“Data Center Referendum Committee loses attorney due to conflict, retains another firm” —

• “The committee challenging Frederick County’s new data center zone through a referendum had to obtain new counsel last week after its attorney discovered a conflict of interest.”
• “Paul Flynn of the Flynn & Clarke law firm in Frederick formally recused himself on April 24 from defending the Frederick County Data Center Referendum Committee in three legal challenges that are attempting to block the referendum from appearing on the general election ballot in November.”
• “Flynn told the committee in a written statement that he discovered on April 21 that he is currently representing ‘another arm of’ a parent company behind one of the petitioners that is challenging the referendum in Frederick County Circuit Court. “
• “He wrote to the referendum committee that he and Dan Loftus, counsel for the Frederick County Board of Elections, met with opposing counsel on a Zoom call on April 21. One of the opposing counsel, whom he was meeting for the first time, ‘announced that he represents what is apparently the parent company of the one that filed the petition,’ Flynn wrote. ‘I suspect he did that intentionally to make the connection for me.’”
  His statement did not indicate the law firm or the attorney who made the announcement.”
• “Flynn wrote that he is currently representing a branch of that parent company and that he has ‘represented that group of companies for many years in multiple other matters.’”
• “In a public statement regarding the issue on Friday, the referendum committee wrote that they received the news of Flynn’s recusal with ‘shock and dismay.’”
• ‘These events left us scrambling to find new representation,’ the committee’s statement reads. ‘The feeling of embarking on a major legal defense … suddenly without an attorney, is hard to describe.’”

“The NC elections board hired a lawyer who was also suing it” —

• “State elections director Sam Hayes hired one of North Carolina Republicans’ go-to lawyers to defend the state Board of Elections in a lawsuit this year, even though that lawyer was representing clients with active lawsuits against the board in four other cases in state and federal court. “
• “Phil Strach represents Republican legislators, the Republican National Committee and the state Republican party in redistricting and election cases.”
• “As Hayes sought to hire Strach, Strach asked Hayes to sign a waiver acknowledging that his firm was representing board adversaries in other cases.”
• “‘Your consent signifies a waiver of any and all conflicts on behalf of other Firm clients which may exist in present unrelated matters or could arise in future unrelated matters due to this representation,’ Strach’s January 30 letter said. ‘You agree to not use our representation in the New Engagement as a ground for seeking our disqualification in such matters,’ Strach’s letter said. “
• “In an email Friday, the board’s director of external affairs, Jason Tyson, said there aren’t many lawyers in the state ‘who know election law to the extent required to handle these cases. We knew Mr. Strach would provide us the representation needed for this case.’”
• “The state board in January denied requests to open early voting sites for the primary at UNC-Greensboro, NC A&T State University, and Western Carolina University. Hayes hired Strach to represent the state board as college Democrats’ groups and students sued. A federal judge declined to force the campuses to open early voting sites.”
• “Democrats on the state elections board said they did not know in advance about the waiver and sought Monday to try to keep another from being signed without their input.”
• “The state board agreed Monday to an Anson Board of Elections’ request for legal assistance in a dispute with the Anson County Board of Commissioners. The state Attorney General’s office advised the board to use someone other than state lawyers, state Board Secretary Stacy ‘Four’ Eggers IV, said. “
• “Board member Siobhan Millen, a Democrat, tried to add a stipulation that each board member would need to sign the conflict of interest waiver if the lawyer Hayes chooses is representing other clients in cases against the board”
• “‘I think that’s a personal right,’ she said. ‘No one else can waive that for me.’”
• “The board rejected that request along party lines. Eggers said lawyers representing board members do so in their official capacity, not as individuals.”
  “The board approved hiring a lawyer for the Anson elections board with a 4-1 vote, with Democrat Jeff Carmon opposed. In an interview after the meeting, Carmon said he didn’t think Strach should have represented the board at the same time he was suing it.”
• “‘We can sign that waiver, knowing there’s a conflict,’ Carmon said in an interview. ‘We’d like an opportunity to address that conflict rather than have it be arbitrarily waived.’”
• “The North Carolina Bar Association conflict of interest rule says that lawyers must have written consent if they are defending clients in one case while opposing them in a different case. Lawyers must also believe they ‘will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client.’”
• “In the four lawsuits Strach mentioned in his waiver letter, he was representing the Republican National Committee, the NC GOP, individual voters, or members of the Justice For All Party. “

“Conflict-of-interest lawsuit surrounds ‘financially distressed’ medical clinic” —

• “The attorney for a Waterloo medical clinic is being sued by other Iowa healthcare providers for alleged conflicts of interest in his legal work. The lawsuit centers on representatives and affiliates of Cedar Valley Medical Specialists, a multispecialty medical clinic located in Waterloo that, according to one of its lawyers, is currently in financial distress.”
• “Three of CVMS’ affiliates — Waterloo’s Digestive Health Center, a gastroenterological ambulatory surgery center; P & H, a company that functions as CVMS’ landlord, and Dr. Ravindra Mallavarapu, who has worked at CVMS since 2002 and is also the majority owner of both Digestive Health Center and P & H — filed suit last week against Michael D. Schwartz and the Schwartz Law Firm of Oakdale, Minnesota.”
• “Court records indicate Schwartz has represented CVMS for 25 years, and it’s that representation that’s at issue in the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.”
• “While significant portions of the lawsuit and related filings are either redacted from public view or sealed entirely by order of the court, the case appears to involve not only alleged conflicts of interest by Schwartz, but also financial issues at CVMS.”
• “Weinhardt then informed the court that his three clients are currently in the process ‘of separating themselves from CVMS, and it’s going to take some time for them to work their way out of that arrangement.’”
• “He said the plaintiffs and the defendants have agreed on the language for a temporary restraining order that, if approved by the court, would prevent Schwartz from representing Cedar Valley Medical Specialists as long as there are any pending legal disputes between the clinic and the plaintiffs.”
  “In addition, Weinhardt said, the proposed order would prevent Schwartz from representing the clinic in any actions against Farmers’ State Bank, which he described as one of CVMS’ creditors.”
• “Weinhardt said that last week the bank reached an agreement with the plaintiffs ‘about matters between them.’ Although he didn’t elaborate, he did say the interests of the plaintiffs and the bank ‘are now aligned … We believe, therefore, that for Mr. Schwartz and his law firm to represent CVMS against Farmers’ State Bank would result in them taking actions that are detrimental to our clients’ interests.’”
• “The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions, barring Schwartz and his firm from continuing to represent CVMS in any matters that include the plaintiffs as potential adversaries.”
• “The lawsuit alleges that until he was asked to resign on March 5, 2026, Schwartz was a member of Digestive Health Center’s management board, and had, in the past, represented the center, P & H and Mallavarapu as their attorney — even in matters related to their contracts with CVMS, another longtime Schwartz client.”
• “As one example of the alleged conflicts of interest that arose from these roles, the lawsuit claims that last year Digestive Health Center sought to decrease the fees it paid to CVMS for certain services.”
• “Schwartz allegedly advised Mallavarapu, head of the center, to write a letter to CVMS, and even provided instructions on the letter’s contents. Then, in his role as legal counsel for CVMS, Schwartz allegedly attended a CVMS board meeting during which members agreed to a reduction in the fees charged to Digestive Health Center.”
• “‘Mr. Schwartz represented both sides in those negotiations without obtaining conflict of interest waivers,’ the lawsuit claims. ‘After the plaintiffs [information redacted from public view], they repeatedly demanded that the defendants withdraw from representing CVMS… The defendants refused to withdraw. In mid-April 2026, the Defendants suddenly withdrew from representing CVMS altogether, only to, on April 27, 2026, reengage with CVMS.’”
• “Schwartz said little during Monday’s court hearing, except that ‘obviously, we would disagree with the allegations in the complaint. There has been no confidential information shared with us, and there has been no breach of duties, et cetera.’”
• “At the conclusion of Monday’s hearing, Chief Judge Williams indicated he will issue the agreed-upon temporary restraining order, but told all of the parties he had ‘grave concerns’ as to whether he could retain jurisdiction over the case given the fact that federal rules require that such a case involve $75,000 or more that is in controversy.”