Clearview Biometric Privacy Case Delayed by Attorney Infighting

Conflict among attorneys has temporarily stalled biometric privacy litigation against Clearview AI, as former law firm colleagues tussle over who will represent the class of suing consumers.

Loevy & Loevy, the Chicago-based firm involved in the Clearview litigation, claims one of its former associates recently resigned and took its Clearview clients with him in a self-enrichment scheme, according to a Friday filing with the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Scott Drury, the attorney in question, was appointed interim lead class counsel by the court while working for the firm. Drury is now representing clients as the solo practitioner of Drury Legal LLC.

The class action against Clearview AI alleges its facial recognition technology violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Loevy & Loevy, with no named plaintiffs left to represent, asked the court Friday to clarify that it appointed the firm, rather than the individuals working for it, as lead class counsel. All discovery and scheduled depositions for the case were paused by an Oct. 17 order until the question is resolved.

“As is sometimes the case in class action litigation, all of this counter-maneuvering is unseemly and unfortunate and unpleasant,” the motion said. “It becomes about the lawyers’ interests, not the class members.”

Loevy & Loevy partner Mike Kanowitz had been named as lead counsel alongside Drury in Mutnick v. Clearview AI, before multiple cases were consolidated, according to the firm’s filing. Kanowitz was originally intended to appear alongside Drury in the firm’s 2021 motion to lead class counsel in the multidistrict litigation, but Drury refused to include Kanowitz’s name in the final draft, according to filing.

The firm was forced to submit Drury’s motion under deadline pressure, but it raised concerns that the motion was phrased in a manner in which “you could decide to leave the firm and use your lead counsel role to take this case with you,” the filing said.

Jonathan Loevy expressed concerns in the motion about what information class clients were given, noting that representation directives signed by the named plaintiffs did not inform them that they could be represented by both firms. Drury’s attempt to fire the firm by instructing it to file withdrawals of appearance was an obvious effort to claim attorney fees that Loevy & Loevy would have otherwise received at the conclusion of the case, according to the motion.

Drury disputed the assertions made in Loevy & Loevy’s motion in an emailed statement to Bloomberg Law.

“I look forward to filing my own robust response on November 1 as ordered by the Court, which will rebut the motion and set the record straight,” Drury said in an email. “At all times, I have represented the best interests of my clients and putative class members. Presently, it would not serve their best interests for me to try to condense or preview my response in a brief statement.”

Drury argued in an Oct. 14 hearing that the Clearview AI case and its class members would be “severely prejudiced” if his role in litigation was diminished given his level of involvement thus far.

In seeking resolution of the matter, Loevy & Loevy requested it remain sole lead class counsel but expressed no objection to Drury continuing to work the case under its direction and supervision.

“Staying discovery makes sense while the issue regarding plaintiffs counsel is being resolved, since Clearview otherwise risks dealing with lawyers the court may decide do not have authority to act on behalf of the class,” said Clearview AI attorney Lee Wolosky in an emailed statement.

Drury alluded to potential future litigation over his departure from Loevy & Loevy in the Oct. 14 hearing, but said those circumstances were irrelevant to the case at hand. The firm echoed that sentiment in its motion, saying Drury resigned due to a “difference of opinions,” and said it would not provide more details about his departure unless he claims in subsequent filings that he had no choice but to quit.