Fee Arbitration Requested in Rille and Roberts Case Against Packard
Friday, September, 16, 2011
Fee arbitration has become the subject of a dispute in a California state court. It has been reported that attorneys from the firm of Packard, Packard & Johnson have filed several whistleblower lawsuits based on research compiled by Normal Rille and Neal Roberts, both of whom once worked as professional accountants. Now, Rille and Roberts are suing the Packard firm alleging that the firm has charged them fees that had already been recovered from defendants in the whistleblowing cases. In dispute is almost $1.5 million in fees.
The compliant filed by Rille and Roberts alleged that Packard "maximized its potential fee recovery, while making Plaintiffs foot the bill for virtually all costs. This unilateral fee/cost allocation transformed a potential but previously unknown conflict of interest into a current and serious conflict of interest between the lawyers and their clients. Despite this inherent and undisclosed conflict, PPJ continued to advance its unfair and unjustified effort to shift the entire burden of paying for litigation costs on plaintiffs."
Fee Arbitration Requested
Packard responded by requesting that the issue be referred to legal arbitration. Packard also denied that any double-dipping had occurred and characterized the lawsuit as sour grapes on the part of the plaintiffs, who Packard alleges were dissatisfied with the outcome of the whistleblower cases.