In the history of mass torts litigation, the consolidated
federal proceeding alleging serious lung injuries to workers who
inhaled silica particles is the plaintiffs' bar's Waterloo.
Silicosis litigation was regarded as a potential blockbuster for
plaintiffs' firms -- even, perhaps, the long-sought successor to
asbestos litigation. But then came the June 2005 decision by
U.S. District Judge Janis Jack of Corpus Christi, Texas, that
pretty much put an end to any such hopes. Jack, who was
presiding over the consolidated litigation of claims by 10,000
alleged silicosis victims, issued a devastating 295-page ruling
that thoroughly discredited the plaintiffs' lead expert on
silicosis. The judge also held that the Texas plaintiffs' firm
prosecuting most of the silicosis claims, then known as O'Quinn,
Laminack & Pirtle, had "recklessly" disregarded evidence that
not all of its clients actually had the disease. She ordered the
firm to pay the cost of the hearings on the credibility of its
experts.
But according to a new fraud, negligence and breach of contract suit against lawyers from the O'Quinn firm, Judge
Jack's ruling hardly begins to describe the malfeasance of the
plaintiffs' lawyers in the silicosis litigation. The suit, filed
Friday in federal court in Corpus Christi, alleges that the now
deceased John O'Quinn and several of the lawyers who worked with
him engaged in all of the dirty tricks that mass tort defendants
have suspected -- and cost their clients untold millions, to
boot.
Richard Laminack of Laminack Pirtle & Martines, who split
from O'Quinn in 2006, said in an email that the allegations in
the suit are "ludicrous" and recycled from similar ongoing
litigation in Texas probate court in Houston against the O'Quinn
firm. According to Laminack, rulings in that litigation, which
has been under way for about two years, have gone against the
former clients suing the firm. The new suit, he said, is an
"attempt to breathe life into a case that has not gone well and
certainly does not change the facts." (I asked Laminack to
respond to specific claims but didn't hear back from him.)
So keep Laminack's denials in mind. Nevertheless , according
to Lance Kassab of The Kassab Law Firm, who represents more than
30 former O'Quinn clients in the new suit, all of the
allegations in the complaint are supported by discovery from the
probate court case, which was filed on behalf of Texans once
represented by the O'Quinn firm. Kassab represents about 50
different plaintiffs who've intervened in the probate court
case; Houston lawyer Jerry Pusch represents another 385. Both of
them told me that despite Laminack's assertion, they've won
major summary judgment rulings in probate court. They also said
that there's been extensive discovery on their claims of
negligence and fraud against the O'Quinn firm, including
depositions of former O'Quinn lawyers; Kassab said that the
claims in the new suit, brought on behalf of O'Quinn silicosis
clients from Alabama and Mississippi, derive from evidence in
the probate case. (The new suit names several former O'Quinn
lawyers as individual defendants, unlike the Texas case, which
is against only the firm itself.)
What's most remarkable about those allegations is the
O'Quinn firm's alleged fleecing of its own silicosis clients.
The new complaint asserts claims of unsupported diagnoses that
are familiar to anyone who followed the asbestos and fen-phen
litigation. There are also assertions about all-too-cozy
relationships between the law firm and the medical testing
company that checked potential victims for silicosis, with
accusations of the O'Quinn firm paying referral fees, akin to
bounties, when the testing firm passed on the names of potential
clients. We've seen similar allegations about plaintiffs' firms
involved in other mass torts. But according to the new
complaint, the O'Quinn firm proceeded to charge its own clients
for the referral fees it paid to the testing company. And that
wasn't the only fee supposedly charged to clients, who are said
to have paid an overall 3 percent of settlement proceeds to
cover the O'Quinn firm's expenses: Clients also allegedly
covered the costs Judge Jack imposed on the firm.
What's more, according to the complaint, the O'Quinn firm
allegedly delayed paying out settlement proceeds to clients,
sometimes for months after receiving the funds. (The complaint
quotes a lawyer from the firm complaining that she was "running
out of things to tell these folks," referring to clients who
called asking for their money. And in two instances, the
complaint said, the O'Quinn firm let multimillion-dollar global
settlements slip away because it simply failed to complete
paperwork and hold defendants to agreements.)
After O'Quinn's death in 2009, the complaint asserts, a new
lawyer at the firm determined that silicosis clients had to be
informed of the fees paid to the medical testing company. But
according to the complaint, his draft letter to clients was
squelched in favor of a version that was nearly impossible for
clients to understand. Finally, the complaint claims, when the
firm was first sued by former clients in the case now proceeding
in Texas probate court, its lawyers "set about a course of
conduct to destroy, shred and alter documents contained in all
of the silicosis clients' files."
"At the end of the day," the complaint said, "the (O'Quinn)
firm and its attorneys placed their interests and the interests
of the screening companies involved above those of its clients.
This is the sad reality of O'Quinn's approach to mass-tort
litigation and this is the story of the residual victims of that
approach, their clients."
The truth of the allegations in the complaint will be tested
in March, when the first former O'Quinn silicosis clients are
scheduled to go to trial in the Texas probate court case,
according to Pusch. The trial date follows failed mediation that
took place this week between the O'Quinn firm and its former
clients.
I called the O'Quinn firm for comment but did not hear back.
Follow us on Twitter @AlisonFrankel, @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook