The latest filing in a legal war between Aoe’e Adolfo Montenegro and the parent company of his former employer Bluesky, asks the High Court to disqualify the lawfirm representing Aoe’e in his $20 million lawsuit, because the same firm used to represent Bluesky.
Aoe’e is represented by attorney Barry Rose and the firm Mooney, Wieland, Smith & Rose.
Rose was the main partner in the lawfirm of Rose, Joneson, Vargas until its merger with an Idaho lawfirm, which created the new firm Mooney Wieland Smith & Rose.
Bluesky’s parent company Amper S.A., states in its motion filed in the High Court, that after a decade of providing a wide-range of legal representation for Bluesky, Barry Rose and his firm, now representing
Aoe’e, filed a 25-count complaint against their former client.
Amper’s lawyers, RDA Law Firm, contends the representation is prohibited by the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct as it’s clearly a conflict of interest.
According to the motion, attorney Rose has a long, intimate relationship with Bluesky; he was a founding officer of the company serving as president from its inception in 2002 until 2008.
He also served as a Bluesky director, shareholder and legal counsel.
The motion claims that in his various roles, including as Bluesky’s attorney, Rose received a voluminous amount of confidential information about Bluesky, some of which are concurrent with and substantially related to facts alleged in Aoe’e’s lawsuit against Bluesky.
The motion states, “The exploitation of the information entrusted to Attorney Rose and his law firm in order to achieve financial gains by way of Plaintiffs’ instant action is an abundantly clear breach of the most basic duties of loyalty and confidentiality owed by [Bluesky] by Attorney Rose and his firm.”
It alleges that attorney Rose had acknowledged a conflict of interest in email correspondences in 2015.
While Rose was still actively counseling Bluesky, he became a part of an investor group seeking to buy equity in Bluesky and its subsidiaries.
Rose notified Bluesky that he intended to represent the prospective investors while continuing to provide services to Bluesky.
According to the motion Rose would provide counsel on both sides of the transaction.
Bluesky, maintain that despite acknowledging a conflict of interest when he sought to present the investor group, here, Rose has not sought any waiver or even acknowledged the conflict.
Bluesky’s attorney Richard deSaulles of the RDA Law Firm, says he raised the issue of conflict during two phone calls with Rose’s colleague Daniel Mooney of Mooney, Wieland, Smith and Rose Firm.
However he says Mooney dismissed the idea and claimed that their firm carefully reviewed the conflict issues presented by Rose’s involvement and concluded that no conflict exists.
The motion further states that attorney Rose and possibly other attorneys in his lawfirm will unquestionably be called as witnesses at trial to provide testimony regarding the claims and defenses raised in Aoe’e’s lawsuit.
The motion concludes that attorney Rose and his firm must be disqualified from the lawsuit or else they will continue to flaunt their professional duties to Bluesky, a former client.
It says their actions are not only in contravention with the Rules of Professional Conduct, but it betrays common sense and public policy.
