A recent Southeast Texas Record story, “O’Quinn Firm Sued for Legal Malpractice by Silicosis Clients” reports that a group of 187 former silicosis clients of the O’Quinn Law Firm has sued the Houston firm, the late John M. O’Quinn’s estate and others, alleging the defendants overcharged them for expenses in silicosis suits, failed to distribute some silicosis settlements and communicate information about them, and were negligent in handling claims against some bankrupt silica defendants.

In the underlying action, the plaintiffs were workers in plants, refineries, and construction worksites at various Texas locations where they claim they were exposed to silica-containing products and diagnosed with silica related diseases.  The plaintiffs employed the O’Quinn firm on a contingency fee basis and issued them a Power of Attorney to represent them in claims against manufactures and distributors of silica related products, materials, and protective equipment.

According to the 11- page complaint, Troy House, et al. v. O’Quinn Law Firm, et al. (pdf), the plaintiffs allege that during the course of representing the plaintiffs, the O’Quinn firm incurred unnecessary and excessive expenses and then recouped the expenses from the plaintiffs’ settlement funds.  Jerry Pusch, a Houston solo who represents the plaintiffs, says a few weeks ago, some former silicosis clients received letters from the firm stating that as part of the wind-down the firm is auditing some silicosis settlements that could affect how much money they receive.

In 2007, an arbitration panel ordered O’Quinn to refund at least $35.7 million to more than 3,000 former breast implant litigation clients who claimed the firm improperly withheld settlement money.  The arbitrators said O’Quinn made improper general expense deductions including professional association dues, flowers, fundraising, other lawyer’s fees and overhead.  O’Quinn had required his clients to sign a binding arbitration agreement in the event of a fee dispute.