Latest news with #ModelRulesofProfessionalConduct
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Allegations of Ethical Violations Lead to Call for Disqualification of Counsel in Dickey's Restaurants Litigation
Dallas, TX, June 04, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Today, Lynn, Pinker, Hurst & Schwegmann has filed a motion to disqualify the Zarco law firm from acting as counsel in a matter involving Dickey's Restaurants, Inc in the United States District Court Northern District Of Illinois Eastern Division. The challenge cites alleged egregious and intentional violations of Rules 4.2, 8.4, and 3.7 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The motion centers around the Zarco firm leading a coordinated and unwarranted attack on Dickey's Restaurants to the firm's financial benefit. Allegations include Zarco coordinating and funding baseless litigation by disgruntled franchisees, driving negative publicity, and encouraging franchisees to violate their agreements. Based on information, it is believed that the firm has spent money to attempt to induce franchisees to hire the firm to file unfounded claims. The federal court motion to disqualify Zarco includes accusations that Zarco sued a former Dickey's employee to attempt to force the former employee to testify against Dickey's to get out of the lawsuit. On April 11, 2025, Zarco attorneys reportedly encouraged a client to contact the individual directly, demanding he contact the firm and 'work with us.' This contact is alleged to be a violation of ethical rules and tantamount to witness tampering. Click here to listen to the audio file from filed motion transcript. The complaint further states that the firm subpoenaed the individual for an arbitration trial but then refused to call them to testify, aiming instead to coerce them into changing their testimony privately. These actions are described as professional misconduct aimed at gaining an unfair advantage and threatening the integrity of the legal process. The motion case is: 1:25-cv-02166 Document #: 30. Lynn, Pinker, Hurst, & Schwegmann Media Contact: Monica Cordova monica@ CONTACT: Louisa Garrett lgarrett@
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's deals with Big Law are shakedowns in ‘pro bono' clothing
As a seasoned legal marketing consultant, I urge the media to stop whitewashing President Trump's shake-down of Big Law firms as 'pro bono legal services.' Simply put, Trump's barrage of executive orders, which have extracted almost $1 billion in free work from prominent law firms and lawyers whom he regards as enemies, is extortion for personal legal services credits for the president, or for anyone he chooses. Further, they may create conflicts that could provide additional personal benefits for him in the future. This unbilled, free work does not qualify as 'pro bono services,' as described by Trump's minions and the managing partners, who are cowering at this threat and misrepresenting their justifications. According to the American Bar Association, 'pro bono' comes from the Latin pro bono publico, which means 'for the public good.' The ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct advises that lawyers should render without fee 'at least 50 hours of pro bono legal services per year, emphasizing that these services be provided to people of limited means or nonprofit organizations that serve the poor.' 'The rule recognizes that only lawyers have the special skills and knowledge needed to secure access to justice for low-income people, whose enormous unmet legal needs are well documented,' the ABA adds. In aspiring to become the supreme monarch in charge of a vast fiefdom, Trump has turned some of the country's preeminent law firms — including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins — into indentured servants that have chosen to place commercial security above protecting the rule of law. Using the term 'pro bono' in this context is inaccurate, feeding Trump's fantasies of corrupting the legal profession. According to CBS News, during an April 10 Cabinet meeting, Trump told reporters that his administration may be using lawyers at the 'cooperating' firms to help agency heads because 'You're going to need a lot of lawyers.' Trump said he would 'try to use these very prestigious firms to help us out with the trade' — i.e., in brokering tariff deals with other countries. Essentially, Trump is boasting, 'Hey, I got the big guns, and they're free! What a deal!' News organizations continue to assist in this whitewash, consistently calling the thousands of free hours 'pro bono' work, not shakedown freebies. Let's call this what it is: a tithe forced via threats and blackmail. The settlements Trump has struck to date have nothing to do with the type of honorable pro bono work the legal profession embraces — the use of honed skills to protect constitutional rights and the under-represented. The law firms agreeing to pervert the rule of law are as corrupt as the man they now represent. They offer 'free services' (with possible tax benefits or write-offs) for a preferred partisan client or cause, violating the profession's ethical rules and standards. I don't know any self-respecting lawyer who would agree to that deal, which expose these firms' values for what they are: inauthentic pablum crafted by a political agenda. These emperors have no clothes. I have served as an interim chief marketing officer and communications expert to many top law firms. In planning, we always identify authentic values and their importance, which inform almost every strategy and operating decision. As a manager, my heart goes out to the professional staff tasked with performing communications antithetical to the values they signed on to, to the lawyers, and to the clients whose fees are now being used to bankroll these giveaway services prescribed by one man. They now must decide whether to continue working with the devil they don't know. I have no idea how law students are going to feel about committing to work with hypocrites and spending their pro bono hours toiling away on possible illegal actions. There will be many opportunities to 'rename' this suspect practice and call it anything other than 'pro bono' — perhaps 'Trump's Law' or 'Indentured Legal Service.' By mischaracterizing these representations as pro bono, news organizations (and the firms themselves) are complicit in letting the president frame the narrative. Let's start by redefining these free services on command. They are not 'pro bono' but simply extortion in pro bono clothing. Andrea (Andi) Benjamin is a veteran marketing, communication and strategy consultant to the legal industry. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
18-04-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Trump's deals with Big Law are shakedowns in ‘pro bono' clothing
As a seasoned legal marketing consultant, I urge the media to stop whitewashing President Trump's shake-down of Big Law firms as 'pro bono legal services.' Simply put, Trump's barrage of executive orders, which have extracted almost $1 billion in free work from prominent law firms and lawyers whom he regards as enemies, is extortion for personal legal services credits for the president, or for anyone he chooses. Further, they may create conflicts that could provide additional personal benefits for him in the future. This unbilled, free work does not qualify as 'pro bono services,' as described by Trump's minions and the managing partners, who are cowering at this threat and misrepresenting their justifications. According to the American Bar Association, 'pro bono' comes from the Latin pro bono publico, which means 'for the public good.' The ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct advises that lawyers should render without fee 'at least 50 hours of pro bono legal services per year, emphasizing that these services be provided to people of limited means or nonprofit organizations that serve the poor.' 'The rule recognizes that only lawyers have the special skills and knowledge needed to secure access to justice for low-income people, whose enormous unmet legal needs are well documented,' the ABA adds. In aspiring to become the supreme monarch in charge of a vast fiefdom, Trump has turned some of the country's preeminent law firms — including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins — into indentured servants that have chosen to place commercial security above protecting the rule of law. Using the term 'pro bono' in this context is inaccurate, feeding Trump's fantasies of corrupting the legal profession. According to CBS News, during an April 10 Cabinet meeting, Trump told reporters that his administration may be using lawyers at the 'cooperating' firms to help agency heads because 'You're going to need a lot of lawyers.' Trump said he would 'try to use these very prestigious firms to help us out with the trade' — i.e., in brokering tariff deals with other countries. Essentially, Trump is boasting, 'Hey, I got the big guns, and they're free! What a deal!' News organizations continue to assist in this whitewash, consistently calling the thousands of free hours 'pro bono' work, not shakedown freebies. Let's call this what it is: a tithe forced via threats and blackmail. The settlements Trump has struck to date have nothing to do with the type of honorable pro bono work the legal profession embraces — the use of honed skills to protect constitutional rights and the under-represented. The law firms agreeing to pervert the rule of law are as corrupt as the man they now represent. They offer 'free services' (with possible tax benefits or write-offs) for a preferred partisan client or cause, violating the profession's ethical rules and standards. I don't know any self-respecting lawyer who would agree to that deal, which expose these firms' values for what they are: inauthentic pablum crafted by a political agenda. These emperors have no clothes. I have served as an interim chief marketing officer and communications expert to many top law firms. In planning, we always identify authentic values and their importance, which inform almost every strategy and operating decision. As a manager, my heart goes out to the professional staff tasked with performing communications antithetical to the values they signed on to, to the lawyers, and to the clients whose fees are now being used to bankroll these giveaway services prescribed by one man. They now must decide whether to continue working with the devil they don't know. I have no idea how law students are going to feel about committing to work with hypocrites and spending their pro bono hours toiling away on possible illegal actions. There will be many opportunities to 'rename' this suspect practice and call it anything other than 'pro bono' — perhaps 'Trump's Law' or 'Indentured Legal Service.' By mischaracterizing these representations as pro bono, news organizations (and the firms themselves) are complicit in letting the president frame the narrative. Let's start by redefining these free services on command. They are not 'pro bono' but simply extortion in pro bono clothing.
