Court Filing Challenges Creator’s Legal Standing
In a unique twist within the realm of cryptocurrency law, a recent court filing has challenged the legal standing of the creator of a Solana-based meme coin, WIENER DOGE, amid an ongoing lawsuit. The dispute arose when Liam Murphy, who developed WIENER DOGE, initiated legal action against Phantom, a widely-used crypto wallet, claiming that deficiencies in its design contributed to the loss of over $500,000 worth of the cryptocurrency.
Phantom’s Motion to Disqualify Murphy
In response, Phantom’s legal team has filed a motion asking for the disqualification of Murphy from acting as the sole attorney representing the group of plaintiffs involved in the case. They contend that Murphy assumes too many roles—acting as the developer, the victim, and the attorney—which could compromise the objectivity necessary for fair litigation.
“Murphy positions himself as the sole hero in this legal saga—a mix of developer, plaintiffs’ spokesman, and legal representative,”
Phantom’s lawyers stated in their motion to dismiss him as legal counsel.
They express concerns that such a blend of capacities risks tainting the litigation process itself. New York legal guidelines generally prevent attorneys from representing cases where they might serve as witnesses on key factual issues, except under specific circumstances.
Murphy’s Defense
Murphy defended his role by claiming that this particular situation does qualify for an exception, noting that the other plaintiffs in the case are his family members—his mother, brother, girlfriend, and stepfather—who were given WIENER DOGE tokens as gifts and could not afford specialized legal representation in the cryptocurrency sector. He asserts that removing him from the case would leave his family in a difficult position, facing substantial hardship, which he argues justifies his continued representation of the plaintiffs.
Murphy expressed confidence in his standing, telling Decrypt that he believes the disadvantage to his family far outweighs any potential issue for Phantom, the defendant.
Conflicting Interests and Case Developments
Phantom’s attorneys further argued that there could be conflicting interests within the case itself, questioning whether Murphy’s actions may have contributed significantly to the theft of the tokens. They asserted that if the other plaintiffs wish to pursue claims against him for their losses, his dual role as their attorney could lead to a conflict of interest.
As the case unfolds in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, Murphy has been vocal about his allegations against Phantom, claiming that the wallet inadequately secured users’ private keys in accessible and unencrypted storage, making them vulnerable to malware exploitation. However, Phantom has strongly denied all allegations brought forth by Murphy.
Previously, Murphy held positions at prestigious law firms in New York, working with various cryptocurrency clients, including Celsius. He has now embarked on his own legal practice focusing on crypto-related issues, named Murphy’s Law.
