Law firm faces call to disgorge fee after judge's resignation, Latham says scammers impersonating partner in email scheme, and more ?
Reuters Legal
From the courts to law firms, we bring you the latest legal news. Subscribe to our newsletters: https://bit.ly/3nhgllA
?? Good morning from The Legal File! Here are today's top legal stories:
Texas law firm Jackson Walker should disgorge more than $860,000 in fees earned for representing 4E Brands, a bankrupt maker of hand sanitizer, for failing to disclose that former partner Elizabeth Freeman was in a romantic relationship with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David Jones who was overseeing the case, a creditor said in a court filing.
The estate of Joshua Maestas, who died after ingesting?the brand’s hand sanitizer, argued in a filing that Jackson Walker should repay all of its fees for representing the company in Jones' Houston court. The estate is a creditor pursuing wrongful death claims against 4E.
Jones announced his resignation on Oct. 15?after publicly acknowledging?he had been living for years with Freeman, who was a partner at Jackson Walker until December.
Approval of Jackson Walker's fees have been delayed over questions about Freeman’s role in other cases, but the 4E Brands case appears to be the first in which a creditor has called for disgorgement of the firm's fees.
The 4E creditor's filing said that Jackson Walker knew about the relationship at least since March 2021, nearly a year before 4E Brands filed for bankruptcy.
Freeman continued to have ties to the firm after starting her own law firm in December.
Jackson Walker declined to comment. The firm has previously said that it instructed Freeman not to work or bill on any of Jones cases after learning about allegations of the relationship in March 2021.
Jones did not respond to a request for comment. Freeman declined to comment.
Law firms and other professionals employed by debtors are required under a bankruptcy rule to publicly list potential connections so that parties can assess if there might be conflicts of interest.
The conflict has caused the DOJ's?bankruptcy watchdog?to seek?further review of Jackson Walker?and Freeman's roles in the GWG Holdings case, as well as that of prison healthcare provider Tehum Care.
In the 4E Brands case, Jones approved $868,448.81 in fees for work Jackson Walker performed between February 2022, when the company filed for bankruptcy, and October 2022, when the main bankruptcy case concluded. Freeman did not bill for work on the case.
Read more:
International law firm Latham & Watkins has asked for a federal court order to stop unidentified cyber criminals from using domain names similar to its own, intended to defraud clients and others.
In a?lawsuit filed November 1?in Alexandria, Virginia, federal court, Latham said scammers are using dozens of misleading domain names in emails impersonating Alexandra Bigot, a Paris-based Latham partner, hoping to dupe people into sending money to pay off falsified invoices.
The firm said at least 50 third parties were contacted in the scam. Latham asked the court to transfer the domain names to the firm.
A spokesperson for the firm declined to comment. Bigot did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Scam emails sent from "abusive domain names" included the partner's name, the firm's real address and website, and its trademark, Latham said.
Cyber criminals in recent years have used other prominent law firm names, including Debevoise & Plimpton and DLA Piper, for similar cyber scams. Debevoise in a?December 2021?lawsuit said the owners of "debevoise-law.com" and "debevoise-laws.com" were sending emails using names of actual Debevoise attorneys as part of a phishing campaign.
Debevoise obtained a preliminary injunction days later and?won a default judgment?in August 2022.
Tech and information security news outlets?reported?in November 2022 that a group called Crimson Kingsnake began impersonating several international law firms, including Clifford Chance, Dentons and Kirkland & Ellis, in emails fraudulently seeking funds.
Read more:
领英推荐
When law professor Sean Kammer's friends told him they were skeptical about the seriousness of his upcoming course focused on Taylor Swift at the University of South Dakota, it was his chance to do what any Swiftie would do: Shake it off.
“I understand this sounds ridiculous, at least at first glance,” said Kammer, a self-avowed Swiftie. “But it’s not.”
Kammer's course, The Taylor Swift Effect, planned for the spring semester looks to be the first law school class based on the sequined musical icon.
After attending a Swift concert in Minneapolis in June, Kammer said he was inspired to develop the writing-intensive class, available to second-and third-year law students. The course will look at the musician’s interactions with the law, such as her rerecording of six albums and related copyright issue, Kammer said.
Pop culture-focused law classes are not uncommon, and they can create a public relations buzz for the schools that offer them.
The gritty television show “The Wire” inspired a number of criminal law-focused classes over the years, and the University of Virginia School of Law in 2022?offered a class?on corporate law based on the show "Succession.”
Kammer, who also teaches legal history, said he plans to use certain songs to delve into the interpretation of lyrics and legal texts, and into the benefits and drawbacks of approaches such as originalism, evolutionism, and textualism.
“If we have students who are passionate about Taylor Swift — and we do — I thought that could be a useful lens to get them excited about certain topics they might not normally be interested in,” Kammer said.
Read more:
Hawaii's highest court has allowed a lawsuit by Honolulu accusing fossil fuel companies, including Chevron Corp, Exxon Mobil Corp and Shell Plc, of deceiving the public about climate change, to go ahead to trial.
In a?unanimous opinion?on November 1, the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected the companies' argument that the lawsuit seeks to regulate emissions or interstate commerce, powers reserved for the federal government.
It said the case instead focused on allegedly misleading statements the companies made, which Honolulu claims led to climate change-caused property and infrastructure damage.
"This case concerns torts committed in Hawaii that caused alleged injuries in Hawaii," Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald wrote for the court.
He rejected the companies' argument that the federal Clean Air Act overrides Honolulu's claims under state law, saying that the federal law did not "occupy the entire field of emissions regulation" or directly conflict with state law.
"We decline to unduly limit Hawaii's ability to use its police powers to protect its citizens from alleged deceptive marketing," the judge wrote.
"This is a good day for advancing our efforts to help Honolulu survive the costs and consequences of the climate crisis," Matthew Gonser, executive director of Honolulu's Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency, said in a statement.
Chevron said in a statement that it disagreed with the decision.
"Under our federal constitutional structure, a Hawaiian court applying Hawaiian law is not the appropriate authority to reshape interstate and international activities in a major sector of the economy," the company said.
"We do not believe the courtroom is the right venue to address climate change," Shell said in a statement.
Three other defendants, BP, Sunoco and ConocoPhillips, declined to comment. Exxon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Read more:
?? That's all for today, thank you for reading?The Legal File!
For more legal industry news, read and?subscribe?to The Daily Docket.