McLaughlin v. Copeland

Winthrop Lawrence Corporation (Winthrop) was co-owned by Lammot du Pont Copeland Jr. (defendant) and a corporation owned by Thomas Shaheen. Winthrop filed for bankruptcy in Baltimore, and Copeland Jr. filed for bankruptcy in Wilmington. E. Norman Veasey (defendant) and his law firm represented Copeland Jr. Francis McLaughlin (plaintiff) represented a creditor of both Copeland Jr. and Winthrop. In the Wilmington bankruptcy proceeding, McLaughlin referred to potentially criminal activities of Copeland Jr. and Lammot du Pont Copeland Sr. (the Copelands). McLaughlin told Copeland Jr. and Veasey that his client had instructed him to file a class action against the Copelands on behalf of all of Winthrop’s creditors. McLaughlin and Veasey met to discuss settling McLaughlin’s client’s claim against Copeland Jr. After the meeting, Veasey prepared a memorandum suggesting that McLaughlin had committed extortion and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Veasey transmitted the memorandum with a letter and supporting documents to the judge and the attorneys in the Wilmington proceeding. The judge referred the matter to the disciplinary board, which determined there was insufficient evidence to conclude that McLaughlin had violated the disciplinary rules. McLaughlin filed a complaint against the Copelands alleging that they conspired with Shaheen and others to defraud Winthrop’s creditors. McLaughlin alleged that Veasey and the Copelands conspired with others to discredit and defame McLaughlin to force McLaughlin to abandon the threatened class action. According to McLaughlin, Veasey’s true purpose in attending the Baltimore meeting was to entrap McLaughlin into violating the disciplinary rule against threatening a criminal prosecution to obtain an advantage in a civil action, and publication of the letter to the judge and attorneys was an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Veasey and the Copelands moved to dismiss McLaughlin’s claims.