Acceleration

It’s Still Cookin’ in the County Hot Potato Case. A Letter is Issued to the Chief Judge Smashing the Sanctions Order

Magistrate Judge Harjani did not take into account the Hot Potato Doctrine which does not protect the Goodwin Procter lawyers violations.

LIT COMMENTARY

In LIT’s earlier article, Magistrate Judge Harjani did not take into account the ‘Hot Potato Doctrine’ which states quite clearly, even if the lawyers withdraw, it does not protect them from misconduct charges and sanctions.

The ‘Hot Potato’ Rule is a serious matter and Goodwin Law  and their attorneys Tom Hefferon, Matt Sheldon  et al should have been sanctioned.

The Burkes have fired a letter off to the Chief Judge Pallmeyer, putting her on notice not only re the hot potato doctrine but the related cases where Goodwin’s lawyers have acted above the law.

Joanna & John Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Dr
Kingwood
TX 77339

2 September, 2020

Ref; Goodwin Procter LLP: Sanctions Motion

Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Eastern Division
Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604

cc.*    Goodwin Procter, LLP
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
Evangelista Worley LLC
Wexler Wallace
Senate Banking Committee
Virginia State Bar
D.C. Bar
Florida Bar
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (19-13015)
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (19-20267 & 20-20209)

*The Texas Supreme Court has authorized electronic and social media as acceptable methods of substituted service.  E.g. (@SupremeCourt_TX on Twitter) amends Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to allow for service via social media: http://txcourts.gov/media/1449613/209103.pdf  As such, we will be issuing copies of this letter to parties and Senators listed above via social media, email and fax while the regular mail is in transit and to expedite notice to those parties.

Dear Judge Pallmeyer

County Of Cook v. Bank of America Corporation (1:14-cv-02280), District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

We refer to the Order Signed by the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani on 8/25/2020: “Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Goodwin Procter LLP 493 is denied. (See Order for Details, Doc. 518).

We respectfully wish to present evidence why this Order should be reconsidered and/or vacated while it is under reconsideration;

The newly appointed Magistrate Judge’s order completely ignored the ethics violations (including rule 1.7), which is referred to as the “hot potato doctrine”. This controls the sanctions requested. Instead, the magistrate went off on a tangent, which is erroneous and a manifest injustice to all parties seeking disqualification or sanctions in this case as well as others who are involved in similar ethical complaints against these rogue lawyers and firm nationwide (that would include ourselves).

An extract from our Bar complaint against Goodwin Procter attorney Matthew Sheldon, in part, explains;

“Mr. Sheldon, represented the Bank in the Illinois case and he was grilled by Judge Bucklo. See transcript from Dec. 5, 2019 hearing, which was submitted to Judge May in Georgia; Doc. 53.14, Cobb County v. Bank of America Corporation (1:15-cv-04081-LMM) District Court, N.D. Georgia). Here’s a snippet; “I really don’t understand how you can represent them.” – “I do find it DISTURBING.”- Judge Bucklo.

Once Mr. Sheldon left that hearing Goodwin promptly discarded the new witnesses (Doc. 83, March 25th, 2020) to fend for themself and after signing agreements to represent them.

The courts found that this meant the witness statements were moot [at this time]. While the Burkes dispute that opinion in law, the purpose of this complaint is the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Burkes now highlight the fact that ethically, the lawyer(s) actions are certainly not ‘moot’. Actually, in the Georgia action, Judge May has kept the ‘sanctions’ against Goodwin Procter, LLP, firmly on the table (Doc. 86, April 10th, 2020).

Furthermore, it was clear that the judges and all counsel recognized that these witnesses could be charged with perjury upon independent review. Goodwin dropped them faster than a hot potato but the ‘hot potato rule’ does not support that decision; Under the “hot potato” rule, a “‘law firm that knowingly undertakes adverse concurrent representation cannot avoid disqualification by withdrawing from the representation of the less favored client.’”  The “hot potato” rule reflects that the “duty of loyalty to an existing client is so important, so sacred, so inviolate that “not even by withdrawing from the relationship can an attorney evade it. See also; https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hot-potato-rule/  and State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Drobot, 192 F. Supp. 3d 1080 (C.D. Cal. 2016).

See also; RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS.

The conference hearing by U.S. District Judge Bucklo, attended by Matt Sheldon of Goodwin is clear when she makes statements on the record supporting the ethical violations;

“I really don’t understand how you can represent them” and “I do find it disturbing” and – “And if there is a contradiction there, then it seems to me you do have a conflict.”.

The magistrate tries to deflect these statements as insignificant. That is error. It is axiomatic that the violation of Rule 1.7 cannot be corrected by Goodwin retracting from its position to avoid sanctions or other discipline.

Under the hot potato doctrine a law firm that knowingly undertakes adverse concurrent representation cannot avoid disqualification by withdrawing from the representation of the less favored client.

The hot potato doctrine reflects that the duty of loyalty to an existing client is so important, so sacred, so inviolate that not even withdrawing from the relationship can an attorney evade it.

See “Courts have noted that “a unilateral communications scheme . . . is rife with potential for coercion.”  Kleiner v. The First Nat’l Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193, 1202  (11th Cir. 1985)”.  This is also affirmed by the expert report and declaration of Professor Roy D. Simon, Jr., an expert in the field of legal ethics and professional responsibility.

“Prima facie evidence exists that Goodwin Procter suborned perjury from the confidential witnesses by obtaining false declarations under penalty of perjury and, by analogy to the “sham affidavit doctrine…”

Whilst Judge Elaine Bucklo ultimately decided the sanctions motion was moot, which is questionable in itself because you cannot ‘moot’ this type of violation of ethics per the hot potato doctrine, this sentiment was not echoed in the related case Cook case in Georgia. Judge Leigh Martin May decided the sanctions were open to being reconsidered at a later time, if necessary. See; Cobb County v. Bank of America Corporation (1:15-CV-04081) District Court, N.D. Georgia.

Judge Bucklo’s order in this regard is worth detailing;

“Disqualification of counsel is denied as moot, based on Goodwin Procter’s withdrawal from representation of witnesses and the protections put in place by the assigned magistrate judge.”

Judge Bucklo’s statement here is vague and while ‘the protections put in place’ are not specified, we wish to alert this honorable court that despite any and all protections that may be in place in “this” case, it has not stopped Goodwin Procter LLP acting as a rogue, win at all costs, biglaw firm that believes itself and the attorneys who represent them are “above the law (and this would include  any and all professional ethical violations)”. This should be a mistaken belief. See; El Camino Resources, Ltd. v. Huntington National Bank, 623 F. Supp. 2d 863 (W.D. Mich. 2007).

We have been litigating in a case where we were denied intervention in S.D. Fl. Court by Judge Ken Marra. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. OCWEN Financial Corporation, Inc. (9:17-cv-80495) District Court, S.D. Florida.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (#19-13015), we became aware of irrefutable evidence that both Judge Marra and Ocwen’s lawyers, comprising of several Goodwin Procter lawyers, including the 4 Goodwin lawyers the Burkes have complained of, namely Matt Sheldon, Tom Hefferon, Sabrina Rose Smith or Rose-Smith and Catalina Azuero. They are listed as counsel in the Cook County case discussed herein, and these lawyers conspired to withhold evidence in order to illegally deny the Burkes intervention all the while committed repeated perjury in filings both at the lower and appellate courts.

As stated, the case is on appeal and the Burkes have filed a judicial complaint against Senior U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra and 4 bar complaints against Goodwin lawyers, namely Matthew Sheldon (Virginia Bar, no case number), Thomas Hefferon (Virginia Bar, no case number), Sabrina Rose-Smith or Rose Smith (D.C. Bar, Undocketed No. 2020-U481) and Catalina Azuero (Florida Bar, #21-112).

Goodwin Procter have a system of lying and being unethical in recent court cases as identified and they also have a recorded history of ethical violations as well. Here’s 2 historic examples and a newly discovered unauthorized practice of law violation;

Plaintiff George Haseotes filed suit derivatively on behalf of Cumberland Farms after he learned that Boston’s Goodwin Procter had racked up a seven-figure tab by assigning 34 lawyers — billing at rates of up to $825 an hour — to work on a potential sale of the company. – an ‘ethical’ violation – Mass. rule of Prof. responsibility 1.5 prohibits a lawyer from charging excessive or illegal fees.

See; https://newenglandinhouse.com/2013/01/16/cumberland-farms-shareholder-slaps-firm-with-legal-mal-suit/

An arbitrator has found the law firm Goodwin Procter overcharged a real estate client by more than $540,000 in a rare showdown over the billing procedures used by many of Boston’s largest and most prominent legal practices. The arbitrator, Jeffrey Martin, ruled Goodwin submitted “vague’’ invoices to Northland Investment Corp., failed to provide a promised discount, and used too many of its attorneys to bill for the same legal tasks. As a result, Martin ordered Goodwin to cut its $1.1 million invoice by 55 percent. See; https://archive.boston.com/business/articles/2010/12/10/540000_overcharge_sheds_light_on_law_firm_bills/

Alexis Susan Coll of Goodwin Procter, LLP appears to have practiced law while unauthorized to do so. Her State Bar of California membership is in her maiden name of Coll, but her business name has been Coll-Very for nearly 3 decades. (That’s just wrong). There’s also a couple of recent suspensions and breaks in membership that indicate she could have been involved in the unauthorized practice of law during that time.

Billing records would confirm the violations but certainly it would appear to be the case, looking at the In re Twitter Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 16-cv-05314-JST (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2018) as an example, she was counsel of record during the time in 2019 when her State Bar license was inactive and filings into the case were being made. No change of status regarding her removal from this case is recorded during the period.

Note; We have not filed any complaint against Ms. Coll regarding our discovery, however, it will be interesting to see if this court or any of the copied parties, who are mostly lawyers, as part of their ethical duties outlined in (e) below, will report this violation. See;

“When an attorney discovers a possible ethical violation concerning a matter before a court, he is not only authorized but is in fact obligated to bring the problem to that court’s attention. See Estates Theatres, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 93, 98 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). ” In re Gopman, 531 F.2d 262, 265 (5th Cir. 1976)

A former Goodwin Procter Lawyer, Associate Professor Luke M. Scheuer previously held adjunct positions at Boston College Law School, the University of Massachusetts School of Law, and Boston University School of Law where he taught advanced legal skills courses on contract and corporate drafting.

Before teaching, he held a judicial clerkship in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and also worked as a corporate associate at Goodwin Procter LLP in Boston.

The following 2010 article confirms our belief that the lawyers at Goodwin Procter LLP involved in the Burkes case in CFPB v. Ocwen in Fl. should have reported attorney fraud, if they were not the author of the motions filed in that case. They did not do so. This is clear error. See “Duty to Report Attorney Misconduct” (2010); Available at: https://works.bepress.com/luke_scheuer/2/

Relief Requested:

Vacation of the Order and/or Reconsideration of the sanctions motion based on the erroneous order by the magistrate judge who ignored the hot potato doctrine completely in his 4-pronged summary argument denying the sanctions motion.

See: “This Court is fully aware of the “changes” in the “legal world” and attempts to stay abreast of them and deal with cases in an up-to-date fashion. Keeping that in mind, however, does not somehow lead this Court to believe that “changes” also mean adopting a set of principles and ethics for “mega corporations” and “monster law firms” which is something less than that imposed on small companies and lesser-size law firms.

Rule 1.7 stands as is for everyone.

This Court notes that, if anything, large law firms have an even greater responsibility to incorporate satisfactory computer conflicts check systems simply because of their size and the fact the lawyers in these firms are not able to manually check their client lists for potential conflicts.”

Lemelson v. Apple Computer, Inc., 28 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1419

(rejecting SWS’s approach of a size- dependent application of ethical rules regarding disqualification).

Furthermore, and based on related cases as identified herein, it is irrefutable that Goodwin Procter LLP has implemented a known system of fraud in law suits in federal courts nationwide. This should be investigated at the highest level and reported to the respective Bars and Agencies. See; LR83.50. Rules of Professional Conduct, in part; a lawyer not admitted to practice in Illinois is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct for the state in which the lawyer’s principal office is located.

Summary:

In recap, in light of the above, we believe that disqualification of Goodwin Procter’s lawyers should be mandatory (See; In re Discipline of Ray, 2019 WL 3082523, at *9. “Given the district court’s detailed analysis that is supported by the record and this court’s holding in Hernandez, 907 F.3d 365-66, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Ray’s disbarment. See Mole, 822 F.3d at 801. Ray’s secondary argument that the district court erred in failing to consider a lesser sanction is also meritless.”).

Not only have they acted unethically in this case, they have also repeated these unethical acts in our case, CFPB v. Ocwen in S.D. Fl. See; Rule 3.03(a)(1) (prohibiting lawyers from “knowingly making false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal”), Rule 3.03(a)(5) (prohibiting lawyers from knowingly offering false evidence), Rule 8.04(a)(3) (prohibiting lawyers from “engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation”). – Case #18-0879, Supreme Court of Texas, 25th October, 2019, Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Mark A. Cantu.

The cases in question are live and ongoing. What is alarming is the fact these unethical lawyers at Goodwin are still counsel of record and still very active on the docket(s). It is unacceptable based on the information presented herein. They should be disqualified. In our circuit, the Fifth Circuit has stated District courts are “obliged to take measures against unethical conduct occurring in connection with any proceeding before it.” – In re Am. Airlines, 972 F.2d 605, 61 I (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Woods v. Covington County Bank, 537 F.2d 804,810 (5th Cir. 1992)).

We also respectfully request any Orders be noticed to ourselves as we are involved in related live controversies and cases, including judicial and ethical complaints as discussed above.

Public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is promoted when judges take appropriate action based on reliable information of likely misconduct. Appropriate action depends on the circumstances, but the overarching goal of such action should be to prevent harm to those affected by the misconduct and to prevent recurrence. See Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3B(6) & cmt.

We kindly ask that you take appropriate action here.

Respectfully,

I, Joanna Burke, declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

September 2, 2020, Kingwood, Texas.

Joanna Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Dr., Kingwood 77339 TX
Email; kajongwe@gmail.com

I, John Burke, declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

September 2, 2020, Kingwood, Texas.

John Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Dr., Kingwood 77339 TX
Email; alsation123@gmail.com

Hyperlinks to documents relevant to this letter;

DC Bar Complaint (Rose Smith or Rose-Smith)

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AvIdtQ5ExRHkub5AgcuEuVrFLgQaoQ

Virginia Bar Complaint (Hefferon)

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AvIdtQ5ExRHkub4-0pNAoIS-5D1okg

Virginia Bar Complaint (Sheldon)

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AvIdtQ5ExRHkub4_s5pDxzqqdrcCZg

Florida Bar Complaint (Azuero)

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AvIdtQ5ExRHkub5B56iwbb7oh5msdQ

11th Cir. Judicial Complaint (Marra)

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AvIdtQ5ExRHkub5CbEpXaaSPDv2Kjw

Docket for case County Of Cook v. Bank of America Corporation (1:14-cv-02280)
District Court, N.D. Illinois

United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois – CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14-cv-02280

County Of Cook v. Bank of America Corporation et al
Assigned to: Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo
Referred to: Honorable Sunil R. Harjani
Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Date Filed: 03/31/2014
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Date Entered # Docket Text

08/25/2020 519 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: In light of the status hearing set before Magistrate Judge Harjani, Status hearing set for 8/28/2020 is stricken and reset for 11/19/2020 at 9:45 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). The parties shall file a joint written status report by 11/12/2020. The court will enter a scheduling order in response to the status report. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 08/25/2020)

08/25/2020 518 ORDER Signed by the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani on 8/25/2020: Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Goodwin Procter LLP 493 is denied. (See Order For Details) Mailed notice(lxs, ) (Entered: 08/25/2020)

08/24/2020 517 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Status hearing set for 8/27/20 is reset to 10/22/2020 at 9:15 a.m. by telephone. Status report due is due by 10/16/2020. The Court has reviewed the parties’ joint status report 516 . Written discovery is closed but the parties have asked that the deadline to complete depositions be extended to September 30, 2020. Given the parties’ significant amount of work in moving discovery forward over the last few months, the Court will grant an extension to complete depositions to September 30, 2020. All remaining dates stand. The Court will issue a written ruling on the pending motion for sanctions 493 in the near future. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 08/24/2020)

08/21/2020 516 STATUS Report (Joint) by BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America N.A., Countrywide Bank FSB, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans Inc., Countrywide Warehouse Lending LLC, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Captial Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. (Sheldon, Matthew) (Entered: 08/21/2020)
08/19/2020 515 NOTICE by BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America N.A., Countrywide Bank FSB, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans Inc., Countrywide Warehouse Lending LLC, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Captial Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. Supplemental Declaration of Justin A. Dahl (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sheldon, Matthew) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/17/2020 514 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Motion to appear pro hac vice 513 is granted. Mailed notice (reg) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
08/15/2020 513 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-17321744. (Briggs, Carleton) (Entered: 08/15/2020)
08/03/2020 512 REPLY by County Of Cook to response in opposition to motion, 507 , MOTION by Plaintiff County Of Cook for leave to appeal the 6/15/20 Order 501 (Evangelista, James) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

07/30/2020 511 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Motions to appear pro hac vice 508 509 are granted. Mailed notice <Attachments (reg) (Entered: 07/30/2020)

07/28/2020 510 REPLY by Plaintiff County Of Cook to motion for sanctions, 493 Reply Memorandum in Further Support of of its Motion (Wexler, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/28/2020)

07/24/2020 509 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-17248370. (Perry, Alan) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/23/2020 508 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-17244574. (Toran, Leslie) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/20/2020 507 RESPONSE by BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America N.A., Countrywide Bank FSB, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans Inc., Countrywide Warehouse Lending LLC, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Captial Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc.in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff County Of Cook for leave to appeal the 6/15/20 Order 501 (Sheldon, Matthew) (Entered: 07/20/2020)
07/14/2020 506 RESPONSE by BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America N.A., Countrywide Bank FSB, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans Inc., Countrywide Warehouse Lending LLC, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Captial Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc.in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff County Of Cook for sanctions against Goodwin Procter LLP and Memorandum in of Law in Support Thereof 493 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sheldon, Matthew) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

07/14/2020 505 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: At the parties’ request, the court sets the agreed briefing schedule on plaintiff’s motion to certify the June 15, 2020 order for interlocutory appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) 501 as follows: Defendants to respond by 7/20/2020. Plaintiff to reply by 8/3/2020. Ruling before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 9/11/2020 at 9:45 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

07/10/2020 504 ORDER Fifth Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on July 10, 2020. This Order does not extend or modify any deadlines set in civil cases. No motions may be noticed for in-person presentment; the presiding judge will notify parties of the need, if any, for a hearing by electronic means or in-court proceeding. See attached Order. Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 7/10/2020: Mailed notice. (Clerk3, Docket) (Entered: 07/10/2020)

06/30/2020 503 STATUS Report (Joint) Concerning DKT. No. 497 by BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America N.A., Countrywide Bank FSB, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans Inc., Countrywide Warehouse Lending LLC, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Captial Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. (Sheldon, Matthew) (Entered: 06/30/2020)

06/22/2020 502 NOTICE of Motion by James M. Evangelista for presentment of motion for leave to appeal 501 before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 7/15/2020 at 09:45 AM. (Evangelista, James) (Entered: 06/22/2020)

06/22/2020 501 MOTION by Plaintiff County Of Cook for leave to appeal the 6/15/20 Order (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support)(Evangelista, James) (Entered: 06/22/2020)

06/16/2020 500 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: At counsel’s request, Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against Goodwin Procter LLP 493 is due by 7/14/2020; reply is due by 7/28/2020.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 06/16/2020)

06/15/2020 499 ORDER signed by the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 6/15/2020. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020 498 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint and memorandum of law in support thereof 481 is denied. Enter Order. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Goodwin Procter LLP and memorandum of law in support thereof 493 is referred to Magistrate Judge Harjani. Motion hearing set for 7/15/2020 is stricken and is to be re-noticed before the assigned magistrate judge. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/15/2020 497 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: The Court has reviewed the County’s settlement offer and the Defendants’ response. Counsel for both parties are ordered to meet and confer by telephone, discuss the letters, and determine whether they wish to continue settlement discussions. As it currently stands, the Court does not see that a settlement conference with the Court would be worthwhile given the current positions, but the parties are to discuss whether they wish to engage in further letter exchanges with revised offers and responses to narrow the gap. The parties shall submit a status report with an update on the meet and confer conference by June 30, 2020. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

06/11/2020 496 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Status hearing set for 8/27/20 at 9:15 a.m. by telephone, at this time, for case tracking purposes. The Court will enter a separate order if an appearance is necessary after viewing the status report due 8/21/20. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 06/11/2020)

06/10/2020 495 REPLY by Plaintiff County Of Cook to motion to amend/correct,, 481 Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Amend Complaint (Wexler, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/10/2020)

This Court is fully aware of the “changes” in the “legal world” and attempts to stay abreast of them and deal with cases in an up-to-date fashion. Keeping that in mind, however, does not somehow lead this Court to believe that “changes” also mean adopting a set of principles and ethics for “mega corporations” and “monster law firms” which is something less than that imposed on small companies and lesser-size law firms.

Rule 1.7 stands as is for everyone.

This Court notes that, if anything, large law firms have an even greater responsibility to incorporate satisfactory computer conflicts check systems simply because of their size and the fact the lawyers in these firms are not able to manually check their client lists for potential conflicts.

Lemelson v. Apple Computer, Inc., 28 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1419

(rejecting SWS’s approach of a size- dependent application of ethical rules regarding disqualification).

Docket for related case Cobb County v. Bank of America Corporation (1:15-cv-04081)
District Court, N.D. Georgia

U.S. District Court
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15-cv-04081-LMM

Cobb County et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al
Assigned to: Judge Leigh Martin May
Cause: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act
Date Filed: 11/20/2015
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

 

Date Entered # Docket Text
08/28/2020 97 NOTICE by Cobb County, DeKalb County, Fulton County, Georgia re 87 Response in Opposition to Motion of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Opinion City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo & Co.,))(Evangelista, James) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

U.S. District Court
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:15-cv-04081-LMM

Cobb County et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al
Assigned to: Judge Leigh Martin May
Cause: 42:3601 Fair Housing Act
Date Filed: 11/20/2015
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Date Entered # Docket Text

08/04/2020 96 SIXTH AMENDMENT TO GENERAL ORDER 20-01 RE: COURT OPERATIONS UNDER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY COVID-19 AND RELATED CORONAVIRUS. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 08/03/2020. (mmc) (ADI) (Entered: 08/04/2020)

07/13/2020 95 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO GENERAL ORDER 20-01 RE: COURT OPERATIONS UNDER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY COVID-19 AND RELATED CORONAVIRUS. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 7/10/2020 (rvb) (ADI) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

07/02/2020 94 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO GENERAL ORDER 20-01 RE: COURT OPERATIONS UNDER THE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED BY COVID-19 AND RELATED CORONA VIRUS. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 07/01/2020. (mmc) (ADI) (Entered: 07/02/2020)

06/26/2020 93 RESPONSE re 92 Notice (Other),, filed by Cobb County, DeKalb County, Fulton County, Georgia. (Evangelista, James) (Entered: 06/26/2020)

06/12/2020 92 NOTICE by BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Countrywide Bank, FSB, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Warehouse Lending, LLC, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. re 81 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A – 06-01-2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision from the case, Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A.)(Custer, William) (Entered: 06/12/2020)

Please wait while we processing your donation 
Please wait while we processing your donation 
Please insert all the required fields
Please insert correct email
Please fill in a valid amount
  • AF
  • AX
  • AL
  • DZ
  • AS
  • AD
  • AO
  • AI
  • AQ
  • AG
  • AR
  • AM
  • AW
  • AU
  • AT
  • AZ
  • BS
  • BH
  • BD
  • BB
  • BY
  • BE
  • BZ
  • BJ
  • BM
  • BT
  • BO
  • BA
  • BW
  • BV
  • BR
  • IO
  • BN
  • BG
  • BF
  • BI
  • KH
  • CM
  • CA
  • CV
  • KY
  • CF
  • TD
  • CL
  • CN
  • CX
  • CC
  • CO
  • KM
  • CG
  • CD
  • CK
  • CR
  • HR
  • CY
  • CZ
  • DK
  • DJ
  • DM
  • DO
  • EC
  • EG
  • SV
  • GQ
  • ER
  • EE
  • ET
  • EU
  • FK
  • FO
  • FJ
  • FI
  • FR
  • GF
  • PF
  • TF
  • GA
  • GM
  • GE
  • DE
  • GH
  • GI
  • GB
  • GR
  • GL
  • GD
  • GP
  • GU
  • GT
  • GG
  • GN
  • GW
  • GY
  • HT
  • HM
  • VA
  • HN
  • HK
  • HU
  • IS
  • IN
  • ID
  • IE
  • IM
  • IL
  • IT
  • CI
  • JM
  • JP
  • JE
  • JO
  • KZ
  • KE
  • KI
  • KR
  • KP
  • KW
  • KG
  • LA
  • LV
  • LB
  • LS
  • LI
  • LT
  • LU
  • MO
  • MK
  • MG
  • MW
  • MY
  • MV
  • ML
  • MT
  • MH
  • MQ
  • MR
  • MU
  • YT
  • MX
  • FM
  • MD
  • MC
  • MN
  • ME
  • MS
  • MA
  • MZ
  • NA
  • NR
  • NP
  • NL
  • AN
  • NC
  • NZ
  • NI
  • NE
  • NG
  • NU
  • NF
  • MP
  • NO
  • OM
  • PK
  • PW
  • PS
  • PA
  • PY
  • PG
  • PE
  • PH
  • PN
  • PL
  • PT
  • PR
  • QA
  • RE
  • RO
  • RS
  • RU
  • RW
  • SH
  • KN
  • LC
  • PM
  • VC
  • WS
  • SM
  • ST
  • SA
  • SN
  • SC
  • SL
  • SG
  • SK
  • SI
  • SB
  • SO
  • ZA
  • GS
  • ES
  • LK
  • SR
  • SJ
  • SZ
  • SE
  • CH
  • TW
  • TJ
  • TZ
  • TH
  • TL
  • TG
  • TK
  • TO
  • TT
  • TN
  • TR
  • TM
  • TC
  • TV
  • UG
  • UA
  • AE
  • US
  • UM
  • UY
  • UZ
  • VU
  • VE
  • VN
  • VG
  • VI
  • WF
  • EH
  • YE
  • ZM
  • ZW
  • AL
  • AK
  • AS
  • AZ
  • AR
  • CA
  • CO
  • CT
  • DE
  • DC
  • FM
  • FL
  • GA
  • GU
  • HI
  • ID
  • IL
  • IN
  • IA
  • KS
  • KY
  • LA
  • ME
  • MH
  • MD
  • MA
  • MI
  • MN
  • MS
  • MO
  • MT
  • NE
  • NV
  • NH
  • NJ
  • NM
  • NY
  • NC
  • ND
  • MP
  • OH
  • OK
  • OR
  • PW
  • PA
  • PR
  • RI
  • SC
  • SD
  • TN
  • TX
  • UT
  • VT
  • VI
  • VA
  • WA
  • WV
  • WI
  • WY
  • AA
  • AE
  • AP
  • AB
  • BC
  • MB
  • NB
  • NL
  • NT
  • NS
  • NU
  • ON
  • PE
  • QC
  • SK
  • YT
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Popular

ADVERTISE on LIT

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Copyright © 2020 Laws In Texas. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top