Opinion ID: 864448
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether judge pigott erred in vacating the

Text: NOVEMBER 1999 ORDER OF JUDGE KITCHENS AFTER SNOW AND HARRELL RELIED ON IT IN PREPARING THE CASE FOR TRIAL. ¶37. Under Circuit Court Procedural Rules, any order signed during the course of the proceeding is not final and can be changed during the course of the action and prior to a final judgment. Final judgment was entered by the circuit court on April 23, 2001; however, the court retained jurisdiction “to the extent required to resolve the pending issues relating to the apportionment of attorney fees and expenses among the various counsel for plaintiffs.” Therefore, as Judge Kitchens’s November 1999 order was not final or dispositive, it was subject to change by Judge Pigott, who had the authority and duty to change or rescind any orders as required by the law and facts. ¶38. Judge Pigott held that while Heather had a right to join in the lawsuit filed by Jonathan, the control of the suit was in the hands of Jonathan and his attorneys since his suit was filed first. He held that since all heirs-at-law interests were represented in this one lawsuit, only one attorney’s fee was payable out of the recovery. Judge Pigott also ruled, “The Circuit Court had no authority to order attorneys Snow and Harrell into the Franklin case and no authority to adjudicate the division of attorney’s fees prospectively before recovery. Circuit Courts should not interject attorneys into another attorney’s cases and require a division of fees.” 20 ¶39. Judge Kitchens’s November 1999 order consolidated the wrongful death cases of Jonathan and Heather (and the estate) and declared that the lawyers would handle the case as co-counsel and receive compensation based upon their contracts with their respective clients. This order did not divide attorney fees, as Judge Pigott held, rather it merely followed the wrongful death statute by stating that any recovery would be divided equally among the two heirs. The November 1999 order recognized the statutory requirement of equal distribution among the heirs; it left the compensation of the attorneys to their respective employment contracts. ¶40. Snow and Harrell argue that Judge Pigott’s vacating Judge Kitchens’s November 1999 order was in error because Judge Kitchens’s prior order was proper and reasonable. They argue the prior order: (1) protected the interest of both clients by allowing the lawyer of their choice to represent their interest; (2) it was fair to both sides because it gave the benefit of their respective contracts and gave a clear statement of the basis for each lawyer’s ultimate compensation; (3) it was reasonable; (4) it followed the wrongful death statute regarding joinder; and (5) it contemplated that all attorneys would work together for the mutual benefit of their respective client. This Court agrees. ¶41. The lawyers justifiably relied upon this order for over a year and a half as they prepared the case for trial. Judge Kitchens’s November 1999 order was well within his discretion. The wrongful death statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-13, states that “all parties interested may join the suit.” Allen v. Baker, 327 F. Supp. 706, 709 (N.D. Miss. 1968). Judge Kitchens had the authority to consolidate the two cases. Mobile Jackson & Kansas 21 City R.R. v. Hicks, 91 Miss. 273, 46 So. 360, 397 (1908) (nothing improper in consolidating wrongful death suit brought by widow with that brought by widow and children). See also Classic Coach, Inc. v. Johnson, 823 So.2d 517 (Miss. 2002); Robinson v. Cobb, 763 So. 2d 883 (Miss. 2000). The parties disagreement is not with Judge Kitchens’s authority to consolidate the two cases, but lies ultimately in his allowing Snow and Harrell to participate in the joined action and his apportionment of the attorney fees according to each attorney’s contract with their respective client. ¶42. The wrongful death statute does not by its express terms limit the case to one lawyer or otherwise limit each heir’s choice of her own counsel. This Court has interpreted the statute to mandate that the wrongful death heir who first files a wrongful death claim is entitled to prosecute that claim to its conclusion. Thornton v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 287 So. 2d 262, 265 (Miss. 1973). Cf. J.J. Newman Lumber Co. v. Scipp, 128 Miss. 322, 91 So. 11 (1922) (abating suit by widow after suit by administratrix); Mobile Jackson & Kansas City Railroad Co. v. Hicks, 91 Miss. 273, 46 So. 360 (1908), aff’d, 219 U.S. 35, 31 S.Ct. 136, 55 L.Ed. 78 (1910). However, we have found no authority for the proposition that the statute does not allow heirs to be individually represented by counsel of their choice. Judge Kitchens’s order did not “interject attorneys into other attorney’s cases” as Judge Pigott held, rather it simply recognized that already established relationship. The representation of Heather by Snow and Harrell simply came with the joined case. ¶43. Following Judge Kitchens’s order, Snow and Harrell expended substantial time and labor preparing the case for trial. They were obligated both by ethical and contractual 22 obligations to their client and by Judge Kitchens’s order to diligently and zealously represent their client’s interest and prepare for trial. Judge Kitchens’s order promoted certainty by setting both the scope and limit of recovery of attorney fees at the outset. It enabled all parties’ reasonable expectations to be realized. The attorneys’ recovery was based upon their performance and the strength of their case and the client’s choice of attorney to represent them was respected. ¶44. On the other hand, Judge Pigott’s ruling that fees can only be determined at the end in effect reverses not only the November 1999 order but also the chancery court’s order that approved the contingency contract at the outset. Judge Pigott did not have the benefit of any new information that justified vacating Judge Kitchens’s order. In fact, the information before Judge Pigott, that Snow and Harrell had done 90% of the work, justified upholding rather than vacating Judge Kitchens’s order. ¶45. Judge Pigott’s order creates a dilemma for lawyers involved in wrongful death cases. They are contractually and ethically bound to diligently pursue their client’s claims but are left not knowing if they will be paid for their effort if their client was not the first to file. Judge Pigott’s order not only reaches an inequitable result; it penalizes heirs who want their own lawyer to represent them and are willing to pay them from their own recovery.8 8 Moreover, Judge Pigott’s order creates the potential for a serious conflict of interest. Where, as here, the attorneys dispute the paternity of the heirs, combining the case and requiring the first attorney who filed to thereafter represent all of the heirs puts that attorney in an awkward position. Does she continue to press the paternity issue for the benefit of her initial client, or does she drop that inquiry and now zealously represent both her initial client and her new client, whom she suspects may not be a legitimate heir? 23