Hearsay

Case closed

A contentious employment lawsuit involving a major Boston law firm and a client’s child pornography collection has been quietly put to rest in court.

The suit dates back to December 2006 when associate Kevin M. Plante claimed that higher-ups at Hinckley, Allen & Snyder unceremoniously showed him the door after he refused to get rid of incriminating images found on a client’s computer hard drive.

The firm countered, in part, that its former employee couldn’t sue because a separation agreement he had knowingly entered into barred him from seeking redress of any kind inside a courtroom.

The complaint garnered national attention and unwittingly thrust Plante — who now works as in-house counsel at an undisclosed Boston company — into the media spotlight.

After years of pre-trial haggling and a trip to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the suit appeared to be headed for trial when one of Plante’s claims survived summary judgment in Superior Court.

At the time, Plante said he and his lawyer were ready to let a jury decide whether he was the victim of wrongful termination.

“We are going forward with this case 100 percent,” he said in an April 21 interview. “I don’t view this ruling as anything other than a victory.”

But New England In-House has learned that the parties recently informed the judge they had a meeting of the minds.

Several courthouse sources confirm that a stipulation of dismissal was entered in the case. The stipulation, which was done with prejudice, covers all claims and counterclaims.

It also includes an agreement that the parties will bear whatever costs they have accrued over the course of the litigation.

At the direction of his Boston lawyer, Kevin G. Powers of Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz, the usually chatty Plante did not return multiple telephone messages and email requests for comment.

All Powers will say about the ordeal is that “the parties have resolved the case to their mutual satisfaction.”

Alan D. Rose of Rose, Chinitz & Rose in Boston, who represents Hinckley Allen, could not be reached for comment.

Although the dismissal is part of the public record, much of the case, including how many dollars may or may not have exchanged hands, is off limits as part of an impoundment order.

Irreconcilable differences

The associate who parted ways with Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo in 2009 amid hostile-workplace allegations is now on the outs with the lawyers she hired to go toe-to-toe with the mega-firm.

Kamee B. Verdrager is alleging that her former superiors at Mintz Levin discriminated against her because of her sex and her status as a mother.

All along, the 37-year-old has been represented by well-known Boston employment lawyers Wendy A. Kaplan and Rebecca G. Pontikes.

But financial problems and serious differences of opinion have put an end to that relationship, leaving Verdrager in the unenviable position of taking on a big law firm with no representation.

In papers filed in Massachusetts Superior Court, Kaplan and Pontikes accuse Verdrager, an employment lawyer herself, of “micromanaging the litigation” and stiffing them of nearly $100,000 in fees.

“The attorney-client relationship,” they say in the court filings, “is irretrievably broken.”

Kaplan and Pontikes write that when they signed on to the case, they did so with the explicit condition that they — and not the client — would make the key strategy decisions. Verdrager has ignored that condition, their filing states.

As Mintz Levin, represented by a team from Ropes & Gray, aggressively peppered the plaintiff’s lawyers with sometimes daily discovery requests, Verdrager fell further behind on payments, they claim. At the same time, things got so heated that a retired judge had to be brought in as a discovery master.

“The aggressiveness of [Mintz Levin’s] defense has necessitated intense work by Counsel, at times engaging them on almost a full-time basis,” the Boston lawyers write. “The time spent on this matter, has, at many points, precluded work on other matters, jeopardizing not only Counsel’s solvency, but their ability to fulfill their duties to other clients.”

Kaplan and Pontikes say it became impossible to support their two-lawyer firms. When they asked Verdrager to focus only on the most important discovery, they claim she refused and argued that the attorneys were ethically bound to continue representing her.

“[S]he attacked Counsel, insisting that Counsel pursue aggressive litigation strategies, even though she could not pay for them, and accusing them of over-billing and unethical behavior,” they write.

That was enough to convince the judge to allow Kaplan and Pontikes to step down from the case.

Pontikes, who recently dissolved her firm, Pontikes & Swartz, declines to discuss the Verdrager matter. Kaplan did not return calls for comment.

Verdrager, who turned down a $700,000 settlement early in the litigation, says she indeed will represent herself from here on out.

She also says she never handed over all the decision-making to her lawyers.

“Of course I didn’t agree to that,” she says. “What attorney or reasonably informed client would ever relinquish total control?

“I come from a big-firm background,” she adds. “I am used to working with highly intelligent, informed individuals who don’t always agree with me or want to follow my advice.”

Verdrager says she feels good about representing herself.

“I’m an employment lawyer, so I know this area of law. And I am no longer under the tremendous pressure that so many litigants face of continuously mounting legal fees,” she says.

A Mintz Levin spokeswoman says the firm took no position on the motion to withdraw. She declined to discuss the case, which is still mired in the discovery process.

Firm date

The ex-Bingham McCutchen associate who claims the firm turned its back on her when she alleged that a co-worker slipped her a date-rape drug at a holiday party is officially slated to get her day in court.

More than two years ago, Michelle A. Moor filed a two-count complaint against the Boston mega-firm accusing it of discrimination and retaliation. Moor alleges that Bingham higher-ups failed to properly investigate her claims that someone slipped her a “roofie” at the 2007 firm-sponsored event.

Moor, who worked in Bingham’s litigation department from September 2007 to March 2008, says when she confided in a female attorney at the firm, the colleague told Moor that she, too, had been drugged and raped by a Bingham employee the year before.

While the two sides remain miles apart on what transpired on the evening in question, they seem to agree that a jury will settle their differences once and for all this fall.

A Massachusetts Superior Court judge told the parties they should be prepared to duke it out on Nov. 10, when the high-stakes, high-drama trial is slated to start.

Moor’s Boston lawyer, Inga S. Bernstein, confirms that discovery is finally complete and that the Nov. 10 date is a solid one.

Otherwise, Bernstein, a lawyer at Zalkind, Rodriguez, Lunt & Duncan, will say only that she and her client “feel good about our case and are looking forward to finally being able to present it to a jury.”

The case came together this summer when Moor successfully resurrected the retaliation count, which previously had been dismissed.

In a December summary judgment decision, the judge ruled that portions of Moor’s complaint dealing with alleged events that took place after she left Bingham could not form the basis of a retaliation claim.

Then, on May 12, the Supreme Judicial Court decided its landmark Psy-Ed Corp., et al. v. Klein, et al. v. Hirsch, et al. decision, writing that post-employment conduct by an employer could indeed constitute actionable retaliation.

The ruling allowed Bernstein to convince the judge to reconsider her earlier decision.

George P. Field of Burns & Levinson, who represented the employee in Psy-Ed but is not involved in the Moor suit, says the plaintiff’s request sounds “perfectly appropriate.”

The Boston lawyer adds: “The judge ought to have the opportunity to apply the holding of Psy-Ed.”

Robert B. Gordon of Ropes & Gray in Boston, who represents Bingham, referred all requests for comment to his client.

A Bingham spokeswoman says the firm responded appropriately, took Moor’s claims “very seriously” and “reached out to her repeatedly” throughout the process.

Moor, 33, declined to comment when contacted at her new firm, Boston’s Kotin, Crabtree & Strong.