Legal Ethics
Fish & Richardson Accused of Dropping Then Suing Client, Quickly
Posted Feb 25, 2009 9:55 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A former Fish & Richardson client says the law firm dumped it as a client, then turned around the next day and sued it for patent infringement on behalf of a rival company.
Aliph Inc., which makes Bluetooth headsets, is seeking to disqualify the law firm, the Recorder reports. Aliph claims the firm should be jettisoned for acting in a manner adverse to its interests even before the suit was filed.
Aliph says in court papers that it had hired the firm to do regulatory work last May and refused in December to waive a conflict of interest for the firm to represent an adverse party in litigation, according to the Recorder account.
Aliph claimed it learned in an e-mail at 8:30 p.m. on Jan. 14 that Fish & Richardson was dumping it as a client, according to the story. The next day Fish filed a suit that claims Aliph’s earbuds infringe on a patent held by Plantronics.
Fish’s client engagement letter did warn that it has required regulatory clients to waive conflicts regarding its intellectual property work; Aliph contends the letter is too broad, the story says.
Diane Karpman, a lawyer with expertise in legal ethics, told the Recorder that Fish’s alleged action took a lot of “chutzpah.”
"It's breathtaking that a firm would disengage at 8:30 and then sue them in the morning," Karpman told the publication. "It would seem to be a pretty valid argument that they were working on this beforehand."

Comments
B. McLeod
Feb 25, 2009 11:59 AM CST
I think I hear the collective sound arising from the pens of a thousand corporate general counsel, crossing “Fish & Richardson” off the list of potential outside firms.
Flag this comment
JustMe
Feb 25, 2009 2:29 PM CST
Reply to No. 1 - If only that were true. Unfortunately, F&R manages to always float to the top.
Flag this comment
tim
Feb 25, 2009 3:04 PM CST
Sounds shaddy by the law firm - this is why you don’t call Big LAw when you have a problem.
Flag this comment
James
Feb 27, 2009 5:53 AM CST
I thought you’d enjoy this. We’re off to California shortly! The kids were a blast last week.
Flag this comment
Ronald
Feb 27, 2009 6:07 AM CST
F&R had Plantronics as a client before they took on Aliph, but I don’t think that a through, conflicts check was done until they saw the error of their ways and even then they probably thought, that Aliph would just go away. A simular issue came to light for one of our clients, it goes to show that a through and complete conflicts check should be done before any retainer is accepted. Sometimes “greed” gets in the way of common sense.
Flag this comment
Pete Clarke
Feb 27, 2009 8:46 AM CST
If F&R had an office in Clearwater, Florida, would local zoning officials allow that law firm to paint a fish on the side of their building?
Flag this comment
Doode
Feb 27, 2009 9:09 AM CST
Nice tie-in, Pete!
Fish-N-Richardson, A.K.A. “Two Dead Partners, P.C.”
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Feb 27, 2009 9:29 AM CST
Pete—a fish logo would be permitted. A pirate ship would not.
Also, we now have a new level of meaning for the maxim: “Fish and visitors stink after three days.”
Flag this comment
James?
Feb 27, 2009 10:11 AM CST
It’s always amusing when people confuse the comment form with an email form.
Flag this comment
JohnyLaw
Feb 27, 2009 4:07 PM CST
Lawyers screwing people? Say it ain’t so!
Flag this comment
Kalifornia Arnold
Feb 28, 2009 11:10 AM CST
It seems everyone here has swallowed Fish & Richardson’s legal theory of this case hook, line and sinker. Is it also true the that, when Fish & Richardson was asked by the Judge what the amount of their legal fees would be, they replied: “Scale”?
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.