Suit alleging that firm maneuvered to convert an undisclosed $6 million settlement into fees without consent by 600 clients transferred from Alameda to L.A.

2013 was a turbulent year in the class action world and in mine.  As a result, there were some newsworthy stories I didn't have time to cover this past year.  One such news story involves the transfer to Los Angeles County of a suit alleging a scheme to transform most or all of $6 million settlement into attorney's fees without fully disclosing the scheme to roughly 600 clients until it was too late for them to do anything about it.  Here's how Courthouse News Service summed up the shocking allegations:  "A California law firm accepted a $6 million 'secret settlement' of a labor class action against a bank, agreed to dismiss the claims without telling 600 clients, then tried to convert the whole settlement into legal fees, a class action claims in state court."  Jamie Ross, Class Claims Lawyer Took 'Secret' $6M Deal, Courthouse News Service (October 22, 2012).  Who would do such a thing?  Courthouse News Service identified the defendants in the proposed class action suit: " Lead plaintiff Kendra Cutting sued Mark Yablonovich; an attorney in his law office . . . , and The Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich, in Alameda County Court."  Ibid.  It appears from the docket that the attorney in Mr. Yablonovich's office was dismissed with prejudice from the action not too long after it was filed.

Courthouse News Service wasn't alone in covering these disturbing allegations.  For example, Law360 noted, "Because the Yablonovich lawyers allegedly did not first approve the deal with their clients, the Cutting complaint said the firm's actions represented a breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice."  Scott Flaherty, LA Attys Sued Over 'Secret' $6M Wells Fargo OT Settlement, Law360.com (October 19, 2012). 

Anyhow, in April 2013, Alameda sent this fine example of what not to do to clients to Los Angeles.  I guess that Northern California felt that Los Angeles wasn't grimy enough already.  You can read the original complaint here.  Or, better yet, get the whole thing here.  The case appears to be stayed while appeals involving Initiative Legal Group are pending.  Those appeals can be viewed here and here.  But you can check on the status of the L.A. Superior Court action by using the Case Summaries tool and entering case number BC512429.

A special episode of the Class Re-Action podcast to close out the year

Episode 8 of the Class Re-Action Podcast is now live, and it is a special one.  For the final show of the year we have assembled a mediator trifecta that would be hard for anyone to top.  We are proud to bring you the Hon. Peter D. Lichtman (Ret.) of JAMS, Mark Rudy of Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP, and Jeffrey Krivis of First Mediation Corporation.  Mediate that!

We are honored to have such a distinguished panel as the bookend to our inaugural year.  Schedules permitting, the Class Re-Action podcast will be back in January 2014.

An exceptional oral argument on the D.R. Horton arbitration issue

One of the things that had me preoccupied recently was an oral argument in the Ninth Circuit.  Coincidentally, the same day that I was there, Dennis Moss, one of my former employers, was arguing his own case before the Ninth Circuit.  In Fatemeh Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., the same issue of Section 7 and 8 rights running up against class action waivers addressed in D.R. Horton was raised.  You can listen to the argument here.  In light of the Fifth Circuit's decision (which I haven't yet written about), it seems like a better than typical bet that if the Ninth Circuit were somehow convinced to part company with the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court would end up with the final say on this debate.

Word 2013: Revisiting pleading alignment issues

First, let me apologize to regular visitors for the drought this last month.  A new firm to attend two, back to back colds, and an appellate argument had me running on fumes.  I intend to remedy the silence this week.  Before getting back to law, however, I need to revisit an issue I touched on once before - the exciting topic of line alignment in pleadings in Word.  See this prior post, explaining how to fix a problem I see all the time.

It turns out that my solution for fixing the problem does not work in Word 2013 (which I am using exclusively as a result of selecting Office 365 as the delivery mechanism for Office - and I highly recommend it, for the most part).  More specifically, Word 2013, when using the most current document format (docx, without the compatibility option enabled at the time you save), does not even incorporate the setting described in my post linked above.  Those settings are "deprecated."  It seems that Microsoft, in all its wisdom, thought a new layout engine for Word was in order.  I couldn't find a way to control text alignment with line numbering at the top of documents.  But Microsoft must surely have a way to do this that I just can't find, right?  Sooooo, no.

If you don't believe it, check out the thread I opened on Microsoft's technet site.  Now, to be clear, I am still not 100% convinced that what I am trying to do can't be done in Word 2013, using the current document format without the compatibility mode active.  The not-so-informative response I received is not filling me with confidence.

I may try to contact the Office team directly and see if they can suggest something.  If I have any luck, I will let you know.  Until then, I will keep cringing at Word pleadings that are misaligned on the first page.