{"id":61011,"date":"2025-02-01T00:09:19","date_gmt":"2025-02-01T00:09:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/business\/legal\/risk-updates-professional-liability-opinions-review-texas-edition-client-conflicts-vetting-on-view-in-corruption-trial-litigation-referral-fee-concern\/"},"modified":"2025-02-01T00:09:19","modified_gmt":"2025-02-01T00:09:19","slug":"risk-updates-professional-liability-opinions-review-texas-edition-client-conflicts-vetting-on-view-in-corruption-trial-litigation-referral-fee-concern","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011","title":{"rendered":"Risk Updates \u2014 Professional Liability Opinions Review (Texas Edition), Client Conflicts Vetting on View in Corruption Trial, Litigation Referral Fee Concern"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> <br \/>\n<\/p>\n<div id=\"post-8393\">\n<p>\t<!-- .entry-header --><\/p>\n<div class=\"entry-content\">\n<p><img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-2513\" src=\"https:\/\/bresslerriskblog.com\/wp_bresslerriskblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2021_review.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"480\" height=\"273\" srcset=\"https:\/\/bresslerriskblog.com\/wp_bresslerriskblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2021_review.png 480w, https:\/\/bresslerriskblog.com\/wp_bresslerriskblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2021_review-300x171.png 300w, https:\/\/bresslerriskblog.com\/wp_bresslerriskblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2021_review-230x131.png 230w, https:\/\/bresslerriskblog.com\/wp_bresslerriskblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/2021_review-350x199.png 350w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 480px) 100vw, 480px\"\/><\/p>\n<p>\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.daily-journal.com\/opinion\/miller-madigan-trial-shows-he-brought-his-troubles-on-himself\/article_f6df1dde-d778-11ef-8b39-53eaafa73e4a.html\"><strong>Court Reveals Madigan Vetted His Client List Assiduously, Excluding the Times He Didn\u2019t<\/strong><\/a>\u201d \u2014<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cFormer Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan\u2019s longtime law firm partner Vincent \u2018Bud\u2019 Getzendanner testified in Madigan\u2019s defense against numerous federal charges last week.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cOne of the main themes of Getzendanner\u2019s testimony was the property tax firm\u2019s process of weeding out clients and potential clients who could pose a conflict of interest to Madigan.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cGetzendanner testified \u2018there would be a meeting once or twice a year involving Madigan\u2019s statehouse legal staff regarding Madigan &amp; Getzendanner clients,\u2019 Sun-Times reporter Jon Seidel reported from the courtroom. Getzendanner would also periodically send the firm\u2019s client list to some of Madigan\u2019s Statehouse staffers so that they could check it against legislation that was currently before the Illinois House, Seidel noted.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThe jury was also shown emails from Madigan\u2019s legislative staffers to Getzendanner regarding inquiries about the firm\u2019s clients, or whether some entities with issues before the legislature were clients.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201c\u2018There was a constant back and forth between Mike\u2019s legislative staff and the law office,\u2019 Getzendanner told jurors, according to Dave Byrnes with Courthouse News.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cGetzendanner also testified that he had the final say about whether to bring in clients.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cAs an example, in a memo shown to jurors from Getzendanner to Madigan, Getzendanner wrote, \u2018No file is accepted and opened until I do a review to determine if the firm\u2019s representation would constitute a conflict, or the appearance of a conflict, with your legislative duties,\u2019 reported the Tribune\u2019s Jason Meisner.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cJurors were shown a chart of Madigan clients with notations from various folks about potential conflicts. \u2018Most entries on the chart say, \u2018no conflict,\u2019\u2019 reported Seidel. Madigan attorney Dan Collins highlighted one email that read, \u2018possible appearance of conflict; principal owner of Walton is Neil Bluhm who is principal owner of Rivers Casino. Very thin connection, but err on side of caution.&#8217;\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThis thorough and nearly constant vetting process is why the people who thought they knew Madigan well firmly believed that he understood where the legal lines were and that he had never crossed them. Some still believe that\u2019s true today.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cClients with land-transfer issues would definitely be screened out, Getzendanner testified, according to Seidel. \u2018That\u2019s a category where you absolutely could not take on a client.&#8217;\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cAnd yet, the prosecution has shown jurors evidence that Madigan did, indeed, work on legislation to help a real estate investor by trying to move a Chinatown land transfer bill through the House. The feds also presented evidence that allege a successful transfer would\u2019ve resulted in legal business for Madigan &amp; Getzendanner from that developer.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThe deal was being put together by then-Chicago Ald. Danny Solis, who became a mole for the FBI after being confronted with his own lawbreaking. As I\u2019ve told you before, Madigan instructed Solis to reach out to Michael McClain to see if he could help. McClain was Madigan\u2019s top advisor and the trial\u2019s Madigan co-defendant.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cOK, wait a second. Didn\u2019t Getzendanner testify under oath that he had the final say in taking on new clients and that there was no way a client with a land transfer bill would ever be accepted? And wasn\u2019t there a massive and ongoing client vetting process?\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cIt doesn\u2019t matter to the feds. Policies can be changed, after all. And they have enough recordings to suggest Madigan was pushing the bill and was being told he\u2019d get a new client out of it.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201c\u2018One of my regrets is that I had any time spent with Danny Solis,\u2019 Madigan told jurors, according to the Sun-Times.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>More on this matter: \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.courthousenews.com\/closing-arguments-begin-in-mike-madigan-federal-corruption-trial\/\"><strong>Closing arguments begin in Mike Madigan federal corruption trial<\/strong><\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.velaw.com\/insights\/ve-law-firm-defense-teams-annual-review-of-texas-professional-liability-opinions\/\"><strong>V&amp;E Law Firm Defense Team\u2019s Annual Review of Texas Professional-Liability Opinions<\/strong><\/a>\u201d \u2014<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cV&amp;E\u2019s Law Firm Defense team constantly monitors Texas judicial opinions that could impact liability for attorneys and law firms practicing in Texas and around the country. We summarize here what we considered to be the most important Texas judicial opinions of 2024 about which law firm general counsel and loss-prevention attorneys with regional, national, or international practices should be aware.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThe Beaumont Court of Appeals Held That an Out-of-State Law Firm Was Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Texas for Having Communications with a Prospective Texas Client About a Texas Matter. Oshman v. Wilkison, No. 09-23-00201-CV, 2024 WL 1100005 (Tex. App.\u2014Beaumont Mar. 14, 2024, pet. filed)\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cHere, the out-of-state firm\u2019s website advertised that it handled personal injury cases in all 50 states and invited potential clients to submit online case evaluation forms. The plaintiff, a Texas resident, submitted a form regarding a potential wrongful death matter in Texas. Lawyers at the firm had follow-up communications with the plaintiff and asked plaintiff to submit various other documents from Texas. Ultimately, the firm declined to take the matter. The plaintiff sued the firm in Texas arguing that the firm failed to properly advise plaintiff about a looming limitations issue.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cReversing the trial court on an interlocutory appeal, the court found that the firm was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas and rejected several arguments routinely employed to establish jurisdiction over an out-of-state firm. Among other things, the court held: (1) legal work done out of state did not establish jurisdiction in Texas, even if done on behalf of a Texas resident; (2) mere communications between an out-of-state firm and a Texas resident did not establish jurisdiction in Texas; (3) a firm website that is accessible to Texas residents did not establish jurisdiction in Texas when it was nationally accessible; and (4) discussing a prospective Texas matter with a Texas resident did not establish jurisdiction in Texas because the matter was never filed.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThe plaintiff has asked the Texas Supreme Court to review this decision, but the Texas Supreme Court has not decided if it will grant a discretionary review.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThe Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals Held That a Law Firm Was Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Texas for Work on an Out-of-State Matter Because It Solicited the Client (and its Affiliates) for Unrelated Work in Texas. Akerman, LLP v. Landry\u2019s Seafood House-Florida, Inc., No. 14-23-00778-CV, 2024 WL 5051198 (Tex. App.\u2014Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 10, 2024, no pet. h.)\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThis opinion reached the startling conclusion that a Florida-based law firm was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas for alleged legal malpractice committed when Florida attorneys performed legal services in Florida for a Florida-based plaintiff on a matter involving Florida real estate. The court acknowledged that no legal work on the underlying matter was performed in Texas, that the client was the one who reached out to the Florida attorneys for representation on the underlying matter, and that, although the firm had Texas offices, no Texas attorneys were involved in the underlying matter. Despite these facts, however, the court found the firm was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas because there was evidence that the firm previously solicited unrelated work in Texas from the client and its Texas-based affiliated companies and that these solicitation efforts led to the firm\u2019s hiring on the underlying matter.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThe time period for the law firm to request a discretionary review by the Texas Supreme Court has not passed.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.fiercepharma.com\/pharma\/rfk-jrs-referral-fees-raise-conflict-interest-concerns-nyt\"><strong>RFK Jr.\u2019s referral fees in litigation over Merck\u2019s Gardasil raise conflict-of-interest questions: reports<\/strong><\/a>\u201d \u2014<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cDepartment of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to continue to receive referral fees from a law firm that is suing pharma powerhouse Merck &amp; Co. over the marketing and sale of one of its vaccines.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cRFK Jr.\u2019s plan\u2014which was revealed (<a href=\"https:\/\/extapps2.oge.gov\/201\/Presiden.nsf\/PAS+Index\/F3C8425ED335BB5685258C1A00565D57\/$FILE\/Kennedy%2C%20Jr.%2C%20Robert%20F.%20%20finalEA.pdf\"><strong>PDF<\/strong><\/a>) in a signed ethics agreement that was made public earlier this week\u2014raises conflict-of-interest issues as he is seeking confirmation to run an agency that regulates Merck and other drugmakers.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThe law firm, Wisner Baum, represents clients who are suing Merck for not warning that its HPV vaccine Gardasil could cause cervical cancer. RFK Jr. has played a key role in organizing Gardasil litigation in the U.S., according to Reuters, and has rights to 10% of fees recovered in certain cases.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThe New York Times was first to make the link between Wisner Baum and the action it is taking against Merck and to report the associated concerns with RFK Jr. given his ethics statement.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cUpon his potential confirmation, RFK Jr. said he would resign as a consultant for the firm but would still collect referral fees for cases that the company won, provided\u2014per HHS and ethics committee review\u2014that they don\u2019t involve the U.S. \u201c<\/li>\n<li>\u201c\u2018I will retain a contingency fee interest in cases that the ethics office of the Department of Health and Human Services has determined do not involve the United States as a party and in which the United States does not have a direct and substantial interest,\u2019 RFK Jr. wrote in the document. \u2018I am entitled to receive a portion of future recovery in these cases based upon the set percentage as set forth in the referral agreement.&#8217;\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cConversely, in cases that do involve the U.S. government, RFK Jr. pledged to divest his financial interest, according to the filing. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program\u2014a special legal system for suspected vaccine-related injuries\u2014falls under HHS authority, so RFK Jr. would presumably divest his interest in any of those petitions.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cRFK Jr. collected $856,000 from Wisner Baum last year, according to his financial disclosure form (<a href=\"https:\/\/extapps2.oge.gov\/201\/Presiden.nsf\/PAS+Index\/A56222F259495B0D85258C1A00565073\/$FILE\/Kennedy%2C%20Jr.%2C%20Robert%20F.%20%20final278.pdf\">PDF<\/a>).\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cBesides the Gardasil litigation, Wisner Baum is active in lawsuits concerning Pfizer\u2019s injectable birth control drug Depo-Provera, Novo Nordisk\u2019s Ozempic, Indivior\u2019s pain drug Suboxone and other medicines. The firm has a history of litigation involving the drug industry, according to its website.\u201d<br \/>\u201cWith RFK Jr. appointment for HHS, biopharma industry could face powerful adversary in government\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cRFK Jr., for his part, has a decades-long history of spreading anti-vaccine rhetoric and conspiracy theories, including the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism. When his HHS nomination was announced, stock prices for many of the world\u2019s top vaccine makers dropped.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2025\/01\/29\/trump-new-lawyers-hush-money-appeal-00201219\"><strong>Trump hires new lawyers to appeal his hush money conviction<\/strong><\/a>\u201d \u2014<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cPresident Donald Trump has hired the elite white-shoe law firm Sullivan &amp; Cromwell to appeal his criminal conviction in the Manhattan hush money case.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThe most prominent member of Trump\u2019s new legal team is Robert Giuffra, the firm\u2019s co-chair\u2026 \u2018President Donald J. Trump\u2019s appeal is important for the rule of law, New York\u2019s reputation as a global business, financial and legal center, as well as for the presidency and all public officials,\u2019 Giuffra said in a statement. \u2018The misuse of the criminal law by the Manhattan DA to target President Trump sets a dangerous precedent, and we look forward to the case being dismissed on appeal.&#8217;\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cIn the hush money case, Giuffra and his firm\u2019s other lawyers will replace Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, who represented Trump during the trial last spring. Blanche is Trump\u2019s nominee to become deputy attorney general, and Bove has already joined the Trump Justice Department as acting deputy attorney general. Once Blanche is confirmed, Bove will step into the No. 3 spot in the department.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cThe decision to represent Trump by Sullivan &amp; Cromwell, one of the most prominent firms in the country, represents a departure from the legal community\u2019s attitude toward him in recent years. When Trump hired Blanche to represent him in the spring of 2023, Blanche had to quit the elite firm where he was a partner, Cadwalader, Wickersham &amp; Taft.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cIn his resignation email at the time, Blanche said he was unable to take Trump as a client while remaining at the firm. \u2018Obviously, doing this as a partner at Cadwalader was not an option,\u2019 he wrote, \u2018so I have had to make the difficult choice to leave the firm.&#8217;\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cGiuffra has worked as a litigator representing companies like Volkswagen AG and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. He also has held a handful of New York state government-appointed positions, including on several ethics boards.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>\u201cLast spring, Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of concealing a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels. He was sentenced to \u2018unconditional discharge,\u2019 a sentence that carries no punishment, earlier this month, shortly before he took office.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<p><!-- .entry-content --><\/p>\n<p>\t<!-- .entry-footer --><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cCourt Reveals Madigan Vetted His Client List Assiduously, Excluding the Times He Didn\u2019t\u201d \u2014 \u201cFormer Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan\u2019s longtime law firm partner Vincent \u2018Bud\u2019 Getzendanner testified in Madigan\u2019s defense against numerous federal charges last week.\u201d \u201cOne of the main themes of Getzendanner\u2019s testimony was the property tax firm\u2019s process of weeding out clients [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":61012,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[97],"tags":[12982,29853,19972,33841,1837,11101,14925,22414,20866,1478,11360,3749,11115,12700,13623,12572,33840,10183],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-61011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal","tag-client","tag-concern","tag-conflicts","tag-corruption","tag-edition","tag-fee","tag-liability","tag-litigation","tag-opinions","tag-professional","tag-referral","tag-review","tag-risk","tag-texas","tag-trial","tag-updates","tag-vetting","tag-view"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v26.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Risk Updates \u2014 Professional Liability Opinions Review (Texas Edition), Client Conflicts Vetting on View in Corruption Trial, Litigation Referral Fee Concern - Som2ny Network<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Risk Updates \u2014 Professional Liability Opinions Review (Texas Edition), Client Conflicts Vetting on View in Corruption Trial, Litigation Referral Fee Concern - Som2ny Network\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"\u201cCourt Reveals Madigan Vetted His Client List Assiduously, Excluding the Times He Didn\u2019t\u201d \u2014 \u201cFormer Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan\u2019s longtime law firm partner Vincent \u2018Bud\u2019 Getzendanner testified in Madigan\u2019s defense against numerous federal charges last week.\u201d \u201cOne of the main themes of Getzendanner\u2019s testimony was the property tax firm\u2019s process of weeding out clients [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Som2ny Network\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-02-01T00:09:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/2021_review.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"480\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"273\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371\"},\"headline\":\"Risk Updates \u2014 Professional Liability Opinions Review (Texas Edition), Client Conflicts Vetting on View in Corruption Trial, Litigation Referral Fee Concern\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-02-01T00:09:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011\"},\"wordCount\":2063,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/2021_review.png\",\"keywords\":[\"client\",\"Concern\",\"Conflicts\",\"Corruption\",\"Edition\",\"Fee\",\"Liability\",\"Litigation\",\"Opinions\",\"Professional\",\"Referral\",\"review\",\"risk\",\"Texas\",\"Trial\",\"UPDATES\",\"Vetting\",\"View\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Legal\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011\",\"name\":\"Risk Updates \u2014 Professional Liability Opinions Review (Texas Edition), Client Conflicts Vetting on View in Corruption Trial, Litigation Referral Fee Concern - Som2ny Network\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/2021_review.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-02-01T00:09:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/2021_review.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/2021_review.png\",\"width\":480,\"height\":273},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?bp_activities=1\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Risk Updates \u2014 Professional Liability Opinions Review (Texas Edition), Client Conflicts Vetting on View in Corruption Trial, Litigation Referral Fee Concern\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/\",\"name\":\"Som2ny Network\",\"description\":\"Daily Deals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Som2ny Network\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png\",\"width\":300,\"height\":86,\"caption\":\"Som2ny Network\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Risk Updates \u2014 Professional Liability Opinions Review (Texas Edition), Client Conflicts Vetting on View in Corruption Trial, Litigation Referral Fee Concern - Som2ny Network","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Risk Updates \u2014 Professional Liability Opinions Review (Texas Edition), Client Conflicts Vetting on View in Corruption Trial, Litigation Referral Fee Concern - Som2ny Network","og_description":"\u201cCourt Reveals Madigan Vetted His Client List Assiduously, Excluding the Times He Didn\u2019t\u201d \u2014 \u201cFormer Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan\u2019s longtime law firm partner Vincent \u2018Bud\u2019 Getzendanner testified in Madigan\u2019s defense against numerous federal charges last week.\u201d \u201cOne of the main themes of Getzendanner\u2019s testimony was the property tax firm\u2019s process of weeding out clients [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011","og_site_name":"Som2ny Network","article_published_time":"2025-02-01T00:09:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":480,"height":273,"url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/2021_review.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371"},"headline":"Risk Updates \u2014 Professional Liability Opinions Review (Texas Edition), Client Conflicts Vetting on View in Corruption Trial, Litigation Referral Fee Concern","datePublished":"2025-02-01T00:09:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011"},"wordCount":2063,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/2021_review.png","keywords":["client","Concern","Conflicts","Corruption","Edition","Fee","Liability","Litigation","Opinions","Professional","Referral","review","risk","Texas","Trial","UPDATES","Vetting","View"],"articleSection":["Legal"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011","name":"Risk Updates \u2014 Professional Liability Opinions Review (Texas Edition), Client Conflicts Vetting on View in Corruption Trial, Litigation Referral Fee Concern - Som2ny Network","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/2021_review.png","datePublished":"2025-02-01T00:09:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/2021_review.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/2021_review.png","width":480,"height":273},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?bp_activities=1"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Risk Updates \u2014 Professional Liability Opinions Review (Texas Edition), Client Conflicts Vetting on View in Corruption Trial, Litigation Referral Fee Concern"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/","name":"Som2ny Network","description":"Daily Deals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization","name":"Som2ny Network","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png","width":300,"height":86,"caption":"Som2ny Network"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/fivemor.com"],"url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61011","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=61011"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61011\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/61012"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=61011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=61011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=61011"},{"taxonomy":"dealstore","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fdealstore&post=61011"},{"taxonomy":"offerexpiration","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fofferexpiration&post=61011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}