The Sparacino law firm replied to the attorneys for Cung Le in the UFC antitrust lawsuit on its ongoing fight over class members in the case. In its Reply Brief Sparacino denounces Class Counsel for misrepresenting its legal advertisements, accuse it of submitting a false declaration of Anthony McKee and discrediting its expert.
To get people up to speed that have not been following, check here and here which outlines the fight between the attorneys that have filed the lawsuit and have been vigilant in attempting to move it along against the UFC versus one of probably several law firms advertising its services. The overarching issue of legal ethics highlight this battle as the two firms will be on the same side in litigating against the UFC. But the question of how other firms outside of the designated Class Counsel may contact plaintiffs is central here. Class Counsel has attacked Sparacino for contact former fighters about the lawsuit and this is highlighted by the alleged omission in its packet that Class Counsel represents Le and the other fighters. Sparacino argues that it may solicit potential class members (and in fact have retained 15 fighters for representation) until there is a definite court deadline where they may not do so.
While Class Counsel has come out requesting the Court to intervene in this fight, Sparacino has counterpunched requesting judicial oversight and investigation into the behavior of Class Counsel which it claims it attempted to intimidate Sparacino and another law firm out of representing fighters.
Sparacino argues that Class Counsel did not correctly describe the marketing materials it sent fighters. Concluding, that Class Counsel acted in “bad faith.”
In its Reply Brief to Class Counsel’s response, it argues that a declaration submitted by Anthony McKee on behalf of Class Counsel was false. McKee claimed that he was contacted by Sparacino despite being represented by Class Counsel. However, Sparacino submitted call logs and a declaration from the attorney which indicate it was McKee that initiated contact based on the marketing materials he received.
Sparacino also notes that Class Counsel’s expert is not a legal ethics expert but his expertise is on “insurance-related issues.” They also go on to state that most courts have rejected his expert opinion.
Payout Perspective:
The two law firms are going at it in a who said what first battle. The overarching questions are whether Sparacino is allowed to solicit potential plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, if it does, does it have to provide a disclaimer that Class Counsel is already the de facto representation and whether Class Counsel may deter others from representation. The responses hinge on whether or not there was a duty to include information in Sparacino marketing materials to potential class members and/or were there omissions in the materials which could be deemed a misrepresentation. MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply