Suit: Recording Shows Jackson Lewis Dallas Partner Going 'From Lawyer to Liar'
The lawsuit probes the correct application of the attorney immunity doctrine, which protects attorneys from being sued by third parties over legal advice they gave their clients.
February 11, 2020 at 02:54 PM
4 minute read
An Austin journalist has sued Big Law firm Jackson Lewis and one of its Dallas-based principals, alleging the lawyer conspired with a news station to concoct a plan to terminate the journalist in retaliation for filing a discrimination claim.
The lawsuit tests the line between valid—versus unethical or illegal advice to clients—probing the correct application of the attorney-immunity doctrine, which protects attorneys from being sued by third parties over legal advice they gave their clients.
The plaintiff, Brian Collister, alleged in a petition filed Monday that he recorded a phone call that captured the lawyer, William L. Davis, instructing KXAN-TV's top managers how they could launch a false narrative about job performance issues to terminate Collister in January 2018.
Collister alleged the station terminated him in retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that claimed that KXAN didn't make reasonable accommodations for him under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
"The whole point of my case is to get someone to listen to the facts of what he was saying and say, 'Yes or no,'—that he was committing something outside the bounds of what an attorney was supposed to do," said Collister, who is representing himself pro se. "They said, 'We want to fire this guy. He's got a disability. How do we do it?' And he said how to do it."
Collister alleged that Davis gave legal advice to KXAN that was outside the scope of an attorney's duties, and had "stepped over the line from lawyer to liar" by taking actions to further a "criminal and civil conspiracy," said the Feb. 10 original petition in Collister v. Davis, filed in Travis County district court.
Davis didn't immediately respond to a call or email seeking comment. Jackson Lewis spokeswoman Kendall Melidosian also didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
KXAN Vice President and General Manager Eric Lassberg and News Director Chad Cross each didn't immediately respond to a call or email seeking comment. However, in the district court case over the arbitration award, court records show that the KXAN defendants have denied Collister's charges and stated that there was no fraud, collusion or misconduct on their part. They also claimed that Collister "illegally recorded" their conversation with Davis.
|
Read the full petition:
In December 2017 when the KXAN general manager asked for a meeting with Collister, he turned on an audio recorder, because his EEOC representative had instructed him to record conversations, the petition said. When Collister arrived for the meeting, the door was closed and he could hear a conversation inside between the general manager, news director and Davis on a speakerphone, the petition said.
"Attorney William L. Davis was loudly and clearly heard speaking in detail of his plot to create fake 'cause' to terminate plaintiff, with specific instructions on how to go about the plot," the petition alleged. "Davis, and his clients, can be heard discussing how they believe plaintiff's disability is 'fake' and Davis instructing the best way to retaliate for plaintiff's EEOC complaint."
Collister alleged that the KXAN managers followed Davis' advice when they terminated him.
Among other causes of action, Collister is suing Davis and Jackson Lewis for tortious interference with an existing contract or employment relationship and civil conspiracy.
Collister said that KXAN won in an arbitration proceeding over his discrimination claim, and a district judge recently decided to affirm the station's arbitration award. Collister said he plans to appeal. He added that both the arbitrator and district judge didn't want to hear about Davis' conduct, and he felt that to be heard, he had no choice but to sue Davis and try to prove his case to a jury.
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 AllAkin, Baker Botts, Vinson & Elkins Are First Texas Big Law Firms to Match Milbank Bonuses
4 minute readAnticipating a New Era of 'Extreme Vetting,' Big Law Immigration Attys Prep for Demand Surge
6 minute readRevenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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