Bressler Risk Blog

“6th Circuit grants law firm qualified immunity in firing” —

• “A law firm was entitled to dismissal of an employment retaliation suit on qualified immunity grounds because no clearly established law put it on notice that firing one of its attorneys under the circumstances would violate the First Amendment, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided.”
• “A Nashville city councilman allegedly threatened to withdraw business from the law firm due to the position one of its attorneys took as the chair of the county election commission on a tax referendum. When the attorney declined the law firm’s request that he oppose the referendum, the firm fired him.”
• “The plaintiff sued the council member and the firm for retaliating against his federal free-speech rights.”
• “A U.S. District Court rejected the assertion of qualified immunity by the defendants.”
• “But the 6th Circuit reversed, ruling that the firm could invoke qualified immunity because of the government work it performed, and that it was entitled to dismissal because no clearly established law prohibited its conduct.”
• “‘We know of no case in which the First Amendment prohibited a law firm from firing one of its lawyers when the business interests of the firm, including demands from one of its clients, triggered the firing,’ the court wrote. “

David Kluft asks: “Should I be disqualified if the opposing party once told me his litigation goals?” —

• “A CT husband already had a lawyer for his divorce but frequently sought ‘second opinions,’ consulting with between 30-50 lawyers over the course of four years.
• “In 2022, he consulted with one of these ‘second opinion’ attorneys and met with her for 60-90 minutes, during which meeting he got emotional and discussed his goals for the divorce litigation. The attorney then reviewed the public court file, but it didn’t go further because she was too busy with other cases.”
• “Three years later, this same attorney appeared in the case for the wife. The court denied the husband’s motion to disqualify pursuant to Rule 1.18 (prospective client conflicts).”
• “The communication about goals did not require disqualification because there was no further meeting and because the husband failed to identify how that information would be significantly harmful to him (‘significant harm’ is a requirement of Rule 1.18).”

“Goldman Sachs Says Some Clients’ Data May Have Been Exposed in Law Firm Data Breach” —

• “Goldman Sachs Group Inc. warned investors in some of its alternative investment funds that their data may have been exposed in a breach at one of the bank’s law firms.”
• “In a Dec. 19 letter, Goldman said it had been informed of a ‘cybersecurity incident’ by Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, which serves as outside counsel to many of its alternatives funds. The bank said it was working with the law firm ‘to better understand whether our data or our clients’ data may have been exposed.'”
• “The letter was included in a proposed class lawsuit* filed Wednesday against Fried Frank by Andrew Sacks, an investor in Goldman’s Petershill Private Equity Seeding II Offshore Fund.”
• “‘Goldman Sachs’ systems were not impacted by this incident and remain secure,’ a spokesperson for the bank said. ‘As always, we will continue to work to safeguard our clients and their data.'”
• See also: Sacks v. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP

“Labour accuses shadow attorney-general of ‘conflict of interest’ over legal work for Roman Abramovich” —

• “The [UK] Conservative shadow attorney-general David Wolfson, a Tory peer, has been accused of a ‘conflict of interest’ for being part of the legal team of sanctioned Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich.”
• “Emily Thornberry, a Labour MP who did the same job as Lord Wolfson between 2021 and 2024, said it was a ‘really bad look’ to be acting on his behalf while also providing legal advice to the Conservatives.”
• “‘There’s a conflict of interest between [Wolfson’s legal work] and his duty to give assistance to the Tory party to ensure that their policy on oligarchs and sanctions and Ukraine is as good as it can be and isn’t compromised,’ she said. ‘Given the history that the Tories have of closeness with Russian oligarchs, I think that it’s a really bad look.'”
• “Earlier in December, the prime minister Sir Keir Starmer issued a licence to transfer £2.5bn of frozen assets from Abramovich’s sale of Chelsea Football Club to Ukraine, warning the Russian former owner that the UK government is prepared to take him to court if he fails to release the funds.”
• “The UK imposed sanctions on Abramovich owing to his close links to Russian President Vladimir Putin after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.”
• “Wolfson is part of the legal team representing Abramovich in his court battle with the Jersey government over the release of billions in frozen assets and is not directly involved in any case relating to the Chelsea club.”
• “But the Labour party has argued that the case in Jersey is delaying the release of the £2.5bn from the sale of the football club and that his work for Abramovich compromises his ability to advise the Tory party on anything relating to his frozen assets.”
• “Justice minister Jake Richards earlier this week described the dual roles held by Wolfson as ‘indefensible’.”
• “In a letter to Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, Richards questioned whether the shadow attorney-general had recused himself from party policy on Abramovich’s assets, warning that his advice to her was ‘clearly compromised’.”
• “In its response, the Tory party said that ‘nothing in the Jersey proceedings is inconsistent with the intended donation of the Chelsea sale proceeds’, adding ‘that litigation has nothing to do with the donation of the Chelsea sale proceeds, and does not involve the UK government’.”
• “Thornberry said it was arguable that Wolfson’s legal work ‘could have an effect on the state’s ability to be able to get the billions of pounds resulting from the sanctions’, adding that it is ‘supposed to be Tory party policy to be supportive of getting that money’.”
• “She added that she did not believe shadow attorneys-general should practise law at the same time as advising political parties given that the advisory role is ‘a big job if you’re doing it properly . . . I don’t think it’s an honorary title’.”

Jeff Cunningham notes: “Per the ABA, almost half of US law firms post about case successes on their website” —

• “But such publicity carries serious disciplinary, malpractice, and reputational risks. “
• “Even accurate descriptions can be deemed misleading if they imply guaranteed or typical outcomes, omit material context, or create unjustified expectations about future results. From a claims perspective, these posts are frequently later cited by disappointed clients as evidence that the law firm promised or benchmarked a particular result. Confidentiality risks also arise when matters are described in enough detail to make clients or cases identifiable, particularly without documented, informed consent. “
• “Publicizing victories can antagonize adversaries, competitors, or insurers and invite scrutiny if outcomes later change or are reversed. Many law firms further compound risk by relying on generic disclaimers or allowing legacy content to drift out of compliance with evolving advertising rules. “
• “As a result, case-success content should be subject to centralized review, conservative framing, and periodic audits, rather than treated as routine marketing copy.”

“Eavesdropping by Algorithm: Legal Risks of AI Meeting Assistants” —

• “What many users do not fully appreciate is that these tools introduce a third party into conversations historically governed by strict privacy and confidentiality rules, a shift that carries profound consequences for attorney–client privilege, wiretap compliance, compliance with privacy laws, Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law (RTKL), and discovery exposure.”
• “Imagine sitting down for a virtual meeting where sensitive legal matters are being discussed and internal strategy decisions are unfolding, with everyone assuming the conversation is confidential and limited to the people on the call. Only later does someone in the meeting realize that a small ‘note-taker’ icon was glowing in the corner of the screen, an artificial intelligence tool was present, recording and transcribing every word that was said. In that moment, the participants realize that what they assumed was a confidential discussion may indeed, not be so private.”
• “These are the exact events that resulted in the filing of a nationwide class action in August 2025. In Brewer v. Otter.ai, plaintiffs allege that Otter.ai’s ‘Notetaker’ and ‘OtterPilot’ tools unlawfully intercepted and recorded private video-conference meetings without obtaining consent from all participants. The complaint claims the AI assistant joins calls as an autonomous participant, transmits conversations to Otter’s servers for transcription, records even non-account holders, provides little or no participant notice, and shifts responsibility for consent onto meeting hosts. Plaintiffs further allege Otter retained recordings indefinitely and used captured communications to train its AI models, including voices of individuals who were unaware they were being recorded. The lawsuit asserts federal wiretap and computer-access violations, multiple California privacy law violations, and common-law claims for intrusion and conversion, casting AI notetakers not as neutral productivity tools but as unauthorized third-party surveillance operating inside private meetings.”
• “AI meeting assistants offer numerous benefits, including allowing participants who would otherwise be taking notes to stay fully engaged, automatically generating meeting summaries and action items, producing uniform and unbiased notes for all participants, and even identifying speakers by their voices. But what many users do not fully appreciate is that these tools introduce a third party into conversations historically governed by strict privacy and confidentiality rules, a shift that carries profound consequences for attorney–client privilege, wiretap compliance, compliance with privacy laws, Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law (RTKL), and discovery exposure.”
• “However, the privilege can be waived through voluntary disclosure to third parties, and AI transcription tools are owned by third parties. These AI meeting assistant tools typically route audio and text through third-party servers or cloud-based servers, and even if no employee actively ‘listens,’ the vendors often retain access rights under their terms of service, storage practices, or model-training procedures to the information disclosed. As people increasingly rely on these tools to summarize privileged meetings, process attorney emails, or analyze legal memoranda, they are placing sensitive communications into systems operated by outside vendors, and consequently, could be waiving attorney-client privilege. Additionally, many of these vendors may log inputs, retain data, or use uploaded content to improve their AI models. Introducing an AI platform into a legal discussion under these conditions can undermine the confidentiality required for privilege to attach and may severely weaken any later claim that the communications were intended to remain private.”
• “Several AI meeting platforms acknowledge, often buried in privacy policies, that recorded conversations may be retained and used to train speech-recognition and generative AI models. What begins as a routine business meeting can therefore become a permanent training dataset outside the control of the speakers. Although vendors describe this data as ‘de-identified,’ true anonymization is difficult: voices, speech patterns, job titles, project references, geographic markers, and health or employment details can readily link recordings back to individuals. Once content enters training pipelines, deletion is usually impractical, converting what participants assumed was a fleeting exchange into a lasting data asset.”
• “The practice runs afoul of many privacy laws. HIPAA severely restricts disclosures tied to patient health information and limits even permitted disclosures to the minimum necessary required to achieve the intended purpose of the disclosure. The GDPR requires narrow purpose limitation, data minimization, and enforceable rights of access and deletion, standards difficult to reconcile with open-ended AI training uses. California’s consumer privacy laws further heighten risk by granting individuals rights to transparency, restrictions on data processing, and challenges to undisclosed secondary uses such as model training. As a result, a single unnoticed recording can escalate from a brief compliance lapse into ongoing multi-regulatory exposure, with regulatory, litigation, and class-action consequences.”
• “For similar reasons as those enunciated above with respect to the RTKL, discovery risk also increases dramatically when meetings are recorded by default because AI transcripts differ fundamentally from traditional human notes. While handwritten or typed summaries are selective, imperfect, and often discarded, AI-generated transcripts are permanent, detailed, searchable, and time-stamped, making them powerful litigation targets. In lawsuits, opposing counsel can demand production of entire datasets documenting years of internal corporate communications, combing transcripts for statements taken out of context or distorted by transcription errors to use in depositions and motion practice. What begins as a tool meant to improve productivity can, in practice, create vast new discovery burden and sharply increase litigation costs.”
• “Collectively, these risks reveal a sobering reality, that AI notetakers convert private human speech into portable, persistent data assets that can trigger legal ramifications far more complex than most organizations realize. The rise of AI meeting assistants is not simply a question of workplace efficiency, it is a fundamental shift in how conversations are captured, stored and regulated.”

“Connell Foley Survives DQ Attempt in Discrimination and Racketeering Case Against NJ” —

• “For the second time this year, a federal judge has denied an attempt to remove Connell Foley as legal counsel for several state officials, including New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy and Attorney General Matthew G. Platkin, in a discrimination and racketeering lawsuit.”
• “On Thursday [12/11], U.S. District Judge Katharine S. Hayden denied the appeal of Blueprint Capital Advisors in its renewed motion to have the Roseland-headquartered law firm disqualified from its five-year-plus discrimination litigation against the state of New Jersey. U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer of the District of New Jersey had initially ruled in April that BCA’s conflict of interest claim against Connell Foley serving as counsel in the case had no merit.”
• “While BCA argued on appeal that Hammer used an incorrect standard in evaluating whether an implied attorney-client relationship existed between its CEO Jacob Walthour and attorney Elnardo Webster II, Hayden concurred with Connell Foley that those claims were, again, without merit.”
• “‘Viewing this record with the required practical lens, this court reaches the same conclusion Judge Hammer did, using the same objective, totality-of-the-circumstances test he correctly used. This record does not support plaintiff’s assertion that an implied attorney-client relationship existed between Webster and either plaintiff or its principal, Walthour,’ Hayden said.”
  In June 2020, BCA, a Black-owned asset management firm, filed a lawsuit in New Jersey federal court against top state officials and others, alleging systemic racial discrimination and retaliation. The firm claims that New Jersey and its Division of Investment excluded it from managing state funds, misused its proprietary investment model, and collaborated with private entities to undermine its business prospects.”
• “BCA’s claim was that Webster, who handles commercial and real estate matters at Connell Foley, previously provided legal advice to a company principal, thus creating a conflict of interest requiring disqualification from the case. However, Connell Foley countered that out of caution, it had proactively screened Webster from involvement in the suit.”
• “In his April ruling, Hammer contended BCA’s evidence fell short of the standard needed for either establishing an attorney-client relationship or disqualification, instead labeling them ‘vague assertions’ and a ‘spattering of conversations.’ BCA then appealed, taking issue with Hammer’s methodology in determining whether or not an attorney-client relationship existed between BCA and Webster.”
• “Rather, Hayden explained, BCA’s claim was ‘based entirely on how Walthour saw the relationship and how he now characterizes his occasional conversations with Webster,’ while not offering ‘any evidence that would establish that Webster actually understood, or should have understood, the relationship the same way.'”
• “‘At bottom, plaintiff has not shown any objective indicia reflecting that Webster understood the relationship the way Walthour did. While there was no one way plaintiff had to make that showing, the law is that plaintiff did have to make it. Plaintiff has not done so, and Judge Hammer made no error of law in reaching that conclusion,’ Hayden wrote.”

David Kluft asks: “Ok, so I misquoted some cases. Can we leave my big law firm out of it?” —

• A GA lawyer from a” large law firm included a bunch of inaccurate citations and quotations in a motion to dismiss. The lawyer argued, and the Magistrate judge believed, that the inaccuracies resulted from poor manual notes and a failure to check citations, and not from AI use, and the lawyer announced certain remedial measures he would take in his practice going forward.
• “The Court dismissed the underlying case, and issued some sanctions against the lawyer in the form of a small fine and a reprimand, but had ‘some lingering hesitations before entirely closing this matter,’ because the Court ‘was surprised not to hear from the Firm as to what procedures and training it employs … In particular, the undersigned was surprised that [such] a large law firm … did not already have paralegals, more junior lawyers, or other staff cite-checking submissions, and that an Order to Show Cause from a federal judge was required for such a commonplace step to be implemented in this case.'”
• “The court ordered the firm to provide a sworn statement explaining these issues ‘and any other matters that the Firm wishes to explain.'”
• “The firm promptly submitted an affidavit from the managing partner of its Atlanta office, which ultimately satisfied the court.”
• Order and more detail: here.

He also asks: “Should our stipulated protective order prohibit the use of discovery to train AI?” —

• “In a litigation in CA involving TikTok privacy policies, the parties stipulated to a protective order with a ‘Generative Artificial Intelligence’ section. The stipulation allows artificial intelligence to be used in the case to manage discovery, but prohibits the use of any confidential discovery materials to train, improve, re-train or develop AI models, and also prohibits such materials from being ‘submitted, uploaded, or otherwise provided to any AI … if such submission would result in use, potential access, or disclosure … to any individual’ not covered by the protective order.”
• “Additionally, AI outputs based confidential materials are also considered confidential.”
• Detail from the protective order:

Happy New Year!

“Attorney disqualified over settlement discussion” —

• “A Business Court judge has decided to disqualify an attorney who engaged in a lengthy settlement conference without first obtaining the consent of opposing counsel. “
• “The plaintiff engaged a firm to represent it in a suit against the defendants. On Dec. 24, 2025, one defendant contacted a partner at the law firm, asking if he, the partner and other defendant could meet in the hope of resolving the case. The complaint had not yet been served on any of the defendants. “
• “The meeting was held at the law firm’s office on Christmas Day. During the meeting, one defendant expressly told the partner he had a lawyer, but he would not tell the partner his name. The partner claimed that he received no confidential information during the meeting and that instead the over-90-minute meeting focused on settling the case. “
• “‘To make a long, irrelevant story short (of which the plaintiff waxes eloquently), the settlement talks were unsuccessful, and this case has been hotly litigated,’ Judge Michael Warren noted. “
• “‘Before the Court is Defendants Rapid Restoration 24/7 LLC, Ari Kostelitz, Chesky Weinberger, and Zev Goldner’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Gold Star Restoration MI LLC. … At stake in this Motion is whether MRPC 4.2 is violated when the Plaintiff’s lawyer who knows an individual Defendant is represented by opposing counsel can engage in a lengthy settlement conference without first obtaining the consent of that Defendant’s lawyer? Because the answer is ‘yes,’ and disqualification is a proper remedy, the Motion is granted,’ the judge wrote. “
• “‘Despite his protestations to the contrary, [the partner] clearly violated MRPC 2.4(a). The Rule required that [the partner] receive the permission of [the defendant’s] lawyer, not [the defendant], to continue the Christmas Day discussion. This is a bright line rule. This is akin to when a criminal defendant asks for a lawyer in the middle of a custodial interrogation — the officers must stop. Full stop. MRPC 2.4(a) is at least as strong — it prohibits any discussion until permission is granted by the lawyer. There are no ‘well, we didn’t talk about confidential information,’ or ‘it was just settlement discussions,’ or ‘the meeting was initiated by the other party’ exceptions. [The partner] dances around the fact that he knew [the defendant] was represented and continued communicating with him for over 90 minutes in an effort to settle the case. In the unlikely event the learned [the partner] is unaware, the Court takes judicial notice that nearly all of its civil cases settle. In other words, settlement discussions are the whole ballgame approximately 99% of the time. Downplaying the ethical violation by focusing on the fact that the subject matter was only about settlement actually exacerbates the wrong. The moving parties have met their burden,’ Warren stated. “
• “‘[The partner] and his firm should be disqualified. This was no fleeting discussion that only tangentially affected the case. By an ill-gotten ethical violation, [the partner] now knows the parties’ settlement positions. Again, this is almost always the whole ballgame. The only measure to protect the integrity of the profession and the integrity of this case is to disqualify [the partner] and his firm. This bell cannot be unrung or cured by a lesser sanction. The havoc across the justice system that would ensue with a contrary ruling would be too much to bear,’ the judge concluded. “
• “The six-page decision is Gold Star Restoration MI LLC v. Klainberg; MiLW No. 10-110086. “

“Oura Health’s Legal Battle: Former CEO Challenges Firm Over Potential Conflict of Interest” —

• “…the former CEO of Oura Health has moved to disqualify the esteemed law firm Quinn Emanuel from representing the company in a lawsuit concerning his termination. The ex-CEO argues that he disclosed confidential details to the firm during consultations regarding his claims before the initiation of the lawsuit.”
• “The former executive contends that during preliminary discussions, sensitive information was shared, which could now be unfairly leveraged against him, raising ethical and procedural concerns.”

“Luigi Mangione lawyers renew bid to toss death penalty charge, alleging Pam Bondi has a conflict of interest” —

• “Lawyers for Luigi Mangione on Friday renewed and expanded their effort to have the death penalty thrown out in his case, arguing Attorney General Pam Bondi has a disqualifying financial conflict of interest.”
• “In court filings reviewed by Fox News Digital, the defense argued that Bondi’s calls for the death penalty following Mangione’s arrest were improper because she was previously a partner at Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm that represented UnitedHealth Group, the parent company of slain CEO Brian Thompson.”
• “The defense argues Bondi continues to receive financial benefits through Ballard’s profit-sharing plan and should have recused herself from any role in the case.”
• “Mangione’s attorneys further argued that when Bondi left Ballard Partners to become attorney general in 2025, the first defendant she ‘personally selected’ for capital punishment was the man accused of killing the CEO of her former client.”
• “Mangione is accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on Dec. 4, 2024, outside a Manhattan hotel where the company was hosting an investor conference. The execution-style shooting was caught on camera and prosecutors allege that Mangione targeted Thompson due to financial and corporate grievances. Mangione fled the scene but was captured days later.”

“JPMorgan says Javice firms billed millions just for ‘attendance’” —

• “JPMorgan Chase & Co. said Charlie Javice’s ‘unconscionable’ $74 million tab for legal fees included more than $5 million in charges for lawyers and other staff just for attending her fraud trial, even on days court wasn’t in session.”
• “A previously sealed Delaware court filing released Monday offered the most detailed picture yet of JPMorgan’s claim that Javice, who was convicted in March of defrauding the largest US bank in a $175 million deal, abused a 2023 order requiring it to cover the costs of her defense. “
• “JPMorgan is seeking to avoid $10.2 million in disputed charges and end the requirement that it pay future bills. Lawyers at Javice’s five law firms billed unnecessary work and inappropriate expenses under the mindset that ‘someone else is paying her bills,’ according to the filing.”
• “The bank focused much of its criticism on Javice’s two largest firms, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, which it said ‘have already received tens of millions, and seek millions more for patently unreasonable fees and expenses that constitute clear abuse.’ “
• “In a statement, a Quinn Emanuel spokesman said, ‘JPMorgan is trying to walk away from its contractual obligation to pay the remainder of Ms. Javice’s legal bills — all in hopes it can cut off her right to pursue her meritorious appeal.’ Mintz didn’t immediately respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment.”
• “Quinn Emanuel’s fee’s ‘skyrocketed’ after telling the court before trial that it anticipated transitioning its responsibilities to Mintz, JPMorgan argued. And the Mintz Levin lawyers were ‘peripheral and unnecessary, even during trial,’ the bank said.”
• “JPMorgan said that Javice had as many as 16 to 29 lawyers and other legal professionals in court for every day of her trial, billing an average of $360,000 a day during the six weeks of the trial. No more then four lawyers had speaking roles, and many of the bills were for ‘trial attendance alone,’ JPMorgan said. ‘Javice’s counsel even improperly billed for trial ‘attendance’ on non-trial days.'”
• “According to the bank, lawyers attending the trial charged a number of inappropriate expenses, the bank said. Included in 2,377 pages of receipts submitted for March were a Cookie Monster toddler’s toy, lavender and jasmine sachets, 57 hotel room upgrades at $300 a night and a $900 meal at Koloman, a highly rated New York restaurant, JPMorgan said.”
• “A New York jury found Javice guilty of misleading JPMorgan into acquiring her student-finance startup, Frank, by creating millions of fake users for the site. She was sentenced in September to seven years in prison but is free on bail pending her appeal.”
• “As part of her sentence, Javice was ordered to repay the legal fees JPMorgan covered. But even if that order is upheld, the bank is unlikely to ever get back more than a small fraction of the total amount. Javice is only required to pay 10% of her income in restitution after she leaves prison, and the order expires in 20 years.”

“Law Firm That Regularly Sues the City Over Police Misconduct Is Representing Peacock Councilors” —

• “A law firm that regularly sues the city on behalf of protesters and other citizens alleging police misconduct is now representing five Portland city councilors in an ethics case.”
• “All six members of the council’s progressive caucus—called Peacock—are now under investigation by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission for an August retreat. The ethics commission voted 7-0 on Friday to investigate the meeting and whether anything the councilors discussed during it violated public meetings law, which says that a quorum of councilors cannot discuss any policy in private that may reasonably come before the council or a council committee. Councilors maintain they did not talk about any policy-related matters.”
• “Ben Haile, a lawyer with the Oregon Justice Resource Center, represented five of the six councilors in front of the ethics commission. He’s working pro bono, he told WW in a brief phone call on Tuesday.”
• “Haile’s representation of the Peacock councilors is peculiar for a few reasons.”
• “OJRC, a civil rights law firm founded in 2011 to ‘improve legal representation for communities that have often been underserved in the past,’ typically works in civil litigation related to inmate rights, wrongful conviction, police misconduct and excessive use of force and other social justice areas. There’s nothing to suggest that OJRC regularly represents elected officials in front of the state’s ethics commission.”
• “But more importantly, OJRC regularly represents clients who are suing the city. OJRC has represented a handful of protesters and journalists who have sued the city alleging police misconduct and excessive use of force during the 2020 racial justice protests. In most of those cases, the city and OJRC have settled outside of court, with the city paying substantial settlement amounts to the plaintiffs. (Street Roots reported earlier this year that claims stemming from the 2020 protests have cost the city $9.1 million so far in settlements.)”
• “OJRC has also represented victims of Portland police misconduct. This summer, the City Council voted to approve a $3.75 million settlement awarded to the family of Immanueal ‘Manny’ Jaquez Clark-Johnson, whom a Portland police officer shot in the back in November 2022 after he was mistaken for a robbery suspect. OJRC represented Clark-Johnson’s family.”
• “The City Council is the final level of approval for every settlement over $50,000 that the city seeks to reach, and councilors can elect to increase the settlement amount if they choose. That means OJRC not infrequently has business in front of the City Council—and usually as an adversary.”
• “Tung Yin is a professor of law at Lewis and Clark Law School. He says that OJRC representing plaintiffs seeking settlements from the city, and representing city councilors raises questions about a perceived or real conflict of interest.”
• “‘It’s when we have these two things together that we have this appearance of conflict,’ Yin says. ‘It really is a question of: Does it look like the councilors might make decisions on behalf of the public that would benefit the same lawyers who are representing them pro bono?'”
• “Oregon law prohibits elected officials from accepting gifts of over $50 from ‘sources that could reasonably be known to have a legislative or administrative interest in the vote or decision of the public official who holds any official position or office.’ It’s not clear if free legal services meet the definition of a ‘gift’ under state statutes, but the laws do identify a gift as ‘something of economic value.'”
• “Haile declined to answer WW’s questions whether he or his firm had represented elected officials before in front of the ethics commission. But he said in a statement that ‘all of our legal work, advocacy, and public education…is consistent with our mission, mandates as a civil rights organization, and our work to defend democracy. As a resource center, we take great pride being available to those who seek to defend the rights and dignity of Oregonians.'”

“A Utah prosecutor’s relative was there when Charlie Kirk was shot. Tyler Robinson’s attorneys want his office kicked off the criminal case.” —

• “A key prosecutor’s family member was at the Utah Valley University campus event where Charlie Kirk was fatally shot — and now the defense team for the accused shooter argues that creates a conflict of interest that means the entire Utah County Attorney’s Office should be banned from handling the criminal case against him.”
• “Tyler Robinson’s defense team last week filed a motion asking a judge to disqualify the Utah County prosecutor’s office from the case. The court papers were initially filed under seal. But on Wednesday evening, the defense attorneys filed a public version that revealed why they felt it would be improper for the Utah County agency to prosecute their client.”
• “Some wording in the filing is redacted, so the public version doesn’t specify which lawyer on the six-person prosecution team has a ‘personal connection’ with a student who was at the Turning Point USA event when Kirk was shot in September.”
• “It also does not disclose the specific relationship between the prosecutor and the student. But it said that the young person texted the ‘family text group’ that day, writing that someone had been shot and added, ‘I’m okay.’ Later, the student texted the same group that it was Kirk who had been shot.”
• “Robinson’s defense attorneys noted in their filing that the prosecutor had been with Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray when these messages were sent, and he ‘shared those with Mr. Gray in real time.'”
• “That prosecutor’s ‘familial relationship with a witness presents a concurrent conflict of interest and disqualifies him from participating in the prosecution of this case,’ the defense team argued.”
• “They also noted that this prosecutor holds a supervisory role at the county attorney’s office, and argued that creates a conflict so significant that 4th District Judge Tony Graf should ban the entire office from prosecuting the case. There’s been ‘no effort’ to shield this prosecutor from the case so far, they asserted.”
• “Christopher Ballard, a prosecutor on Robinson’s case and the office’s spokesperson, said in an email Wednesday evening that his office disagrees and will file their opposition in court. Robinson’s team, he said, ‘has not identified any valid basis for disqualification.'”
• “‘Despite being present at the event, the individual identified in the motion knew less about the details of the shooting than non-attendees who were following news reports and social media posts,’ he said. ‘The Utah County Attorney based his charging decisions solely on the circumstances of the alleged crimes, without regard for the identity of any specific attendee.'”
• “The prosecutor disclosed the family relationship to the defense after speaking to the entire prosecution team about the potential conflict, they said. And, they alleged in the court filing, this prosecutor went back to campus with an investigator to determine the exact distance from where his family member was to where Kirk was when he shot. (It was 85 feet.)”
• “While Robinson’s attorneys wrote that they didn’t question the prosecutor’s integrity, they argued that the prosecutor’s personal relationship could affect his ability to handle the case ethically.”
• “There’s a ‘natural instinct’ to protect and shield a relative from ‘past and future harm,’ Robinson’s attorneys wrote, adding that the prosecutor and his family member aren’t immune from the trauma that many experienced that day when Kirk was shot.”

“Eleventh Circuit Upholds Embattled Corporate Transparency Act as Constitutional” —

• “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has upheld the Corporate Transparency Act, ruling that the law—the subject of court fights across the United States—is constitutional.”
• “A unanimous three-judge panel said the law was an appropriate exercise of Congress’ power over interstate commerce, as Commerce was regulating an economic activity when it passed the law. The CTA requires businesses to identify their corporate owners for a nationwide registry.”
• “‘By requiring these corporate entities to provide beneficial ownership information, the CTA regulates how they operate and the level of secrecy with which they do business,’ Circuit Judge Andrew Brasher wrote on behalf of the panel.”
• “In upholding the law, the panel deemed rational Congress’ findings that anonymous corporate dealings have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Based on reports from national security and law enforcement, Congress had concluded that anonymous shell companies were contributing to fraud and money laundering, the Eleventh Circuit explained.”
• “The panel decision reverses U.S. District Judge Liles Burke’s May 2024 ruling against the law. Burke, who sits in the Northern District of Alabama, was swayed by arguments from the National Small Business Association and small business owner, Isaac Winkles, that the law targets the non-economic activity of incorporation. The challengers are represented by Hughes Hubbard & Reed and Maynard Nexsen.”
• “But the circuit rejected that reasoning, saying the law regulates entities after they have been incorporated.”
• “‘The statute in no way affects how businesses incorporate. It does not alter any relevant state law. It addresses only what entities must do after they are registered to do business,’ Brasher wrote.”
• “Jamie Schafer, a partner and firmwide co-chair of Perkins Coie’s regulatory compliance and disputes practice, told the National Law Journal and Law.com that the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning may be persuasive to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Bank Secrecy Act in its decades-old ruling, California Bankers Association v. Schultz. The Bank Secrecy Act requires banks to report large cash transactions and other suspicious activity.”
• Decision: here.

David Kluft asks: “If a lawyer and former client don’t remember or recognize each other, is it still a conflict of interest for them to be adverse?” —

• “An OH lawyer represented a defendant in a murder trial. The lawyer had represented an adverse witness in the case five years earlier. However, it was undisputed that he didn’t remember or recognize the witness, and the witness didn’t remember or recognize the lawyer, so nobody noticed the conflict or discussed it with the defendant.”
• “About 15 years after his conviction for murder, the defendant found out about the conflict and filed a motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance, claiming that the lawyer’s loyalties to the witness (his former client) conflicted with his duties to the defendant.”
• “The OH Ct. of Appeals denied the motion because the defendant was unable to point to a specific adverse effect and because, ‘without knowledge of the supposed conflict, trial counsel’s performance could not have been impacted by the conflict.'”
  Opinion: here.

“Big Law, Bitcoin and Conflicts: Dickinson Wright Hit With Malpractice Suit” —

• “Dickinson Wright and several of its lawyers are facing a malpractice lawsuit in Michigan state court alleging that they overstated their Bitcoin regulatory expertise and failed to disclose conflicts of interest in a cryptocurrency recovery effort.”
• “The case dates back to early 2022, when the Jonna Group retained Dickinson Wright in connection with a $541,045 investment in Bitcoin Latinum, a cryptocurrency project the investors alleged engaged in securities fraud. The clients sought the recovery of their principal and lost profits, which the law firm allegedly valued at more than $6.7 million.”
• “Dickinson Wright promoted its experience in Bitcoin regulation and the credentials of partners Frank Gilligan and Jacob S. Frenkel, including Frenkel’s experience in whistleblower matters, per the lawsuit. At various times, the firm projected a potential case value of up to $120 million and described Frenkel as a ‘master of the craft,’ representations that the plaintiffs said induced them to retain the firm.”
• “Key to the litigation strategy, the lawsuit alleged, was the role of Don Basile, an individual connected to Bitcoin Latinum who was also involved in other crypto startups and had a sketchy reputation. The firm allegedly advised that the Jonna Group could pursue whistleblower status tied to anticipated U.S. government investigations into Basile and related entities.”
• “However, the strategy unraveled because Dickinson Wright allegedly failed to disclose a conflict of interest involving Basile and affiliated companies, per the complaint. The firm had an attorney-client relationship with Monsoon Blockchain Corp., an entity contractually linked to Bitcoin Latinum through intellectual property and network agreements funded by token presales.”
• “Bitcoin Latinum was associated with non-fungible token projects and other ventures affiliated with Monsoon and entities owned or operated by Basile, the lawsuit says. At the same time, Dickinson Wright represented Basile and received attorney fees from Monsoon as a current client, even as it pursued claims on Jonna Group’s behalf against Bitcoin Latinum.”
• “The conflict surfaced when Dickinson Wright served discovery demands on Bitcoin Latinum, seeking formation documents relating to Monsoon, prompting a motion to disqualify the firm, according to the complaint. In support of that motion, Bitcoin Latinum disclosed payments it had made to Dickinson Wright for legal services provided to Monsoon.”
• “The plaintiffs further alleged that they later learned that Dickinson Wright intentionally failed to file a formal whistleblower claim because of its undisclosed relationship with Basile and his companies. That decision, the lawsuit says, jeopardized the Jonna Group’s ability to recover a judgment by failing to name Basile as a defendant and preserve potential whistleblower protections.”
• “The complaint alleged that the disqualification required the investors to retain successor counsel, driving up legal costs because new attorneys had to become familiar with the underlying litigation. The plaintiffs also alleged that Dickinson Wright engaged in excessive billing, including fees associated with whistleblower efforts that ultimately yielded no recovery.”

Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 2025-15: “Attorneys – Conflict – Prospective client” —

• “Where (1) an attorney agreed to represent the family of a nursing home resident who had recently fallen and died and (2) approximately one week later, the intake department at the attorney’s law firm conducted an interview of a prospective client who worked as a nurse and potentially was involved in the fatal fall, the attorney’s sole remedy is to withdraw from the representation of the decedent’s family, as the nurse’s intake interview created a conflict under the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
• “‘The inquiring attorney agreed to represent the family of a nursing home resident who had recently fallen and died (the ‘Decedent’). Approximately one (1) week later, the intake department at the inquiring attorney’s law firm conducted an interview of a prospective client who described him- or herself as a nurse who had worked at the same nursing home at which the Decedent had fallen and died (the ‘Nurse’).”
• “The Nurse sought representation because a resident to whom he or she may have incorrectly administered medication had fallen and died, thereby potentially threatening the status of his or her nursing license and exposing her to potential civil liability. Although the Nurse did not mention the resident’s name during the intake interview, other information he or she did divulge — such as the dates on which the medication had been allegedly incorrectly administered — led the inquiring attorney to strongly believe the Nurse was referring to the Decedent.”
• “‘The inquiring attorney reports that the intake interview was conducted entirely by office staff and no attorney from his or her law firm had or has since spoken to the Nurse. Nonetheless, he or she wonders whether the Nurse’s interview creates a conflict requiring him or her to withdraw from representing the Decedent’s family. …”
• “‘It is the Panel’s opinion that the Nurse’s intake interview does create a conflict under the Rules of Professional Conduct requiring the inquiring attorney to withdraw from the representation of the Decedent’s family. …”
• “‘As an initial matter, because the Nurse actively sought representation from the inquiring attorney, it is clear he or she is a prospective client within the meaning of Rule 1.18 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. …”
• “‘… Rule 1.18 places certain limitations on an attorney’s use of information gleaned from a prospective client. … Second, Rule 1.18(c) prohibits an attorney and his or her associates from ‘represent[ing] 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,’ with certain exceptions set forth in Rule 1.18(d)(1) and (2).”
• “‘It is this second limitation, under Rule 1.18(c), which is of relevance here. Its applicability turns on two (2) factors. First, the interests of the Decedent’s family and the Nurse must be materially adverse in the same or a substantially related matter. Second, the inquiring attorney must have received information from the Nurse that could be significantly harmful to him or her in the matter.”
• “‘The Panel finds that the facts as described by the inquiring attorney satisfy both prongs of Rule 1.18(c). First, there exists the substantial risk that the interests of the Decedent’s family and of the Nurse are materially adverse in the same matter due to the Nurse’s potential involvement in the Decedent’s death. … Second, such information would undoubtedly be of significant harm to the Nurse in this matter, as it would bear on both the Nurse’s possible liability in a civil action as well as the risk of losing his or her nursing license. Together, these facts are sufficiently disqualifying to trigger Rule 1.18(c)’s prohibition on representation here. …”
• “‘It follows that, given the applicability of Rule 1.18(c) to this matter, the inquiring attorney’s sole remedy is to withdraw from the representation of the Decedent’s family. …”
• “‘In withdrawing from the representation, the Panel urges the inquiring attorney to take all reasonable steps required by Rule 1.16(d) to mitigate the consequences to the Decedent’s family of his or her withdrawal, including, but not limited to, providing notice to them of his or her intention to terminate representation — thereby permitting them time to select replacement counsel — returning their papers and property, and refunding any unearned fees or expenses, if any. This is a non-exhaustive list of mitigation steps; the particular circumstances of the matter may require additional efforts. …’ “
• Full opinion: here.

“Terry Rozier paying for friend’s lawyer in gambling case a potential conflict, feds say” —

• “Federal prosecutors asked the judge overseeing the illegal sports gambling case involving Terry Rozier to determine if a conflict of interest exists because the Miami Heat guard is paying the legal fees of one of his codefendants. Prosecutors said in a new legal filing on Tuesday that Rozier’s lawyer may ultimately try to blame that codefendant, Deniro Laster, for the crime as well, allegations that Rozier’s lawyer has denied.”
• “Lawyers for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said in the filing that Rozier is covering legal fees for Evan Corcoran, the attorney representing Laster, and that they want the judge to determine if that relationship could impact Corcoran’s representation of Laster. They have asked Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall for a hearing that would, at a minimum, make Laster aware of those potential conflicts, and could possibly lead to him getting a new lawyer.”
• “Rozier, who has made more than $100 million during his NBA career, is longtime friends with Laster. Prosecutors allege Rozier told Laster that Rozier was leaving a March 2023 game early. Laster, according to an indictment filed in October, sold that information to a group of sports gamblers, who then made wagers on Rozier’s statistics for that game. Rozier and Laster were both arrested and charged this fall on two federal counts and have both pleaded not guilty.”
• “The prosecutors said in the filing that Jim Trusty, Rozier’s lawyer, has made public comments ‘suggesting that Rozier’s defense strategy at trial will be to inculpate Laster.'”
• “‘Neither Terry’s longstanding generosity towards a friend since childhood nor Evan Corcoran’s representation create any actual ethical issues in this case,’ Trusty told The Athletic. ‘My comments about Mr. Laster have not been to ‘blame’ him for anything – my focus has been on the fact that even if the government’s allegations about Mr. Laster are true, that does not mean Mr. Rozier did anything wrong.'”
• “‘The primary concern is that this payment structure creates an obvious incentive for the attorney’s divided loyalties between (i) his client Laster and (ii) the person paying his legal fees, co-defendant Rozier,’ the assistant U.S. attorneys said in the filing. ‘Particularly in light of Rozier’s attorney’s public comments placing the blame on a ‘friend’ who is almost certainly Laster.'”
• “Prosecutors pointed to Trusty’s comments in the days after Rozier’s arrest, where he said that Rozier told a friend that he would come out of the game. Trusty told CNN that Rozier ‘relied on a bad friend’ and told Fox News, ‘whatever that friend did is not on Terry (Rozier).'”
• “Prosecutors have called for the judge to name a lawyer for Laster who would advise him on any potential conflicts of interest. They did not say that the issues they raised are disqualifying for Corcoran to serve as Laster’s attorney.”
• “Rozier is also waiting on a response to a motion he made last week to dismiss the case. The motion has been filed to the prosecutor’s office, but has not been made public yet. Trusty indicated in a court hearing last week that Corcoran would join that filing as well.”

“Building a Proactive Risk Management Culture: Lessons from Law Firm General Counsels at the Aon Law Firm Symposium” —

• “At the 2025 Aon Law Firm Symposium, four experienced law firm general counsels – Martin S. Checov, O’Melveny & Myers LLP; Diana K. Ashton, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; Kathryn J. Fritz, Fenwick & West LLP; and Amanda Kushnir, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP – shared their ideas, strategies, and best practices for developing and sustaining a proactive risk management culture. We recap below some of the key insights from this excellent faculty.”
• “Cultivate Relationships Firmwide:”Developing strong relationships between the general counsel’s office and lawyers and staff across the firm fosters trust, encourages early engagement with risk issues, and helps ensure that risk management is viewed as a resource rather than a barrier. A law firm general counsel must be visible, approachable, and responsive, and known as a good listener and problem solver. If these connections within the firm do not exist or if people are not comfortable contacting the general counsel, the general counsel is more likely to encounter difficult issues after they arise rather than being in a position to provide guidance on the front side of tough matters.”
• “Engage Management at All Levels: Law firm general counsels must work closely with senior leadership and practice group heads to secure their support and make sure that risk management is integrated into decision-making throughout the firm. Keeping firm management informed about emerging risks and bringing attention to behavior issues observed within the firm’s ranks is a critical part of this role. A risk management update should be a standing item on the executive committee’s agenda. Moreover, when the law firm’s general counsel has an important message to communicate to the firm, it is often advisable for leadership to convey it in tandem with the general counsel.”
• “Deliver Targeted Training and Education: Careful consideration of the intended audience is paramount when developing risk management training and education. These programs should be tailored to the needs of different groups, such as associates, lateral partners, administrative assistants, and business professionals. For instance, train senior lawyers expected to develop business on conflicts clearance, educate members of the human resources department on privacy issues, instruct administrative
• “Conduct Informal Audits to Assess Compliance: Law firms can have the best risk management policies in place, but policies are only effective if they are followed. To confirm that policies broadcast to the firm are working in practice, the general counsel should conduct periodic informal checks to monitor compliance, identify areas for improvement, and then adjust implementation strategies as needed. This process is most successful when the general counsel establishes strong relationships with the right people across firm departments.”
• “Provide More than a Simple ‘No’: Lawyers are less inclined to approach the general counsel if the individual in that role is perceived as consistently rejecting their proposals. A practical strategy is to consult with lawyers about the requirements for a potential ‘yes’ response, such as identifying the relevant stakeholders to speak with and outlining any additional steps necessary for the firm to proceed. The path to ‘yes’ may not look very good in the end and, upon further review, many lawyers will independently arrive at a decision of ‘no.'”
• “A law firm general counsel must act as a ‘partner’ to all members of the firm, maintaining a degree of separation from firm politics, balancing independence with collaboration, and always keeping the firm’s best interests in mind. This perspective is crucial for guiding the firm through complex decisions and maintaining a resilient risk management culture.”

Leigh Zidwick, Sr Director Info Governance at DLA Piper US, sent in her analysis: “IG Hiring Trends in Law Firms: What We’re Seeing Across the Industry” —

• Over the past several months, many of us have noticed something new in the legal market: a sharp uptick in Information Governance–related hiring activity. There have been a few requests lately to share open positions with the Legal IG Roundtable, and many firms are expanding or redefining IG roles in ways we weren’t seeing even a year or two ago.
• While there isn’t yet a single public statistic that quantifies “new IG roles in the last 12 months,” the directional indicators are consistent and strong. Here’s a snapshot of what’s driving this momentum:
• 1. AI Adoption Has Become the Catalyst
  • Law firms are rapidly moving from experimenting with generative AI to implementing it – especially with tools like Microsoft Copilot, M365 integrations, and iManage AI capabilities.
  • This shift is exposing an uncomfortable truth: You cannot deploy AI responsibly without strong Information Governance. Firms are realizing that unclassified, duplicative, ungoverned data creates unacceptable risk when connected to AI tools. As a result, IG teams are being asked to define governance models, retention, classification, data minimization, and AI-related risk controls.
• 2. Recruiters Are Reporting Increased Demand
  • Legal tech recruiting firms have said explicitly that demand for IG professionals has increased in the past year, particularly in roles touching AI governance, M365/Teams, data lifecycle management, and privacy/security alignment.
  • We’re also seeing new hybrid titles, such as: Information Governance Manager (AI/Analytics), IG & Data Governance Lead, M365/Copilot Governance Manager, Director of Information Lifecycle & AI Enablement
  • This is a shift in both volume and specialization.
• 3. Firms Are Formalizing IG as a Strategic Function
  • Participating firms in recent IG staffing surveys have highlighted: Multiple distinct IG roles within the same firm. • Increased headcount in the past 12–18 months. Future hiring plans tied directly to AI and M365 transformation initiatives.
  • This is a notable evolution from prior years, when many IG programs were under-resourced or rolled into other departments.
• 4. Advisory and Vendor Ecosystems Are Reinforcing the Trend
  • Consultancies, managed services groups, and legal tech vendors have all built AI-governance and IG-readiness practices because firms have accelerated demand. Their service offerings often mirror internal hiring trends.

What This Means for Our Community

• The Legal IG Roundtable is now seeing more job traffic, more recruiter outreach, and more firms looking for guidance on how to build or expand IG teams. It’s a sign that:
  • IG is no longer a “back-office function
  • Organizations are recognizing IG as strategic infrastructure for law firms, not just compliance overhead
  • IG is foundational to AI readiness and risk management
  • The role of IG professionals is expanding in scope, recognition, and strategic importance
• If these trends continue—and all signals suggest they will—we may soon enter the first real IG talent shortage the legal industry has experienced. The rise of “AI and IG” roles signals a career growth opportunity for those with both governance and technology fluency.
• Our community is helping shape what this next era looks like.

David Kluft asks: “Am I disqualified if my firm is merging with a firm that represents the opposing party’s corporate affiliate?” —

• “An AL plaintiff sued a corporation for discriminatory termination. After the litigation commenced, the plaintiff’s counsel’s firm merged with another firm that had been hired by a corporate affiliate of the defendant in an unrelated litigation.”
• ” The defendant moved to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel, but the Court denied the motion. The Court held there was no conflict because the corporate affiliates were distinct corporate entities and, under an old Alabama bar ethics opinion, a lawyer may sue a parent company while representing a wholly owned subsidiary in an unrelated litigation, provided the separate identity of the companies prevents the risk that confidential information will be misused.”
• ” The Court also explained that the cases were being handled by geographically distinct offices of the newly merged firm, and the attorneys on the respective matters would have no communication with each other.”
• Decision: here.

“Iowa Supreme Court rules for Democratic auditor in dispute with GOP AG” —

• “What began as controversy over settlement agreements for three Davenport city officials who alleged they had been harassed has resulted in a win for Iowa State Auditor Rob Sand over Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird after the state Supreme Court sided with Sand’s office.”
• “Bird, a Republican who’s often been at odds with Sand, the sole statewide elected Democrat, argued in the case leading to the Friday, Dec. 5, ruling that her office, as the state’s legal counsel, should represent the auditor’s office in an ongoing court case regarding the legality of the settlement agreements for the Davenport employees. Sand, a lawyer and former state assistant attorney general, contended that his office should be able to represent itself.”
• “At issue was Sand’s allegation that Davenport may have violated open-meetings laws when its City Council approved the settlements, totaling $1.8 million, in December 2023, weeks after they were announced and months after they were signed.”
• “Sand noted the council had held closed sessions to discuss litigation around the period when the settlements were made and again before its vote. His office called Davenport’s city attorney, who allegedly approved the settlements without council authorization, a ‘walking audit risk’ and suggested the city lacks effective internal legal controls over expenditures.”
• “Iowa District Judge Jeffrey Bert did not rule that Sand could see the closed meeting records. But in a May 2024 order, Bert found that Sand’s office could access attorney-client protected information, as opposed to the separate category of ‘attorney work product,’ and he ordered the city to provide the records to him for his private review to determine which category applies in this case.”
• “Davenport appealed, arguing that both attorney-client communications and attorney work products should be protected from the auditor’s subpoena under Iowa law.”
• “According to the Supreme Court’s 6-0 ruling, written by Justice Edward Mansfield, Bird’s office in an initial brief backed Sand’s position that state law entitles his office to request attorney-client communications. But the day before that brief was due, she advised him she was removing that part of the brief and would refuse to argue for that position. The ruling said she explained that she disagreed and that the position was unlikely to succeed.”
• “Sand then filed his own brief through the general counsel for his office and Asked the court to block the brief from Bird’s office, the ruling said.”
• “Sand and Bird’s clash reflects a broader disagreement stemming from the Republican-dominated Iowa Legislature’s 2023 passage of a law that limited Sand’s ability to force state agencies to provide documents. Sand in a statement suggested Bird ‘doesn’t want the Auditor’s Office to argue we should get this evidence of waste, fraud and abuse, because that could lead to us getting evidence about other waste, fraud and abuse in other cases.'”
• “Bird’s office described her dispute with Sand as a disagreement not over the scope of the auditor’s power but about legal strategy.”
• “‘Iowa law makes clear that it is the job of the Attorney General’s Office to represent the state in court, not the auditor’s. We have checks and balances for a reason,’ Bird said in a statement. ‘As we have thoroughly discussed with the auditor’s team, our brief makes the most sound and strategic arguments to help the state win its case in court.'”
• “The Supreme Court in its ruling found that the Attorney General’s Office has a conflict of interest in representing Sand’s office because the ‘she believes it would be disadvantageous to the state as a whole’ to allow the auditor’s office to view the attorney-client records.”
• “‘The auditor wants to argue for affirmance of the district court’s view of the auditor’s legal authority, and the attorney general does not want to do so in part because of legitimate concerns about the impact such a decision would have on other state officers and agencies,’ Mansfield wrote. ‘That’s a conflict.'”
• “Also at issue was whether the auditor’s office needed the approval of the Executive Council of Iowa — a state board comprised of Sand, Gov. Kim Reynolds, Secretary of State Paul Pate, State Treasurer Roby Smith and Agriculture Secretary Mike Naig — to use alternative counsel if the Supreme Court disqualified Bird’s office.”
• “The court found that state law requires executive council approval to use paid attorneys outside of state government, not attorneys already working for the state, as was the case with Sand’s office. Mansfield noted in his opinion that Sand’s office previously represented itself in a 2021 case before the Supreme Court.”

“‘A masterful coup’: law firm behind Musk pay lawsuit faces internal revolt” —

• “In early 2024, two hard-nosed lawyers who had just helped defeat a $55bn pay package for Tesla chief executive Elon Musk gave an exultant talk at Columbia Law School detailing their stunning triumph over the world’s richest man. Now those two star partners, Greg Varallo and Jeroen van Kwawegen, are at the centre of an ugly rupture at the powerhouse shareholder law firm Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann.”
• “On Thursday, van Kwawegen announced he had departed BLB&G to form his own firm, JVK Law, and that about a dozen lawyers representing virtually the entire BLB&G corporate governance practice, as well as additional support staff, would soon join him.”
• “Coincidentally or not, a decision from the Delaware Supreme Court on Musk’s pay package is expected any day and will give final word on both the cancellation of the $55bn arrangement and a $345mn attorney’s fee award which mostly accrues to BLB&G.”
• “In an interview with Bloomberg Law on Thursday announcing his new firm, van Kwawegen said he ‘had a fundamentally different vision about what the law firm should look like, what the culture is that you should have and whose interests you should be serving first’, an apparent criticism of his previous firm’s management.”
• “BLB&G later fired back in a statement, saying it was ‘disappointed that Mr van Kwawegen has made misleading statements about his departure from the firm’.”
• “BLB&G added that van Kwawegen had not left voluntarily but had been terminated after the firm’s leadership determined that he ‘engaged in misconduct that was inimical to the best interests of the firm’. The firm declined to specify the nature of the alleged misconduct.”
  “In any instance, the public fracas has rocked an important corner of corporate law just as regulators and politicians are seeking to shift the legal balance between companies and investors. ‘Jeroen has pulled off a masterful coup. My hat is tipped,’ said one rival shareholder lawyer.”
• “BLB&G was founded in 1983 and has more than 100 lawyers across the US. It made its name in federal securities law litigation, typically bringing class action lawsuits on behalf of shareholders against listed companies, alleging that sharp drops in stock price were the result of disclosure failures.”
• “Varallo and van Kwawegen, on behalf of BLB&G, had petitioned the court for a $7bn fee in the form of Tesla shares for the victory in the pay package case, a figure that shocked even some plaintiff law firms who were otherwise sympathetic to BLB&G. The trial court knocked down that number to $345mn, still the largest single award in Delaware history, should the state’s supreme court confirm it.”
• “At the same time, the future of Delaware corporation litigation remains uncertain as the state has recently enacted sweeping changes to protect boards of directors from shareholder lawsuits. The legislature is also considering a new law to potentially reduce fees paid to lawyers who win big settlements or judgments.”
• “For now, the legal community is looking to see which clients stay with the reconstituted BLB&G governance group and which land at JVK Law, which will have to determine how to underwrite the considerable investment in contingency cases.”
• “The drama at the firm that took down Musk has not escaped the entrepreneur’s fans on X. ‘When 8+ partners walk out [of BLB&G] citing concerns about whose interests the firm serves, that’s not just a personality conflict — that’s a crisis of purpose,’ read one X post on Thursday.”