Weil, Ex-Client Clash Over Possible Conflicts in Insys Work
While a former Insys sales executive insists he was kept in the dark about alleged conflicts at Weil, the firm argues that there was no conflict and it took steps to prevent even the appearance of a conflict.
September 18, 2019 at 02:45 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
A former sales executive at Insys Therapeutics who is seeking a new trial after a racketeering conviction has cited new evidence that he said shows his ex-lawyers at Weil, Gotshal & Manges kept him in the dark about potential conflicts posed by its simultaneous bankruptcy work for Insys.
Richard Simon was one of five defendants convicted for pushing doctors to prescribe Subsys, a super-potent and addictive painkiller. In his bid for a new trial in Boston federal court, he has argued that Weil could not represent him while working for Insys because the pharmaceutical company's bankruptcy plans were inextricably linked to its cooperation with prosecutors, who were seeking a huge fine from the company.
"Insys was actively assisting in the prosecution of Mr. Simon," his new lawyers at Boston-based Fick & Marx argued in a brief filed last week, in which they incorporate emails and notes from Weil attorneys.
"Weil could not be loyal to both clients. Mr. Simon never provided his informed, written consent to this arrangement. Worse, when he asked his trial counsel, Weil partner Steven Tyrrell, what the Insys engagement would mean for him, Tyrrell responded, 'nothing, really,'" said Simon's defense attorneys Daniel Marx and William Fick.
But Weil denies that there was any conflict, said it took steps to avert the possibility of one and said Simon was fully informed about its work for Insys. Tyrrell said in an affidavit filed Sept. 16 that he told Simon about the pending bankruptcy representation in August 2018, and "Simon stated he understood my explanation, had no questions, and voiced no objection."
Tyrrell also said Weil implemented an ethical screen "to avoid any appearance of impropriety," according to a Weil memo filed in court. He said his firm circulated memos to the team working on Simon's defense and on the Insys bankruptcy that instructed them not to have any discussions or share or access any files concerning each others' matters.
In another point of contention, Simon said Insys cooperated with prosecutors and refused to waive privilege on an investigation conducted by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom that could have given him the ability to impeach Insys witnesses who implicated him in wrongdoing. But in his affidavit, Tyrrell said he subpoenaed Insys during the trial and tried in good faith to make the case to jurors that Simon had sought to comply with the law in his effort to increase sales.
"Simon assumes that Insys possessed privileged, exculpatory information demonstrating that he acted in good faith," Tyrrell wrote. "During trial, however, the government repeatedly represented that it had received inculpatory information from Insys."
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs of the District of Massachusetts has yet to rule on the new trial motions filed by Simon and his codefendants.
Marx, Simon's lawyer, and a Weil representative didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. In a previous statement, the firm has made similar points to those Tyrrell made in his affidavit.
The criminal case against Simon and other Insys executives, including CEO John Kapoor, has been closely watched. Prosecutors accused the defendants of pushing off-label uses of Subsys, which was approved to treat intense so-called breakthrough cancer pain in a way that was no different than drug dealers on street corners. They said the convictions they secured struck a blow against the opioid epidemic that has ravaged much of the U.S.
Simon's attacks on his former lawyers aren't the only case where Weil lawyers have recently drawn headlines.
Just in the last month, the New York Post reported that the firm made mistakes with the compensation of two former bankers at its client Perella Weinberg Partners that could result in a multimillion-dollar liability for the client. The Post reported that Weil recently stepped aside from its representation of the financial firm after the error was revealed. A Weil representative did not immediately return a message seeking comment on that matter.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAmid Ripple of Marketing Moves, Paul Hastings Hires 2 Pros From Skadden
2 minute readTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand & Uncertainty
Trending Stories
- 1Big Law Expected To Follow Milbank's Lead With Associate Year-End Bonuses
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 3Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 4In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 5Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250