David Kluft asks: “If the government obtains information in discovery that is subject to a protective order, is it ‘confidential government information’ under Rule 1.11?” —

• “A law firm represented Chicago and other cities in opioid-related public nuisance lawsuits against a pharmaceutical distributor defendant. The firm obtained certain discovery from the defendant that was subject to a protective order in those cases. Los Angeles then hired the same firm to bring a similar suit against the same defendant.”
• “The defendant moved to disqualify the firm because of its access to information in the earlier cases, California Rule 1.11(c) prohibits a lawyer who represents a government entity from using ‘confidential government information’ learned from that representation on behalf of another client in a later representation.”
• “The distributor argued that since the discovery in those earlier matters was subject to a protective order, it was not ‘publicly available’ and therefore qualified as ‘confidential government info.’”
• “The CA Court of Appeals disagreed: ‘Confidential Government Information’ is information the government can obtain that a regular civil litigant could not – it does not include information subject to a routine protective order in a case that happens to involve the government.”

“Atty Seeks To Boot Ogletree From Microsoft Bias Suit” —

• “An attorney who claimed Microsoft fired her out of pregnancy discrimination sought to disqualify Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC from representing the tech giant, telling a Washington federal judge the move is necessary because the firm also backs a client she’s fighting in another case.”
• “Amber Montgomery filed a motion Monday asking the court to disqualify Ogletree from representing Microsoft Corp. in her Title VII pregnancy and disability discrimination suit, arguing it would be unfair for the firm to continue as counsel because Ogletree also represents a company that one of Montgomery’s clients is actively suing.”
• “‘This motion is not directed at any individual attorney. It addresses a structural conflict arising from the firm’s concurrent representation of adverse clients — a conflict the firm created, failed to disclose, and refused to cure,’ Montgomery said. ‘Disqualification is necessary to preserve the integrity of these proceedings and to ensure public confidence in the fairness of the judicial process.’”
• “In her Monday filing, Montgomery said that Ogletree is also representing security company ADT LLC against one of Montgomery’s clients, Trinity Moore, who accused the company of pregnancy discrimination and retaliation in a federal lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Georgia. Montgomery said Ogletree shareholder Patrick F. Clark, who previously represented Microsoft but withdrew from the case in February, had been working on the case while supervising an associate who represented ADT in Moore’s suit.”
• “Montgomery claimed her client may have faced negative repercussions from Ogletree’s involvement in both cases. The day after Montgomery said she filed a response cooperating with Microsoft’s bid to transfer her case from Georgia federal court to Washington federal court, she said ADT terminated Moore in a phone call.”
• “During the call, Montgomery claimed Moore’s supervisor laughed and said that they were just following orders. This appearance of impropriety is enough to justify Ogletree’s disqualification, Montgomery argued. Montgomery said the firm decided to ‘double down’ after she raised concerns about the conflict in early March and added a third attorney to represent Microsoft in the case.”
• “‘Ogletree’s belated attempt to cure this conflict by withdrawing Mr. Clark and substituting attorneys from its Seattle office on February 18, 2026 is precisely the type of strategic maneuvering prohibited by the Hot Potato Doctrine,’ Montgomery said, a legal principle that prevents lawyers from unreasonably dropping a client, sometimes to take on a client with adverse interests.”
• “She argued that Ogletree’s presence as an adversary in both cases gives the firm access to her litigation strategies from the two different disputes, and added that the firm’s efforts to attack her credibility in her case against Microsoft would undermine her effectiveness as an attorney for Moore.”

“Pam Bondi’s close ties to lawyer brother Brad Bondi raise questions” —

• “Attorney General Pam Bondi is facing fresh scrutiny over whether she had any influence on her brother Brad Bondi’s career.
• “Just like AG Bondi, Brad is a lawyer, working as a partner at Paul Hastings. However, a few of Brad’s legal wins have come under the microscope, considering that a number of the cases he represented have been dismissed altogether by the Department of Justice ever since Pam assumed office.”
• “According to Nicki Swift, one such instance is the high-profile case of Carolina Amesty, who served as a Republican lawmaker for Florida from late 2022 to late 2024. Amnesty was reportedly accused of stealing money meant for COVID relief. She was facing 20 years in prison if she were found guilty. “
• “But, in August 2025, Amesty’s case was dismissed. According to the media outlet, which cited the Tampa Bay Times, Brad had informed the court that it had all come down to ‘significant exculpatory material.’ However, the material was not made public, and per Central Florida Public Media, the presiding judge wrote in the dismissal order: ‘Without providing any explanation or argument in support of its request, the United States asks the Court to dismiss the criminal complaint.’”
• “More than one news outlet noted Brad’s connection to AG Bondi when covering the news. ABC News also asked the DOJ about the controversial dismissal, to which they replied, ‘This decision was made through proper channels and the Attorney General had no role in it.’”
• “Carolina Amesty is not the only client represented by Brad Bondi whose charges have been dropped by the DOJ. Now, many lawmakers are calling for an investigation into AG Pam Bondi‘s possible involvement in these developments. Among them is Senator Adam Schiff, who had a tense exchange with the Attorney General during an oversight hearing in October 2025. According to CNBC-TV18, in response to a question Schiff asked Bondi, she pointedly replied, ‘Will you apologize to Donald Trump for trying to impeach him?’”
• “In the case of Brad Bondi, Schiff wrote a letter with Rep. Dave Min, putting forth his concerns that some of Brad’s wins may be connected to him being AG Bondi’s brother. According to ABC News, the California Democrats wrote, ‘We are concerned that DOJ officials, including the Attorney General, may have failed to ensure the independence of internal accountability mechanisms.’ Schiff and Minn specifically asked for an investigation into ‘Whether Attorney General Pamela Bondi properly recused herself from, or otherwise improperly influenced, several cases involving defendants represented by her brother.’”
• “The DOJ responded in a similar way to how it addressed the Carolina Amesty case, saying that Pam Bondi had no involvement in the matter. Speaking to ABC News, they stated, ‘These decisions were made through the proper channels, and the Attorney General had no role in them.’”