Sunday, August 13, 2017

Risk News: Fines & DQ




"White & Case hit with record £250k fine for 'reckless' conflict of interest and confidentiality failures" --
  • "White & Case has been fined a record £250,000 by the Solicitors Disciplinary Authority (SDT) for failings around confidentiality and conflicts of interest, with one London partner fined an additional £50,000. The fine, which is the largest ever made by the SDT against a single firm, relates to a 2014 High Court case that saw the firm blocked from acting for Ukrainian client Victor Pinchuk, after it failed to identify a conflict of interest."
  • "An SDT statement said White & Case admitted acting 'recklessly' by allowing work to be carried out without taking adequate steps to ensure there were no conflicts or risks of conflicts, and by agreeing to to take on further work without properly protecting the confidentiality of client information given to the firm."
  • "The SRA did not allege that the firm or Goldberg acted dishonestly and did not pursue allegations of lack of integrity against either Goldberg or White & Case."
"Telecom Co. Seeks Mintz Levin DQ In Patent Dispute" --
  • "Telecommunications equipment company IPS Group on Monday asked a California federal judge to disqualify Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC as opposing counsel in a suit accusing a Milwaukee-based electronic parts supplier of infringing a parking meter patent, saying that the firm is familiar with the company's confidential information."
  • "IPS Group Inc. urged California’s Southern District to disqualify Mintz Levin, saying that the firm has violated its ethical obligations and loyalty and confidentiality duties by appearing in the instant case on behalf of defendants Duncan Solutions Inc. and Duncan Parking Technologies Inc., as well as appearing for the same defendants and CivicSmart Inc. in a related case."
  • "San Diego-based IPS also shot down Mintz Levin’s argument that it doesn’t consider IPS a client and that even if it did, an “engagement letter” excuses it, saying that IPS’ lawyer wrote to the firm in May to follow up on an ongoing project the firm had been handling and that IPS never agreed to waive conflicts involving its intellectual property in the letter."

No comments:

Post a Comment