Law Firm Conflicts — Flint DQ Fight Foments, “Unescapable” Conflict Clash Continues


We mentioned updates on this struggle last summer months. Here’s the latest: “Flint drinking water choose rejects Napoli Shkolnik’s phone to DQ rival law firm” —

  • “The federal choose in demand of litigation above the Flint water scandal refused regulation agency Napoli Shkolnik’s request to disqualify a rival law firm for concurrently representing shoppers who approved of a $600 million settlement and people who required it to fail, expressing the lawyer almost certainly violated ethics regulations but it wasn’t value removing him from the case.”
  • “New York-primarily based Napoli Shkolnik filed a movement to disqualify Philadelphia law firm Mark Cuker, who designed headlines in the case following falling asleep in the course of a Zoom listening to, following he submitted objections to the settlement on behalf of 12 shoppers although his remaining 968 clientele permitted it.”
  • “In 2020, the Napoli company and Levy Konigsberg defeated endeavours by rival attorneys to have them removed as co-liaison counsel in excess of allegations like they were trying to garner more cash for their purchasers by demanding highly-priced ‘bone scans’ to deliver evidence of direct publicity.”
  • “Napoli argued Cuker violated the Michigan Procedures of Specialist Perform by simultaneously symbolizing shoppers who objected to the settlement and those who desired it to carry on. Choose Levy mainly agreed, stating ‘these positions are irreconcilable.’”
  • “The ethics principles permit legal professionals to characterize clientele who have competing views about a settlement, the decide explained, but only soon after ‘consultations’ in which they are knowledgeable about the conflict and the participation of other consumers.”
  • “The judge turned down Cuker’s argument the rival law company didn’t have standing, saying a movement to disqualify counsel is the good mechanism for informing the court about alleged moral violations.”

Morgan Lewis Can’t Escape Suit Alleging Conflict in Offer Operate Led to Consumer Bankruptcy” —

  • “A California federal individual bankruptcy choose on Wednesday sophisticated promises from the Chapter 7 trustee for a previous Morgan, Lewis & Bockius consumer, which alleged the firm’s twin representation of the company and its owners in a stock sale designed a conflict of interest that led to a 2019 bankruptcy filing.”
  • “Court documents reveal Morgan Lewis was paid $517,688 in lawful fees for shepherding the deal. But Stadtmueller asserted in courtroom the firm and Hector represented the proprietors in the inventory sales as perfectly, allegedly making a conflict of desire that was under no circumstances disclosed to the functions.”
  • “As for the next trigger for motion, which alleges breach of responsibility of loyalty, Latham uncovered that they represented the house owners, ‘whose passions ended up materially adverse to debtor’s.’ As a end result, the choose located the agency was allegedly broken by the reduction of its reputable expectation of loyalty and paying out $277,848.92 in authorized expenses for counseling on the next inventory sale.”
  • “‘Principally, debtor sought the lowest possible order cost and the owners’ wished-for the highest. Nonetheless irrespective of the conflict, defendants unsuccessful to disclose the dual representation or attain both debtor’s or the owners’ educated consent,’ Latham mentioned. ‘So defendants breached their obligation.’”


Supply connection