Legal Victory Re Cochran Firm Fraud

8/9/2019 Legal Victory Re Cochran Firm Fraud

1/23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

LAEL BROWN, LAVERNE WRIGHT-OCHOA,

CHARLES BROWNE and ROBERT WRIGHT

Plaintiffs,

v. // CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10CV110

(Judge Keeley)

ANTHONY PARTIPILO, TODD TERRY and

AMERICA'S CRIMINAL DEFENSE GROUP,

a Professional Law Corporation,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 3)

The def endant s i n t hi s case, Ant hony Par t i pi l o ( Par t i pi l o) ,

Todd Ter r y ( Ter r y) , and Amer i ca s Cr i mi nal Def ense Gr oup

( ACDG) , f i l ed a mot i on t o di smi ss, r el yi ng on Feder al Rul e of

Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 3) and a f or um sel ect i on cl ause i n t hei r

cont r act wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f s, Lael Br own ( Br own) , Laver ne Wr i ght -

Ochoa ( Wr i ght - Ochoa) , Char l es Br owne ( Br owne1) , and Rober t

Wr i ght ( Wr i ght ) . Because t he def endant s an at t or ney, hi s l aw

f i r m, and i t s agent f ai l ed i n t hei r pr of essi onal dut y t o expl ai n

t he f or um sel ecti on cl ause t o t hei r cl i ent s, and because

enf or cement of t he pr ovi si on woul d of f end st r ong pr i nci pl es of

publ i c pol i cy of t he St at e of West Vi r gi ni a, t he Cour t DENIES t he

mot i on t o di smi ss ( dkt . 3) .

1Char l es Br owne spel l s hi s sur name wi t h an e, whi l e hi s son,Lael Br own, does not .

Case 1:10-cv-00110-IMK Document 21 Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 198


2/23


3/23

BROWN, et al. v. PARTIPILO, et al. 1:10CV110

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

Par t i pi l o, i t s Managi ng Di r ect or , i s a member of t he Cal i f or ni a

Bar . 3

Af t er Wr i ght - Ochoa cont act ed ACDG and spoke wi t h Todd Ter r y,

i t s non- at t or ney Case Manager , t he f i r mof f er ed to r epr esent Br own

i n exchange f or a nonr ef undabl e f l at f ee of $27, 900. Br owne,

Wr i ght - Ochoa, and Robert Wr i ght ( Wr i ght - Ochoa s f at her and Lael

Br own s gr andf at her ) pool ed t hei r f unds t o pay thi s f ee and r et ai n

ACDG. ACDG t hen sent copi es of a retai ner agr eement t o al l t hr ee.

Wr i ght si gned one copy of t he cont r act , Wr i ght - Ochoa another .

Char l es Br owne apparent l y never si gned hi s copy of t he cont r act ,

but di d i ni t i al numer ous provi si ons and aut hor i zed sever al payment s

f r om hi s credi t car d. Lael Br own never si gned t he cont r act .

I nst ead, t he si gnat ur e l i ne f or t he cr i mi nal def endant r eads I n

Cust ody.

On J une 18, 2008, t he schedul ed dat e of Br own s pl ea hear i ng,

ACDG contact ed Warman t o advi se her t hat i t had been r et ai ned t o

r epr esent Br own. Fur t her , ACDG s r epr esent at i ve i nst r uct ed Warman

t o request a cont i nuance as i t s counsel had a pr i or engagement i n

3See Lane v. W. Va. St at e Bd. of Law Exami ners, 295 S. E. 2d 670( W. Va. 1982) ( denyi ng admi ss i on t o pr act i ce wi t hout exami nat i on t oCal i f or ni a at t or ney on gr ounds t hat admi ssi on r equi r ement s i nCal i f or ni a ar e not subst ant i al l y the same as West Vi r gi ni a sst andar ds, speci f i cal l y Cal i f or ni a pr ovi si ons al l owi ng st udy atunaccredi t ed or cor r espondence school s) .

3



4/23



f ederal cour t t hat day. Warman conf i r med wi t h Br own t hat he desi r ed

t he repr esent at i on secured by hi s mot her , and, on Warman s r equest ,

t he ci r cui t cour t cont i nued t he case.

Al so on J une 18, ACDG ent er ed i nt o a cont r act wi t h J ohn Br ooks

( Br ooks) , an at t or ney pr act i ci ng i n Monongal i a Count y. Under t hi s

Of Counsel agr eement , Br ooks woul d repr esent Br own i n associ at i on

wi t h ACDG. Br ooks had appar ent l y never wor ked wi t h ACDG bef or e. He

t ook over t he case, however , r eached a pl ea agr eement wi t h the

st at e, and r ecei ved appr oxi mat el y $5, 400 f r om ACDG f or hi s

ser vi ces. ACDG never ent ered an appear ance i n t he case, nor di d

Br ooks make a pr o hac vi ce mot i on on behal f of Par t i pi l o or any

other at t orney f r om ACDG. See West Vi r gi ni a Supr eme Cour t of

Appeal s, Rul e 8. 0, Admi ssi on pr o hac vi ce, Rul es f or Admi ssi on t o

t he Pr act i ce of Law ( 1989) ( as amended) . 4 Fur t hermore, Br ooks never

ent er ed i nt o a separ at e cont r act wi t h Br own or any of hi s

r el at i ves. 5

4Ht t p: / / www. st ate. wv. us/ wvsca/ Bd of Law/ l awpr ac. ht m.

5Br ooks i s not a par t y t o t hi s case, but hi s agr eement t oserve as ACDG s co- counsel cl ear l y cr eat ed an at t or ney- cl i entr el at i onshi p wi t h Br own. Hi s pr of essi onal obl i gat i ons, t her ef or e,wer e no l ess f i r ml y est abl i shed t han t he def endant s .

4



5/23



II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hi s act i on i n t he ci r cui t cour t . The

def endant s r emoved t he case t o thi s Cour t on di ver si t y gr ounds.

J ur i sdi ct i on i s proper as al l pl ai nt i f f s ar e di ver se f r om al l

def endant s, and, based on t he cont r actual and negl i gence cl ai ms

asser t ed and t he pl ai nt i f f s demand f or puni t i ve damages, t he

amount i n cont r over sy exceeds $75, 000.

The compl ai nt asser t s f our causes of act i on. Fi r st , t he

pl ai nt i f f s cl ai mt hat ACDG s websi t e and t he st at ement s by Ter r y t o

Wr i ght - Ochoa f r audul ent l y i nduced t hem i nt o si gni ng t he cont r act ,

and cont ai ned mater i al f al sehoods about t he natur e of ACDG s

busi ness oper at i ons and i t s pot ent i al r epr esent at i on of Lael Br own.

Second, t hey assert t hat t he def endant s br eached t hei r

cont r act by not pr ovi di ng a team of exper i enced at t or neys as

pr omi sed and not pur sui ng a j ur y t r i al . I nst ead, t hey al l ege,

Br ooks r eached t he same pl ea agr eement of f ered t o War man.

Thi r d, t hey seek r ecover y of t he f ees pai d t o ACDG on t he

gr ounds t hat t he char ges were unr easonabl e under t he West Vi r gi ni a

Rul es of Pr of essi onal Conduct . They f ur t her al l ege t hat t he f ees i n

t hi s case were so unconsci onabl e as t o support an award of t hei r

at t or ney s f ees and cost s i n t hi s ci vi l case.

5



6/23



Fi nal l y, t he pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he r epr esent at i on

pr ovi ded by ACDG was negl i gent . Speci f i cal l y, t hey cont end t hat t he

def endant s negl ect ed t hei r dut y t o i nvest i gat e t he case, t o advi se

and consul t wi t h Br ooks, and t o r ai se a ment al i l l ness def ense or

mi t i gat i on argument .

The def endant s seek di smi ssal of t hi s act i on based on a choi ce

of l aw and f or um sel ect i on cl ause i n t he cont r act . Speci f i cal l y,

t he cont r act pr ovi des t hat t he agr eement shal l be i nt er pr et ed

under t he l aws of t he st at e of Cal i f or ni a and j ur i sdi ct i on and

venue shal l be excl usi vel y i n the count y of Los Angel es i n t he

stat e of Cal i f or ni a. ( Dkt . 4- 3 at 2. ) 6

III. CHOICE OF VENUE BY PARTIES AGREEMENT

I n gener al , par t i es may agr ee t o reasonabl e venue pr ovi si ons

i n a cont r act . See Caper t on v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. , 679 S. E. 2d

223, 235 ( W. Va. 2008) ( Whi l e f or umsel ect i on cl auses hi st or i cal l y

wer e di sf avor ed, such i s no l onger t he case, so l ong as t he cl ause

i s f ai r and r easonabl e[ . ] ) ( r ev d on ot her gr ounds, 129 S. Ct . 2252

( 2009) ) . The part i es agr ee t hat , whet her anal yzed under West

6Except as not ed, t he Cour t does not addr ess whetherCal i f or ni a s subst ant i ve l aw wi l l appl y t o t he mer i t s of t hi s case.However , t o the ext ent t hat t he def endant s seek t o evade t he l awsand r ul es r egul at i ng at t or neys i n t hi s st at e, t hey wi l l f i nd nopr ot ect i on i n t hi s Cour t .

6



7/23



Vi r gi ni a, Cal i f or ni a, or f eder al l aw, t he enf or ceabi l i t y of a

choi ce of venue pr ovi si on i s subj ect t o subst ant i al l y i dent i cal

anal ysi s. See Shel don v. Har t , 2010 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 1602, *6

( N. D. W. Va. J an. 8, 2010) ( not i ng i nconsi st ent Four t h Ci r cui t

pr ecedent on choi ce of l aw quest i on, but t hat t est and r esul t ar e

i dent i cal under ei t her West Vi r gi ni a or f eder al

l aw) ( r econsi der at i on deni ed, 2010 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 28769 ( N. D. W. Va.

Mar . 25, 2010) ) . 7

Fi r st , cour t s pr esume t hat a mandat or y f or um sel ect i on

cl ause, 8 i f i t covers al l of the pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms, i s

pr esumpt i vel y enf or ceabl e. Al l en v. Ll oyd s of London, 94 F. 3d 923,

928 ( 4t h Ci r . 1996) . I f t he cl ai ms are cover ed by the cl ause, a

cour t shoul d i nval i dat e such agr eement s onl y

i f ( 1) t hei r f or mat i on was i nduced by f r aud orover r eachi ng; ( 2) t he compl ai ni ng par t y wi l l f or al lpr act i cal pur poses be depr i ved of hi s day i n cour t because of t he gr ave i nconveni ence or unf ai r ness of t hesel ect ed f or um; ( 3) t he f undament al unf ai r ness of t hechosen l aw may depr i ve t he pl ai nt i f f of a remedy; or ( 4)

7 I n Shel don, t hi s Cour t uphel d a cl ause r equi r i ng a pat i entt o br i ng her sui t i n Ger many, wher e, accor di ng t o the f act s i n t he

case, she had t r avel ed t o under go back sur gery.

8Unl i ke t he cont r act l anguage i n t hi s case, some f or umsel ect i on cl auses mer el y pr ovi de t he oppor t uni t y t o l i t i gat e i n achosen j ur i sdi ct i on, wi t hout r est r i ct i ng sui t s el sewher e. These ar eknown as per mi ssi ve, r at her t han mandat or y, f or um sel ect i oncl auses. Caper t on, 679 S. E. 2d at 237.

7



8/23


9/23



Caper t on, 679 S. E. 2d at 236 ( quot i ng i n f ul l Phi l l i ps, 494 F. 3d at

383- 84) ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) . The f i r st f actor whet her t he

cl ause was adequat el y communi cat ed t o t he par t y seeki ng to avoi d

i t s ef f ect has speci al r el evance i n t hi s case, wher e t he cont r act

was dr af t ed and sol i ci t ed by an at t orney who hol ds a dut y to

expl ai n t he pr ovi si ons of such an agr eement t o hi s pot ent i al

cl i ent .

IV. ANALYSIS

A. The forum selection clause is mandatory and covers the

plaintiffs claims.

The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat , despi t e i t s r el at i vel y broad

l anguage, t he f or um sel ect i on cl ause does not cover al l t he cl ai ms

of al l t he pl ai nt i f f s. They ar gue t hat , because Lael Br own and

Char l es Br owne never si gned t he cont r act , i t s provi si ons are

unenf orceabl e agai nst t hem.

However , Lael Br own was t he i nt ended benef i ci ary of t he

cont r act , and t hus subj ect t o i t s t er ms. See Watki ns v. M/ V LONDON

SENATOR, 112 F. Supp. 2d 511, 520 ( E. D. Va. 2000) ( ci t i ng TAAG Li nhas

Aer eas de Angol a v. Tr ansamer i ca Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 915 F. 2d 1351,

1354 ( 9t h Ci r . 1990) ; 4 Cor bi n on Cont r act s 819, p. 277 ( 1951) ) .

Si mi l ar l y, al t hough Char l es Br owne s si gnat ur e does not appear on

t he f i nal page of t he par t i es agr eement , he i ni t i al ed sever al

9



10/23



pr ovi si ons and aut hor i zed payment s f r om hi s credi t car d. Cl ear l y,

as t he pl ai nt i f f s admi t , he mani f est ed hi s assent t o t he agr eement ,

and t hus i s bound by i t s t erms. See Rest at ement ( Second) of

Cont r act s 50 ( 1981) . I ndeed, as t he def endant s not e, i f he wer e

not bound by t he cont r act he woul d have no r i ght t o recover under

i t .

The cl ear l anguage of t he cont r act at i ssue est abl i shes t hat

excl usi ve j ur i sdi ct i on woul d be vest ed i n t he cour t s of Cal i f or ni a.

Accor di ngl y, t he cl ause i s a mandat or y, not per mi ssi ve, f or um

sel ect i on pr ovi si on.

Fi nal l y, al t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s asser t cl ai ms i n t or t and

cont r act, al l of t hei r causes of acti on ar i se f r om t he f or mat i on

and per f ormance of t he agr eement . Accor di ngl y, t here can be no

col or abl e debat e t hat t he mandat or y f or umsel ect i on cl ause appl i es

t o t he ent i r et y of t he compl ai nt .

B. The forum selection clause was not procured through fraud.

The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he cl ause must be di sr egar ded

because ACDG and i t s agent s f r audul ent l y i nduced t hem i nt o t he

agr eement . The def endant s cor r ect l y not e t hat , f or a f or um

sel ecti on cl ause t o be i nval i d f or f r aud, t he cl ause i t sel f , not

t he agr eement , must have been so nef ar i ousl y obt ai ned. Scher k v.

Al ber t o- Cul ver Co. , 417 U. S. 506, 519 ( 1974) ; Shel don, 2010 U. S.

10



11/23



Di st . LEXI S 1602 at *5. Al t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he

cl ause was i nadequat el y expl ai ned t o t hem, see I V- B, i nf r a, t hey

pr oduce no evi dence that t he def endant s act i vel y mi sr epr esent ed or

conceal ed t he pr ovi si on. Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t wi l l not set t he

cl ause asi de on t hi s basi s.

C. Litigation in California would not deny the plaintiffs a remedy.

Nor may t he Cour t di sr egar d t he f or um sel ect i on cl ause based

on t he second or t hi r d Al l en f act or s. Al t hough br i ngi ng sui t i n Los

Angel es mi ght pr ove di f f i cul t or mor e expensi ve f or t he pl ai nt i f f s,

t hey do not set f or t h any speci f i c r easons why such a r est r i ct i on

woul d f or al l pr act i cal pur poses deny t hem t he chance t o pur sue

t hei r cl ai ms. The Br emen, 407 U. S. at 18. Mere i nconveni ence wi l l

not suf f i ce t o i nval i dat e a f or um sel ect i on cl ause. See Baker v.

Adi das Amer i ca, I nc. , 335 Fed. Appx. 356 ( 4t h Ci r .

2009) ( unpubl i shed) ( hol di ng Nor t h Car ol i na col l ege st udent t o

agr eement t o l i t i gat e i n Amst er dam) . Nor do t he pl ai nt i f f s

est abl i sh t hat Cal i f or ni a s subst ant i ve l aw i s so unf ai r as t o deny

t hem a r emedy.

D. The defendants failed to adequately communicate the nature of

the forum selection clause to the plaintiffs.

The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he l anguage of t he f or umsel ect i on

and choi ce of l aw pr ovi si ons i n t hei r cont r act i s not suf f i ci ent l y

11



12/23



cl ear t o put a l ay reader on not i ce t hat he woul d be bar r ed f r om

br i ngi ng sui t anywher e out si de of Cal i f or ni a. Fur t her , t hey ar gue

t hat , unl i ke sever al ot her pr ovi si ons i n t he cont r act , t he f or um

sel ect i on cl ause di d not r equi r e t he si gner t o pl ace hi s i ni t i al s

besi de t hat par agr aph. Fi nal l y, t hey cont end t hat , i n t he cont ext

of an at t or ney- cl i ent cont r act , t he l awyer has a pr of essi onal

obl i gat i on t o ensur e t hat hi s pot ent i al cl i ent f ul l y under st ands

each pr ovi si on.

The provi si on i s not i nher ent l y mi sl eadi ng, nor i s i t set i n

l ess conspi cuous t ext t han t he r emai nder of t he cont r act . I t i s

not , however , wr i t t en i n t he t ype of pl ai n Engl i sh t hat a l awyer

coul d r easonabl y assume any cr i mi nal def endant or hi s f ami l y woul d

under st and wi t hout expl anat i on. The wor ds j ur i sdi ct i on and venue,

whi l e not ambi guous, are not i n common usage out si de of t he l egal

wor l d. Moreover , t he apparent f ai l ur e of any ACDG at t orney t o

expl ai n t he cont r act and t he pl ai nt i f f s aver ment s t hat none of

t hemunder st ood t he pr ovi si on s consequences suppor t s a concl usi on

t hat t he pr ovi si on was not adequat el y communi cat ed t o the

pl ai nt i f f s. Under t he f i r st el ement of Caper t on, t her ef or e, t he

cl ause must be set asi de.

When negot i at i ng a cont r act f or r epr esent at i on, an at t or ney

necessar i l y has a conf l i ct of i nt er est . The l awyer i s desi r ous of

12



13/23



f ai r compensat i on f or hi s servi ces, but must keep i n mi nd t hat ,

even at t he out set of t he r el at i onshi p, he i s al so hi s cl i ent s

f i duci ar y. Thus, t he l awyer must car ef ul l y ensur e t hat t he cl i ent

under st ands t he nat ur e of t he cont r act and t he r epr esent at i on. See

Rest at ement ( 3d) of t he Law Governi ng Lawyer s, 18, cmt . d ( 2000)

( [ The] l aw pr ot ect s cl i ent s who ent er i nt o such cont r act s) ( ci t i ng

Rest atement ( 2d) of Agency, 390, cmt . e ( 1958) ( [ I ] n t he case of

at t or ney and cl i ent , t he creat i on of t he r el at i on i nvol ves pecul i ar

t r ust and conf i dence, wi t h r el i ance by the pr i nci pal upon f ai r

deal i ng by t he agent [ . ] . . . [ T] he at t or ney i s under a dut y t o

deal f ai r l y wi t h t he pr i nci pal i n ar r angi ng t he t er ms of t he

empl oyment . ) ) .

I n Fal k & Fi sh, L. L. P. v. Pi nkst on s Lawnmower and Equi pment ,

I nc. , 317 S. W. 3d 523 ( Tex. App- Dal l as, J ul y 20, 2010) , t he Texas

Cour t of Appeal s i nval i dat ed a f or umsel ect i on cl ause i n a cont r act

bet ween a Texas l aw f i r m and Nor t h Car ol i na busi ness. I n t he

cont r act , t he f i r m i nser t ed t he f ol l owi ng l anguage: [ y] ou agr ee

our r el at i onshi p and our agr eement i s cont r ol l ed by Texas l aw, and

t he appl i cabl e cour t s of Dal l as, Texas shal l be t he f or a [ si c] f or

al l at t or ney- cl i ent di sput es. I d. at 526- 537 ( br acket s and

modi f i cat i ons i n or gi nal ) . The wor ds f or a appar ent l y wer e

i nt ended t o r ead f or um, or per haps t he pl ur al f or a. The Cour t

13



14/23



hel d t hat t he l aw f i r mwas r equi r ed t o expl ai n t he cont r act and any

pr ovi si ons di ver gi ng f r oma r easonabl e cl i ent s expect at i ons. I d.

at 529 ( quot i ng Rest at ement ( 3d) of t he Law Governi ng Lawyer s, 18

cmt . h. ) . An at t or ney s obl i gat i ons when negot i at i ng hi s cont r act

ar e di f f er ent f r om any ot her busi nessman s i n an ar ms- l engt h

t r ansact i on:

An at t or ney has a speci al r esponsi bi l i t y t o mai nt ai n t he

hi ghest st andar ds of conduct and f ai r deal i ng whencont r act i ng wi t h a cl i ent or ot her wi se t aki ng a posi t i onadver se t o the cl i ent ' s i nt er est s. To pl ace t he bur den ofcl ar i f yi ng at t or ney- cl i ent agr eement s on t he at t or ney i sj ust i f i ed, not onl y by t he at t or ney' s great er knowl edgeand exper i ence wi t h r espect t o such agr eement s, but al soby t he t r ust t he cl i ent has pl aced i n t he at t or ney.

I d. at 528 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The cour t f ur t her hel d t hat t he

pr ovi si on s enf orcement woul d be unr easonabl e or unj ust gi ven t he

ci r cumst ances. The cont r act cont empl at ed repr esent at i on of a Nor t h

Carol i na company i n t hat st ate, by an at t orney who, al t hough

l ocat ed i n Texas, was l i censed t o pr act i ce i n Nor t h Car ol i na. I d.

at 530.

Her e, no at t or ney f r om ACDG expl ai ned t he cont r act t o the

pl ai nt i f f s. I n f act , assumi ng i t f el t i t had any such dut y, i t

appear s t hat t he f i r m del egat ed t hat r esponsi bi l i t y t o i t s non-

at t orney Case Manager , Ter r y. Even he, however , di d not expl ai n

14



15/23



what t he choi ce of l aw and venue pr ovi si ons woul d mean i n the event

of a di sput e.

The def endant s r el y on t he f ol l owi ng l anguage near t he end of

t hei r cont r act wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f s t o est abl i sh t hat any f ai l ur e t o

under st and t he agr eement i s t he cl i ent s r esponsi bi l i t y:

Pl ease r ead t hi s agr eement car ef ul l y. I t i s i mpor t antt hat our agr eement be total l y compl et e and t hat t heunder si gned under st ands ever yt hi ng bef or e si gni ng. I f you

have any quest i ons r egardi ng t hi s agr eement now i s t het i me t o ask. Once thi s agr eement has been si gned i t wi l lbe concl uded t hat t he undersi gned compl etel y underst andsi t .

( Dkt . 4- 2 at 2. ( emphasi s i n or gi nal ) . ) A l awyer i s f r ee t o dr af t

such excul pat or y l anguage f or a cl i ent , but not t o shi el d hi msel f

wi t h t he l egal f i ct i on t hat , by si gni ng a document , hi s cl i ent

act ual l y under st ands each pr ovi si on. He cannot di scl ai mhi s bur den

t o expl ai n t he agr eement t o t he l ay cl i ent .

The def endant s urge t he Cour t t o i nt er pret t hi s cont r act as i t

woul d any ot her agr eement t o pr ovi de ser vi ces. To do so, however ,

woul d i gnor e bot h t he i nher ent l y unequal nat ur e of t he par t i es

posi t i ons and t he dut y of a l awyer t o ensur e hi s cl i ent under st ands

t he t er ms of t he pr ospect i ve r epr esent at i on. Because ACDG,

Par t i pi l o, and Ter r y f ai l ed i n t hi s dut y, t hey f ai l ed t o

r easonabl y communi cat e t he f or um sel ect i on cl ause t o t he

15



16/23



pl ai nt i f f s. Caper t on, 679 S. E. 2d at 236. Accor di ngl y, t he

pl ai nt i f f s ar e not bound by i t s t er ms.

E. The clause violates West Virginia public policy.

Even i f t he cl ause had been adequatel y expl ai ned, t he

agr eement as wr i t t en woul d pr ecl ude West Vi r gi ni a cour t s f r om

super vi si ng and sanct i oni ng t he conduct of at t or neys pr act i ci ng l aw

wi t hi n t he st at e. To condone such evasi on woul d subst ant i al l y

under mi ne t hi s st at e s abi l i t y t o pr ot ect i t s ci t i zens f r om

unscrupul ous i nt er l oper s pr omi si ng unr eal i st i c r esul t s.

I n or der t o pr ot ect t he publ i c f r om bei ng advi sed andr epr esent ed i n l egal mat t er s by unqual i f i ed andundi sci pl i ned per sons over whomt he cour t s coul d exer ci sel i t t l e, i f any, cont r ol , onl y dul y- l i censed per sonsmeet i ng t he qual i f i cat i ons f or admi ssi on t o t he bar

est abl i shed by t hi s Cour t ar e per mi t t ed t o pr act i ce l awi n t hi s St at e.

St at e ex r el . Fr i eson v. I sner , 285 S. E. 2d 641, 650 ( W. Va. 1981) ;

see al so Bat es v. St ate Bar of Ar i zona, 433 U. S. 350, 361

( 1977) ( [ T] he r egul at i on of t he act i vi t i es of t he bar i s at t he

cor e of t he St at e' s power t o pr ot ect t he publ i c. ) . Al t hough ACDG

never pr oper l y sought pr o hac vi ce admi ssi on i n t he ci r cui t cour t ,

al l pr act i ce of l aw, whet her aut hor i zed or not , 9 i s subj ect t o t he

9ACDG and Part i pi l o may have addi t i onal l y vi ol ated W. Va. Code 30- 2- 4 ( unaut hor i zed pr act i ce of l aw) .

16



17/23



over si ght of t he Supr eme Cour t of Appeal s of West Vi r gi ni a, bot h

di r ect l y and t hr ough t he West Vi r gi ni a St at e Bar , 10 and must compl y

wi t h t he West Vi r gi ni a Rul es of Pr of essi onal Conduct . Al t hough t he

def endant s ar gue st r enuousl y t hat t hi s act i on has no r el at i on t o

t he Supr eme Cour t s aut hor i t y to r egul at e t he bar , t he r i ght of a

pr i vat e i ndi vi dual t o seek r edr ess f or i nadequat e repr esent at i on

const i t ut es an i mpor t ant par t of a mul t i f acet ed st at ut or y,

admi ni st r at i ve and j udi ci al scheme r egul at i ng at t or neys. Cf . W. Va.

St at e Bar v. Ear l ey, 109 S. E. 2d. 420, 429 ( W. Va. 1959) ( cr i mi nal

penal t i es f or unaut hor i zed pr act i ce of l aw suppl ement , but do not

r epl ace, cour t s equi t abl e power t o enj oi n such pr act i ce) .

I n Del aware CWC Li qui dat i on Corp. v. Mart i n, 584 S. E. 2d 473

( W. Va. 2003) , t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat a cl i ent s assi gnment of

a l egal mal pr acti ce cl ai m agai nst hi s at t or ney i s cont r ar y t o

publ i c pol i cy and voi d as a mat t er of l aw. Most cour t s vi ew t he

uni que per sonal natur e of t he r el at i onshi p bet ween an at t orney and

hi s cl i ent t o be t he most compel l i ng publ i c pol i cy r eason f or

10The of f i ci al Bar i s a l egi sl at i ve cr eat i on wi t hi n t hepr ovi nce of t he Supr eme Cour t i n i t s admi ni st r at i ve capaci t y. W.Va. Code 51- 1- 4a. [ T] he West Vi r gi ni a St at e Bar , as anadmi ni st r at i ve ar m of t he Supr eme Cour t of Appeal s, i s subj ect t ot he excl usi ve cont r ol and super vi si on of t he Supr eme Cour t ofAppeal s[ . ] Dai l y Gazet t e Co. v. Commi t t ee on Legal Et hi cs, 326S. E. 2d. 705 ( W. Va. 1984) .

17



18/23



pr ohi bi t i ng t he assi gnment of l egal mal pr act i ce cl ai ms. I d. at 477

( ci t i ng, i nt er al i a, MNC Cr edi t Cor p. v. Si ckel s, 497 S. E. 2d 331,

334 ( Va. 1998) ( pr ohi bi t i ng such assi gnment s saf eguards t he

at t or ney- cl i ent r el at i onshi p whi ch i s an i ndi spensabl e component of

our adver sar i al syst em of j ust i ce) ) . The Supr eme Cour t not ed t hat

one of i t s uni que f unct i ons i nvol ves t he r egul at i on of t hat speci al

r el at i onshi p. Del awar e CWC Li qui dat i on Cor p. , 584 S. E. 2d at 478

( Ther ef or e, i n consi der i ng whet her l egal mal pr act i ce cl ai ms shoul d

be assi gnabl e, t hi s Cour t i s ever mi ndf ul of i t s r ol e i n ensur i ng

t hat t he sancti t y of t hi s conf i dent i al r el at i onshi p i s pr eser ved

and pr ot ect ed. ) ; see al so Sheet z, I nc. v. Bowl es Ri ce McDavi d

Gr af f & Love, PLLC, 547 S. E. 2d 256 ( W. Va. 2001) ( answer i ng cer t i f i ed

quest i ons f r om t hi s Cour t i n at t or ney mal pr act i ce case) .

The st at e Supr eme Cour t s r esponsi bi l i t y and aut hor i t y i n t hi s

ar ea has bot h const i t ut i onal and anci ent under pi nni ngs. I n Fr i eson,

J ust i ce McGr aw t r aced t he cour t s i nher ent power t o r egul at e t he

bar f r om i t s common- l aw sour ces:

I n t he Engl i sh t r adi t i on, cont r ol over t he bar becamevest ed i n t he cour t s by i mpr ovi sat i on r at her t han bydesi gn. Cour t s wer e t he sol e det er mi ner s of who woul d

appear bef or e t hem as at t or neys, t hat i s, as agent s f orot her s and of f i cer s of t he cour t . I n 1292, Edwar d Idi r ect ed t he j udges of t he Common Bench t o sel ectappr oxi matel y 140 men t o f ol l ow t he cour t , l eavi ng t heexact number t o t hei r good j udgment . I n 1403, j udges werei nst r uct ed t o exami ne al l at t or neys and appoi nt onl y

18



19/23



qual i f i ed men t o appear bef or e t hem, whi l e t hose gui l t y

of i mpr oper conduct wer e di squal i f i ed. Si mi l ar pr ovi si onsf or t he del egat i on of t he power t o di sci pl i ne and admi tt o pr act i ce wer e made thr oughout Engl i sh j udi ci alhi st or y.

. . .

Amer i can cour t s adopt ed the cust omary pr act i ce of t heEngl i sh j udi ci ar y i n exer ci si ng cont r ol over t he pr act i ceof l aw. The t r adi t i onal power began t o be i nt er pr et ed asi nher ent i n t he j udi ci ary based on i mmemor i al cust omandwhat t he cour t s i nt er pr et ed as t he pr act i cal necessi t i es

of t he t r i chot omous separ at i on of power s. Theconst i t ut i onal di vi si on of power s was not par t of t heEngl i sh const i t ut i on, maki ng t he Engl i sh j udi ci ar y' st r adi t i onal cont r ol over t he bar t o be of l i mi t edr el evance i n t hi s count r y. On t hi s basi s t he Amer i cancour t s cl ai med t hat mat t er s nat ur al l y wi t hi n t he or bi t ofa part i cul ar depart ment of gover nment wer e i nher ent l ysubj ect t o t he aut hor i t y of t hat depar t ment unl essl i mi t ed by t he exi st ence of a si mi l ar power i n anot herdepar t ment or by expr ess const i t ut i onal pr ovi si on. Thus,hi st or i cal t r adi t i on deci ded t hat t he power t o r egul at et he pr act i ce of l aw was one nat ur al l y wi t hi n t he or bi t of

t he j udi ci ar y as necessar y t o i t s sur vi val and t her ef or ean i nherent power .

Fr i eson, 285 S. E. 2d at 648 n. 1 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Mor e r ecent l y,

t he f r amer s of t he Const i t ut i on of t he St at e of West Vi r gi ni a

expr essl y i mbued t he Supr eme Cour t wi t h t he i ndi sput abl e and

excl usi ve aut hor i t y t o def i ne, r egul at e and cont r ol t he pr act i ce of

l aw i n West Vi r gi ni a. I d. at 648 ( ci t i ng St er n Br os. I nc. v.

McCl ur e, 236 S. E. 2d 222 ( 1977) ; W. Va. Const . ar t . 8, 3) ; see

al so W. Va. Code 51- 1- 4a ( The i nher ent r ul e- maki ng power of t he

supr eme cour t of appeal s i s her eby decl ar ed. ) .

19



20/23



Thi s Cour t must consi der t he publ i c pol i cy of West Vi r gi ni a as

i nt er pr et ed by the Supr eme Cour t of Appeal s. Appl yi ng t he pol i ci es

set f or t h by t hat body, any at t or ney wi l l i ng t o under t ake t o

r epr esent a cr i mi nal def endant i n West Vi r gi ni a must make hi msel f

avai l abl e t o answer f or hi s act i ons, or i nact i on, i n t he cour t s of

t hi s st at e, whet her i n t he cont ext of a di sci pl i nar y pr oceedi ng or

i n a ci vi l sui t t o be t r i ed bef or e a j ur y of West Vi r gi ni a

ci t i zens.

The Cour t need not hol d i n t hi s case t hat a f or um sel ect i on

cl ause i n an at t or ney- cl i ent cont r act coul d never be enf or ced. I n

a commer ci al or ot her wi se sophi st i cat ed cont r act , per haps i nvol vi ng

r epr esent at i on i n mul t i pl e j ur i sdi ct i ons or no appear ance i n a West

Vi r gi ni a cour t , t he par t i es mi ght r easonabl y agr ee t o r esol ve any

di sput es i n a di f f er ent ar ena. See, e. g. , XR Co. v. Bl ock &

Bal est r i , P. C. , 44 F. Supp. 2d 1296 ( S. D. Fl a. 1999) ( uphol di ng f or um

sel ect i on cl ause dr af t ed by Texas l aw f i r m i n sui t by Fl or i da

cor por at i on r egar di ng f i r m s r epr esent at i on dur i ng cor por at i on s

acqui si t i on of publ i cl y t r aded company) . 11

11Cf . Del aware CWC Li qui dat i on Corp. , 584 S. E. 2d at 479( Al t hough a mi nor i t y of j ur i sdi ct i ons per mi t mal pr act i ce act i onassi gnment s i n some commer ci al cont ext s, t he Cour t decl i ned t odi st i ngui sh bet ween t ypes of r epr esent at i on, hol di ng si mpl y thatassi gnment s of l egal mal pr act i ce cl ai ms vi ol at ed the publ i c pol i cyof t he st at e) .

20



21/23



I n Gi nt er ex rel . Bal l ar d v. Bel cher , Pr ender gast & Lapor t e,

536 F. 3d 439 ( 5t h Ci r . 2008) , t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t uphel d a f or um

sel ect i on cl ause i n an at t or ney- cl i ent agr eement r el at ed t o t he

adopt i on, by Sout h Car ol i na ci t i zens, of a chi l d bor n i n Loui si ana.

I n t hat case, however , t he Loui si ana at t or ney per suasi vel y ar gued

t hat t he bi r t h, adopt i on, and r el at ed l egal pr oceedi ngs necessar i l y

t ook pl ace i n Loui si ana. 12

Here, ACDG and i t s agent s agreed t o repr esent Lael Br own i n a

cr i mi nal mat t er i n West Vi r gi ni a. Thi s under t aki ng i s of

const i t ut i onal di mensi ons and i mpl i cat es a cor e f unct i on of t he

j udi ci al syst em, t he provi si on of ef f ect i ve r epresentat i on t o al l

charged wi t h cr i mi nal conduct . See Rul e 44, Ri ght t o and Assi gnment

of Counsel , W. Va. Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e (1981, as

amended) ( i mpl ement i ng Gi deon v. Wai nwr i ght , 372 U. S. 335 ( 1963) ) .

J ust as al l owi ng t he assi gnment of mal pract i ce act i ons vi ol at es t he

publ i c pol i cy of t hi s St at e, so t oo woul d al l owi ng an at t or ney t o

avoi d t he scrut i ny of West Vi r gi ni a s cour t s af t er pur por t i ng t o

pr ovi de t hi s t ype of r epr esent at i on.

12The Gi nt er Cour t r ej ect ed t he ar gument , al so advanced by t hepl ai nt i f f s i n t hi s case, t hat a f or umsel ecti on cl ause oper at es asan i mper mi ssi bl e l i mi t at i on on a l awyer s l i abi l i t y. The Cour tagr ees t hat mer el y desi gnat i ng an al t er nat i ve f or umf or r esol ut i onof a mal pr act i ce cl ai m does not vi ol at e t hi s pr ohi bi t i on.

21



22/23



CONCLUSION

To enf or ce t he f or umsel ect i on cl ause i n t hi s case woul d al l ow

a Cal i f or ni a at t or ney, hi s l aw f i r m, and i t s agent s t o engage i n

t he pr act i ce of l aw i n West Vi r gi ni a and r ecei ve a f ee wi t hout

expl ai ni ng t hei r cont r act t o t hei r cl i ent s, and wi t hout ent er i ng a

pr oper appearance i n a cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng. They seek t o avoi d ever

f aci ng a West Vi r gi ni a j udge or j ur y to answer al l egat i ons of

f r aud, mal pr act i ce, and br each of cont r act . The enf or cement of such

a pr ovi si on i n t hi s cont ext woul d vi ol at e t he st r ong publ i c pol i cy

of West Vi r gi ni a hol di ng al l at t or neys who pr act i ce i n t hi s st at e

account abl e f or t hei r pr of essi onal act i ons. Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t

DENIES t he mot i on t o di smi ss. 13

I t i s so ORDERED.

13At l east one non- r esi dent def endant unsuccessf ul l y per si st edi n at t empt i ng t o avoi d t he West Vi r gi ni a cour t s even af t er i t sf orum sel ect i on cl ause was decl ared unenf orceabl e. I n Woodmen oft he Wor l d Li f e I ns. Soc. v. Yel i ch, 549 N. W. 2d 172 ( Neb. 1996) , ani nsur ance company had moved t o di smi ss a wr ongf ul t ermi nat i on sui tf i l ed agai nst i t i n a West Vi r gi ni a ci r cui t cour t . That cour t ,appl yi ng Nebr aska l aw, deni ed t he mot i on, hol di ng t hat t he f or um

sel ect i on cl ause was unr easonabl e. Undet er r ed, t he i nsur ancecompany f i l ed a decl aratory j udgment act i on i n Nebr aska, seeki ng ar ul i ng t hat t he cl ause was, on t he cont r ar y, val i d and enf or ceabl e.The Supreme Cour t of Nebraska hel d t hat t hi s at t empt t o ci r cumventa potent i al l y unf avorabl e r ul i ng was i mper mi ssi bl e wher e t he WestVi r gi ni a cour t had al r eady r ul ed on t he quest i on at i ssue i n t hedecl ar at or y j udgment act i on. I d. at 176.

22



23/23



The Cour t di r ect s t he Cl er k t o t r ansmi t copi es of t hi s Or der

t o counsel of r ecor d.

DATED: Oct ober 8, 2010.

/ s/ I r ene M. Keel eyI RENE M. KEELEYUNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE

23


Legal Victory Re Cochran Firm Fraud

Documents

Transcript of Legal Victory Re Cochran Firm Fraud