Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30037
DUC OT E J AXHOL DI NGS L L C; DAVI D L
. DUC OT E, T r u s t e e ; S T EV EN O. M ED O , J R. , Tr us t e e ; PO YD RA S PAR TN ER S P l ai n t i f fs- A pp el l ees v. W I LL I AM E. BRA DLEY D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof L ou i si an a, N ew O rl ean s U SD C N o. 04- 1943

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B E N AV ID E S , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T h is is a n a p p e a l fr o m a ci v i lR IC O ju d g m e n t w ith d a m a g e s a w a r d e d in t he a m ounto f

$ 6, 43 2, 60 0, a nd $ 74 , 15 6. 25 i n a t t o r ne ys ’fe e s . W e AFF I RM t he j udg m e ntas t o l i ab i l i t y. Fi ndi ng t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tc l e ar l y e r r e d i n a w ar di ng da m ages, w e RE VE RSE a nd REN D ER t he da m ag e s a w ar d. W e AFF I RM t he
aw ard of

att orneys’fees. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 19, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30037

2 I
. BA CK GR OUND O n J ul y 8, 2 00 4, t he pl ai nt i f f, D uc o t e J axH o l di ngs , L. L. C. , f i l e d a
c o m pl ai nta l l e gi n g, i n t er al i a, vi ol ati on s of t h e R acketeer Inf

l u en ced and Cor r upt O r ga ni z ati on A c t(RI CO )
. 1 8 U
. S. C. § § 1 96 1– 19 68
. The o r i gi nalc o m pl ai nt
as s e r t e d c l ai m s a ga i ns tBank One, J
. P. M organ Chas e , a nd t hr e e Bank One
e xe c ut ive s : J o hn B. O hl e , I I I ; Sc o t t D
. D e i c hm ann; and Je f f r e y T. Conr ad
. The
c o m p la in t a lle g e d th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts h a d in d u c e d th e p la in tiff to p a r tic ip a te in
a ta xs tr a te g yth a t t h e IR S s u b s e q u e n tly fo u n d to b e fr a u d u le n t. Pl ai nt i f f a l l e ge d t hatB ank O ne ’ s do c um e nt s a nd c o m m uni c at i o ns c o nt ai ne d fal s e a nd/o rm i s l e ad i ng r e pr e s e nt at i o ns , i nc l udi ng r e pr e s e nt at i o ns t hatn o in t e r e s to rpe nal t i e s w o ul d b e a s s e s s e d b y t he I RS. The c o m pl ai nt f ur t he ra l l e ge dt h a tt h e p u r p o r t e d lyi n d e p e n d e ntt hi r d p ar t i e s t hatr e vi e w e d a nd ad vi sed t h e pla in tif

f w i t h res pect t o t h e l egi t i m acy of t h e t ax str ategi es w ere s o l i c i t e d a nd pai d byB ankO ne and w e r e t hus sub s t ant i al l y c o m pr o m i s e d a nd di d no tf

ul f i l lt he i rf

i duc i ar y andg o o d fai t h o bl i ga t i o ns t o t he pl ai nt i f f
. The
c om pl ai ntal l ege d t hatt he def endant s fai l ed t o advi se t hatt he t ax s hel t erw as unregi st er ed and t hathun dre ds of o th er c l i ent s w er e us i ng t hi s t ax s t r at egy . T h e com pl ai n tal so al l eged predic ate act s of m ai lan d w i re f

rau d i n conn ect i on w i t h t h e R IC O cl ai m . In ad di t i on t o t h e R IC O cl ai m s, t h e com pl ai n tasser t ed cl ai m s f or breach of

f i du ci ary du t y, fr au d, neg l i gen tm i srepresentat i on , breach of contr act , civi lconspi racy, an d u n fai r t rade p ract i ces. W i t h res pect t o t h e al l eged i nj u ry i n curred f rom the d efen da n t s’sc h em e, t he RI CO s t at e m e ntpr o vi de d t hatt h e “P l ai nt i f f ha s pa i d e xo r bi t antf e e s a nd
c o m m is s io n s o n ta xs tr a te g ie s fo rw h ic h th e D e fe n d a n ts c o m p le te ly
m i srepresented t h e ri sk an d p ot en t i alret u rn. ” Th e R IC O st atem en tf u rt h er provi ded t h at “ P l ai n t i f f h as su f fered extensive m on et ary da m ages consi st i n g of
u n exp ect ed tax l i abil i t y, fees an d com m i ssi on s p ai d t o the B an k O n e E n t erpri se, a s w ellas in teres t an d pe n a l ti es w h i ch the [ IR S ] w i l ll i k ely see k
. ”N o. 08- 30037

3 S u b seq u en t t o fi l i n g su i t, the plain ti ff be ca m e a w a re of D efen d a n tA ppell antW i l l i am E
. B ra d l ey ’ s i n vo l ve m en t w i th the n a m ed de fen d a n ts t h rou gh do c um e nt s r e c e ive d p ur s uantt o t he I RS’ s i nve s t i ga t i o n . Pl ai nt i f f t he n f i l e d a f i rst am en ded an d s u pp l em en t al com pl ai n t ad di n g B radl ey as a n a m ed def endant
. Pl ai nt i f

f s ubse quent l y f

i l ed ano t heram ended and suppl em ent al
c o m p l a i nta d d i ngt he f o l l o wi ngt hr e e p l a i nt i f fs : Po y d r a s Par t ner s , Dav i d L. D u c o te (D u c o te ), tr u s te e o f th e D u c o te C la s s tr u s t, a n d S te v e n O . M e d o , J r ., tru stee o f T h e C h a p m a n C h a rl es D u cote T ru st, a n d the S u ze tte A
. D u cote T ru st. The pl ai nt i f

fs al l e ge d t hatPaulD aug e r da s , a pa r t ne ri n t he Chi c ag o o f f i c e o f t he l aw f i r m Jenkens & G i l c hri st , devi se d a t ax s t r at egyi n w hi c h f or ei gn exc hange di gi t alopt i ons ( “ FX C ont r ac t s” ) w er e pur c hase d and s ol d. The p urpo se of t he t ax st rat egy w as t o cr eate l osses t o l essen ot h er t ax l i abil i t y. Th e pl ai n t i f fs al l eged t hatD ef

endantJo hn O hl e ( O hl e) , a Ban k O ne e xec ut ive, i ndu c ed t hem t o e ngage i n t hi s t ax s t r at egyby r epr es ent i ng t hatt he t ax st r at egi es had bee n vet t ed by Jen ken s & G i l chri st
. T h e pl ai n t i f fs f u rt h er al l eged t h at t h e defen da n t s di d n ot exp l ai n th a t th e J e n k e n s & G il ch rist a tto rn e y s w h o d ra fted th e fav o rabl e opi n i on l e t t e rr e ga r di n g t he t axs t r at e gyw e r e a ppr o vi ng i t s o w n t axs t r at e gy . The pl ai n t i f fs al l eged t h at the am ou n tof fees the defenda n t s bil l ed w as n otb ased on t he t i m e e xp e nde d w o r ki ng o n t he t r ans ac t i o n butsi m pl y o n t he am o unto f t he t r ans ac t i o n. I n 2 00 6, t he pl ai nt i f fs r e c ei ved $ 2, 85 0, 00 0 pur s uantt o a s e t t l e m e nt agr ee m enti nvolvi ng al lt he d e fendant s exc eptB r adl ey. W i t h re spe c tt o Bradl ey, t he pl ai nt i f

fs a l l e ge d t hathe w as a m e m be ro f t he c o ns pi r ac y andt hathe
a cc e p te d $ 2 5 5 ,00 0 fro m th e m o n ies p la in tiffs p a idth e d e fen d a n ts. T h e p la in tiffs cl ai m ed that B radl ey i n vest ed som e of t h e m on ey back i n t h e i l l egal en t erpri se w he n he w i r e d $4 6, 00 0 t o O hl e and m ai l e d a c he c k f o r$ 18 4, 00 0 t o J D C G r o up, In c ., a n u n k n o w n co -c o n s p ir a to r . B r a d le yk e p t t h e re m a in in g$ 2 5 ,0 0 0
.N o. 08- 30037

4 D u ri n g t h e proceedi n gs bel ow , B radl ey fai l ed t o respond t o t h e pl ai n t i f fs’
r e que s tf

o ra dm i s s i o ns . As a r e s ul t , t he m ag i s t r at e j udge r ul e d t hata l lt he
m at t e r s s e tf

o r t h i n p l ai n t i f

fs ’r e que s tf

o ra dm i s s i o ns w e r e de e m e d a dm i t t e d. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ffir m e d th a t r u lin g . O n M ay 21 , 200 7, at t h e ben ch t ri al bef ore t h e di st ri ct court, t h e pl ai n t i f fs’
o nl y t w o w i t ne s s e s w e r e D uc o t e and B r ad l e y. D uc o t e i s a na m e d p l ai nt i f f i n t he
c a p a c ity o f th e tr u s te e o f th e D u c o te C la s s T r u s t. D u c o te te s tifie d t h a t O h le appro ac hed hi m r egar di ng t he t ax st r at egy at i ss ue. D uco t e knew t hat O hl e w as w ith B a n k O n e . D u c o te w a s t o l d t h a t t h e ta xs tr a te g yw a s “b u lle t-p r o o f.” D uc o t e w as t he “ po i ntper s o n [ i n t he fam i l y] r e s po ns ibl e f o rki nd o f

m ar s hal i ng t hi s t ax st r at egy . ” D uri ng t he ti m e of the t r ansac t i on D uco t e w as n otaw ar e t hat B r adl ey had re pre se nt ed t o J enkens & G i l c hri stt hathe w as w or ki ng on t hi s t ax st rat egy. D u ri n g t h e di scovery proc eedi n gs i n this case, D u cot e w as surpri sed t o see an i n voi ce f

or over $ 3 0 , 000 w ort h of ser vi ces rend ered by B radl ey pur po r t i ng t o b e f

o rW ay ne D uc o t e . W ay ne D uc o t e i s D uc o t e ’ s fat he ra nd
m an ager of

D u cot e Jax H ol di n g, L
. L
. C
. D u cot e w as al so s u rpri sed t o di scover t w o o t heri nvoi c es f r om B r adl ey purpor t i ng to b e f ors er vi c es r ender ed by B r a d le yfo rD u c o te a n d h is s is te rS u z e tt e D u c o te
. D u c o te te s tifie d th a t t h e u s e o f th e in s ta n t t a x s tr a te g yre s u lte d in
m i l l i o ns o f

do l l ar s i n l o s s e s byt he “va r i o us fam i l y e nt i t i e s . ” H e t e s t i f i e d t hatt he t ax as se ss m en tw as appr oxi m at el y $3, 150, 000, and t he penal t y w as a p p r o x im a te ly$ 3 1 5 ,0 0 0 (1 0 % o f th e t a x e s ), a n d t h e in te r e s t w a s a p p r o x im a te ly $500, 000. Th e f

ee s pai d t o J enkens & G i l c hri stand B ank O ne w er e $ 1, 033, 500. A tt or neys ’fee s as so c i at ed w i t h t he c urr entl i t i gat i on t ot al ed $6 48, 181. 50. D uc o t e t e s t i f

i e d t hatt he t axa s s e s s m e ntha d been pai d t o t he I RS, t hatt he
ac c ount ant s c om put ed a “ l os s of i nves t m ent” of

$1, 500, 000, and t hathe had
rece ive d $2 , 8 5 0 , 0 0 0 f rom the settl em en t w i th the oth er d e fe n d a n ts. D u coteN o. 08- 30037

5 te s tifie d th a t, e x c lu d in gt h e “ s u b je c tiv e ” fig u r e fo rlo s s o f in v e s tm e n t, h is fa m ily
e n tit ie s h a d lo s t a litt le m o r e th a n $ 3 .9 m illio n . The pl ai nt i f

fs c al l e d Br ad l e y t o t e s t i f y. Br ad l e y t e s t i f

i e d t hathe ha d a per so nali nj ury pra c t i c e i n H am m ond, Loui si ana. Bradl ey m et O hl e a ta ba r revi ew course s h ort l y af t er gradu ati n g f

rom l aw school i n 199 3. T h ey st u di ed f or t he bart oge t her , be c am e c l os e fri en ds, and w oul d s ee ea c h ot herper i odi c al l y. Bra dl e y r e m ai ne d i n c o nt ac tw i t h Ohl e e ve n a f t erO hl e m o ve d f

r o m Lo ui s i ana t o D
. C. , a nd t he n l at e rt o C hi c ag o . Bra dl e y c o ns i de r e d Ohl e t o b e a g o o d f r i e nd; h ow ever, B radl ey t est i f i ed that t h ey h ad not t al ked as m u ch si n ce th e s t artof th is li tig a tion
. A lth o u g h B ra d le y d idn o t h a v e sp e cific re co ll e ctio n of a conversati on , he beli eved t h at O h l e con t act ed h i m a n d t ol d h i m t h at an opini on w o ul d b e pr o vi de d a nd B r ad l e y w as t o faxi tt o J e nke ns & G i l c hr i s t
. Pur s uant t o O h l e’ s i n st ructi on s, B ra d ley sent t o Jen ken s & G i l chri stt h ree i n voi ces totali n g $ 1 1 2 , 5 0 0 , p u rp orting to b e services he pe rform ed f or m a tters related to D avid, W ayn e, an d S u zet t e D u cot e. Su bs e qu en t l y, Jen ken s & G i l chri stw i red $ 2 5 5 ,0 0 0 to B r a d le y ’ s b a n k a c c o u n t. B r a d le yb e lie v e d th a t h e ca lle d e ith e rO h le
orPaulD auger das r egar di ng t he $255, 000, an d w as i nst r uct ed t o w i r e $ 46, 000 t o O hl e an d wr i t e a c h e c k f o r$ 1 8 4 , 0 0 0 t o a n u n k n o wn e n t i t yc a l l e d J DC. B radl ey pa i d h i m sel f t h e rem ai n i n g $ 2 5, 000
. B radl ey t est i f i ed h e w orked l ess th a n te n h o u r s o n th is m a tt e r , co u ld n o t fin d a file in h is o f f i c e r e g a r d in gth is
m at t e r , a nd h ad “ num e r o us c o nve r s at i o ns ” w i t h D aug e r da s andO hl e r e ga r di ng th is m a tt e r . A f t er B radl ey t est i f

i ed, t h e defense cal l ed D avid L u kinovi ch. L u kinovi ch
w as a cer t i f

i ed tax att orney w h o ha d p erf orm ed a su bstanti alam ou n tof w ork
o ve rt he pa s tt e n y e ar s f o rt he D uc o t e fam i l y en t i t i es. L uki no vi c h s e tup a num ber of t r ust s f

or t he D uco t es . Lu ki novi c h f i r st hear d abo utt he i nst antt ax s t r at e gyf

r o m J o hn O hl e , buthe di d notbe c o m e i nvo l ve d i n t he m ar ke t i ng and fac i l i t at i ng of

t he s t r at egy . Lu ki novi c h r ec eived c al l s f r om var i ous c l i ent s t hatN o. 08- 30037

However, Bradl eytestified that h e “h ad so me [co nversations] with Lukinovich .” 1 This challe nge i s rai sed withrespe ct toall the theories of l iabilityfound byth e 2 district cour t : RICO, breach of fi duci aryduty, negligent misreprese ntation , fraud and civil 6 O h l e w as m eet i n g w i t h t h em t o t al k abou t vari ou s st rat egi es. Lu kinovi ch m et
w i t h cl i en t s and w as paid m o n e y fr o m B an k O n e f or w ork rel ated t o t h ose m ee t i ngs. H e e st i m at ed t hathe m ade “ i n th e 5 0 , 0 0 0 dol l arr ange. ” Al t hough L u k i n ov i ch did n ot h a ve a sp ecif i c m e m o r y , h e w a s su re h e a d vised D u cote
r e g a r d i n gt h e r i s k s i n v o l v e d wi t h t h e s t r a t e g yb e c aus e t h e r e wa s n o ta n “ I RS
c o d e s e c t i o n o n i to rs o m e o t h e rt y p e o f I RS g u i d a n c e . ” I n o t h e rwo r d s , t h e I RS h ad not app roved the stra tegy. I n L u kinovi ch’ s opi n i on , t h e st rat egy w as not f r aud ul e nt
. Luki no vi c h ha d no i de a t hatBr ad l e y w as i nvo l ve d. 1 Af t e rpo s t
- t r i alb r i e f

i ng, the d i s t r i c tc o ur ti s s ue d i t s f i ndi ngs o f

fac ta nd
c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w. Re l y i n g o n t h e d e e m e d a d m i s s i o n s a n d e v i d e n c e f r o m t he ben ch tr i al , t h e di st ri ctcourtf ou n d that B radl ey i s l i able t o th e p la in ti f fs f or vi ol ati on s of

t h e civil R IC O st atute, 18 U
. S
. C
. §196 2( a) , ( c) & ( d), an d, un der Loui s i anal aw, b r e ac h o f f i duc i ar y dut y; ne gl i ge nt m i s r e pr e s e nt at i o n; f r aud ; a nd civi l conspir acy. T h e court presented al t erna t ive da m age aw ards u n der ei t h er fe de r alorst at e l aw: $6 , 43 2, 60 0 pl us c o s t s a nd r e as o nab l e a t t o r ne y fe e s f o rt he R IC O vi ol ati on s; or i n t h e al t erna t ive, $2, 144 , 200 f or t h e st ate c l ai m s of breach
o f fid u c ia r yd u ty , n e g lig e n t m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n , fra u d , a n d civ il co n s p ir a c y . P u rsuan tt o t h e civi l R IC O st atute, t h e pl ai n t i f fs f i l ed an app l i cat i on f

or an aw ar d of

at t or neys ’fee s and co u rt co sts. Th e di st r i c tc our tor der ed t hat pl ai n t i f fs w ere enti t l ed to $74 , 145
. 25 i n att orneys’ fees f rom B radl ey. B radl ey n ow app eal s bot h t h e j u dg m en tan d the att orneys’fees. II. A N A L Y S IS A. S UFF I CI ENCY OF EVI DENCE Bra dl ey c o nt e nds t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tc l e ar l y e r r e d i n f i ndi ng t hatt he
n am ed p l ai n t i f

fs s u f fered al lt h e dam ages aw arded
. “ W h en a j u dg m en t af t er a 2N o. 08- 30037

cons pir acy.

The amoun tof damages shown b y the plaintiffs is di scussed infraat I I
. D. 3 7 be nc h t r i ali s o n a ppe al , w e r e vi e w t he f i ndi n gs of fact forc l e are r r o ra nd t he le g a l is s u e s d e n o v o . Can al B arge Co. v . T o rc o O il Co. , 22 0 F
. 3 d 37 0 , 37 5 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 )
. Un d e rt he c l e a r l ye r r o n e o u s s t a n d a r d , we wi l lr e v e r s e o n l yi f we h a ve a d efi n i te a n d f

i rm con victi on tha t a m i stak e h a s be en com m i tted.” Id
. The di st ri ctcourt ’ s det erm i n ati on of da m ages i s an is sue of facta n d thu s r evi ew ed fo rcle a re r r o r . Id
. a t3 79. If the credibi l i t y of

a w i t n ess i s a fact or i n t h e di st ri ct court' s deci si on , “ [ t ] h e bu rden of show i n g t h at t h e f

i n di n gs of t h e di st ri ctcourt
ar e c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us i s he av i e r” b e c aus e “ due r e ga r d s hal lb e g ive n t o t he op p ortu n i ty of th e t ri a l cou rt to j u d ge of th e cred ib i l i ty of th e w i tn ess es.” Id
. at 3 7 5 (q u o ta tio n s o m itt e d ). B r a d le ya r g u e s th a t th e p la in tiffs d id n o t sh o w th a t t h e lo s s e s w e r e o n ly i n curred by t h e n am ed pl ai n t i f fs— as opp osed t o ot h er D u cot e fam i l y m em bers
or en ti ti es n ot n a m ed as p l a i n ti ffs. W e a gr ee th a t th e testi m on y a n d do cu m en ts pre se nt ed byt he pl ai nt i f fs att he ve r y br i ef

bench tr i aldi d n otdem ons t r at e t hat t he da m ag e s a l l e ge d wer e s uf fe r e d by the nam e d p l ai nt i f fs . N o ne t he l e s s , t he deem ed ad m i ssi on s, w h i ch B radl ey does n otexpressl y cha l l en ge on app eal , are s u ff ic ie n tto d e m o n s t r a t e th a tth e n a m e d p la in t if fs w e r e inju r e d b yB r a d le y ’s cond u ct
. W i t h ou tset t i n g f ort h al lt h e deem ed ad m i ssi on s, w e qu ot e request f or 3
a d m is s io n n u m b e r s 2 , 6 , 8 , a n d 1 2 a s fo llo w s : [ N o . 2 ] Pl eas e adm i t tha ty o u ha v e c onduct ed subs t ant i al bus i ne s s i n t hi s Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana , t hatt he v i o l at i o ns com pl ai n ed of

by P l ai n tiffs occurred i n t h i s D i st ri ct , t h at you t r ansac torhave t r ansac t ed y ouraf fai r s i n t hi s D i st r i c t , and t hat yo urc o nduc t , upo n whi c h t hi s ac t i o n i s f o unde d, w as di r e c t e d ata nd in te n d e d to i nj u re Pl ai n t i f fs i n t h i s, t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof L o u is ia n a .N o. 08- 30037

8 [ N o . 6 ] Pl e as e a d m i t t h a t y o u e n t e r e d i nt o va r i o us a rra n ge m en ts w i th oth er d efen d a n ts n a m ed i n t h is l a w su i t t o m ar ket , pr om ot e and opi ne r egar di ng c er t ai n t ax s t r at egi es t o hi gh ne t
- w o r t h i ndivi dua l s and bus i ne s s ent i t i e s , s uc h a s a nd i nc l udi ng t he Pl a i n t i f

fs her ei n i n or dert o g ener at e e xorbi t antfee s by m i srep rese n tati on s an d ad vice th a t you an d the oth er D efen d a n ts k n e w o rs h o u ld h a v e k n o w n w e r e im p r o p e ra n d ille g a l. [ N o. 8] Pl eas e a dm i tt hatyou knew t hatt he t ax s t r at egyt hat w as m arketed to t h e P l ai n t i f fs herei n w as si m i l ar t o pri or s t rat egi es fo u n d a b u s iv e b yth e IR S a n d th a t, a s a re s u lt, it w o u ld b e in te n s e ly scr u t i n i zed an d l i kely r egard ed as a sha m by the t ax au t h ori t i es. [ N o. 12] Pl eas e a dm i tt hatyo u di d n o w or k f orthe $112, 500. 00 fee you bi l l ed to Jen kins & G i l chri stw ith regard t o an y m att ers r e l a t i ngt o Duc o t e J a xH o l d i ng s , L LC, W a y ne C. Duc o t e , Dav i d L. D u c o te , a n d /o rS u z e tt e A . D u c o te
. A l t h ou gh t h e requests f or adm i ssi on s c ou l d h ave been draf t ed m ore preci sel y, w e are persuad e d th at t h e deem ed ad m i ssi on s encom pa ss cond u ct
r e nde ri n g Bra dl e y l i ab l e t o t he na m e d p l ai nt i f fs . The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f i ndi ng does no t l e av e us w i t h a de f i ni t e and f

i r m c o nvi c t i o n t hat a m i s t ak e h as been
m ad e. B radl ey t h u s has fai l ed to dem on st rat e cl ear err or.

B. F RA UD Bra dl e y ne xta r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r ed i n f i ndi ng t hatt he p l a i n t i f fs w e r e t h e v i c t i ms o f f r a u d
. B r a d l e ya s s e r t s t h a tt h e e v i d e n c e s h o ws t hatD uco t e w as noti ndu c ed byf r audu l en t c l ai m s buti nst ead b y t he fac tt hat B ank O ne, a f

i sc al l y c ons er vat ive i nst i t ut i on, and t he nat i onalpr es t i gi ous l aw fi rm of J en k en s & G i l ch ri st w ere en d orsin g t h e t a x strateg y. B ra d l eypo i n ts t o te s tim on y from D u cote th a t t en d s to su p p ort th i s as sertion
. H ow ev er, D u cote al s o t e s t i f

i e d, am o ng o t he rt hi ngs , t hathe r e l i e d o n m i s r e pr e s e nt at i o ns t hatt he
s tr a te g yw a s “b u lle t p r o o f.” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, h o w e v e r , w a s fr e e to cr e d it D uco t e’ s t es t i m ony as t o w hati ndu c ed hi m t o a gr ee t o us e t hi s t ax s t r at egy . B radl ey h as not show n t h i s f i n di n g cl earl y erroneou s.N o. 08- 30037

Requ est for a dmissionnumber 6is quoted supra at II . A . Requ est for a dmission 4 numb er 7 provided as follows: “Pl ease admit that you colluded with other of the defen dant s name d inth e instant l awsuit in order to a ssist inin ducingPlaint iffs toen ga geintax strategies.” 9

C
. R I C O C L A I MS Bra dl e y ne xtc o nt e nds t hatt h e d i st ri c tc o ur te r r e d i n f i ndi ng t hatt he
r e q u ir e m e n ts t o e s ta b lis h a c iv il R IC O v io la tio n w e r e m e t. “R IC O cr e a te s a civ il
cau se of act i on f

or ‘ [ a] n y person i nj u red i n h i s bu si n ess or property by r eason of
a viol a ti on of section 19 6 2
. ’” Br o wn v . Pr o t e c t i v eL if eI n s . Co
. , 353 F. 3d 405, 407 ( 5th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu ot i n g 18 U
. S
. C
. § 1964 ( c) )
. “ T o st ate a R IC O cl ai m un der § 19 62 , t he r e m us tb e : ( 1) a pe r s o n who e nga ge s i n ( 2) a pa t t e r n o f r ac ketee r i ng ac t ivi t y ( 3) c onnec t ed t o t he ac qui si t i on, es t abl i shm ent , conduct , or c ont r olof an en terp ri se.” I

d. (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m arks an d ci t ati on om i t t ed). “Apatt ern of racketeer i n g act ivi t y requ i res t w o or m ore predic ate act s an d a dem on st rat i on t h at t h e racket eeri n g predic ates are rel ated an d am ou n tt o or pose a threat of
con ti n u ed cri m i n a lactivi ty. ” Id
. W e a r e p e r s ua d e d t ha tBr a d l e y ’ s d e e m e d a d m i s s i o ns a ndt he t r i al t est i m on y sup port t h ose three elem en t s. T h e di st ri ctcourtf ou n d that B radl ey w as a person an d the en t erpri se w as an assoc i ati on - i n - factw i t h t h e ot h er nam ed de fe nda nt s . The di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t hatB radl e y e nt e r e d i nt o v ar i o us a r r a n g e m e n ts w ith o th e rd e fe n d a n ts to m a r k e t, p r o m o te , a n d o p in e o n ce r ta in t axs t r at e gi e s t o hi gh ne t
- w o r t h i ndivi dua l s a nd b us i ne s s ent i t i e s , i nc l udi ng t he i ns t antpl ai nt i f

fs , t o g e ne r at e e xo r bi t antf e e s b y givi n g fal s e a nd m i s l e ad i ng ad vi c e t hat Bra dl e y kne w o r s ho ul d hav e kno w w e r e i m pr o pe ra nd i l l e ga l
. The deem ed ad m i ssi on nu m bers 6 and 7 sup port t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s f i n di n gs. 4 The di s t r i c tc o ur ta l s o f o und t hat Bra dl e y e nga ge d i n a pa t t e r n o f w r o ngf ul cond u ctt h rough nu m erous predic ate act s of m ai lan d w i re f

rau d. Th e di st ri ctN o. 08- 30037

Requ est for a dmissionnumber 5 provided as follows: “Plea se a dmit th at your acts 5 and conduct describ ed in Pl aintiff’s Thir d Amended and Suppl ement al Compl aint directly or in dire ctlyu se d the me an s of inters tatec om merc e, inclu din gth e mail s an d telephones .” 10 c o u r t reli ed on d ee m ed a d m i ssion n u m b er 5 a n d tri a l testi m on y. A t tr ia l, 5 Bra dl e y t e s t i f

i e d t hathe us e d t he t e l e pho ne t o m ak e a c al lt o de t e r m i ne w hathe
w a s su p p ose d to do w i th th e $2 5 5 , 0 0 0 th a t h a d b ee n w i red to h i s ba n k acco u n t. Bra dl e y ad m i t t e d t o w i r i ng $4 6, 00 0 t o O hl e and t o us i ng t he faxm ac hi ne t o s e nd
a t ax opi ni on t o t he l aw f i r m . B r adl ey al so adm i t t ed t o w r i t i ng $25, 000 w orth
o f c h e c k s to h im s e lf fo rle s s th a n 1 0 h o u r s o f b illa b le w o r k
. W i t h r e s pe c tt o t he s ubs t ant ive e l e m e nto f § 1 96 2, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t h at B radl ey vi ol ated § 1962 ( a) , (c) , an d ( d). Th i s C ou rtha s: r educ ed t hos e s ubse c t i ons t o t hei rs i m pl es tt er m s t o m ean t hat : ( a) a pe r s o n who ha s r e c e ive d i n com e f r o m a pa t t e r n o f

r ac ke t e e r i ng act ivi t y can n otinvest t h at i n com e in a n en t erpri se; . . . (c ) a person w h o i s em pl oyed by or assoc i ated w i t h an enterpri se c an n otcondu ct t he a f fai r s o f t he e nt e r pr i s e t hr o ugh a pa t t e r n o f r ac ke t e e r i ng a ctiv ity ; a n d (d ) a p e rs o n c a n n o t c o n sp ire to v iola te su b se ctio n s (a ), (b ), o r(c ). S t
. Pau lMerc u ry I

n s. Co. v. Wi l l i am son , 2 2 4 F .3d 4 2 5 , 4 3 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). B radl ey contend s t h at t h e d i st ri ctcou rterred i n fi n di n g t h at he vi ol ated § 1 96 2( a) b e c aus e t he r e w as no e vi de nc e a tt r i alt hata ny o f t he m o ne y he di st r ibut ed w as i nves t ed i nt o a ny ent er pri se . The di st r i c tc our tf ound t hat pl ai nt i f fs w e r e i nj ur e d by Bra dl e y’ s us e o ri nve s t m e nto f r ac ke t e e r i ng pr o c e e ds i nt o t he R I CO ent e r pr i s e by B r ad l e y’ s w i r i ng o f t he m o ne y ( $4 6, 00 0 t o O hl e a nd $ 1 8 4 ,0 0 0 to J D C G r o u p ), w h ic h p e r m itt e d th e d e fe n d a n ts to fr a u d u le n tly o b ta in
m on eyf rom the plain ti ffs fo r w o r k t h eydid n ot d o. B ra d l eydo es n ot d i sp u te th a t h e se n t th e se m o n ies
. “ [T ]h is C ircu it’ s p re ce d e n t d icta te s th a t a p la in tiff
n ee d pr ov e on l y th a t i l l eg a l l y d erive d f u n d s f l ow ed i n to the en terp ri se.” St
. Paul Me r c ur y I ns ., 2 2 4 F .3d a t 4 4 2 (i n te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n d cita tion om itted ).N o. 08- 30037

Without argu ment or citation , Bradl eyalleges th at “[t]here was no showin g that a 6 crimin al enterprise existed separate and apart from any all eged acts of rackete erin g.” Having failedto suff

icie ntlybrief thiscl aim , Bra dl eyha s ab an do n edit. Yohey v. C ollins , 98 5 F .2d 2 22, 22 4– 25 ( 5th C ir. 1 993). Nonetheless, it appears that th e separate -and-apart requirement i s met b ecau se Bradl ey , as the RI CO “person” who committed the predic ate acts, i s distinct from th e enterp ri se . See St. Pau l Mercu ry I ns ., 22 4 F .3d at 4 46–47. 11 B ra dl ey’ s actof

send i n g m on ey t o at l east on e person ( O h l e) i n t h e enterpri se m ee ts t h a t requ i rem en t. B radl ey al so c la im s t h at “ [ t ] h ere i s no evi den ce t h at he acqu i red or
m ai nt ai ned an i nt er es ti n anyt hi ng. ” H ow eve r , ac qui r i ng o r m a i nt ai ni ng an in te r e s t in th e e n te r p r is e is a n e le m e n t o f § 1 9 6 2 (b ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e x p r e s s ly fou n d th a t B ra d l ey violated § 19 6 2 (a), (c) , & (d ), b u t n ot§ 1 9 6 2 (b ). T h is contenti on i s m eri t l ess. 6

D. AM OUN T OF DAMAGES B r a d leyco n te n d s th a t th e d istr ict co u rt e rr e d b yfi n d in gth a t B ra d le y ’s vi ol at i ons of

§ 1962(c ) & ( d) cause d the pl ai nt i f fs’t ax as se ss m entof $3, 146, 300. T h u s, he argu es t h at t h e courterr ed i n i n cl u di n g t h at am ou n t i n t h e dam ages aw ard. Absen tan err or of l aw , w e revi ew t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s det erm i n ati on of d a m a g e s , a fa c tu a l fin d in g , fo rcle a re r r o r . C leer e D ri l l i ng Co. v. D om i n i on Explor ati on & Produ ct i on , I n c. , 351 F. 3d 642, 645 ( 5t h C i r . 2003)
. As w e have
e xp l ai ne d, c l e ar e r r o r e xi s t s w he n, “ t he r e vi e w i ng c o ur tupo n e xa m i nat i o n o f t he ent i r e e vi denc e i s l ef tw i t h t he def

i ni t e and f

i r m c onvi c t i on t hata m i st ake has b ee n com m i tted.” Ju st i ss O i lCo. v. K err - McG ee R ef

i n i ng Corp . 75 F. 3d 1057, 1 0 6 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). B ased on t he f

i ndi ngs t hatBr ad l e y vi o l at e d § 1 96 2(c ) & ( d) , t he di s t ri ct
c our taw ar ded t he f ol l ow i ng dam ages : $3, 146, 300, t he am ountas se ss ed as i nco m e t ax; $314, 6 3 0 , the t ax pe nal t y; $499, 770, t he i nt er es ton t he t ax assessm en t ; an d $1 , 033 , 500 , the fees of t h e att orneys, accoun t an t s and adv i sors . Thes e da m ag e s t o t al l e d $ 4, 99 4, 20 0. Af t er dedu c t i ng $2 , 85 0, 00 0, t he a m o untN o. 08- 30037

Wenote thatthe plaintiffs-appelle es do not challe nge o n appeal the district court’s 7 calculation s of da ma ges . 12 t hatt he pl ai nt i f

fs r e c e ive d i n e xc hang e f o r s e t t l i ng t he i r c l ai m s ag ai ns t al lt he
o t h e rd e fe n d a n t s , t h e d a m a g e s t o t a l l e d $ 2 , 1 4 4 , 2 0 0
. Pu r s u a n tt o t h e RI CO 7
s ta tu te , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t t h e n t r e b le d th e d a m a g e s fo ra to ta l o f $ 6 ,4 3 2 ,6 0 0
. S ee1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 4 (c ). B ra d l eycon ced es th a t t h e tax strateg y co u l d h a ve cau sed the tax pe n a l ty and i nt er es t
. N onet hel es s, h e arg ues thatt her e i s no e vi denc e t hatt he s t r at egy cau sed t h e assess m en tof incom e t axes an d thu s t h e t axes shou l d n otbe i n cl u ded
as da m ag e s . I n r e s po ns e , t he pl ai nt i f fs r e l y o n D uc o t e ’ s t e s t i m o ny dur i ng t he ben ch tr i al
. Th e pl ai n t iffs co n t en d that D u cot e t est i f i ed that, ha d h e not par t i c i pat ed i n t he i nst anttaxs t r at egy , he w oul d have em pl oye d anot hert ax m anagem entordef

er r als t r at egyand the refore w oul d nothave i ncur r ed a t ax l i a b i l i ty of ove r thr ee m i l l i on do l l a rs. M ore sp ecif i ca l l y, i n h i s testi m on y, D u cote ref erred t o a “ 103 ex cha n ge, w h i ch i s a defer ral[i n ] t h e I n t erna lR even u e C ode,
or w ays to accel erat e dep reci ati on or ot h er t h i n gs of t h at nature. ” H ow ever, D u cote n ev er ex p l a i n ed h ow i t w ou l d l ess en , m u ch l ess h ow i t w ou l d eli m i n a te al lt axl i ab i l i t y. T h i s i s no ts ur pr i s i ng i n l i ghto f D uc o t e ’ s a dm i s s i o n t hathe

“ f r ankl y . . . di d notf ul l y and c om pl et el y under st and a l las pec t s” of t he t ax s tr a te g y th a t w a s a c tu a lly im p le m e n te d
. W h e n q u e s tio n e d w ith re s p e c t t o h is capa ci t y as a t rustee, he an sw ered t h at he w as “not ex act l y cl ear” w i t h res pect t o t he r ol es of

t he var i ous enti t i es an d tr ust“o t herthan the t r ustm i xt ure w as a c o m po ne nto f

t he J e nke ns ’t r ans ac t i o n. ” Addi t i o nal l y, dur i ng o r ala r gum e nt be f o r e t hi s Cour t , t he pl ai nt i f fs ’c o uns e lf

i r s ta ppe ar e d t o a dm i t t hatt he p la in tiffs w o u ld h a v e h a d to p a ya t le a s t s o m e ta x e s . C o u n s e l s u b s e q u e n tly ad m i t t e d t hatt he y di d no ta ddr e s s t hi s i s s ue i n t he di s t r i c t c o ur ta nd t hats he d i d n ot “un d ersta n d the tax sh elt erin g a sp ect of i t. ” W h en f u rth er p ress ed as to
w h at al t erna t ive st rat egy or sh el t er the pl ai n t i f fs w ou l d h ave u t i l i zed an d h owN o. 08- 30037

Th e si st er s didnotapp eal th e taxa sse ssm ent. SeeSt re b er v . C.I .R ., 13 8 F .3d 2 16, 8 217n .3 (5 th Ci r . 1 99 8). Th eydid appeal the penaltie s for negligencean d sub stanti al u n ders tate me nt, b ut thisC ourtr ever se d th e pe n altie s. Id
. at21 9–2 3.

After th e verdict, Tracyagreed to asettlement
. 9 13 m uc h t axr e l i e f

i tw o ul d ha ve pr o vi de d, c o uns e l ne ve r s pe c i f i c al l y ans w e r e d t he ques t i on e xc eptt o po i ntt o D uco t e’ s abov e t es t i m ony, w hi c h w e c onc l ude fal l s far s h o r t o f d e m o n s tr a tin gt h a t th e irt a xa s s e s s m e n t (in e x c e s s o f $ 3 m illio n ) w o u ld hav e b e e n a l l e vi at e d o re nt i r e l y e l i m i nat e d. In a som ew h at an al ogou s case, this C ou rta f f i rm ed an a w ard of

dam ages t h at “ represented t h e di f ference betw een t h e am ou n tof m on ey th e [ pl ai n t i f

fs]
w o ul d ha ve pa i d t he I RS had t he a t t o r neys a dvi s e d t he m c o r r e c t l y andt he
a m ou n t t h eyev en tu a l l y h a d to pa y.” S t reberv. H u n t er , 2 2 1 F
. 3 d 70 1 , 71 7 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). In th a t c a s e , t w o s is te r s , T r a c ya n d T e r r yS tr e b e r , b r o u g h t s u it agai nstl aw yer s w ho had given t hem advi c e t hatul t i m at el y r es ul t ed i n a t ax penal ti es and i nt er es t
. Th e j ury f ound t hatt he l aw yer s c om m i t t ed l egal 8
m al pra c t i c e, br eac hed t h e p l a i n t i f fs’f i duci ar y dut i es , and vi ol at ed t he Texas D ec ept ive Trade Prac t i ces A ct. Th e j ury aw ar ded o ver$2 m i l l i on i n ac t ual d a m a g e s , a n d th e “m o s t s ig n ific a n t a w a r d o f a c tu a l d a m a g e s b yth e ju r yw a s in th e form of ‘ i n teres t dif feren ti a l
. ’” S t reber , 221 F. 3d at734. I nt er es tdi f fer ent i al 9 i s “ t h e di f

ference betw een t h e i n t erestea rn ed by T erry f rom t h e [ m on ey co n st i t u t i n g t h e even t u alt ax assessm en t ] w h i l e she h ad i tan d the i n t erest ch a rg ed by the IR S
. ” Id
. P u rsuan tto stat e law , t h e dam ages h ad t o be proven
w i t h re as o nab l e ce r t ai nt y. W e not e d t hatT e r r y t e s t i f i e d t o t he “ e xa c ta m o unt of i nt er es t she ear ned on her i nves t m ent s, and t o t he e xac tam ountc harge d by th e IR S
. ” I

d. A ls o , t w o o t h e rw it n e s s e s , a c e r t if ie d p u b li c a c c o u n ta n d T e r r y ’s i nves t m entadvi so r , t es t i f i ed r egar di ng t he i nt er es tdi f fer ent i al
. W e f

ound t hat Ter r y hadpr o ve n he rda m ag e s w i t h r e as o nab l e c e r t a i n t y be c aus e “ t he t e s t i m o ny t ol d t he j ury exac t l y how m uch i nt er es tTer r y had e ar ned on t he [t axN o. 08- 30037

The district court also awardedth e sa me a mount of d am ag es ($2,14 4,20 0) to the 10 plaintiffs base d onit s fin dings that Bradl eywas liab le for b reach of fiduciaryduty, negligent misrepresentatio n, fr au dandcivil c on s p ir ac y un d erLou is ia nast at e l aw . H ow ev er , th e district courtp re sentedthe fed eralRICO dama ges andthe Louis iana st ate lawdama ges asalter native awards. Th e pl aintiffs electe d th e RIC O damages. In any event, the plaintiffs would not be entitled to th e da ma gesun der Louis ian al aw b ec au seth e di strictc ourtc alculate d th e two damage awards inide ntic al fashion except that th e RIC O damages weretreble d. 14 assessm en t ] an d exa ct l y h ow m u ch i n t erest t h e IR S cha rged her f or hol di n g on to i t. ” I d. Al t ho ugh S t reberi nvo l ve d s t at e l aw, i ti nf o r m s o urde c i s i o n. H e r e , l i ke S tr e b e r, t h e d am ages “ represented the di f ference b et w een the am ou n tof m on ey th e [p la i n t i f

fs ] w o u l d h a v e p a i d t h e I R S h a d t h e a t t o r n e y s a d v i s e d t h e m c o r r e c tly
a n d th e a m ou n t t h eyev en tu a l l y h a d to pa y.” S t reber , 22 1 F
. 3 d at 71 7
. In
c ont r as t , as pr evi ous l y s etf or t h, the pl ai nt i f

fs fai l ed t o e xpl ai n w hi c h al t er nat ive t ax s t r at egyt hey w oul d have use d, m uch l es s pr ec i se l y h ow s uch an al t er nat ive ve hi c l e w o ul d ha ve e l i m i nat e d o ra l l e vi at e d t he i rt axa s s e s s m e nt
. I n v i e w o f t he pl aint if fs ’com pl et e fai l u re t o prove an al t erna t ive t ax str ategy an d cal cul ate how i t w ou l d reli ev e th em of th eir en ti re t a x asse ssm en t, w e are l eft w i th the de fi n i te
a n d fir m co n v ic tio n th a t a m is ta k e h a s b e e n m a d e . Cf
. Roge r s v . McD o r m an , 521 F
. 3d3 8 1 , 3 9 5

– 9 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) ( a ffi rm in ga ta k e -n o th in gR IC O j u dg m en tbased
o n fai l ur e t o pr o ve da m ag e s)
. Af t e rt he t axa s s e s s m e nti s s ubt r ac t e d f r o m t he
am ou n tof

dam ages, t h e net l i abil i t y i s zer o becau se t h e di st ri ctcourtcr edi t ed t he $ 2, 85 0, 00 0 t he pl ai nt i f fs r e c e ive d f

r o m t he o t he rdefen da nt s ’s e t t l e m e nt
a gr ee m en t. M ore sp ecif i ca l l y, t h e d i stri ct cou rt f ou n d tha t B ra d l eyw a s l i a b l e to th e p la in tiffs for $ 2 ,14 4 ,20 0 , a fter cr e d iti n gth e a m o u n t of m o n e yth e p la in tiffs r e c e ive d f

r o m t h e other de fe nda nt s ’s e t t l e m e nta gr e e m e nt
. Thus , o nc e t he 10
am ountof

t he t ax as se ss m ent , $3, 146, 300, i s subt r ac t ed f r om t he $2, 144, 200 da m age aw ard, t h e pl ai n t i f fs are l ef

tw i t h no d am ages f

l ow i n g f rom t h e § 1962 ( c) & (d ) v io la tio n s . T h e p la in tiffs “h a d a fu ll o p p o r tu n ity to e s ta b lis h [th e ir ] c la im for
. . . dam ages; how ever, ha vi n g fai l ed to do so, [ t h ey] m ay n otret ry [t h ei r]N o. 08- 30037

Acco rd N orth eastW

om en ’sC

en ter v . McMo nage, 889 F.2 d 46 6, 4 71-7 5 (3 d C ir. 1 989) 11 (hol ding th at it is not permissib le for a trial court to make a reductioninth e attorney s’ fee s b a se d solelyo nth e a mo u nt of d a ma gesob tainedinacivilRI C O c a se). Section 1964(c) provides that “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason 12 of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter

. . . shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, includinga reasonableattorney ’s fee . . . . ” The Cl ayton Act provides that “anyper son who sh allbein jured inh is busine ss or 13 property byrea son of anythin g forbi dden inthe antitrust laws may sue therefor .
. . and shall recover threefold the damages b y him sustained, and the cost of suit, inclu ding a reaso nab le attorn ey’sf

ee .” 1 5U .S .C
. § 1 5 (a). 15 cl a i m [s] f

or th ese da m a ge s. ” G r e atPi ne s W at e rCo. , v . Li qui

- BoxCor p. , 203 F. 3d 920 , 925 ( 5th C i r. 200 0)
. Th e d a m a g e s aw ard of $6, 432 , 600 i s t h eref ore r e v e r s e d
. E. AT TORNEYS ’F EES F i n al l y, B rad ley requ est s t h i s C ou rtt o reduce or el i m i n ate t h e aw ard of
a ttorn ey s’fee s “i f th e n et d a m a ge s f or C ivil R IC O viol a ti on s i s red u ced to
n o th in g .” B e c a u s e B r a d le yo ffe r s n o a r g u m e n t o rp r e c e d e n t in s u p p o r t o f h is
r e q u e s t, h e h a s e ffe c tiv e lya b a n d o n e d th is cla im
. Y oh ey , 985 F. 2d at224–25
. N on et h el ess, even i f

w e consi dered t h e cl ai m p roperl y bef ore us, w e w ou l d aff

i rm t h e aw ard of

att orneys’fees. Th i s C ou rtha s r ej ect ed a ru l e t h at the aw ard of att orneys’ fees shou l d be proporti on al t o t h e da m age aw ard i n a civi lR IC O case. R
. M
. Perez & A ssoc . , I n c. v. W el ch , 960 F
. 2d 534 , 542 ( 5th C i r. 199 2)
. Fu rt h er, 11
w e re co g n ize th a t t h e in sta n t a tto rn e y s’ fee s p ro v ision , 1 8 U .S .C
. § 1 9 6 4 (c), 12 t racks t h e att orneys’fee provi si on of t h e C l ayton A ct , 15 U
. S
. C
. § 15(a) , w h i ch 13 i nvo l ve s a nt i t r us ta c t i o ns . Thus , t hi s Court ’ s pr e c e de nti nt e r pr e t i ng t he
es se nt i al l y i dent i c a lp r o vi si on i n t he C l ayt on A c ti s i nst r uct ive, i f notc ont r ol l i ng. W hi l e i nt e r pr e t i ng t he a nt i t r us tat t o r ne ys ’fe e pr o vi s i o n, w e e xp l ai ne d t hat“ t he act u alrec overy of

com pen sator y da m ages [ i s] ir rel evan tto the recover abil i t y of
a ttorn ey s’fee s. ” S ci am bra v. G rah am New s Co. , 892 F
. 2d 411 , 415

- 16 (5t h C i r. 1 9 9 0 ). W e h eld th a t t o rec ov er a ttorn ey s’fee s, a p l a i n ti ff m u st de m on strateN o. 08- 30037

16 p r o o f o f a v io l a t i o n o f a n t i tr u s t la w s a n d p r o o f o f inju r y . Id
. at415. Al t hough t h e pl ai n tiff

w as aw arded $0 i n com pen sator y da m ages, becau se t h i s C ou rt fo u n d a n a n tit r u s t v io la tio n a n d th e fa c t o f d a m a g e , w e a ffir m e d th e re a s o n a b le
a w a r d o f a tt o r n e y s ’fe e s . I d. a t 4 1 4

– 1 6
. H e r e , t h e d is t r i c tc o u r ta w a r d e d th e p la in t if fs $ 7 4 ,1 5 6 .2 5 in a t t o r n e y ’s fe e s . Br ad l e y do e s no t( andc annotcredi bl y) di s put e t hatt he RI CO v i o l at i o ns c aus e d t he t axi nt e r e s ta nd pe nal t y, re s ul t i ng i n da m ag e s t o t he pl ai nt i f fs i n t he
am o unto f

$ 81 4, 40 0. Al s o , Br ad l e y’ s a dm i t t e d a c t i o ns i n fax i ng t he f r aud ul e nt in v o ic e re g a r d in gth e a m o u n t o f w o r k h e h a d d o n e fo rth e p la in tiffs ce r ta in ly
cau sed t h e pl ai n t i f

fs m on et ary da m ages. H ow ever, a f t er the ot h er defen da n t s’
se t t l em ent( $2, 850, 000) i s c r edi t ed ag ai nstt he unchal l enged dam ages f ound by th e d istr ict co u rt, th e re is n o th in gleft to a w a rd
. In o th e r w o rd s, th e p la in tiffs di d p rove t h at t h ey suff e re d d am ages— i ti s j u stt h at t h e ot h er defen da n t s’
s e t t le m e n tp r e c lu d e s a d o u b le r e c o v e r yfr o m B r a d le yu n d e rth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s
c al c ul at i ons . Bradl ey has fai l ed t o s how t hatt he at t or neys ’fee aw ar d w as u n reasona bl e. W e are persuad ed that because the pla in tif fs hav e est abli shed R IC O vi ol ati on s and proof of i nj u ry, t h ey are en t i t l ed t o t h e am ou n tof att orneys’ fe e s in th e a m o u n t o f $ 7 4 ,1 5 6 .2 5
. I I I
. CO NCL US I ON Fort he a bo ve r e as o ns , t he por t i o n of t he di s t r i c tco ur t ’ s j udg m e ntf i ndi ng Bra dl e yv i o l a t e d § 1 9 6 2 ( a ) , (c ) & ( d ) o f t h e c iv i lRI CO s t a t u t e a n d a l s o f i n d i ng Bra dl e y l i ab l e f

o rbr e ac h o f

f i duc i ar y dut y, ne gl i ge ntm i s r e pr e s e nt at i o n, f r aud
a n d c iv i lc o n s p i r a c yu n d e rL o u i s i a n a s t a t e l a w i s AF F I RMED. No n e t h e l e s s , we R E V E R S E th e p o rtio n of th e d istr ict co u rt’s j u d g m e n t a w a rd in gth e p la in tiffs $ 6 ,4 3 2 ,6 0 0 in civ il R IC O d a m a g e s , a n d , in lig h t o f th e r u le a g a in s t d o u b le
reco ve ry , R E N D E R j u d gm en t th a t t h e p l a i n ti ffs tak e n oth i n g w i th resp ect to da m ag e s und e rt he RI CO c l ai m . Addi t i o nal l y, t he awar d o f at t o r ne ys ’ fe e s i n t he
a mo u n to f

$ 7 4 , 1 5 6
. 2 5 i s A F F I RMED.N o. 08- 30037

17 A F F IR M E D i n pa rt; R E V E R S E D i n pa rt.