Latest Edition of Lawyers Gone Wild

By: Jeffrey Hamilton Geiger. This was posted Monday, September 10th, 2012

Rate how helpful this article is:
Not HelpfulSomewhat HelpfulPretty HelpfulVery HelpfulExtremely Helpful

(1 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)

In the latest edition of “lawyers gone wild,” plaintiffs’ lawyers were disqualified for a variety of ethical sins.  As reported by Sean Canrnathan in the ABA Litigiation News, the disqualification was not ultimately based on the following juvenile antics by plaintiffs’ counsel:

  •  attending depositions in a t-shirt and shorts
  • scheduling the deposition at a Dunkin’ Donuts restaurant
  • playing Angry Birds during depositions (and bragging about winning)
  • drawing pictures of male genitalia ostensibly belonging to defense counsel and showing them to his co-counsel, who laughed

Instead, in the class action case of Emigdio Bedoya et al. v. Aventura Limousine Transportation Service, Inc., et al. (S.D. Fla. 11-24432), the court ordered the disqualification of plaintiffs’ counsel on May 16, 2012, based upon, in part, multiple ex parte communications over a number of days with a represented party and others. 

 In one telling example, an officer of the defendants stated that plaintiff’s counsel told him that he “can afford better representation . . . and that he could never settle” with the company’s current lawyer.  Incredibly, the plaintiff’s counsel contended that he said “Dude, you are a big company.  You need to have outside counsel who specializes in this stuff.”  That was not the end of the ex parte communications, believe it or not.

 I guess the moral of the story is you can’t have your (Dunkin) donut and eat it too (and, yes, I recognize that was pretty bad).

Leave a Reply