injury firm, we have one of the largest national private client practices in the UK, and we provide comprehensive legal advice for mid-market corporate businesses.’”
  “Irwin Mitchell said the asset management sale was a continuation of a strategy showcased in 2021 when it sold its low-value volume PI business to focus on more complex cases. The firm, which exceeded £300m in annual revenue for the first time in 2024, has expanded in the past four years with office openings in Brighton, Cardiff, Liverpool and Nottingham.”
  “IM Asset Management Limited has performed well, according to accounts for the year ended 30 April 2024, with revenue just below £10m and pre-tax profits rising slightly to £3.48m. “

“Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith signs no-bid contract with law firm closely tied to his church” —

• “Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith’s office has signed a no-bid contract with a Noblesville-based law firm that’s closely affiliated with the church where Beckwith still serves as a pastor, a move that has raised red flags for ethics experts and lawmakers alike.”
• “The state will pay up to $150,000 this year for Adler Attorneys to perform ‘general counsel’ and ‘general consulting services’ for Beckwith and his team during his first year as lieutenant governor, according to the contract and a request for outside counsel Beckwith’s office submitted earlier this year to the attorney general.”
• “Multiple ethics experts contacted by IndyStar questioned the optics of awarding a no-bid contract to a company that has close ties to Beckwith’s other employer.”
• “Not only is Adler Attorneys’ CEO and senior attorney, Raymond Adler, a member of the church, another of its attorneys, Devin Norrick, serves on the church’s board of directors. The law firm has also recently represented Life Church in municipal government matters.”
• “It’s unclear whether Norrick, who now describes himself as the chief legal counsel for Beckwith’s office, has any hiring or firing power over Beckwith on the church’s board. The lieutenant governor’s office referred questions about that to Life Church, which didn’t respond to a request for comment.”
• “‘Awarding a no-bid contract in that situation raises all sorts of concerns,’ said Abraham Schwab, a Purdue University-Fort Wayne professor who serves on the Allen County Ethics Commission. ‘It ultimately undermines (trust in) their ability to be good stewards of the public resources they’ve been provided.'”
• “IndyStar asked Beckwith’s office about the potential appearance of a conflict of interest, but it didn’t immediately reply. The office told IndyStar it signed the contract in order to increase government efficiency and that it considered other law firms to do the work.”
• “The contract comes as Life Church has become increasingly enmeshed in Indiana government, and as Beckwith has advocated for more connection between government and the faith community. A recent town hall featuring four statewide elected officials was held at the church, which served as a polling place in the 2024 election.”
• “Oftentimes, statewide elected officials will leave their occupations once elected, which can help reduce potential conflicts of interest, but Beckwith has not. That means he earns a salary both from the state of Indiana and Life Church, according to his latest financial disclosure form, which his office confirmed is still accurate.”
• “Paul Helmke, former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne and director of the Civic Leaders Center at Indiana University, said it’s important to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest as a government official. It’s why, he said, he cut ties with his law firm when he became mayor of Fort Wayne.”
• “‘The concern here is you’re throwing public tax dollars to your (church’s) board member,’ Helmke said. ‘Regardless of if it’s a board with authority, or more advisory, it raises the appearance of impropriety.'”
  Contract lacked bidding process”
• “The contract was signed without undergoing a competitive bidding process, Beckwith’s office confirmed to IndyStar. His spokesman, Jim Kehoe, said a request for proposals was not completed because it was ‘not required.’ Kehoe said the office considered two other law firms to do the work but wouldn’t say which firms it considered.”
• “Jeffrey Dunn, director of the Janet Prindle Institute for Ethics at DePauw University, said the move to hire a private law firm ‘certainly raises red flags because it’s out of the norm’ but he said it’s hard to comment on whether the choice was ethical without more details.”
  Generally speaking, Dunn said, those holding public office should take care to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest.”
• “A request for other bids, even though not legally required, would have removed the appearance of a conflict of interest here, Dunn said.”

“Quinn Emanuel DQ In Fla. Oil Row More Than Just ‘Possibility’” —

• “A Florida federal judge has ordered expedited discovery in a Mexican oil company’s case over alleged improper fund transfers, after determining there is ‘more than a mere possibility’ of Quinn Emanuel being conflicted out of representing itself in the litigation due to prior representation of the company.”
• “In her order on Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett granted Oro Negro Drilling Pte. Ltd. and its Singapore subsidiaries’ motion for leave to take expedited discovery and file a motion to disqualify Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP in three criminal proceedings and one bankruptcy proceeding all pending in Mexico. She determined the discovery would not prejudice the law firm.”
• “The case stems from Quinn Emanuel’s 2021 representation of the oil company in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York, according to the recap in Tuesday’s order. It was amid this case that the law firm brought an adversary proceeding on behalf of Oro Negro Drilling and the subsidiaries alleging a $27 million unjust enrichment by bondholders of an Oro Negro Drilling project.”
• “Leadership of the company changed, and in July 2024, Oro Negro Drilling filed its motion to expedite discovery and disqualify Quinn Emanuel from representing itself in the Florida action. Because of the shift in leadership, Oro Negro Drilling argued, Quinn Emanuel is now the sole possessor of records relating to the earlier representation, and the drilling company must access that information to back up its bid to disqualify the law firm.”
• “Quinn Emanuel fought the bid, arguing in part that the expedited discovery overlaps with an action pending in Mexico, and that therefore it should not be compelled to share the information.”
• “Oro Negro replied, arguing the information must be shared. The company then filed a notice of supplemental authority and evidence, asking for additional documents — including a disqualification order in a separate case, bank statements and the dismissal of North American Free Trade Agreement arbitration Quinn Emanuel brought against Mexico on behalf of some of the parties.”
• “In her order Tuesday, Judge Lett said the Oro Negro parties ‘have demonstrated good cause for seeking expedited discovery.'”
• “According to the judge, the ‘petitioners insist that they are former clients of Quinn Emanuel where confidences were disclosed, and therefore, Quinn Emanuel’s self-representation violates its continuing ethical obligation’ to the Oro Negro parties.”
• “Without an ‘ethical wall’ separating the firm and conflict counsel from Gelber Schachter & Greenberg PA, the companies argued, Quinn Emanuel’s conflict of interest may also shift onto Gelber Schachter, the Oro Negro parties further argued.”
• “Judge Lett said the purported conflict is ‘more than a mere possibility,’ noting the petitioners had shown that Quinn Emanuel filed an adversary bankruptcy complaint in the Southern District of New York on their behalf, and that in a status conference, the firm acknowledged the filing.”
• “‘Because an attorney-client relationship creates an irrefutable presumption that confidences were disclosed during the relationship, without this court’s intervention, petitioners risk being prejudiced by their confidences being improperly disclosed to [Gelber Schachter] in this litigation,’ Judge Lett stated.”

“Trump Wants Law Firms to Defend Cops Facing Misconduct Suits” —

• “President Donald Trump ordered the Justice Department on Monday to launch a program including free legal assistance from law firms to police officers accused of wrongdoing.”
• “The program will ‘provide legal resources and indemnification to law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities for actions taken during the performance of their official duties to enforce the law,’ Trump said in an executive order. ‘This mechanism shall include the use of private-sector pro bono assistance for such law enforcement officers.'”
• “Major law firms have committed $940 million in legal services in a series of deals with Trump, seeking to avoid punitive executive orders like those targeting other firms over ties to lawyers involved in investigations and cases against the president. The firms pledged to take up a range of issues, including supporting military veterans and law enforcement officers, as well as ‘ensuring fairness’ in the justice system.”
• “Trump has also suggested he’ll tap the firms to work on trade issues stemming from his tariff war and in efforts to ramp up coal mining.”

“Guidance Opinion Affirms the Importance of Written Fee Arrangements Under Pa. Rules of Professional Conduct” —

• “The Pennsylvania Bar Association committee on legal ethics and professional responsibility recently issued Formal Opinion 2025-100, offering practical guidance about the ethical obligations when entering into fee arrangements under Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct (PA RPC) 1.5. This column summarizes the advice given by the opinion.”
• “The opinion addresses common inquiries about when written fee arrangements are required, what they should include, and best practices for lawyers to follow. It emphasizes the importance of written communication to ensure transparency, avoid misunderstandings, and protect both the lawyer and the client. Although written based upon the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, it equally applies to all attorneys wherever they are licensed.”
• “PA RPC 1.5 governs the ethical requirements for lawyers regarding fees. It mandates that lawyers communicate the basis or rate of their fees in writing to clients before or within a reasonable time after commencing representation, except when the lawyer has regularly represented the client. This written communication is not optional. It is a critical ethical obligation designed to eliminate uncertainties and surprises in the client-lawyer relationship.”
• “While Rule 1.5 does not require a formal engagement letter or a signed agreement, it does require a written communication that memorializes the basis or rate of the fee. This writing must be maintained by the lawyer for at least five years after the termination of the client-lawyer relationship or the disposition of property, as per PA RPC 1.15(c).”
• “The committee advises that, although a simple written statement of the fee basis or rate may suffice, a more detailed explanation is often necessary to comply with Rule 1.4, which requires lawyers to provide clients with sufficient information to make informed decisions.”
  Best Practices for Fee Arrangements”
• “The committee recommends several best practices to enhance clarity, manage expectations, and protect the rights of both the lawyer and the client. These include:”
  • “Client Identification: Clearly specify whether the lawyer represents the client in an individual, fiduciary, official, or organizational capacity. Example: A lawyer representing a business should clarify whether they are representing the business entity or the individual owner to avoid confusion about the scope of representation.”
  • “Scope of Representation: Define the scope of representation, including whether it is limited in nature. Example: In a limited-scope representation for drafting a contract, the lawyer should specify that they are not providing advice on litigation or regulatory compliance related to the contract.”
  • “Terms and Conditions: Outline the terms and conditions of the representation, including fees, expenses, and payment deadlines. Example: A lawyer may state that invoices will be sent monthly, payment is due within 30 days, and interest will be charged on overdue balances.”
  • “Billing Practices: Explain the method of fee calculation, billing frequency, and format, as well as any minimum time charges for specific tasks. Example: A lawyer may specify that phone calls and emails will be billed in increments of 0.1 hours (six minutes) and that administrative tasks performed by paralegals will be billed at a lower hourly rate.”
    Retainer Policies: Describe the services covered by the initial retainer and the terms for replenishment. Example: A lawyer may explain that the retainer covers the first 10 hours of work and must be replenished once the balance falls below a certain threshold.”
  • “Termination Rights: Clarify the circumstances under which the client or lawyer may terminate the relationship. Example: A lawyer may include language stating that the client may terminate the relationship at any time, but the lawyer reserves the right to withdraw if the client fails to pay fees or cooperate in the representation. “
  • “Confidentiality Obligations: Specify the lawyer’s obligations regarding confidentiality. Example: A lawyer may explain that all communications will remain confidential unless disclosure is required by law or court order.”
  • “File Closing Procedures: Detail the disposition of client files and property after the representation ends. Example: A lawyer may state that client files will be stored for five years after the conclusion of the matter and then securely destroyed unless the client requests their return. “
  • “Fee Calculation for Appeals: Address whether appeals are included in the representation or require a separate fee arrangement. Example: A lawyer handling a trial may specify that appellate work is not included in the initial fee arrangement and will require a new agreement.”
  • “Expert Witness Costs: Communicate the expected cost of expert witnesses and the issues that may require their retention. Example: A lawyer may inform the client that expert witness fees will be billed separately and provide an estimate of the costs. ”
    Administrative Charges: Identify charges for administrative employees’ services. Example: A lawyer may specify that clerical tasks performed by administrative staff will be billed at a flat rate per hour. “
• “The opinion highlights specific scenarios where written fee arrangements are required, including:”
  • “Pro Bono and Gratis Arrangements: Even when no fee is charged, the basis or rate of the fee must be communicated in writing. Example: A lawyer providing free legal services may still document the scope of representation and any costs the client may be responsible for, such as filing fees.”
  • “Limited-Scope Representation: Clearly define the scope and limitations of the representation. Example: A lawyer assisting with a single court filing should specify that they are not representing the client in hearings or appeals.”
  • “Judicial Appointments: Some courts and agencies mandate written fee arrangements before a lawyer can enter an appearance. Example: A court-appointed lawyer may need to provide a written agreement outlining the scope of representation and any fees paid by the court or client. “
  • “Hourly and Flat Fees: Whether refundable or nonrefundable, these arrangements should be documented in writing. Example: A lawyer charging a flat fee for drafting a will should specify whether the fee is refundable if the client terminates the relationship before the work is completed.”

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

• “A federal judge in New Jersey has rejected a Black-owned investment company’s request to disqualify a Connell Foley LLP attorney from representing the state in the investment firm’s bias case, reasoning that there is nothing showing the law firm or the lawyer previously represented the company.”
• “U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer found on Tuesday that Blueprint Capital Advisors LLC was unable to prove that Connell Foley attorney Elnardo J. Webster had a previous attorney-client relationship with Blueprint principal Jacob Walthour that would disqualify Webster from representing New Jersey in the instant dispute. The lawsuit accuses the state of committing to investing millions of dollars in the company’s alternative investment program, then passing on the firm’s confidential information to BlackRock.”
• “Blueprint Capital Advisors ‘falls well short of its burden to establish the existence of an attorney-client relationship between Mr. Walthour or BCA and Mr. Webster,’ Judge Hammer said in an opinion. ‘BCA has provided only vague assertions from Mr. Walthour that he considered Mr. Webster his attorney, while attaching multiple exhibits that demonstrate Mr. Walthour and Mr. Webster rarely spoke.”'”
• “In February, Walthour cited a conversation he had with Webster in 2016, as well as a follow-up email containing proprietary and confidential company information and an hourslong in-person meeting between him and Webster later in 2016, among other things, as evidence to back his disqualification bid.”
• “Judge Hammer determined the evidence shown was not enough to back Walthour’s claims of an attorney-client relationship, noting the brief nature of the phone calls, which totaled 11 minutes, and the principal’s admission they had met only a couple of times in person between 2016 and 2024.”
• “Mr. Walthour has presented only three emails he sent Mr. Webster,’ according to the opinion. ‘There is no evidence before the court to suggest that Mr. Webster responded to any of them. … Similarly, the two briefly texted in March 2022 and June 2022, and did not communicate again until June 2024.”
• “Additionally, the judge said he found it difficult to believe that an attorney-client relationship existed when Blueprint decided to go with different legal counsel to handle its bias suit, namely lawyers from Brown Rudnick LLP and Nagel Rice.”
• “According to evidence provided during discovery, it was determined that the investment company reached out to eight different firms in its efforts to engage legal counsel, none of them being Connell Foley, Judge Hammer said.”
• “‘Even as BCA and Mr. Walthour were actively seeking outside legal advice and retaining attorneys for this matter, there is no evidence that they retained, or made any effort to retain, Mr. Webster and his firm,’ according to the opinion. ‘Courts in this district have similarly found a movant’s retention of other attorneys to be highly relevant in determining whether an implied attorney-client relationship was formed.'”

“Trump Organization to fire legal adviser after Trump criticizes lawyer for Harvard work” —

• “U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday lashed out at a lawyer for the Trump Organization who is also representing Harvard University in its lawsuit against his administration, saying the company should fire him.”
• “Trump’s post on his social media platform Truth Social did not name the attorney, but it appeared to describe prominent Washington lawyer William Burck of law firm Quinn Emanuel.”
• “The Trump Organization is run by Trump’s sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. Asked whether Burck still worked for the Trump Organization, Eric Trump said in a statement on Thursday: ‘I view it as conflict and I will be moving in a different direction.’ He did not elaborate.”
• “Burck is a lead attorney for Harvard in a lawsuit filed this week accusing the Trump administration of illegally moving to freeze more than $2 billion in federal funding as part of a pressure campaign against the research institution and other schools.”
• “In January, the Trump Organization said it retained Burck, a longtime Republican insider, as an outside ethics adviser to help develop and maintain internal policies to ward against conflicts of interest.”
• “Burck and Quinn Emanuel did not immediately respond to requests for comment.”
• “The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.”
• “A representative for Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment.”
• “Burck, a former White House lawyer for former Republican President George W. Bush, has also represented Steve Bannon and other Trump backers. Quinn Emanuel, with more than 1,000 lawyers, is a longtime law firm for Tesla CEO and Trump ally Elon Musk.”
• “Harvard’s lawsuit is not the firm’s only case opposing the administration. Quinn Emanuel is separately representing wrongly deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia in his lawsuit seeking his return from El Salvador to the United States.”

“More Associates Quit and Labor Group Files Complaint Against Skadden in Latest Backlash to Trump Deals” —

• “Scrutiny on law firm deals with the Trump administration, both from within and beyond Big Law, mounted this week, with additional associates announcing resignations at Kirkland & Ellis and a workers’ rights group claiming Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom unfairly limited employee discussions about it.”
• “Those moves came as more Democratic lawmakers sent another batch of letters requesting details about the deals and urging law firms to disavow them.”
• “At least three more lawyers on LinkedIn this week pointed to the deals with Trump as reason to move on from their firm. In separate posts, Harold Grigsby III, Kevin Decker and Maggie Hagen, all Washington, D.C. litigation associates at Kirkland, pointed to the firm’s commitment to provide pro bono and other legal services — while avoiding a Trump executive order — as the impetus for their resignations from the firm.”
• “‘To me, these actions set a troubling precedent,’ Hagen wrote. ‘When law firms yield to political pressure, it compromises the independence of our profession and threatens our ability to zealously advocate for our clients.'”
• “‘I am disappointed by the decision of the world’s most powerful and successful law firm not to fight back against this unlawful incursion, especially when other firms are already doing so successfully,’ Decker wrote, referring to Kirkland’s status as the highest-grossing revenue in the world.”
• “‘This is not neutrality, this is complicity. Complicity I can no longer be a part of,’ Grigsby stated.”
• “A spokesperson for Kirkland did not immediately comment on the announcements. Other firms, though, have also seen resignations for similar reasons after their deals with Trump were struck, including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins, and Willkie, Farr & Gallagher.”
• “Despite law firms’ insistence that they will stick to pro bono categories of the deals, including work for veterans and combating anti-Semitism, Trump has openly suggested he will ask the firms to handle coal leasing matters and negotiate trade talks.”
• “Separately, the National Institute for Workers’ Rights on Thursday reportedly filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board against Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. The group claimed the firm restricted access to email distribution lists where firm associates would discuss its agreement with the administration, express concerns about it, and submit resignations, among other things.”
• “‘Skadden interfered with these activities by restricting access to email distribution lists in order to suppress employee discussions about the firm’s policy changes,’ the labor group said.”

“Memphis Law Firm Leaves Tennessee Bar Association for Its Silence on Trump” —

• “A Memphis law firm left the Tennessee Bar Association (TBA) Tuesday after the firm said the group had ‘voted to remain silent’ on President Donald Trump’s actions to erode the rule of law and an independent judiciary.”
• “Donati Law ended more than 40 years of membership with TBA Tuesday in a letter made public on Facebook Wednesday. The Midtown law firm focuses on employment law, personal injury, and criminal defense, according to its website.”
• “‘It is with great sadness that we feel obligated to leave the TBA due to its refusal to take a stand consistent with the ideals of the Rule of Law and an independent judiciary in the face of extreme threats from the executive branch,’ reads the letter addressed to TBA leaders.”
• “The letter says, specifically, that the TBA ‘once again voted to remain silent’ on April 14. Details of the triggering event on this date were not immediately clear, but Donati attorney Bryce Ashby said it was related to activities from another Memphis attorney, Brian Faughnan, of Faughnan Law.”
• “One his blog, Faughnan on Ethics, Faughnan said many bar associations, like the American Bar Association, have spoken out against Trump actions that erode the rule of law. In an April 8th blog post, though, Faughnan said, ‘the Tennessee Bar Association and the Memphis Bar Association have not.'”
• “After private talks with the TBA, he said on April 16, he’d become ‘more and more convinced that the TBA is actually determined to remain silent in an unforgivable act of cowardice.'”
• “Finally, Donati said Trump has ordered retribution against law firms because of positions they have taken on behalf of clients or because of attorneys hired by their firms.”
• “‘These are but a few examples of the full-blown assault on the rule of law and the judiciary,’ reads the letter. ‘These actions damage our system of justice and must be condemned.”
• “‘Remaining silent is complicity. The TBA has stayed silent and once again voted to remain silent on April 14, despite the TBA’s self-professed role as a ‘strong advocate for the profession and the development and maintenance of our justice system.’ As a result, we can no longer continue our membership with the Tennessee Bar Association.'”

“Abbe Lowell Aids Letitia James After Winston & Strawn Exit” —

• “Abbe Lowell is defending New York Attorney General Letitia James against a Trump administration investigation after leaving Winston & Strawn, his firm of the past seven years.”
• “The firm declined to say when Lowell departed. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.”
• “Big Law firms have been trying to create distance between themselves and matters deemed unpopular by Trump, and eight firms besides Paul Weiss struck deals with him. Banks declined to comment on whether his departure from Paul Weiss was tied to his desire to continue representing James.”
• “Lowell joined Winston & Strawn in 2018 from Norton Rose Fulbright. He was a co-chair of Winston’s white collar and regulatory and investigations practice group and through his career has had a deep bench of high-profile clients who fall on both sides of the political aisle.”
• “He represented President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner in the investigation of alleged Russian collusion during Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Lowell was also lead defense lawyer for former President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden in a 2024 criminal trial.”
• “Lowell sent a letter Thursday to US Attorney General Pam Bondi that responds to Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte’s April 14 criminal referral concerning James. The referral accuses James of falsifying property records for a home she owns in Virginia by saying it’s her primary residence and alleges she understated the number of rooms at her home in Brooklyn.”
• “‘No one is better than you to recognize that Attorney General James is being targeted’ for her work, Lowell told Bondi in the letter, obtained by Bloomberg Law. ‘Trump has singled out Attorney General James dating back to her campaign in 2018, and ever more so during and after the trial and verdict in New York.'”

“Solicitor suspended for not disclosing own-interest conflict” —

• “A law firm owner has been suspended for not disclosing conflicts of interest to clients, including that his wife was a director of the property development company they were buying from. This meant Waheed Ur Rehman Mian should not have acted for them, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said.”
• “Clients lost money because the development failed and they have been reimbursed by Mr Mian’s insurers.”
• “Mr Mian, who qualified in 2003, was majority owner, compliance officer and principal solicitor of East London law firm M-R Solicitors, which between June 2017 and November 2019 acted for around 25 of 75 purchasers from two off-plan developments in Leicester that was meant to be built by Aronex Developments.”
• “There were several conflicts Mr Mian failed to disclose to clients, most notably that his wife was a director of Aronex.”
• “At the hearing, Mr Mian claimed he did not know this until summer 2019, and that his wife did not know M-R Solicitors was acting for purchasers.”
• “The SDT did not believe this, saying that up to this point in the proceedings, Mr Mian had stated that his wife was a silent director and shareholder and that the failure to advise clients of the conflict was an error and oversight caused by the strains of a busy practice.”
• “He had several opportunities to raise this defence before the hearing but had chosen not to do so.”
• “In any case, there were ‘other substantial links’ between the firm and Aronex which the SDT ‘did not consider to be merely coincidental'”
• “These included that the firm was the landlord of the leased premises occupied by Aronex and that two members of staff were also involved in the developments.”
• “‘Accordingly, the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that [Mr Mian] either knew of the conflict, or as an experienced solicitor ought to have been aware. ‘In such circumstances, [he] must have known that such a conflict was a mandatory prohibition on the firm acting for these clients. The firm should never have taken them on.'”
• “The SDT found that his actions had lacked integrity, a charge Mr Mian had contested.”
• “Mr Mian admitted failing to adequately advise clients of the risks inherent in such investment schemes – in particular their deposit being at risk in the event the seller became insolvent – and to ensure clients were informed of the planning issues facing the developments (ancient artefacts had been found on the sites) prior to releasing their funds to Aronex.”
• “This called into question Mr Mian’s ‘continued ability… to practise appropriately’ but it decided that a six-month suspension would suffice. He was also ordered to pay costs of £40,000.”

“Here’s why a lawyer hired by the government can’t represent public employees in an auditor general investigation…” —

• “According to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, her government was just trying to be helpful when it instructed thousands of public employees to refer calls from the auditor general about his ongoing investigation into allegations of dodgy health care contracts to a lawyer it had retained.”
• ‘The auditor general can ask any employee, former or current, any questions he likes as he is doing the investigation,’ Premier Smith assured the Alberta Legislature yesterday in response to a question from the NDP’s Christina Gray, who is Opposition leader as long as the government refuses to call a by-election in Edmonton-Strathcona that would give party Leader Naheed Nenshi a seat in the House.”
• “Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt. Responding to Ms. Smith, Ms. Gray wondered: ‘Does the premier understand how corrupt this looks?'”
• “Similarly, after the news broke on Thursday of the email sent to Alberta Health Services staff and employees of the provincial Health Department by a senior civil servant instructing them to redirect investigators ‘to our legal counsel,’ Health Minister Adriana LaGrange insisted, ‘this is not about impeding the investigation.'”
• “Ms. LaGrange also claimed that it is standard operating procedure for public employees in Alberta ‘either have legal counsel present, or ministry senior staff present when participating in interviews.’ Presumably she meant government counsel, not their own.”
• “Questions in the Legislature, of course, quickly turned this into a she said/she said dispute. So let’s look elsewhere to understand why the tales told by Ms. Smith and Ms. LaGrange are extremely unlikely. “Our text today comes from the Code of Conduct of the Law Society of Alberta, which states on page 31, ‘A lawyer must not act or continue to act for a client where there is a conflict of interest, except as permitted under this Code.'”
• “Indeed, the question of conflicts is so important, and there are so many situations in which conflicts could potentially arise, that the society’s Code of Conduct devotes 23 full pages to the topic, and at that I daresay that is not exhaustive.”
• “‘A conflict of interest exists when there is a substantial risk that a lawyer’s loyalty to or representation of a client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer’s own interest or the lawyer’s duties to another client, a former client, or a third person,’ the Code explains. ‘A substantial risk is one that is significant and, while not certain or probable, is more than a mere possibility. A client’s interests may be prejudiced unless the lawyer’s advice, judgment and action on the client’s behalf are free from conflicts of interest.'”
• “We non-lawyers need not plow through all the situations the document discusses to understand that if a lawyer has been engaged by the government of Alberta to represent its interests in an investigation of this type, it would be impossible in many situations that might arise for that lawyer to properly represent both the interests of his client, the government, and of the government’s employee.”
• “Put simply, Alberta Health (as the Health Department is confusingly known) is a legal entity that has different interests in the AG’s investigation than its employees do.”
• “For example, what if an employee, fearing retribution, asked for her identity to be protected because she has information about a dodgy contract? How can a lawyer representing the department, which is being sued for wrongful dismissal by a former CEO, represent the interests of both the employee and the employer? Common sense suggests the government’s lawyer simply cannot.

“Law Firms Balk at Trump Push for Client Data in DEI Probes” —

• “Large law firms plan to refuse to give the Trump administration information on their clients’ diversity initiatives as part of federal discrimination investigations. The 20 firms facing questions from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will reject the agency’s inquiries related to clients over confidentiality concerns, according to three people familiar with the matter. At least three firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett—are also seeking to strike a deal with the White House that would resolve the probes.”
• “The EEOC wants the firms to name clients that require them to hit diversity targets for staffing on legal matters and to detail any incentives earned by meeting certain metrics. The agency in a batch of March 17 letters cited Microsoft Corp.’s diversity program for the tech company’s law firms as an example.”
• “‘It’s core to our profession to not disclose things about your clients or communications with your clients,’ said Joshua Roffman, a Washington lawyer who advises companies on diversity initiatives. ‘You don’t even want to open the door a little bit to that.'”
• “William Burck, a litigator at Quinn Emanuel who has emerged as a go-between for firms facing retribution from Trump, and Gibson Dunn lawyer Jason Schwartz are separately advising several of those hit with EEOC inquiries. Allan Bloom, the co-chair of Proskauer’s labor and employment group, and Washington attorney David Fortney are also advising some of the firms.”
• “Those on the EEOC list determined that ignoring the letters or refusing to turn over any information could get them more unwanted attention from the administration, according to the people.”
• “The EEOC investigations are part of the administration’s attack on the legal industry. The White House has issued executive orders targeting firms and extracted deals from others for $340 million in services for Trump-aligned causes. Those directives and agreements have ensnared nine law firms so far.”
• “The EEOC typically polices workplace discrimination by investigating charges filed by workers against their employers. The agency’s commissioners can self-initiate charges to launch investigations, but those charges usually are not made public.”
• “Microsoft has one of the longest-running diversity programs for outside lawyers advising the tech company, dating back to 2008. The company expanded the program in 2020 ‘to address acute representation issues in African American/Black and Hispanic/Latinx communities,’ according to its website. The program encourages firms to hit certain metrics for diversity—including race, sex, and sexual orientation—on legal teams staffing Microsoft matters, as well as firmwide goals for increasing diversity among partners and in leadership roles.”
• “Amazon, HP Inc., Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc., Nike Inc., AbbVie Inc., and Starbucks Corp. are among other companies that have imposed diversity standards for outside counsel.”
• “The moves were part of an effort to spur change at top firms competing for work, but they drew rebukes from critics who called the programs thinly-veiled ‘quotas’ that violate longstanding federal anti-discrimination laws. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision restricting the use of race in college admissions increased scrutiny of a wide range of diversity hiring programs across industries.”

“‘Treated like a criminal’: US citizen says he was detained returning from Canada” —

• “A New Hampshire real estate attorney and American citizen returning home from Canada says he was detained at the border without an explanation. Bachir Atallah and his wife, Jessica Fakhri, were traveling back from a quick family trip Sunday when they say U.S. Customs and Border Protection stopped them when reentering the country in Vermont.”
• “‘I literally drove my car to Canada for the weekend, and on the way back, I was treated like a criminal,’ said Atallah, who has been a U.S. citizen for 10 years.”
  “An official for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol on Tuesday called Atallah’s account ‘blatantly false and sensationalized.’ Read the full statement below.”
• “‘They handcuffed me, they twisted my arm, my wrist,’ he said. ‘They walked me inside, and I was looking at my wife in the car.'”
• “Atallah says CBP agents requested to look into his email on his phone, which he refused because of attorney client privilege.”
• “‘So I had to, under duress, give him permission to look through my email, through my priveleged information, and he made me write a statement, signed by me, saying that I gave him permission to look through the email,’ Atallah said.”
• “After nearly five hours, Bachir Atallah says he and his wife were released. They are now pursuing legal action.”
• “Atallah is planning to leave for Lebanon in a few days, and he is not sure what will happen when he tries to return.”
• “Customs and Border Protection responded to a request for comment on Tuesday, with Assistant Commissioner Hilton Beckham sharing this statement:”
  • “The traveler’s accusations are blatantly false and sensationalized. CBP officers acted in accordance with established protocols. Upon arrival at the port of entry, the traveler was appropriately referred to secondary inspection — a routine, lawful process that occurs daily, and can apply for any traveler. Officers worked to ensure an attorney-client privilege was respected during the electronic media search. The traveler provided written consent to a limited search of his electronic device.'”

Hat tip to Mike Guernon who flagged this one for me (and is set to speak on the OCG panel): “California State Bar 28th Annual Statewide Ethics Symposium” —

NOTES:

• Looks like online registration is free (for the first 3000) but the deadline for that is April 23. So don’t dawdle…
• They’re offering 5 hours of participatory MCLE credit for you risk lawyers in the reader ranks…

AGENDA:

• 9:30 a.m.–9:45 a.m. Welcoming Remarks
• 9:45 a.m.–11:00 a.m. Recent Developments in Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct—What You Need to Know
  • This panel will discuss important developments in legal ethics, centering on recent and developing advisory ethics opinions prepared by COPRAC and other professional conduct developments. Topics will include COPRAC’s recent succession planning opinion and interim opinion concerning flat fees; recent developments in multijurisdictional and remote practices; and attorney wellness and mental health.
• 11:10 a.m.–12:25 p.m. Ethical Considerations of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law
  • The panel will discuss current legal artificial intelligence (AI) use cases, emerging issues, pitfalls, and opportunities. We will explore risk mitigation and the increasing emphasis on the role of bias and cybersecurity.
• 12:25 p.m.–1:30 p.m. Lunch
• 1:30 p.m.–2:45 p.m. Blazing a New Trail in the Wild West of Outside Counsel Guidelines
  • This panel will address the evolving landscape of Outside Counsel Guidelines (OCGs) and their intersection with professional reasonability. Topics include: conflicts between OCG requirements and ethical obligations; compliance challenges with billing restrictions and staffing mandates; data security and confidentiality requirements; implementation of diversity directives; and development of internal compliance systems. The discussion will provide practical guidance for both law firm attorneys and in-house counsel on managing client-tendered terms of engagement while maintaining professional independence and ethical compliance.
• 2:55 p.m.–4:10 p.m. Securing the Bench: Protecting Judges Amid Escalating Threats
• This panel will focus on:
  • Types of Threats: An overview of the spectrum of threats—from physical intimidation and targeted harassment to cyberattacks and doxxing—affecting judges today.
  • Legal and Policy Frameworks: A review of current laws, including the First Amendment and the Rules of Professional Conduct, and proposals for strengthening legal protections for judges, including legislative reforms and policy recommendations.
  • Best Practices for Lawyers: What are the limits of zealous representation in the courtroom, in briefing, and in the public arena? When and how does free speech backfire?
  • What are Judges Doing to Protect Themselves? Best practices for personal and institutional risk assessments, including how judges can identify warning signs and work with security professionals; cybersecurity and interagency collaboration.
  • International Perspectives: Insights into how other jurisdictions address judicial safety, offering potential models for reform and improved practices.

For more information and to register, see their website.

Brad Wendel, professor at Cornell Law School, puslihed:”Conflicts for Quislings” —

• “The firms that have caved rather than challenge the egregiously unconstitutional executive orders issued by the Trump Administration have all agreed to provide tens of millions of dollars of pro bono assistance.”
• “Trump has recently suggested that he will use the firms’ pro bono services to help negotiate trade deals with countries subject to his tariffs. in a Truth Social post he described ‘build[ing] an unrivaled network of Lawyers, who will put a stop to Partisan Lawfare in American, and retore Liberty and Justice FOR ALL.’ He announced at a Cabinet meeting:”
  • ‘We have a lot of law firms that have paid me a lot of money in the form of legal fees. We’re going to probably use those firms … if we can – I think we can,’ Trump said during a meeting of his cabinet at the White House. ‘I think we’re going to try to use these very prestigious firms to help us out with the trade.’
• “How the Deals with Trump Create Conflicts of Interest. To set the stage, consider a recent event that may seem unrelated to law firm conflicts but is actually the heart of the matter (h/t Serious Trouble).”
• “A couple of weeks ago, Adam Schleifer, an Assistant United States Attorney in Los Angeles, was notified that he had been terminated at the instructions of Donald Trump. The L.A. Times reported that the termination came via a one-line email from a White House staff account. Needless to say, this is very much not the way terminations of federal prosecutors are normally handled. AUSA’s have civil service protection, and ordinarily any disciplinary action against them would go through chain of command in the Justice Department.”
• “So what happened? Schleifer was in charge of the prosecution of fast food executive Andrew Wiederhorn on federal tax-evasion charges, arising out of allegations that he had used corporate funds as a piggy bank to fund his personal expenses, including private jet travel, fancy vacations, and a Rolls-Royce. The L.A. Times reports that his defense team had ‘aggressively pushed Justice Department officials to drop the case.’ Reading between the lines, it is a plausible inference that Wiederhorn was a buddy of Trump, a donor to his campaign, or personally or financially close to a Trump supporter. Here’s the bottom line from the point of view of independence of the legal profession and the rule of law:”
  • ‘[A] former prosecutor who handled fraud cases in the U.S. attorney’s office and sought anonymity over concerns about facing professional backlash, said he believes Schleifer’s firing is ‘going to have an incredible chilling effect on any line federal prosecutor who is thinking about criminally investigating or prosecuting an executive of any company of any significance.’
  • ‘The message from Adam’s case is that if you’re going to indict some run-of-the-mill CEO of a company, you need to check if he’s a Trump supporter first,’ the former prosecutor said. ‘It’s going to cause line prosecutors to be considerably more careful about pursuing anyone who has even tenuous connections to the president, which is not good for the DOJ.’
• “In a Substack post, a partner at Jenner & Block, which is one of the firms suing over the unconstitutional EOs, explained why becoming part of Trump’s ‘unrivaled network of Lawyers’ can create conflicts of interest for the firms:”
  • ‘[I]f a law firm enters into this type of non-deal, I don’t understand how it can ever represent clients in any case that involves the government. Every time its lawyers file a brief, they will think: ‘On the one hand, I have to represent my client zealously, but on the other hand, I have to make sure not to undo the deal.’
  • ‘The firm might pretend it is defending its clients zealously. It might file legal briefs making all manner of legal arguments. But what if a lawyer uncovered information that made the government look bad? There would be massive pressure on the lawyer to look the other way. Maybe the lawyer would try to offer some explanation to his client as to why it’s strategically best to set the issue aside. But there would always be a question mark in the client’s head: ‘is my lawyer saying this because he believes it, or is the lawyer saying this because he’s trying to preserve his law firm’s settlement with the government?’
• “I think this is exactly right. However, the example of Adam Schleifer shows that the concern does not arise only in litigation against the government. A firm may also have to be careful not to anger an ally of Trump or one of his associates like Elon Musk or a contributor to Trump’s campaign or someone with whom he is in a financial relationship (like a shady cryptocurrency promoter). Doing so could lead to professional consequences like being fired as an AUSA or, in the case of a law firm, being deemed out of compliance with the terms of an agreement with the administration.”
• “But it’s even worse. Firms may have to worry not only about representing clients in litigation in ways that potentially make Trump or his supporters look bad. They also have to worry about transactional representation, like merger deals, in which government approval is a condition of the transaction closing.”
• “Imagine a big law firm that is working on a lot of transactional work for a number of clients across a wide range of regulated industries. Some of the matters may be M&A transactions, or they could be routine deals that require federal agency approvals, permits, licenses, or whatever. The CBS/Paramount/Skydance deal shows that this administration has no compunction at all about threatening to withhold agency approval if one of the parties does not fall into line with what Karoline Leavitt referred to as the ‘America first agenda.’ Client A needs approval from the FTC, FCC, or some other agency so that a merger can go through. Client B is litigating against a different government agency or even just a company controlled by a guy who gets Trump’s ear at Mar-a-Lago. The word comes down that Client A’s approval won’t come through unless Client B drops the case. That’s a really nasty conflict of interest, and it is entirely foreseeable given this administration’s personalized, friends-or-enemies approach to thinking about government interests.”
• “If you have any doubt that ‘America first agenda’ is just another way of referring to the full MAGA project, look at the EO that was entered against Susman Godfrey (which the firm, to no one’s surprise, is fighting). The EO claims that the firm is acting in a way that is ‘detrimental to critical American interests’ because ‘Susman spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.’ What was that effort that weaponized the American legal system and degraded the quality of American elections? Maybe delivering a good old-fashioned ass-kicking to Fox News in a defamation action brought by Dominion Voting Systems? Fox, of course, had eagerly promoted the false narrative pushed by Trump of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Any deviation from that narrative must be severely punished as anti-American. Do you think any law firm that has cut a deal with Trump, with the proverbial sword of Damocles of these EOs, could possibly represent a client like Dominion in a matter that might arose Trump’s ire?”
  A Brief Brush-Up on Conflicts of Interest”
• “This is a liability and risk-management concern for these firms, not merely a matter of client relations or a so-called ‘business conflict.’ Every U.S. jurisdiction has a conflict of interest rule based on ABA Model Rule 1.7. Some states employ varying language, like New York’s ‘differing interests’ standard, but the substantive standard is the same. Here’s Model Rule 1.7(a)(2):”
  • ‘A concurrent conflict of interest exists if . . . there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.’
• “The conflicts of one lawyer in the firm are imputed to all lawyers in the firm, under Rule 1.10(a), so if the firm is part of Trump’s network of lawyers, a lawyer doing administration-approved pro bono work has responsibilities to that client that may materially limit the representation of other firm clients, even if represented by a completely different team of lawyers, even in a different office of the firm.”
  “The key to understanding material-limitation conflicts is the concept of independent professional judgment. A lawyer must always be free to advise a client on a course of action, or take measures in the course of representing the client, that are based solely on the lawyer’s reasonable assessment of what is in the client’s best interests. This is an implication of the highly fiduciary duty of loyalty that characterizes the lawyer-client relationship. Comment [8] to Rule 1.7 explains:”
  • ‘[A] conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer’s other responsibilities or interests. . . . The conflict in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client. The mere possibility of subsequent harm does not itself require disclosure and consent. The critical questions are the likelihood that a difference in interests will eventuate and, if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of the client.’
• “Something lawyers sometimes forget is that a conflict of interest exists, by definition, if there is a significant risk of this type of interference with independent professional judgment.”
• “So, to all you conflicts partners at the firms who have entered into deals with the White House . . . are you ready for this? Have you looked at all of your firm’s litigated matters to see if any of the adverse parties are buddies with Trump? Or whether they represent interests that are more aligned with the ‘America first agenda’ than your clients? Have you reviewed pending transactional matters to see if agency approval is required to serve the interests of Client A? If so, have you thought about whether something Client B has done may have pissed off Trump? Have you considered the concessions that will be demanded from Client B in order to keep the matter for Client A running smoothly?”
• “Most conflicts are waivable, provided that all affected parties give informed consent, which is defined by Model Rule 1.0(e) as ‘the agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.’ But that ‘adequate information and explanation’ standard is very demanding in practice. In order to get Client A’s informed consent to the representation, in light of the risk that Trump may be pissed off by something you did in the course of representing Client B, you need to provide full disclosure. And that may require revealing information pertaining to Client B that you are duty-bound to keep confidential. (One of my favorite teaching cases on conflicts involves incompatible duties of communication and confidentiality.) While these firms so far are being tight-lipped about the terms of their agreements with the administration, it won’t be long before clients will start demanding to see them, and for good reason. If a firm cannot reveal information of one firm client to another, then the conflict becomes practically non-waivable, even if it might have been theoretically waivable. In that case, proceeding in the face of the un-waived conflict will be a breach of duty to all affected clients.”
• “Then there’s the more general, less client-specific risk associated with the provision of the firm’s promised $40-125 million worth of legal services to the administration, in negotiating coal mining leases or whatever. In normal circumstances a firm would be able to say no to a client’s request to provide legal services in connection with a matter. A firm subject to one of these agreements, however, might reasonably believe it has no option to decline to provide some work in furtherance of the ‘America first agenda.’ The firm may also not be permitted to exercise its usual independent judgment in deciding what other pro bono matters to take. It’s not at all farfetched to think that somewhere in White House counsel’s office there are some lawyers tasked with monitoring these firms work toward their commitment of providing free legal services to the administration. If lawyers have always hated oversight by liability insurers, wait until they experience the supervision of political commissars who will be looking for evidence of ideological non-conformity. I believe some of the lawyers in these firms think they will be able to continue to run their pro bono programs in the way they have always done so, but again taking Trump literally as well as seriously, I expect they’re going to find out that he really does think of them as ‘his’ law firms, to be ordered around and punished severely for non-compliance.”
• “Getting this wrong risks not only professional discipline but lawsuits from affected clients for negligence or breach of fiduciary duty. This is bread-and-butter work for those of us who do expert witness work in the professional responsibility area. Big-firm conflicts checking procedures are sophisticated, but it can be extremely difficult to pick up material limitation conflicts, given the many ways in which, per Comment [8], the ‘lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer’s other responsibilities or interests.’ The assessment of material limitation is not just something that happens at the outset of the representation but must be reevaluated over the course of the representation as positions and interests potentially re-align. A job that has always been extremely difficult just became much more so.”
• Worth reading his entire piece for even more detail and commentary.