Cruise Ship Court Cases
Charles Mackarthy V. Celebrity Cruises
March 30, 2009
CHARLES MACKARTHY
v.
CELEIlRITY CRUISES LTD
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURlSDlCTION DIVISION
CASE NO.: 07-44077 CA (27)
"MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION. CASE NO.: 07-44077, Charles Mackarthy V. Celebrity Cruises Ltd, as follows:
At all times material hereto, Wingate was the sole owner and principal of the Wingate Law Firm.
At all times material hereto, the Wingate Law Firm employed several different employees including Peter Sotolongo, Nelson Ayala, Lena Panila and Gisel Rubi-ci.
At ail times material hereto, the Wingate Law Firm represented Plaintiffs in approximately one hundred (100) cases against RCL.
In or around June of 2005, unbeknownst to RCL, the Wingate Law Firm entered into a commercial bribery agreement with Wanda Ballestas, a crew claims supervisor in RCL's Risk Management Department, whereby it would pay Ballestas cash in exchange for confidential information regarding pending claims, including pre-suit claims, against RCL.
This information included, but was not limited to, the amount of authority RCL had to settle claims at mediation. After this scheme began, the Wingate Law Firm obtained settlements in twenty-three (23) of the cases against RCL and Celebrity.
As the crew claims supervisor, Ballestas had access to RCL's entire file system, including but not limited to substantial confidential information in all pending crew and passenger claims, including RCL's defense strategies, methods for case «-valuation and privileged communications between RCL and its legal counsel. This made the bribery scheme all the more devastating to RCL as RCL has no means of knowing how much, or what specific information was relayed to the Wingate Law Firm.
The Wingate Law Firm engaged in a pattern of practice of paying money for the receipt of confidential information which is commercial bribery. This arrangement was unethical and occurred during the time period when Wingate was in charge as principal and was responsible for the actions of his agents.
The Wingate Law Firm entered in to the commercial bribery arrangement whereby it would pay Ballestas for information on cases where the Wingate Law Firm represented plaintiffs against RCL. That information included, but was not limited to, the maximum amount RCL had reserved to settle those cases.
Armed with this confidential information, Wingate or Sotolongo (the only other attorney in the firm, and Wingate's associate) would attend the mediation and refuse to negotiate an amount lower than the amount set as a maximum by RCL internally.
As the principal of the Wingate Law Firm, and the most senior attorney, Wingate owed an obligation to the profession generally, to opposing parties and to the employees By filing suit against RCL on behalf of plaintiffs, Wingate and the Wingate Law Firm represented to RCL, the Court and the public that there was an arm's length relationship based on the adversarial nature of litigation between parties in civil matters.
The representation was false, because Wingate and the Wingate Law Firm had obtained confidential information, through bribery, that gave them a distinct and financially lucrative, albeit improper, advantage which they used to "game" the litigation process.
The Wingate Law Firm maintained a written bonus payment schedule indicating payments to an entity known as "Deep Throat" or D.T. (see ledger of payments attached hereto as Exhibit A). Upon information and belief, "Deep Throat" was Wanda Ballestas.
Wingate's failure to properly manage his firm and supervise its employees violated the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and made a mockery of the legal system.
As a direct result of the bribery scheme, the Wingate Law Firm collected attorneys' fees out of the ill gotten settlement proceeds. By failing to meet his duties under the Rules of the Florida Bar and in fact promulgating this improper conduct by directing his employees actions, Wingate reaped great monetary benefits and damaged RCL-
RCL estimates that on the twenty (20) cases where it has documented the Wingate Law Firm's improper purchase and use of confidential information resulted in attorneys' fees to the Wingate Law Firm in excess of $1,000,000.00.
Upon discovering the scheme between The Wingate Law Firm and Ballestas, RCL moved to disqualify the Wingate Law Firm from all cases where the firm represented."
"At a January 24, 2008, hearing concerning Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel. The Wingate Law Finn and Jerrold Wingate voluntarily withdrew as counsel for the Plaintiffs in each of the cases described on Exhibit A. Mr.Wingate and his associate Mr.Sotolongo were present at that hearing.
This withdrawal, which was confirmed by Order dated January 28. 2008, required any claim by The Wingate Law Firm for a charging lien {or fees and costs to be adjudicated by this court."
"The Order also noted that attorney Mr. Sotolongo, who was a salaried employee of The Wingate Law Firm, was not counsel of record in any of the seventy-seven (77) cases,
One day after the hearing, on January 25, 2008, Mr. Sotolongo incorporated Sotolongo, P.A. A copy of the Articles of Incorporation are attached as Exhibit B.
On February 5. 2008, Wingate, Sotolongo, The Wingate Law Finn, LLC and Sotolongo, P.A., entered into an Agreement with the law firm of'Rivkiud, Pedraza & Margulies, P.A. (RPM) which agreed upon a division of fees in those cases in which RPM became counsel of record.
This Agreement and a later one dated February 15,2008, between Mr. Wingate and Mr.Sotolongo were made without the knowledge of this Court and without the written consent of any of the seventy-seven (77) Plaintiffs. The Agreements are attached as Exhibits C and D.
Sixteen days later, on February 21,2008, when Mr. Wingate and Mr. Sotolongo were again before the Court, they chose not to disclose the existence of these Agreements despite the fact that the issue of Wingate's right to fees was again discussed between the Court and his counsel.
At the same hearing, when asked if he was going to be seeking referral fees on any of the seventy-seven (77) cases, Mr. Wingate stated that he was "undecided", despite the fact that he had already signed the February 5, 2008 Agreement with the Rivkin firm for the division of fees. By that date Rivkin had become counsel in fifty-one (51) of the cases listed on Exhibit A:
None of these statements reflects the client's approval to a co-counsel or fee sharing agreement at the time they retained Rivkin. Some, but by no means all, reflect approval by the client to a sharing of attorney's fee and none of the statements are signed by Wingate, Sotolongo or their
law firms.
Very few of the statements contain the name of Mr. Sotolongo or his firm, meaning that there is no evidence that the client ever agreed to his retention or to any payment to Mr. Sotolongo. More importantly, the fee sharing Agreement is hopelessly and irrevocably unenforceable.
Page 1 2
