Was BigLaw Firm's Contingency Agreement a Conflict? Judge Rejects Disqualification Bid Citing Deal
Time is on King & Spalding’s side in a $100 million suit against a construction management company on behalf of a Georgia school district.
Judge Clarence Seeliger refused to disqualify the law firm, saying the cost of replacing King & Spalding five years into the litigation would be “prohibitive,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.
King & Spalding has earned $17 million so far in the litigation on behalf of the DeKalb County schools, the story says. Another $19 million would be paid if the case is successful under a contingency fee agreement.
DLA Piper, which represents the construction management company, had contended the contingency agreement represented a conflict of interest because King & Spalding has no interest in settling the case for less than its break-even cost of about $35 million, according to the Fulton County Daily Report. Seeliger said he agreed the contract was unfair, but it was an issue between the school board and the law firm, according to the Daily Report and the Journal-Constitution.
DLA Piper also contended that King & Spalding should be kicked off the case because its attorneys could be material witnesses to misconduct by two former school officials who have been indicted on corruption charges in connection with construction deals. According to DLA Piper, King & Spalding lawyers had been aware of the criminal investigation but did not inform the court in the civil case.
King & Spalding partner Joseph Loveland Jr. defended the firm’s conduct, according to the Daily Report account. “These unproven attacks are simply legion, and no evidence supports any of them,” he argued.
