A motion for sanctions takes aim at several high-profile South Florida attorneys — Bruce Rogow, Albert Frevola Jr., Jessica Kopas and Michael E. Dutko Jr. — as an old debt comes back to haunt Conrad & Scherer.

The underlying breach-of-contract complaint could wipe out the Fort Lauderdale law firm under a motion asking the court to appoint a receiver to take control of Conrad & Scherer.

The 2017 lawsuit pits former client Douglas Von Allmen against the firm that represented him for years. The sanctions motion alleges Conrad & Scherer borrowed $20 million from Von Allmen to fund litigation against convicted Ponzi schemer and law firm chairman Scott Rothstein and to launch a national human rights practice.

One venture was successful, while the other embroiled the firm in ongoing multidistrict litigation and other suits in federal court. Von Allmen's court pleadings suggest Conrad & Scherer overextended its resources and sought to avoid the multimillion-dollar debt by alleging its client-turned-lender agreed to forego repayment in exchange for legal services.

Von Allmen claimed his money funded Conrad & Scherer litigation that helped recover millions of dollars for him and other victims of Rothstein, who led the defunct 70-attorney labor and employment firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. Those efforts won accolades for the firm and William Scherer.

A confidential settlement was reached with Bank of America N.A. on claims the bank knew about the $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme but still referred investors to it in hopes of landing business from Rothstein.

Von Allmen also claimed his loan funded human rights cases against multinational companies — a venture that has brought negative attention to the firm. Former Conrad & Scherer partner Terrence Collingsworth allegedly paid witnesses to change their testimony in a case accusing Alabama coal conglomerate Drummond Corp. of conspiring to kill labor activists in Colombia.

“We don't believe the law firm has the ability to pay us back, so we want to safeguard our interests,” said Von Allmen's attorney, Paul D. Turner of Perlman Bajandas Yevoli & Albright in Fort Lauderdale. “They're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It doesn't matter what you do, the ship is still going to go down.”

Von Allmen alleges defense counsel presented baseless arguments to support their clients' position. His court filings ask Broward Circuit Judge John J. Murphy III to sanction the defendants and their lawyers — Rogow, Frevola, Kopas and Dutko — under a Florida statute that punishes attorneys and litigants for raising “unsupported claims or defenses.”

Rogow, a 50-year litigator, said he was “amused, bemused and unperturbed” by the motion for sanctions.

“Mr. Von Allmen's lawyers are frenetic filers. Their pleadings are always breathless,” he wrote in an email. “My co-counsel colleagues share my confidence that the motion is just a schoolboy tactic, devoid of merit.”

Defense lawyers had not responded by deadline to the motion for sanctions filed Monday.

Rogow's resume cites his argument of more than 450 civil and criminal cases in federal and state appellate courts. Frevola, Kopas and Dutko, meanwhile, are partners at Conrad & Scherer, which has offices in Florida, New York, North Carolina and Ecuador.

Von Allmen's pleadings paint a picture of a group of lawyers arguing a point despite tax filings and bank documents favoring his position.

“The crux of defendants' counterclaim is that not a penny of the $20 million debt to plaintiffs is owed. This is directly contradicted by the sworn positions of Conrad & Scherer and Bill Scherer to the Internal Revenue Service,” the sanctions motion said. “Counsel of record know their position in their defense to plaintiffs' claims and several counts in the counterclaim are unsupportable in fact or law.”

Rogow said Von Allmen is the one with the debt.

“That misses the point,” Rogow said of the reference to loan documents proving the debt. “There can be — and there were oral modifications of the loan. … On the firm's side of the ledger, money is owing.”

Details on the agreements between Von Allmen and the borrowers are scarce because attorneys on both sides asserted attorney-client privilege between the plaintiff and his former counsel and filed most of the court documents under seal.