Flint attorney asks judge to clarify comments that questioned his professional conduct
FLINT, MI – A Flint attorney requests a federal judge to make it clear that he has not violated any code of conduct and has never intended to mislead anyone involved in resolving the Flint water crisis.
Flint attorney Loyst Fletcher’s attorneys filed a motion in the U.S. District Court on March 15, asking Judith Levy to check her previous orders related to Fletcher’s mailings to prospects in the proposed Flint water scheme of $ 641 million -Dollars change. misleading and false information.
“This motion seeks a very narrow form of relief. During the February 5, 2021 hearing, that court suggested that Fletcher violated the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, ”the file reads. “But the court was wrong about the applicable rules. It misquoted rule 4.2 (possibly because plaintiffs misquoted that rule in their pleading) and misapplied rule 7.3 (possibly because plaintiffs did not have all the facts when they argued that Fletcher was breaking rule 7.3).
“In addition, the Court of Justice has mistakenly applied a conditional fee rule in personal injury claims to a non-personal injury claim,” the motion continues. “Although the Court’s decision of February 8, 2021 did not mention these alleged violations, the Court’s statements were included on the file. As a result, the order of the Court of Justice risks professional sanctions for Fletcher based on a misinterpretation of the applicable rules. “
Levy ordered Fletcher last month to send court-approved revocation notices to nearly 300 people who were sent the information packs from his law firm after ordering two weeks earlier not to disclose “misinformation” about the settlement. She also said his proposed 40 percent client representation fee was an “unlawfully excessive provision for contingent fees in likely violation of the Michigan Court Rules and the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct”.
Fletcher’s attorneys Donald D. Campbell and Trent B. Collier said Fletcher’s letter to residents contained information that was inaccurate and could have led to misunderstanding, but there was no evidence that he intended to deceive anyone. In their motion, they argue that Michigan law does not categorically prohibit a 40 percent contingent liability fee for an unjust enrichment case like the one that Fletcher brought before the Genesee Circuit Court.
This lawsuit seeks refunds for money residents paid for water they couldn’t drink during the water crisis.
Fletcher also filed a motion to intervene in federal court cases that Levy was denying, and on February 9, he filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals against that ruling.
Levy’s February 5 ruling came after other attorneys involved in the settlement sought an injunction against Fletcher and asked the court to prohibit him from communicating with residents already represented by other lawyers in the settlement.
The information Fletcher sent to the residents of Flint included a form letter that could be sent to Levy telling the judge that the individuals were Flint residents for whom there was no medical record from which to identify indicating that they have been harmed by flint water and that there is no evidence of damage to their property. They say they intend to “get out of the settlement agreement” and are demanding “2 percent relief as filed by my attorney Loyst Fletcher Jr.”
Levy’s order states that “any sentence Mr. Fletcher encouraged these individuals to explain in federal court is either unreviewed, false, misleading, or inappropriate,” and that Fletcher “likely violated the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct by acting improperly soliciting for his own financial gain various individuals who have already employed other lawyers.
A retention agreement included in the original mailings also includes “an unlawfully excessive provision for unforeseen charges that is likely to violate the Michigan Court Rules and the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct,” the order states.
Read more about MLive:
Flint’s attorney ordered the withdrawal of “false and misleading” statements about the settlement of water crises
The judge ordered Flint’s attorney to stop providing “very misleading” information about the settlement of water
The judge tentatively clears the $ 641 million Flint water crisis settlement
Comments are closed.