Lensabl’s lawsuit against Ashurst Perkins Coie centers on a missing $29 million equity deal.
The California-based vision wear company filed a complaint in Texas state court on July 17, 2026, seeking over $50 million in damages. The suit alleges its lawyers failed to confirm whether the buyer had the funds to close the transaction. Perkins Coie, Ashurst, and their merged entity, Ashurst Perkins Coie, are named as defendants.
The deal that collapsed
The transaction involved selling a 49% stake to Robert Byrnes and his affiliated companies. When Byrnes couldn’t provide the initial $4.3 million payment, the agreement unraveled. Lensabl’s complaint states its legal team never requested bank statements, lender commitments, or proof of funds—steps the filing likens to standard checks in smaller sales.
Lensabl’s attorney, Andrew Cobos, described the oversight as preventable, calling it a clear lapse rather than a judgment call. The company paid Perkins Coie more than $400,000 in fees during the process.
Related: Food safety lawyer sues Taco Bell over outbreak
The financial consequences extended further. After the deal collapsed, Lensabl sold itself as a distressed asset to eye care technology company Visibly in 2024. The lawsuit argues the difference between that sale and the potential $29 million deal forms the basis of its claimed losses.
A merger amid legal trouble
The lawsuit’s timing adds pressure. Just last month, Perkins Coie and London-based Ashurst completed their merger, forming a firm with about 3,000 attorneys. The new entity now faces an early test of its reputation during a period meant to showcase its expanded capabilities.
Ashurst Perkins Coie did not comment when contacted.
Lensabl is also pursuing separate litigation against Byrnes and his companies in Texas Business Court. In November, a judge dismissed some claims, leaving the case’s direction uncertain. Both lawsuits continue, with no signs of settlement yet.
Related: Pros and Cons of Popular Ring Metals
Legal malpractice claims are difficult to prove. Plaintiffs must demonstrate not only negligence but also that the loss directly resulted from the lawyer’s error. Defense teams typically argue that deals fail for reasons outside an attorney’s control, complicating efforts to establish causation.
The case may influence how courts evaluate a law firm’s responsibility to verify basic financial details before a client commits. For now, it highlights that even prominent firms depend on asking the right questions.
The lawsuit emerges as large law firms merge at record rates. Combinations like Ashurst Perkins Coie’s are marketed as ways to offer clients deeper expertise and global access. Yet when fundamental oversight is questioned, the downsides of expansion become harder to overlook.
Lensabl’s complaint challenges more than one firm—it questions whether high legal fees ensure careful work. If the case reaches trial, it could push the industry to clarify what clients are truly paying for and the consequences of overlooking essential steps.
