The lawyers drafted the lawsuits by the dozens, claiming that local businesses had violated federal law by not providing access to people with disabilities — and generating thousands of dollars per case in legal fees for themselves.
The approach prompted accusations that the lawyers were less interested in helping disabled people than in exploiting federal law to squeeze business owners for cash.
Now a Brooklyn federal court judge has ruled squarely against two lawyers who bring most of such lawsuits in New York, writing in a cutting opinion on Thursday that their tactics lacked expertise, possibly violated the rules of professional conduct and were "disingenuous at best." The judge, Sterling Johnson Jr., denied them legal fees and took the rare step of ordering them to stop filing such cases.
The ruling came a year after an article in The New York Times pointed to scores of lawsuits brought by lawyers who identified local businesses that were not in compliance with federal law — because of problems like steep entry ramps and narrow aisles — and then recruited people with disabilities as plaintiffs, even against businesses they had never visited before. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, people who have been denied safe and equal access can sue businesses to make physical improvements. They are not entitled to significant monetary damages, but their lawyers are entitled to legal fees.
Though such arrangements have typically been shielded by confidentiality agreements, Judge Johnson revealed how much money the lawyers — Adam Shore and B. Bradley Weitz — claimed in fees, typically $425 per hour for a total of $15,000 per case even though the cases were so similar that he described them as boilerplate. The two lawyers had filed as many as 10 cases in a single day.
"These tactics will no longer be tolerated," Judge Johnson wrote. "The court will not be shy about informing the appropriate state bar authorities and chief judges across this country should Shore and Weitz unadvisedly continue to litigate in this fashion."
The practice is hardly limited to the lawyers cited in the ruling; it has also flourished in California, Florida and other states. Mr. Shore declined to comment and Mr. Weitz did not respond to a request for comment.
Judge Johnson's ruling came in response to a request for fees in one such case. Mr. Shore and Mr. Weitz represented Mike Costello, a plaintiff who never showed up for court but won a default judgment against the owners of a Subway restaurant in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. The owners of the restaurant were ordered to make repairs; Mr. Shore sought the fees to close the case.
Mr. Shore said in court documents that he and Mr. Weitz had spent more than 35 hours working on the case from September 2010 to May 2012, incurring more than $15,000 in legal fees. But he offered little substantiation. And Judge Johnson questioned the quality of his representation.
Judge Johnson wrote that Mr. Shore had been "ill prepared" for an oral argument in the case and had been unable to answer simple questions about his client. Mr. Shore argued in a court hearing that he was entitled to the fees because of his expertise in bringing disability cases, a claim that Judge Johnson rebuked in his opinion.
"When the court inquired about Shore's experience with A.D.A. cases, he stated that he has 'successfully' litigated over 40 cases," Judge Johnson wrote. "After further inquiry, Shore admitted that of the 40, only 1 case went to trial."
Judge Johnson continued, "The vast majority have settled or resulted in default judgment under circumstances that do not require expertise."
Mr. Shore also requested compensation for preparing for the lawsuit and drafting court documents. In response, Judge Johnson wrote, "It is clear that the 'drafting' refers to counsel's efforts in cutting and pasting old defendants in place of new defendants."
The opinion also noted that many of the violations cited in lawsuits filed by Mr. Costello did not even exist. For example, Mr. Costello claimed that the Subway restaurant had failed to provide a bathroom that was accessible by wheelchairs. The judge determined that, in fact, the restaurant had no bathroom at all. "More troublesome is the fact that the court's best efforts have failed to prove that an individual named 'Mike Costello' exists, is wheelchair-bound and has visited any of those establishments."
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Judge Rebukes Lawyers Profiting From U.S. Disability Law
Dengan url
https://dunialuasekali.blogspot.com/2013/03/judge-rebukes-lawyers-profiting-from-us.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Judge Rebukes Lawyers Profiting From U.S. Disability Law
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Judge Rebukes Lawyers Profiting From U.S. Disability Law
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar