Posted on May 6th, 2008 by Tim Eavenson | No Comments »
Filed under: Uncategorized | 
The FBI raided the headquarters of the Office of Special Counsel today, and agents from the Office of Personnel Management siezed boxes of evidence from the Director’s home. The OSC is responsible for protecting federal whistleblowers from retaliation.
According to the Washington Post, the FBI served 17 subpoenas and sequestered the agency Director, Scott J. Bloch, for questioning. Bloch has been under scrutiny for his handling of the department, and his understanding of whistleblowing in general, since he took the position in 2003.
It is unclear at this time what specifically the Bureau was looking for; the warrant was apparently extremely broad. More news when we get it.
Posted on January 14th, 2008 by Tim Eavenson | No Comments »
Filed under: Uncategorized |
In case you missed it, this week is “well, you taught them how to sue” week at CE. Every day we’re going to feature a little nugget of law firm internal strife that’s ended up in court, and we’re kicking things off with a couple of big names: Holland and Knight.
The story [via Blog of Legal Times]: Patricia Dillman, a former Holland & Knight litigation paralegal, is suing her old firm for mucking up (read: tortiously interfering with) her imminent transfer to another global powerhouse, Hughes Hubbard. Apparently, the gigantic firm responded to Dillman’s 2-week notice by conflict-checking the paralegal’s new position against her work at H-K. When a red flag came up based on some environmental work, Holland contacted Hughes, which promptly pulled the plug on the job.
The Good Parts: Most people’s first question is what the big deal is about conflict-checking a departing employee. Well, nothing. When they’re lawyers. But Dillman was a paralegal – she wasn’t bound by the professional ethics rules that usually trip up travelling lawyers – and anyway, wall-offs are run-of-the-mill in firms the size of these two. Otherwise, no one could ever lateral. So, why did HK conflict-check her to begin with?
For the juice, keep reading.
First off, this was no ordinary paralegal. Dillman was the head of the litigation department’s support group, and her new gig was set to bag her $200k a year in Hughes’ NY office. Not the kind of person you want to let walk into another multinational firm and start shaking hands. Second, that “environmental work” she was allegedly a part of was the sinking of the oil tanker Prestige, the worst environmental disaster in the history of Spain. And her client was…well…Spain. From the BLT Article:
Spain said the [American Bureau of Shipping], which checks the structural fitness of ships, was negligent in classifying the 26-year-old vessel as fit to haul fuel. Six months after the bureau gave clearance, the Prestige became caught in a storm and Spain refused to give the ship port. The Prestige eventually split in half and sank.
So, Holland represents Spain. Hmm. [Insert joke of choice]. Anyways, guess who reps the bureau? Yep:
According to the complaint, Holland partner Brian Starer told Hughes Hubbard attorneys [representing the ABS] during a deposition in the Reino de Espana case that Holland might try to disqualify the firm from the lawsuit if Dillman began working there.
This case is a seesaw. If Dillman’s telling the truth, she was a tragic victim of an underhanded litigation strategy. If not, then does that mean Holland was justified in notifying its opponent of a non-attorney’s potential conflict? Dillman’s alleging that she did little more than copies and letter writing in the Spain suit, which puts Holland’s comments to Hughes in a bad light.
If she’s telling the truth, she’s a true tragic victim, complete with her own Shakespearean ending: a judge in New York dismissed the entire action by the Spanish government a few days ago, holding Spain has to pursue the case in its own courts.
More tomorrow.
Posted on October 26th, 2007 by Tim Eavenson | 1 Comment »
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Ok, it’s Friday night, so this is going to be short.
The ABA notes that outsourcing legal jobs to India is causing all kinds of ethical issues. For starters, the legal education system in India is totally different, and key ethical considerations such as confidentiality are though of differently in India. Couple that with the dearth of oversight on either side of the ocean(s) and you see the problem.
Then there’s the fact that Indian lawyers may not actually be lawyers in the states. From the article:
[I]n a number of states here an Indian attorney is not considered a
lawyer for the purpose of applying legal ethics rules…Hence, the American lawyer in charge may be ethically required to adhere to support staff supervisory standards when overseeing the work of an Indian attorney.
The article goes on to say that the Indian legal outsourcing market has grown from $52 miillion in ’02 to upwards of $4 billion by 2015. That’s a lot of tajtunes.
Look for this on the next MPRE. We swear.
