Kenneth Canfield of Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, Atlanta, enters the Richard B. Russell Federal Courthouse in Atlanta on July 22, 2019. (Photo: John Disney/ALM)

Lawyers who hammered out a $1.4 billion class settlement with Equifax over a 2017 data breach are slamming objectors who they contend will postpone compensation to 147 million people whose financial data was stolen.

In two pleadings filed this week, the consumers' lead counsel and liaison counsel excoriated two pro se "serial objectors" and urged U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Thrash of the Northern District of Georgia to deny what they described as financially self-serving motions.

Class lawyers said notices from objectors stating their intent to pursue challenges to the Equifax settlement will significantly delay the distribution of cash benefits to consumers, deprive millions of class members of free credit monitoring and protection services, and postpone independent supervision of Equifax's current data security practices and a promised $1 billion in security upgrades.

In his final order approving the consumer class settlement in January, Thrash named two pro se objectors targeted in the plaintiffs counsel's Feb. 24 filings—Michigan resident Christopher Andrews and Tampa, Florida, attorney John Davis. Thrash found their objections were not in the best interest of the class and that there was "no substantial likelihood" they could successfully weather an appeal.

Ken Canfield of Atlanta's Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles; Norman Siegal of Stueve Siegel Hanson in Kansas City, Missouri; and Amy Keller of DiCello Levitt Gutzler in Chicago are co-lead counsel for the consumer class.

Andrews and Davis have suggested in prior court pleadings that consumer class lawyers were behind Thrash's takedown of what the judge labeled as "professional objectors."

In the settlement order, Thrash also took on prominent class action critic Ted Frank, a Washington, D.C., attorney who also notified the court that he intends to appeal the settlement and its $77.5 million in legal fees for class counsel. Thrash said Frank circulated misleading information about the proposed settlement, a finding Frank has denied.

In a Feb. 24 pleading, class lawyers also called Andrews' appeal notice "little more than an ad hominem attack on class counsel, the court, and the other participants in the settlement process" that "does not clearly identify either the redress he seeks on his own behalf or the issues he intends to pursue on appeal."

Class lawyers said Andrews threatened them professionally with retaliatory amicus filings alleging fraud and unethical conduct in cases they are currently litigating or might take on in the future.

They also urged Thrash to deny Andrews' motion to litigate the case "in forma pauperis"—a designation that would allow him to sidestep court filing fees and appeal the final settlement at taxpayer expense. They called Andrews' financial affidavit "incomplete and suspect," claiming he didn't disclose either his business or profession, and "does not account for any payoffs he may [have] received in connection with other objections he as filed."

They also asked to depose Andrews about his finances to see whether he actually qualifies for a court fee exemption.

Andrews countered in court filings that he is not a professional objector. He has also asked the court to seal his fee exemption application, claiming "the general public has no need to see it and [it] has no bearing on the merits" of his appeal.

Equifax class lawyers also listed 10 class action settlements that Andrews stalled for months with frivolous pleadings and a string of unsubstantiated accusations against other class counsel and the presiding judges. In one case out of Ohio, Andrews was held in contempt, arrested and ordered to pay more than $20,000, according to the pleading. Andrews filed for bankruptcy after he lost his appeal of the sanctions order.

In an email, Andrews said he is fighting a "rigged system."

"I do this as a hobby, the courts can't award me a dime," he continued. "I only accept money if I can improve the settlement for the benefit of the class." He said he objects to about a case a year and called out class attorneys as "serial class action" filers.

Andrews called the Ohio case "a fiasco," claiming the subpoena was illegally served, challenged the federal judge's jurisdiction and said that, once U.S. marshals brought him to the courthouse, he "answered questions for an hour, and they let me go."

"Silencing me is what that and this case and many cases is all about, not the merits," he added.

In a separate filing, class lawyers also attacked Tampa attorney John Davis, a solo practitioner who they said has objected to at least 14 other class action settlements and been criticized for his intervention by other federal judges. In one Florida case, a federal magistrate judge listed Davis among "professional objectors who threaten to delay resolution of class action cases unless they receive extra compensation," class lawyers said.

"There is no reason to disturb the Court's finding that Mr. Davis's objections were not made in the best interests of the class—especially when the same or similar objections have been rejected in the past," they contended.

Davis responded by email to class counsel's allegations, saying he has not accepted any payment for his work as an objector, which he said he "chose to pursue in the public interest."

" I have no idea why plaintiffs are claiming that I am participating in this case for 'personal gain' other than to distract the court from scrutinizing class counsel's outsized fee," he said.

Davis said he objected to the settlement as part of a broader effort to resolve what he sees is a division among the federal circuits over methods of calculating attorneys' fees in class actions. He also said he wants to clarify U.S. Supreme Court precedent concerning incentive payments awarded to lead plaintiffs in class actions "which often dwarf the recovery of other individual class members," and ensure the class is not charged excessive legal fees.

Davis claimed that his involvement in other cases resulted in benefits to the class, named a California judge who he said praised him for his work, and called the Florida magistrate judge's criticism "unfounded. "

"It is always unfortunate when counsel choose to obscure the legal discourse with insult and innuendo," he said. "I believe it cheapens the legal process, multiplies the litigation and unnecessarily consumes judicial resources."