Did a name partner at an AmLaw 200 firm advise one client—who is serving as the trustee  of his late brother's estate—to hide recording devices in a master bedroom closet of another client—the late brother's widow? And did the cameras capture her undressing? Or prove she was trying to steal from the estate?

These allegations are part of bitter litigation unfolding in Los Angeles County Superior Court involving 114-lawyer Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, television producer Aaron Kaplan and his former sister-in-law, Elizabeth Kaplan. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again … when it comes to legal blood sports, nothing tops a trusts and estates fight. This case is no exception.

The saga began on July 27, 2018, when Joe Kaplan died unexpectedly in his sleep at age 55 while on vacation in Bermuda with his second wife, Elizabeth. The two had been married for nearly 10 years and had a son together, who was born in 2009. Joe Kaplan also had two adult children from a prior marriage.

According to his obituary, Joe co-founded Superior Bankcard Service as well as credit card processor Innovative Merchant Solutions, which was acquired by Intuit in 2003 for $116 million.

Elizabeth, who had a prenuptial agreement, says she was supposed to get $5 million in the event of Joe's death, plus a $1 million trust for their son's education, $200,000 a year until their son turns 19 and the right to live for free in their house in Malibu until their son is 19, provided she doesn't remarry or cohabitate with a non-blood relative.

Joe's younger brother Aaron (whose TV projects include "The Chi" and "Santa Clarita Diet") is the trustee of the estate. According to Deadline, Aaron is not named as a beneficiary and is not billing the estate for his services.

Right after Joe's death but before Elizabeth returned from Bermuda, Aaron in court papers said he learned that "Elizabeth's friends were entering [Joe and Elizabeth's] house for hours at a time and had removed art from the walls."

Aaron also said he knew that his brother kept large amounts of cash in the house, and that there was a wall safe in his brother's master bedroom closet. (Elizabeth has her own separate closet.)

"On advice of counsel, the trustee had motion-activated cameras installed inside Joe's closet to ensure the preservation of the trust's valuables contained therein," wrote Aaron's current lawyers Howard Weitzman of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert and Jeryll Cohen of Freeman, Freeman & Smiley.

Without specifying who gave Aaron the legal advice, Weitzman and Cohen later repeated that "Based on consultations with his attorney, the trustee understood that he could—and should—have motion-activated cameras installed in Joe's personal closet to monitor and protect those assets for the beneficiaries of Joe's trust."

Elizabeth in her complaint says the lawyer was Jeffer Mangels name partner Burton Mitchell, and that in conversations with her probate counsel, Mitchell "acknowledged telling Aaron he could install these recording devices in Elizabeth's home."

A Jeffer Mangels spokeswoman said, "The attorney-client privilege prevents the firm from disclosing what, if anything, was discussed with the client Aaron Kaplan."

The motion-activated cameras—which also recorded sound—didn't stay hidden for long. After about two weeks, Elizabeth's mother (who had come to stay with her daughter) discovered them.

According to Elizabeth, one of the cameras was positioned "in a way that it peered directly into the other closet in Elizabeth's master bedroom suite," wrote her attorney, Los Angeles solo Michael L. Cohen. "It's where Elizabeth would dress and undress. It's where Elizabeth would pick out and put on her bra and underwear … Elizabeth would walk in this passageway naked or in her bra and underwear or only partially clothed."

She's suing Aaron, who she wants removed as the trustee, for multiple claims including emotional distress, invasion of privacy and fraudulent concealment. The complaint includes seven exhibits showing the layout of the room and alleged camera angles.

She's also going after Mitchell and his firm for aiding and abetting, conspiracy and declaratory relief. 

"It is despicable—and unlawful—for an attorney or a law firm to advise anyone to invade another individual's legally protected privacy and to break various California penal laws and civil laws in doing so. It's even worse when the victim is a client, as Elizabeth was a client of Mitchell and [Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell]," Cohen wrote. 

When asked whether representing both Aaron and Elizabeth presented a conflict, a Jeffer Mangels spokeswoman responded, "There were signed explicit conflict waiver letters signed 10 years ago when Elizabeth was a client and the attempt to pretend that she did not sign one is as meritless as the rest of her claims."

The spokeswoman added, "It is disappointing that Elizabeth Kaplan has turned her anger toward lawyers who more than 10 years ago established routine estate planning documents and who have not represented Elizabeth in the decade since. The firm will defend this meritless case with vigor and expects to prevail."

According to Aaron's lawyers, Elizabeth's legal moves are nothing more than an attempt at "extortion."

"Elizabeth's attorney threatened to publish false allegations that the cameras were intended to capture footage of Elizabeth in her private dressing area, scantily clad, unless the trustee acquiesced to Elizabeth's demands," wrote Weitzman and Cohen. "The allegations are not true. The cameras were located in Joe's closet and no such recording occurred. What the cameras did catch, however, was Elizabeth stealing trust assets."

Aaron's lawyers say they recorded Elizabeth and her mother "ransacking Joe's private closet" to look for valuables—and footage that shows she found a stack of $10,000 in cash, which she "promptly pocketed." 

Despite being explicitly warned not to try to access the wall safe, Aaron's counsel says the cameras also caught Elizabeth with a locksmith trying to get it open.

"It is unknown how much more was stolen from the trust after the cameras were removed," they wrote. They've asked the court to order Elizabeth to return to the trust all assets that she wrongly controls and to reiterate that the terms of the trust should be administered without variance, as well as to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the interests of Elizabeth and Joe's son. 

"Elizabeth's attorneys have viewed the entirety of the footage,' they wrote, "and are well aware that the only indecencies captured by the motion-activated cameras were Elizabeth's theft of inheritance meant for Joe's children and heartless desecration of her late husband's memory."

We hope you enjoyed this excerpt from Litigation Daily, the exclusive source for sharp commentary on mega court battles, winning strategies and the issues that obsess elite litigators. Click here to subscribe.