“Referral barred based on training relationship with law firm” —
- “A nonprofit that maintains a legal training relationship with a law firm may not refer prospective clients to that firm unless affected prospective clients give informed written consent, the Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel has found.”
- “The panel decided the issue in response to an inquiry from a staff attorney for the nonprofit, which provides pro bono legal representation primarily to domestic violence victims. The inquiring attorney’s employer maintains a business relationship with a law firm, under which the firm’s attorneys have trained the inquiring lawyer for a fee.”
- “The inquiring attorney’s employer intends to craft a referral list of law firms to which prospective clients presenting a conflict of interest may be referred. The inquiring attorney wishes to add the firm to the referral list but is unsure whether doing so would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
- “‘It is the Panel’s opinion that the inquiring attorney may not refer prospective clients presenting a conflict of interest to the Firm unless the parties’ training relationship is terminated or, if it continues, unless affected prospective clients give informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the referral,’ the panel wrote.”
- “The panel noted that the issue turned on whether the inquiring attorney and the firm are ‘associated in a firm’ under the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
- “‘In this case, the Panel finds significant the fact that the training relationship between the inquiring attorney and the Firm involves the regular, direct discussion of the inquiring attorney’s ongoing cases, providing the inquiring attorney with document drafting and hearing preparation assistance as needed (including having a Firm attorney sometimes accompany the inquiring attorney to hearings in a supporting role), and answering the inquiring attorney’s practice questions as they arise. Such routine intermixing of the inquiring attorney’s practice with the Firm’s attorneys — particularly, the sharing of information from the inquiring attorney’s cases — creates substantive connections sufficient in the Panel’s view to constitute a ‘firm’ relationship for the purposes of imputation of conflicts of interest under Rule 1.10,’ the panel stated.”
- “‘Accordingly, prospective clients presenting conflicts of interest for the inquiring attorney will also do so for the Firm, thereby prohibiting referral. … This prohibition may be lifted only under two (2) scenarios. First, the parties may terminate their training relationship, eliminating the facts binding them together as a ‘firm’ under Rule 1.0(c) and obviating the application of Rule 1.10. Second, should the training relationship remain referral is possible if each affected client gives his or her informed consent to the referral, confirmed in writing,’ the panel concluded.”
- “The three-page decision is Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 2025-7, Lawyers Weekly No. 75-011-25. “
“Florida Judge Denies Bid To DQ Boies Schiller In Fee Suit” —
- “A Florida state court judge on Monday [6/23] denied a bid to disqualify Boies Schiller Flexner LLP in a lawsuit brought by pharmaceutical mass tort companies to block their former counsel from collecting fees after he was dismissed for alleged insufficient representation.”
- “Judge Ariana F. Orshan of 11th Judicial Circuit Court denied the motion to disqualify brought by John H. Ruiz of La Ley Con John H. Ruiz PA, which does business as MSP Recovery Law Firm, after he argued that a Boies Schiller attorney disclosed confidential information about money that was owed while improperly contacting an MSP third-party investor.”
- “Judge Orshan denied the motion in a ruling from the bench, saying that Boies Schiller’s interests were aligned with the MSP entities’ former counsel and that the companies lacked standing, according to Ruiz.”
- “The Coffin defendants represented the plaintiffs between 2017 and 2021 in numerous litigation matters before the firm was fired for alleged substandard legal representation. The representation involved various confidential agreements, including a joint venture agreement with the goal of litigating pharmaceutical and Medicare Secondary Payer Act claims held by the plaintiffs.”
- “Ruiz claimed in this June 6 motion to disqualify that the Coffin defendants, through Boies Schiller and its attorney Sashi Bach, had notified Hazel Partners Holding LLC that they were owed attorney fees and were interfering in a business relationship.”
- “During the hearing before Judge Orshan, Ruiz argued that Coffin ‘learned about every transaction and every deal’ the MSP-related plaintiffs were involved in and that Boies Schiller and Bach improperly used that information to assert a lien. He added that ‘material non-public information’ was disclosed about a public company, in addition to arguing that not only is Coffin not owed any fees, but also that sharing attorney-client confidentiality could violate ethical rules.”
- “‘There’s no way this law firm can represent Coffin and themselves when they know things about [MSP],’ Ruiz said during the hearing, arguing that the conflict can’t be waived. ‘You can’t breach fiduciary duty of loyalty just because a client didn’t pay a fee. A lawyer can’t essentially disregard confidences of their client if there’s a dispute.’”
- “Jason Gonzalez of Lawson Huck Gonzalez PLLC, who is representing the Boies Schiller clients for the purpose of the disqualification motion, told Judge Orshan that there is no confidentiality provision in the joint venture agreement Ruiz referred to. Gonzalez added that the initial 2018 joint venture agreement preceded the nondisclosure agreement that was added months later and that the NDA was prospective, and only lasted one year.”
- “Gonzalez added that his clients had informed consent and that rules don’t preclude Coffin as a co-defendant if he is sued. ‘The confidentiality is waived when Coffin is fired for malpractice,’ Gonzalez said. ‘We can defend ourselves and pursue funds we are owed.’”
- “Judge Orshan told Ruiz that the joint venture agreement appeared to be between his MSP entities and the Coffin Law Firm, saying that the agreement said nothing about confidentiality. Addressing Ruiz, Judge Orshan said, ‘If there is an NDA, am I supposed to legally interpret that as a catch-all? I do believe this is a poorly written NDA.’”
