Four women who claimed injuries from transvaginal mesh medical devices alleged in a legal-malpractice lawsuit that their attorneys and law firms botched their cases by missing filing deadlines, hid the mistake and lumped them into aggregate settlements.

And in a twist, one of the malpractice defendants is suing the plaintiffs attorneys, alleging they stole trade-secret client lists, improperly solicited the pelvic mesh clients and publicly revealed confidential settlements in violation of court orders.

The legal-malpractice lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and the trade-secrets case was filed in Wharton County, Texas, District Court. Now they're in the same venue because the second lawsuit was removed to federal court Wednesday.

In the first case, Alvarado v. Clark, Love & Hutson, four women from Georgia, California and Indiana alleged breach of fiduciary duty and fraud by nondisclosure against Houston attorneys Clayton Clark, Scott Love, Shelley Hutson, their firm Clark, Love & Hutson, lawyers James Lee Jr. and Erin Murphy, and their firm Lee & Murphy Law Firm.

The defendants were handling 26,000 transvaginal mesh cases, and the complaint alleged they missed the statute-of-limitations window for hundreds and possibly thousands of cases. Rather than telling the clients about the problem, the complaint said the women's attorneys lumped their cases into aggregate settlements totaling nearly $1 billion dollars but never told the women their claims were time-barred.

The complaint alleged Clark Love served short-form complaints to pelvic-mesh manufacturers for thousands of cases but missed the court-ordered filing deadline in multidistrict litigation. Instead, the firm filed lawsuits listing up to 90 plaintiffs in state courts, and manufacturer-defendants removed them to federal court and transferred them to MDL dockets, where they waited for an extended time. Clark Love used the delay to negotiate settlements for their clients, including the time-barred claims,  the complaint alleged.

In the end, the law firms settled 15,000 to 20,000 cases with four manufacturers in aggregate settlements worth $750 million to $1 billion and didn't inform their clients or the court that time-barred claims were in the bunch, said the complaint. It alleged the defendants received $250 million to $330 million in attorney fees from the bulk settlements.

The four plaintiffs said they received only $11,000 to $69,000 once they paid costs and attorney fees out of their settlements. If their claims were not time-barred, they could have proceeded to trial, where plaintiffs have been recovering an average of $20.9 million, they claimed.

Dale Jefferson, partner in Martin, Disiere, Jefferson & Wisdom in Houston, who represents Clark Love and its three attorneys, said the defendants deny the allegations.

“One of the complaints is the allegation that somehow or another a bunch of our clients had blown statutes of limitations, which completely ignores the fact that we've had private tolling of limits with the mesh manufacturing defendants,” Jefferson said. “These settlements were fair and reasonable.”

Don Jackson, partner in Ware, Jackson, Lee, O'Neill, Smith & Barrow in Houston, who represents Lee & Murphy and its two attorneys, didn't immediately return a call or email seeking comment by deadline.

Tables Turned

About two weeks after the women sued, Clark Love filed a lawsuit against the Alvarado plaintiffs attorneys, Jim Beggs, Lynda Landers, and their firm Beggs Landers Law Firm.

The July 1 petition in Clark, Love & Hutson v. Beggs alleged the defendants used its confidential client lists to solicit clients to sue Clark Love. Beggs Landers used wrongful, unlawful and prohibited client advertising and solicitations, and it constitutes tortious interference with Clark love's contracts and business relationships, the complaint said. The firm also alleges violations of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act and civil conspiracy.

The petition alleged improper advertisements were mailed to clients, and they violate attorney disciplinary rules by failing to label it as an ad, disclose the lawyer responsible for the ad, tell where the firm is located and more.

Some Clark Love clients who received the ads were never identified in public filings, and Beggs Landers couldn't have known who they were or how to contact them unless they had Clark Love's client lists, the lawsuit said. It claims the defendants somehow got the lists by improper means.

On July 1, Wharton County's 23rd District Court granted Clark Love a temporary restraining order requiring Beggs Landers to stop sending ads to and soliciting employment by Clark Love clients. The court also restrained Beggs Landers from disclosing or using Clark Love's trade secrets for any purpose or acquiring new trade secret information.

On Wednesday, Beggs Landers and its attorneys removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

“Instead of placing their focus on defending the allegations set forth in Alvarado, plaintiffs filed suit in Wharton County against the attorneys of the clients, where neither defendants or plaintiffs reside, and immediately obtained a temporary restraining order which prevents defendants from advertising for clients in violation of the First Amendment,” the notice of removal alleged.

In an interview, Beggs and Landers denied the allegations that they obtained Clark Love's client lists and improperly solicited and advertised to clients.

“All of those things in the pleadings are supported by public record,” Landers said. “It's either from our clients, or public record. … We don't have any kind of list.”