1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer accused of helping client defraud…

Criminal Justice

Lawyer accused of helping client defraud creditors is acquitted a second time

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 19, 2025, 8:52 am CST

A former Freeborn & Peters lawyer in Illinois has been acquitted of wire fraud a second time in a case stemming from his representation of a neighbor, the owner of a Chicago business that eventually filed for bankruptcy.

Federal jurors acquitted lawyer Edward Lee Filer in a retrial after deliberating a little more than one hour, Law360 reports.

Filer’s lawyer, Ronald Safer, told Law360 that the verdict “is a hard-fought testament to the integrity of Mr. Filer, who was unjustly accused in a case that should never have been brought against him.”

Prosecutors had alleged that Filer schemed to defraud creditors of the business, the Barsanti Woodwork Corp., in two ways, according to an appellate ruling in the case and a Jan. 14 pretrial ruling by a federal judge overseeing the retrial.

First, Filer was accused of helping the Barsanti Woodwork Corp.’s owner obtain control of the company’s secured bank debt at a discount through a nominal purchaser. Second, Filer was accused of engaging in transactions that transferred the Barsanti Woodwork Corp.’s assets to a new company secretly controlled by the company’s owner. The Barsanti Woodwork Corp. then filed for bankruptcy.

In Filer’s first trial, jurors convicted Filer of wire fraud but now-deceased U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber of the Northern District of Illinois granted a judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, a new trial.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago reversed that first acquittal in December 2022. The appeals court held that prosecutors had presented sufficient evidence to support a wire fraud conviction, even though Filer did not profit, and some of his actions were inconsistent with an intent to defraud.

The 7th Circuit said the case should be reassigned to a new judge on remand.

Before the retrial, U.S. District Judge Steven C. Seeger of the Northern District of Illinois found that the government violated Filer’s attorney-client privilege when it obtained information about Filer’s confidential communications with the former general counsel at Freeborn & Peters. The government obtained the information while prepping the former general counsel for testimony, according to a Jan. 31 docket entry.

As a sanction, Seeger barred the former general counsel from testifying and barred evidence about documents withheld from the bankruptcy trustee, according to a Feb. 7 docket entry.

Freeborn & Peters merged with Smith, Gambrell & Russell in 2023. The merged law firm kept the Smith Gambrell name.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Storage company contends it has no obligation…

Trials & Litigation

Storage company contends it has no obligation to sort through client files allegedly left by defunct law firm

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 6, 2025, 9:36 am CST

A records management company is asking a court to declare that it has no obligation to clients of a defunct Pittsburgh law firm that allegedly left more than 7,500 boxes in its warehouse that likely contain numerous client files.

In a Jan. 29 lawsuit, the Access Information Management Corp. said shuttered firm Rothman Gordon is asking the company to deliver the files to clients, even though the Access Information Management Corp. “has no authority whatsoever to relocate, handle, deliver or otherwise provide the files to any person or entity aside from Rothman.”

Indeed, the suit said, rifling through large unlabeled boxes could expose the Access Information Management Corp. to liability.

Law360 has the story on the suit, which also contends that Rothman Gordon owes the storage company more than $91,000 in unpaid bills, an amount that increases daily.

Rothman Gordon stopped operating in October 2024, but it has not filed articles of dissolution and remains obligated to fulfill its contractual obligations, the suit said. The firm allegedly stopped paying storage fees around June 2023.

The initial contract was between the firm and Business Records Management, a company acquired by the Access Information Management Corp. when it was known as Retrievex.

The firm agreed in the contract that it is the owner of the stored records, and that the storage company can’t destroy “useless records” absent written instruction and payment of the “standard published rates,” the suit said.

The Access Information Management Corp. filed the suit in Pennsylvania state court in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

The Access Information Management Corp. is seeking a declaratory judgment regarding its obligations, an injunction requiring Rothman Gordon to take back or destroy the files and to stop telling clients to contact the storage company, and damages of more than $91,000 for the unpaid bills.

Law360 identified the lawyer for Rothman Gordon as Matthew M. Herron of Herron Business Law. He did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal voicemail requesting for comment. Rothman Gordon’s former managing partner, Frank Salpietro, also did not immediately respond to a voicemail message.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Columbia law prof facing probe over campus-protest…

Law Professors

Columbia law prof facing probe over campus-protest comments says firm ‘abruptly’ dropped her as client

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 22, 2024, 3:50 pm CDT

A Columbia Law School professor has said in an ethics complaint a law firm “abandoned” her as a client during a probe of her comments about campus protests “with no notice and no explanation.”

Professor Katherine Franke said she had hired employee-side firm Outten & Golden to represent her in a school investigation of her January comments supporting pro-Palestinian students in an interview with Democracy Now!, an independent news program. She learned that she had been “abruptly” dropped in a July 12 letter, according to an Oct. 16 press release posted last week on X, formerly known as Twitter, along with her ethics complaint.

The Outten & Golden lawyer representing Franke, Kathleen Peratis, resigned in protest.

Reuters, Bloomberg Law and the Columbia Spectator have coverage.

Franke filed the Sept. 12 ethics complaint with an attorney grievance committee in New York. In a letter attached to the complaint, Peratis alleged that Outten & Golden dropped Franke as a client “because they believed that Professor Franke had become politically controversial.”

Adam Klein, managing partner at Outten & Golden, said in a statement the firm did not violate ethics rules, according to the Columbia Spectator. Klein said the firm dropped Franke after deciding that it would not handle employee speech matters related to the Israel-Gaza conflict.

“We did this after much consideration, and with the good of our firm and the well-being of our diverse workforce in mind,” the statement said.

The law school investigation initially stemmed from this comment by Franke: “So many of those Israeli students who come to the Columbia campus are coming right out of their military service and have been known to harass Palestinian and other students on our campus.” The school was investigating whether the comment constituted harassment based on national origin.

In the press release, Franke said firms have an ethical duty of loyalty to their clients after they agree to represent them.

Franke said on X her treatment by Outten & Golden “is part of a larger profession-wide problem, a McCarthy-ite reprisal against anyone who defends the dignity and rights of Palestinians. In job interviews, firms are asking my law students: ‘Are you, or have you ever been, a defender of Palestinians?’”

Klein told the Columbia Spectator that Outten & Golden was representing Franke on a pro bono basis, but the required internal approvals were not secured. Peratis told Bloomberg Law that any allegation that she circumvented firm rules before taking on the case were “absolutely, flatly false.”

Peratis told Bloomberg Law that she continues to represent Franke through the Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer accused of ‘egregious acts of dishonesty,’…

Ethics

Lawyer accused of ‘egregious acts of dishonesty,’ gambling with client cash gets disbarred

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 22, 2024, 11:44 am CDT

A California lawyer has been disbarred after he was accused of misappropriating nearly $117,000 in client money, spending it on gambling and personal expenses, and then lying to state bar officials about having cancer.

Sergio Valdovinos Ramirez of Manhattan Beach, California, who uses Valdovinos as his last name, was disbarred effective Oct. 18, in a Sept. 18 opinion by the California Supreme Court. He was ordered to pay restitution and interest to five clients and to pay a $5,000 sanction to a client security fund.

After ethics charges were filed against him, Valdovinos told the State Bar of California’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel that he had cancer, according to the review department opinion. He told the hearing judge that he was undergoing chemotherapy, and that he was being treated by Dr. Stephen Chang of the City of Hope.

He did not provide promised medical documentation. Investigators were unable to find any doctor by that name at City of Hope.

Valdovinos later said he didn’t present his medical documentation because of privacy concerns.

He also lied to clients about their cases, providing them with checks that were said to be settlement money or a refund, the opinion said. The checks bounced.

“This case is about an attorney’s egregious acts of dishonesty that occurred in his practice and continued through his disciplinary trial,” the review department of the State Bar Court of California—the administrative arm of the California Supreme Court—said in a June 28 opinion recommending disbarment.

Law360, KTLA and the Los Angeles Times via Yahoo News are among the publications with coverage.

Valdovinos had claimed that the hearing judge was biased against him, and she had embarrassed him when she asked whether he intended to raise gambling addiction as a mitigating factor in his ethics case. The question was not unreasonable, the review department said. In a two-year period, Valdovinos had spent $886,535 for gambling chips from the Bicycle Casino and the Commerce Casino.

The opinion detailed alleged misappropriation and misrepresentations.

One client who said she was injured in a car accident paid Valdovinos $4,850, but he never filed a lawsuit on her behalf, the review department said. He used the money for personal expenditures, including payments for restaurants, a gas station and the Bicycle Casino. Valdovinos allegedly told the client that he had filed the suit, but there were court delays because of the COVID-19 pandemic. He later said he settled the suit, according to the opinion.

Valdovinos gave the client four checks said to represent the settlement money, but he stopped payment on the first and had insufficient funds to cover the other three, the opinion said. He also claimed that he had tried to wire the funds, but there were problems. He did provide the client $500, the only money he ever returned to her.

“Valdovinos went to great lengths to give [the client] the false impression that he was making progress on her case and to hide the fact that he had not filed a lawsuit on her behalf, which is evidence that the misrepresentations were intentional,” the review department said.

Valdovinos also provided other clients with checks that bounced, the hearing board said.

“Valdovinos’s misconduct was widespread, covering multiple client matters, and he significantly harmed his clients,” the opinion said.

The review board cited several aggravating factors, including that Valdovinos “lied about the most easily verifiable facts.” His misrepresentations about cancer were “purposeful misrepresentations” to avoid complying with deadlines in the ethics case, the review board said.

“There is nothing in the record to illustrate Valdovinos learned from his misconduct and would not engage in such misconduct again; instead, Valdovinos never showed remorse or accepted responsibility,” the opinion said.

In his closing brief, Valdovinos had argued that the trial counsel’s office had relied heavily “on speculation and innuendos.”

Valdovinos never told one client that her case had settled for $175,000; rather, that was the amount that the client hoped to obtain, Valdovinos said. Her advance fees were used for a private investigator. And he never filed suit because there was no injury, he said.

Another client who cut off contact with Valdovinos “chose not to collect his funds in full,” the brief said. Another client never gave Valdovinos the necessary evidence for his case. In yet another case, Valdovinos worked on the case, using up the entire retainer, Valdovinos said.

Valdovinos was licensed in California in 2017 and had a solo practice. He is a graduate of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.

Valdovinos did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal request for comment sent to an email address on file with the state bar. A phone number listed by the state bar was not in service.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. How this lawyer reacted when client claimed…

Criminal Justice

How this lawyer reacted when client claimed to be Messiah and demanded $25K

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 4, 2024, 9:47 am CDT

A lawyer in Mississippi is grateful that he and his staff members are safe after an agitated client with a gun in his leather bag demanded $25,000.

“We don’t take it for granted that the Lord spared our lives yesterday,” said lawyer Carlos Moore of Grenada, Mississippi, in an interview with WREG.

The client came to Moore’s office with his wife, said he was the Messiah, and said he wouldn’t leave until he received $25,000 in his workers’ compensation case, Moore told the broadcast station.

Moore told the client that he had to call the opposing counsel. Moore left the meeting room, called 911, and texted his staff to remain in their offices.

“I was concerned what he would do when I came back to tell him there would not be a $25,000 check today,” Moore said.

When Moore came back, the client “was going for a gun” in a small leather bag, Moore said. The client’s wife was telling him, “No, you’re not doing this today.” The client replied that the gun wasn’t loaded, and he and his wife continued to bicker over it.

Police and paramedics quickly arrived. The client wasn’t charged because he never threatened harm. Moore plans to withdraw from the man’s case.

Ari Kaplan recently spoke with Jamie Berry, the president of Evolver Legal Services, an e-discovery and litigation support services company.

They discussed how client service has changed with the emergence of generative artificial intelligence, the most common challenges that legal teams face in litigation, and the evolution of the practice of law.

Ari Kaplan: Tell us about your background and your role at Evolver Legal Services.

Jamie Berry: I got my start in e-discovery fresh out of law school in 2001. It was a temporary opportunity in what would later become DLA Piper’s litigation support group. We used summation to code and search medical records for a large class action matter. I became the firm’s litigation support manager and have served in various leadership roles at small and large ALSPs before becoming president of Evolver Legal Solutions, managing the entire business. It’s been a great ride.

Ari Kaplan: What distinguishes Evolver’s approach to e-discovery?

Jamie Berry: Evolver takes a novel approach to e-discovery and legal services in general. It has a Back to the Future style in which our focus and commitment are on creating a client-service-centric partnership, where we strive to drive our clients towards outcomes. In the process, we optimize speed, cost, accuracy and security to drive greater efficiencies. Our differentiator in a crowded marketplace is the wealth of expertise that our team brings to each case, coupled with the company’s white-glove concierge approach of listening to its clients and prioritizing collaboration.

Ari Kaplan: How has client service changed in an era of emerging generative AI?

Jamie Berry: AI has helped client service incorporate validation and collaboration into the engagement. It really makes each matter similar to a car with two steering wheels, where we are driving alongside our clients. They are now empowered to stop or redirect when necessary. While this can create unrealistic expectations for a silver bullet solution, it becomes an iterative process incorporating testing and confirmation to ensure accuracy, similar to the early days of analytics in e-discovery.

Ari Kaplan: What are the most common challenges your clients are facing in litigation?

Jamie Berry: The common challenge is doing more quickly with less, which has been confirmed for over 25 years in this industry. We are rapidly managing more data, new data types, additional security regulations and complex privacy concerns in an era of instant gratification and tighter timelines. We also seem to perpetually lack sufficient funding and human capital. So we must creatively develop solutions to address these needs by being innovative and appropriately deploying the right technology. You must be ready to fail fast, own those failures and pivot. You have to lead with client service and transparency to avoid any impression of using a mysterious black box approach.

Ari Kaplan: How has leadership in legal shifted?

Jamie Berry: The pandemic represented a turning point in leadership, particularly for legal. With a larger remote workforce, finding, maintaining and managing talent has been challenging. Professionals must complete more work quickly while balancing increased caregiver or child care responsibilities. There are also new disciplines to understand, with more professionals working in legal operations and procurement, who have a more influential role in the buying decision. Indeed, with all the M&A we’ve seen over the past few years, executives must speak a board’s language and be able to market a business, rather than market a service.

Ari Kaplan: What skills are most important for your team members today?

Jamie Berry: The soft skills of working with people, communicating effectively and demonstrating the highest levels of client service are crucial. It is vital to understand how to infuse technology into solutions that address the legal ramifications of a matter. Privacy and data security are also skills one must hone to succeed in this market. From a business development standpoint, being flexible and adapting your approach to the objectives of the procurement team is essential.

Ari Kaplan: How do you see the practice of law evolving?

Jamie Berry: More law firms are running like businesses, so lawyers must understand that they are not just service providers or legal experts. They are business owners and need to know how to run an effective and efficient practice, which can only exist with technology. In my class at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, I focus on empowering students to become dynamic litigators and demystifying the use of legal technology to support their clients. Hopefully, we can change the paradigm in legal education to help students hone their practical skills, business acumen and tech awareness.

---

Listen to the complete interview at Reinventing Professionals.

Ari Kaplan regularly interviews leaders in the legal industry and in the broader professional services community to share perspective, highlight transformative change and introduce new technology at his blog and on iTunes.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer who wrote on ethics issues is suspended…

Ethics

Lawyer who wrote on ethics issues is suspended after he is accused of helping client hide assets

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 7, 2024, 12:49 pm CST

An Iowa lawyer has received a two-year suspension for helping a client hide money from creditors and for “furtively” inserting a provision into a custody agreement.

The Iowa Supreme Court suspended 68-year-old lawyer David L. Leitner of Iowa in a Dec. 8 opinion, according to a March 4 story by the Iowa Capital Dispatch.

Leitner had argued that his ethics articles had contributed to the profession and should be taken into account by ethics regulators. The Iowa Supreme Court’s Attorney Disciplinary Board had responded that the assertion is “particularly eyebrow-raising when his misconduct involves financial fraud,” according to the Iowa Capital Dispatch.

The disciplinary board allegations against Leitner were deemed to be admitted because he did not respond to the initial complaint.

The hidden money case involved Leitner’s representation of an Iowa seed dealer who was convicted of bankruptcy fraud in 2007 for hiding assets. Leitner allegedly created a company for the seed dealer in 2013. Leitner made himself the managing member of the company, allowing the seed dealer to send part of his income to the company while hiding it from the government, which was owed about $71,000.

Although Leitner made himself the contact for the seed dealer’s corporation, neither he nor his client converted funds from anyone, the state supreme court acknowledged.

“Moreover, the record does not show that the federal government or any other creditor was actually trying to collect [the seed dealer’s] receivables,” the state supreme court said. “And so the record does not show that the federal government or any other creditor was actually deceived or otherwise hampered in its efforts to collect. At most, the record shows that [the client] and Leitner hoped to deceive any creditors who might
try to collect.”

Leitner was also accused in a second disciplinary count of “furtively” adding a stipulation to a custody agreement. An opposing lawyer had crafted a PDF of the agreement based on terms adopted in a mediation and had sent it to Leitner. Unbeknownst to the opposing lawyer, Leitner added a provision giving his client a “first right of refusal” to care for his minor child whenever his ex-wife couldn’t do so, according to the allegations.

Leitner’s client signed the modified agreement, and it was returned to the opposing counsel. The modified agreement was then filed with the district court.

Other counts in the disciplinary complaint alleged that Leitner violated rules regarding conflicts of interest, contact with represented parties and client trust accounts.

The Iowa Supreme Court cited two aggravating factors. Although Leitner acknowledged trust account issues, he had not taken responsibility “for his worst behavior,” the state supreme court said. He had also made misleading statements about reaching an agreement on a suspension.

In mitigation, Leitner had no disciplinary history. Leitner had also provided pro bono and reduced-fee representation and had accepted appointments for indigent criminal defendants.

A lawyer for Leitner, David L. Brown, did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email requesting comment. The phone number for Leitner’s law office was not taking messages.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Client escapes sanction for lawyer’s refusal…

Trials & Litigation

Client escapes sanction for lawyer’s refusal to appear on camera in Zoom deposition

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 25, 2024, 12:01 pm CST

A client won’t have to pay a sanction of nearly $10,000 for his lawyer’s refusal to appear on camera during a remote deposition, a California appeals court ruled Tuesday.

In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal’s Second Appellate District ruled that the client doesn’t have to pay because a motion to compel the attorney’s on-camera appearance had been withdrawn.

Law360 and the Metropolitan News-Enterprise covered the Jan. 23 opinion.

The lawyer, Jeffrey Katofsky, represented a man alleged to be taking sports bets. The client was subpoenaed by a wife in divorce proceedings who wanted his testimony about thousands of dollars in sports bets said to be placed by her husband, mostly in the last five years of their marriage.

The wife is Shawn Agnone, and her husband, Frank Charles Agnone II, is an award-winning Hollywood producer, according to the Metropolitan News-Enterprise.

The opinion described what happened at the deposition.

Katofsky was in the same room as his client during the deposition. The client appeared on camera, but Katofsky refused to turn on his webcam. The lawyer for Shawn Agnone complained that he wouldn’t be able to see whether Katofsky was “making any visual signs” or “otherwise coaching” his client.

Katofsky referenced the subpoena notice, which required Katofsky and his client to participate in a Zoom deposition “using their own computer equipped with a webcam,and with a stable landline/wired ethernet connection to the internet.”

Katofsky told the opposing lawyer that his computer was equipped with a webcam, “so we complied with your notice,” according to the opinion.

The lawyer for Shawn Agnone ended the deposition. He filed a motion to compel the appearance of Katofsky’s client in accordance with the terms of the deposition notice and sought sanctions against Katofsky and his client.

The wife later notified the judge that she had settled the divorce case with her husband, and she withdrew the motion to compel. The trial judge partly granted the sanction request anyway, ordering Katofsky’s client to pay $9,981.

The appeals court said under the applicable laws, the judge could not impose any sanction because no order had been entered requiring compliance with the subpoena.

Katofsky told the ABA Journal that the appeals court made the right decision. He also says as a lawyer, he doesn’t have to be on camera in a deposition.

“I have no interest in ever being on camera. Ever,” he says.

“No lawyer has to be on camera,” he says. “It’s completely inappropriate to demand it. If they were worried about seeing me, they could have taken the deposition in person.”

Katofsky also says his client is an insurance agent, not a person who takes sports bets.

“He has nothing to do with sports betting at all,” Katofsky says.

The case is Agnone v. Agnone.