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


We pointed out updates on this struggle last summer season. Here’s the most recent: “Flint drinking water judge rejects Napoli Shkolnik’s simply call to DQ rival lawyer” —

  • “The federal decide in charge of litigation more than the Flint h2o scandal refused law organization Napoli Shkolnik’s ask for to disqualify a rival lawyer for concurrently representing consumers who permitted of a $600 million settlement and these who desired it to are unsuccessful, saying the lawyer almost certainly violated ethics policies but it wasn’t truly worth eliminating him from the situation.”
  • “New York-based Napoli Shkolnik submitted a motion to disqualify Philadelphia law firm Mark Cuker, who created headlines in the case after falling asleep all through a Zoom listening to, soon after he filed objections to the settlement on behalf of 12 purchasers even though his remaining 968 purchasers authorized it.”
  • “In 2020, the Napoli firm and Levy Konigsberg defeated efforts by rival attorneys to have them eradicated as co-liaison counsel over allegations like they were being hoping to garner much more dollars for their clientele by necessitating highly-priced ‘bone scans’ to offer proof of guide exposure.”
  • “Napoli argued Cuker violated the Michigan Rules of Specialist Carry out by at the same time symbolizing clients who objected to the settlement and all those who preferred it to move forward. Choose Levy mostly agreed, declaring ‘these positions are irreconcilable.’”
  • “The ethics policies allow for lawyers to characterize clientele who have competing views about a settlement, the decide claimed, but only right after ‘consultations’ in which they are knowledgeable about the conflict and the participation of other purchasers.”
  • “The decide rejected Cuker’s argument the rival law company did not have standing, declaring a motion to disqualify counsel is the correct mechanism for informing the courtroom about alleged moral violations.”

Morgan Lewis Cannot Escape Match Alleging Conflict in Deal Function Led to Consumer Individual bankruptcy” —

  • “A California federal personal bankruptcy decide on Wednesday state-of-the-art statements from the Chapter 7 trustee for a former Morgan, Lewis & Bockius client, which alleged the firm’s twin illustration of the agency and its entrepreneurs in a stock sale established a conflict of fascination that led to a 2019 personal bankruptcy filing.”
  • “Court information show Morgan Lewis was paid out $517,688 in authorized fees for shepherding the offer. But Stadtmueller asserted in court docket the agency and Hector represented the entrepreneurs in the inventory income as effectively, allegedly making a conflict of fascination that was under no circumstances disclosed to the parties.”
  • “As for the second lead to for action, which alleges breach of duty of loyalty, Latham found that they represented the owners, ‘whose pursuits were being materially adverse to debtor’s.’ As a final result, the judge observed the company was allegedly harmed by the reduction of its legit expectation of loyalty and having to pay $277,848.92 in authorized fees for counseling on the 2nd stock sale.”
  • “‘Principally, debtor sought the cheapest achievable obtain selling price and the owners’ desired the highest. But in spite of the conflict, defendants unsuccessful to disclose the dual illustration or attain possibly debtor’s or the owners’ knowledgeable consent,’ Latham stated. ‘So defendants breached their obligation.’”


Supply url