Conflicts Allegations — CEO Counsel DQ Attempt, School Chief Conflict Motion, Another Big Law Firm Faces Presidential Targeting
Posted on“CPS chief Martinez seeks to disqualify law firm over alleged conflict of interest” —
- “Chicago Public Schools chief Pedro Martinez is alleging the firm representing the school board in an ongoing lawsuit has a conflict of interest that warrants disqualification. Martinez’s lawyer, William Quinlan, filed a motion March 4 to ‘disqualify the law firm of Cozen O’Connor LLP.’ Cozen serves as counsel for seven board members named in the lawsuit between the district’s outgoing chief executive officer and the Chicago Board of Education.”
- “Martinez filed the lawsuit against the school board after he was fired Dec. 20 to block the then seven-member body from stripping him of his duties, including his involvement in contract negotiations with the Chicago Teachers Union. Several days after Martinez’s firing the board members attended ongoing contract negotiations with CTU on a new four-year contract that has yet to be settled. Martinez’s tenure as CPS chief will conclude in June.”
- “It was the first time in 12 years that school board members attended a bargaining session. Typically, the schools chief and his team negotiate the contract and collaborate with the board.”
- “However, Cozen also represents the members of a new, 21-member partially elected, partially appointed board, seated in January after Martinez was fired. The previous board that voted to fire Martinez was appointed by Mayor Brandon Johnson. Five of them remain on the board.”
- “Quinlan argues in the motion that Cozen representing the new school board in addition to the board members who fired Martinez ‘raises an impermissible concurrent conflict of interest.'”
- “Quinlan spoke about the motion to disqualify Cozen O’Connor at a hearing in front of Chupack Monday.”
- “‘I don’t know how we can decide (the motion to dismiss the temporary restraining order) without deciding if there’s a conflict first,’ he said.”
- “Jeremy Glenn, Cozen O’Connor’s attorney, said that ‘the conflict, if it arose, hasn’t presented itself in a way that changes the legal arguments.'”
- “He cited prior case law suggesting that a motion to disqualify ‘needs to be looked at carefully to make sure it’s not a tactic to delay a ruling on a motion to dismiss (the temporary restraining order).'”
- “A conflict of interest exists if ‘the representation of one client will be adverse to another’ or if ‘there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client,’ Quinlan’s motion argues.”
- “In this case, the motion continues, there is a conflict of interest because seven board member defendants ‘are alleged to have acted outside the scope of their capacities’ as members of the full board entity Cozen represents.”
- “‘The Board Member Defendants have separate interests that conflict with those of the Board as an entity, and vice–versa,’ Quinlan’s motion says. ‘In making these determinations, the Board is entitled to counsel separate from and independent of counsel representing the Member Defendants.'”
- “Additionally, neither the seven-member board named in the lawsuit nor the current board gave ‘informed consent’ to the conflict of interest. Quinlan’s motion states that they are entitled to that consent.”
- “The school board retained Cozen O’Connor at a meeting in mid-November, a move that hinted at the beginnings of the process of firing Martinez. Employment lawyers told the Tribune at the time that the board was likely looking for cause to fire the CEO. Martinez was fired without cause, meaning he will stay on the job until June.”
“Masimo Aims To DQ Hueston Hennigan As Ex-CEO’s Counsel” —
- “Masimo Corp. is urging the Delaware Chancery Court to disqualify Hueston Hennigan LLP from representing its founder and former CEO in a lawsuit over his quest for a $450 million payout from the medical technology company, arguing the firm has a conflict of interest.”
- “The firm previously represented Masimo and Kiani in another Chancery case in which company stockholders ‘challenged the enforceability of entrenching and coercive provisions in Mr. Kiani’s employment agreement with Masimo,’ the brief said. ‘Now, Hueston Hennigan has taken sides against Masimo, and must be disqualified from representing Mr. Kiani,’ the company contended.”
- “Masimo argued that, ‘in violation of Rule 1.9 of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, Hueston Hennigan currently stands opposite its former client, Masimo, on the very same subject on which it previously represented it.'”
- “In October, Masimo sued Kiani in Chancery Court, seeking a declaration that a $450 million payout he seeks under the terms of his employment agreement is unenforceable.”
- “Now that Masimo has its first independent board in its history, Kiani demanded the $450 million payout under the terms of his employment agreement after being ousted by the new board from his positions as CEO and chairman, the complaint said.”
- “‘In November 2023, after it already had been advising Masimo for months, Hueston Hennigan formally appeared for Masimo in the prior Delaware action to oppose Politan’s fee application, which Mr. Hueston personally argued,’ the brief said. ‘Indeed, Mr. Hueston was listed as counsel on Masimo’s opposition to Politan’s application, which stated, among other things, that ‘the employment agreement … effectively guarantees that Mr. Kiani will receive the special payment at some point in time.’ That is precisely the opposite of Masimo’s position in this action.'”
- “Masimo accuses the firm of violating an ethics rule that ‘prohibits the representation of parties in matters involving material conflicts of interest.'”
- “‘Due to its conflict, Hueston Hennigan provided advice to Masimo that was directly contrary to Masimo’s interests,’ the brief asserts.”
- “Details about the allegedly conflicted advice the firm offered are redacted in the brief.”
- “Masimo argued the court ‘should disqualify Hueston Hennigan or, in the alternative, Mr. Hueston from representing Mr. Kiani in this action.'”
“Trump picks his next Big Law target” —
- “President Donald Trump continued his retaliatory spree against major law firms on Friday, signing an executive order targeting New York firm Paul, Weiss days after a judge ruled that major parts of a similar order were unconstitutional.”
- “Trump’s new order seeks to suspend the security clearances of attorneys with the firm and limit their access to government buildings, ability to get federal jobs and receive money from federal contracts.”
- “The order is the third targeted move against a big firm. Trump has signed similar orders aimed at Seattle-based Perkins Coie, which regularly represents Democratic entities including the Democratic National Committee, and any employee at Covington & Burling who provided free legal services to special counsel Jack Smith, who brought two criminal cases against Trump.”
- “As POLITICO first reported, some top firms are considering publicly supporting the firms under attack by the Trump administration. But the show of solidarity has been hard to build as privately, firms worry that they could be next on the president’s hit list.”
- “The Paul, Weiss spokesperson also noted that a federal judge had this week deemed a similar order unconstitutional.”
- “U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled on Wednesday that major parts of Trump’s order against Perkins Coie were likely unconstitutional, including efforts to bar attorneys from interacting with federal agencies or entering federal buildings.”
- “In her ruling, Howell said Trump’s order appeared motivated by ‘retaliatory animus,’ and concluded that it ‘runs head on into the wall of First Amendment protections.'”