• Home
  • News
  • Patterson Belknap, Stradley Ronon Must Remain on Ex-GC’s Case

Legal Ethics

Patterson Belknap, Stradley Ronon Must Remain on Ex-GC’s Case

Posted Dec 2, 2008 10:54 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A Manhattan judge has refused to allow two law firms to withdraw from defending the former general counsel of Oppenheimer & Co. in a sex harassment case.

Judge Judith Gische ruled that former general counsel Eric Shames had raised legitimate concerns that the withdrawal just days before trial would make it more difficult to defend himself, the New York Law Journal reports. Seeking to withdraw were lead counsel Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young and local counsel Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler.

The firms represented both Oppenheimer and Shames, and Oppenheimer had paid Shames’ legal fees. The two firms sought to withdraw after Oppenheimer settled with the plaintiff, a former paralegal, but Shames did not reach an agreement, the story says.

Stradley Ronon maintained in a brief that continued representation of Shames represented a conflict of interest because its defense of Shames could be at odds with Oppenheimer’s interests, the story reports. Both Stradley Ronon and Patterson Belknap claimed their relationship with Shames had suffered; Stradley Ronon called it “nothing short of dysfunctional."

Gische noted in her Nov. 20 opinion that a letter of joint representation provided that in the event of a conflict, Patterson Belknap could continue to represent Shames. She also said Oppenheimer is no longer a party to the litigation “and has no role to play at trial other than to have its people testify truthfully as to relevant facts."

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Dec 2, 2008 11:47 AM CST

When this happens, it just looks awful.  The premise of the motion would, in many jurisdictions, be taken as an acknowledgment that the firm decided to play hopscotch in a minefield when (if) it initially screened for conflicts.  In addition, this motion, this close to trial, risks conveying the implication that the firm is simply afraid to try the case.  This can be a pretty good morale builder for opposing counsel, and pretty bad “marketing” for the firm.  I do not think “We bail at trial” would be a good ad slogan for anyone.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.