Full conflicts disclosure, I was raised UCLA-ish. So the “Daily Trojan” isn’t exactly on my regular risk reading list. But one goes where the facts lead, taking us to: “Former USC law firm can defend Varsity Blues parent” —

• “Las Vegas casino executive Gamal Abdelaziz, who is accused of paying for his daughter to be admitted to USC as a false athletic recruit through the admissions scandal, submitted a request to the federal court in June to use Nixon Peabody as his defense, despite a potential conflict of interest due to the firm’s prior work for USC and for a Stanford University coach named in the admissions case.”
• “In an order filed in June, Abdelaziz’s defense contended that no conflict existed between Nixon Peabody representing Abdelaziz and USC because of the differences in the subject matter of each case and stated the University had not shared information about the admissions case with the law firm.”
• “Nixon Peabody’s prior relationship with USC and Vandemoer had previously raised questions about whether defending Abdelaziz would present a conflict of interest. However, Brian Kelly, a Nixon Peabody attorney representing Abdelaziz, stated that Vandemoer was not a cooperating witness in the admissions case and that the government likely will not call Vandemoer to testify against Abdelaziz.”
• “‘There is no ‘direct adversity’ because there is no conflict between the legal rights and duties of USC and the legal rights and duties of Mr. Abdelaziz,’ the order read. ‘Nor is there any material limitation on Nixon Peabody’s ability to represent Mr. Abdelaziz stemming from, for instance, USC sharing confidences with Nixon about the subject matter of this case (which it has not done).'”