Courage is the most important attribute of a lawyer. It is more important than competence or vision. It can never be an elective in any law school. It can never be de-limited, dated or outworn, and it should pervade the heart, the halls of justice and the chambers of the mind.

- Robert F. Kennedy, Speech at University of San Francisco Law School, San Francisco, 29 Sept. 1962, quoted in Sue G. Hall, The Quotable Robert F. Kennedy 111 (1967)


SIMMONS, JANNACE & STAGG'S REPRESENTATION OF 9/11 WIDOW APPEARS AS LEAD ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL


Simmons, Jannace & Stagg's decisive victory in a seminal federal court decision under the world trade center terrorism statute appears as the lead article in the August 28, 2006 edition of the New York Law Journal. The story is entitled Attorney's 9/11 Fee Called 'Shocking, Unconscionable' (http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1156511799036) . An article covering the case, entitled Hunting WTC Payday - Lawyer Ripped Over Suit for 2M in Fees, also appeared in the August 26, 2006 edition of New York's Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/446797p-376180c.html) and in the September 1, 2006 edition of Newsday, in an article entitled She Wants Her $2M Back (http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-liwido014873229sep01,0,2113420.story?coll=ny-linews-print).
Simmons, Jannace & Stagg represented a widow of a man who died in the attacks in connection with a lawsuit filed in federal court by the attorney who represented her before the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund. The attorney sought $2,000,000 as a contingency fee and filed suit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment entitling him to his fee.
Simmons, Jannace & Stagg moved to dismiss the federal action, arguing that the Victims Compensation Fund did not provide federal jurisdiction for an action by an attorney seeking to protect his fee. The firm also argued that there was no reported case that upheld jurisdiction under the Fund where the issue concerned a private dispute between an attorney and his former client concerning the amount of a legal fee. Simmons, Jannace & Stagg pointed out that there was no reported case upholding such an exorbitant fee for representation before the Victims Compensation Fund. Finally, Simmons, Jannace & Stagg argued that the federal court should abstain because the state Surrogate's Court had already begun an inquiry into the size of the attorney's fee.
The federal court, after hearing argument, issued an order and agreed that the Victims Compensation Fund did not provide federal court jurisdiction. The court also agreed with Simmons, Jannace & Stagg's argument that it should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction. The court stated that given the pendency of the Surrogate's Court proceeding, federal abstention doctrines mandated that the federal court abstain from exercising its jurisdiction unless and until the Surrogate's Court proceeding was concluded. The court stayed the attorney's action, but retained jurisdiction for the purpose of any renewed applications after the conclusion of the Surrogate's Court case.

This is believed to be the first federal court decision holding that attorney's fee disputes arising out of the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund should be litigated in the state courts.


More Simmons, Jannace & Stagg Press Releases