1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Averting immediate showdown, chief justice…

U.S. Supreme Court

Averting immediate showdown, chief justice pauses judge’s deadline for US to restore foreign-aid funds

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 27, 2025, 10:36 am CST

The U.S. government doesn’t have to comply with a federal judge’s Wednesday night deadline to restore foreign-aid funds after Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay in the matter.

Roberts issued the temporary stay late Wednesday in two consolidated lawsuits challenging a 90-day freeze in funding for foreign assistance programs. A plaintiff in one of the suits is the ABA, which had “tens of millions of dollars” in federal funding frozen for foreign rule of law and human rights programs, its suit said.

The Washington Post, Reuters, NBC News, Law.com, SCOTUSblog and the New York Times are among the publications with coverage.

Plaintiffs in the suit consolidated with the ABA’s alleged Feb. 19 that government defendants showed “brazen defiance” of a Feb. 13 temporary restraining order requiring restoration of funding.

U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali of the District of Columbia issued the Feb. 13 TRO. On Feb. 25, Ali issued a bench ruling setting the deadline at 11:59 p.m. Feb. 26 for compliance with his order requiring payment on completed contracts. The U.S. government immediately appealed.

Amir’s order appears to contemplate the immediate outlay of nearly $2 billion, according to the stay request filed with the Supreme Court by Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris.

The government is committed to paying legitimate claims for work, and it is “undertaking significant efforts” toward that end, Harris said.

“What the government cannot do,” Harris wrote, “is pay arbitrarily determined demands on an arbitrary timeline of the district court’s choosing or according to extra-contractual rules that the court has devised. That mandate creates an untenable payment plan at odds with the president’s obligations under Article II to protect the integrity of the federal fisc and make appropriate judgments about foreign aid.”

The stay request argued that the suits amount to claims for breach of contract that should be heard by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The cases are U.S. Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Trump v. Global Health Council.

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.

Ari Kaplan recently spoke with Shashank Pande and Rachita Maker, the co-founders of Ekamm8, a new forward-thinking legal innovation and consulting company.

They discussed how technology is transforming traditional legal practices, ways that Ekamm8’s agentic artificial intelligence services are revolutionizing contract management and compliance, how leaders in legal should encourage technology adoption, and where innovation in the legal industry is headed.

Ari Kaplan: Tell us about your background and the genesis of Ekamm8.

Rachita Maker: I have spent about 25 years in the legal services outsourcing and consulting industry. I’ve worked with organizations like Pangea3, as one of the founding team members, Thomson Reuters and EY. I’ve also worked with Integreon, where I managed over a thousand legal and nonlegal professionals; Tata Communications as their global head of legal operations; and DWF, a U.K.-headquartered law firm, where I was the global head of legal operations, technology and consulting. While Shashank and I were at DWF, we discussed how clients’ needs were changing with the emergence of new technology, which is when we first considered the idea of Ekamm8. The philosophy of Ekamm8 is something that encapsulates both tradition and modernity. It comes from the ancient Indian language Sanskrit. Ekamm means one, and one denotes unity, leadership and new beginnings. Eight denotes infinity. So we believe in this world of technology and artificial intelligence, our clients have infinite possibilities while looking at a problem. Ekamm8 is that one guiding light that helps them unlock infinite solutions, find a solution that is fit for purpose for them, implement it and promote adoption. When we call ourselves a legal innovation and consulting firm, there are four primary services that we focus on, which include legal operations consulting, setup and optimization; legal technology implementation, primarily partnering with other CLM companies as partners; agentic AI-led managed services; and AI upskilling and training. As we grow the company, I am sure it will see its own evolution.

Ari Kaplan: Tell us about your background and how Ekamm8 differs from other legal consultancies.

Shashank Pande: I have over two decades of leadership experience in legal, technology, business development and strategic sales. I am passionate about innovation, enhancing legal operations through technology, and identifying AI-driven solutions to improve efficiency and deliver client results. I have had the privilege of working with legal services providers and a law firm, where I have led global teams to develop strategic solutions for Fortune 500 clients. Ekamm8 differs from other providers in legal in four principal ways. In the era of constant change, the first part is Ekamm8’s philosophy, which signifies the intersection of fresh perspectives and boundless possibilities in legal and underlying sectors using technology. The second part is the integration of advanced technology. Ekamm8 stands out for its commitment to using cutting-edge technology that will help optimize operations, offering clients access to the latest tools and innovations, including AI-powered solutions and agentic AI automation. The third is a customized approach because each client is unique, and we need to tailor our services to meet their specific requirements. This personalized approach ensures the client receives the targeted support and strategic guidance it needs. The fourth is execution, as Ekamm8 focuses on helping clients achieve tangible results. We measure success based on the positive impact on clients’ business.

Ari Kaplan: How do you see technology transforming legal practices, and how will Ekamm8 help legal teams navigate that shift?

Rachita Maker: Technology has been transforming for many years, but previously, it was used on the back end. That is where alternative legal services providers were using it. Technology has moved to the front end and is mainstream. There has been a huge shift in the last three to four years, especially in the past two, with generative AI’s emergence. The change of interest to agentic AI has been even faster. I don’t know what’s next, but it will probably come in the next six months. It’s a fascinating time, and I am excited about what’s coming.

Ari Kaplan: How are your agentic AI services transforming contract management and compliance for legal professionals?

Shashank Pande: Agentic AI is a type of artificial intelligence that can make decisions and take actions autonomously while adapting to changing situations. It could be one AI agent or multiple agents working to complete complex tasks. Clients are coming to Ekamm8 with their unique requirements and challenges that their teams are facing. Our team of experts then customizes agentic AI services for them while always ensuring that the controls are with the humans, which is very important in legal. Agentic AI solutions deliver a consistent output within the trained framework that the client has shared with us or that we develop with the client. It also mitigates errors because of the limited human engagement. And it enables teams to scale and empower quicker turnaround. We are able to scale agentic AI services instantly. You no longer need to spend weeks hiring, training and recruiting talent for specific projects. You can deliver results around the clock, giving clients the flexibility to operate efficiently across various time zones.

Ari Kaplan: How has the law firm’s view of technology changed over the past few years, and what opportunities does that present?

Rachita Maker: Technology has come to the front end, and I think COVID did us some good regarding technology acceptance. Generative AI has been one of the most widely accepted applications because it is easy to use, does not require extensive training, and plugs into your existing workflow. That is how we are approaching innovation with clients. We do not want to trigger change management fatigue, which can lead to adoption failure. Technology has become much easier to use, and we are all using it in our daily lives. We want to promote a similar level of comfort with technology, so agentic AI agents should be seamlessly integrated into Outlook, Word, Teams and other standard tools, reducing the need to navigate out of an existing workflow. The influx of Generation Z professionals into the workforce accelerates these changes because they are comfortable with tools that improve and enhance their work. Clients expect their outside law firms to use a modern suite of technologies. Standard RFPs include questions about that portfolio when selecting law firms.

Ari Kaplan: How has Ekamm8 tailored its approach to suit the unique needs of different legal teams?

Shashank Pande: Ekamm8 tailors its approach to the unique needs of its clients through a combination of focused, personalized service provided by a team of legal and business experts. Every employee understands how to align business and legal strategies. Ekamm8 conducts tailored assessments, interviews and workshops to understand each client’s pain points and technology maturity level. When selecting a technology for an organization and a project, it has to be fit for purpose. It should be able to solve the problem at issue and work into the future, as well. It is crucial to develop customer-centric strategies because not all clients are the same, so their needs differ. In legal operations, for example, we break down high-level business goals into specific legal outputs that create measurable outcomes that the GC or the legal team can favorably report to enterprise leaders. We also develop clear legal roadmaps for different departments and identify technology or processes that allow the legal team to handle more requests without additional resources. We strive to deliver tangible results to the clients and recognize that the approach may differ for each.

Ari Kaplan: How should leaders in legal encourage technology adoption?

Rachita Maker: Leaders have a responsibility and an obligation to use technology themselves. Gen Z does not need any encouragement. Technology is changing so fast, and it is almost impossible to keep up, but I think leaders in law need to be ready and willing to take some calculated risks. An initiative may fail, but that should not be a reason to avoid trying something new while keeping your organizational guardrails in mind and ensuring that you have governance protocols. There is no 100% solution. All available technologies enable humans to do their work more efficiently. Even autonomous agentic AI decision-making is based on human judgment. We do not want artificial intelligence making independent decisions, but you should have some risk appetite in leadership.

Ari Kaplan: How do you see innovation in legal evolving?

Shashank Pande: We have seen a significant upward trajectory in the last few years, driven mainly by changing client demands, technological advancements and regulatory landscape shifts. We have also seen considerable investment post-COVID, so the legal tech ecosystem has expanded. The structure of law firms has changed, with a chief innovation officer often providing insight and strategy on driving innovation to executive leaders. Innovation in law is about simultaneously adopting new technologies, changing how legal services are delivered, and improving how legal professionals work. Finally, data is becoming more complex, and advanced tools are central to effectively leveraging that information.

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. Penn Law is quicker to discipline whites…

Law Professors

Penn Law is quicker to discipline whites than minorities, controversial prof alleges in lawsuit

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 21, 2025, 12:29 pm CST

The University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School is facing a lawsuit alleging that the school violated First Amendment principles and anti-discrimination laws when it disciplined a professor for her controversial remarks.

Tenured law professor Amy Wax filed the Jan. 16 suit in federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, report Reuters, Law.com and Law360.

The law school had suspended Wax with half pay and full benefits for the 2025-2026 school year because of alleged “discriminatory and disparaging statements.” She also lost her named chair position and summer pay “in perpetuity.”

Wax’s alleged controversial comments included assertions that Black law students rarely graduate in the top half of their class and warnings about dominance by the “Asian elite” and the loss of bourgeois culture.

Wax’s suit says the school’s disciplinary proceedings against her are “grossly deficient” and “kangaroo-court-like.”

The school’s speech policy “discriminates based not only on the content of speech but also the racial identity of the speaker,” the suit says.

Professors like herself who are white or Jewish are far more likely to be disciplined for their speech than speakers who are racial minorities, the suit claims.

In addition, the suit says, “some races may not be criticized while other racial or ethnic groups can be—and routinely are—subjected to virulently racist speech without consequence.”

As an illustration, the suit says, the school declined to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a male lecturer who created a cartoon labeled “the Anti-Semite” that depicted three Jewish people drinking glasses of blood labeled “Gaza.” The school did criticize the lecturer, however.

The speech policy also punishes speech based on harm, which means that the school punishes speech based on disapproval and emotional reaction to statements, the suit says. That violates the school’s contractual promise to abide by First Amendment principles, according to the suit.

The suit asks the court to ban discipline against Wax and future enforcement of the speech policy, to declare that the policy violates anti-discrimination laws and the First Amendment, and to award damages.

The suit alleges breach of contract, violation of anti-discrimination laws, and false light invasion of privacy for alleged “cherry-picked” depictions of Wax’s speech that cast her as a “virulent racist.” The suit also reserves the right to sue for violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act for the school’s alleged refusal to delay disciplinary proceedings during her cancer treatments.

The university declined to comment when contacted by Law.com, Reuters and Law360.

The case is Wax v. University of Pennsylvania. Wax is represented by Holtzman Vogel.

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

I have always been interested in mistakes, also known as errors, blunders or, in my best legalese, boo-boos.

I am especially interested in historical iconic mistakes. I just read that the city of Bologna, Italy, has two towers, “le due torri,” both closed to visitors because they also are now leaning. Welcome to Pisa II. What gives?

I visualize the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Surely, it would not take legendary architect Frank Lloyd Wright to notice that it was not rising according to plan. None of us would allow our houses to be built like that without at least emailing the builder at one point and saying, “I don’t know. When you get a chance, please drop by and have a look.”

I Googled to see if anybody had ever sued but saw nothing even remotely resembling The Municipality of Pisa v. the Tower Pros. Then again, maybe there actually was a lawsuit along these lines, perhaps unreported. I imagine the legal decision emanating from some district court judge might look as follows.

Justice Alto:

This is an action for breach of contract by the city-state of Pisa (“the plaintiff) against the Tower Pros, Inc. (“the contractor”).

Facts

In or about the year 1173, the plaintiff hired the contractor to construct a large tower about eight stories in height in Pisa’s main square next to the cattedrale. It was a term of the contract that the tower be of good workmanship and be fully functional, as a campanile, i.e., a bell tower, within one year. The contractor’s principal, Mario di Genoa, assured the plaintiff that the job would be completed in one year “as sure as the world was flat.” The city’s eager mayor, Paolo Pisano, proudly announced at the groundbreaking ceremony, “This tower will be great for our economy, attracting thousands of visitors annually.”

Unfortunately, the tower was not completed until 1372. Even worse, rather than being straight, it ended up leaning about 5 degrees—or about 4.5 meters—off perpendicular.

The court heard from a number of witnesses and also considered evidence from depositions and other writings from people no longer around.

I note that His Worship Paolo Pisano noticed after about year one that construction consisted only of the digging of a few spades of earth. He sent a messenger to di Genoa querying the apparent slow rate of construction. Di Genoa’s response was that he was busy doing some minor renovations at the Coliseum in Rome, and he would resume working on the tower in Pisa on the following Tuesday.

The two main issues in this case are delay in completion of the work and quality of workmanship.

Delay

The contractor argues that any delays were not the company’s fault.

It claims that its chief architect, Antonio Grande, suffered a nasty accident as he fell off the scaffolding, resulting in major delays. It was not an uncommon occurrence for architects to fall off scaffolding. But the court notes from the archival records that at that point, the scaffolding was only about 1 meter high. I reject the argument that for years the architect was unable to resume his duties due to an alleged disability of post-traumatic stress disorder brought on by a fear of heights. I find this argument to be a crock of bologna.

The defendant further pleads that the construction project was hampered by frequent wars between the city- states, including Siena, Lucca and Firenze. It alleges that there was no sense in trying to build a tower only to have some hordes come by and knock it over.

In my view, the war excuse is mere speculation. True, workers were in short supply due to being conscripted, but I find the contractor did not do enough to address the problems. In fact, about 70 years before completing construction, it placed a sign at the tower’s entrance reading, “Not hiring now.”

The contractor further pleads that the project suffered delays due to the Great Plague. Its current principal claims that many of its workers refused to show up for work. He argues that the head of the mason’s guild, Mauricio di Milano said, “No way my men are going near that tower. Did you see those black blotches on the foreman’s face?”

I take judicial notice that hardly a century goes by in Europe without the continent being visited by a plague. In one century alone, we all got hit with many strains of Bubonic, including Alpha, Beta and the most severe, Parmigiana.

I accept the plague as a reason to cut some slack for the defendant taking a bit more time than one year to complete the project.

Which gets us to the problem of the leaning tower.

Workmanship

The plaintiff alleges that the tower is off perpendicular by 5 degrees. It says thousands of people have been flocking to Pisa in the past few years, and they all laugh at and ridicule the tower. The mayor says he has received dozens of letters from people offering to sell his city the Venetian Rialto Bridge.

The defendant argues that the plaintiff condoned the tower’s looks, taking about 200 years to start this court action. It testified that after the tower was about two stories high, it leaned a bit, resulting in the designated bell ringer, Marco de Medici to say, “Hey, I’m not climbing up this thing until you straighten it out.”

The mayor and his councilmen claimed they would look at the tower under construction occasionally when they came out of the neighboring tavern, and it looked straight to them.

Regardless of whether there was some condonation, the defendant argues that any claims are barred given the expiry of limitation periods. Section 3 of the Limitations Act notes:

“Parties have two years to initiate any claims for road accidents, medical malpractice and construction of faulty towers.”

I find that the plaintiff is caught by this statute because it was dilatory in commencing this action.

The case is dismissed. Counsel have 14 days to provide written argument for legal costs. Please do hurry; the courts may close down because there is a rumor that we are about to be attacked by the Duke of Verona. A plague on him.

---

Marcel Strigberger, after 40-plus years of practicing civil litigation in the Toronto area, closed his law office and decided to continue his humor writing and speaking passions. His latest book is First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe. Visit MarcelsHumour.com, and follow him at @MarcelsHumour on X, formerly known as Twitter.

---

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. Dentons, Boies Schiller call lawsuit claims…

Law Firms

Dentons, Boies Schiller call lawsuit claims against them ‘literally incoherent’ and ‘utterly implausible’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 5, 2024, 3:27 pm CST

Dentons and Boies Schiller Flexner are asking a New York City federal judge to toss a racketeering lawsuit against them in legal briefs that deride the allegations by its former clients as “literally incoherent” and “utterly implausible.”

Law360 and Reuters have coverage of the law firms’ briefs seeking dismissal (here and here), which were filed Oct. 31.

Dentons said former clients Frank Corsini and his companies had stiffed Dentons on $1.9 million in legal fees, and contrary to the suit allegations, it was the “plaintiffs themselves who have long been unjustly enriched.”

Boies Schiller said it also received no fees from the plaintiffs because its representation was on a contingency basis in an ultimately unsuccessful arbitration before a panel of the International Chamber of Commerce. The plaintiffs “received the benefit of first-class counsel,” Boies Schiller argued, “without having to pay a dime.”

The $300 million suit by Corsini and two of his companies had alleged that Dentons and Boies Schiller ignored “red flags” suggesting that his contract to develop a power plant in Senegal, a country in West Africa, was invalid. The firms then schemed to generate legal fees, he said in the April suit.

Dentons had represented Corsini in negotiations with Senegal’s energy supplier Senelec. The contract signed by a Senelec representative was invalid because it was not approved by Senelec’s board, Corsini said. He also claimed that Boies Schiller failed to verify whether the contract was valid before the arbitration.

Corsini alleged that the firms and several attorneys violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by seeking to present false testimony about the invalid contract to the arbitration tribunal. He also alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

Dentons responded that the plaintiffs’ claims had “fatal flaws,” and their narrative was “utterly implausible.” Even though a Dentons partner provided testimony that supported the position of Corsini’s companies in the arbitration, the plaintiffs manufactured “a laundry list of absurd allegations, all premised on conclusory buzzwords without foundation,” Dentons said.

Boies Schiller said the plaintiffs’ claims “ignore controlling law and are devoid of any particularized allegations of how they were supposedly defrauded. More fundamentally, plaintiffs’ claims are literally incoherent: They seek (astronomical) damages based on the dismissal of a prior arbitration claim in which BSF represented them on contingency and which plaintiffs now allege never had merit in the first place.”

Dentons said it would be seeking sanctions in a future motion.

Paul Amandio Batista, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, commented on the dismissal arguments in an email to Law360.

“I look forward to the day when jurors hear evidence at trial about the misconduct of these two major firms,” he said. “Jurors have a refreshing ability to understand reality, and the reality here is that two immense law firms abused Mr. Corsini.”

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is Corsini v. Dentons.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Your lawsuit against X is required to be…

Contracts

Your lawsuit against X is required to be filed in Texas, according to new terms of service

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 23, 2024, 9:11 am CDT

Lawsuits filed against X, formerly known as Twitter, have to be filed in federal court for the Northern District of Texas or in state court in the state’s Tarrant County, according to the social media company’s new terms of service.

X has moved its headquarters from San Francisco to Bastrop, Texas, Reuters reports. That’s within the federal court in the Western District of Texas, which “has far fewer Republican-appointed judges than the Northern District” of Texas, where federal suits must be filed, according to the wire service.

The Northern District of Texas is favored by conservative litigants challenging Biden administration policies, Reuters points out. The terms of service take effect Nov. 15.

The Northern District of Texas includes U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, whose financial reports for 2023 showed that he invested between $15,000 and $50,000 in the stock of Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk’s electric vehicle company Tesla, report NPR and Law360. O’Connor is presiding in Musk’s defamation suit against the liberal group Media Matters for America, a nonprofit watchdog journalism organization, which alleged that X placed advertising next to neo-Nazi content.

O’Connor has issued “pro-Musk ruling after pro-Musk ruling” in the Media Matters for America suit, according to NPR. In one decision, O’Connor ordered Media Matters for America to turn over its donor lists, Law360 reported. That decision has been stayed pending appeal.

O’Connor is an appointee of former President George W. Bush.

Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at the Vanderbilt Law School, told Ars Technica that terms of service requiring suits to be filed in specific courts are usually enforced.

“There might be an argument that there was no consent to the new terms, but if you have to click on something at some point acknowledging you read the new terms, consent will probably be found,” Fitzpatrick told the publication in an email.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 4th Circuit upholds $1M sanction for law…

Trials & Litigation

4th Circuit upholds $1M sanction for law firm that tried to ‘sabotage’ federal court’s authority

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 29, 2024, 3:50 pm CDT

A federal judge had inherent power to impose a $1.05 million sanction against a Maryland law firm for asking state courts to order an end to U.S. district court litigation, a federal appeals court ruled last week.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, affirmed the sanction against Napoli Law, which was accused of breaching a contract to share attorney fees promised in a referral deal. Napoli Law had filed lawsuits in two New York state courts that sought an order for the plaintiff, the Keyes Law Firm, to dismiss the federal case.

“District courts are not powerless to act in the face of contumacious conduct so expressly designed to undercut, and even sabotage, their adjudicative authority,” the 4th Circuit said in an Oct. 24 opinion by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan.

Napoli Law had filed the state court suits after the district court in Maryland rejected its motion to dismiss the fee case.

“In every practical sense,” Wilkinson said, “Napoli asked a state court in New York to overrule a federal district court in Maryland. It is hard to imagine a more flagrant challenge to the district court’s authority or a more obvious spur to litigation hither and yon.”

The 4th Circuit rejected Napoli Law’s argument that federal courts only have power to sanction conduct outside the courtroom when it is in direct defiance of a court order.

“To ask a district court to foresee and expressly prohibit through court order every conceivable abuse of process is to ask it to chase its tail,” Wilkinson wrote. “Litigation is complicated enough as it is. District courts should not have to wage a sprawling, three-front war to defend their rightful role.”

Law360 and the Maryland Daily Record have coverage of the decision.

The sanction against Napoli Law followed a December 2019 verdict of more than $861,000 for the Keyes Law Firm. It also followed a previous sanction of nearly $317,000 against Napoli Law for defiance of discovery orders.

The second sanction was for the state court suits and “other bad-faith misconduct,” the appeals court said. “The full list of Napoli’s sanctioned misconduct is long and troubling. It included repeated defiance of court orders, frivolous motions, and last-minute document dumps, to name just a few examples.”

Lawyer Paul J. Napoli formed Napoli Law after the breakup of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, according to Law360. The suit by the Keyes Law Firm had claimed that the prior firm violated fee-sharing agreements for referrals of asbestos cases. The Keyes Law Firm’s suit named 17 defendants alleged to be alter egos of the original firm and lawyer Napoli, according to Law360.

Marc Bern, a former Napoli Bern name partner, settled the case and was dropped from the Keyes Law Firm suit.

In a statement to Law360, lawyer Napoli said Napoli Law and Napoli Bern are distinct entities. The appeals court disregarded the distinction and overlooked the fact that many of the underlying cases have concluded through settlement or dismissal, he said.

“Keyes consistently held the misconception that there were still tens of millions in fees outstanding, despite having already received millions, a view the jury ultimately sided with us on,” Napoli said. “In the end, it became evident that we had prevailed in the underlying case. The firm is evaluating further briefing to remedy these misconceptions.”

Louis Malick of the Keyes Law Firm told the Maryland Daily Record that the firm is pleased with the 4th Circuit’s decision.

“It sends a strong message to certain members of the profession that the sort of tactics employed in this case will not be tolerated and that district judges have ample authority to sanction misconduct,” Malick told the Maryland Daily Record in an email.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. With attorney fees, Gibson Dunn must pay…

Law Firms

With attorney fees, Gibson Dunn must pay over $725K to ex-partner who had earned $60M

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 19, 2024, 9:57 am CDT

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has agreed to pay a former partner more than $140,000 in attorney fees unless the amount is overturned in an appeal of his much higher arbitration award.

Former partner Mark A. Perry, who left Gibson Dunn to co-chair the appellate practice at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, has been awarded more than $725,000 in all: $557,371 in retirement benefits, $27,502 in interest and $140,678 in attorney fees.

Law360 and Reuters have coverage of the Sept. 13 order by Judge Kevin C. Brazile of Los Angeles, which granted attorney fees based on the parties’ stipulation.

Perry left Gibson Dunn in 2022 after spending nearly 28 years at the law firm.

The fee award follows an arbitrator’s determination that Perry was entitled to retirement payments when he stops competing with Gibson Dunn. The firm had maintained that Perry wasn’t entitled to retirement payments because he had resigned, rather than retired.

Even if Perry was retired, Gibson Dunn said, he wasn’t entitled to retirement payments under the partnership agreement because he competed with Gibson Dunn.

Brazile confirmed the arbitration award in a June decision. He ruled for the firm, however, in a motion to seal portions of the partnership agreement and other sensitive information. But Brazile said there was no basis to seal “supposed ‘private’ information about Perry,” including his career earnings.

The earnings amounted to $60 million. Perry also had a “lucrative” 401(k), Brazile said.

Gibson Dunn has filed notice of appeal, Law360 reports.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer mistakenly filed ‘verbatim copy’ of…

Trials & Litigation

Lawyer mistakenly filed ‘verbatim copy’ of opponent’s brief, leading to loss for Romantics band member

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 5, 2024, 8:20 am CST

A trial court did not abuse its discretion when it required a member of the rock band the Romantics to pay triple damages after his new attorney filed a “verbatim copy” of the opponent’s brief by mistake, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The appeals court ruled against the Romantics guitarist Mike Skill in a lawsuit alleging that he wrongly diverted royalty payments to himself.

Law360 has coverage.

The trial judge had ordered Skill to pay triple damages of more than $232,300, as requested by the plaintiffs in their motion for summary disposition. The appeals court affirmed in a Feb. 29 unpublished opinion.

Skill co-wrote the song “What I Like About You,” according to Law360.

Skill’s lawyer intended to file an opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition, the appeals court said. Instead, the June 2022 brief was a cut-and-paste of the plaintiff’s brief in support of summary disposition, signed by Skill’s lawyer, who was not named in the opinion.

The new attorney said a paralegal had filed the wrong brief. It was filed on the extended deadline day for a response to the summary disposition request. Skill’s lawyer tried to file an amended brief the next day, but the trial judge apparently rejected it.

The judge granted summary disposition to the two plaintiffs—a company formed to manage business affairs for the band known as Master Beat Inc. and fellow band member Walter Palamarchuk, who goes by the stage name Wally Palmar.

The trial court reasoned that it could reject the new brief and award summary disposition to the plaintiffs based on timely filings before the court. The trial judge also said evidence established Skill’s liability for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

Palamarchuk was president of Master Beat, and Skill was secretary-treasurer. The company had contractual agreements requiring the payment of royalties to Master Beat, which would then distribute royalties to past and present band members under various contractual agreements.

Skill thought that he was entitled to royalties without the money first passing through Master Beat, and he took steps to divert royalties to himself in late 2020, the suit alleged.

There is some evidence, the appeals court said, that Skill apparently received about $26,700 in royalties directly from Sony Music Publishing and $30,000 in royalty payments from K-Tel International before Master Beat became aware of it. The evidence, however, isn’t entirely clear from the record, the appeals court said. There is also some evidence that Skill withdrew $20,000 from a bank account belonging to Master Beat in July 2021, thinking that he was entitled to the money.

The lawyer who filed the wrong brief had taken over in May 2022 from a previous lawyer who sought to withdraw on the alleged ground that Skill had not paid his legal bills. The new lawyer blamed the filing mistake on the short time frame between the time that she came aboard and the due date for the response, on her own illness as the deadline approached, and on her paralegal’s failure to file the brief prepared by Skill’s former lawyer as instructed.

On the merits, Skill’s lawyer argued that he could not convert funds that already belonged to him.

“Under these circumstances,” the appeals court said, “defendant has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to permit the filing of a corrected brief after the deadline imposed by the scheduling order had passed. … Furthermore, on the record before the trial court in light of the lack of a properly and timely filed responsive brief, the trial court did not err by granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary disposition.”