In unusually strong language, an appeals panel in south Florida has condemned the conduct of prominent Miami law firm Adorno & Yoss, which filed an intended class-action lawsuit against the city over an unconstitutional fire-rescue fee, and later (to quote the WSJ law blog) is alleged to have "reached a secret $7 million settlement and paid it out to seven individuals, thereby breaching its duty to the entire class". In its defense, the law firm says that it had no fiduciary duty to the class since a class was never certified, but the appeals panel took a different view, saying that class certification was inevitable and that the case was handled throughout from a class perspective. “It defies any bounds of ethical decency to view class counsel’s actions as anything but a flagrant breach of fiduciary duty,” said Judge Juan Ramirez, writing for the court. In a concurrence, Judge Angel A. Cortiñas was if anything more severe in tone. "Plainly and simply, this was a scheme to defraud. It was a case of unchecked avarice coupled with a total absence of shame on the part of the original lawyers. The attorneys manipulated the legal system for their own pecuniary gain and acted against their clients’ interests by attempting to deprive them of monies to which they might otherwise be entitled. More unethical and reprehensible behavior by attorneys against their own clients is difficult to imagine." (Billy Shields, "Fla. Court Calls Law Firm's Role in Fire-Fee Deal 'Reprehensible'", Daily Business Review, Aug. 9). More links on the Miami fire-fee scandal here.
"A case of unchecked avarice coupled with a total absence of shame"
Categories:
2 Comments
Recent Comments
- Todd Rogers on "A case of unchecked avarice c: Might I ask, did the scathing
- Bookworm on "A case of unchecked avarice c: Three out of the last four pos
Categories
- About the site (535)
- Arbitration (18)
- Australia (80)
- Autos (144)
- Bad Medicine (133)
- Bad Medicine II (234)
- Canada (82)
- Chasing clients (124)
- Class Actions (310)
- Class Actions II (43)
- Crime and Punishment (338)
- Disabled Rights (151)
- Eat Drink and Be Merry (272)
- Environment (218)
- Ethics (325)
- Family Law (145)
- Fear of Flirting (114)
- Frenzied Skies (79)
- Guns (106)
- Law schools (17)
- Loser Pays (75)
- Media (457)
- Misc. (519)
- Personal Responsibility (279)
- Politics (321)
- Politics II (46)
- Procedure (98)
- Product (227)
- Roundups (176)
- Scandals (74)
- Schools (224)
- Sports (162)
- Tech (258)
- Tobacco (124)
- UK (204)
- Work (246)

Three out of the last four posts (this one included) show an epidemic of intelligent judging, which is especially surprising considering that one of the Courts involved is the Ninth Circuit. What is this world coming to when our Courts start making reasonable decisions, based on law? You've made my evening. I'm scared to read any further down the blog for fear I'll find myself looking at the usual lunatic decisions that seem to emanate from so many Courts lately.
Might I ask, did the scathing opinion have a statement which concluded with something akin to: "We hereby levy a collective fine of $1000 against the offending attorneys and urge them to not try this again?"