The firm was found engaging in unsanctioned access to a Dropbox belonging to its litigation opponent, The Pursuit Special Credit Opportunity Fund. The access was deemed more parallel to corporate espionage than to standard legal operations, according to Judge Joel M. Cohen.
The decision was handed down after it came to light that the firm capitalized on an inadvertent reveal of the Dropbox link by a third-party vendor during discovery[1]. Robins Kaplan not just accessed the Dropbox files ‘surreptitiously and repeatedly’ but used the data acquired to position themselves advantageously in legal negotiations.
While many aspects of legal proceedings may be cause for dispassion, this unauthorized file access has been widely criticized. No ethical boundary, professional or personal, privileges an entity to delve into content not explicitly shared with them. Such an act is regarded as invasive and disrespectful.
The fee imposed isn’t just a repercussion for the unauthorized access, but it also covers the expenses Pursuit Special Credit Opportunity Fund incurred while trying to implement the sanction. The high amount of the fine could serve as a preventive measure, deterring others from unauthorized access to similar confidential information.
However, Robins Kaplan will not bear the brunt of the sanctions merely in monitory terms. The firm has also been directed to return documents that were not later produced by the Pursuit Special Credit Opportunity Fund in the discovery process. Further, they may face restrictions on their future discovery requests if they are based on the inappropriate review of these Dropbox files.
It’s worth noting, that the judgment is being contested. Gabriel Berg, a partner at Robins Kaplan, plans to appeal against the decision. He intends to assert that the firm’s actions caused no harm since the documents they referenced were ultimately surfaced in the discovery process.
This case serves as a caution to all legal professionals about the consequences of overstepping ethical boundaries. The world will be closely watching the unfolding of this case, which emphasizes the importance of discretion and respect for privacy in conducting legal proceedings. The firm’s planned appeal also adds a layer of complexity to this legal saga.
