Federal Judge Tells Holland & Knight To STFU
Sit down. Shut up. Think about what you did.
Sometimes a lawyer needs to take advantage of every opening to successfully argue their case. Sometimes a lawyer needs to avoid antagonizing the judge before they get stomped on.
This is an example of the latter.
Last week, Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York heard argument on a motion to disqualify Holland & Knight in a dispute between its client, First NBC Bank, and a company called Murex. Judge Engelmayer informed Holland & Knight at that time that he was inclined to find that Holland & Knight represented Murex immediately prior to filing this suit. But rather than issue an order, he asked the firm and its client to reflect on the issue and then write a letter informing the court of their final determination, but admonished them that “by extending this courtesy, it was not inviting additional substantive briefing on issues related to disqualification.” Emphasis, as they say, in original.
Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace
Judge Engelmayer was looking for a letter saying, “don’t bother sorting through everything to write an order, we’re withdrawing” or “you know what, we stand by our argument despite your stated preliminary inclination and ask that you rule.”
Instead, Holland & Knight rehashed why they don’t see a problem here.
Judge Engelmayer was not pleased.
The Court is constrained to express its dismay at this tactic. HK has abused the Court’s courtesy.
Sponsored
Is The Future Of Law Distributed? Lessons From The Tech Adoption Curve
Navigating Financial Success by Avoiding Common Pitfalls and Maximizing Firm Performance
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
The Business Case For AI At Your Law Firm
Dad’s not angry, he’s just disappointed.
But you know that just means he’s really, really angry.
While the Court will not strike HK’s submission, as a remedy, the Court will permit Murex to file a supplemental brief in response and in further support of its motion for disqualification. Such a brief is due March 2, 2017. The Court does not impose any page or substantive limit on Murex’s response.
Do you know how pissed off a judge has to be to say, “please give me more briefing and don’t worry about page limits”? That’s “someone shot John Wick’s dog” angry.
And then…
Sponsored
Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace
Legal AI: 3 Steps Law Firms Should Take Now
For avoidance of doubt, the Court will not invite or permit a reply by HK or First NBC to Murex’s forthcoming submission.
Sit down. Shut up. Think about what you did.
So, if you’re a Biglaw heavy with absolutely no Murex conflicts, this might be a good time to just remind First NBC Bank that you exist.
(Full benchslap on the next page…)
Holland & Knight Says Advisory Role Didn’t Cause Conflict [Law360]
Joe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
