Nor is a screen implemented effectively if it is not established until
months after the disqualified attorneyjoins the law firm.
To Mr. Casey’s knowledge, no screening instructions were communicated
orally to anyone .at the Firm (other than himself) and the only written screening
instructions disseminated to him or anyone else in the Firm were set forth in a
memorandun sent as an e-mail attachment in December 2009, more than two months
after Mr. Caseyjoined the Firm.
60. ?d Dissemination of a written memorandum more than two months after Mr.
a Caseyjoined the Firm was untimely and renders the screen ineffective.
Although Petitioners’ counsel requested a copy of the memorandurn at the
deposition o f Mr. C k e y and afterwards, K&K has not provided a copy. Likewisc,
to the U.S. Attorney’s Office pursuant to Rule 1.1l(b)(l)(iv), K&K has not provided a
There Exists A Serious Appearance Of Impropriety
On information and belief, the U.S. Attorney’s criminal Investigation into
Lehman’s s’aleof ARS was instigated by a referral from K&K to Mr. Casey. The referral
and Investigation focused, among others, on the circmstances surrounding the ARS
purchased by Essex -- the same transactions that are the subject of Respondents’ claims
in the Arbitration.
After Mr. Casey commenced and pursued the Investigation at K&K’s
behest and gained confidential information using the subpoha power and investigative
resources of the federal government, he was hired by the Firm as a partner.
Supreme Court Records OnLine Library - page 18 of 22