My partner, Jeanne Huey, just published her blog “The Stakes Just Got Higher: Texas Legislataure Cracks down on Barratry.” Barratry is, of course, stirring up unnecessary litigation or, more particularly, doing one of several things that have been made a crime and/or ethical violation in most states. These include:
- paying a client to hire a lawyer
- soliciting clients in ways that are not allowed by local advertising regulations
- lying to clients to get them to hire a lawyer.
As Jeanne points out, the civil penalties for barratry have just gotten higher in Texas as the legislature tries to rein in “ambulance chasers” and other forms of illegally getting clients and creating lawsuits.
This is a blog about the ADA and FHA, not legal ethics and barratry, so you may wonder why I’m mentioning Jeanne’s blog here. As it turns out, barratry has always been lurking in the background of industrial scale ADA litigation, something I’ve noted several times over the last decade:
- Quick Hits – ADA and FHA News of Note
- Victory and Confusion in ADA Litigation
- Quick Hits – Bastille Day Edition
- Fighting Fire with Fire
Under Title III of the ADA a winning plaintiff gets no money – just an order telling the defendant to stop violating the ADA. The winning lawyer, on the other hand, gets his fees paid. When a lawyer files dozens or hundreds of lawsuits for a single plaintiff and only the lawyer stands to profit, it is reasonable to ask whether the plaintiff is being paid by the lawyer to allow their name to be used for the lawyer’s benefit. If the lawyer is paying the plaintiff, even if that payment is a split of a settlement, the arrangement may very well constitute illegal barratry.
And that is why Jeanne’s blog should matters in the ADA and FHA world. If you or your client have been sued by a serial plaintiff represented by a law firm that files a large number of cookie cutter cases it is worthwhile to consider how the laws against barratry may apply to the lawyers who filed the case.