Conrad & Scherer is a law firm under fire over its human rights litigation against multinational companies.

In December, a federal judge in West Palm Beach found “obstructionist discovery misconduct” and a “patent lack of good faith” in the firm's litigation against Chiquita Brands International Inc.

Before that, U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor in Alabama found sufficient proof of wrongdoing by the firm to allow plaintiff Drummond Company Inc. to invoke the crime-fraud exception to lawyer-client privilege and force Conrad & Scherer to disclose documents about its payments to witnesses.

Then in January, a Florida state appellate court ruled former Conrad & Scherer partner William J. Wichmann could proceed with three of five counterclaims accusing the firm of engaging in illegal activities and committing fraud by concealing that conduct.

That same month, former client-turned-lender, Douglas Von Allmen, filed a motion for sanctions against the firm and its defense counsel in an underlying breach-of-contract suit over an alleged $20 million debt. Von Allmen also has a pending motion asking the court to appoint a receiver to take control of Conrad & Scherer.

“They're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic,” Von Allmen's attorney Paul D. Turner of Perlman Bajandas Yevoli & Albright in Fort Lauderdale said of Conrad & Scherer. “It doesn't matter what you do, the ship is still going to go down.”

Conrad & Scherer is a Fort Lauderdale-based commercial litigation firm whose notable victories include a nearly $44 million verdict last March against Wachovia Mortgage Corp. for a group of investors including retired Miami Dolphins quarterback Dan Marino, billionaire Wayne Huizenga and former AutoNation Inc. executive Michael Maroone. It has also won accolades, including an award from the Daily Business Review in 2016, for recovering millions of dollars for victims of convicted Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein, a disbarred lawyer who once led the 70-attorney labor and employment firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. Among its efforts, Conrad & Scherer shepherded a confidential settlement with Bank of America N.A. on claims the bank knew about the $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme but still referred investors to it in hopes of landing Rothstein's business.

ON FIRM GROUND

Conrad & Scherer denied any wrongdoing in the litigation stemming from its suits against the multinationals.

“When you're involved in highly charged and emotionally charged litigation, oftentimes, there are things that do not reflect the truth but simply reflect different postures that people take,” said defense counsel Bruce Rogow, one of the attorneys named as a defendant in Von Allmen's motion for sanctions. “All of these issues are being litigated, and they're being litigated well. I'm involved in some of them, but there is no feeling by the firm that it has done anything wrong. And it is making clear in all of its pleadings that the firm is and has been on firm ground in all of these actions.”

Some of the litigation against the firm stems from its human rights cases alleging multinational companies — including Chiquita Brands International Inc. and Drummond Co. Inc. — paid Colombian paramilitary groups who killed labor activists and committed other atrocities.

In 2007, Chiquita pleaded guilty and paid a $25 million criminal fine to resolve a Department of Justice investigation into allegations it provided $1.7 million in support to terrorist organizations.

But Conrad & Scherer's attempts to bring civil suits against Chiquita and other companies brought negative attention to the firm and its leaders, and made them litigation targets.

Among the fallout is a pending civil suit by Dummond under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in April 2016, naming Conrad & Scherer, equity partner William Scherer, former partner Terrence Collingsworth and others as defendants.

That suit alleged a six-year extortion conspiracy by the defendants with “a litany of illegal acts, including bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and money laundering.”

One of the docket entries in the long-running litigation is a ruling by Procter against Collingsworth, a former Conrad & Scherer managing partner, who lied about witness payments.

“There's a problem — and it's a big problem. Collingsworth only disclosed three such payments to the court and Drummond,” Procter wrote in a memorandum and order issued in December 2015. “In fact, on multiple occasions he has given sworn testimony that there were only three witnesses paid. And there's another problem. When he finally was forced to admit that there were more than three witnesses paid, he (again under oath) claimed that the reason he didn't disclose the other payments was: 'I forgot.' Quite simply, this almost comedic response is an uncreditable and insufficient rebuttal designed to prevent the application of the crime-fraud exception to certain categories of discovery sought in this case. It fails.”

More recently, Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal allowed former Conrad & Scherer partner William J. Wichmann in January to proceed with three of five counterclaims in a suit by the firm claiming Wichmann “abruptly resigned” in February 2009 and “stealthily” took 120 files, software, original documents and work product with him.

“He's saying he left for good cause,” Wichmann's appellate counsel, Nichole J. Segal of Burlington & Rockenbach in West Palm Beach said after the appellate ruling. “He didn't just pick up and leave in the middle of the night.”

The firm claimed Wichmann concocted his counterclaims only after Drummond raised similar accusations. “It's a wonderful free country. People can say what they want in litigation,” Rogow said. “You just have to forge ahead and do the right thing. And that's what the firm has been doing and will continue to do.”