Bressler Risk Blog

“Panama Papers law firm Mossack Fonseca sues Netflix over The Laundromat” —

• “The partners of the offshore law firm whose confidential files were exposed in the Panama Papers leak, Mossack Fonseca, have launched defamation action against Netflix over a movie about the scandal that is due to be released on Friday.”
• “In a US lawsuit filed on Tuesday, Jurgen Mossack and Ramon Fonseca say The Laundromat, in which they are respectively played by Gary Oldman and Antonio Banderas, portrays them as ‘ruthless uncaring lawyers who are involved in money laundering, tax evasion, bribery and/or other criminal conduct’ and ask the court to stop it from being screened.”
• “In documents filed to the court they say the release of the film is likely to subject them to ‘additional bail and/or conditions for each new crime imputed to them in the movie’ in Panama, where they are set to go on trial on charges related to the law firm.”
• “And it would also interfere with their right to a fair trial in the US, where they are under investigation by the FBI, they said in a legal memorandum filed with the district court in Connecticut.”

And thus we witness the Streisand Effect in action. Netflix has yet to respond, but no doubt appreciates the promotional attention… (Given that the article notes the actors in play, I’m now thinking about the issue of who plays whom in these kinds of films. Can one argue that Gary Oldman evoking both Batman’s Commissioner Gordon (good guy) and the Fifth Element’s Zerg (bad guy) will affect my perception of Mr. Mossack when I now watch this film? (It also features Meryl Streep, who is always excellent…) Oh, it looks like the movie bills itself as a comedy.)

And since we’re in “odds and ends” territory, this one caught my eye recently (the law firm’s identity has not yet been published): “The Nigerian Email Scammer Who Stole Millions From Premier League Club, NY Law Firm, Banks” —

• “Abbas, 37, was arrested when he arrived in Chicago from Dubai on Thursday night. He faces criminal charges for being the leader of a transnational network that allegedly conspired to launder hundreds of millions of dollars through email scams and other schemes, some of which targeted a New York law firm, a foreign bank and an English Premier League soccer club.”
• “However, when one member was arrested in October, 2019, shortly after a New York law firm was duped into wiring almost $1 million, investigators obtained a search warrant to go through his iPhone and found messages that blew open the inner workings of the group.”
• “Abbas had allegedly tricked one of the law firm’s paralegals into wiring $922,857, intended for a client’s real estate refinancing, to a Chase Bank account controlled by Abbas. The paralegal emailed a Citizens Bank email address to verify instructions for the wire transfer but it was a spoof email address set up by Abbas.”

“Junior solicitor banned for lies about briefcase left on a train” –

• “A junior solicitor who left a suitcase with sensitive documents on a train – then lied to her firm to buy herself time to find it – has been struck off the roll. Claire Louise Matthews had been working in the Birmingham office of national firm Capsticks for a month when she left a colleague’s briefcase on the train on her commute home.”
• “Matthews told the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal she was ‘overcome by uncontrollable fear, anxiety and panic’ in the following days. Six days after losing the briefcase she told a colleague that she had left it at home, then a day later she emailed her supervisor to say it had been left on a train that morning.”
• “The briefcase contained a matter file for a sensitive case involving a litigant in person who had made a claim against the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Capsticks is regularly instructed by the SRA for its regulatory and litigation work.”
• “The SRA said Matthews’ conduct was not a ‘moment of madness’. Rather, her conduct was self-serving and her only motivation was to protect herself against the risk, as she perceived it, of jeopardising her employment.”

“Judge Denies Cooley’s Bid to DQ King & Spalding in WhatsApp Case” —

• “King & Spalding can continue to defend a surveillance technology firm accused of deploying malware targeted at WhatsApp Inc. users after a federal judge blocked the Facebook subsidiary’s attempt to boot the firm from the case.”
• “In an order Tuesday, U.S. District Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern District of California denied WhatsApp’s motion to disqualify King & Spalding from representing NSO Group Technologies, finding that WhatsApp did not demonstrate that the law firm still has access to confidential material, or even that the material is substantially related to the new case.”
• ‘”Hamilton noted the difficulty of comparing the two cases given that one of the matters is entirely under seal and both are mired in technical coding language. Yet, her analysis found that WhatsApp ‘has not demonstrated that the two matters are substantially related and absent such a relationship, there is no presumption that K&S acquired material confidential information.'”

“Morgan Lewis DQ Reversed In Calif. OT Case” —

• “Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP should not be disqualified from representing a real estate settlement service provider even though its attorneys allegedly communicated with members of an unpaid overtime class action, because the class didn’t establish that the firm violated ethical rules, a California state appellate court held.”
• “The class members failed to demonstrate that Morgan Lewis obtained “confidential information material to the pending litigation” from the individuals during the conversations, which occurred after a decertification order but before a formal dismissal was entered, according to Thursday’s ruling by the Fifth Appellate District.”
• “‘Proof of unauthorized contact with a represented party is not alone sufficient to justify disqualifying the culpable lawyer,’ the three-judge panel said.”

“L’Oreal Can’t DQ Lerner David In Cosmetics Patent Dispute” —

• “A Texas federal judge on Wednesday denied L’Oreal’s bid to disqualify Lerner David Littenberg Krumholz & Mentlik LLP from representing a rival skin care line in their patent dispute, ruling the patents at the center of cases the firm previously worked on for L’Oreal are not substantially related to the one in this suit.”
• “‘The ‘841 patent was prior art to both prosecutions in question, does not share a common priority application with either the ‘082 patent or the ‘319 application, and exhibits distinguishing technical factors,’ Judge Yeakel said. ‘The ‘082 patent and ‘319 application were prosecuted for French entities under the L’Oreal umbrella, not for L’Oreal USA Creative Inc. Lerner David has never represented L’Oreal USA Creative Inc.'”
• “He further noted that the current action involves patent litigation, not prosecution, which is all that Lerner David had worked on for L’Oreal.”
• “Judge Yeakel also pointed out that the attorneys who were primarily involved with the prosecution of L’Oreal’s patents have not been employed by Lerner David for years.”

“Appeals Court Reinstates Ex-Client’s Malpractice Case Against Archer & Greiner” —

• “A New Jersey appeals court has reinstated a legal malpractice case against Archer & Greiner over a suit it filed against an ex-client. At issue is a potential conflict between Archer & Greiner’s representation of Engine Distributors Inc. from 2005 to 2007 and its present representation of the wife of the company’s former president and chief shareholder in divorce proceedings. Engine Distributors filed a malpractice suit against Archer & Greiner after a judge granted the law firm’s motion to make that company a party in the divorce.”
• “The case illustrates the hazards a law firm can face when it agrees to represent a party in a dispute with one of the firm’s former clients.”
• “But the appeals court panel of Judges Ellen Koblitz, Mary Gibbons Whipple and Hany Mawla reversed, finding that collateral estoppel did not apply, that the Family Part judge did not adjudicate the conflict-of-interest issue, and that the judge left open the possibility that the Law Division could conclude there was a conflict of interest.”
• “Indeed, the Family Part judge left open the possibility that the Law Division judge’s adjudication of the issue could conclude there was a conflict of interest. For these reasons, collateral estoppel did not apply, the panel said.”

“Ex-Client Gave Up Chance To DQ Brach Eichler, NJ Panel Says” —

• “The panel overturned the court’s Nov. 1 order disqualifying Brach Eichler and firm attorney Bob Kasolas as counsel for entities owned by Dimitrios Prassas in an action against them by Brian Delaney, who claimed Prassas and ex-partners Owen Dykstra and Doug Dykstra misappropriated Delaney’s capital contributions to their former business venture.”
• ‘”Since the firm and Kasolas previously represented Delaney with respect to issues that are ‘relevant and material here’ and they ‘have been privy to issues which bear on the instant litigation,’ Delaney had grounds to seek their disqualification, the panel said.”
• “However, in applying the test set forth in the New Jersey federal court’s 1993 opinion in Alexander v. Primerica Holdings Inc. , the two-judge panel concluded that Delaney waived his right to disqualify them by not challenging their representation in earlier litigation between the parties.”
• “‘Delaney has been constantly involved in litigation in various forms against Prassas, the Dykstras, and their related business entities regarding essentially the same dispute, and never before moved to disqualify Kasolas and Brach Eichler,’ the panel said.”

The always insightful Anthony Davis recently published: “The Good and the Troubling—Recent Developments in Professional Responsibility” —

• “Opinion 492 gives important and useful guidance in understanding the application and operation of New York Rule 1.18… New York Rule 1.18 (a) defines a prospective client as ‘a person who consults with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter…’ New York Rule 1.8 (b) prohibits lawyers who learn information from prospective clients from using or revealing that information except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information from a former client.”
• “New York Rule 1.8 (c), to which opinion 492 is particularly addressed, prohibits lawyers who have received information as defined in (b), and their law firms, from representing ‘a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter, except as provided in paragraph (d).'”
• “The importance of the opinion is that it gives guidance on the meaning of the phrase ‘information that could be significantly harmful.’ The opinion notes that the potential harm must relate to the new matter, and whether or not the information is “significantly harmful” will depend on such issues as the duration of the communication, the topics discussed, whether the lawyer reviewed documents, whether the information is known by others and the relationship between the information in the new matter.”
• “In the absence of consent, the law firm may nevertheless represent another party in the same matter if the lawyer who received information from the prospective client has taken ‘reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent the prospective client;’ and the law firm gives notice to all parties including the prospective client; implements effective screening procedures to prevent the disqualified lawyer from participating in the representation of the current client; the disqualified lawyer receives no part of the fee for that matter; and a reasonable lawyer would conclude that the law firm will be able to provide competent and diligent representation.”

He goes on to explore another Opinion (1195) in detail, with this element catching my eye in particular:

• “Opinion 1195 is also troubling in another respect. The opinion refers to a dispute between the lawyer and his former firm with respect to the files of the clients whom the lawyer no longer wished to represent. The departing lawyer had formed his own firm, and apparently the former law firm forwarded those clients’ files to the lawyer at the new firm as a means of establishing that the firm no longer represented the clients and the lawyer was obligated to do so at the new firm. This ignores the fact that the former firm is also counsel to the client and has an ongoing responsibility to ensure that the client is not harmed. This is completely contrary to the well-established case law in New York that files belong to the client and can only be transferred upon the direction of the client.”

“Third Party Disclosure Waives Privilege” —

• “The Delaware Court of Chancery has held that a party waived its attorney-client privilege by submitting the documents at issue to the Federal Communication Commission.”
• “The Plaintiffs seek thirty-one (31) documents previously produced by Defendant IDT Corporation (“IDT”) to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) in 2016 in connection with an investigation pertinent to this Action.”
• “But here, I find, IDT did not have an analogous expectation of privacy because the documents were not produced to the FCC under a confidentiality agreement. Instead, IDT merely requested that the documents remain confidential. IDT had no non-disclosure agreements with the FCC, and the Requests cited by IDT are insufficient to show that IDT reasonably believed that the documents would not be revealed to other adversaries.”
• “In other words, IDT found it advantageous to disclose the privileged documents to a third party, the FCC, despite knowing that they could be disseminated. IDT did not have a commitment, let alone an enforceable agreement, with the FCC to keep the documents confidential. In that situation, IDT manifested its intent to waive any privilege by disclosing the documents to a third party.”

“Cybersecurity Education for Lawyers” —

• “One of the most pressing issues facing our legal profession, whether you are a solo practitioner or from a large firm, is the need for cybersecurity protection of confidential and proprietary client and law firm electronic information. “
• “Thus, on June 13, 2020, the House of Delegates of the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) overwhelming approved the Report of the Committee on Technology and the Legal Profession, presciently proposed prior to the pandemic, to recommend to the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board that the biennial CLE requirement be modified to require one credit of cybersecurity for each of the next two-year CLE cycles.”
• “Social engineering is the psychological manipulation of people in order to convince them to divulge confidential information. Educating lawyers on how to avoid social engineering attacks is imperative because studies have shown that upwards of 97% of malware attacks targeted users through social engineering hacking attempts, and only 3% targeted the technical infrastructure of a company.”
• “Through social engineering, appearing to be associated in one form or another with a lawyer, the law firm, a vendor or friend, a bad actor may seek to convince a lawyer or her staff to provide to him access to confidential information, secured information or a password.”
• “The New York Law Journal (NYLJ) reported in an October 2019 article, entitled “Eight NY Law Firms Reported Data Breaches as Problems Multiply Nationwide,” that the number of law firm data breaches in New York State doubled in 2018…”
• “The article reported that some cybersecurity lawyers and consultants said the numbers ‘likely represent a tiny fraction of the breaches affecting the legal industry. Law firms, like other privately held businesses, don’t often publicize when their data is breached, and many may not report it to state officials, depending on the law.'”

Fascinating catch and analysis by professional liability lawyer Brian Faughnan: “Ethics opinion about a business conflict goes wrong” —

• “It comes out of Ohio and it addresses a conflict issue, but is noteworthy for at least two reasons: (1) it addresses a conflict of interest issue involving representation of a government entity and (2) it sort of addresses something that is more a business conflict issue rather than a true ethical conflict.”
• “Ohio Board of Professional Conduct Adv. Op. 2020-04 weighs in on whether a firm has a problem representing a group of landowners who are opposing a zoning variance sought by an agency seeking to establish a shelter for domestic violence victims. The agency is not a client of the firm in other matters, but the firm does represent a community mental health board that contracts with the agency. The firm has a one-year contract to perform legal services on an “as needed” basis to the board but has not been asked to do any work related to the zoning variance matter. The firm does know though that the board supports the agency’s effort to obtain the variance and wants the agency to succeed.”
• “Now, most lawyers would hear that scenario and see a likely “business” conflict but no ethical conflict. By business conflict, I simply mean that the firm might not have wanted to take on the landowners because it might displease the institutional client – which might be a better source of ongoing and continued business to the firm.”
• “The Ohio opinion, however, finds a way to treat the situation as an ethical conflict but, at its heart, it does so only by turning the business conflict into a material limitation conflict using the idea of ‘personal interest’ of the lawyer as something that could be expanded to be the firm’s “personal” financial interests.”
• “Specifically, the opinion points to the firm’s ‘inherent financial interest in maintaining its standing client-lawyer relationship with the board’ as one of the factors leading to a conclusion that there is a material limitation conflict requiring waivers from both the landowners and the board in order for the firm to continue both representations.”

In May, I attended a virtual risk round table presented by my friends at InOutsource. While remote, the attendee discussion and exchange was quite real, revealing, collaborative and constructive.

With a second session scheduled, I’ve registered to be in the room where it happens: “VIRTUAL ROUND TABLE: Navigating Today’s Pressing Risk Challenges” —

• “Building on the great turnout and feedback after our last event, we’re pleased to host our second virtual risk round table on Thursday, July 23rd at 1pm EDT. In this session, we’ll focus on hiring and training risk staff — two challenges we learned many firms are currently facing.”
• “We’ll look for participant discussion and exchange with respect to firm strategies, challenges and best practices. We also hope to hear how you think pre-Covid thinking compares with today’s shifting landscape.”
• “This session will be moderated by:
  • Rabiya Hirji – Director of Risk Consulting
  • Max Welsh – Senior Risk Management Consultant
  • Matt Ruggieri – Development and Technology Manager”

Likely on the technical side, but definitely relevant for those looking at the intersection of software, human factors and risk, comes webinar overview from ILTA: “Data Loss Prevention: Survey Results and Peer Discussion” —

• TIME: JULY 16, 2020, 11:00 AM ET, 8:00 AM PT
• DETAILS: “Please join us for a roundtable discussion around the DLP survey as a result of COVID-19 and the new working from home conditions. With the COVID-19 crisis, increased cyber threats to firm systems and data have been reported. This roundtable will hopefully provide additional tools, procedures, or other controls to decrease this emerging risk.”
• “Over 70 firms participated in the DLP survey. Some of the roundtable topics for discussion based on survey results:
  • What technical solutions firms are using to decrease the risk of Data Loss/Leak prevention(DLP).
  • Does your organization use a tool for data discovery?
  • Where is a data loss prevention tool deployed?
  • Does your application and website URL filtering apply outside of your network?
  • Is printing from home allowed?
  • What policies or procedures can be put in place or updated as part of information governance?

SPEAKERS

• Marcos Marcal – Information Security & Risk Manager at Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP
• Abraham D. Miller-Barbarow – Information Governance Risk Manager at Ropes & Gray LLP

“ABA Debate On Money Laundering Rule Lives On After Alert” —

• “Despite concerns among anti-money laundering advocates, the American Bar Association’s recent warning on “willful blindness” to clients’ financial malfeasance didn’t end the group’s long-standing internal debate over a black-letter ethics rule cementing the profession’s duty to help deter money laundering, according to a bar committee member.”
• “Lynda Shely, who sits on the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, said a money laundering rule proposal is ‘absolutely not a dead issue,’ and will remain on the table after she takes over as chair later this year. ‘The committee will continue to look at this because people do keep bringing it up,’ Shely said. ‘There are concerns that an opinion is not enough, even if the committee believes it provides very useful guidance.'”
• “The ABA Model Rules ‘are designed to address broad concerns of professional responsibility, not specific situations, and that’s where we’ve been struggling to craft something that works,’ said Shely, who emphasized that she doesn’t speak for the bar or the committee as a whole. She is set to become the standing committee chair in August.”
• “Despite the ABA’s policy position, many in the anti-corruption community said they’ve maintained at least modest optimism that the bar’s influential ethics committee, which is wholly distinct from the group’s D.C.-based lobbying arm, would still propose a rule amendment that would explicitly require lawyers to try to determine if clients are engaged in money laundering or terror financing and provide guidance on next steps.”
• “But that optimism was shaken in April when the committee released an advisory telling lawyers to “inquire further” when faced with circumstances showing a ‘high probability’ that a client wants to use their services for criminal or fraudulent activities.”
• “The ABA’s position on beneficial ownership and in the rule debate ‘makes it look like an industry out to protect itself as opposed to doing what’s in the best interests of the public and the general welfare,’ he said [Bruce Zagaris, an international enforcement expert at Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP and member of the ABA’s gatekeeper task force]. ‘Increasingly, it is finding itself more and more isolated on this issue.'”

“Charlottesville, Glen Allen attorneys plead guilty to extortion scheme targeting multinational chemicals company” —

• “‘This is a case where two attorneys blew well past the line of aggressive advocacy and crossed deep into the territory of illegal extortion, in a brazen attempt to enrich themselves by extracting millions of dollars from a multinational company,’ said Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. ‘Today’s pleas underscore that when crimes are committed, members of the bar, like all members of the public, will be held accountable for their actions.'”
• “As part of their guilty pleas, Litzenburg and Kincheloe admitted that in approximately October 2019, Litzenburg approached a company (Company 1) and threatened to make public statements alleging that Company 1 had significant civil liability for manufacturing a purportedly harmful chemical used in a common household product used to kill weeds.”
• “Litzenburg and Kincheloe also admitted that after describing the possibility of damaging lawsuits against Company 1, Litzenburg proposed, in sum and substance, that he and Kincheloe enter into a ‘consulting arrangement’ with Company 1 that would create a purported conflict-of-interest that would effectively stop them from representing their clients as plaintiffs in litigation against Company 1.”
• “Thereafter, Litzenburg and Kincheloe admitted that Litzenburg, with Kincheloe’s knowledge and agreement, demanded that Company 1 pay Litzenburg, Kincheloe, and others, a total of $200 million in purported ‘consulting fees.'”
• “Litzenburg also admitted that, during other communications with Company 1, he told Company 1 that if he received the $200 million in ‘consulting fees’ he would not discuss Company 1 or its parent company with his current clients, and that he was willing to ‘take a dive’ during a deposition of a toxicology expert to deter potential future claims related to litigation against Company 1.”

More: “Anti-Monsanto Lawyer And USRTK, Carey Gillam Collaborator Possibly Headed To Prison For Extortion”

• “Unbelievably, they also admitted that they weren’t going to give any of this money to their clients — you know, the cancer patients they claim to be helping. Instead, they intended to keep all the money for themselves and their associates.”

And more generally on the broader topic: “Bayer settles lawsuits from cancer patients over Roundup weed killer in $10 billion agreement” —

• “The settlement of Roundup cases in the US ‘will bring closure to approximately 75% of the current Roundup litigation involving approximately 125,000 filed and unfiled claims overall,’ Bayer said in a news release.”
  “Potential future cases will be governed by a class agreement that’s subject to court approval, the company said. Bayer said the settlement agreements ‘contain no admission of liability or wrongdoing.'”