Opinion ID: 1353826
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Carey & Danis, L.L.C.The Chrysler ABS Class Action

Text: In January 1995, Carey and Danis left Thompson & Mitchell and formed their own firm, Carey & Danis, L.L.C. [10] Carey & Danis shared office space with the firm of David DanisJoseph Danis' father Danis, Cooper, Cavanagh & Hartweger, L.L.C. The two firms shared staff, a bookkeeper, a fax machine, and unlocked (but separate) filing cabinets. In August 1995, a Thompson & Mitchell secretary referred her brother-in-law, Dennis Beam, to Carey & Danis after he experienced problems with the anti-lock brake system on his Chrysler minivan. Carey discussed the potential case with Beam. Carey, obviously aware that he and Danis had represented Chrysler, researched Rule 1.9 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct for an hour or two to determine if a conflict existed. Carey testified that he made the determination that since Joey [Danis] and I had no knowledge or information at all concerning anti-lock brakes ... that those were not substantially related under my review of the case law and reading those rules. Carey determined there was not a conflict. However, Carey & Danis did not file suit because Thompson & Mitchell had been referring business to them and they did not want to embarrass their former firm by filing suit against a former client. Carey & Danis arranged for the Danis, Cooper firm to represent Beam and a class of plaintiffs against Chrysler. Danis, Cooper was to get help on the case from another St. Louis law firm, Blumenfeld, Kaplan & Sandweiss. Carey and Danis met with attorneys from Danis, Cooper and the Blumenfeld firm to discuss the Beam class action suit over lunch at a restaurant. According to Evan Buxner, who was working for Blumenfeld at the time, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss generally if Blumenfeld, Kaplan & Sandweiss participated in the litigation what our role was and what we might expect representing a plaintiff in a proposed class in a plaintiffs' class action case. Carey & Danis was the only firm with any significant class action litigation experience among the three firms. The firms discussed a number of topics relating to the class action against Chrysler: attorney time and cost, the fact that NHTSA was conducting an investigation into the brake system, that a proposed class action could ride the government coattails and let the government agency do most of the work, the effect of a recall on a potential class action, the necessity (or lack thereof) of hiring experts, and that they could expect a barrage of motions from Chrysler. Shortly after their involvement began, Blumenfeld was informed that Carey & Danis' involvement in Beam was being investigated for conflict of interest. Blumenfeld then withdrew from the Beam litigation. Carey explained: Once they withdrew David [Danis] and Richard [Cooper] approached Joey [Danis] and I and asked us if we would be interested in getting involved in the case, we knew that there was no conflict of interest, and they needed help because... there was a motion to transfer that was pending in St. Louis City. They needed help. There wasn't time to try and go out and find another co-counsel. Carey & Danis entered their appearance on behalf of the Beam plaintiffs. However, neither Carey nor Danis sought or received Chrysler's consent to act as plaintiffs' counsel against Chrysler. In December 1995, Joseph and David Danis met in New York with Stanley Grossman, an attorney who had a similar ABS class action suit against Chrysler in New Jersey. At the meeting they discussed joiningand later did jointhe two class actions as well as a third group of plaintiffs from Mississippi represented by John Deakle. Following the meeting, Joseph Danis wrote Grossman to confirm the discussion regarding the ABS cases. Danis also inquired as to allocation of attorneys' fees if the cases were consolidated, saying there was plenty of money for all .... Consequently, we will all be better served working together against Chrysler.... This correspondence has been termed the Grossman letter. While Danis and his father were in New York meeting with Grossman, Carey received a letter from Charles Newman accusing Carey & Danis of having a conflict of interest in the Beam case. Carey was very upset upon reading Newman's letter and immediately called Newman to tell him that he believed in the strongest terms that [Carey & Danis] did not have a conflict of interest, but that he did not want to cause any trouble with Newman, Thompson & Mitchell, or Chrysler. Carey inquired if they could put an end to all this ugliness and nastiness if he and Danis withdrew from the Beam case. Newman did not make any promises, but thought that might appease Chrysler. Thereafter, the Beam case was voluntarily dismissed and then joined with Grossman's case in New Jersey.Carey & Danis withdrew from Beam, but the Danis, Cooper firm and John Deakle were among the attorneys listed for the plaintiffs. Carey & Danis associated with a group of class action attorneysDavid Danis and John Deakle, among others [11] that often worked together on cases and shared information. A number of these attorneys were involved in Chrysler ABS litigation. Members of this group would forward correspondence regarding the ABS litigation to each other and many of these communications would find their way to Carey & Danis.