Paul Hastings Slams Coke Bid to Boot Firm From SuperCooler Suit

Coca-Cola Inc. is seeking a “tactical advantage” by asking a federal judge to have Paul Hastings removed from a lawsuit against the beverage giant, the Big Law firm said in a case highlighting its fallout with a one-time client.

Paul Hastings lawyers should not be barred from representing a company suing Coke for more than $100 million, the law firm said Wedenesday in a filing in federal court in Orlando, Florida. Coke, which Paul Hastings represents in a human rights matter, has accused the firm of trying to “fire” it as a client by working for SuperCooler Technologies Inc. in an unrelated lawsuit against the soda-maker.

The dispute tests the limits of “advance conflict waivers,” in which firms ask clients to agree ahead of time to allow their lawyers to represent others in situations that could otherwise pose an ethical problem.

Paul Hastings called Coke’s attempt to remove the firm from the SuperCooler case a “technique of harassment” designed to help the company fight off the lawsuit. Coke agreed Paul Hastings could represent other clients in future litigation against the company when it signed an engagement letter in 2021 that included a “waiver of prospective conflicts,” according to the firm.

“Coke’s motion amounts to an argument that such waivers are unenforceable in Florida, seeking to upend the agreed understandings of many large law firms and sophisticated multinational clients, who negotiate and mutually agree to such arrangements every day,” the firm argued.

SuperCooler alleges Coke misused its trade secrets and broke promises to use its technology that rapidly chills beverages, according to court filings.

A group of lawyers from Cahill Gordon & Reindel representing SuperCooler jumped to Paul Hastings over the last two months, bringing the case with them. Coke said at least one of those lawyers, Bradley Bondi, did not alert the company he was joining Paul Hastings to work on the lawsuit even after Coke raised concerns about the firm taking a case against it.

Coke pointed to other situations in which it said the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has disqualified lawyers if they share or rely upon a client’s confidential information to pursue a case against that client.

Paul Hastings told the court that it has enacted an “ethical wall” between the partners handling the human rights matter for Coke and those suing it on behalf of SuperCooler. No confidential information was shared with SuperCooler, it added.

The conflict waiver Coke signed was “fully informed” and signed by a “sophisticated consumer of legal services,” the firm said.

Paul Hastings also said it had not “dropped” Coke in the human rights case and could continue that work even while it sues the company on behalf of SuperCooler. The firm has threatened to walk away, however, if Coke does not agree to drop its opposition to Paul Hastings representing SuperCooler.

Bondi, one of the lawyers working for SuperCooler said the company would “suffer significant prejudice” if he was removed from the case. He said his team had spent “thousands of hours” working on the litigation.

Paul Hastings is represented by Davis Polk & Wardwell and local firm Young Berman Karpf & Karpf.

The case is SuperCooler Technologies, Inc. v. The Coca Cola Company, Docket No., M.D. Fla., 6 23-cv-00187, 4/27/23.