Partner’s lateral move revealed quite a lot.

Source: Abovethelaw.com

USA – 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.