Firm Facing $25K Fine Apologizes, Explains 'Fraudulent' Removals
In its response to a federal judge’s threat to bar all 25 of its lawyers from appearing in the Western District of Louisiana, a New Orleans-based defense firm is going to extraordinary lengths to get back in good grace.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Tucker Melançon issued an opinion slamming the firm Ungarino & Eckert for “vexatious” litigation and “fraudulent and improper removals” of cases from state to federal court. The judge noted a long list of cases, more than two dozen, in which he said there were improper removals, including some for which the firm was admonished.
The judge ordered the firm to file a memorandum explaining why he shouldn’t hit the two main partners for $25,000 out of their own pockets, and why, if it isn’t persuasive, he shouldn’t haul all the firm’s lawyers into court to explain why he shouldn’t keep them from practicing in the district.
That clearly got the firm’s attention. Ungarino & Eckert lawyered up, hiring, among others, Frank X. Neuner Jr., who was president of the Louisiana State Bar Association for 2005-2006 and lectures and writes on professionalism and ethics. Neuner’s firm is in Lafayette, where Judge Tucker sits.
The response (PDF) filed this week by Neuner goes on at length explaining how the Ungarino firm made some understandable mistakes, but then makes a sweeping bow to the judge’s concerns:
The firm is bringing in two professors from Loyola University New Orleans College of Law this month to give three-hour lectures to all the firm’s lawyers, one on ethics and one on federal civil procedure and removals. The lectures will be videotaped for any lawyers who cannot attend, and those lawyers must view them within 30 days.
The firm has created a professional responsibility committee made up of partners. The committee will coordinate in-house ethics and removal training and review all notices of removal and opposition to remand.
Judge Melançon’s opinion was detailed and blistering in reviewing the firm’s history of problems with removals. And this equally lengthy response is all the more interesting because it seeks to explain away much of the criticism.
