Tom Petty at Forest Hills Stadium on July 27, 2017, in New York.

Remember the nasty fight between Tom Petty's widow and daughters over control of his estate?

It just got nastier—and now the mud is splattering the lawyers, too.

In a 335-page filing on Wednesday afternoon, the late singer's widow, Dana York Petty, and her lawyers from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton accused Venable, which represents Petty's daughters from his first marriage, of having a conflict of interest. Not only that, Dana York Petty asserted the right to fire Venable and demanded that the firm hand over its files.

Which isn't something you'd think she could do—unless maybe she can? I feel a little sorry for the Los Angeles County Superior Court judge who has to sort this out, because wow.

One thing is clear: There's no lost love between Sheppard Mullin's Adam Streisand, who represents the widow, and Venable's Alex Weingarten, who represents the daughters.

They've tangled before. Streisand, for example, represented Alan Thicke's widow Tanya Callau when she was sued by the late actor's two sons, represented by Weingarten. In 2017, a Los Angeles judge tossed the suit—a win for Streisand.

Petty died on October 2, 2017 at age 66 of an accidental overdose of prescription drugs including Fentanyl, oxycodone and generic Xanax. He left behind his wife Dana of 16 years, his adult daughters from his first marriage, Adria and Annakim—and an unfortunately ambiguous estate plan.

A key point of contention: a provision in the trust stipulating that Petty's widow and daughters have “equal participation in management” of a business entity that was to be created by Dana to hold the singer's artistic property.

But what does that mean? That Dana, who was designated sole successor trustee of the trust, gets 50% control and the daughters get the other 50%? Or will they each have one vote, which means the daughters would run the show with a two-thirds majority? Or perhaps they could delegate day-to-day operations to a manager, and make major decisions by consensus?

(OK, that probably won't work, because they seem to hate each other. The filing includes all sorts of piss-y text messages like these: Dana: “wow. You really are harsh Adria.” Adria: “You really suck to [sic] Dana.”)

But first, Streisand is angling to knock Weingarten and Venable out of the case.

Weingarten was hired by the daughters in the beginning of May to replace their prior counsel. According to Streisand's filing on Wednesday, “Weingarten introduced himself to the matter by acknowledging that Dana's attorney, Adam Streisand, on Dana's behalf, had consulted with Venable partner Michele Mulrooney.”

The chair of Venable's West Coast tax and wealth planning practice, Mulrooney (per her law firm bio) is an expert in post-death administration of estates and trusts. Streisand contacted her months earlier, thinking she might come on board as co-counsel after the estate tax return was filed.

“Weingarten claimed that consultation had nothing to do with this dispute. Streisand responded that this dispute was the precise matter on which Streisand consulted Mulrooney and for which Dana intended to retain Mulrooney,” Streisand wrote.

Under the circumstances, Streisand balked at going forward with a scheduled mediation, claiming that Venable “was in possession of confidential information from Dana imparted by Streisand to Mulrooney.”

“Dana would not mediate with lawyers who had induced her to reveal her theories, opinions and confidential factual information to be used against her,” he wrote.

So is this an actual conflict? It's hard to say based on the information available.

Certainly, you can't disqualify potential opponents just by cold-calling one of their partners under the pretense of teaming up as co-counsel. If so, an enterprising lawyer could use the strategy to knock out dozens of top-tier adversaries. (Hello? Is this David Boies?)

But there's a point where a line gets crossed. The key questions here are likely to be whether confidential information was disclosed and whether there was any agreement—written or verbal—to work together.

Another interesting wrinkle: Weingarten doesn't just represent the daughters in probate matters. He also represents Petty Unlimited, the initial business entity created by Dana to hold Tom's artistic property—the one she and her step-daughters are fighting over, in the civil suit.

But it's still a shell company—Dana has yet to transfer any assets to it, a major point of contention with Adria and Annakim.

According to Streisand, Dana as trustee technically remains the sole member (or owner) of Petty Unlimited. “Petty Unlimited was aspirational. It has no legal entitlement to anything,” Streisand wrote.

So boom: Dana, “as the sole trustee of the Trust, and in that capacity, the sole owner of Petty Unlimited, executed documents to remove Adria and Annakim as managers, and fired Venable,” Streisand wrote.

Indeed, exhibit three of the filing is a letter dated May 28 from Dana to Weingarten that gives “formal termination of the services of Venable LLP ('Venable') as purported counsel for Petty Unlimited. You are hereby instructed to turn over to my counsel, Adam Streisand, at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, all of Venable's files” related to the case.

Don't hold your breath.

Weingarten in an interview said, “Dana and her lawyer are basing their case on smoke and mirrors. Every claim they make is demonstrably false. Adria and Annakim are laser focused on one thing—honoring and protecting their father's legacy and enforcing the terms of his trust, as written.”

He added, “We didn't start this fight, but we're determined to finish it.”

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.