A lawyer who spent two decades at a law firm defending collection agencies and debt buyers has now been disqualified from four different cases now that he has decided to represent consumers instead, including one where he sued the firm he used to run. And more disqualifications may be on the way.
The lawyer, Mitchell Pashkin, declined comment when contacted by AccountsRecovery.net.
Pashkin spent 20 years working at Cohen & Slamowitz, which is now known as Selip & Stylianou, including two years as the firm’s managing attorney. Pashkin was most recently disqualified last week in a case he brought on behalf of a client against Midland Credit Management and Encore Capital Group. According to a memorandum of law filed on behalf of the defendants in their case to disqualify Pashkin, the attorney is representing “numerous” plaintiffs in a “slew of actions” against Midland, a firm that he used to represent at his former employer.
“Pashkin cannot now use the confidential and proprietary knowledge and information he obtained during his representation of Midland to benefit plaintiffs engaged in litigation against Pashkin’s former client,” wrote Matthew Johnson, an attorney with Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, which is representing Midland and Encore.
In his suit against Encore and Midland, Pashkin “alleges improprieties in collection conduct and litigation,” Johnson wrote in his memorandum. “The central basis of [the] claims arises from Midland’s debt collection litigation efforts and, thus, is substantially related to Pashkin’s prior representation of Midland.”
Johnson declined a chance to comment for this article. Mitchell Selip, the managing attorney of Selip & Stylianou, did not return a request for comment.
Pashkin is running the risk of disciplinary action for his disqualifications.
Along with Yearling v. Midland, Pashkin has also been disqualified from Midland Funding v. Danielle Digiacomo, Midland Funding v. Brett Mule, and Michael Liew v. Cohen & Slamowitz, Pashkin’s former firm.
Pashkin managed the litigation process for many of the suits filed against consumers on behalf of the firm’s clients, including Midland – about 600 cases in total. Which meant that Pashkin had direct access of “confidential and proprietary information” of Midland, according to the most recent ruling disqualifying Pashkin.
