Lisa Bloom. Photo: Kathy Hutchins, Shutterstock. Orrick Lawyers Bounce Lisa Bloom From Suit Against Hallmark Channel
Lawyers argued that The Bloom Firm's legal consulting agreement created a conflict of interest.
January 17, 2019 at 01:57 PM
3 minute read
Lawyers from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe on Wednesday succeeded in disqualifying celebrity lawyer Lisa Bloom in a wrongful termination case against Crown Media Holdings, Inc., parent of the Hallmark channel, brought by a former host.
Mark Steines, who previously co-hosted the show “Home and Family,” sued Crown Media in Los Angeles federal court, claiming that he was wrongly fired after he blew the whistle on harassment by an executive producer of the show.
“Despite the show's squeaky-clean portrayal on television, it was apparently another case behind the scenes,” wrote U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney. “The show's creator and longtime executive producer, Forrest 'Woody' Fraser, allegedly bullied, verbally abused, and harassed cast and crew members.”
Steines' counsel? Lisa Bloom, who had previously represented two of the show's female producers in a harassment suit.
But one problem. Before Steines' suit was filed (but after the one by the two women), The Bloom Firm entered into a legal consulting agreement with an executive producer and production company associated with Home & Family.
It was a sweet deal for Bloom: $50,000 for no more than five hours of services a year for three years—or $3,333 an hour.
Shortly before Steines sent a demand letter to Crown Media, Bloom unilaterally terminated the consulting agreement and returned the first installment payment of $16,666.
The Orrick team—Timothy Long and Michael Wertheim—cried foul, arguing that she was conflicted out of taking the case.
The judge agreed.
“The Bloom Firm cannot now rewrite the terms of the [legal consulting agreement]. The LCA is not limited to reviewing scripts or advising on the accuracy of fictional courtroom scenes. It broadly states that The Bloom Firm will advise on 'legal situations.' This language—coupled with the fact that another paragraph in the LCA expressly creates an attorney-client relationship—indicates that the [defendants] hired The Bloom Firm to provide legal advice.”
Carney added, “A lawyer's word is her bond and The Bloom Firm promised defendants it would represent them and not others adverse to their interests.”
Bloom declined to comment on the decision.
We hope you enjoyed this excerpt from Litigation Daily, the exclusive source for sharp commentary on mega court battles, winning strategies and the issues that obsess elite litigators. Click here to subscribe.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Sink or Swim: The Evolving State of Law Firm Administrative Support
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
