Category: News Feeds

Harbor,
the
Chicago-based
legal
technology
and
consulting
firm,
continues
its
string
of
recent
acquisitions
with
the
addition
of

Encoretech,
a
specialized
training
and
user
adoption
services
company
focused
on
the
legal
sector.

The
deal
marks
Harbor’s
first
acquisition
since
receiving
a
majority
investment
from
private
equity
firm
BayPine
in
June
and
represents
the
company’s
sixth
acquisition
since
its
formation
in
2023.

The
acquisition
addresses
what
both
companies
characterize
as
a
critical
gap
in
the
legal
industry:
the
persistence
of
outdated
training
methodologies
in
an
era
of
rapidly
evolving
technology
and
artificial
intelligence.

Related: LawNext:
Harbor
Global
CEO
Matt
Sunderman
On
Driving
Digital
Transformation
in
Legal.

Encoretech
brings
approximately
80
professionals
across
the
United
States
and
Europe
who
specialize
in
helping
law
firms
and
corporate
legal
departments
maximize
their
return
on
technology
investments
through
comprehensive
training
programs.

Training
as
a
Competitive
Advantage

“As
every
aspect
of
legal
services
becomes
more
tech-enabled,
training
and
upskilling
legal
professionals
has
become
mission-critical,”
said
Matt
Sunderman,
CEO
of
Harbor.
“Encoretech
has
a
track
record
of
excellence
as
a
training
services
company
that
offers
agile,
flexible
solutions
for
law
firms
and
corporate
legal
departments
seeking
to
ensure
their
people
make
the
most
of
the
systems
and
tools
available
to
them.”

The
acquisition
reflects
a
broader
recognition
within
the
legal
technology
sector
that
technology
adoption
—
not
just
technology
acquisition
—
determines
the
success
or
failure
of
digital
transformation
initiatives.

Despite
law
firms’
substantial
investments
in
practice
management
systems,
document
management
platforms,
AI
tools
and
other
technologies,
many
struggle
to
achieve
meaningful
adoption
among
attorneys
and
staff
who
continue
to
rely
on
familiar,
if
less
efficient,
workflows.

Encoretech’s
flagship
offering,
Training-as-a-Service
(TaaS),
provides
a
fully
managed
solution
that
helps
law
firms
redesign
their
technology
training
programs
from
the
ground
up.
The
service
encompasses
new-hire
onboarding,
continuous
learning
through
live
and
on-demand
training,
custom
content
development,
and
learning
management
system
integration.

Encoretech
works
with
Am
Law
200
firms
as
well
as
corporate
legal
departments.

Aging
Solutions
for
Modern
Challenges

Jeffrey
Roach,
president
of
Encoretech,
said
that
there
is
a
fundamental
mismatch
between
traditional
training
approaches
and
current
technology
realities.

“Technology
training
programs
in
the
legal
sector
are
often
still
rooted
in
the
methodologies
developed
20
years
ago,”
he
said.
“With
the
ubiquity
of
technology
and
the
advent
of
AI,
it’s
clear
that
the
old
way
of
training
users
is
ineffective.”

The
challenge
has
intensified
as
legal
technology
has
moved
beyond
basic
document
production
tools
to
encompass
sophisticated
AI-powered
research
platforms,
predictive
analytics,
automated
workflows
and
cloud-based
collaboration
systems.

Many
of
these
tools
require
not
just
technical
proficiency
but
also
judgment
about
when
and
how
to
apply
them
effectively
—
a
skill
set
that
traditional
one-time
training
sessions
fail
to
develop.

Encoretech’s
approach
emphasizes
ongoing
skill
development
rather
than
one-off
training
events.
Its
methodology
combines
instructor-led
training,
individual
coaching
and
a
library
of
on-demand
content
designed
for
quick
consumption.

The
model
reflects
research
showing
that
sustained,
incremental
learning
produces
better
retention
and
behavior
change
than
intensive
but
infrequent
training
sessions,
the
company
says.

Building
A
Comprehensive
Platform

The
Encoretech
acquisition
fits
within
Harbor’s
broader
strategy
of
assembling
capabilities
across
what
it
calls
the
“Advise/Implement/Manage
lifecycle.”
The
training
services
will
integrate
with
Harbor’s
Legal
Technology
+
Operations
practice,
which
handles
cloud
migrations,
workflow
automation
and
ongoing
management
of
enterprise
applications.

Encoretech
represents
Harbor’s
sixth
acquisition
since
the
company’s
formation
through
the
2023
merger
of
HBR
Consulting,
LAC
Group
and
Wilson
Allen.
The
company’s
acquisition
timeline
demonstrates
an
aggressive
growth
strategy:

• October
  2023:
  Acquired
  Stout’s
  legal
  management
  consulting
  practice,
  adding
  e-discovery
  advisory
  and
  corporate
  legal
  operations
  capabilities.
• February
  2024:
  Acquired
  Pinnacle,
  a
  UK-based
  legal
  technology
  services
  provider,
  establishing
  significant
  presence
  in
  Europe
  and
  Asia
  Pacific.
• March
  2025:
  Acquired
  CLIENTSFirst
  Consulting,
  adding
  marketing
  technology
  and
  CRM
  data
  quality
  services.
• October
  2024:
  Acquired
  Ascertus,
  a
  UK-based
  iManage
  implementation
  specialist.
• November
  2025:
  Acquired
  Encoretech.

This
acquisition
pattern
suggests
that,
rather
than
focusing
exclusively
on
software
selection
and
implementation,
Harbor
is
assembling
services
that
address
the
full
spectrum
of
technology-related
challenges
law
firms
face,
from
strategic
planning
through
long-term
adoption
and
optimization.

First
Deal
Since
BayPine
Investment

Harbor’s
acquisition
of
Encoretech
marks
the
first
deal
completed
since
BayPine’s
majority
investment
closed
in
June
2025.
The
transaction
followed
three
years
of
ownership
by
Renovus
Capital
Partners,
which
remains
a
significant
investor
alongside
BayPine
and
Harbor’s
management
team.

“The
legal
industry
is
undergoing
a
generational
transformation
driven
by
the
rapid
development
and
availability
of
emerging
technologies
and
tools,”
Sunderman
said
at
the
time
of
the
BayPine
investment.

“Applying
advanced
technologies
and
AI
to
business
operations
and
legal
workflows
is
game-changing,
but
the
scope
and
scale
of
the
transformation
required
to
capitalize
on
the
potential
opportunities
is
significant.”

At
the
time
of
that
investment,
Sunderman
said
that
the
company
planned
to
“expand
its
investment
in
the
corporate
legal
market
globally
and
advance
new
capabilities
through
acquisition
or
internal
development.”

The
Encoretech
acquisition
appears
to
demonstrate
that
strategy
in
action,
adding
capabilities
that
Harbor
identified
as
strategic
priorities
rather
than
attempting
to
build
them
itself.

Encoretech
Integration

The
Encoretech
team
will
join
Harbor’s
Legal
Technology
+
Operations
practice,
which
now
encompasses
more
than
900
professionals
globally
serving
over
80
percnet
of
global
200
law
firms
and
500
corporate
legal
departments.

The
integration
positions
Harbor
to
offer
clients
a
more
complete
package:
strategic
technology
planning,
implementation
services,
and
now
comprehensive
training
and
adoption
support.

“Harbor
has
a
strong
reputation
within
the
legal
industry
for
its
expertise
in
legal
technology,
operations
and
innovation,”
said
Stacy
Gittleman,
CEO
of
Encoretech.
“I
am
thrilled
to
see
our
team
start
a
new
chapter
as
part
of
Harbor.”

For
Roach,
the
Encoretech
president
who
will
continue
in
a
leadership
role
at
Harbor,
the
combination
enables
the
company
to
expand
its
impact.

“Our
team
has
made
great
strides
in
helping
the
legal
sector
rethink
its
approach
to
technology
adoption,”
he
said.
“Joining
Harbor
allows
us
to
scale
that
work
and
reach
more
organizations
ready
to
modernize
the
way
their
people
learn
and
work.”

The
military
is
going
to
use
artificial
intelligence.
But
while
planners
in
the
government
may
have
an
idea
of
the
best
way
forward,
can
they
truly
lead,
or
will
industry
steer
things
forward?

In
a
new

Breaking
Defense
video
on
the
future
of
military
AI,
Breaking
Defense
Editor-in-Chief
Aaron
Mehta
and
our
in-house
AI
expert
Sydney
Freedberg
are
joined
by
Joshua
Wallin
of
the
Center
for
a
New
American
Security
to
tackle
that
very
question.

And
for
more
insights
on
how
AI
will
integrate
into
the
military,
head
to

Part
1,

Part
2
and

Part
3
of
the
series
for
more.

*
To
keep
the
government’s
extrajudicial
boat
killing
policy
running
full
steam
ahead,
the
DOJ
prepares
an
opinion
to
absolve
anyone
involved.
[Reuters]

*
A
woman
has
married
an
AI
bot
in
Japan.
They’re
going
to
have
so
many
fights
over
whose
turn
it
is
to
take
out
the
trash.
[The
Independent]

*
Judge
set
to
decide
if
Tom
Goldstein’s
hiring
of
alleged
mistresses
amounted
to
tax
fraud.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Will
AI
libel
become
the
industry’s
next
legal
headache?
[The
Economist]

*
Self-taught
jailhouse
lawyer
running
for
Court
Clerk
in
New
Orleans.
[NY
Times]

*
German
court
rules
that
AI
is
stealing
lyrics
from
musicians.
[Courthouse
News
Service]

*
“Andrew
Cuomo
Photographed
Kissing
and
Grabbing
Lawyer
Who
Defended
Him
From
Sexual
Harassment
Accusations”
enters
the
“Not
The
Onion”
hall
of
fame.
[Mediaite]

Former
Partner
Accused
Of
Calling
Dominatrix
On
Company
Time:
And
that’s
just
the
tip
of
the
iceberg!
Judge
Panel
Lets
LSU
“Investigate”
Law
Professor
Who
Said
A
Curse
Word:
Are
they
just
virtue
signaling
to
the
President?
Academics
Compare
Biden
And
Trump
Judges
To
“Get
The
Conversation
Going”:
Shame
that
the
conversation
is
about
poking
holes
in
their
methodology.
Temporary
Setback:
Kim
K.
can
take
steps
to
pass
the
bar
next
time
—
so
can
you!
Want
To
Focus
On
Criminal
Law?:
These
are
the
law
schools
you
should
be
applying
to!
This
Should
Make
Gift
Shopping
Easier:
These
books
make
for
great
stocking
stuffers!

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Which
Supreme
Court
justice
has
the
most
former
clerks
on
the
federal
judiciary?

Hint:
This
justice
has
12
former
clerks
on
the
federal
bench
—
two
more
than
the
next
highest
justice.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

The
news
that
Kirkland
had
to
teach
its
lawyers
how
to

stop
being
mean
to
the
private
equity
industry
is
incredibly
funny.
We’re
not
saying
Kirkland
is
getting
a
bad
rap
here,
but
when
did
corporate
clients
become
such
fragile
snowflakes?
The
Federalist
Society’s
annual
meeting
brought
together
the
leading
minds
of
the
Trump
legal
movement
to
call
for
a
“war”
to

impeach
the
federal
judges
—
many
of
them
longtime
conservatives
themselves
—
for
not
appropriately
facilitating
the
administration.
And
the
DOJ
completes
its
Sandwich
Tosser
humiliation
that
started
by
failing
at
the
grand
jury
by
now

failing
to
secure
even
a
misdemeanor
conviction.

“Our
short
answer
is
that
Trump
judges
continue
to
dominate
the
Biden
judges,”
write
professors
Stephen
Choi
and
Mitu
Gulati
in
a
new

preliminary
draft
article
posted
yesterday.
As
a
provocative
tagline,
it
accomplished
its
task,
getting
pulled
into
social
media
posts
viewed
by
tens
of
thousands.
It’s
also
fitting
that
the
piece
got
boiled
down
to
its
most
bold,
yet
ultimately
vapid
claim,
since
their
methodology
for
determining
peak
judicial
performance
rewards
judges
for
being
wrong
both
often
and
loudly.

This
paper
follows
an
earlier
work
comparing
Trump’s
first-term
judges
to
Bush
and
Obama
judges
based
on
“productivity,
quality
and
independence,”
and
concluding
that
Trump’s
nominees
“performed
as
well,
if
not
better.”
But
every
attention-seeking
spectacle
invites
its
own
sequel
to
up
to
the
stakes.
With
the
benefit
of
a
few
more
years
of
Biden
judges,
the
authors
returned
to
the
subject
with
a
more
audacious
pull
quote.
Instead
of
“as
well,
if
not
better,”
this
time
the
Trump
judges
“dominate”
Biden’s.

It’s
a

Jordan
vs.
LeBron
level
argument
elevated
to
academia.
The
authors
admit
the
paper
is
intended
merely
to
“get
a
conversation
going
about
judicial
performance
based
on
objective
data
as
opposed
to
more
subjective
assertions
about
judicial
quality,”
a
display
of
modesty
violently
at
odds
with
the
decision
to
use
a
word
like
“dominate.”
But
sometimes
you’ve
got
to
channel
your
inner
Stephen
A.
Smith
to
get
traction.

To
measure
productivity,
we
start
with
the
total
number
of
reported
opinions
by
a
judge:
the
sum
of
majority,
concurring,
and
dissenting
opinions.

Judges
aren’t
paid
by
the
word.
The
only
opinion
that
needs
to
be
written
is
the
majority
opinion.
Dissents
—
and
definitely
concurrences
—
are
gratuitous.
“Writing
a
dissent
or
concurrence
is
voluntary
and
takes
extra
effort,”
the
authors
note,
mistaking
“effort”
with
“productive
effort.”
Unnecessary
work
isn’t
a
measure
of
“productivity,”
it’s
a
measure
of
a
busybody.

If
we
measured
productivity
as
a
matter
of
accomplishing
the
job
itself
faster
and
more
efficiently,
judges
churning
out
separate
concurrences
and
dissents
likely

slow
down
the
process
of
clearing
the
docket,
both
by
(a)
wasting
limited
time
and
resources
producing
opinions
that
don’t
matter
instead
of
their
assigned
majority
opinions,
and
(b)
by
forcing
the
majority
to
waste
time
and
resources
rebutting
those
separate
opinions
that
could
be
used
on
another
matter.
That’s
not
to
suggest
dissents
and
concurrences
are
a
universal
wastes
of
time,
but
suggesting
that
judges
are
more
“productive”
simply
by
writing
more
opinions
is
like
rewarding
the
player
who
took
the
most
shots
even
if
every
one
missed.

Unlike
trial
judges
working
alone,
there’s
not
an
obvious,
public-facing
metric
for
appellate
productivity.
Figuring
out
which
chambers
drags
down
every
matter
requires
inside
gossip
that
scholarly
studies
will
never
sufficiently
collect.
There
are
some
retired
judges
out
there
who
could
probably
tell
us
all
exactly
which
circuit
judges
are
“productive,”
but
they’re
not
talking.

It’s
not
hard
to
grasp
why
Trump
judges
excel
under
a
measure
of
pure
volume,

consequence
to
the
actual
decision
be
damned.
The
Federalist
Society
(note
that
FedSoc
will
say
it’s
just
a
humble
academic
club
and
that
it’s
a
coincidence
that
the
organized
Trump
legal
operation
and
its
own
members
form
a
perfect
circle
of
a
Venn
Diagram)
put
a
lot
of
effort
into
avoiding
another
Justice
David
Souter.
The
vetting
operation
is
detailed
and
runs
on
a
written
record.
A
careerist
Trump
judge
has
every
incentive
to
write
a
separate
opinion
on

everything
to
keep
their
tenure
portfolio
padded
in
case
the
Supreme
Court
opens
up.
Democrats
don’t
pick
judges
this
way
and
Bush
judges
are
now
too
old
to
get
called
up
to
the
majors.

Our
measure
of
judicial
influence
focuses
on
the
number
of
outside
circuit
case
citations
a
judge’s
authored
majority
opinion
receives.

Behold
the
self-licking
ice
cream
cone
of
conservative
validation.
Some
opinions
receive
cross-circuit
nods
because
they’re
cases
of
first
impression
or
examples
of
sterling
reasoning,
but
a
lot
of
them
show
up
because
“I’m
citing
my
buddy’s
opinion
because
we’re
both
trying
to
overrule
the
Clean
Air
Act.”

In
fact,
the
paper
notes
that
the
top
authors
for
outside
citations
both
wrote
gun
rights
opinions
—
the
overall
most
outside
cited
opinion
being

Rahimi
—
and
that
“[p]erhaps
it’s
not
the
judge
per
se
but
instead
the
random
chance
of
getting
assigned
to
write
an
opinion
on
such
a
hot-button
topic
that
drives
the
large
outside
circuit
citations.”
The
authors
are
on
to
something
here,
but
don’t
go
far
enough.
Circuits
don’t
need
to
look
beyond
their
borders
to
resolve
uncontroversial
issues.
That’s
where
circuit
splits
happen,
and
panels
will
flag
those
cases
when
adding
their
voices
to
one
side
or
the
other
of
that
split.

And,
not
to
get
too
philosophical,
but
a
“hot-button
topic”
can
be
self-fulfilling.
When
one
circuit
—
let’s
just
pick
a
number
at
random…
say,
the
Fifth
—
decides
to
turn
itself
into
a
constitutional
hot
take
generator,
it
manufactures
controversy.

Rahimi
got
a
lot
of
attention
because
it
was
so
uniquely
batshit
that
even
this
Supreme
Court
couldn’t
get
on
board.

The
model
for
an
influential
judge,
per
the
statistical
method
employed
by
the
authors,
would
be
Judge
Posner’s
1998-2000
run.
During
that
period,
Judge
Posner
was
“2.6
standard
deviations
above
the
mean
active
judge”
by
this
measure.
But
while
I’ll
subjectively
say
Judge
Posner’s
“judicial
performance”
was
several
more
standards
of
deviation
better
than
any
of
the
Trump
appellate
cohort,
this
influence
measure
isn’t
a
good
basis
for
that.

Because
this
measure
rewards
controversy,
higher
“influence”
will
always
benefit
judges
challenging
orthodoxy.
Judge
Posner
championed
viewing
the
law
through
a
then-novel
economic
lens.
The
Trump
judges
in
this
study
champion
viewing
the
law
through
a
presently
novel
“whatever
Trump
wants”
lens.
In
both
cases,
they’re
getting
cited
more
for
bucking
the
system.
This
measure
of
influence
captures
judges
writing
from
outside
the
established
legal
norms.
But
it’s
a
value
neutral
measure
because
it
doesn’t
matter
if
they’re
producing
law
and
economics
or
batshit.

If
anything,
all
we’ve
learned
here
is
that
Biden
judges
are
NOT
producing
opinions
hoping
to
advance
new
critical
race
theory
readings
of
ERISA,
but
are
mostly
straightforward
practitioners
guided
by
orthodox
interpretations
of
established
precedent.

Again,
we
don’t
actually
want
judges
to
be
influential
for
the
sake
of
being
influential
—
we
want
them
to
quickly
and
correctly
decide
cases.
Biden
judges
tend
to
be
in
line
with
existing
precedent?
Cool
story,
but
it
doesn’t
say
anything
about
their
performance.

The
paper’s
definition
of
independence
is
complicated
and
derived
through
multiple
equations,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day…
who
cares?
If
they’re
standing
up
to
injustice,
that’s
great.
If
they’re
obstinately
bloviating
against
established
law
for
their
own
ego,
that’s
not.
There’s
no
objective
measure
capable
of
capturing
that
distinction.

In
the
end,
the
measure
we
get
from
the
paper
is
the
same
productivity
problem
—
rewarding
dissents
and
concurrences
—
compounded
because
it
gives
extra
weight
to
dissents
and
concurrences
that
go
“against”
other
Republican
judges.
So
a
judge
wanting
to
force
in
their
own
“me
too”
concurrence
to
stay
on
Leonard
Leo’s
nice
list
gets
an
independence
boost
for
what’s
basically
the
judicial
equivalent
of
“I
have
more
of
a
comment
than
a
question.”

Which,
again,
says
nothing
about
whether
or
not
the
judge
is
doing
a
good
job

as
a
judge.
The
data
collected
in
the
paper
is
interesting.
There
are
reasons
why
it
might
be
interesting
to
know
who
is
writing
more
and
who
is
getting
cited
more.
But
neither
has
more
than
a
passing
connection
to
“judicial
performance.”
Someone
once
told
me
that
the
best
way
to
evaluate
a
methodology
is
to
forget
the
ideal
case
that
it
could
measure
and
instead
consider
what
it
would
look
like
to
game
it.
Applying
that
advice,
what
would
a
judge
do
if
they
wanted
to
be
crowned
a
high
judicial
performer
by
this
test?
Write
separately
in
every
case
and
make
sure
every
majority
opinion
is
tailored
toward
circuit
conflict.

This
study
is
what
happens
when
you
apply
quantitative
metrics
to
qualitative
judgments
without
thinking
about
what
you’re
actually
measuring.
For
example,
the
authors
said
they
intended
to
“get
a
conversation
going”
and
quantitatively
they
have
succeeded
in
creating
one.
Qualitatively,
they
have
created
a
stupid
one.

Last
week,
a
lawsuit
against
Blank
Rome
finance
partner

James
Cretella
was
filed
by
his
former
firm,
Otterbourg
P.C.,
for
breach
of
contract,
breach
of
fiduciary
duty,
fraudulent
concealment,
and
unjust
enrichment.
The
allegations
in
the
suit
are
a
roller
coaster
ride
that
swings
between
the
banal
and
sensational.
For
example,
Otterbourg
alleges
Cretella
didn’t
disclose
his
impending
departure
until
after
he’d
collected
a
seven-figure
bonus
and
that
he
solicited
clients
to
join
him
at
his
new
firm.
From
the
complaint:
“He
accepted
[the
bonus]
knowing
full
well
he
was
leaving
and
that
he
had
perpetuated
a
scheme
to
try
to
hobble
the
Firm
and
bolster
a
competitor
while
conspiring
with
another
exiting
partner
and
concealing
material
facts
that
would
have
changed
the
Board’s
decision
to
give
him
a
bonus.”

Which
are
interesting,
if
somewhat
expected,
allegations
following
a
partner’s
lateral
move.
These
things
don’t
typically
come
to
litigation,
but
they’re
certainly
known
pain
points.
But
then
there
are
the
escort
allegations.

According
to
the
complaint,
Cretella
met
up
with
an
escort
and
other
women
while
traveling
on
firm
business.
During
a
forensic
examination
of
Cretella’s
firm-issued
and
firm-paid
phone,
it
was
revealed
that
he
allegedly
engaged
in
“highly
inappropriate
and
potentially
unlawful
personal
conduct
that
Cretella
engaged
in
during
Firm-funded
travel,”
that
included
texts
messages
with
an
“upscale
dominatrix”
known
as
“Goddess
Kat.”

Then
there’s
the
cyberstalking
allegations.
There’s
a

separate
federal
suit
in
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Connecticut
by
Otterbourg’s
chairman,
Richard
L.
Stehl,
and
its
president,
Richard
G.
Haddad,
over
those
claims,
and
Cretella
has
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss.
The
Otterbourg
firm
leaders
allege
Cretella
engaged
in
repeated
“unauthorized
surveillance”
of
their
personal
lives.
As

reported
by
Law.com:

“Forensic
evidence
shows
that
over
a
period
of
years,
Cretella
repeatedly
accessed
private,
non-client
files
belonging
to
both
men
without
their
permission
or
legitimate
purpose,”
the
most
recent
suit
states.
“These
were
not
stray
clicks
or
accidental
views.
The
data
shows
hundreds
of
deliberate
intrusions
–
often
in
the
dead
of
night
–
targeting
files
that
…
had
nothing
to
do
with
firm
business.”

Some
of
this
sensitive
information
allegedly
included
home
security
system
codes
and
login
credentials
for
live
camera
feeds
inside
and
outside
the
Stehl
family
residence,
personal
tax
returns
and
Social
Security
password
files,
privileged
legal
communications
relating
to
“deeply
personal
family
matters,”
including
divorce
proceedings
and
custody
arrangements
involving
grandchildren,
confidential
medical
records,
private
financial
statements,
as
well
as
“intimate
personal
details,”
including
children’s
employment
documents
and
home
renovation
plans.

Now
those
are
more
lurid
allegations.

But
in
Cretella’s
motion
to
dismiss
the
federal
action,
he
alleges
the
personal
information
was
saved
on
the
firm’s
computer
system
and
accessed
through
a
preview
function
after
performing
searches.
“Although
plaintiffs
try
to
hide
behind
irrelevant
allegations
about
how
Otterbourg’s
computer
system
was
intended
to
operate,
the
complaint
confirms
a
simple
fact
fatal
to
plaintiffs’
standing:
Using
firm-provided
credentials,
Cretella
and
other
attorneys
searched
the
firm’s
computer
network
and
viewed
the
results
of
those
searches,
which
allegedly
included
files
plaintiffs
saved
to
the
firm-wide
network.
The
only
plausible
conclusion
is
that
plaintiffs
failed
to
take
any
measures
to
prevent
their
files
from
being
accessed
through
routine,
firmwide
network
searches.”

And
Cretella

isn’t
the
only
Otterbourg
partner
who
recently
lateraled
to
Blank
Rome.
And
wouldn’t
you
know
it,
there’s
also
an
Otterbourg

complaint
filed
against
that
attorney,
Ikhwan
A.
Rafeek.
That
lawsuit
also
alleges
access
to
private
files
of
Stehl
that
Rafeek
“repeatedly
and
systematically”
viewed
when
he
“deliberately
exploited”
a
computer
system
vulnerability.
The
suit
also
alleges
Rafeek
improperly
solicited
clients
in
anticipation
of
his
lateral
move
at
events
paid
for
by
Otterbourg.

Rafeek
hit
back
at
the
allegations
against
him
in

a
motion
to
dismiss,
saying
the
complaint
was
“baseless”
with
“bogus
claims”
in
an
“attempt
to
punish
Rafeek
vindictively”
because
he
left
the
firm.

The
sour
grapes
defense
is
echoed
in
Cretella’s
filings
in
the
federal
case.
In
an
affidavit
in
that
case,
he
wrote,
“Facts
and
circumstances
convince
me
that
my
decision
to
leave
Otterbourg,
and
not
any
grand
privacy-related
injury
that
plaintiffs
now
claim,
brought
on
this
lawsuit.”

You
can
read
the
recent
complaint
against
Cretella
below.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].