The acrimony between Ince and its former France branch has intensified, with the two parties currently embroiled in a dispute over access to client data.
In the latest episode in the ongoing feud between the two former affiliates, a partner in the Paris office of Ince & Co France has questioned the manner in which Ince Gordon Dadds – which last week rebranded to 'Ince' - manages a database which holds sensitive data pertaining to clients of both the London-headquartered firm and the now-independent Ince & Co France.
Though there is no suggestion Ince has misused any of the disputed data managed on its database, Ince & Co France partner Laurence Hanley contends that the data in dispute belongs to the entities that went into administration at the beginning of the year. This included Ince & Co International of which several equity partners in France are a part.
“It is not clear to us by what right they have access to data belonging to Ince & Co in administration,” Ince & Co France partner Laurence Hanley told Legal Week.
He added: “We don't know how they can justify that. They're a different law firm. When we open a new client case, they send a notification to their whole firm. They still have access.”
An insider at Ince & Co France said the branch had around 5,000 to 6,000 open matters, and that since the parting of ways, the Paris-headquartered firm has been in the process of developing its own client database at a cost.
Hanley also said: “We have been asking [Ince London] for months to transfer our data to us, but they have always found a reason not to or to delay.”
However, Ince London has hit back.
Responding to all of Ince & Co France's allegations, a spokesperson for the Aldgate-based firm said in a statement to Legal Week: “Ince [London] denies any allegations of client data being handled improperly. Protecting our clients' data is paramount to our business and we handle their data in accordance with the applicable regulations and data management best practice.”
Further, a person with knowledge of the matter said that, following the administration, the London office acquired responsibility to continue providing certain services – including data hosting – to the firm's network entities, including Ince France.
Earlier this year, Ince & Co France confirmed it was not going to join the newly-combined Ince, which has since absorbed the rest of Ince & Co's international network.
In the ensuing months, the two parties have been at odds over, among other things, capital entitlements, with people close to the matter saying Ince offered to pay capital back to partners in France only if they joined the firm, which they refused to do.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
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