The case, Cahaly v Benistar Property Exchange Trust Co, found that the Bingham partner John Snyder, who is now a partner at Nutter Mclennen & Fish, should have produced documents which could have shed a different light on the matter. According to Above the Law, Michael Keating, John Synder’s lawyer who also represents Bingham, said that Appeals Court did not ‘find that John acted in bad faith, but rather found that the trial court should have applied a different legal standard.’

Witheld documents

The case arose after the plaintiffs claimed that the law firm wrongfully withheld documents relevant to the issue of whether Bingham client Merrill Lynch, when handling the accounts of  property investment company Benistar, knew that Benistar was trading with money belonging to third parties.  These documents came to light in a later trial, leaving the Appeals judge Justice Willam Meade to say: ‘We hold that Bingham lacked an adequate legal basis, under the guise of the work product doctrine, for its decisions to withhold information that Merrill employees had viewed certain Benistar Web pages describing its business as an intermediary for third-party funds and then to present a defense claiming that no Merrill employees had viewed the very same Web pages. ‘

Relevant documents

According to the judgement, ‘It has long been held that “[w]here relevant and non-privileged facts remain hidden in an attorney’s file and where production of those facts is essential to the preparation of one’s case, discovery may properly be had.’ It went on to say that “The fact that a Merrill employee, lawyer or nonlawyer, knew that Benistar’s business was as an intermediary for third-party funds was significant to the plaintiffs in making out their claim for aiding and abetting against Merrill.” Source: Masslegalresources.com