 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Carey11/26/2002
. .
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' position regarding their failure to identify this letter is somewhat inconsistent. First, they maintain that the Grossman letter is not subject to the order because there was never any actual fee agreement. With respect to the letter, Carey testified, "There is a proposal to share legal fees. There's no written agreement or arrangement that I'm aware of that ever existed." In the alternative, respondents maintain that failure to produce the letter was out of inadvertence or negligence, not dishonesty.
Respondents' attorney, Lou Basso, explained that at the trial there "was reference to the New Jersey litigation as a conspiracy in opening statement" and that this was "sort of a . . . twist that happened at trial and we didn't know where they were going with it." Basso "asked [Danis] and [Carey] the night before if they had any airline tickets, or anything like that, to prove that they had gone out to New Jersey, or anything. And they thought in having this." Basso asked them if they remembered the letter and "they looked at shocked. They didn't even remember writing the letter." Basso found the letter "in a black notebook on some documents that had received very early on in the lawsuit." He testified that he remembered these events specifically, because "Joe [Danis] looked at me and goes, 'Well, where did you get this? Where did this come from?'"
Joseph Danis' testimony at the disciplinary hearing was slightly different and somewhat inconsistent. First, Danis said he remembered the letter vividly.
Q: (By Ms. Church): Well, do you remember it?
A: Yeah, I remember it vividly.
Q: That's the letter . . . dated December 13, 1995 to Stanley Grossman?
A: That's correct.
Q: (By Ms. Church) Do you recall writing this letter?
A: Yes, I do.
However, later in his testimony, Danis testified:
Q: So one of your lawyer's had it?
A: That's correct.
Q: You knew it existed?
A: I didn't recall that it existed. In fact, I had forgot about it until sometime during the middle of trial Lou [Basso] showed us this letter.
Q: Would you agree with me that it was never turned over in response to the request for production of documents for the interrogatory answer?
A: It was turned over to our attorneys through our insurance carrier. And what they turned over to Chrysler I don't know. I did not review all the documents that were turned over.
Danis testified that, even before he and Carey had been served in the Chrysler v. Carey & Danis lawsuit, Carey & Danis' malpractice insurer turned over the Grossman letter to Mr. Basso. Danis testified that Basso gave Carey & Danis' other attorney, Rick Wuestling, some of the documents, but did not give Wuestling the Grossman letter out of inadvertence. Danis did confirm that during trial, Basso rememb
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.
|
|