We've already noted the 2nd circuit's decision this month finding that termination of the UCC-1 filing in connection with the $1.5 billion GM loan was enforceable and that therefore the property securing the loan was no longer secure.
The opinion did not name the lawyers at either firm who failed to catch the error.
But the circuit's earlier opinion in the case -- referenced in the later one -- does name the partners at the two firms who did not recognize the error. It does not name the Mayer Brown associate.
Why name the partners? This is NOT a situation where a lawyer has violated some duty to the tribunal and is called out on it, with the sanction being his name in the opinion. That happens and can be appropriate.
But why name the lawyers here? It's an awesome power with real world consequences to the lawyers. Perhaps there was a good reason to do so, but I'm unable to think of one.