A Texas judge has ruled that Evan Jowers, a legal recruiter, must pay approximately $825,000 in addition to the $3.6 million he was already ordered to pay for stealing clients from his former firm, MWK Recruiting. The ruling came after US District Court Judge Robert Pitman in Austin, Texas, found Jowers guilty of breaching his contract and misappropriating trade secrets.
The legal dispute arose when Jowers allegedly placed MWK clients at prominent Big Law firms shortly after departing from the recruiting firm, which has since been rebranded as Counsel Holdings. Industry giants like DLA Piper, Latham & Watkins, Linklaters, Covington & Burling, and Kirkland & Ellis were among the affected law firms.
Judge Pitman’s initial ruling in September confirmed Jowers’ wrongdoing, holding him accountable for violating his contractual obligations and unlawfully using confidential trade secrets. However, the recent order for Jowers to pay an additional $825,000 stemmed from the inclusion of pre-judgment interest, further highlighting the severity of his actions.
Jowers has not taken the judgment lightly and filed a notice of appeal several months ago. Despite the setback, he expressed confidence in the appeal process. On the other hand, Counsel Holdings, formerly MWK Recruiting, has yet to comment on the recent ruling.
Let us help you advance your legal career – submit your resume to BCG Attorney Search now.
With the issuance of an amended final judgment, Judge Pitman has allocated specific amounts for each claim against Jowers. The misappropriation of trade secrets claim calls for an additional $155,000, while the breach of contract claim requires an added $671,000. This brings the revised total that Jowers must pay to almost $4.5 million, marking a substantial financial blow.
The case serves as a cautionary tale for legal recruiters and professionals within the legal industry, emphasizing the importance of upholding contractual agreements and respecting confidential information. It also underscores the significant consequences that can arise from client theft and trade secret misappropriation, even after an individual has left a firm.
As the legal proceedings continue with the pending appeal, the industry will keep a close eye on the developments and the implications this case may have on future legal recruitment practices. For now, the judgment stands as a resolute statement against unethical conduct within the legal profession and a strong stance in favor of protecting proprietary information and client relationships.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
