► Attorney Glen Cipriani of Charlotte; ethically disadvantaged Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 

Attorney Glen Cipriani of Charlotte; ethically disadvantaged

 
Unfortunately, the North Carolina Supreme court presented Cipriani with a law license in August 2007. It didn’t take too long to see that this was a monumental error in judgment.
 
After receipt of his law license, Cipriani was employed by the law firm Moore & Van Allen in the intellectual property group and remained there until January 29, 2008.
 
While employed with Moore & Van Allen, Cipriani worked in defense Lowe’s Companies, Inc. in defense of a patent infringement lawsuit brought against Lowe’s by a company called Stringliner.
 
Part of Cipriani’s duties was to research on Lowe’s behalf a possible counterclaim or claim against Stringliner for “False Marking” under 35 USC § 292, which occurs when a manufacturer or seller places a patent number on a product for the purposes of deceiving the public into believing that the product is covered by a patent when it is not.
 
The false marking statute provides for a fine of $500 for each offense, which any person may bring suit to recover, with half of the recovery going to the United States and the other half going to the plaintiff.
 
Based on his research, Cipriani drafted a potential counterclaim for false marking on Lowe’s behalf for use against Stringliner in the patent infringement lawsuit.
 
On January 29, 2008, Cipriani’s employment at Moore & Van Allen ended and he joined Attorney James Harrington’s law firm.
 
On May 13, 2008, Cipriani and his new found unethical twin Harrington filed a lawsuit as co-plaintiffs against Stringliner, Home Depot and the Lehigh Group in the federal court in Charlotte.
 
Based on Cipriani’s unethical conduct, the North Carolina Disciplinary Commission filed charges against him and made the following rulings:
  1. If not for the information Cipriani acquired while defending Lowe’s he would not have known about the Stringliner products and the potential cause of action for false marking
  2. Cipriani used information obtained from the Lowe’s lawsuit for his and Harrington’s personal use and for their own personal financial gain
  3. Cipriani’s use of the information to bring his own personal lawsuit under 35 U.S.C. § 292 was done without the consent of Lowe’s and to Lowe’s disadvantage
  4. The filing of the lawsuit may have foreclosed Lowe’s from thereafter bringing such a claim v Stringliner
  5. Cipriani’s lawsuit could have negatively impacted settlement negotiations the pending between Lowe’s and Stringliner
For his egregious misconduct, the enablers sitting on the North Carolina Disciplinary Commission punished Cipriani by gifting him with a complimentary censure.
 
As we speak (ca. Jan 2011), Cipriani continues to be employed by the Harrington law firm.
 
Lastly, it only took Cipriani less than six (6) months from the time he received his law license in August 2007 until January 2008 when he decided to violate the his oath by attempting to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of Lowe’s.
 
What an unmitigated loser! One can only imagine the unethical antics that Cipriani and his loser partner Harrington have in store for their victims in the future.
 

Who's Online

We have 185 guests online

Donation Request

Your donations are needed to help defray the recurring costs for internet services, cable access, research via LexisNexis, media subscriptions, and the employment of a researcher and editor.

Donate Here

The Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Judges, Attorneys and Public Officials, Powered by Joomla!; Joomla templates by SG web hosting

website counter