Cozen O’Connor claims Naselsky left their firm in 2006, before any wrongdoing occurred, and they were targeted only because Weinstein is insolvent. “Plaintiffs are clearly grasping for deep pockets to remediate the negative consequences of their poor investment decisions, and cynically have seized on an opportunity presented by the subsequent conviction of a former Cozen and Blank Rome attorney for wholly unrelated bad acts—of which Cozen itself was a victim,” court documents allege.
Blank Rome claims that Naselsky’s involvement in the claimed conspiracy was limited to representation of Ravinder Chawla, who unbeknownst to Naselsky, was involved in perpetrating a fraud. “Not only do plaintiffs have to prove that Naselsky acted knowingly in aiding and abetting the commission of a fraud, but they must establish that he substantially assisted in the commission of the alleged fraud,” the firm claims. “Once again, the record is devoid of any evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, that would support this element of plaintiffs’ aiding and abetting fraud claim against Blank Rome.”
