RICO billing conspiracy by law firms ‘hoodwinked’ courts, Ford alleges in suit seeking $300M


Law Firms

RICO billing conspiracy by law firms ‘hoodwinked’ courts, Ford alleges in suit seeking $300M

A closeup of the Ford sign is seen outside a Ford dealership store in Sunnyvale, California, in May 2022. (Photo from Shutterstock)

Three California law firms are part of a racketeering conspiracy that “ingeniously” inflated fee requests in lemon law litigation by spreading their fraudulent billing across thousands of cases against many car makers, according to a $300 million lawsuit filed Wednesday by the Ford Motor Co.

Fee claims in multiple cases reveal “a magical mystery tour of fictitious billings, including individual attorneys who supposedly worked more than 24 hours per day or simultaneously attended different trials or depositions in geographically distant jurisdictions,” according to the May 21 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Named as defendants in the suit are three California firms, five lawyers and a paralegal.

Over the last 10 years, the suit says, the defendants submitted attorney fees requests totaling more than $100 million to the Ford Motor Co. on behalf of car buyers seeking damages because of allegedly defective cars. The Ford Motor Co. think that at least half of the requests, made under California’s lemon law, are based on inflated fees.

The suit seeks $100 million in damages for fees paid because of fraudulent billing statements and asks for triple damages.

The Ford Motor Co. alleges that the ringleaders of the enterprise are the Knight Law Group and Steve Mikhov, a founding partner and former managing partner of the firm, who now lives in Puerto Rico.

One lawyer billed more than 20 hours per day at least 66 times, including 34 times that exceeded 24 hours per day, according to the suit. One of those requests included “an ostensibly heroic but physically impossible 57.5-hour workday in November 2016,” the suit says.

Another lawyer claimed to have attended “two different trials in two different jurisdictions on a single day, totaling 29 hours of work.”

Other lawyers also “billed vast amounts of phantom legal fees,” billing for the same tasks “across a multitude of cases on the same day,” the suit says.

By spreading their fee requests across numerous matters in different courts, the defendants, “hoodwinked all of the judges and lawyers who were privy only to information presented in individual cases,” the suit contends.

The Knight Law Group gave this statement to the ABA Journal: “Knight Law denies the allegations in Ford’s lawsuit. For over 20 years, Knight Law and its attorneys have been California’s leading lemon law consumer rights advocates, winning numerous jury verdicts awarding millions of dollars in punitive damages on account of Ford’s documented fraudulent misconduct against consumers, and forcing Ford to settle hundreds of other cases to protect California consumers. This action by Ford is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to silence firms who would dare to hold them responsible and seek justice for consumers. This lawsuit—which makes no claim that Knight Law’s clients were harmed in any way—mischaracterizes the facts, and the claim that billing practices amount to a ‘racketeering enterprise’ is ridiculous.”

Contact information for Mikhov was not available from the State Bar of California’s attorney search page.

Law360, Reuters, Bloomberg Law, the Daily Journal, the Detroit News, Courthouse News Service and the Los Angeles Times are among the publications that covered the suit.

Ford is represented by Kasowitz Benson Torres in the suit.





Source link

2024 produced record number of ‘thermonuclear verdicts,’ report finds; what is impact of younger jurors?


Verdicts & Settlements

2024 produced record number of ‘thermonuclear verdicts,’ report finds; what is impact of younger jurors?

A record number of eight- and nine-figure jury verdicts are evidence of an “indisputable trend,” according to the CEO of a communications and research company that compiled the figures. (Image from Shutterstock)

A record number of eight- and nine-figure jury verdicts are evidence of an “indisputable trend,” according to the CEO of a communications and research company that compiled the figures.

“Civil court juries want to punish companies like never before,” said Phil Singer, the CEO and founder of Marathon Strategies, in a May 20 press release. “Supersized jury verdicts are being issued at greater scales, in more places across the country, and against a wider breadth of industries than we’ve ever encountered in our research.”

Marathon Strategies’ report found that 135 lawsuits against corporate defendants resulted in jury awards of $10 million or more—the largest number of “nuclear verdicts” in a year since the company began compiling civil jury awards in 2009.

Marathon Strategies also identified 49 suits that produced verdicts of more than $100 million last year—a record number of “thermonuclear verdicts.” Five of those cases involved verdicts greater than $1 billion last year.

Big verdicts were most often issued in products liability and intellectual property cases.

“While many factors have influenced this growth,” Marathon Strategies said in its report, “Marathon’s research identified corporate mistrust, social pessimism, erosion of tort reform and public desensitization to large numbers as among the most important.”

The research also showed that an influx of millennial and Generation Z jurors could be affecting verdicts. According to Marathon Strategies, studies show that millennials are generally more pro-plaintiff than the prior generation and less trusting of corporations.

The report identified new areas of legal risk as forever chemicals, obesity, algorithmic liability, cryptocurrency and cybersecurity.

Marathon Strategies compiled jury verdict data from state and federal court records, media reports and other records. Sources included the National Law Journal’s VerdictSearch and LexisNexis’ Jury Verdicts & Settlements database.





Source link

‘Pugnacious legal industry website’ is ‘rage read’ for lawyers opposing BigLaw deals with Trump


Law in Popular Culture

‘Pugnacious legal industry website’ is ‘rage read’ for lawyers opposing BigLaw deals with Trump

If you want to know how BigLaw is responding to President Donald Trump’s punitive executive orders against disfavored law firms, the Above the Law website has it covered. (Image from Shutterstock)

If you want to know how BigLaw is responding to President Donald Trump’s punitive executive orders against disfavored law firms, the Above the Law website has it covered.

The orders—which threaten to suspend lawyers’ security clearances and imperil client contracts—have provoked a range of responses that are chronicled in Above the Law’s “BigLaw Spine Index.”

The listing shows which BigLaw firms sued the Trump administration, which signed an amicus brief supporting one of the suing firms, which scrubbed diversity references from their websites, and which struck pro bono deals with Trump.

Developments are also chronicled in daily posts with plenty of snark. With these attributes, Above the Law has become a “rage read” for lawyers who are steamed about firms failing to stand up to Trump, according to a profile in the New York Times.

One recent post is titled “Orange Shoe Law Firms? What Exactly Should We Call BigLaw Firms Cutting Deals With Donald Trump?” The post seeks reader suggestions on the best way to describe the nine firms that reached “pro bono payola” deals with Trump to avoid the punitive executive orders.

The post included Above the Law’s past descriptions of deal-making firms, including “the Order of the Obsequious,” and the website’s characterization of their actions, including “bending the knee” and “swearing fealty to the administration.”

The “pugnacious legal industry website” is also known for its scoops on associate bonuses, its acerbic presentation of legal news, and “salacious stories of barristers behaving badly,” the New York Times says.

“Partners running billion-dollar firms have long eyed its morning newsletter like an elephant does a mouse,” the New York Times says. “One partner at a top-tier firm told the New York Times that lawyers there have a rule: ‘Don’t do anything that could wind up in Above the Law.’”

David Lat, Above the Law’s founding editor, told the New York Times about one of the website comments he most appreciated. It came from an administrative assistant who told him, “The partners are nicer to us because they don’t want to show up on the site as ‘The Screamer.’”

See also:

Some want to leave law firms with White House agreements, and others avoid firms that pushed back

Did 9 firms making deals with Trump violate bribery, anti-fraud laws? Democratic letters seek answers

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?





Source link

Can judge order US to ask El Salvador for migrant’s release? 4th Circuit says yes, return can’t be done ‘telepathically’


Immigration Law

Can judge order US to ask El Salvador for migrant’s release? 4th Circuit says yes, return can’t be done ‘telepathically’

Immigrants deported from the United States arrive in Guatemala on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation flight during President Donald Trump’s first term in February 2017. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

A federal appeals court has refused to block a federal judge’s order requiring the U.S. government to “facilitate” a 20-year-old migrant’s return to the United States from a prison in El Salvador in Central America.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, ruled May 19 that the Trump administration could not use the Alien Enemies Act to override a settlement. The 2024 agreement said a group of migrants who entered the United States as unaccompanied minors could not be deported before their asylum applications are adjudicated.

The Trump administration contends that it can deport suspected Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act because they are part of a migrant invasion or predatory incursion into the United States.

The Volokh Conspiracy, MSNBC, Law360, ABC News, Politico, the Washington Post and Law & Crime have coverage of the 2-1 decision.

The case involves a Venezuelan national using the pseudonym “Cristian.”

The 4th Circuit left in place an order by U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the District of Maryland that told the government to “facilitate” Cristian’s return by making “a good faith request” to the government of El Salvador “to release Cristian to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States.”

The majority opinion by 4th Circuit Judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin responded to the dissent’s claim that Gallagher’s order constituted forced negotiation with a foreign state.

“The government cannot facilitate Cristian’s return telepathically,” Benjamin wrote. “It must express in words to the government of El Salvador that Cristian be released for transport back to the United States.”

Benjamin’s majority opinion did not reach the issue of whether Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was valid, the Volokh Conspiracy reports in a post by Ilya Somin, a professor at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School. But Judge Roger L. Gregory addressed the issue in a concurrence.

Gregory said actions of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, do not constitute an invasion or predatory invasion within the meaning of the Alien Enemies Act.

“As a sister circuit so thoroughly explained,” Gregory wrote, “dictionary definitions, statutory context and history reveal that ‘an invasion is a military affair, not one of migration.’”

Benjamin is an appointee of former President Joe Biden, while Gregory is an appointee of former President George W. Bush, who nominated Gregory after a recess appointment by former President Bill Clinton. The dissenter, Judge Julius N. Richardson, is an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term in office.





Source link

What today’s rainmakers do differently


The Modern Law Library

What today’s rainmakers do differently

Matthew Dixon, co-founder of DCM Insights, is a researcher who’s spent the bulk of his career looking into the shared characteristics and behaviors of successful B2B salespeople.

Matthew Dixon, co-founder of DCM Insights, is a researcher who’s spent the bulk of his career looking into the shared characteristics and behaviors of successful B2B salespeople. In 2011, he released a study called “The Challenger Sale.” When giving a keynote on his findings at an annual partner retreat, an audience member stood up and challenged him.

“He said, ‘Dr. Dixon, you’ve been talking now for 45 minutes about sales effectiveness and salespeople and selling and sales process, and it’s all very fascinating, and I’m sure our clients would be very interested in this,’” Dixon recounts to the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles in this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast. “‘And after all, we do a lot of consulting work around go-to-market strategy. But what maybe you don’t recognize is that we are partners at our firm. We are not salespeople. In fact, there’s not a single salesperson in this audience. I might go so far as to say we don’t sell anything here.’”

Dixon was taken aback.

“What I realized was this world of partnerships, of professional services, of doer-sellers is actually quite a bit different from the world of sales and what we had written and all this research we’d done over the years,” he says.

In 2022, he tackled this population with the Rainmaker Genome Project, a study that became the basis for The Activator Advantage: What Today’s Rainmakers Do Differently, co-written by Dixon, Rory Channer, Karen Freeman and Ted McKenna.

book cover

The Rainmaker Genome Project surveyed 3,000 partner-level professionals in 41 firms from the fields of law, public relations, accounting and investment banking. About 39% of respondents were lawyers. Each received a score for their effectiveness in business development and were analyzed for how they provided client services. And it turns out that partner was correct; what makes a lawyer an effective rainmaker is not necessarily what makes a salesperson an effective seller.

After doing a vector analysis on the data, “what we found was that every one of those 3,000 professionals could be placed into one of five business development profiles,” Dixon says. The five profiles were the expert, the confidant, the debater, the challenger and the activator.

Dixon stresses that the five categories are not about your personality. While personalities are immutable, behaviors can be changed.

“These are about the things that we can all learn to be better at,” Dixon says. “It’s about the way we spend our time; it’s about the way we engage our clients; it’s about how we use resources, about how we collaborate with our colleagues; and those are things we can all get better at with the right training, coaching and support from our firms.”

In this episode, Dixon expands on each type, but the most effective performers in terms of business development were found to be the activators.

“The reason we chose the term ‘activator’ instead of ‘connector’—people have asked about this before—is that they’re not about collecting business cards and letting them collect dust or just hoarding LinkedIn connections,” Dixon tells Rawles. “What these folks do is they try to turn these relationships, these connections, into paying client relationships. And the way that they do it, the way they activate those relationships, is they proactively bring new ideas to those clients, new ways to mitigate risk, new ways in consulting, new ways to make money or save money.”

Dixon offers practical advice on how to behave like an activator, including the most effective ways to use LinkedIn. Lawyers and other client-servicing professions can’t just sit back and wait for business opportunities to find them, he warns.

“Whether we like to admit it or not, clients are less loyal today than they once were,” he says. “They’re less likely to automatically come back to their incumbent provider. No matter how great a relationship you have or how great the value you’ve delivered is, they’re forcing us to compete in ways that we didn’t have to in the past. And so activators want to have a backup plan. They know that that great client today might not be a client tomorrow—no matter what you’ve done on your end to deliver value and build a great relationship. So you need a backup plan.”

Want to listen on the go? The Modern Law Library is available on several podcast listening services. Subscribe and never miss an episode.
Apple | Spotify | Google Play

In This Podcast:

<p>Matthew Dixon</p>

Matthew Dixon

Matthew Dixon is the co-founder of DCM Insights. He has had executive leadership positions in product, research and consulting for Tethr (an Austin, Texas-based AI and machine learning venture), Korn Ferry and CEB (now Gartner), where he ran the global sales and service research group. He is the author or co-author of The Challenger Sale: Taking Control of the Customer Conversation, The Effortless Experience: Conquering the New Battleground for Customer Loyalty, The Challenger Customer: Selling to the Hidden Influencer Who Can Multiply Your Results and The JOLT Effect: How High Performers Overcome Customer Indecision. He co-wrote The Activator Advantage: What Today’s Rainmakers Do Differently with Rory Channer, Karen Freeman and Ted McKenna. Dixon has a PhD from the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh, as well as a bachelor of arts degree in international studies from Mount St. Mary’s University. He and his family currently reside in the Washington, D.C., area.





Source link

How will you celebrate Well-Being Week in Law?


Lawyer Wellness

How will you celebrate Well-Being Week in Law?

The first week of May is an opportunity for a highly stressed profession to take a step back and consider some self-care by celebrating the Well-Being Week in Law.

Created by the Institute for Well-Being in Law, the Well-Being Week in Law was first launched in May 2020 under the name “Lawyer Well-Being Week.” This year, it is being marked from May 5 to May 9, and the ABA is participating to support the campaign and raise awareness about the mental health needs of the profession.

The theme that the IWBL has chosen for 2025 is “The Social Rx: Boosting Well-Being with Connection.” Daily themes throughout the week encourage participants to consider physical, spiritual, intellectual, social and emotional well-being.

The ABA also has its own content to promote wellness. A live 60-minute CLE webinar, “Still Excited to Practice? Moving Beyond Cynicism in Law Firm,” will be offered May 9 at 1 p.m. ET by the Law Practice Division. The event is free for members. Registration is available here.

A number of on-demand CLE programs are also available through the ABA Learning Center. Those and other articles and resources can be found on the Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs’ Well-Being in Law page.





Source link