Tobacco Litigator Seeks to Bring Attorney-Fee Dispute From Texas to Florida
“Howard wants a court in Texas to step into the shoes of a Florida court to pursue jurisdiction over a Florida contingent fee contract involving tobacco cases that can only be filed in Florida on behalf of Florida residents and nowhere else,” former co-counsel J.B. Harris said. “It makes no sense whatsoever.”
April 25, 2019 at 06:47 PM
4 minute read
A defendant in a Texas case over two Florida attorneys' fee-sharing agreement has argued that the Harris County court doesn't have jurisdiction over the dispute.
In the case, Tallahassee litigator Phillip T. Howard and his firm sued J.B. Harris of Coral Gables, Florida, and his firm over a fee-sharing agreement for a portfolio of potentially lucrative tobacco cases. The same parties have pending litigation in Florida over the agreement.
“Howard wants a court in Texas to step into the shoes of a Florida court to pursue jurisdiction over a Florida contingent fee contract involving tobacco cases that can only be filed in Florida on behalf of Florida residents and nowhere else,” Harris said. “It makes no sense whatsoever.”
Howard and Harris first entered their agreement in 2017. In April 2018, a litigation investment fund called Virage Capital Management entered a settlement agreement with Howard and Harris. The Howard v. Harris petition said this agreement stated Howard would no longer have to pay advance case expenses, and Harris would get 60 percent of fees while Howard would get 40 percent, and Virage would have a lien on Howard's 40 percent share. When Harris reached a multimillion-dollar verdict on one case in February, Howard alleged he “concocted a bizarre interpretation” of the fee-sharing agreement, and it seemed he didn't intend to abide by the contract.
On April 2, Virage, which is based in Houston, petitioned the Harris County court to intervene in the case. Virage claimed it lent $302,000 to the defendants over the past 12 months, in exchange for Virage to get its lien on Howard's share of the tobacco case fees. Virage asked the court to uphold the agreement.
Harris, defending himself pro se, filed motions in the case Tuesday. Howard has no connection to Texas, except for a “forum-selection clause” in the parties' fee-sharing settlement agreement, which Virage's lawyers drafted. Harris argued that the earlier fee-sharing agreement between Howard and Harris, which didn't include Virage, said that any dispute would go to arbitration in Florida. The underlying fee agreement dealt with tobacco cases in Florida, and none of them has anything to do with Texas, the motion said. Harris argued that Florida courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the law of Florida contingent fee contracts.
In the 53-page filing, Harris also asked the court to stay the lawsuit “pending disbarment or indictment and conviction” of Howard. The motion said Howard faces a disbarment proceeding in Florida for 15 counts of alleged professional misconduct. He's under criminal investigation with the Securities and Exchange Commission and could be indicted for “illegal operations of a hedge fund known as Cambridge Capital Group” that bilked pension funds of retired professional football players who suffered brain injury, claimed the motion.
Harris alleged that Howard's lawyers didn't conduct due diligence and filed a frivolous lawsuit, and asked the court to award Harris and his firm their attorney fees as a sanction.
Howard's lawyer, Ashish Mahendru of Mahendru P.C. in Houston, didn't return an email or call seeking comment before deadline.
Virage's lawyer, Susman Godfrey partner Geoffrey Harrison of Houston, said that Harris' filings were not directed at Virage, and declined to comment further.
Related stories:
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
© 2025 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 AllLegal Malpractice: Texas Supreme Court OKs 'Pernicious Distortion of Positions'
4 minute readEx-Six Flags CLO Lands New C-Suite Post—This Time as HR Chief
Trending Stories
- 1New York’s Proposed Legislation Restraining Transfer of Real Property
- 2Withers Hires Lawyers, Staff From LA Trusts and Estates Boutique
- 3To Speed Criminal Discovery, NY Bill Proposes Police-to-Prosecutor Pipeline For Records
- 4Merchan Rejects Trump's Bid to Delay Manhattan Sentencing
- 5High-Low Settlement Agreement 'Does Not Alone Establish Bias:' State High Court Affirms $20M Med Mal Verdict
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