Law Firms
Oops. Confidential Settlement Revealed in Quinn Emanuel Brochure
Posted Feb 10, 2009 7:03 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A law firm fired by the founders of the website ConnectU apparently got carried away in a recent marketing brochure.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges touted a settlement in the infringement case, and even revealed the confidential amount won by ConnectU: $65 million, the Recorder reports. The figure was published in a January business litigation newsletter, the story says. "WON $65 million settlement against Facebook," is the exact wording.
The founders of ConnectU had claimed in their suit that Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg stole their idea for a social networking site. The $65 million is apparently an estimated value of the settlement paid in cash and Facebook shares, the story says.
The disclosure appears to be a mistake, according to the Recorder. Quinn Emanuel chairman John Quinn said the settlement amount was confidential and asked the publication not to print it.
The case originally settled last February, but ConnectU later said the settlement was too low and claimed it had new evidence against Zuckerberg, according to the Recorder account. ConnectU fired Quinn Emanuel and obtained a new settlement that was placed under seal. Quinn Emanuel and ConnectU are arbitrating the issue of attorney fees.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Feb 10, 2009 6:38 PM CST
Well there you go. They accidentally came up with an “estimated” value to tout, and then, they accidentally published it all over the country. Go figure.
Flag this comment
Anonynous
Feb 13, 2009 11:01 AM CST
That they published what was supposed to be a confidential settlement after they had been fired by the client and were in the process of arbitrating their fee stinks. Reminds me of when Kutak Rock got fired from a case and then gave the L.A. Times a bunch of attorney client protected information. Then again Kutak can’t match Quinn’s lawyering…
Flag this comment
R
Feb 13, 2009 1:24 PM CST
How is that much different than a bottom-feeding ambulance chaser touting on TV ads how he’s recovered “thousands” of dollars for injured clients - when it’s likely he could’ve gotten much more for his clients if he’d gotten off his a** and worked the file a little.
Flag this comment
Joseph B Mansour, CFE, CPA, CEO, CFo
Feb 14, 2009 9:14 AM CST
Once confidentiality is breached there should be a defaul and payment for the breach. Most confidentiality agreements do not contain such default. The remedy should be any damage to the other party. Further, the settlement now is public and the IRS should be invited to review any potential taxable income that may have been hidden as a result of the confidentialiy.The breach should also place the agrieved party in a position of nullifying the agreement and to continue to purse the legal remedies availble under the case filed without giving any money which may be received at settlement. Let this be liquidated damages at this time for the breach.
This investigation should also be reviewed for possible violation of the Attorney Professional rules. If the evidence shows that negligence caused this violation, then action should be taken accordingly.
In my business I am retained to investigate such matters. As Certified Fraud Examiner and a CPA, I a member of the only world fraud organization, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, (“ACFE”), one must look beyond the breach and look for specific motives for the breach. In my job experience, as a CPA and an experienced business consultant, I see this as a tactical ploy and should be investigated by qualified investigators.
For contact I can be reached at 513-779-4200 and at my web site at www.mansourcpa.com. I invite your comments to me.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Feb 14, 2009 1:20 PM CST
CFE, CPA, CEO, Cfo, M.O.U.S.E.
What a commercial! But, this is not a good place to troll for business now, as too many of the readers are having to do it for their own account.
Flag this comment
Allen Sheketovits
Feb 16, 2009 8:09 AM CST
It is not OOPS! it is OY GEVALT!
This is like the woman who is dating Drew Peterseon. She likes to live dangerously. The lawfirms do the same thing.
Ocasssionally, the law firm make mistakes, and it’s just trouble coming home to roost, no?
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.