Lensabl’s malpractice complaint contains a line that will stop you cold. “The question Perkins Coie failed to ask before Lensabl signed the transaction documents remains the question at the center of this lawsuit: where was the money?”
It’s a direct statement. Additionally, it raises an uncomfortable issue for a case involving one of the recently established mega-firms in the legal industry, not only for Ashurst Perkins Coie but also for the larger realm of high-stakes business transactions where clients frequently pay six-figure legal fees under the presumption that someone is checking the fundamentals.
On July 17, 2026, Lensabl, a California-based vision wear company, filed a lawsuit in Texas state court, requesting damages exceeding $50 million. Perkins Coie, Ashurst, and the recently combined Ashurst Perkins Coie are named as defendants in the lawsuit. The allegations relate to a $29 million agreement to sell a 49% stake to a buyer named Robert Byrnes and his affiliated companies, which was meant to be a game-changer for the business.
When Byrnes was unable to produce even the initial $4.3 million payment, the deal collapsed. According to Lensabl, its lawyers never checked to see if Byrnes had the money to close. The complaint claims that no bank statements were asked for. There was no lender commitment obtained. The lawsuit makes an unfavorable analogy, claiming that these actions would be expected even in a typical car or house sale, let alone a multimillion-dollar equity transaction.
That description could be interpreted as Lensabl’s legal team sharpening their rhetoric. However, it’s also difficult to completely ignore. In deal work, buyer financing due diligence is fundamental. It’s not some obscure technicality to fail to verify funding capacity. Lensabl’s Houston-based lawyer, Andrew Cobos, called the company’s actions “easily avoidable.” This framing is important because it implies that there was a gap rather than a close call.
Perhaps worse than the deal’s failure itself was what transpired after it fell through. According to Lensabl, it was sold as a distressed asset to the eye care technology company Visibly in 2024. The financial harm at the center of the claim is the difference between what a distressed sale actually produced and what a successful $29 million equity deal might have meant for the company. Over $400,000 in fees were paid by the company to Perkins Coie during the transaction. A substantial legal bill for work the client now claims failed them at the most basic level is an unsettling detail in and of itself.
Here, there’s a larger context to consider. Just last month, Perkins Coie and Ashurst, a London-based firm, merged to form a firm with about 3,000 attorneys, marking a significant milestone in the global legal consolidation process. This lawsuit’s timing, coming so soon after the merger, gives the combined company an awkward early headline. A request for comment was not answered by an Ashurst Perkins Coie representative.
Additionally, Lensabl is currently suing Byrnes and associated parties in Texas Business Court. In November, a judge rejected some of those allegations. It’s still unclear how the overall litigation strategy will unfold or whether any of this ultimately results in a settlement. That case and this one are proceeding concurrently.
Cases involving legal malpractice are infamously hard to win. In most cases, plaintiffs must demonstrate not only that their lawyers were negligent, but also that the loss was directly caused by the negligence. Defendants in these cases frequently contend that agreements break down for reasons beyond an attorney’s control and that it is more difficult to establish a causal relationship between legal work and financial results than it appears in a complaint. It will be instructive to watch this case proceed through the legal system, both for what it says about the particular facts at hand and for what it reveals about how courts assess a law firm’s obligation to perform basic financial verification prior to a client signing.
For the time being, the lawsuit serves as a sobering reminder that the credibility of even the most polished legal brands depends on the questions they remember to ask.
