Copyright Reuters
A leading national plaintiffs' law firm is playing defense in two unrelated class actions after judges criticized the firm's handling of its clients' claims. Sign up here. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro is hoping to revive a case it spearheaded in federal court in Seattle against Amazon and Apple after a judge dismissed the case last month, determining that the firm was not forthright about its client's efforts to drop out. In Philadelphia, Hagens Berman has been dogged for years by litigation misconduct claims in cases it brought over alleged injuries from the drug thalidomide. Now, the firm is seeking to disqualify a federal judge who is weighing new sanctions against it. Hagens Berman's managing partner, Steve Berman, defended his firm's conduct in both cases in an email to Reuters. U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson in Seattle last month found that Hagens Berman misled the court, Apple and Amazon about the formerly sole plaintiff's intent to withdraw from the case last year while the firm attempted to add new claimants. Evanson said she relied on representations that the plaintiff had not withdrawn when she allowed his lawyers to amend the complaint in May and add two more consumers. The plaintiff, Steven Floyd, had told his attorneys at the firm in January 2024 that he wanted to withdraw because he did not want to participate in the discovery process. Evanson said in a prior order that Hagens Berman did not immediately disclose the development and instead created the impression that Floyd suddenly became unreachable for reasons not related to the lawsuit. Evanson in May awarded more than $223,000 in legal fees to Amazon and Apple as a sanction against Hagens Berman. The two tech companies are poised to file another petition for legal fees next week. "There may have been other ways to proceed — perhaps better courses of action identifiable with the benefit of hindsight — but counsel acted with mindful observance of their ethical obligations," Hagens Berman said. Berman in an email noted the firm's Monday filing was backed by three expert declarations challenging the judge's determination. "We have now explained to the court how we properly disclosed what we could and followed all ethical rules," he said. The proposed class action accused Apple and Amazon of conspiring to artificially inflate the price of iPhones and iPads sold on Amazon's platform. Spokespersons for Amazon and Apple, which have denied the claims, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. THALIDOMIDE CASE In the Philadelphia litigation, Hagens Berman since 2011 has represented plaintiffs who claimed major drugmakers concealed the dangers of thalidomide, which pregnant women used to treat morning sickness until its use was discontinued in the 1960s due to birth defects. The litigation faced hurdles from the outset over evidence suggesting many plaintiffs had long known of thalidomide’s role in their injuries. Hagens Berman reached a settlement with drugmaker GSK, formerly GlaxoSmithKline, in 2014, agreeing to drop claims against the company in a deal that U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond later said had "apparently benefited Hagens Berman to the detriment of its clients." In 2015, Diamond imposed sanctions for what he called “bad-faith advocacy,” finding Hagens Berman pursued claims it knew were baseless or time-barred. In an October 2023 report, a special master appointed by the court to help resolve evidence disputes recommended new sanctions against Hagens Berman over its prosecution of the cases, and found that a lawyer who was then at the firm had doctored a medical expert's report to pressure a client into dropping her claim. "Time and again, Mr. Berman personally swore to the veracity of things he did not know and should have known, and that were actually and demonstrably false,” special master William Hangley said. Last week, Hagens Berman filed court papers seeking to force Diamond's recusal from further proceedings related to Hangley’s report. The law firm cited what it called an “appearance of bias” stemming from extensive communications between the judge and the special master. Berman in an email said his firm has "thoroughly explained why we had a good faith basis" for the lawsuit. The fact that the case has not succeeded is not ground for sanctions, he said, adding that personal injury cases "are lost in every court on a finding of a lack of causation or an exclusion of an expert." A representative for GSK did not immediately respond to a request for comment. JPMorgan says it has already advanced approximately $115 million in legal fees, including $60.1 million to Javice alone, and claims the amount exceeds any reasonable standard for defense costs. The bank in a brief public filing accused Javice of engaging five separate law firms — one of which received over $35 million — and continuing to use all of them even in post-conviction proceedings. The filing did not identify any of Javice’s defense firms, and other documents were submitted under seal. Google in a court filing also said it would pay $71 million in legal fees to the Texas attorney general’s office as part of the May settlement. Texas’s lawyers at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright and Google asked the state court in Midland to issue a final judgment based on the settlement. Norton Rose and the attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. State attorneys general routinely hire private law firms to help them pursue major lawsuits against companies. Texas is currently working with law firms Cooper & Kirk and Buzbee Law Firm for an antitrust lawsuit against asset managers BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. Read more: Reporting by Mike Scarcella and David Thomas Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab David Thomas reports on the business of law, including law firm strategy, hiring, mergers and litigation. He is based out of Chicago. He can be reached at d.thomas@thomsonreuters.com and on Twitter @DaveThomas5150.
