Real Teamster
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 509
OK everybody, this sounds VERY fishy-here goes: There are a handful of class action lawsuits filed against Yellow by groups of employees, all for WARN Act 60 day notice not being given. Three of those have been entered into the Yellow bankruptcy case.
Today, I had an e-mail forwarded to me that a lawyer in Jackson, Mississippi wanted one of our Yellow guys to sign a contingency fee agreement for that lawyer to sue Yellow on yet another WARN Act case. After the guy who provided the e-mail to me contacted that Road driver, we found out that our driver had NOT reached out to this lawyer and doesn't know how that lawyer got his e-mail address.
The lawyer wanted 40% of any settlement, plus expenses. If the lawyer doesn't win, he doesn't get paid, but our driver was apparently still "on the hook" for the expenses, although one sentence in that fee agreement disputed that. Also, if the lawyer won, but Yellow appealed, he would see it through. However if the lawyer lost, he had no obligation to appeal, and there would be a NEW fee agreement if our driver chose to appeal. The terms of that new fee agreement are unknown.
There are several problems here: 1) The 40% is customary if the case goes to trial but is usually less if it settles short of trial (usually 33%). 2) There was a clause in the agreement that if our guy dismissed the lawyer, the lawyer still gets paid as though they had "seen it through". 3) I couldn't see where the lawyer is licensed to practice in Delaware, which is where Yellow is incorporated. 4) If the lawyer won AND the judge awarded attorney fees to our driver, the lawyer got those IN ADDITION to the 40%. That's crazy!! 5) Since there are already at least four class actions filed, three of which have been entered into the bankruptcy case, our driver (and all the other employees) are automatically included in those cases unless they "opt out". 6) The lawyer in Mississippi does NOT appear to be associated with any of the four cases already filed. It is also possible that the lawyer could demand payment from our guy even though the money came from one or more of the four lawsuits already filed. 7) Our driver says that he did NOT reach out to this lawyer, so it is uncertain where the lawyer even got his contact information.
Bottom line??? Beware everybody, this doesn't seem to me to pass the "smell test". It was recommended to the driver that ignoring that e-mail from the lawyer in Mississippi is likely his best course of action.
Today, I had an e-mail forwarded to me that a lawyer in Jackson, Mississippi wanted one of our Yellow guys to sign a contingency fee agreement for that lawyer to sue Yellow on yet another WARN Act case. After the guy who provided the e-mail to me contacted that Road driver, we found out that our driver had NOT reached out to this lawyer and doesn't know how that lawyer got his e-mail address.
The lawyer wanted 40% of any settlement, plus expenses. If the lawyer doesn't win, he doesn't get paid, but our driver was apparently still "on the hook" for the expenses, although one sentence in that fee agreement disputed that. Also, if the lawyer won, but Yellow appealed, he would see it through. However if the lawyer lost, he had no obligation to appeal, and there would be a NEW fee agreement if our driver chose to appeal. The terms of that new fee agreement are unknown.
There are several problems here: 1) The 40% is customary if the case goes to trial but is usually less if it settles short of trial (usually 33%). 2) There was a clause in the agreement that if our guy dismissed the lawyer, the lawyer still gets paid as though they had "seen it through". 3) I couldn't see where the lawyer is licensed to practice in Delaware, which is where Yellow is incorporated. 4) If the lawyer won AND the judge awarded attorney fees to our driver, the lawyer got those IN ADDITION to the 40%. That's crazy!! 5) Since there are already at least four class actions filed, three of which have been entered into the bankruptcy case, our driver (and all the other employees) are automatically included in those cases unless they "opt out". 6) The lawyer in Mississippi does NOT appear to be associated with any of the four cases already filed. It is also possible that the lawyer could demand payment from our guy even though the money came from one or more of the four lawsuits already filed. 7) Our driver says that he did NOT reach out to this lawyer, so it is uncertain where the lawyer even got his contact information.
Bottom line??? Beware everybody, this doesn't seem to me to pass the "smell test". It was recommended to the driver that ignoring that e-mail from the lawyer in Mississippi is likely his best course of action.
