Apple betrayed by its own law firm (2013)
arstechnica.com
Apple betrayed by its own law firm (2013)
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: Apple betrayed by its own law firm (2013)
#2> Apple, betrayed by its own law firm
Honest question: what is the comma doing in this headline?
Re: Apple betrayed by its own law firm (2013)
#3IANAL, but if Apple can show that McAleese had access to confidential iPhone data and transmitted that to his wife, or even advised her on her suit (his advise would be tempered by what he knew of apple's situation), wouldn't that be grounds for disbarment?
Re: Apple betrayed by its own law firm (2013)
#4> Apple, betrayed by its own law firm Honest question: what is the comma doing in this headline?
It is a Shatner comma.
Re: Apple betrayed by its own law firm (2013)
#5This was reported in 2013 and the case was settled:
https://www.law360.com/articles/539708/apple-flatworld-settl...
Re: Apple betrayed by its own law firm (2013)
#6IANAL, but if Apple can show that McAleese had access to confidential iPhone data and transmitted that to his wife, or even advised her on her suit (his advise would be tempered by what he knew of apple's situation), wouldn't that be grounds for disbarment?
Generally, yes.
But that did not happen here:
"Judge Orrick ruled in August that John McAleese, husband of FlatWorld co-founder Jennifer McAleese, violated his duty as an attorney by assisting his wife's company in its effort to sue Apple.
However, he ruled that there was no evidence that McAleese, now a partner at McCarter & English LLP, actually possessed confidential Apple information or passed it on to Hagens Berman, so he denied Apple's request to disqualify the firm."
(he's still at mccarter & english: http://www.mccarter.com/John-J-McAleese/)
Re: Apple betrayed by its own law firm (2013)
#7> Apple, betrayed by its own law firm Honest question: what is the comma doing in this headline?
English is not my 1st language. You have 2 options: "Apple, betrayed by its own law firm" or "Apple was betrayed by its own law firm", you cannot just say "Apple betrayed by its own law firm".
Re: Apple betrayed by its own law firm (2013)
#8> But 35 percent of the company has been quietly controlled by an attorney at one of Apple's own go-to law firms, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
In case no one here is aware, this firm has also been in other headlines recently:
> Lawyers who said Trump has no ties to Russia named Russian law firm of 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/12/law-firm-rus...
Edit inb4 comments: I am not making any judgments of this firm, or implying that these things are in any way related. Additionally, as pointed out, this story is from 2013 and has been settled. It is interesting, however, to see this old story popping up now.
Re: Apple betrayed by its own law firm (2013)
#9IANAL, but if Apple can show that McAleese had access to confidential iPhone data and transmitted that to his wife, or even advised her on her suit (his advise would be tempered by what he knew of apple's situation), wouldn't that be grounds for disbarment?
Not necessarily disbarment, but that would be one possible outcome. He will likely be facing violations of the rules of professional conduct.
Using California and your example, that would violate Rule 3-100. With the ownership stake, he probably violated Rule 3-300 which governs "Avoiding Interests Adverse to a Client."
Re: Apple betrayed by its own law firm (2013)
#10[deleted]