- 222 -
did not have a viable case. He candidly admitted as much to
Mr. Izen on the eve of the trial. Consistent with this view,
Mr. DeCastro had advised his clients, including the Thompsons, to
try to obtain the best settlements they could get and not abide
the outcome of the trial of the test cases. Before the final
sweetening of the Thompson settlement, Mr. DeCastro had
effectively represented his clients, including the Thompsons, in
obtaining a number of settlements (with the burnout feature) on
the order of 20 percent.
Against this background, Mr. DeCastro's conflict in the
Thompson cases became acute when he agreed, in the context of the
final sweetening of the Thompson settlement to provide the
wherewithal to pay his legal fees, to continue to participate in
Messrs. Sims' and McWade's scheme to keep the Thompsons among the
test cases petitioners and to provide the masquerade of trial
representation for the Thompsons as one of the test cases.
Before the trial of the test cases, Mr. DeCastro had written to
Mr. Huestis that Mr. Thompson's participation in the trial
"appears to be wise insurance to obtain cancellation of the
notes".
Mr. McWade, with the knowledge of Mr. Sims, negotiated a
contingent settlement agreement with Mr. Cravens in advance of
the trial of the test cases. However, Mr. McWade intentionally
misled Mr. Cravens as to the nature and legal effect of his
settlement and the need for counsel at the trial of the test
cases. Mr. McWade improperly advised Mr. Cravens that, by virtue
Page: Previous 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011