Another Big Law firm based in Philadelphia has been pulled into a $30 million lawsuit involving Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and ex-client Towers Watson Delaware over alleged conflicts, as the parties spar over access to information about an underlying confidential settlement.

Towers used Morgan Lewis as litigation counsel on various cases beginning in 2009. In its complaint, filed just over a year ago in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Towers alleged that Morgan Lewis used its knowledge of the company to help one of Towers' retirement plan users, Meriter Health Services, sue Towers. Meriter and Towers agreed to a confidential settlement, but Towers has alleged in its claims that it lost $25 million as a result.

Morgan Lewis, which had represented Meriter in previous matters but not in the dispute with Towers, has argued that Towers had agreed to a conflicts waiver. The firm also contends that Towers chose to settle based on its own conduct, and was not forced to do so because of Morgan Lewis.

Now Morgan Lewis is seeking proof to back that argument from Pepper Hamilton, which was Towers' defense counsel in the case with Meriter that settled. Morgan Lewis has also not given up on getting the information straight from Towers, filing a motion to compel Wednesday.

According to court documents, Morgan Lewis served a subpoena on Pepper Hamilton last week, seeking documents and communications about Meriter's lawsuit against Towers, including material about the strength of Meriter's claims, the risk of going to trial in the case and the reasonableness of settlement terms.

In a motion to quash the subpoena, filed Tuesday, Towers argued that Morgan Lewis has already sought that information through a motion to compel that Judge Patricia McInerney granted in part and denied in part.

McInerney said Towers must produce all documents requested with respect to its own informed consent to the alleged conflict of interest. But she did not compel documents pertaining to Towers' settlement with Meriter Health Services. Towers appealed McInerney's decision, and the case is pending in Pennsylvania Superior Court.

“Not only does Morgan's subpoena to Pepper fail to exclude attorney-client privileged (and/or work product protected) information, the requests for production therein specifically target privileged documents and communications, including those this court previously ruled are protected from discovery,” Towers said in its motion Tuesday.

In its own motion to compel Wednesday, Morgan Lewis continued to argue that Towers itself should produce documents. The firm alleged that Towers has withheld relevant documents, including those it has been ordered to produce by McInerney.

“Towers has brought this high-stakes and complex lawsuit, but now desperately wishes to avoid putting in the work required to pursue such a claim,” Morgan Lewis' filing said. “Or perhaps it is not a matter of work avoidance, but a strategy by Towers to conceal facts that would undermine patently meritless claims.”

Robert Heim of Dechert, who is representing Morgan Lewis, said the information Pepper Hamilton can provide would show Towers' perception of its own exposure in the case Meriter brought. “There are no claims by anyone here … that Pepper has done anything wrong,” Heim added.

A spokesman for Pepper Hamilton deferred comment to Sprague & Sprague, the law firm representing Towers in the suit against Morgan Lewis.

“In our view, the subpoena seeks clearly privileged and broadly irrelevant information, including some of the very same documents and communications the court already ruled were protected from discovery when Morgan previously requested them from Towers,” William Trask, one of the lawyers representing Towers, said in a statement Wednesday. “Given the privilege and other protections clearly afforded the requested documents, and given the costly overbreadth of the requests generally, we've filed a motion to quash and for protective relief to bring these issues to the attention of the court.”

Related Articles: