Tucker v. Wilson Elser Alleges Law Firm Aided Theft of Trade Secrets to Harm Client
Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC filed a verified civil complaint on September 16, 2026, accusing Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP and partner Misty Percifield, Esq., of aiding and abetting a tortious breach of fiduciary duty, common-law conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets, and third-party retaliatory professional malpractice. The complaint seeks compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages exceeding $75,000, with the jurisdictional amount specified as exceeding $75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs).
The plaintiff, a single-member LLC whose sole member is Sean Fillinich, alleges that the defendants, retained to defend former counsel Felicia B. Watson, Esq., in a deposition, executed an unredacted digital transfer of its confidential files—including trade secrets, financial records, and legal strategies—to adversarial third parties in unrelated litigation. According to the complaint, "Defendants knew Plaintiff never waived confidentiality and no court ordered disclosure of protected files" (Compl. ¶13).
The unauthorized disclosure, referred to as the “Watson Disclosures,” allegedly enabled the adversarial parties to record a predatory property attachment, freezing the plaintiff’s title and causing financial harm.
Alleged Mechanism: Unredacted Digital Transmission of Plaintiff’s Confidential Files to Adversarial Third Parties
The complaint alleges that Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP and its partner executed what it calls the “Watson Disclosures”—an unredacted digital transmission of Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC’s internal files to adversarial third parties in unrelated litigation. According to the filing, the defendants, retained to defend former plaintiff counsel Felicia B. Watson, Esq., in a deposition, transferred the entirety of the plaintiff’s confidential materials—including trade secrets, financial records, and legal strategies—without redaction or consent.
The filing quotes the defendant: “MS. PERCIFIELD: ...I just want to put on the record that attorney-client privilege as to Diamond Tucker has been waived per court order.” (Compl. ¶15). The complaint quotes adversarial counsel acknowledging receipt of the files: “MR. MAKI: ‘Your lawyer was kind enough to produce to me documents that I've marked as exhibits in this case...’” (Compl. ¶16). Former counsel Felicia B. Watson, Esq., is quoted confirming the completeness of the production: “MS. WATSON: ‘To the best of my knowledge, yes. I went back to my computer and did a search for all communications regarding this matter and then, you know, printed them all out... I have not withheld anything.’” (Compl. ¶16).
The complaint alleges that the adversarial third parties used the disclosed files to record a predatory property attachment, freezing the plaintiff’s title and causing financial harm. Plaintiff seeks compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages exceeding $75,000 for the alleged misappropriation and conversion. The complaint specifies that the jurisdictional amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs).
Damages Sought: $75,000+ in Compensatory, Consequential, and Punitive Damages
Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC’s verified complaint seeks compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages exceeding $75,000. The filing states the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, which is the jurisdictional threshold for the claims asserted.
The complaint alleges that Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP and its partner caused financial harm by transmitting unredacted internal files to adversarial third parties. These adversarial third parties recorded a predatory property attachment that froze the plaintiff’s title, resulting in alleged financial harm.
Parties: Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC v. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP and Misty Percifield, Esq.
The plaintiff in the action is Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC, a single-member limited-liability company whose sole member is Sean Fillinich. The complaint identifies Fillinich as the LLC’s authorized representative.
The defendants are Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, a national defense law firm, and Misty Percifield, Esq., an attorney described as a partner, employee, or agent of the firm.
The plaintiff’s former legal counsel, Felicia B. Watson, Esq., is named as a non-party whose role was pivotal in the alleged breach. The complaint alleges that Watson’s disclosure of the plaintiff’s confidential files to adversarial third parties constituted a severe breach of fiduciary duty, which the defendants are accused of aiding and abetting.
Karen and Ismet Pupovic, described as adversarial third parties in separate litigation involving the plaintiff, are also non-parties. The complaint alleges that the defendants transmitted the plaintiff’s unredacted files to the Pupovics’ counsel, Brennen Maki, Esq., enabling them to record a predatory property attachment against the plaintiff’s assets.
Claims I-II: Aiding and Abetting Tortious Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Common-Law Conversion
Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC alleges that Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP and its partner aided and abetted a tortious breach of fiduciary duty by former counsel Felicia B. Watson, Esq., who the complaint describes as having disclosed the plaintiff’s unredacted internal files to adversarial third parties. The complaint asserts that the defendants had actual knowledge of Watson’s fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and of the plaintiff’s non-waiver of confidentiality, yet provided substantial assistance by organizing, exporting, and delivering the entirety of the plaintiff’s files to the opposing side in unrelated litigation (Compl. ¶28-30). The complaint further alleges that "Defendants knew Plaintiff never waived confidentiality and no court ordered disclosure of protected files" (Compl. ¶13).
The complaint further alleges that the defendants’ conduct constituted common-law conversion of property. It describes the defendants’ actions as intentional, unauthorized extra-judicial data conversion of the plaintiff’s confidential and proprietary documents, including trade secrets, financial records, and legal strategies. According to the filing, this conversion directly caused an unlawful property attachment that froze the plaintiff’s title and resulted in financial damages. The complaint states that "Defendants’ actions were voluntary, extra-judicial, and outside litigation privilege" (Compl. ¶19).
The complaint quotes one defendant as stating on the record during a deposition that attorney-client privilege as to the plaintiff had been waived per court order. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants’ actions enabled adversarial third parties to record a predatory property attachment, which the plaintiff claims has caused financial harm.
Claims III-IV: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Third-Party Retaliatory Professional Malpractice
The complaint alleges that Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP and its partner misappropriated Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC’s trade secrets by digitally transferring unredacted internal files to adversarial third parties. To state a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under New York law, the complaint outlines that the plaintiff must establish two elements: (1) possession of a trade secret, and (2) the defendant’s use or disclosure of that trade secret via breach of duty, improper means, or other wrongful conduct (Compl. ¶41). The complaint alleges that the defendants accessed these trade secrets under a confidential attorney-client relationship and then misappropriated them via a digital sweep and transfer to a competitor, destroying their confidentiality and causing economic devastation (Compl. ¶43).
The fourth count charges the defendants with third-party retaliatory professional malpractice. The complaint alleges that the defendants’ false deposition statement—that the plaintiff’s attorney-client privilege had been waived per court order—and their unredacted data dump constituted professional malpractice. The complaint further asserts that under New York law, a law firm and its counsel face third-party liability for fraud, collusion, or intentional torts designed to inflict external harm (Compl. ¶45).
Distinctive Pleadings: False Privilege Waiver Claim and Concealment of Data Transmission
The complaint alleges that a defendant, a partner at Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, falsely declared during a deposition that Diamond Tucker St. Property LLC’s attorney-client privilege had been “waived per court order.” In its words, “MS. PERCIFIELD: …I just want to put on the record that attorney-client privilege as to Diamond Tucker has been waived per court order.” (Compl. ¶15). The complaint further alleges that "Defendants knew Plaintiff never waived confidentiality and no court ordered disclosure of protected files" (Compl. ¶13).
According to the filing, the defendants executed the “Watson Disclosures”—an unredacted digital transmission of the plaintiff’s confidential files to adversarial third parties. The filing quotes adversarial counsel acknowledging receipt of the documents: “MR. MAKI: ‘Your lawyer was kind enough to produce to me documents that I’ve marked as exhibits in this case…’” (Compl. ¶16). Former plaintiff counsel Felicia B. Watson, Esq., is quoted confirming the completeness of the production: “MS. WATSON: ‘To the best of my knowledge, yes. I went back to my computer and did a search for all communications regarding this matter and then, you know, printed them all out… I have not withheld anything.’” (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that Watson’s disclosure of the plaintiff’s files to the adversary constituted a severe breach of fiduciary duty, which the defendants aided and abetted (Compl. ¶27).
Relief Sought and Procedural Posture: Damages Exceeding $75,000 and Equitable Relief
The verified complaint filed on September 16, 2026, seeks recovery of all available compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages exceeding $75,000, with the jurisdictional amount specified as exceeding $75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs). Plaintiff Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC alleges that the unauthorized disclosure of its confidential files directly caused unlawful property attachment, title slander, and financial harm, justifying damages that meet the jurisdictional threshold.
In addition to monetary relief, the complaint asks the court to grant such other relief as the court deems just, proper, and equitable. The complaint was signed and verified on September 15, 2026, and filed the following day.
The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.
The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.
David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.
From the Complaint Public Court Record
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DIAMOND TUCKER ST. PROPERTY, LLC, Plaintiff, V. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN AND DICKER, LLP and MISTY PERCIFIELD, ESQ., Defendants. VERIFIED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Plaintiff, Diamond Tucker St. Property, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “DTS”), by and through its counsel, Roderick D. Woods, Esq., as and for its Verified Civil Complaint for Damages against the Defendants, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP and Misty Percifield, Esq. (collectively “Defendants”), respectfully states and alleges as follows: I. INTRODUCTION Aiding and Abetting Fiduciary Breaches, Conversion, and Misappropriation of Protected Assets 1. Plaintiff brings this independent civil action to recover all available compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages arising out of the Defendants’ intentional, unauthorized extra-judicial data conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious subornation of a fiduciary breach. 2. The sole genesis of this action is the Defendants’ calculated, voluntary decision to execute a wholesale, unredacted client file dump (the "Watson Disclosures") directly into the hands of an active litigation adversary. Independent acts of data transmission and the delivery of protected corporate files have only one party responsible for their propriety: the actor. 3. No defense firm or handling attorney can hide behind a grossly uncolorable label, or claim immunity under a non-existent discovery directive, to escape judicial review for tortious acts they
2 committed of their own free volition. No court order ever instructs an attorney to execute an unredacted data dump of a non-party former client's proprietary assets. 4. As demonstrated infra, by voluntarily transferring the Plaintiff’s privileged and confidential information to a known adversary, the Defendants did not merely release transactional files; they hand-delivered a complete, e
Questions about this topic: david@newmanbrunk.com