“Troutman Pepper Accused of Inattentive Case Management in $59M Malpractice Suit” —

• “Troutman Pepper Hamilton & Sanders was hit with a malpractice suit Wednesday in New York by a former client, who claims that the firm’s alleged subpar representation, inadequate communications, and a crucial conflict of interest resulted in the client facing a combined $60 million in liability dispersed across two construction cases.”
• “The suit, filed in New York County Supreme Court by Barclay Damon and Rottenstreich Farley Bronstein Fisher Potter Hodas on behalf of client Judlau Contracting, claims that Troutman Pepper and construction litigation partner Frank Cara failed to properly investigate claims against the company and consequently offered ill-informed defenses on its behalf in two cases.”
• “‘Instead of benefiting from [Troutman Pepper and Cara]’s advertised abundance of construction law expertise and litigation acumen, Judlau received a trash basket overflowing with professional incompetence,’ in both underlying suits, the complaint claims.”
• “In the first underlying case, the malpractice complaint asserts, Judlau was facing down a potential class action filed by three of its non-union crossing guards claiming that they were owed ‘prevailing wages’ as a result of performing of union-designated work. Filed in 2017 with the New York Supreme Court and titled Herman v. Judlau Contracting, this underlying case, initially overseen by Judge Andrew Borrok, resulted in a summary judgment ruling against Judlau according to court documents.”
• “‘Judlau does not substantively dispute the plaintiffs’ characterization of their work on the job sites…Instead, Judlau argues that the plaintiffs are not entitled to prevailing wages because any prevailing wage work performed by them was de minimus. The argument fails,’ reads Judge Borrok’s original opinion. ‘Judlau has also offered no defense with respect to its failure to provide the plaintiffs with statutorily required wage notices.'”
• “However, the malpractice complaint alleges, Troutman Pepper and Cara failed to conduct appropriate investigation into the nature of the claims. If they had, the complaint says, the firm ‘would have learned that Judlau never used these non-union workers to perform uncompensated union work.’ “
• “‘Had competent attorneys put any thought into developing Judlau’s defense, they would have explored one or more three separate options,’ ranging from seeking a dismissal or stay while underlying legal issues were addressed by the appropriate administrative agency, to investigating and refuting the facts presented by the plaintiffs, or seeking action against the government project owner, the suit continues. ‘Troutman failed to pursue any one of these available options—and, incredibly, set forth no other viable defense.'”
• “Compounding these elements of alleged malpractice, the overarching malpractice suit claims, is that Cara was serving as outside general counsel and eventually as an executive vice president and general counsel to Iovino Enterprises, one of Judlau’s competitors.”
• “‘Beginning in 2018, Cara served as outside general counsel to Iovino Enterprises. Then, on information and belief, from November 2019 through July 2020—critical periods in both the Herman and SOJV litigations—Cara became Iovino Enterprises’ in-house Executive Vice President and General Counsel while remaining a partner at Troutman,’ the malpractice suit alleges.”
• “‘Incredibly, not only was Cara simultaneously and improperly representing Judlau as a Troutman partner in the Herman and SOJV matters while at the same time serving as Executive Vice President and General Counsel for one of Judlau’s competitors, but during that very time period, Judlau and Iovino Enterprises were directly averse to one another in a contentious arbitration,’ the suit continues. ‘Naturally, these conflicting obligations interfered with Cara’s ability to devote proper time and attention to Judlau and its matters,’ thus resulting in the offloading of work onto inexperienced associates in both underlying matters.”
• “Cara also previously served as Judlau’s general counsel and executive vice president before joining Troutman Pepper, according to profile on the firm’s website.”
• “The malpractice suit accuses Troutman Pepper and Cara of legal malpractice in both underlying cases. It is seeking at least $59 million in damages to cover the verdicts from the two underlying cases and asks that the firm disgorge fees related to those two cases; the complaint further seeks costs, disbursements, pre-judgment interest, and attorney’s fees.”
• “‘While we regret that this lawsuit became necessary, we had no choice but to move forward with this action,’ said Judlau COO Bard Nystrom in a written statement. ‘The courts’ decisions in Herman have had industry-wide effects including multiple lawsuits against other contractors.'”
• “‘We are aware of the complaint and deny the claims. The Friedman Kaplan law firm is representing Troutman Pepper and Mr. Cara in this case. The lawsuit is without merit, and we will present our defenses in court at the appropriate time,’ said a Troutman Pepper spokesperson in an emailed statement.”

“Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Data Breach Litigation: Notice of Class Action Settlement” —

• “A settlement has been proposed (the ‘Settlement’ or ‘Settlement Agreement’) with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (‘Orrick’) in a class action lawsuit about a security incident impacting Orrick (the ‘Data Breach’). This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. If you are a Settlement Class Member, there are benefits available to you from the proposed Settlement. The Settlement includes all individuals residing in the United States who were sent notice of the Orrick Data Breach. The easiest way to submit a claim under the Settlement is on this website under File a Claim.”
• “For the precise terms of the settlement agreement, please visit the Case Documents“
• “The Settlement provides payments and other benefits to people who submit valid claims for lost time, certain documented out-of-pocket expenses, and additional credit monitoring services. More specifically, the settlement relief includes:”
  • “Compensation for Lost Time: If you spent time addressing issues relating to the Data Breach, you can make a claim for reimbursement for up to 5 hours of time at a rate of $25.00/hour. To submit a valid claim, you must represent that the time and/or effort spent was incurred as a result of the Data Breach.”
  • “Credit Monitoring: Orrick previously offered 24 months of credit monitoring services with its initial notice of the Data Breach. With this Settlement, you can submit a claim for three additional years of three-bureau credit monitoring services, including $1 million in identity theft insurance.”
  • “Compensation for Out-of-Pocket Expenses: If you have incurred actual, unreimbursed expenses as a result of the Data Breach, you can make a claim for reimbursement for up to $2,500.00. Examples of actual, unreimbursed losses include: (i) costs and expenses spent addressing identity theft or fraud; (ii) preventative costs including purchasing credit monitoring, placing security freezes on credit reports, or requesting copies of credit reports for review; and (iii) other documented losses that were not reimbursed. You must include documentation to support that the out-of-pocket expenses were the result of the Data Breach.”
  • “Compensation for Documented Extraordinary Loss: If you experienced out-of-pocket losses for actual identity theft or fraud and submit documentation to support that such losses are the result of the Data Breach, you can make a claim for up to $7,500.00.”
  • “CCPA Payment: If you are a California resident, you can make a claim for a payment of $150.00 in recognition of your claims under the California Consumer Privacy Act.”
  • “Alternative Cash Payment: In lieu of submitting a claim for lost time, out-of-pocket expenses, or extraordinary loss, you may submit a claim for a $75.00 Alternative Cash Payment.”

“Cyber attacks on law firms jumped by 77% over the past year” —

• “The number of successful cyber attacks against UK law firms rose by 77% in the past year to 954, up from 538 the year before, according to a new study of the threat. Chartered accountants Lubbock Fine said that the wave is driven by criminals seeing law firms as prime targets for ransomware attacks or blackmail. This is due to the sensitive personal and financial information they hold, which hackers can sell on the dark web or threaten to publish on the internet. Earlier this month, a global survey revealed that ransomware attackers have been paid off at least eight times in recent years.”
• “‘The data that law firms hold on behalf of their clients is often highly sensitive – and therefore, valuable if you intend to blackmail a law firm,’ said Lubbock Fine partner Mark Turner. ‘This makes them a very attractive target. Hackers will often demand a blackmail payment from law firms or threaten to post that sensitive data on the internet.'”
• “Ransomware attackers have been paid off at least eight times in recent years”
• “Another tactic is to lock firms out of their own data until a ransom is paid.”
• “Nearly three quarters of the UK’s top 100 law firms have been impacted by cyber-attacks, according to a report by The National Cyber Security Centre.”
• “Turner said that, in the face of such attacks, law firms need stronger cyber defences than most businesses. ‘This might include segregating data across different departments, teams and individual clients,’ he said.”