Bressler Risk Blog

David Kluft asks: “If I argue there is no conflict between my clients because they don’t have viable claims against each other, have I just proven that there is a conflict?” —

• “A and B each owned 50% of a Massachusetts LLC. In the context of a complex litigation, they sued each other, and A brought derivative breach of fiduciary claims against B on behalf of the LLC.”
• “The same lawyer appeared in the case for both B and the LLC. A moved to disqualify her, arguing that her two clients (B and the LLC) had claims against each other. The lower court disqualified her.”
• “The lawyer argued on appeal that the LLC wasn’t a real party and in any case the LLC’s derivative claims against B were bogus.”
• “The Appeals Court held: well, you just made the lower court’s point. Your argument on behalf of B that your other client, the LLC, has no viable claims demonstrates a conflict of interest and is ‘the very reason Rule 1.7 exists.’ Disqualification affirmed.”

“Who Can Disqualify Counsel? Standing Matters; 3rd DCA Shuts Down ‘Stranger’ Conflict Challenge” —

• “In Takefman v. The Pickleball Club (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), a plaintiff sued The Pickleball Club LLC, its CEO, and its CFO — then tried to disqualify their law firm on conflict grounds. The problem? He had never been that firm’s client.”
• “The Third DCA affirmed the denial of disqualification, and the opinion is a clean refresher on standing to disqualify counsel:
  • As a general rule, only a current or former client has standing to seek disqualification based on conflicts of interest or confidentiality concerns.”
• A third-party litigant without privity to the law firm is a ‘stranger’ to the attorney-client relationship and typically cannot invoke conflict rules as a weapon.”
• “The court noted a narrow exception: a non-client may sometimes seek disqualification where necessary for the fair and efficient administration of justice. But there was no such showing here. The firm had obtained informed consent from the LLC, CEO, and CFO; there was no evidence of divided loyalty that affected the fairness of the proceedings.”
• “Practice pointers”
  • “For movants: Before filing a motion to disqualify, ask: Did this firm ever represent me? Can I articulate a concrete prejudice to the proceedings, not just discomfort? If not, you may lack standing — and the motion may look tactical rather than principled.”
  • “For counsel: When representing an entity and its principals, obtain written conflict waivers / informed-consent letters contemporaneously. Keep the file clean enough that, if challenged, you can quickly demonstrate who your clients are and what was disclosed.”
• “Takeaway: Disqualification is an extraordinary remedy, not a litigation tactic for outsiders. If you’re not the lawyer’s client — and can’t show a systemic threat to the integrity of the case — you likely don’t have standing to knock opposing counsel out.”

“Hong Kong Lawsuit Against Latham Exposes Big Law’s Systemic Failures” —

• “A lawsuit filed with the Hong Kong High Court in late December has created a ruckus in the legal community in Asia. A former Latham & Watkins counsel is suing the firm and one of its equity partners for fraudulent misrepresentation. Tingfei Fan claims she was constructively dismissed after raising issues with management over alleged misconduct by partners at the firm. Latham & Watkins has vehemently denied the allegations.”
• “Her claim includes assertions that she was led by her supervising partner to believe that she was being put up for promotion to income partner for three years but only later found out from other management-level partners that that never happened. She claims this is despite her bringing in more than$19 million in legal fees and revenue between 2020 to 2024.”
• “But the devil’s also in the details. According to the court documents, the plaintiff, who worked at Latham in Hong Kong for close to a decade, alleged that the equity partner, Ji Liu, who is named as a defendant in the case, disregarded ‘potential conflict of interests by not generating a client matter file or number or doing so under a different client file or matter and directing those under his supervision to work on such matters without a conflict check.'”
• “One partner at a U.S. firm described that particular allegation as ‘egregious misconduct,’ if true.”
• “Latham has refuted the claims in a statement to Law.com International, calling them ‘baseless’ and ‘meritless’ and labelling the case an ’employment matter’ brought by someone who has not been at the firm for over 18 months. The case is due to be played out in court.”
• “One lawyer said some allegations regarding credit misappropriation are ‘not misaligned’ to their experience at the firm but hastened to add that it ‘happens everywhere.'”
• One former Latham partner who had worked in the Hong Kong office for over a decade and is now a regional general counsel at a Fortune 500 company, commented on my LinkedIn post last week about the lawsuit: ‘Not surprised, not new facts, not new culture.’ She did not respond to a request for further comments.”
  Some of the Latham clients I spoke to last week said the U.S. firm’s lawyers who have done work for them ‘have been excellent’ and’ every firm has bad eggs.’ Yet two said that they are curious how Latham will deal with the matter internally.”
• “The allegations against Latham illustrate the many systemic failures in the business of law that we have somehow grown resigned to. But common practice is not best practice.”
• “What I find most difficult to come to terms with is the fact that a lawyer’s career path and trajectory (or the lack thereof) can hinge on just one supervising partner, who incidentally also needs your subordination to sustain or increase their take each year.”
• “But what if Fan’s claims are true? Where are the checks and balances in place to ensure that all associates and counsel are given due consideration so that no one is forsaken in their pursuit of partnership, even if ultimately they don’t succeed?”
• “Are there processes in place to ensure no one in the lower ranks is being held down or left behind? Are office managing partners and regional leaders taking charge and resolving such intractable conflicts?”

The WSJ Editorial Board Writes: “Alaska Dumps Some Trial Lawyers” —

• “Trial lawyers’ contracts with state governments have been a walking conflict of interest for years and more states are calling an end to it. The latest is Alaska, which on Friday terminated its relationship with Baron & Budd, the notorious Texas plaintiffs firm.”
• “In a letter to the firm, the office of Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox said Baron & Budd was being dismissed after the firm disclosed that it represents more than 300 clients in cases that overlap with state litigation on chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Alaska says those relationships create a conflict of interest with state litigation on similar matters and should have been flagged long ago.”
• “Under the terms of the state’s 2021 contract with Baron & Budd, the firm was required to ‘immediately notify’ the state of ‘any potential or actual conflict of interest’ and ‘fully disclose the nature of the conflict.’ The conflicts weren’t disclosed until November, when Alaska asked lawyers with state contracts to provide such information.”
• “When it submitted its list, Baron & Budd told Alaska it was ‘aware of no conflict of interest that arises from our simultaneous representation of Alaska and these listed clients.'”
• “But how does that work? Representing multiple entities in pursuit of the same pots of money is a zero-sum game. If a firm shares documents or legal strategies with multiple parties, who benefits and at whose expense?”
• “The trial lawyer firing is the second round for Alaska, which dismissed South Carolina-based Motley Rice in October for cause over that firm’s conflicts of interest. The state said at the time that Motley had filed civil lawsuits for private clients that raised many of the same issues as those ‘raised in the litigation for which the firm represents the State.'”
• “Montana, Iowa, Kansas and Utah have also dismissed plaintiffs’ firms in recent years, and Alaska’s terminations are a welcome shake-up for the plaintiffs bar. Kudos to AG Cox for the legal stable-cleaning.”

“J&J Seeks Beasley Allen’s Removal From NJ Talc Litigation” —

• “‘‘It stinks’ ain’t the law in New Jersey—you have to show an ethical violation.'”
• “That was the key argument Beasley Allen’s attorney Jeffrey M. Pollock brought to a New Jersey state court Tuesday in his attempt to convince the judges that the Alabama-based trial firm should be allowed to stay on as co-lead counsel in the massive litigation against Johnson & Johnson over alleged illness from exposure to talc products.”
• “The company urged the Superior Court Appellate Division panel to reverse a lower court ruling finding J&J’s prior bankruptcy lawyer hadn’t ‘associated’ with Beasley Allen despite collaborating with the trial lawyers in a mediation that sought to keep the multi-district litigation and multi-county litigation in New Jersey out of bankruptcy court. At stake: the major plaintiff-side firm’s cut of potentially $22 billion in claims brought by vaginal cancer patients who accused the health-care giant of selling asbestos-tainted talc products.”
• “Judges Mark K. Chase and Thomas W. Sumners Jr. focused on whether the activity of former Sidley Austin attorney James Conlan constituted ‘association’ when he jumped ship from the firm to form a settlement consultancy business called Legacy Liability Solutions, where he worked in a non-lawyer capacity. If interactions Conlan—who worked roughly 1,600 hours on J&J’s bankruptcy for Sidley—had with Beasley Allen could be considered ‘associating’ then they could violate New Jersey Rule 5.3(c) blocking conflicts arising from collaboration between attorneys and non-lawyers with conflicts in litigation.”
• “‘If Conlan was acting as an attorney would that have been problematic?’ Sumners asked.”
• “‘Yes,’ said Pollock, managing member of Pollock Law. ‘But he was not. He was never on the payroll. He was never hired.'”
  Rules ‘Effecitvely Neutralized’”
• “J&J portrayed this as an easy case, since no one disputes that if Conlan was acting as an attorney there would be a conflict.”
• “While case law doesn’t establish what association means, Conlan’s experience on this specific case is more than sufficient to disqualify Beasley Allen, said Peter G. Verniero, a former New Jersey Supreme Court justice and member at Sills Cummis & Gross PC.”
• “‘Our legal system cannot function if a lawyer for one side is permitted to collaborate or partner with lawyers on another side on the same matter involving the same issues and claims,’ he said.”

“Alito recuses himself from oil case ahead of Monday’s arguments” —

• “Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday recused himself from a battle between Louisiana parishes and major oil companies set to be argued next week. “
• “Alito regularly steps aside because of his direct stock holdings in more than two dozen companies, but the timing of his latest recusal was unusual. “
• “The conservative justice participated in the case when the court decided last summer to take it up. His announcement landed less than a week before oral arguments. “
• “In a letter to the parties, Supreme Court clerk Scott Harris explained that Alito was recusing himself because of his holdings in ConocoPhillips, the parent corporation of Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company, one of the companies named in the suit. “
• “Before the justices agreed to get involved, Burlington Resources penned a letter to them saying the company was ‘withdrawing’ and would not ‘have any other involvement’ in ‘the above-referenced case.’ On that basis, Alito initially decided not to recuse himself, according to Harris.”
• “‘Later briefing, however, noted that Burlington remained a party in the district court,’ Harris wrote in his letter. ”
  “Most Supreme Court justices do not directly own individual stocks. Alito’s decision to do so regularly leads him to recuse and has sparked criticism from some ethics watchdogs.”
• “Alito has recused himself 12 times this term from voting on a petition or merits-stage case so far, more than twice as many as any of his colleagues, according to The Hill’s review of the court’s docket.”

“Texas Supreme Court allows judges to refuse wedding ceremonies based on religious beliefs” —

• “Texas judges can now refuse to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies based on religious beliefs.”
• “The Texas Supreme Court amended the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, adding a comment to clarify that it is not a violation for judges to refrain from performing weddings due to a ‘sincerely held religious belief.'”
• “Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, called the rule change ‘an important victory for religious freedom.'”
• “‘A judge should not have to choose between their conscience and their career,’ Saenz said in a statement.”
  “Chief Justice James D. Blacklock and seven justices signed the order adding a comment to Canon 4 of the judicial conduct code.”
• “A senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas provided the following statement:”
  • “Allowing judges who offer marriage services to the general public to deny certain couples the right to marry paves the way for discrimination. Judges should remain neutral and unbiased when performing any public service, but this rule change holds weddings to a different standard and allows public officials to discriminate against us based on who we love, where we’re from, what we look like, or how we worship.”
• “Jacob Reyes, GLAAD Texas Representative and News Coordinator said:”
  • “Breaking the law to discriminate is something all reasonable people object to. Texans, no matter their identity, expect more from state officials who swear to uphold the Constitution and treat everyone equally. Marriage equality remains the law of the land, as determined by the Supreme Court over 10 years ago and codified by Congress through the Respect for Marriage Act, and all officials have a responsibility to put personal views aside and serve their constituents.”

“Judge who allegedly kept ‘Book of Grudges’ faces misconduct charges” —

• “A Pennsylvania judge who allegedly kept a “Book of Grudges” and a sexually explicit calendar in her office violated judicial conduct standards, according to formal charges filed Wednesday.”
• “Zanelli allegedly described a local attorney as “just a d- – -” in the “Book of Grudges” and made notes that were critical of another person who appeared in her court in landlord-tenant matters. She placed the ‘Book of Grudges’ in a general work area in the office accessible to her staff to add notations to it if they wished, according to the complaint.”

David Kluft asks: “Am I disqualified if my firm is merging with a firm that represents the opposing party’s corporate affiliate?” —

• “An AL plaintiff sued a corporation for discriminatory termination. After the litigation commenced, the plaintiff’s counsel’s firm merged with another firm that had been hired by a corporate affiliate of the defendant in an unrelated litigation.”
• “The defendant moved to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, but the Court denied the motion. The Court held there was no conflict because the corporate affiliates were distinct corporate entities and, under an old Alabama bar ethics opinion, a lawyer may sue a parent company while representing a wholly owned subsidiary in an unrelated litigation, provided the separate identity of the companies prevents the risk that confidential information will be misused.”
• “The Court also explained that the cases were being handled by geographically distinct offices of the newly merged firm, and the attorneys on the respective matters would have no communication with each other.”

“Kirkland & Ellis Accused of Conflict in Private Equity Spat” —

• “Law firm Kirkland & Ellis has been drawn into a dispute between investors of Ascent Resources and the private equity firm that’s seeking to raise a continuation fund to prolong its hold on the natural gas producer. Mason Capital Management questioned the law firm’s role representing the Ascent board while also advising the private equity firm, Energy & Minerals Group, in its legal fight with another Ascent investor, the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, according to a letter seen by Bloomberg.”
• “Last month, the Mideast sovereign wealth fund sued to stop EMG from shunting Ascent into a continuation vehicle amid disagreements over the valuation of the portfolio company and the process surrounding the proposed fund.”
• “The two sides agreed to pursue arbitration, and the continuation fund can’t close until that’s resolved.”
• “‘Managers may not reasonably rely on conflicted advisers whose interests are aligned with a controller pursuing a challenged transaction,’ Mason wrote in the letter dated Monday and addressed to Ascent’s board, which is led by Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jeff Fisher. Five of the 12 board members are EMG executives.”
• “Kirkland & Ellis topped the deals and private equity league tables last year, according to its website. The firm serves more than 800 private equity firms, advising on a variety of matters, including fund formation, fundraising, buyouts, take-privates, recapitalizations and deal exits.”
• “The dispute over the sale concerns an increasingly popular, sometimes controversial asset-shuffling technique that allows managers to extend their bets on long-held companies. The strategy gained traction amid a tough environment for asset sales, though some critics have said it poses conflicts when private equity firms are on both sides of the transaction.”
• “In the case of Ascent, the board ‘stifled a fair and open process’ to evaluate options such as an initial public offering or strategic sale of the company, New York-based Mason said last month in a Delaware Chancery Court filing.”
  Special Committee”
• “At the time, Mason asked the board to form a special committee and retain an independent financial adviser to evaluate alternatives and disclose valuation materials. But the board — through Kirkland & Ellis — refused, asserting it had no obligation to take action.”
• “‘The board taking advice as to its own conflicts, collectively and individually, from legal counsel which it knows, or reasonably should know, has a direct conflict is wrongful on its face,’ Mason wrote in Monday’s letter.”
• “Even as EMG and ADIC pursue arbitration, other Ascent investors have come forward with offers to buy the company. Mason put forth its own proposal to deliver a fully financed, all-cash approval to acquire Ascent at a ‘price superior to that contemplated by the EMG transactions’ and to make the payment upfront rather than over multiple years, according to a separate letter viewed by Bloomberg.”
• “Kimmeridge Energy Management had also submitted a $6 billion proposal for Ascent, according to Monday’s letter. ‘Neither bidder has received any response from the board,’ Mason wrote, adding that it also asked for ‘immediate corrective action, including withdrawal of conflicted counsel.'”

“Sloppy Transactional Work Leads to a Privilege Mess: Part I” —

• “In 2022, Jim Daws agreed to sell his company, Daws Trucking, to Rick Fernandez under an asset purchase agreement (APA).
• “The same law firm represented both parties in the transaction but ‘fail[ed] to obtain consent to the conflict of interest.’ Jim Daws Trucking, LLC v. Daws Inc., No. 4:24CV3177, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186458, at *7-8 (D. Neb. Sept. 23, 2025). Daws continued to work under the new ownership until a conflict with Fernandez triggered lawsuits, which led to a dispute over Daws’ attorney-client privileged communications (1) before the transaction closed and (2) while he continued working at the company after the transaction closed.”
• “Addressing the first issue, the court noted that under the APA, Daws sold Fernandez ‘all the tangible and intangible assets used in the business,’ including the server containing his transaction-related attorney-client communications. Id. at *3. The APA even identified the server as ‘Office Equipment’ worth about $40,000. Id. at *4. Daws claimed he was ‘not tech savvy’ and ‘did not ‘intend’ to sell the data contained on the server.’ Id.”
• “The unsympathetic court rejected Daws’ argument, noting that Daws did not ‘delete any pre-sale communications’ on the server and thus waived the privilege when he ‘voluntarily disclosed the communications contained on the server’ under the APA. Id. at *17-18. Interestingly, the court focused on the waiver rather than on the transfer of ownership. Next week’s Privilege Point will address the court’s analysis of Daws’ post-closing communications using the server that now belonged to Fernandez.”
• See also: Part 2.

In Florida: “SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 9 ATTORNEYS” —

• “Larry Elliot Klayman, 7050 W. Palmetto Park Rd., Boca Raton, suspended for two years effective 30 days following a November 5 court order. (Admitted to Practice: 1977)”
• “In one matter, Klayman engaged in a conflict of interest when he represented plaintiffs in three separate cases against Judicial Watch, an organization he founded and for which he previously served as general counsel, without seeking conflict waivers.”
• “In another matter, he expressed to his client that his personal feelings for her rendered him unable to properly represent her. However, he failed to withdraw from her case even after being terminated, and he publicized the case against her wishes.”
• (Case No. SC2023-1219)

“UK law firms get ready for crackdown on money laundering” —

• “UK law firms are bracing themselves for a money-laundering crackdown as ministers race to improve the City’s reputation ahead of a fresh financial crime review.”
  “The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has been designated as the new anti-money laundering watchdog for the legal sector, in a move that experts warn could result in ‘sharper’ penalties and ultimately reshape the industry.”
• “The decision to consolidate regulation, which at present is spread across nine separate supervisors, is part of the government’s wider efforts to combat the UK’s reputation as a hub for ‘dirty money’. The National Crime Agency estimates that £100bn is being laundered through or within the UK every single year, with the help of enabling entities such as law firms.”
• “The City’s poor reputation for money laundering came into focus in 2018, following an assessment by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the Paris-based global crime watchdog. Its report highlighted significant weaknesses in the UK’s anti-money laundering supervisions and called on the government to ‘strengthen’ oversight, particularly across the accounting and legal sectors. The UK’s national risk assessment on money laundering and terrorist financing has also classed the UK legal sector as ‘high risk’ for every one of its assessments since 2017.”
• “Now, with a fresh FATF review looming in August 2027, government reforms are being pushed into a high gear. ‘The timing of this shift is no coincidence,’ Priya Giuliani, a financial crime investigator and partner at the consultancy HKA, said. While there is currently no deadline for the changing of the guard, Giuliani said the ‘urgency is there for the UK to present a credible, consistent, and effective supervisory system to FATF by August 2027’.”
• “The FCA’s pending role as money-laundering supervisor for the professional services sector – which also includes accounting firms and trusts – follows a two-year government review that found inconsistent oversight, duplication across more than 20 regulators, and gaps in information shared with police. For the legal sector alone, the FCA will be taking over the responsibilities of nine supervisors, most notably the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).”
• “Giuliani says that while the SRA has historically taken a more ‘collaborative, guidance-led approach’, the FCA will have ‘sharper swords’ to punish wrongdoing. The SRA has limited powers, and a £25,000 cap on fines, although larger fines can be imposed if the SRA refers firms to tribunal.”
• “In the year to April, the SRA issued 86 fines worth £1.5m under its anti-money laundering powers, with penalties ranging from £1,520 to £300,000. Its largest fine was on par with the FCA’s smallest – the latter issued six anti-money laundering fines last year, ranging from £289,000 to £39.3m and totalling £82m.”
• “The FCA’s takeover could also lead to law firms facing large hurdles to start operating in the UK, HKA said. Figures it has gathered show the FCA rejected 44% of the 275 applications it received in the 2023-24 financial year, while the SRA accepted all 218 firms that applied.”
• “‘The FCA brings sharper scrutiny, broader powers, and a data-driven lens,’Giuliani said. ‘Legal firms must be ready.'”
• “Steve Smart, the executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: ‘Fighting financial crime is a priority for the FCA and we have experience in anti-money laundering supervision which we will bring to bear. We intend to take a data-led and proportionate approach – with a focus on partnering with firms to identify and disrupt crime.'”

“SBM issues ethics opinion on handling files after attorney and client part ways” —

• “The State Bar of Michigan’s Standing Committee on Professional Ethics issued a new ethics opinion offering guidelines on how to handle the disposition of files when a lawyer-client relationship is terminated. “
• “The opinion, RI-392, was issued December 12, 2025, and builds upon Formal Opinion R-19, issued in 2000. The new opinion focuses on what exactly a client is entitled to receive upon the termination of representation. “
• “‘Among other things, R-19 opined that a client’s right is one of access rather than possession or ownership. While R-19 provided helpful guidance on the subject of lawyer files, several questions persist: What does ‘access’ to the files mean? To what portions of the lawyer’s file does a client have a right of ‘access’? How many times must ‘access’ be granted? These and related questions were not answered specifically in R-19 but frequently arise in the context of termination of a lawyer’s representation,’ RI-392 states. “
• “The new opinion goes on to break down various aspects of file disposition after termination of client-attorney relationships, including the following:
  • Proper means of giving access
  • Providing paper vs electronic copies
  • Scope of information to which access must be given
  • Charging for copies
  • Record retention
  • Multiple copy requests
  • Damaged files
  • Disposition of files upon a lawyer’s retirement
  • Attorney liens “
• “You can read the full opinion here. “

With aluminum poles coming out of crawlspaces everywhere, Jeff Cunningham noted: NYSB Ethics Opinion 1288:

• “A Festivus present from the New York Bar! NYSBA Ethics Opinion 1288 just dropped in time for the Feats of Strength!”
• “No, an irreovcable trust can’t own a portion of your law firm since trusts aren’t lawyers!”
  • “The proposed estate plan, which seeks to create an irrevocable trust that would hold the client’s minority shareholder ownership interest in the professional corporation upon his death for the benefit of an attorney employee in that firm, is not permissible under Rule 5.4(a), (b), and (d), because a trust is a nonlawyer that is not authorized to practice law, and a lawyer may not practice law or share legal fees with a nonlawyer not authorized to practice law.”
• Opinion: here.

“Ethics Opinion 1289: Entity owned and operated by attorney that provides law-related services. Splitting fees from law-related services with nonlawyers. Paying referral fees to attorney owner of law-related entity” —

• When an attorney owns or controls an entity that provides nonlegal services, the attorney must comply with the New York Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to the entity’s provision of nonlegal services if any of the entity’s customers could reasonably believe (even if mistakenly) that the entity’s nonlegal services are the subject of a client-lawyer relationship. If the attorney avoids that misimpression, including by providing the entity’s customers with a disclaimer that complies with Rule 5.7(a)(4), then the attorney may permit the entity to provide a percentage of its revenue to a nonlawyer who provides services to the entity. In that event, the attorney may also permit the entity to pay a referral fee to an attorney from outside the entity who refers a client to the entity, unless the attorney who owns or controls the entity knows that a referring attorney is forbidden by Rule 1.7 or other law from accepting a referral fee or is not obtaining the necessary consent from the referring attorney’s client.
• Opinion: here.

“Nonlawyer Control, Not‑for‑Profit Law Firms, and Authorized Business Entities: Commentary on the 2025 Amendments to Florida Rule 4‑8.6” —

• “On December 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of Florida issued a per curiam opinion in In re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – Rule 4‑8.6, approving a series of amendments to Rule 4‑8.6, which governs ‘Authorized Business Entities’ through which Florida lawyers may practice law.”
• “The petition originated with The Florida Bar and was approved by its Board of Governors. Pursuant to Rule 1‑12.1(g) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, notice was published in The Florida Bar News inviting public comment. No comments were filed, and the Court adopted the proposed amendments with only ‘minor modification.'”
• “The amendments, effective February 16, 2026, at 12:01 a.m., clarify:”
  • “That lawyers may practice in not‑for‑profit authorized business entities, alongside traditional for‑profit structures.”
  • “The permissible roles of nonlawyers and out‑of‑state lawyers in the ownership, governance, and management of entities engaged in the practice of law in Florida.”
  • “That only persons legally qualified to render legal services in Florida may direct the legal services or professional judgment of a Florida lawyer.”
• “Although the opinion is short and largely administrative, its amendments carry significant regulatory and structural implications for Florida law firms, legal aid organizations, and multijurisdictional practices. The Court also re‑affirms the long‑standing principle that even when the Legislature creates business forms for professionals, the Supreme Court must affirmatively authorize lawyers to use those forms in the practice of law. “

“6th Circuit grants law firm qualified immunity in firing” —

• “A law firm was entitled to dismissal of an employment retaliation suit on qualified immunity grounds because no clearly established law put it on notice that firing one of its attorneys under the circumstances would violate the First Amendment, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided.”
• “A Nashville city councilman allegedly threatened to withdraw business from the law firm due to the position one of its attorneys took as the chair of the county election commission on a tax referendum. When the attorney declined the law firm’s request that he oppose the referendum, the firm fired him.”
• “The plaintiff sued the council member and the firm for retaliating against his federal free-speech rights.”
• “A U.S. District Court rejected the assertion of qualified immunity by the defendants.”
• “But the 6th Circuit reversed, ruling that the firm could invoke qualified immunity because of the government work it performed, and that it was entitled to dismissal because no clearly established law prohibited its conduct.”
• “‘We know of no case in which the First Amendment prohibited a law firm from firing one of its lawyers when the business interests of the firm, including demands from one of its clients, triggered the firing,’ the court wrote. “

David Kluft asks: “Should I be disqualified if the opposing party once told me his litigation goals?” —

• “A CT husband already had a lawyer for his divorce but frequently sought ‘second opinions,’ consulting with between 30-50 lawyers over the course of four years.
• “In 2022, he consulted with one of these ‘second opinion’ attorneys and met with her for 60-90 minutes, during which meeting he got emotional and discussed his goals for the divorce litigation. The attorney then reviewed the public court file, but it didn’t go further because she was too busy with other cases.”
• “Three years later, this same attorney appeared in the case for the wife. The court denied the husband’s motion to disqualify pursuant to Rule 1.18 (prospective client conflicts).”
• “The communication about goals did not require disqualification because there was no further meeting and because the husband failed to identify how that information would be significantly harmful to him (‘significant harm’ is a requirement of Rule 1.18).”

“Goldman Sachs Says Some Clients’ Data May Have Been Exposed in Law Firm Data Breach” —

• “Goldman Sachs Group Inc. warned investors in some of its alternative investment funds that their data may have been exposed in a breach at one of the bank’s law firms.”
• “In a Dec. 19 letter, Goldman said it had been informed of a ‘cybersecurity incident’ by Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, which serves as outside counsel to many of its alternatives funds. The bank said it was working with the law firm ‘to better understand whether our data or our clients’ data may have been exposed.'”
• “The letter was included in a proposed class lawsuit* filed Wednesday against Fried Frank by Andrew Sacks, an investor in Goldman’s Petershill Private Equity Seeding II Offshore Fund.”
• “‘Goldman Sachs’ systems were not impacted by this incident and remain secure,’ a spokesperson for the bank said. ‘As always, we will continue to work to safeguard our clients and their data.'”
• See also: Sacks v. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP

“Labour accuses shadow attorney-general of ‘conflict of interest’ over legal work for Roman Abramovich” —

• “The [UK] Conservative shadow attorney-general David Wolfson, a Tory peer, has been accused of a ‘conflict of interest’ for being part of the legal team of sanctioned Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich.”
• “Emily Thornberry, a Labour MP who did the same job as Lord Wolfson between 2021 and 2024, said it was a ‘really bad look’ to be acting on his behalf while also providing legal advice to the Conservatives.”
• “‘There’s a conflict of interest between [Wolfson’s legal work] and his duty to give assistance to the Tory party to ensure that their policy on oligarchs and sanctions and Ukraine is as good as it can be and isn’t compromised,’ she said. ‘Given the history that the Tories have of closeness with Russian oligarchs, I think that it’s a really bad look.'”
• “Earlier in December, the prime minister Sir Keir Starmer issued a licence to transfer £2.5bn of frozen assets from Abramovich’s sale of Chelsea Football Club to Ukraine, warning the Russian former owner that the UK government is prepared to take him to court if he fails to release the funds.”
• “The UK imposed sanctions on Abramovich owing to his close links to Russian President Vladimir Putin after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.”
• “Wolfson is part of the legal team representing Abramovich in his court battle with the Jersey government over the release of billions in frozen assets and is not directly involved in any case relating to the Chelsea club.”
• “But the Labour party has argued that the case in Jersey is delaying the release of the £2.5bn from the sale of the football club and that his work for Abramovich compromises his ability to advise the Tory party on anything relating to his frozen assets.”
• “Justice minister Jake Richards earlier this week described the dual roles held by Wolfson as ‘indefensible’.”
• “In a letter to Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, Richards questioned whether the shadow attorney-general had recused himself from party policy on Abramovich’s assets, warning that his advice to her was ‘clearly compromised’.”
• “In its response, the Tory party said that ‘nothing in the Jersey proceedings is inconsistent with the intended donation of the Chelsea sale proceeds’, adding ‘that litigation has nothing to do with the donation of the Chelsea sale proceeds, and does not involve the UK government’.”
• “Thornberry said it was arguable that Wolfson’s legal work ‘could have an effect on the state’s ability to be able to get the billions of pounds resulting from the sanctions’, adding that it is ‘supposed to be Tory party policy to be supportive of getting that money’.”
• “She added that she did not believe shadow attorneys-general should practise law at the same time as advising political parties given that the advisory role is ‘a big job if you’re doing it properly . . . I don’t think it’s an honorary title’.”

Jeff Cunningham notes: “Per the ABA, almost half of US law firms post about case successes on their website” —

• “But such publicity carries serious disciplinary, malpractice, and reputational risks. “
• “Even accurate descriptions can be deemed misleading if they imply guaranteed or typical outcomes, omit material context, or create unjustified expectations about future results. From a claims perspective, these posts are frequently later cited by disappointed clients as evidence that the law firm promised or benchmarked a particular result. Confidentiality risks also arise when matters are described in enough detail to make clients or cases identifiable, particularly without documented, informed consent. “
• “Publicizing victories can antagonize adversaries, competitors, or insurers and invite scrutiny if outcomes later change or are reversed. Many law firms further compound risk by relying on generic disclaimers or allowing legacy content to drift out of compliance with evolving advertising rules. “
• “As a result, case-success content should be subject to centralized review, conservative framing, and periodic audits, rather than treated as routine marketing copy.”

“Eavesdropping by Algorithm: Legal Risks of AI Meeting Assistants” —

• “What many users do not fully appreciate is that these tools introduce a third party into conversations historically governed by strict privacy and confidentiality rules, a shift that carries profound consequences for attorney–client privilege, wiretap compliance, compliance with privacy laws, Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law (RTKL), and discovery exposure.”
• “Imagine sitting down for a virtual meeting where sensitive legal matters are being discussed and internal strategy decisions are unfolding, with everyone assuming the conversation is confidential and limited to the people on the call. Only later does someone in the meeting realize that a small ‘note-taker’ icon was glowing in the corner of the screen, an artificial intelligence tool was present, recording and transcribing every word that was said. In that moment, the participants realize that what they assumed was a confidential discussion may indeed, not be so private.”
• “These are the exact events that resulted in the filing of a nationwide class action in August 2025. In Brewer v. Otter.ai, plaintiffs allege that Otter.ai’s ‘Notetaker’ and ‘OtterPilot’ tools unlawfully intercepted and recorded private video-conference meetings without obtaining consent from all participants. The complaint claims the AI assistant joins calls as an autonomous participant, transmits conversations to Otter’s servers for transcription, records even non-account holders, provides little or no participant notice, and shifts responsibility for consent onto meeting hosts. Plaintiffs further allege Otter retained recordings indefinitely and used captured communications to train its AI models, including voices of individuals who were unaware they were being recorded. The lawsuit asserts federal wiretap and computer-access violations, multiple California privacy law violations, and common-law claims for intrusion and conversion, casting AI notetakers not as neutral productivity tools but as unauthorized third-party surveillance operating inside private meetings.”
• “AI meeting assistants offer numerous benefits, including allowing participants who would otherwise be taking notes to stay fully engaged, automatically generating meeting summaries and action items, producing uniform and unbiased notes for all participants, and even identifying speakers by their voices. But what many users do not fully appreciate is that these tools introduce a third party into conversations historically governed by strict privacy and confidentiality rules, a shift that carries profound consequences for attorney–client privilege, wiretap compliance, compliance with privacy laws, Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law (RTKL), and discovery exposure.”
• “However, the privilege can be waived through voluntary disclosure to third parties, and AI transcription tools are owned by third parties. These AI meeting assistant tools typically route audio and text through third-party servers or cloud-based servers, and even if no employee actively ‘listens,’ the vendors often retain access rights under their terms of service, storage practices, or model-training procedures to the information disclosed. As people increasingly rely on these tools to summarize privileged meetings, process attorney emails, or analyze legal memoranda, they are placing sensitive communications into systems operated by outside vendors, and consequently, could be waiving attorney-client privilege. Additionally, many of these vendors may log inputs, retain data, or use uploaded content to improve their AI models. Introducing an AI platform into a legal discussion under these conditions can undermine the confidentiality required for privilege to attach and may severely weaken any later claim that the communications were intended to remain private.”
• “Several AI meeting platforms acknowledge, often buried in privacy policies, that recorded conversations may be retained and used to train speech-recognition and generative AI models. What begins as a routine business meeting can therefore become a permanent training dataset outside the control of the speakers. Although vendors describe this data as ‘de-identified,’ true anonymization is difficult: voices, speech patterns, job titles, project references, geographic markers, and health or employment details can readily link recordings back to individuals. Once content enters training pipelines, deletion is usually impractical, converting what participants assumed was a fleeting exchange into a lasting data asset.”
• “The practice runs afoul of many privacy laws. HIPAA severely restricts disclosures tied to patient health information and limits even permitted disclosures to the minimum necessary required to achieve the intended purpose of the disclosure. The GDPR requires narrow purpose limitation, data minimization, and enforceable rights of access and deletion, standards difficult to reconcile with open-ended AI training uses. California’s consumer privacy laws further heighten risk by granting individuals rights to transparency, restrictions on data processing, and challenges to undisclosed secondary uses such as model training. As a result, a single unnoticed recording can escalate from a brief compliance lapse into ongoing multi-regulatory exposure, with regulatory, litigation, and class-action consequences.”
• “For similar reasons as those enunciated above with respect to the RTKL, discovery risk also increases dramatically when meetings are recorded by default because AI transcripts differ fundamentally from traditional human notes. While handwritten or typed summaries are selective, imperfect, and often discarded, AI-generated transcripts are permanent, detailed, searchable, and time-stamped, making them powerful litigation targets. In lawsuits, opposing counsel can demand production of entire datasets documenting years of internal corporate communications, combing transcripts for statements taken out of context or distorted by transcription errors to use in depositions and motion practice. What begins as a tool meant to improve productivity can, in practice, create vast new discovery burden and sharply increase litigation costs.”
• “Collectively, these risks reveal a sobering reality, that AI notetakers convert private human speech into portable, persistent data assets that can trigger legal ramifications far more complex than most organizations realize. The rise of AI meeting assistants is not simply a question of workplace efficiency, it is a fundamental shift in how conversations are captured, stored and regulated.”