Pogust Goodhead co-founder Harris Pogust wants his name removed from the law firm. His demand follows a dispute over client representation in litigation concerning Brazil’s Fundão dam collapse.
The disagreement concerns both the firm’s identity and who can choose lawyers for its clients. Pogust criticizes the firm’s court action. The firm disputes his description and says neither former founder runs the business today.
According to the Law Gazette’s account, Pogust announced his intentions in a LinkedIn post. He said he had given notice that he intended to seek removal of his name.
A Founder Challenges Use of His Name
Pogust said he was embarrassed by his name appearing on documents concerning control of the Mariana case. He objected to what he described as claims naming clients as defendants and demanding costs if they changed firms.
That description is contested by Pogust Goodhead. Its spokesperson said no individual claimant was being sued for exercising the right to choose another lawyer.
Pogust said he had never sued a client during his 39-year career. He also said he wanted people seeking his help to trust that he would prioritize their interests.
He said he had notified others of his intention to send a cease-and-desist letter. His stated aim was to remove his name from anything associated with the firm.
Pogust also said he had offered to work pro bono until the case concluded. He described that offer as an effort to secure the best possible outcome for clients.
The Firm Disputes the Account of Its Claim
Pogust Goodhead says the High Court is being asked to decide a question about collective authority. It concerns whether a client committee could choose another firm for more than 400,000 individual clients.
The firm distinguishes that question from an individual’s freedom to select a lawyer. Its spokesperson said the suggestion that it was suing victims for choosing another lawyer was wrong.
The spokesperson also pointed to eight years of legal work, funding, insurance and costs protection. The firm says changing lawyers does not remove that work or existing contractual rights.
Pogust Goodhead says it has reserved rights arising from its work. It argues that reserving those rights is different from pursuing individual victims for legal bills.
Representation and the Firm’s Name Remain Contested
Pogust Goodhead and Bailey Glasser International have issued competing announcements about the litigation’s second phase. Their dispute concerns which firm will run that phase following the 2015 dam collapse.
The Gazette reported that a hearing was listed for the following month to decide representation. The firm also identified an April 2027 trial as the destination for an uninterrupted legal process.
Separately, Pogust Goodhead says Harris Pogust has not participated in its management or operations for approximately three years. It says neither former founder has a role in running the business today.
The firm says it intends to move away from the Pogust Goodhead name. The representation question remains for the court, including whether the committee could act for the wider client group.