Norton Rose Fulbright 'mischaracterised as merger', firm claims in John Wayne dispute
Norton Rose Fulbright's US LLP has rejected claims that it should withdraw from representing client Duke University in a case against the John Wayne Estate after the claimant flagged a conflict of interest between legacy Fulbright & Jaworski and Norton Rose Canada.
September 11, 2014 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
Norton Rose Fulbright's US LLP has rejected claims that it should withdraw from representing client Duke University in a case against the John Wayne Estate after the claimant flagged a conflict of interest between legacy Fulbright & Jaworski and Norton Rose Canada.
The firm's US partnership, which, for regulatory reasons is still legally registered as Fulbright & Jaworski in the US, has been acting for North Carolina's Duke University in a trademarks case against the estate of late Hollywood star John Wayne, which is suing the North Carolina university over the right to market alcoholic drinks branded with Wayne's 'Duke' nickname.
Last month the estate filed a motion with the US district court for the Central District of California to disqualify the US LLP from the case, on the grounds that Norton Rose Fulbright Canada is a longstanding adviser to a minority shareholder of the distillery producing the disputed product.
Fulbright has said that there is no conflict between the two legacy firms, despite their combination under a Swiss verein structure.
In the course of the dispute, the firm said that the June 2013 tie-up has been "mischaracterised" as a merger – a claim that is likely to prompt questions over the level of integration at Norton Rose Fulbright and other Swiss verein firms.
Wayne's estate has questioned Fulbright's assertion that no confidential information could be passed on from the Canadian LLP to the US partnership. In its motion, it said that Norton Rose Fulbright Canada had assisted distillery shareholder Jayson Woodbridge in connection with the dispute, including involvement with developing litigation strategy for both Woodbridge and the distillery.
The motion, which cites press releases issued by Norton Rose Fulbright at the time of the go-live date of the tie-up, said: "The Fulbright firm promised it would provide 'seamless' legal services flowing from each of their member firms to the others.
"In a later release, the managing partner of Norton Rose Fulbright Canada stated, '[…] Our Canadian clients now have new north/south access to the Americas seamlessly with lawyers who are based in each country's key markets'."
It said Fulbright seemed to want "all the benefits of combining its member firms" and to market itself as a legal services "behemoth", but is "unwilling to accept the accompanying burdens of the merger".
However, Fulbright argues that the estate's claim shows a misunderstanding of how Swiss verein arrangements function, pointing out that the firms operate as separate legal entities that do not share confidential information with each other.
Fulbright said in its response: "Importantly, member firms do not share privileged information with other member firms unless they are retained by and working together for a client on the same matter.
"Any other sharing of information is limited to the business of the member firms, [for example] for purposes of checking conflicts or marketing. […] Member firms do not have access to each other's client files."
The filing continued: "In short, while Mr. Woodbridge may be a client of [Norton Rose Fulbright Canada], he is not a client of Fulbright & Jaworski and never has been."
Fulbright has further argued the "appearance of impropriety" is not a separate basis for disqualification. It adds that the estate's case "improperly relies on hearsay 'news accounts' mischaracterising the combination as a 'merger'".
A Norton Rose Fulbright spokesperson said the union between the firms has "always been seen and referred to as a 'combination'", adding that "any misrepresentation has probably been made by the media".
The filing further states that the plaintiff does not have the power to seek disqualification as Woodbridge is a "non-party minority investor in yet another non-party" in the case.
Duke University filed a separate motion to dismiss the case in August. Norton Rose Fulbright litigator John O'Malley and associate Cristina Longoria, both based in LA, are representing Duke University.
John Wayne Enterprises is instructing Californian firm Rutan & Tucker senior partner Richard Howell, partner Ronald Oines, partner David Hochner and associate Jeffrey Fohrer.
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 AllLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Jones Day Expands European Footprint with Global Disputes Partner in Madrid
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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