The plaintiffs in the UFC Antitrust lawsuit have filed their reply brief in support of its Emergency Motion stopping the Sparacino law firm from contacting class members in the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs reply ISO of Eme… by MMA Payout
Plaintiffs accuse the law firm of violating legal ethical rules by contacting the class members in the UFC antitrust lawsuit. They cite that directed mailers that went to former fighters were misleading and omitted information about their rights. They also did not indicate that plaintiffs’ law firm was the attorney of record in the lawsuit.
The Sparacino law firm responded to the motion by stating it did nothing wrong and it had retained 11 former fighters as it relates to their rights in the UFC Antitrust lawsuit.
In its brief, plaintiffs claimed that, “one of its primary flaws was to give fighters a false sense of urgency about the need to contact Sparacino to protect their legal rights.” In addition they highlight the potential risks for the class members citing that the option of ‘opting out’ of plaintiffs’ counsel’s representation may mean that they would choose legal representation with not enough experience to properly represent them.
The plaintiffs seek the court to cite the Sparacino law firm’s conduct unethical and refrain from contacting class members.
Payout Perspective:
The motion seems to be a projection about the motives of the Sparacino law firm. Its hard to believe that a court busy with many important things would intervene on this matter to the point where it would punish a party. While there is the potential for an ethical violation, its hard to see the factual missteps which would give rise to a court ruling against the Sparacino law firm. Rather, the Sparacino law firm may have overstepped its bounds but its mailers clearly indicated it was a legal advertisement. Whether or not a recipient would believe that the information contained within it was truthful is a factual question that the court would likely not rule upon.
Leave a Reply