Alston & Bird has reached a confidential settlement in a legal malpractice suit that sought tens of millions of dollars by a former employee and confidante of the late Olga Goizueta, widow of former Coca-Cola chairman and CEO Roberto Goizueta.

The complaint, filed in Fulton County Superior Court in 2016, said Alston & Bird had handled the affairs of both Olga Goizueta and plaintiff Katherine Stearns prior to Goizueta's death in 2015. Roberto Goizueta died in 1997, leaving an estate worth over $1 billion.

Then, Stearns said, in an effort to ingratiate itself with Goizueta's children, the firm used its knowledge of the women's affairs to orchestrate “sham” investigations into millions of dollars in gifts and bequests the wealthy widow gave her.

Stearns' suit sought more than $35 million, including $10 million in gifts she was forced to return, and $25 million in bequests that were revoked before Goizueta's death as the result of the firm's actions.

She also said she lost $3.2 million due from a termination agreement, and spent more than $1 million in legal fees fighting the Internal Revenue Service and litigating a suit Goizueta filed against her in DeKalb County that was dismissed with prejudice in 2013.

She also blamed the firm for an Internal Revenue Service assessment for nearly $8 million in taxes and penalties.

On April 11, Judge Shawn LaGrua entered an order saying the parties settled the case during mediation on March 29.

Stearns was represented by Atlanta solo Bruce Brown, and Andrew Beal and Nicholas Smith of Buckley Beal. Brown said he did not have permission to discuss the case.

Alston & Bird was represented by Thomas Curvin, Melissa Fox and Amanda Griffin of Eversheds Sutherland. Neither they nor Alston & Bird general counsel Steven Collins responded to requests for comment.

Collins previously said the firm owed no duty to Stearns when the lawsuit was filed.

“Ms. Stearns alleges that our firm breached duties to her by investigating her conduct as an employee of a firm client, and by pursuing claims against her on behalf of that client. We deny any liability,” said Collins at the time.

According to the complaint, Stearns was a high-level employee with the Atlanta Archdiocese in 2006 when Goizueta hired her to “assist with the coordination of her advisers, and her everyday professional and personal needs.”

Goizueta reportedly showered Stearns with gifts and bequests, and she retained Alston & Bird to manage her own estate and legal affairs. Until 2012 the firm oversaw multiple transactions between Goizueta and Stearns.

Goizueta often funneled her gifts of money, property and construction work through a contractor to keep her children from finding out about them, the complaint said.

When the heirs found out about the arrangement, “rather than standing up and acknowledging that it knew of the gifts and that they were proper,” Alston & Bird accused Stearns and the contractor of embezzling the funds.

That tactic allowed Alston & Bird to claim it had no knowledge of the transfers, and thus failed to advise Goizueta to pay gift taxes on them.

In July 2012, an Alston & Bird partner escorted Stearns out of Goizueta's home and told her she was being suspended pending an audit and investigation. Alston & Bird filed the DeKalb County action on Goizueta's behalf the next month.

Stearns' just-dismissed suit included claims for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, tortious and intentional interference with contract and economic expectancy and fraud.

The Goizuetas' bequests have spawned other litigation as well. Last month, the Georgia Court of Appeals splintered in a case involving claims by 14 people who worked for them. They claim that two Goizueta children improperly forced Olga Goizueta to change a trust document so that it eliminated her intention to bequeath about $5.4 million to the ex-workers.

On March 16, the Georgia Court of Appeals voted 10-4 largely in favor of the Goizueta children, upholding a provision in a trust created by Olga Goizueta that forfeits any allotment for a beneficiary who challenges the validity of the trust.

A majority of states void such “in terrorem” or “no contest” provisions when beneficiaries have probable cause to claim something in the trust is amiss, one dissenting judge wrote.

But the majority ruled that Georgia state law allows such clauses to be enforced.