Risk Update

Professional Discipline — UK Paralegal at ABS Disqualified from Profession for Fake Notes and Activity Records, Lawyer/Firm Facing Malpractice Allegation for Past Activity

Posted Dan Bressler

“Paralegal disqualified for attendance notes of calls he didn’t make” —

  • “A paralegal who did not make the dozens of phone calls he recorded in attendance notes has been disqualified from working in the profession.”
  • “Connor Johnson also reallocated his files to colleagues without telling them.”
  • “The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) made Mr Johnson subject to a disqualification order under section 99 of the Legal Services Act 2007 because the firm where he worked, Cardiff-based NewLaw Legal, is an alternative business structure (ABS).”
  • “An SRA notice said Mr Johnson was a case manager at NewLaw from May 2018 to October 2022, with a caseload of claimant personal injury files.”
  • “An audit identified that calls he recorded on its case management system did not match the firm’s call logs.”
  • “According to the attendance notes generated in August 2022, he made 111 outbound calls; the call logs only found nine.”
  • “Meanwhile, one file contained a witness statement prepared by another employee and filed at court in support of an application to come off the record due to lack of instructions from the client. This listed 76 actions to contact the client, including 36 unanswered calls from Mr Johnson over five months in 2022.”
  • “However, the call logs only showed one and the firm filed a corrective witness statement stating that it believed the 36 calls were not made.”
  • “‘Mr Johnson made the conscious and deliberate decision to generate false attendance notes, across a number of files, over a prolonged period of time,’ the SRA said.”
  • “Meanwhile, in two months in summer 2022, Mr Johnson rapidly re-allocated 16 files to other case managers in his team without their knowledge – he did this within four minutes of one being allocated to him.”
  • “The SRA said the evidence indicated that Mr Johnson ‘may have taken steps to try and conceal his conduct by postponing allocation tasks, to make it appear that he had not re-allocated the file’.”
  • “Mr Johnson admitted what he had done and that he should be made subject to the orders.”
  • “The SRA said: ‘The dishonest nature of his conduct means that it would be undesirable for Mr Johnson to work at a licensed body [an ABS] or an authorised body [a traditional law firm]…”

“Blank Rome Atty Accused Of Malpractice At Former Firm” —

  • “Supply chain finance company Orbian Corp. filed a federal suit in Massachusetts Friday [12/20] against defunct law firm Burns & Levinson LLP and a former partner accusing the firm of helping swindle payments from Orbian to its now-former general counsel.”
  • “Burns & Levinson, which was based in Boston until its closure last month, and current Blank Rome LLP partner Josef B. Volman allegedly conspired to push through a one-sided restated participation agreement that would entitle James Houston, Orbian’s general counsel from 2007 until his termination for cause last year, to a payout equal to roughly 4% of the company’s value.”
  • “The restated participation agreement, or RPA, was intended to compensate Houston for his contributions to the Orbian Companies in the event of a qualifying transaction, generally defined as a monetization of the company.”
  • “The agreement was further used by Houston to secure an $800,000 loan from the company, according to Friday’s complaint, which the London-based Orbian is simultaneously attempting to redress in California federal court. The company maintains a North American office in Carlsbad, California.”
  • “‘In a series of covert and severely unethical negotiations, B&L and Volman helped Houston push through a one-sided restated participation agreement at the expense of their own client, Orbian,’ Friday’s filing said, going on to accuse the defendants of strategizing behind the back of the company’s chairman, submitting fraudulent timesheets for the conspiratorial meetings and failing to disclose to Orbian that they followed ‘biased, secret instructions from Houston when rendering legal advice regarding the RPA.'”
  • “The complaint includes accusations of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Orbian requested a judgment against the firm and Volman for damages.”
  • “The company describes an allegedly ‘close relationship’ between Houston and Volman dating back to the early 1990s before Houston joined Orbian as general counsel in 2007 and began retaining Burns & Levinson — ‘always at Houston’s urging’ — to assist with diligence review, drafting agreements and other projects. The two frequently exchanged emails on both personal and work-related matters, according to Orbian.”
  • “Around April 2020, Orbian, through Houston, formally retained Burns & Levinson and Volman to review the RPA as company counsel and determine whether the terms were fair and appropriate.”
  • “‘Defendants did not disclose to Mr. Dunn or anyone else at Orbian that just one month earlier, Houston had asked Volman to review an iteration of the RPA with Houston’s financial interests in mind, or that Houston was a longtime personal friend of Volman’s,’ the complaint said.”
  • “Orbian cited text correspondence between Volman and Houston regarding details of the RPA, arguments made with the company’s chairman and potential payouts under the signed agreement. The discussions were sometimes billed as ‘legal document review’ or ‘general corporate advice,’ according to the company.”
  • “‘He knew the obvious — that his request for personal advice adverse to Orbian was neither above board nor appropriate,’ the complaint said of the former general counsel. ‘And yet, defendants did not turn Houston away. They did not apprise Houston that it would be a breach of their duties to their client, Orbian, to assist him personally in a conflict situation. Instead, defendants proceeded to give Houston advice adverse to Orbian’s interest.'”