An appeals court in Missouri has ruled (Susan Mello v. Anita Davis and McDonnell-Douglas) that a lawyer who represented a client in an employment claim is not entitled to collect 35% of her client’s future salary and benefits by way of a claimed contingent fee. Best (if somewhat unsettling) quote from the court’s caustic opinion:
if it was Mello’s intent to have her client surrender 35 to 45% of all future earnings until the welcome hand of death freed her from this servitude, the contract needed to say as much.
(Via George Lenard, Dec. 9, who says the case “would be funny if it weren’t so sad”).
5 Comments
Reader John Walsh writes (slightly abridged):
I’m very curious about the ads Ms Mello has running in the various media. How, with judgments like these against her, can she sustain a practice? Wouldn’t her name and reputation be enough to scare away potential clients/defendants?
Well, at least overreach is actually attainable. Sad that it has to go this far, but, even sadder, it’s almost encouraging that there is still such a point recognized by the courts.
Ms. Mello appears to be a winner. From the treasure troves of Google caching, here’s a decision by the Maine Board of Bar Examiners denying her admission.
To summarize, the State of Maine Board of Bar Examiners noted:
“The Applicant practices in Missouri. A series of judicial opinions there have indicated that the Applicant cannot or will not comply with procedural requirements.”
“The Applicant has filed many pro se actions against various vendors and service providers [citation ommitted], and has also been sued by a variety of the same.”
“Throughout these proceedings, for example, the Applicant has filed duplicative, sometimes barely coherent motions or requests, often via telecopier, which faxes stop in mid-stream.”
“The Applicant has also sued clients to collect fees a total of 42 times.”
And this powerful conclusion –
“Thus, as both the Missouri rulings regarding Ms. Mello’s appellate filings and our own experience indicate, Ms. Mello does not or cannot pursue legal proceedings in an efficient and reasonable manner. What appears to elevate this flaw into an incurable character attribute is Ms. Mello’s refusal to accept responsibility or recognize that her behavior is in any way questionable.”