 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Carey11/26/2002
that their response to Request No. 25 is inaccurate. Both Carey and Danis go to great lengths in their respective briefs to analyze and dissect the term "agreement." Respondents contend that the distinction between "agreement" and "proposal" renders their answer to Request No. 25 truthful because there was never a final contractual fee agreement or joint representation agreement between Carey & Danis or any other firm in a suit involving Chrysler. While it is true that under contractual analysis there is a difference in meaning of "agreement" and "proposal," respondents walk too fine a line here.
The CDC cites four pieces of correspondence that are responsive to Request No. 25. Only the Grossman letter is addressed here as it is the most clearly egregious. The Grossman letter stated: Gentlemen:
Both my father, David Danis, and I enjoyed meeting with you last Sunday. We look forward to working with you in this matter and the other matters we discussed in the future.
We have preliminarily discussed your suggestion of consolidating our cases and pursuing the matter [in New Jersey]. Your suggestion has merit, and we are seriously entertaining the invitation . . . .
Please provide us with a general analysis of what you anticipate our role in the litigation would be if we consolidated our case, the Mississippi case and join the other plaintiffs we have lined up in other states to your suit. It is my suggestion that we negotiate some percentage of attorney fee allocation at the outset to protect both of our interests, and leave some flexibility for the remainder so that it may be adjusted according to the amount of work and contribution provided by each party in the litigation .
This case has good merit and there will be plenty of money for all of the participants . . . .
Very truly yours,
CAREY & DANIS, L.L.C.
Joseph P. Danis
Respondents maintain that, because they were not attorneys of record in the New Jersey ABS action and because there was never a contractual fee agreement reached, Request No. 25 was accurately answered. Respondents are incorrect. Judge Perry ordered production of "all documents which refer or relate to fee sharing or joint representation agreements with any attorneys or law firms concerning a client represented by Carey & Danis." (Emphasis added). In his letter, Danis discussed joining the Beam plaintiffs to Grossman's class action suit against Chrysler and was quite concerned about fee allocation. It is clear that the Grossman letter refers and relates to both a joint representation and a fee sharing agreement.
The Grossman letter is also clearly covered by Request No. 8. Judge Perry ordered the production of "all documents that pertained or referred to actual or anticipated litigation against Chrysler Corporation regarding any anti-lock brakes, heater cores or vehicle latches." (Emphasis added). Referring to the Beam class action and Grossman's class of ABS plaintiffs, Danis wrote, "We have . . . discussed your suggestion of consolidating our cases . . ." and asked Grossman to "provide us with a general analysis of what you anticipate our role . . . would be." The Grossman letter unambiguously refers to both actual and anticipated anti-lock brake cases against Chrysler -- as do many of the 42 documents Chrysler uncovered.
Both Carey and Danis admit in their respective briefs that there were no fewer than nine documents that were responsive to Chrysler's discovery requests but were not produced. When forced to confront the inaccuracies in the discovery responses, respondents defended themselves by placing blame on their attorneys and, when
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|