Patt_00

There was an article today in Bloomburg Law about Dechert LLP joining the fight against Slater for their profesional misconduct and ethics violations. The article is behind a paywall. However, I contacted the author of the article. Alex Wolfe gave me permission to publish the entire article. Thanks Alex! If the moderators would like to see the correspondence with the author where he gave me permission to publish this article. Shoot me a private message. Thanks. Boy Scouts Abuse Claimants Tap Dechert to Fight Mass Tort Firm Summary by Bloomburg Law AI Feb. 13, 2026, 3:35 PM Attorneys from Dechert LLP are assisting a group of Boy Scouts abuse claimants seeking to terminate their contingency fee arrangements with Slater Slater Schulman LLP. The group alleges that Slater's misconduct and deception has resulted in irreparable injury to claimants and undermined the credibility of the bankruptcy system. The claimants are seeking to have the court decide whether Slater should be financially penalized for allegedly deceiving thousands of child sex abuse claimants about the status of their claims in the Boy Scouts of America Chapter 11 settlement process. Attorneys from multinational law firm Dechert LLP are assisting a group of Boy Scouts abuse claimants seeking to terminate their contingency fee arrangements with mass tort firm Slater Slater Schulman LLP. A trio of Dechert attorneys, including Yale Law professor G. Eric Brunstad Jr., were part of the team that filed papers Friday urging the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to decide whether Slater should be financially dinged for allegedly deceiving thousands of child sex abuse claimants about the status of their claims in the Boy Scouts of America Chapter 11 settlement process. “The Slater firm’s misconduct and deception has resulted in irreparable injury to claimants, undermined the credibility of the bankruptcy system, and has wide-ranging impacts on the BSA debtors’ estate,” the group said. “This court has jurisdiction and the power to ensure that justice is done.” Brunstad, who has argued multiple cases in front of the US Supreme Court, adds heft to an effort to terminate Slater’s 30% to 40% contingency fee agreements it holds with more than 14,000 Boy Scouts child sex abuse claimants. Lawrence Friedman, a former executive director of the Justice Department’s bankruptcy monitoring unit, has spearheaded the legal fight for the claimants. A group of 14 former Slater clients seek to punish the New York-based plaintiffs’ firm for concealing for more than a year that all of its claim submissions were under investigation by the Boy Scouts abuse settlement trust. Slater in September acknowledged that it had submitted “problematic claims” and, as a result, would reduce its total legal fees by about 4%. Its former clients have argued that the firm should either be denied all of its fees or receive as little as $250 per claimant. The group tapped Dechert for additional help after Delaware bankruptcy judge Laurie Selber Silverstein in November said she’s unsure whether she has jurisdiction to wade into the fee dispute, which takes broad aim at the business practices of mass tort plaintiff firms. “So what’s the proper vehicle to raise those issues?” she asked at the time. “I don’t know.” In their brief Friday, the former Slater clients said because the issue is core to the Boy Scouts bankruptcy case, Silverstein has “inherent authority” to decide it. The same authority was used decades ago by a Virginia bankruptcy judge to regulate attorney contingency fees in the Chapter 11 case for A.H. Robins, which settled more than 300,000 personal injury claims stemming from the company’s Dalkon Shielddevice, they said. “Just as in the A.H. Robins case, and perhaps most consequentially for claimants, reducing or capping the Slater firm’s fees would affect the amount that each of the claimants would receive,” they said. An attorney for Slater didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Claim recovery has become a fraught topic for abused former scouts, who have so far received just 1.5% of what they’ve been told their claims of childhood molestation and rape are worth. The settlement trust, which began operating in April 2023, had been constrained from distributing additional funds while the Boy Scouts’ Chapter 11 plan was on appeal. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s refusal last month to hear a petition brought by a small group of claimants that opposed the plan, the trust has said it will be making supplemental distributions that raise recoveries up to 4.7% of claim value. Slater is represented by Law Office of Susan E. Kaufman LLC, Robert & Robert PLLC, and Continental PLLC. The movants are additionally represented by Scheer Law Group LLP and Rosner Law Group LLC. The case is Boy Scouts of America, Bankr. D. Del., No. 20-10343, brief filed 2/13/26. To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Wolf in New York at [email protected]

I want to give an update on the Trust Claim submissions by the Slater firm. I spoke to my attorney Larry Friedman. The 3rd party neutral which Slater claims must pass through before they can proceed to the Trust for evaluation is identifying inconsistencies between survivors Omni Proof of Claims and their Trust Claim questionnaires. Larry and his teams work has found MOST of these are the result of extremely sloppy work by Slater attorneys when preparing their clients documents. A little over a month ago, I received an AIR (additional information request) from the Trust. This was due to sloppy work by Slater attorneys. Larry submitted the information that was requested on my behalf and less than 30 days later I received my award determination. I am ecstatic with my claim determination and have submitted my acceptance package. Even this late in the process survivors represented by Slater, past and present, should have a qualified professional helping them respond to Trust AIR's. If anyone would like Larry's contact info, I would be happy to provide it. I'm sure everyone is aware that Slater is placing liens on their former clients awards. Larry and the Trust are putting in a process to escrow the attorney fees needed to satisfy the liens. This means the 36% of our claims Slater is putting a lien on will be held in an interest bearing escrow account and the remaining 64% can be distributed to survivors. This way the Trust can continue processing and paying claims to Slater clients.

I fired the Slater firm back in October and retained Larry Friedman and Tim Silverman as new council. I received my claim determination a little over a week ago. I've spoken to a numb of other survivors over the past week that also fired Slater and hired Larry and Tim. They also have received claim determinations as well. All of us still had to be vetted by the independent neutral even though we retained new council. I believe hiring Larry and Tim had a lot to do with our claims starting to be determined over the past week.

Slater responded to Larry and Tim's motion. At first glance, the Slater firm's stance is Larry and Tim do not have any evidence that Slater committed ethical violations and the court does not have jurisdiction nor the authority to grant the motion. However, the court does in fact have jurisdiction on the matter and authority to grant the motion. The Trustee notified the court of the issues with the Slater firms claim submissions and the firm agreed with the Trust and took full responsibility for not using due diligence when vetting claims. The Slater firm did not address ANY of the ethical violations they have been accused of. They did bring up the accusations against the firm but did not shed light on what really happened and why they did not inform their client of the Trust pause and the 14 months of radio silence when their clients inquired about the status of their claim. Larry and Tim also filed for a subpoena today which will shed light on how the Slater firm handled vetting and processing claims and any business agreements the firm had to share their clients fees with other firms and/or contractors. The Slater response today amounts to shooting from the hip in the dark, and praying they hit something. Also, the Trustee filed a separate response on a particular aspect of Larry and Tim's motion. She stated the Trust did not come to a "settlement" with Slater, they came to an agreement with Slater about the neutral 3rd party review of Slater Claims . But it sounds like Judge Houser is just back peddling. Judge Houser has a habit of quoting the definitions of words and phrases in her her motions. If you look up the definition of "settlement". !) Settlement: An official agreement intended to resolve a dispute or conflict. 2) A settlement is a resolution to a dispute, conflict, or debt through a mutual agreement. Here is a link to Slater's objection: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/460e708b-e6a3-4859-a859-c5c33c5be0bb_13217.pdf Here is the Trustees response to Lary and Tim's motion: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9cbffb0a-e37d-4b3c-addf-e61fd5501a7c_13220.pdf

There was a Notice Of Intent To Serve A Subpoena On Slater Slater & Schullman LLP in the bankruptcy court today! Tim Silverman of Scheer Law Group issued the notice. He has partnered with Lawrence Friedman to hold the Slater firm accountable for their actions. It would seem depositions of the Slater firm employees (present and past) will likely be held in the future? The information demanded is as follows: 1. Provide the complete name and last known address and contact information for current or former Slater Slater Schulman employee named “Alex Wells, Esq.” 2. Provide a list of all current or former attorneys, paralegals and staff, employed by Slater Slater Schulman or who are or were acting as independent contractors and/or vendors for Slater Slater Schulman, who had any contact or communication with its client claimants in this bankruptcy case. 3. For those persons identified on Item #2, who are not current employees of Slater Slater Schulman, provide the last known complete name, address and contact information for each such person. 4. Provide a list of all law firms and/or other business entities with which Slater Slater Schulman shares or splits attorney’s fees or revenue which is due to Slater Slater Schulman pursuant to any contingency fee agreement with any of its client claimants in this bankruptcy case. 5. Provide a complete executed copy of any and all written agreements to which Slater Slater Schulman is a party with any and all law firms and/or other business entitiesconcerning all or in part the sharing or splitting of attorney’s fees or revenue, which is due to Slater Slater Schulman pursuant to any contingency fee agreement with any of its client claimants in this bankruptcy case. Here is the entry from the bankruptcy court docket from today if anyone is interested. f9586042-916b-4440-92b2-ce02ec85a6d3_13210.pdf

Lawrence Friedman and Tim Silverman filed a motion in the bankruptcy court on behalf of their clients who were formally Slater firm clients. In their motion they asked the court; 1) To void their clients fee agreement with the Slater firm. 2) To void all Slater firm clients fee agreement. Or Reduce the Slater firms fee agreement with their clients based on Quantum Meruit. The motion also asks the court to discipline the Slater firm for the numerous violations of attorney professional conduct. In the 30 plus page motion, no punches were pulled by Lawrence or Tim. I don't think the Slater firm realized the seriousness of their actions. I would not want to be a Slater firm attorney right now. Here is the motion for anyone interested. 46e751f1-5b0b-43d5-afb8-55c0015eee9a_13181.pdf

While the Slater firm has 14,000 plus clients. Not all of them are matrix claims. IIRC the Slater firm has roughly 10,000 clients that elected the matrix route. The remaining would be expedited distribution and IRO claims. That would leave about 6,000 plus non-Slater firm claims to be determined. I wonder how many claim determinations are in limbo because the Trust has requested additional information from claimants and they are still awaiting for a reply. I saw the comments on FB about some survivors waiting almost a year after they submitted their lien paperwork and their claim has made no progress towards distribution. At least one of the members of the FBI group stated he had no liens to satisfy. I'm also curious about the holdup.

The attorney's name is Lawrence Friedman. He has partnered Timothy Silverman. This issue will be handled relatively quickly in the bankruptcy court. The retainer agreement is on contingency with no risk to us. The contingency fee agreement is a fraction of the 40% the Slater firm agreement. They were just admitted Pro Hac Vice. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e4a3c757-8462-49e1-b1a8-abdbea5c3f3d_13149.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/c9074ad5-add0-4e84-b240-349e4b854098_13148.pdf This is how Lawrence and Timothy are going to get fee agreements voided.. Here is information about Lawrence that @MYCVAStory posted last year. Its a good read. We are in good hands

Myself and a number of Slater Slater & Schulman clients have discharged their firm as counsel. After I sent the discharge letter to the firm I was contacted by Johnathan Schulman. In our conversation, he stated the fee agreement with the firm is iron clad and none of the firms clients were going to be able to get their fee agreement reduced of voided. Johnathan informed me that I would still be bound by the Slater Firm fee agreement and I if I retained another attorney, I would have to pay his firm and also the other attorneys fee out of my settlement. This is just a scare tactic. Since the Slater firm debauchery, I have been in contact with an attorney that is will to help as well as researching this online. As it turns out, the fee agreement with the Slater Firm is not iron clad. . Here is information I found online which I think is very interesting. I just want to add that I'm not an attorney. An attorney who fails to properly vet proofs of claims in a bankruptcy case can face severe consequences, including court sanctions, professional discipline, and civil liability for legal malpractice. A client may also have grounds to void their fee agreement and recover any damages suffered.  Penalties for the attorney Court sanctions Rule 9011 violations: Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011, an attorney who submits a document to the court (like a proof of claim) certifies that they have conducted a "reasonable inquiry" into the factual allegations. An attorney who fails to do so can face sanctions, which may include monetary fines, reprimands, or other non-monetary penalties. Approval of employment: Incompetent representation may lead to the bankruptcy court refusing to approve the attorney's employment or denying fees. Fee reduction or disgorgement: If a court finds an attorney's services were inadequate, it can reduce or order the disgorgement of fees already paid by the client. Disqualification: If an attorney signs a proof of claim, they risk becoming a witness in a dispute and could be disqualified from representing the client in that matter.  Professional discipline State bar rules require attorneys to provide competent representation and act with diligence. An attorney who negligently handles a bankruptcy case can be reported to the state bar. Disciplinary actions can include: Suspension of their law license. Revocation of their law license (disbarment). Reprimands or censure.  Civil liability for legal malpractice An attorney's failure to exercise reasonable care is a breach of the professional standard of care and can expose them to a legal malpractice lawsuit. The client must prove that "but for" the attorney's negligence, they would have had a better outcome in the bankruptcy case. In the context of unvetted claims, this could mean the client suffered damages from: Losing property that could have been protected. Having their debt discharge denied. Paying invalid or inflated claims.  Grounds to void the fee agreement A client may be able to void their fee agreement if the attorney's failure to vet claims rises to the level of negligence or a breach of professional ethics. Breach of contract: The client could argue that the attorney's failure to provide competent and diligent service constitutes a material breach of the fee agreement. Voidability under state law: Some state laws specifically allow for fee agreements to be voided for an attorney's failure to meet specific professional standards. Fee disputes: Even without a lawsuit, the client can challenge the attorney's fees through a fee dispute resolution process, arguing the fees are unreasonable due to the attorney's incompetence.  Client recourse if harmed If a client has been harmed by an attorney's failure to vet claims, they should: Seek a new attorney: Consult with new counsel experienced in legal malpractice to understand their options. File a lawsuit for legal malpractice: If damages can be proven, the client can file a civil suit to recover any losses. Report the attorney to the state bar: File a disciplinary complaint to have the attorney's conduct reviewed. Object to the fee agreement: Ask the bankruptcy court to void the fee agreement or disgorge the fees already paid due to the negligent representation. I was looking at the bankruptcy court docket and Slater Slater & Schulman hired 2 attorneys from the firm Robert & Robert PLLC out of New York. The names of the attorneys are Clifford Robert Esq and Michael Farina Esq. What I find interesting is these attorneys specialize in representing other law firms when they have client and fee disputes. The firm does represent law firms in a few other areas such as law firm breakups and partner terminations. However, client and fee disputes are the only thing that fits. They were admitted to the bankruptcy court when the Slater Firm-Settlemet Trust issue was first disclosed.

In July of last year, @MYCVAStory shared some information from an attorney by the name of Lawrence Friedman. I'm reposting it. To Survivors who have filed claims in the Boy Scouts bankruptcy case: My name is Lawrence Friedman. I am a former Director of the US Trustee Program. Prior to my appointment to that position, I was a bankruptcy trustee in Detroit where I administered more than 10,000 bankruptcy cases under both Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. I discovered considerable fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system, and I began writing and speaking about my findings, ultimately testifying multiple times before the US Senate Subcommittee on proposed reforms to the bankruptcy system. My inside view led to my appointment as the Director of the Program responsible for the oversight of the bankruptcy system. Within 90 days of my appointment, I was faced with the mega bankruptcies of Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia. I immediately championed a change in policy which mandated the appointment of examiners in each of these cases. Examiners bring transparency to the process, and examiners also act as a clearing house for information thus adding efficiencies to the administration of these cases. Since leaving the Department of Justice, I have been increasingly troubled by the use of the bankruptcy system to solve societal problems. My focus is on these mass tort cases where victim Survivors are being victimized again by bad actor tort lawyers. I believe that my team can bring these matters to the attention of the Court and effectively free up more than $70,000,000.00 in funds which these lawyers are claiming in fees and which rightfully should go to Survivors. The explosion of claims within these cases is particularly troubling. I have authored several editorials and white papers on this topic. That said, real change comes from action. I have been reviewing claims filed in the BSA case and I am appalled by the practices of some of the attorneys. Many used claim aggregators to solicit clients and filed claims in these cases using the standard bankruptcy proof of claim form. The claim form is available online and was designed to allow non-lawyers to fill it out. The form doesn’t even have to be correct because if it’s not the debtor will object to the claim, and you get an opportunity to fix it. Yet every law firm that solicited large numbers of claimants had the client sign a one-page retainer agreement that gives the lawyers a 40% contingency fee for doing nothing more than filing out this form. The lawyers want to pretend this is a typical contingency fee case when in fact all they did was simply fill out a form. Rather than collecting 40% of the money paid to victims, these lawyers should get a fee similar to petition preparers – non- lawyers who help people fill out forms to be filed in court – which would be more like $150.00. There are other serious problems with these retainer agreements such as whether they comply with state laws and state bar ethics rules. Just as in the mega corporate cases, transparency in these mass tort cases is critical to fairness. My firm wants to help Survivors get the attention and assistance they deserve. Any compensation we receive would be a small fraction of the 40% they are being overcharged now!" I am interested in chatting with any victim Survivors who have expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which their claim has been handled by their current counsel. They can contact me with no obligation at: mailto:[email protected] I've been in contact with Lawrence since @MYCVAStory posted this information. The Slater Firm debacle has give him what he needs to proceed with this action. If anyone is not happy with the way your firm handled your case feel free to contact him. He is taking clients regardless of the firm you signed with. This would be a contingency fee agreement. He can represent you in order to get the fee agreement with your current attorney voided. This action is not going to delay the Settlement Trust from processing your claim in any way. For anyone that is interested. Here is the original post by @MYCVAStory: https://www.scouter.com/topic/33424-chapter-11-announced-part-14-plan-effective/?do=findComment&comment=554339

Just submitted my request to join the group.

Hi everyone, This is the first time I have posted on this forum. However, I have been following this tread since the beginning of Chapter 11 announcement and although I have never posted before. I have read every post on this thread. The last 5 years have been a horrific roller coaster. My abuse took place in the mid 1980's and I never told anyone until 5 years ago. I just wanted to thank everyone for for the support. It brings comfort knowing I'm not alone in this. For those that are wondering why I did not post until now. I reported the abuse to the State Police in 2020. This lead to an indictment and arrest of my abuser. The Attorney General's office asked me not to post on social media about the case until the trial was concluded which was earlier this year. My abuser was still involved with scouting in Massachusetts and the AG's office thought it was likely he was active on this forum. I really need to vent about last weeks Slater firm debauchery. I am one of their clients. When I received the email from the firm notifying me, it was another punch to the gut. I reached out to Johnathan Schulman, whom is one of the founding partners of the firm. I had a lot of questions for him and while he said the firm was taking full responsibility, he refused to answer my questions. One of the questions I asked was, Looking Back, Do You Think You Should Have Informed Your Clients That The Trust Was Not Processing Any Of Out Claims. He would not give me an answer. He treated me like an opposing attorney not a client. I read through the Bar's Professional Code of Conduct and attorneys have an ethical obligation to communicate to their clients any critical/important information about their case, which also includes any changes to timelines for their claim/case. For 14 months, the Slater Firm intentionally withheld this from myself and the other 14,000+ of their clients. Its obvious Slater Firm violated the code of conduct. I am currently drafting a complaint to both the New York and California Bar. I am also discharging the Slater Firm. I do have an attorney representing me on the matter of discharging the Slater Firm.. .Moving forward, I'm not sure how the Slater Firm issue is going to delay processing and payment of our claims. Unfortunately this effects everyone. For those who have received awards from the Trust, a second payment distribution will likely be delayed. I doubt there will be a second distribution until the Trust has finished processing all the Slater Firms claims. And I don't know how long it will take the independent "neutrals" the Slater Firm hired to vet the claims, I asked but did not get an answer from Jonathan Schulman.