“Miami State Court Disqualified Attorney, Co-Counsel Over Conflict of Interest” —

• “A state court in Miami has entered an order disqualifying an attorney and his co-counsel from a litigation matter. The judge found that the attorney’s testimony would ‘inevitably require him to challenge the very contract he drafted’ for the defendant, a former client.”
• In 2019, four years before this litigation, Fetes, which is represented by Jonathan Osborne and Frank A. Florio from Gunster, asked Zarraluqui to assist with revising and finalizing its event contract, working alongside Fetes’ president, JC Miranda, to mark up the document.”
• In April 2023, Zarraluqui began assisting the Knights of Columbus in litigation against Fetes without disclosing his prior work for the defendant. He was actively involved in the Knights of Columbus’ strategy, playing a key role in shaping its claims against Fetes and participating in all aspects of the litigation.”
• The judge, in disqualifying Zarraluqui, wrote that ‘while the plaintiff refused to stipulate that the event contract and related issues are central to both Zarraluqui’s work for Fetes and his current work for the plaintiff, the plaintiff did stipulate that they are an aspect of this litigation.'”
  “But the disqualification’s ruling was not just for Zarraluqui. Since ‘Zarraluqui and the Martinez-Cid Firm could not have worked more closely together’ and ‘Zarraluqui admitted that every decision made by the Martinez-Cid Firm concerning this litigation is made in consultation with him,’ Judge Thomas also disqualified the Martinez-Cid Firm under Florida Bar Rules 4-1.9 and 4-1.10.”
• Jarvis highlighted that Judge Thomas ruled that ‘the fact that attorney Zarraluqui did not have an engagement letter with Fetes does not limit the scope of his representation,’ and ‘the fact that Zarraluqui was not paid by Fetes does not affect their attorney-client relationship.'”

“Not parties in interest: Law firm dodges co-trustees’ malpractice lawsuit” —

• “A malpractice lawsuit brought by co-trustees and personal representatives of a trust and estate against a law firm was properly dismissed where the trust and estate were not real parties in interest, a Michigan Court of Appeals panel has ruled.”
• “‘Because [the law firm] represented only [the co-trustees and personal representatives] in their fiduciary capacities, the trust and the estate cannot assert malpractice against [the law firm],’ the appellate judges wrote.”
• “Richard and Eddie signed an engagement letter with McDonald Hopkins. The agreement, directed to Richard and Eddie in their capacity as trustees, stated the firm would be acting ‘as your legal counsel regarding the estate and trust matters of Robert E. Whitton.'”
• “In the first three years of operating TMX, Richard and Eddie each took more than $1 million in compensation. They did not seek advice from the law firm, instead consulting with TMX’s accountant. They also took 1 percent of the value of the trust as an annual fiduciary fee.”
• “The probate court removed Richard and Eddie as fiduciaries, concluding a breach of fiduciary duty occurred. Richard and Eddie fired McDonald Hopkins and eventually settled with Pfankuch. Richard and Eddie then sued the law firm on behalf of the trust and estate, alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. The law firm moved for summary judgment, arguing that certain claims were time-barred and that the trust and estate did not have standing because it lacked an attorney-client relationship with the firm.”
• “Siding with the law firm, the Oakland Circuit Court granted the motion. Richard and Eddie appealed. The brothers argued that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition based on its conclusion that the estate and trust were not the real parties in interest and lacked standing to bring a legal malpractice claim against the law firm. The appellate judges disagreed.”
• “‘The plain language of MCL 700.3715(1)(w) and MCL 700.7817(1)(w) establishes an attorney hired by a personal representative or trustee represents the personal representative or trustee, and the attorney does not have an attorney-client relationship with the estate or the trust,’ they wrote. “

“McKinsey faces Republican calls for probe into China ‘conflicts’” —

• “Leading Republican lawmakers have called for a US justice department investigation into whether McKinsey violated federal law by failing to disclose potential conflicts of interest between its work in China and for the Pentagon.”
• “In a letter to US attorney-general Merrick Garland, seen by the Financial Times, the head of the House select committee on the Chinese Communist party and two US senators said McKinsey appeared to have breached government contracting rules and misled Congress.”
• “The demand for an investigation raises political pressure on the consulting firm, whose extensive work for the US military has been in the crosshairs of Republican lawmakers who argue that McKinsey’s simultaneous work in China represents a risk to US national security, something the firm denies.”
• “It also adds to challenges facing the consulting group that range from the fallout from its work for opioid producer Purdue Pharma, which has led to a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice and hundreds of millions of dollars of legal settlements, to a slowdown in the consulting sector that has left it looking to ease out its least productive staff.”
• “McKinsey has won almost half a billion dollars of business from the US Department of Defense since 2008, according to public disclosures. Procurement laws and the details of specific contracts require it to disclose potential conflicts of interest.”
• “The lawmakers said McKinsey’s work for Chinese state-owned enterprises including China Communications Construction Company — which has been blacklisted by the US Department of Commerce for helping Beijing build military bases in the South China Sea — represented at least a potential conflict of interest that should have been disclosed, along with details of how McKinsey mitigated any conflict. They said this was also the case with work for the Chinese central government that McKinsey had revealed in unrelated US legal filings.”
• “McKinsey declined to comment. It has previously said that its policies on disclosing organisational conflicts of interest adhere to federal laws.”