PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1023

BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY LLP; JOSHUA TREEM,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Thomas E. Johnston, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-01313-TEJ)

Argued: March 8, 2023 Decided: May 18, 2023

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Keenan joined.

ARGUED: John Thorpe Richards, Jr., BOGORAD & RICHARDS PLLC, for Appellants. Katherine Booth Wellington, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: David Newmann, Alexander B. Bowerman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Marc A. Marinaccio, HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1023 Doc: 44 Filed: 05/18/2023 Pg: 2 of 14

THACKER, Circuit Judge:

The law firm of Brown Goldstein Levy LLP (“BGL”) and one of its partners, Joshua

Treem, (collectively, “Appellants”) filed suit against their insurer, Federal Insurance

Company (“Appellee”), when it refused to provide coverage for costs Appellants incurred

after the Government investigated Treem, executed a search warrant at BGL’s office, and

notified Treem that his representation of certain clients may present a conflict of interest.

The district court dismissed Appellants’ complaint, holding that there was no “Claim,” as

that term is defined in the insurance policy, and alternatively that any costs Appellants

incurred were excluded from the policy’s definition of “loss.” Because we conclude that

there is no “Claim,” we affirm.

I.

A.

In 2014, the Government began investigating attorney Kenneth Ravenell

(“Ravenell”) in connection with a federal racketeering investigation. Ravenell engaged

Appellants to represent him in the investigation. On January 11, 2019, the Government

sent Treem a letter (the “Ravenell Conflict Letter”) informing him that he was “now a

subject of the investigation and [his] conduct [was] within the scope of the grand jury’s

investigation.” J.A. 51. 1 In the Ravenell Conflict Letter, the Government “advise[d]

[Treem] that there are multiple nonwaivable conflicts of interest that prevent [Treem] from

1 Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1023 Doc: 44 Filed: 05/18/2023 Pg: 3 of 14

continuing to represent Kenneth Ravenell in connection with the ongoing grand jury

investigation.” Id. The Government concluded the letter by stating, “[w]e trust that you

understand that these conflicts warrant your recusal and disqualification from further

representation of Mr. Ravenell. Please advise us promptly if you do not intend to withdraw

from your representation of Mr. Ravenell.” Id.

Upon receipt of the Ravenell Conflict Letter, Treem obtained counsel to represent

him in connection with the Government’s investigation, including the Government’s

position that he could no longer represent Ravenell. Appellants also “retained ethics

Click Here to Read the rest of this document