Ashurst Perkins Coie Faces $50 Million Malpractice Suit
Global law firm Ashurst Perkins Coie has been hit with a $50 million legal malpractice lawsuit in Texas, with eyewear technology company Lensabl Inc. alleging the firm’s attorneys failed to perform basic legal due diligence during a failed multimillion-dollar investment transaction. The lawsuit claims the firm’s negligence allowed a prospective investor to proceed with a deal despite allegedly lacking the financial ability to complete the purchase, ultimately causing Lensabl to suffer substantial financial losses and forcing the company into a distressed sale. The case highlights the professional responsibilities law firms owe clients during mergers, acquisitions, and investment transactions, where attorneys are expected to identify legal risks and conduct appropriate diligence.
According to the complaint filed in Texas state court, Lensabl retained the firm—then operating as Perkins Coie before its merger with UK-based Ashurst—to represent the company in a proposed $29 million transaction involving investor Robert Byrnes and his affiliated entities. Under the agreement, Byrnes planned to acquire a 49% ownership stake in Lensabl and was required to make an initial payment of approximately $4.3 million. Lensabl alleges that despite the size of the transaction, the firm’s attorneys failed to verify whether the investor actually possessed the financial resources necessary to complete the deal.
The complaint alleges the law firm neglected several fundamental due diligence measures commonly performed in significant corporate transactions. According to Lensabl, attorneys failed to request bank statements, verify available funding, obtain proof of committed financing, or require lender commitment letters before allowing the transaction to proceed. The company contends that these omissions constituted professional negligence because competent transactional counsel would have confirmed the buyer’s financial capacity before finalizing the agreement.
Lensabl claims the problems became apparent when Byrnes allegedly failed to make the required $4.3 million initial payment, causing the entire acquisition to collapse. The failed investment reportedly deprived the company of desperately needed capital at a critical point in its operations. As financial pressures intensified, Lensabl alleges it was forced into a distressed asset sale in 2024 to healthcare technology company Visibly, resulting in substantially lower value than the proposed investment transaction would have provided. The lawsuit argues that the failed deal directly contributed to the company’s financial decline and diminished shareholder value.
In addition to alleging malpractice, Lensabl notes that it paid the firm more than $400,000 in legal fees while relying on its advice throughout the transaction. The company argues those legal services fell below the applicable professional standard of care because the attorneys allegedly failed to protect their client’s interests through routine transactional safeguards. Lensabl seeks at least $50 million in damages, asserting that the firm’s negligence caused extensive economic losses, including the collapse of the investment transaction and the subsequent distressed sale of company assets.
The malpractice suit is separate from ongoing litigation against Byrnes and several associated individuals. Lensabl has previously sued the investor and related entities over the failed transaction, although Reuters reported that portions of that litigation were dismissed in 2025. The new lawsuit instead focuses exclusively on the alleged professional failures of the law firm representing Lensabl during the negotiations. By pursuing both actions, the company seeks to recover damages from the alleged wrongdoers as well as from its former legal counsel.
Ashurst Perkins Coie, created through the merger of Ashurst LLP and Perkins Coie, declined to comment publicly on the allegations. As is common in legal malpractice litigation, the firm will likely have an opportunity to challenge both the factual allegations and the claimed causal connection between its legal advice and Lensabl’s financial losses. To prevail, Lensabl will generally need to prove that the attorneys breached the applicable standard of professional care and that the alleged negligence directly caused the damages claimed in the lawsuit.
The case underscores the increasing legal risks facing law firms involved in high-value corporate transactions. Transactional attorneys are often expected to conduct sufficient due diligence to identify obvious financial and legal risks, particularly when clients rely heavily on their professional advice before completing major investments. If Lensabl ultimately succeeds, the litigation could reinforce the importance of documenting financial verification procedures and clarifying the scope of counsel’s due diligence responsibilities in future corporate deals. Regardless of the outcome, the lawsuit serves as a reminder that law firms may face significant professional liability when clients believe inadequate legal advice contributed to failed business transactions.
Key Legal Outcome
- Lensabl Inc. filed a $50 million legal malpractice lawsuit against Ashurst Perkins Coie in Texas state court.
- The lawsuit alleges the firm failed to conduct adequate due diligence during a $29 million investment transaction.
- Lensabl claims the firm’s attorneys failed to verify the investor’s financial ability to complete the deal before closing documents were finalized.
- The failed transaction allegedly forced Lensabl into a distressed asset sale to healthcare company Visibly in 2024.
- Ashurst Perkins Coie has declined to comment on the pending litigation.
Why It Matters
- The lawsuit highlights the professional duty of lawyers to perform adequate due diligence during major business transactions.
- It demonstrates the substantial liability law firms may face when clients allege negligent transactional advice.
- The case may clarify the scope of attorneys’ responsibilities in verifying buyers’ financial capacity before deals close.
- A ruling could influence best practices for mergers, acquisitions, and private investment transactions.
- The litigation serves as a reminder that transactional counsel can face significant malpractice exposure when corporate deals fail.
