Reuters is reporting CVS Health Corp’s Omnicare unit has agreed to pay $23 million to resolve a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that it took kickbacks from a drugmaker to promote two antidepressants, according to settlement papers.

The agreement comes out of a 2007 lawsuit against the pharmacy operator by two former employees of drugmaker Organon USA Inc on behalf of the federal government and various states.

“The lawsuit claimed that from 1999 to 2005, Omnicare and certain pharmacies it acquired sought and received kickbacks from Organon in the form of discounts in exchange for promoting the antidepressants Remeron and Remeron SolTabs,” writes Nate Raymond.

Former Organon employees Richard Templin and James Banigan filed the suit, which reached a related $31 million settlement in 2014.

Read the Reuters article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Foley Hoag’s Energy and Cleantech practice and NECEC recently present a webinar discussion with offshore wind developers, leading public officials, investors and experts at the cutting edge of the Northeast’s emerging offshore wind market.

The recorded webinar is now available for on-demand viewing on the firm’s website.

After decades of speculation about offshore wind’s future in the United States, the industry that has long powered grids in Europe has finally arrived in the Northeast, the firm said on its website. In the last year America’s first offshore wind project — off the coast of Rhode Island — started spinning and delivering power to the grid, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed into law a bill authorizing the procurement of 1,600 megawatts of offshore wind, and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo committed to 2,400 megawatts of offshore wind off the coast of New York by 2030. Meanwhile, major utilities have announced agreements with developers to purchase energy generated from the projects planned for the eastern seaboard.

Watch the on-demand webinar.

President Donald J. Trump has nominated Paul Compton, a partner in Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP’s Birmingham office, to serve as General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The appointment is subject to Senate confirmation.

Compton currently serves as leader of the firm’s Affordable Housing and Community Development practice.

“The firm congratulates Paul Compton on his expected nomination by the President to serve as the chief legal officer of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and counsel to its Secretary, Dr. Ben Carson,” said Bradley Chairman of the Board and Managing Partner Beau Grenier. “We are tremendously proud of Paul, whose knowledge and experience in the areas of affordable housing, community development, and banking and financial services have earned him an outstanding reputation among his peers and clients.”

The Office of General Counsel (OGC) of HUD provides legal opinions, advice and services with respect to all departmental programs and activities. The General Counsel also leads the department’s efforts to enforce the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights and programmatic requirements. The OGC plays a vital role in helping HUD accomplish its mission of assuring decent and affordable housing, enabling all Americans to achieve homeownership, providing resources for communities to build strong neighborhoods, preventing homelessness, and enforcing fair housing laws.

In addition to his various Bradley practice leadership roles, Compton is a member of the firm’s Banking & Financial Services group and is Chair of the firm’s Finance Committee. He has experience in innovative commercial financing transactions, particularly those involving tax credits (federal and state Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, historic, state industrial incentive, new markets, and work opportunity) and structured finance, and in the formation and sale of regulated financial institutions (banks, insurance companies and agencies, consumer finance companies, broker/dealers and community development entities).

Compton serves as counsel for the Alabama Bankers Association, Inc., counsel of record for the Alabama Consumer Finance Association, and as general counsel for the Alabama Affordable Housing Association. He earned his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law and his Bachelor of Science (summa cum laude) from the University of Alabama. He also attended the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is a Truman Scholar.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Law firms are moving away from traditional “head shot” photos for websites and promotional materials, reports Verdell Christophersen for Androvett Legal Media and Marketing.

“Instead, they’re relying on a series of ‘environmental’ photo backgrounds, full body–length images, candid poses and other techniques that can add distinction and a degree of personality,” according to the article. “With some careful planning, you can still come away from a single photo shoot with both a traditional pose and a selection of photos that reflect a little more style.”

The article discusses clothing to avoid, clothing to favor, the proper amount of jewelry to wear, bringing alternate clothing and accessories, makeup and hairstyling.

Read the article.

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will present a free webinar, “The Scope of AIA’s Estoppel Provision: Are We Still Flying Blind Six Years Later?,” featuring Fitch Even partner Eric L. Broxterman.

The webinar will take place on Wednesday, May 31, 2017, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.

Congress drafted the “estoppel” provision in the American Invents Act (AIA) to ensure that petitioners did not abuse the post-grant review procedure established by the USPTO. The estoppel provision precludes the petitioner from later challenging the same patent claim, either in the USPTO or in civil litigation, on any ground that the petitioner “raised” or “reasonably could have raised” during the post-grant review. Almost since its enactment, there has been a debate over the appropriate scope of this provision. Given that the estoppel effect was largely untested, the first participants in these proceedings flew blind to some extent.

Now, roughly six years later, rulings regarding the application of the estoppel are inconsistent and tend to leave practitioners more confused and no better off than the first post-grant review trailblazers.

This webinar will provide information on what you need to know about this provision, including these topics:
• Overview of the estoppel provision
• The provision’s legislative history
• The impact of recent decisions applying the provision
• Why the provision is not scaring off petitioners of post-grant reviews

CLE credit has been approved for California, Illinois, and Nebraska. Other states may also award CLE credit upon attendee request. There is no fee to attend, but registration is required.

Following the live event, a recording of the webinar will be available to view for one year at www.fitcheven.com.

Register for the webinar.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

By Keli Johnson Swan
Scott & Scott LLP

Autodesk sometimes reaches out to its customers to offer additional services, products, or upgrades on existing software. Autodesk’s business team may offer to conduct a license assessment to confirm a customer is properly licensing all of its software as part of the offer to provide additional services.

Autodesk may also request that the customer use Autodesk’s Inventory Analyzer (“AIA”) tool to capture the installations on the network and submit the data to Autodesk to review. The self-assessment process with Autodesk’s business team is different from an Autodesk audit initiated either directly from Autodesk pursuant to Section 9.7 of Autodesk’s License and Services Agreement, or from an entity such as BSA| The Software Alliance, which pursues copyright infringement investigations on behalf of Autodesk.

In some cases, responding to a request for a self-assessment can escalate into a contractual audit. It is significantly more time-consuming and expensive to defend a contractual audit.

The following are tips for navigating the self-assessment process and reaching a resolution for any licensing disputes.

1. Conduct a secondary review of the audit data to confirm accuracy. Although no auditing tool is infallible to errors in reporting, Autodesk will typically use the AIA results without validating their accuracy. A secondary review of the audit data can identify and correct any mistakes, including erroneous reporting of the same installation of software under different Autodesk software suites. Because Autodesk regularly requires customers to make purchases based on the data from the AIA, it is important to ensure the AIA is accurately reporting the installations in the environment.

2. Carefully scrutinize reports of current licenses to ensure all licenses are properly reflected. In addition to ensuring the audit data is accurate, Autodesk customers should also ensure that Autodesk’s entitlement reports reflect all of its existing licenses. If a customer discovers that any licenses it owns are not registered, or registered in the wrong name, it should take all of the necessary steps to correct those issues. With few exceptions, Autodesk typically objects to requests to transfer ownership of a license.

3. Dispute any inaccuracies in Autodesk’s assessment of license gaps. Sometimes Autodesk and a customer may disagree about the existence of any gaps between the number of Autodesk installations and the number of entitlements the customer owns. The disagreement may stem from inaccurate installation information, failure to properly apply licenses for other versions of the products (e.g., downgrades or upgrades) or missing license entitlements. Regardless of the nature of the dispute, a customer should carefully review all of the terms and conditions of the relevant license agreements in to ensure that Autodesk is properly calculating any licensing deficiencies. If necessary, a customer may choose to provide additional information to clarify or resolve any disputes. For example, some Autodesk products allow a backup copy to be installed on a laptop as long as the laptop and desktop instances are not used concurrently and each copy is accessed only by the same user. A dispute may arise if Autodesk counts both installations and applies only a single license, therefore creating a deficiency where none exists according to the text of the license agreement.

4. Engage In Consistent Communications with Autodesk. The most common reason Autodesk may escalate a customer dispute to its legal team is because the customer refuses to communicate after receiving an audit report indicating that there are license deficiencies. If a customer stops communicating with the Autodesk sales team, Autodesk will often escalate the issue to the legal department, where the penalties can become more severe. Autodesk may require the customer to pay a penalty that greatly exceeds the MSRP of the products in question. Although customers should not concede to resolve the dispute if the audit data or license entitlements reflected on the audit findings are significantly incorrect, a customer should communicate in writing all objections to the audit findings. Although it is not ideal, from a financial perspective, a customer may choose to agree to disagree on some minor discrepancies related to the audit in order to reach an amicable resolution. If a customer chooses this option, it must ensure that the agreement reflects all of the necessary provisions to protect the customer against any future claims.

5. Negotiate a resolution that includes a release of liability for all claims existing at the time of the assessment. Non-traditional Autodesk audits may allow more flexible settlement terms, which include the acquisition of new products or subscription maintenance rather than paying a penalty for past infringement. However, the most important provision is the release of liability provision. This release ensures that Autodesk cannot later seek additional damages for licensing deficiencies that occurred prior to the settlement. Unless the settlement specifically includes the acquisition of software to cover the deficiencies, the release does not typically create a license. In other words, without either purchasing software to cover a deficiency or removing the deficient installation, Autodesk could assert a claim for infringement for any installation that remains deficient after the parties finalize the settlement agreement. Management may also choose to enact additional protocols to prevent any unauthorized installations on a customer’s network.

These are just a few key issues to consider when resolving an Autodesk software license dispute. If it becomes necessary, it may be helpful to consult an attorney with expertise in Autodesk licensing disputes.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

LexisNexis Legal & Professional has announced the launch of The Wagstaffe Group Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial in multiple formats, all of which are designed to guide attorneys through the intricacies of pre-trial civil litigation.

Written by James M. Wagstaffe, former co-author of The Rutter Group’s Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, this new guide is available exclusively from LexisNexis via Lexis Advance, as a three-volume print edition and as an eBook, both individually and as part of the LexisNexis Digital Library.

In a news release, the company said this multimedia guide also brings a first for the legal research industry—attorneys can now navigate the complexities of pre-trial civil procedure via a series of 150+ videos embedded directly within the content on Lexis Advance. These 2-5 minute videos are included throughout the guide and feature explanatory tips and practical insights from Wagstaffe that enhance and complement the surrounding text in each chapter.

The release continues:

“We are delighted to announce the launch of this cutting-edge practice guide in partnership with Jim and his team at the Wagstaffe Group,” said Sean Fitzpatrick, Managing Director of North American Research Solutions at LexisNexis. “With its release and the addition of embedded video content directly within the legal research tools our customers use most, we’re bringing practical guidance to life. Not only are we providing the smartest and most relevant content to the market, but we are doing so in a manner that addresses the changing needs of our customers.”

In addition to the new explanatory videos, The Wagstaffe Group Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial breaks down the complex world of pre-trial civil litigation by providing in-depth, expert analysis and authority; numerous examples illustrating both common and nuanced procedural issues; pertinent circuit-specific coverage; step-by-step checklists for successful federal pre-trial practice. Subscription to the practice guide will also include a current awareness feature with commentary and practical insights on new cases, amendments to laws and more.

“Federal Litigation can be complex, confusing and intimidating,” said Jim Wagstaffe. “In my roles as a lawyer, teacher and author, I have heard time and again from attorneys about the need for simple-to-digest, accessible content. I consider it an honor to partner with LexisNexis to bring this vision to life.”

Wagstaffe is a renowned expert on pre-trial federal civil procedure, as well as the partner and co-founder of California-based Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. For the past 30 years, he has served as a law professor, prolific author and lecturer, including working with the Federal Judicial Center to teach all incoming federal judges and provide annual update seminars to all circuits across the country on the intricacies of federal jurisdiction and federal practice. Considered one of the country’s preeminent First Amendment and defamation lawyers, Wagstaffe heads up his firm’s successful Federal Practice Group and leads litigation across a diversity of matters. In 2014, Wagstaffe was appointed as member and Chair of the Federal Judicial Center Foundation Board by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Learn more about the guide.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst has been ranked by Chambers & Partners as a Band 1 law firm in General Commercial Litigation. Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst is one of four firms to be ranked Band 1 in Texas.

Energy Transfer Partners’ Head of Litigation, Tonja DeSloover, comments, “Mike and the team at Lynn Pinker deserve to be in Band 1 as recognized by Chambers. They are creative, smart, hardworking and above all great trial and appellate lawyers.”

Additionally, Mike Lynn, founder of Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, is ranked Band 1 in General Commercial Litigation and is one of 14 lawyers ranked Band 1 in Texas. Trey Cox and Eric Pinker are two of 17 Texas lawyers ranked Band 2 in General Commercial Litigation, and Chambers & Partners ranked Jeremy Fielding an Up and Coming lawyer in General Commercial Litigation in Texas.

Mike Lynn comments, “We are enormously proud to be recognized as one of the top four firms for commercial litigation in Texas.” Eric Pinker, managing partner at Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, adds, “It has been a true team effort to build our firm’s excellence one brick at a time. It has taken the very best of each of us every day and every night. We are thankful to have reached this goal.”

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Dechert’s announcement this week that it has laid off several associates after a round of performance reviews may signal a boldness and lack of concern for public criticism that could spell trouble across the industry, writes Joe Patrice for Above the Law.

“Firing first-years … that’s a firewall firms tend not to breach,” Patrice observes.

He reports that some sources believe the firings were more about hours billed than competence.

“But if first-years were really hit by these layoffs, that’s a good sign this is about hours. Because how can you fire a first-year for being incompetent? You wouldn’t have any first-years left!” he writes.

Read the Above the Law article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Uber has picked an interesting time to shuffle the top ranks of its legal team. points out  Johana Bhuiyan at recode.net.

A company email indicates that CEO Travis Kalanick said he plans to search for an external hire to fill the role. The general counsel search started after Uber moved its  longtime general counsel, Salle Yoo, to chief legal officer.

Uber is facing a federal Department of Justice probe as well as a major lawsuit from Alphabet.

“Given Uber’s myriad of thorny legal issues, along with an ongoing investigation into allegations of pervasive sexism and sexual harassment, that search should be an interesting one for the company to conduct,” writes Bhuyan.

Read the recode.net article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Akerman LLP announced the of partner Brian Fraser in the firm’s New York office. Previously with Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP, he joins Akerman’s Litigation Practice Group and bolsters its national team of trial lawyers dedicated to clients in the financial services sector.

“Brian is a veteran trial lawyer with an impressive track record advising international and U.S. financial institutions in antitrust, securities and other complex litigation,” said Lawrence Rochefort, chair of Akerman’s Litigation Practice Group. “His practice further strengthens our work in the financial services sector nationwide.”

In a release, the firm said:

Fraser handles complex financial litigation with an emphasis in commodities, derivatives, securities, structured products, capital markets and inter-shareholder disputes. He represents industry-leading hedge funds, fund managers, institutional investors, insurers and investment banks. He also advises manufacturing and other commercial clients in antitrust and securities class action, corporate governance, and trade secret matters. He is recognized by Chambers USA in General Commercial Litigation, and he is consecutively ranked for his financial litigation work in Benchmark Litigation, The Legal 500 and New York Super Lawyers.

Fraser joins one of the fastest-growing law firms in New York. Lateral Link revealed Akerman had the third most lateral gains in the market last year, expanding the New York office to more than 100 lawyers and business professionals. Recent additions include partner and former general tax counsel for CBS Inc. Alvan L. Bobrow, transactional tax partner Sanford Davis from Withers Bergman LLP, bankruptcy partner John Campo from Troutman Sanders and real estate transactional partner Thomas Diorio from Nixon Peabody LLP.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, an Am Law 200 firm, has bolstered its Financial Restructuring and Reorganization Practice with the addition of three attorneys. Frank J. Wright, C. Ashley Ellis and Erin C. McGee join the firm’s Dallas office.

“We are pleased to continue our growth in 2017 with the addition of this talented group of lawyers,” said Holland N. O’Neil, chair of Gardere’s board of directors and a partner in the firm’s financial restructuring and reorganization practice group. “Our Financial Restructuring and Reorganization Practice is one of the largest groups in the state of Texas and the addition of a well-respected and seasoned bankruptcy practitioner like Frank, along with his team, will further strengthen our depth and expertise in this practice area.”

In a news release, the firm said:

Wright, who joins the firm as a partner, focuses his practice primarily on corporate restructurings and strategic planning. He has a comprehensive national practice that is predominantly devoted to insolvency, reorganization, mergers and acquisitions, and related areas, as well as extensive litigation in the bankruptcy court and other federal courts. Wright has been counsel for parties involved in all facets of the bankruptcy process, including debtors, creditors, landlords, creditors’ committees, shareholders and third-party purchasers. He has represented a variety of public companies and enterprises involved in diverse areas of business, including energy, real estate, transportation, manufacturing, healthcare and telecommunications.

Ellis joins the firm as a senior attorney. She represents corporate entities in complex reorganization proceedings and has participated in related cases nationwide. She has extensive experience negotiating and drafting plans of reorganization and corresponding disclosure statements in Chapter 11 cases. Ellis is well-versed in structuring informal workouts for troubled companies, and she has also engaged in significant litigation arising under the Bankruptcy Code.

McGee, who joins the firm as a staff attorney, focuses her practice on litigation and commercial bankruptcy. She has experience in complex litigation involving securities, antitrust and patent law. She also has prior work experience with the U.S. Small Business Administration in e-discovery and commercial real estate.

“Our team has a respected reputation for assisting businesses with every aspect of the restructuring process, and the breadth of these attorneys’ expertise will be a valuable asset to our clients,” said John P. Melko, head of the firm’s Financial Restructuring and Reorganization Practice. “Their credentials complement our practice and the quality of service we provide, and we are pleased to welcome them to the firm.”

Ranked annually in Chambers USA and U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms,” Gardere’s nationally recognized Financial Restructuring and Reorganization Practice Group helps businesses throughout the U.S. and Latin America across numerous industries. The team leads financially challenged businesses through every aspect of financial restructuring, reorganization or bankruptcy, and fights for the rights of creditors involved in challenging business disputes and insolvencies – both in and out of the courtroom.

LawGeex, a provider of an AI contract review platform for businesses, has launched The In-House Counsel’s LegalTech Buyer’s Guide – a free, downloadable guide that showcases more than 100 must-know technology solutions which solve the daily challenges faced by in-house lawyers.

The book includes practical advice based on dozens of interviews, real life experiences and personal recommendations from in-house lawyers and legal experts who have used technology to cut costs and reduce legal inefficiency. Lawyers came from companies including Pearson, AIG, TabTale, Travelocity, Vodafone, NetApp, Del Monte, Axalta Coating Systems, Tongal and Novartis.

The book includes:

• 60+ page practical and jargon-free reference guide
• 100+ top technology solutions for legal departments
• Personal recommendations and stories from dozens of in-house lawyers and legal experts
• Explanations of an in-house legaltech buying journey, including barriers to adoption, establishing and monitoring KPIs, and more

Download the guide.

Above the Law talks with David Boies, the man author David Lat calls “the most famous practicing lawyer,” who tells the tale of how he left Cravath, Swaine & Moore to launch his own firm.

Lat writes that Boies has been involved in major litigation for the past 50 years, “from the IBM and Microsoft antitrust cases, to Bush v. Gore, to Hollingsworth v. Perry and the battle for marriage equality.”

Boies is a founder of Boies Schiller Flexner. “The spectacularly successful firm, with more than 300 lawyers across 14 offices, enjoys a reputation as a ‘national litigation powerhouse.’ And it has the financial rewards to prove it: profits per partner of $3.15 million in 2016, according to the latest Am Law 100 rankings, and associate bonuses as high as $350,000.”

The article follows Boies’ path from Yale Law School to his 30 years with Cravath, through the early days with his newly founded firm, to the present.

Read the article.

In the sale of family-owned business interests, parties can be bound by term sheets or similar documents, even when such documents expressly contemplate the preparation of further documents to finalize the transaction, explains Michael Connolly, a partner in Murtha Cullina’s litigation department.

Writing in the firm’s Family Business Perspectives blog, Connolly discusses a case in which a court “recently ruled upon a claim by one family member against another to enforce a ‘Settlement Memorandum’ which provided for the purchase and sale of stock in the family business, even though the Memorandum contemplated the drafting of later documents to finalize the transaction.”

“Parties to negotiations involving the sale of family-owned business stock or assets should therefore be cautious in their drafting and conduct in order to ensure that it is clear to all parties what documents are – and are not – intended to create enforceable rights and obligations,” warns Connolly.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

A properly drafted arbitration clause with a class action waiver should be enforceable and can be a good and useful line of defense against expensive and costly litigation, especially class action lawsuits, write Jay N. Varon and Jennifer M. Keas in Foley & Lardner’s Consumer Class Defense Counsel blog.

Their article explains how arbitration works, what type of arbitration agreements are generally enforceable, what features that have or can cause problems, and how such provisions can reduce the risk of class actions.

They also discuss the possible effect or non-effect that could come from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s proposed arbitration rule.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

A federal court has set the precedent that licenses like the GNU General Public License (GPL) can be treated like legal contracts, and developers can legitimately sue when those contracts are breached, reports Keith Collins for the digital news outlet Quartz.

The GNU GPL requires that anyone using GPL-licensed software to produce some other software, must provide the resulting software as open-sourced with the same license if it’s released to the public. Or the second developer could pay a licensing fee to the original developer.

South Korean developer Hancom Office incorporated an open-source PDF interpreter called Ghostscript into its word-processing software, but it declined to open-source its software or to pay Ghostware’s developer.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

On their firm’s website, Gaetan J. Alfano and Joseph L. Gordon of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti discuss a recent case that dealt with the question of what happens to the restrictive covenants in an employment contract when an employee converts to at-will status.

In Metalico Pittsburgh Inc. v. Douglas Newman, et al., an employer had three-year contracts with two high-level executives. After the three-year period ended, they continued to work as at-will employees. A year later, the employees joined a competitor and solicited Metalico’s customers and solicited Metalico employees to join the new employer.Metalico sought a preliminary injunction to enforce the restrictive covenants.

“According to the Superior Court, because the employment agreements contained express language indicating that the employees agreed to be bound to the covenants for the duration of their employment, their status as at-will employees was irrelevant.,” the authors write.

Read the article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Bloomberg Law reports on a survey of nearly 400 managing partners and chairs, finding that the leaders of Big Law firms in the U.S. don’t seem to be very happy with recent changes — or lack thereof — in their firms.

“In response to survey questions posed by legal management consulting firm Altman Weil, 88 percent of respondents said they have chronically underperforming lawyers, 61 percent said overcapacity is diluting their profitability, and 65 percent said their partners resist most efforts to change how to they do business,” writes Stephanie Russell-Kraft. “This comes at a time when most (72 percent) law firm leaders said the pace of change in the legal industry will only continue to increase in the coming years.”

One of the findings is that business is moving in-house, and managing partners recognize that: 67.9 percent of respondents said they are already losing business to in-house legal departments.

Read the Bloomberg article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group

Soon after prominent Dallas lawyer Ira Tobolowsky died in a fire in his garage, investigators asked his family if he had any enemies. They responded that they could make a long list of people Ira had defeated or angered at one time or another. But among them, one stood out.

D Magazine covers the family’s own inquiries that focused on a former legal foe. Steven Aubrey is the son of one of Tobolowsky’s clients. The client was involved in an inheritance battle with her son, whom she believed had come unhinged, writes Jamie Thompson.

During a contentious legal fight, Aubrey accused Tobolowsky of bribery, witness tampering, and a host of other crimes and at one time compared him to an “ISIS butcher.” The lawyer filed a defamation suit against Aubrey.

“The Tobolowsky family worries whether the Dallas police have the resources to find Ira’s killer. They’ve pinned their hopes on private investigators. Late last year, they learned Aubrey and [his domestic partner] had moved to Florida. The men live in a bungalow surrounded by palm trees,” according to the magazine.

Read the D Magazine article.

Join Our LinkedIn Group