Florida Firms Slammed With $9.2M Sanctions in Tobacco Litigation
The firms filed tobacco cases on behalf of people who had never even smoked, judges found.
October 20, 2017 at 03:14 PM
4 minute read
Federal judges sanctioned two Florida law firms nearly $9.2 million for filing baseless tobacco lawsuits, calling it “unprofessional conduct committed on such a grand scale.”
Jacksonville firms Farah & Farah and the Wilner Firm were scolded Wednesday by four judges for filing more than 1,000 frivolous Engle-progeny smoker litigation cases, some on behalf of people who never smoked. The judges also directed the Florida Bar to investigate the firm's leaders, Charlie “Chuck” Farah and Norwood “Woody” Wilner.
The court is “aware that the monetary sanction it imposes is significant, and perhaps unprecedented,” wrote U.S. District Judges William Young, Timothy Corrigan, Marcia Morales Howard and Roy Dalton. “Equally unprecedented is a lawyer filing 1,250 frivolous lawsuits, followed by years of maintaining those cases through obfuscation and recalcitrance.”
The ruling came after a seven-month investigation by court-appointed special master and acting U.S. Attorney W. Stephen Muldrow of the Middle District of Florida and related findings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
When the Florida Supreme Court disbanded the Engle statewide smoker class action in 2006, individual smokers had a year to file their own cases. Wilner “scrambled” to contact 7,000 people who reached out to him about suing tobacco companies since 1995, according to the judges' order. He couldn't reach them all by the filing deadline, so Wilner and Farah filed 3,700 actions to preserve the cases — even if they hadn't spoken to the plaintiffs in years.
Wilner told federal judges in 2011 that he had been in touch with all the clients in the past six months. The next year, the court sent questionnaires to the plaintiffs and found more than 500 of them died before their cases were filed. One had been dead for 29 years. Others did not smoke or did not live in Florida, minimum requirements for Engle actions.
“If we did not cite Wilner and Farah for unprofessional conduct committed on such a grand scale, how could we continue to insist upon professionalism in our other cases?” the judges wrote in their 148-page order. “If this egregious conduct went unchecked, what deterrent would there be for other lawyers in future cases from taking the same approach?”
Wilner and Farah did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Wilner is best-known for winning the Carter v. Brown & Williamson case, the first U.S. smoker verdict to be affirmed on appeal. He was previously investigated by the Florida Bar, which found no probable cause to discipline him, but the judges said the bar should give it a second shot now that more information has come to light.
The judges found Wilner took the lead in pursuing the frivolous cases, but both firms will be on the hook for the nearly $9.2 million in sanctions. The amount will come out of the firms' portion of $39 million in attorney fees the court is holding in escrow.
The fees were set as part of a federal Engle settlement totaling $100 million with Lorillard Tobacco Co., Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. After the subtraction for sanctions, the money will be divided among various plaintiffs firms, including those not involved in the frivolous lawsuits.
The panel called imposing sanctions “an unpleasant task” and said it was “fatigued from managing the federal Engle docket since 2008.”
“While $9,164,404.12 is a large number, it is that large only because of the breathtaking scale of Wilner's and Farah's wrongdoing,” the judges wrote. “To impose a lesser sanction only because the end figure seems too high perversely would give counsel a break precisely because they advocated such a vast number of frivolous lawsuits. That cannot be. Such a monetary sanction is necessary to compensate the public and to deter other lawyers from engaging in similarly outrageous conduct in the future.”
Young is a district judge in Massachusetts who is recognized nationally for his studies on federal court productivity, and the other three judges are based in Jacksonville.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
3 minute readFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250