DQ News — Soccer Disqualification Play Flagged, “Poached” Paralegal Hire Prods Conflicts Allegation

“Could GM’s Attorneys Be Kicked Off Patent Case for Recent Paralegal Hire?” —

• “A federal judge in Chicago has weighed in on the fate of a patent dispute against General Motors Co. but punted on the question of whether to disqualify the NLJ 500 law firm representing the auto manufacturer in the case.”
• “Beyond claims that GM engaged in ‘anticompetitive efforts’ by patenting several exterior body paneling of its vehicles, the plaintiffs’ attorneys with Irwin IP accuse opposing counsel of poaching one of its key employees: Gloria Rios, a former paralegal who handled all LKQ matters, including the matter against GM.”
• “Rios had worked for Irwin IP from January 2022 until the beginning of this year, when she took a role with Fish & Richardson to work for GM’s counsel of record, Louis Fogel, who is one of the attorneys representing the auto giant in the case, LKQ Corp. v. General Motors Co. It was no secret that Rios worked on the matter, as she sent ‘virtually every single one’ of the documents and pleadings, among other things, on behalf of LKQ to Fish & Richardson, her former employer said in a March motion to disqualify defense counsel.”
• “‘In other words, Fish & Richardson has not explained why, out of the thousands of Chicago-based paralegals, Fish & Richardson specifically sought to hire Ms. Rios. Of course, the explanation seems clear; Fish & Richardson desired Ms. Rios’s unique knowledge concerning this case and LKQ’s confidential information and legal strategies garnered while working for LKQ,’ wrote Michael P. Bregenzer, one of the Irwin IP attorneys representing LKQ.”
• “In court filings, Irwin IP claims Fish & Richardson violated professional obligations, questioning whether the opposing firm’s screening methods and safeguards were sufficient. Rios was privy to LKQ’s confidential information across multiple matters, and she had access to the client’s confidential documents and attorney-client communications and participated in dozens of internal meetings about litigation strategy, Irwin IP claimed.”
• “Fish & Richardson’s efforts to ‘lure’ Rios to the opposing firm started in early January, when a talent acquisition manager allegedly sent the paralegal a direct message on LinkedIn, leading to an interview with Fogel, Irwin IP alleged. Neither Rios nor Fish & Richardson disclosed information about the paralegal’s job change, according to the plaintiff’s firm.”
• “‘Although Fish & Richardson began discussing the possibility of Ms. Rios joining Fish & Richardson on Jan. 8, 2025 (Fish & Richardson first contacted her on January 6), Fish & Richardson did not implement an ‘ethical wall’ between itself and Ms. Rios until February 21, 2025—the Friday prior to Ms. Rios’s Feb. 24, 2025 start date at Fish & Richardson,’ Irwin IP’s brief said. ‘Putting this deficiency aside, Fish & Richardson’s too little, too late ‘ethical wall’ is deficient for an additional reason. It only listed GM’s involvement in LKQ’s cases. But Ms. Rios also has knowledge of at least five other design patent litigations between LKQ and other automakers, and LKQ’s confidential and privileged information related thereto. The issues in those cases were nearly identical to the issues in this case.’”
• “Irwin IP claims neither Rios nor Fish & Richardson disclosed that it hired the paralegal to work for Fogel. Irwin IP said it later discovered that during her last week with the plaintiff firm, Rios ‘spent hours’ permanently deleting at least 17,000 emails from her work email account, according to the plaintiffs’ brief.”
• “‘Indeed, Irwin IP cannot conceive of an innocent explanation for these deletions. Was Ms. Rios trying to cover-up her communications with Fish & Richardson? Did Ms. Rios seek to prevent Irwin IP and LKQ from using her work product? In any event, Ms. Rios’s conduct evinces a clear understanding that she was engaged in harmful and unethical conduct and wanted to cover her tracks,’ Bergenzer wrote.”
• “Fish & Richardson, through its attorneys with Holland & Knight, denied any wrongdoing, attempts to solicit confidential information, and opposed disqualification in a response filed in April. The defense firm maintained that Rio’s LinkedIn profile came up during a ‘routine search for candidates’ with experience as an IP litigation paralegal in Chicago. Rios was one of nearly 25 potential candidates, and in responding to the talent acquisition’s initial inquiry, the paralegal disclosed that she worked on two adverse cases. Rios also attested that she has maintained professional ethics, according to the filing by Trisha Rich, a Chicago-based partner with Holland & Knight.”
• “‘Once an ethical wall is in place, the employee subject to the wall cannot be added to the litigation document management workspace for any matter impacted by the ethical wall. With respect to Ms. Rios, this means since before the time she started work at F&R, all F&R employees were electronically blocked from providing Ms. Rios with any access (even inadvertent access) to any litigation case file containing electronic materials for this matter (or any other LKQ matter),’ Rich wrote.”

“FIFA Slams Atty’s Bid To ‘Circumvent’ DQ In Puerto Rico Case” —

• “A Puerto Rican attorney may not sidestep a disqualification order by dropping his personal claims from an antitrust case against FIFA in which he is both counsel and plaintiff, the organization told a federal judge Wednesday [6/4], arguing the lawyer is a ‘necessary fact witness’ and therefore a conflict is unavoidable.”
• “José R. Olmo-Rodríguez of Olmo & Rodriguez Matias Law Office PSC cannot be a fact witness and counsel, FIFA argued, calling Olmo-Rodríguez’s request to resume his role as counsel after being disqualified in April a ‘tactical maneuver’ that U.S. District Judge Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach must deny.”
• “Olmo-Rodríguez brought the suit in April 2023 on behalf of several plaintiffs, including the now-defunct Puerto Rico Soccer League NFP Corp., accusing the international soccer governing organization and a local affiliate of corruption and violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. The suit accuses FIFA of attempting to block Puerto Rican soccer associations from operating, and plaintiffs listed Olmo-Rodríguez as counsel, plaintiff and fact witness.”
• “FIFA moved to disqualify Olmo-Rodríguez and another lawyer, Ibrahim Reyes of Reyes Lawyers PA, arguing that in addition to Olmo-Rodríguez’s alleged conflicts, both attorneys have a financial stake in the Puerto Rico soccer league.”
• “In an order issued on April 10, Judge Arias-Marxuach disqualified Olmo-Rodríguez, citing his hybrid representation. Because Reyes is based in Florida, the court later determined new local counsel must be secured.”
• “In May, Olmo-Rodríguez asked the court to allow him to continue representing the plaintiffs. According to the lawyer, ‘despite diligent efforts,’ the plaintiffs had been unable to find a lawyer to take over the suit due to conflicts, costs and a lack of interest in contingency fee agreements among local counsel.”
• “In order to remove the conflict, Olmo-Rodríguez said, he would permanently and voluntarily dismiss his claim against FIFA, ‘thereby eliminating his status as a plaintiff and allowing him to serve solely as counsel for the plaintiffs.’”
• “FIFA slammed the move in its Thursday filing, saying his bid to dismiss his claims was made ‘for the sole purpose of circumventing his disqualification as local counsel.’ Calling it a ‘tactical maneuver,’ FIFA told the court that dismissal of the lawyer’s claims would not solve the underlying issue that Olmo-Rodríguez is a fact witness.”
• “Olmo-Rodríguez is the sole witness identified by plaintiffs to speak on certain topics that underlie their claims, FIFA told the court, making him a ‘necessary witness.’ According to FIFA, the plaintiffs had not shown how the dropping of his individual claims cures this conflict.”