|
|
|
Class action suit accuses law firm of swindling property owners
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/10 03:25
|
In the eyes of some home owners there seems to be a collection force worse than the IRS: lawyers hired by burdened cities to gather delinquent property taxes.
Representing Pete Gotcher, and all others similarly situated in the U.S., attorney Gilbert T. Adams filed a class-action lawsuit against the Linebarger, Goggan Blair & Sampson law firm, claiming the attorneys suspect collection methods violate the Texas Tax Code.
The suit was filed on Aug. 7 in the Jefferson County District Court.
For more than 30 years Linebarger Goggan has solely focused on collections.
"The early decision to concentrate our energy and resources on delinquent tax collections in Texas led to successes that have elevated Linebarger Goggan from a 'Texas firm' to the national stage," the firm's Web site said. "The firm is now a major player in the collection industry with over 2,800 clients, serving both the public and private sectors from offices in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia."
According to the plaintiffs' original petition, Linebarger Goggan has been charging and collecting fees from delinquent Texans that are not "expressly provided for in the state's Tax Code."
"Despite the explicit provisions of the Tax Code and defendant's own contracts which define the total compensation due, these defendants wrongfully and deceitfully demand and extract payments from taxpayers in amounts exceeding those permitted by law for abstract or title search fees," the suit said.
The suit says that in some instances the firm and its lawyers benefit directly as "undisclosed principals" while in all instances the "defendants benefit by passing on their overhead expenses to the taxpayers," and in no instances are the fees a "liability of or payable by the taxing entities."
This is not the first suit of its kind. On behalf of Camella O'Brien, plaintiffs' lawyer Adams first filed a lawsuit against Linebarger Goggan back in 2005.
O'Brien's suit also alleged the firm was "deceitfully scheming" money from taxpayers in "amounts exceeding those permitted by law."
In essence, Adams and his clients argue Linebarger Goggan operate an "illegal and deceptive practice," and maximize the firm's partners' profits by extracting money, "which is in addition to statutorily authorized fees to attorneys," from Texas property owners as "fees" not permitted by the Tax Code.
On the other hand, Linebarger Goggan says the firm places honesty and integrity at the center of its professional duty, the firm's Web site stated.
"The firm has made an uncompromising commitment to the highest ethical standards in the collection industry and the practice of law, reflected in the following actions: the retention of an outside ethics advisor who is a former president of the Texas State Bar; and the establishment of an in-house general counsel who developed, implemented and oversees compliance with the firm's current code of ethics."
The four-count suit faults the firm with fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy.
"Linebarger Goggan has developed a scheme, plan or system for the extortion of these monies and concealed their misdeeds," the suit said.
The plaintiffs seek a return of the monies allegedly "illegally obtained," common law and statutory damages, exemplary damages, "and to achieve a formal declaration that such fees are not authorized," the suit said.
Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th Judicial District, has been assigned to the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aguirre files suits against law firm
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/09 06:01
|
| City Attorney Michael Aguirre picked a new legal fight for San Diego this week, filing two malpractice suits against a New York law firm that probed the city's financial failures and prepared a report on them a year ago. The lawsuits, which target a high-powered law firm that has handled billion-dollar deals for business clients, were filed without City Council approval. As a result, they will test not only Aguirre's legal strategies, but also new council limits on his ability to file lawsuits without authorization. Aguirre alleges that Willkie Farr & Gallagher overbilled the city and essentially failed to follow terms of a contract to assist the risk-management firm Kroll Inc. with a project that became an 18-month, $20 million effort. The suit alleges that the law firm duplicated much of Kroll's work, submitted inadequate bills to disguise that, and went beyond the scope of its agreement, in part by billing the city for “lobbying” meetings with The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. Partner Benito Romano, who led the New York law firm's engagement in San Diego, stood by the firm's work yesterday but declined further comment about the complaint because he hadn't seen it. In a letter that spelled out its arrangement as “counsel and assistance” to Kroll, the law firm's duties are broadly said to include “other matters that . . . may require inquiry or investigation.” The two complaints were filed in San Diego Superior Court and could be consolidated. One suit was filed on behalf of the city of San Diego and the other on behalf of California residents, although both basically seek the same results. Aguirre is demanding $29.2 million, a total that is triple the $9.7 million the city paid Willkie Farr & Gallagher. Outside attorney Bryan Vess, who will work on a contingency basis, filed the lawsuits for Aguirre on Tuesday after Mayor Jerry Sanders and most City Council members had begun vacations timed with a monthlong August recess. Aguirre's office made them public yesterday in response to inquiries. Councilwoman Toni Atkins was surprised by the filing and looked forward to hearing more about it in a briefing next month. “I think the council would like to be part of the discussion,” Atkins said. “Which is not to say that we wouldn't agree with him, but we weren't given the chance.” San Diego's legal bills began piling up after Aguirre was elected in 2004 on a vow to root out corruption at City Hall. Increasingly, the council has argued that it should authorize all of Aguirre's lawsuits because it controls spending, but Aguirre says as the lawyer for San Diego he can file suits as necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge rules fired state employees can go back to work
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/09 03:58
|
A judge Wednesday reinstated two state employees fired by the Blagojevich administration, describing the case as "bizarre, even as Kafkaesque."
After 16 months without paychecks, Dawn DeFraties and Michael Casey, held up as examples of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's effort to thwart government corruption, could be back at work as early as Monday with back wages.
Sangamon County Circuit Judge Patrick Kelley ruled that the Illinois Civil Service Commission mishandled the matter. DeFraties and Casey had a hearing last winter to get their jobs back, but the commission in May called for resuming the case to collect more evidence.
State law requires a ruling within 60 days of the end of testimony, a deadline Kelley agreed the commission blew. He noted commissioners did not explain why they wanted more evidence or what they were seeking.
"The facts of this case can be described as bizarre, even as Kafkaesque," Kelley said. "Clearly, these were the actions of a mysterious, calculating bureaucracy whose motives we can only speculate about."
DeFraties and Casey declined comment. DeFraties will get roughly $127,584 in back pay and Casey, $78,400.
The decree is a significant blow to Blagojevich. He fired the former personnel workers in April 2006 for allegedly rigging the state hiring process after an investigation by the state's executive inspector general.
DeFraties and Casey claimed they were being singled out for giving politically connected job applications -- many of which came from the governor's office -- special treatment to divert attention from federal prosecutors' inquiries about Blagojevich's hiring practices.
One of the attorneys for the state, Joseph Gagliardo, said an appeal is likely. The state attorney general will decide whether to appeal after consulting the commission, a spokesman said.
"The governor will spare no tax dollar getting his way," said Carl Draper, who represents DeFraties and Casey.
Gagliardo's law firm, Laner Muchin, has represented the state in the matter. The firm has gotten $2.2 million since July 2005, according to state records, but that work includes at least 12 other cases, Blagojevich spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff said.
Another law firm, Schiff Hardin, has been paid $2.9 million during the same period. Blagojevich said the firm was hired to review state employment procedures after the federal inquiry began.
"It's unfortunate that the court's decision today is based on the Civil Service Commission's review process, not on the merits of the inspector general's findings," Ottenhoff said.
An administrative law judge who presided over the hearing, however, ruled on the merits, recommending the commission put DeFraties and Casey back to work after 14-day suspensions.
The commission balked and Draper sued in June, arguing not only that the 60-day clock had expired, but that his clients' due process rights were violated because the case, filed in May 2006, dragged on too long. Kelley rejected the due process argument.
Removing troublemakers from office shouldn't be an endless ordeal, Draper told Kelley.
"There's a reason courts have countenanced this process: Fire first and get your hearing later. But do it in a timely manner," Draper said. "To use the words of Larry the Cable Guy, 'Get 'er done.' If you have bad people, get 'er done."
The government countered that the commission had indeed made a decision in May -- to collect more evidence, which pushed back the deadline.
Matthew Bilinsky, an assistant attorney general representing the commission, said the hearing should have continued, the additional evidence collected, and then a judge could decide whether the process was proper.
"Who gets to say when the (hearing) transcript has to be cut off and no additional information be applied to it?" Bilinsky said.
The administrative law judge found evidence that the pair violated laws in evaluating job applications too weak to support dismissal and said they weren't insubordinate for failing to answer questions about hiring posed by a Schiff Hardin lawyer.
But he said they should be suspended for 14 days for not doing enough to stop the special review process for applications that came from the governor's office, legislators or other politicians. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student pleads not guilty to hazing charge
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/08 06:48
|
A Rider University student pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to an aggravated hazing charge in connection with the binge drinking death of a freshman earlier this spring. Adriano DiDonato, 22, of Princeton, did not speak during the arraignment at the Mercer County Courthouse as his lawyer Paul Norris entered a not guilty plea on his behalf. A second student, Dominic Olsen, 21, of Kenilworth, who was originally scheduled to be arraigned along with DiDonato had his hearing delayed until next week, said Mercer County Prosecutor spokeswoman Casey DeBlasio.
Speaking after the court hearing, Norris said that his client was devastated by the death of Gary DeVercelly Jr., of Long Beach, Calif.
"This is a tragic event and by no means does Adriano minimize what happened here," Norris said. "He's very sad about what happened, as is the rest of the fraternity."
DeVercelly had a blood-alcohol level of 0.426 percent, or more than five times New Jersey's legal limit for driving, when he was pronounced dead March 30 at a Trenton hospital, authorities said. He died one day after drinking at a party at the Phi Kappa Tau house on the private school's campus in central New Jersey.
The party, according to prosecutors, was a special event in which pledges such as DeVercelly would drink with fraternity members. Some of the pledges drank entire bottles of hard liquor in under an hour, prosecutors have said.
Olsen was the pledge master of the fraternity's spring 2007 pledge class, and DiDonato was the fraternity's residence director and house master.
Two school officials and a third student were also charged in connection with DeVercelly's death: Ada Badgley, 31, the university's director of Greek life; Anthony Campbell, 51, the dean of students; and Michael J. Torney, 21, the fraternity chapter president.
The indictments mark one of the first times that university officials have been criminally charged in a suspected hazing death, according Doug Fierberg, a lawyer retained by DeVercelly's parents, who has represented hazing victims since the mid-1990s.
Torney and Campbell were to be arraigned Thursday, while no date had yet been set for Badgley's court appearance, DeBlasio said.
Jonathan Meer, Rider's vice president of university advancement, said Tuesday that no decision had been made about the employment status of the two school officials.
If convicted, the officials and fraternity members would face a maximum penalty of 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
The school dissolved the Phi Kappa Tau chapter last Friday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conn. Home Invasion Suspects in Court
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/08 05:43
|
Two suspects in a burglary and arson that left three people dead and rocked a suburban town last month faced a slew of charges Tuesday in a heavily secured courthouse. Family members of the victims - the wife and daughters of a prominent doctor, who survived the attack - filled two rows in the packed courtroom. A man was escorted from the courtroom after he yelled "Killer!" as Joshua Komisarjevsky faced the judge. Otherwise, the brief hearing was quiet. Komisarjevsky, 26, and Steven Hayes, 44, did not enter pleas and spoke only to answer yes or no questions. Department of Corrections special operations team members wearing fatigues and heavy, black vests kept watch on the two. The men have been held on $15 million bond since July 23, when they are accused of taking the family hostage, killing 48-year-old Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11. The state medical examiner said Hawke-Petit, who was taken to a bank and forced to withdraw money during the ordeal, was strangled. The girls died from smoke inhalation after the family's suburban Cheshire home was set ablaze. William Petit Jr. was badly beaten but managed to escape. He did not attend Tuesday's hearing. Jeremiah Donovan, the attorney appointed to represent Komisarjevsky as a special public defender, acknowledged the challenge of working on such a high-profile case. "I myself live with a beloved wife and two lovely daughters, but I'm going to defend Joshua with all the ability and all the vigor that I might have," he said. Komisarjevsky and Hayes, who met in a halfway house and were on parole when the crime occurred, are charged with capital felony, kidnapping, sexual assault, assault, burglary, robbery, arson, larceny and risk of injury to children. Prosecutors have said they will seek the death penalty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UC receives money from Enron class action lawsuit
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/06 08:30
|
As the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit against Enron executives, the University of California has obtained more than $7.2 billion from the executives, accountants, attorneys and financial institutions that organized the fraud. On July 27, officials announced a proposed allocation plan to distribute the money to defrauded Enron investors who submit valid claims. “This is the first step in returning funds to these investors,” said Dan Newman, spokesman for lead counsel Lerach Coughlin, the law firm representing the university and the class of Enron investors. The proposed plan allocates money to investors who purchased Enron securities between Sept. 9, 1997 and Dec. 2, 2001. Roughly 1.5 million Enron stock and bond purchasers lost more than $40 billion during this period, Newman said. Due to accounting fraud, Enron shareholders have lost tens of billions of dollars. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2001. In 2002, the United States District Court chose the university as the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit due to both financial and legal factors, which included the amount of losses the plaintiff endured from Enron investments, and the plaintiff’s ability to coordinate litigation as a single investor, according to a press release from the university. As lead plaintiff, the university helps monitor and oversee the litigation of the case, Chris Patti, UC general counsel, said. The university lost $144.9 million based on 2.2 million Enron shares purchased during the class period, according to the press release. This money was taken from employees’ pension and endowment funds, said Trey Davis, director of special projections for the UC. “The money the UC will receive (from the allocation plan) will go back to these funds, so there will be no effect on students directly,” he said. The university worked with outside counsel and experts to design the plan. But it has been a difficult process, Patti said, to ensure that all investors receive the money they deserve. The allocation needs to account for what type of Enron stocks and bonds investors purchased, when they purchased them and when they sold them. “We want to make sure it’s as fair as possible, and (we are) therefore taking extra steps to ensure we do not miss anything,” Patti said. The UC is asking for feedback on the proposed plan from an independent expert consultant and the public. Comments from the public can be submitted until Aug. 20 through a specially created Web site, Enronfraud.com. After reviewing the public’s comments, university officials will request permission from Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, to ask for formal input about the plan from members of the Enron class. Only after Judge Harmon approves the plan and any appeals are resolved will the money be distributed. It is difficult to predict when this will happen, Davis said, but it will not be before 2008. Other plaintiffs have still not settled cases against Enron executives. A similar case has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and its result will determine if the case against the remaining defendants will continue, Newman said. “This is an ongoing process, but investors have received a lot of support,” Newman said. Most attorney generals, academic experts and professional groups have filed friends-of-the-court briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of investor protections, according to the university’s press release. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US House passes intelligence surveillance bill
Breaking Legal News |
2007/08/05 09:39
|
| The US House of Representatives voted 227-183 late Saturday in favor of the Protect America Act 2007, legislation that gives the Executive Branch expanded surveillance authority for a period of six months while Congress works on long-term legislation to "modernize" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bill was passed by the Senate Friday and Bush said Saturday that he will sign the legislation. Bush said that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has provided the president assurances "that this bill gives him what he needs to continue to protect the country." The Protect America Act establishes legal guidelines on how the United States can conduct surveillance against foreign nationals "reasonably believed to be outside the United States," and requires the director of national intelligence and the attorney general's authorization before surveillance against a specific target can begin. The surveillance will be subject to review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court within 120 days. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
