Complaint filed in diocese settlement case
By Adam Parker
Attorneys representing sex abuse victims colluded with a circuit judge and the Catholic Diocese to pocket $2.5 million and steer away future molestation cases, a complaint filed with the state Supreme Court claims.
The complaint, filed in December by Greenville lawyer J. David Flowers, alleges negligence and breach of fiduciary duty by class counsel; civil conspiracy by class counsel, the diocese and Circuit Judge Diane Goodstein; and "outrage against all Defendants."
"Collusion by a church, lawyers and a judge to harm the rights and interests of victims of sexual abuse constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct which exceeds all possible bounds of decency and which must be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community," the complaint states.
Larry Richter and David Haller, the two attorneys who represented the class of victims, strongly denied the allegations. Goodstein did not return phone and e-mail queries by The Post and Courier.
In an unusual request, Flowers is petitioning the South Carolina Supreme Court to exercise "original jurisdiction" and hear the case directly, without waiting for it to make its way
through a normal appeal process. Such cases are rare and occur only when the interests of the public are at stake.
The complaint follows a friend-of-the-court brief filed by Flowers in June last year, in which the lawyer first made an accusation of collusion. The Supreme Court petition and other documents in the case were reviewed by Michael J. Virzi, an expert on legal ethics who teaches at the University of South Carolina School of Law and recently served as Assistant Disciplinary Counsel to the S.C. Supreme Court. Virzi, who was hired to do the review by Flowers, is chairman of the South Carolina Bar Ethics Advisory Committee.
Previous stories
Charges fly in suit over Catholic Diocese settlement, published 06/26/08
Q&A with Diocese spokesman, published 02/25/09
"It is my opinion that (Richter and Haller) engaged in negligent acts and omissions in their representation of Plaintiffs," he said in an affidavit listing 12 concerns, including "failure to provide competent representation," "failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness," "failure to keep clients reasonably informed," "attempting to charge and charging an unreasonable fee" and "representing clients when the representation involved a concurrent conflict of interest."
Richter called the allegations "ludicrous" but said he couldn't comment on specifics because the case was pending.
"David Flowers is a very strange man and has a very strange agenda," he said.
Richter's attorney, Warren C. Powell, would not comment on the case, referring a reporter to a response filed with the Supreme Court. In the response, Powell stated that his clients "have no objection to the Supreme Court exercising its original jurisdiction over this action" but request that the court "conduct discovery, retain and identify experts, and file appropriate motions" because of the complexity of the case.
"Further," the response said, "Defendants deny any wrongdoing alleged by Plaintiff."
In a detailed e-mail response to questions posed by The Post and Courier, diocese spokesman Steve Gajdosik strongly rebutted the charge of collusion and restated the confrontational nature of the case in which Richter and Haller sought to have the court sanction the diocese, prompted an investigation into possible cover-up and sought to have church officials held in contempt. Gajdosik also explained that the diocese did not agree to a class counsel fee based on hourly billing and challenged the amount of the award at a 2007 hearing.
Flowers, who said he hired Virzi to provide an affidavit according to court rules, would not discuss the case on the record, citing the Supreme Court's pending decision.
In his complaint, Flowers said that the parties to the settlement allowed Richter to choose a legal venue other than Charleston County, and that he chose Goodstein's courtroom in Dorchester County.
Richter said in June that he selected Dorchester County because of its reputation for efficiency and relatively uncluttered docket of cases. He said he thought its rural location out of the limelight would appeal to the diocese.
Peter Shahid, attorney for the diocese, told The Post and Courier last year that the case belonged in Dorchester County because it was part of complex proceedings that would best be adjudicated by Goodstein.
In recent years, Goodstein has been mentioned as a candidate for the state Supreme Court, according to reports. Richter, a former state senator and circuit judge, ran unsuccessfully for attorney general in 2002.
In his e-mail, Gajdosik wrote that "Judge Goodstein was judicious in her review of this case, meeting with the parties, expressing her concerns and guiding this case in a fair resolution."
The complaint takes issue with Richter's "astonishing statement" that he has maintained a lifelong relationship with the Diocese of Charleston. "The reason this statement is astonishing is that he never disclosed this information to the members of the classes," the complaint stated, citing a conflict of interest.
Richter has publicly discussed his religious status to emphasize the gravity of the case he was pursuing against his own church.
The complaint questions the legitimacy of the $2.5 million fee awarded by Goodstein to Richter and Haller.
Billing issues questioned by the documents include:
• Repeated billing for more than 24 hours in a single day.
• Billing individually for e-mails sent en masse.
• Excessive billing on the last day of the month, including Feb. 30, "a day that does not exist."
• Consecutive one-hour entries registered within less than a minute of each other.
"Defendants' billing records show 3,385.5 total hours spent by lawyers and staff at Richter & Haller; however many of the time entries are clearly false in that they are nonsensical and/or impossible," Virzi states.
Haller explained the billing method last June, saying calculations were made with the help of a semi-automated computer program that often time-stamped the line item at the hour of the calculation, not when the task was performed. Haller also said that calculations for days in which billing hours exceeded 24 were totals representing the entire time spent on a given task, not the time spent that day.
On Monday, Haller said the charge of collusion was "delusional or irrational" and that he was very proud of his work on the case. He said the billing records, prepared according to case law precedent, were designed to provide the court with justification for class counsel's fee. A defined fee range — $900,000-$2.5 million — had been negotiated with the diocese, and the final payment amount was decided by the court, Haller said.
"To cap exposure to both the diocese and the class, we settled on a range," he said. As a percentage of the total settlement amount, the fee is reasonable, he said, adding that Flowers was present at a February 2007 hearing at which attorneys' fees were discussed. "I think it's a fair question to ask, 'Why now, two years later, is it suddenly an issue?' " Haller said.
Gajdosik wrote in his e-mail that victims' settlement awards were determined independently from attorneys' fees, and were not affected by the amount received by class counsel.
"I think the important thing to remember is that no victim received a dollar less in their claim due to attorney's fees," Gajdosik wrote. "Even after fees were paid, there were excess dollars returned to the Diocese. Would the Court have awarded lower attorney fees, the Diocese would have realized a larger return of its deposit."
Flowers, who was involved in the sexual abuse case against Porter-Gaud School settled in 2000, has asked the court to force class counsel to forfeit its fee until billing questions can be resolved.
Virzi, in his affidavit, sums up: "It is my opinion that Defendants' conduct fell below the standard of care, competence, diligence, and loyalty expected of lawyers."
The parties wait to know whether the S.C. Supreme Court will agree to hear the case under "original jurisdiction." If the high court says "no," the case could be filed in a lower court for adjudication.
Reach Adam Parker at aparker@postandcourier.com or 937-5902.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
lillycollette (anonymous) says...
"Collusion by [:] lawyers and a judge to harm the rights and interests of victims [:] constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct which exceeds all possible bounds of decency and which must be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community,"
And this happens in the family court a lot. Soooo, where the h*** are the lawyers who are alleged to be willing to clean up that putrefied mess?
Over the last eight years no one has been willing to man up to the plate on that one.
February 26, 2009 at 4:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
Of course they have plausible deniability.
Of course...
I pray the truth comes to light and these individuals are punished enough to frighten the others who are feeling froggy and are wanting to jump of the fraudulent bandwagon.
February 26, 2009 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...
3,385.5 total hours isn't at all high for a case of this type against a large Defendant with major resources.
This type of problem has bankrupted religious denominations around the world. Hopefully someone now take the problem of child molestation seriously. It's a huge struggle to keep these people away from children.
At least the days are over when the perverts where shipped off to Indian schools in remote areas or poor diocese to prey on children year after year.
February 26, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
amicus_non_ego (anonymous) says...
I find it laughable that you people are commenting on the billable hours of the attorneys who worked on this case, (on behalf of molested children nonetheless), instead of the fact that the Catholic Church often succeeds in its attempts to obstruct justice and move priests that are known offenders to different areas. If a CEO of a huge corporation was shown to have known about and covered up the criminal activity of his managers, he would be imprisoned and eviscerated by the media. Meanwhile, the biggest business in the world - the Church - continues to perpetuate this unconscionable behavior and avoids punishment, except for monetary settlements....
And you're complaining about the attorney's fees? Wipe the ash of your faces, you look ridiculous.
February 26, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mabilene (anonymous) says...
It all goes back to the fact that the Catholic Church thinks they are, in actuality, only obligated to another set of "laws." Based on the papacy. Which is not Scriptural and should have been abolished when Martin Luther said it should. 500 years ago.
You are exactly right, amicus -- If CEO's willingly ignore these types of abuses of their managers, they themselves face the racks of the justice system. And rightly so.
Going after abuses in the Catholic Church seems about as promising as getting the authorities to actually look into cases of police/prosecutorial misconduct. Nobody wants to open up that PR nightmare.
February 26, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
twini1 (anonymous) says...
To Harold Reems and amicus-
Thats right ...because you judge all by what a few have done. Wow I hope you're not teaching this to your beloved children. All we need is more hate in the world. All who have commited these crimes should be found guilty and punished for breaking the law. You can tell both of you are extremely uneducated..I hope the cycle doesn't continue....To ridicule a religion that is not your own is pure intolerance.
February 26, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mabilene (anonymous) says...
It is my own twini1 -- and that is why I am free to share my Disillusionment with the whole ugly system.
February 26, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
twini1 (anonymous) says...
of course, everyone is entitled to free speech. My problem is mocking certain aspects and traditions of a religion as part of your argument. This somehow deemed acceptable by certain individuals.
February 26, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mabilene (anonymous) says...
The mob is also a tradition! Some of these traditions are purely for control and fear-mongering purposes. Threat of ex-communication?!? It doesn't seem right that any MAN has been expressly given that power, as it relates to Christ's Church.
I am a firm believer in a having a strong leader in any democratic body -- but Rome is too far removed from the "traditions" of America. And the "laws" of America. Furthermore, we don't speak Latin, here. We speak English!
February 26, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
amicus_non_ego (anonymous) says...
Twin1 said: "You can tell both of you are extremely uneducated..I hope the cycle doesn't continue....To ridicule a religion that is not your own is pure intolerance."
Ah, Twin, I would love to delve into the 1000 ways that I am certainly anything but "uneducated," but I will simply state that I am college graduate from a top 40 institution, and I am also in my third year of Law school. So if you would like to continue with insulting groundless assertions, I'd be happy to show everyone who reads this thread how pathetic you are.
Secondly, I was raised Catholic, and was also an acolyte (I know that's a big word for you, so it means: altar boy) for 12 years. While I wasn't molested, I did eventually begin to rise above the unsubstantiated fear and guilt that the Church feeds on and instills in every one of its meekly mindless followers. So I probably know far more about the Catholic church, the bible, and from the sound of your thread probably most everything than you.
Religion, as Marx best put it, "Is the opiate of the masses." It fills in the proverbial hole in our metaphysical understanding about where we fit into this existence. Most people are either too afraid or too ignorant (brainwashed or just stubbornly clueless) to be content with not having a definitive answer to the age old question: "Why are we here?" For those of us that know better, and who have studied enough history to recognize the often humorous cycle of human attempts at "knowing" a deity of some form can see past the blind logic that you seem to subscribe to. Religion is a man-made device, and is subject to the same fallacies that come with human error and nature.
The Pope is aware of the molestation and yet remains unaccountable. While you seem to think that only the few bad apples should be held out for punishment, and the rest of the church is unfairly painted, (by jaded individuals like me, I suppose), you're willful blindness to what ought be done is actually kind of hilarious to me. The Catholic Church is a fear-mongering business entity that gleans billions of dollars a year from poor saps like you. As the head of the Church, like any other CEO, the Pope has knowingly obstructed justice by allowing known pedophiles to remain in the priesthood and by shifting them around between dioceses and should be held accountable.
You are correct, however, when you said I am ridiculing your religion. I think all religion is absurd. However, there is a sharp distinction between spirituality and religion. I believe in God, (or some form of a creating power), but I recognize the audacity in claiming to know that my depiction of that deity is the only right one, and all the other fallacies of religious claims. Keep your religion. I've had enough of that mess. And the Catholic Church officials that allow pedophiles to remain in the priesthood should be brought before the Hague on international criminal charges.
February 26, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Todd (anonymous) says...
Somebody needs to tell Richter, Haller AND Flowers that in South Carolina, attorney discipline is all completely at the Supreme Court's discretion. The only element that counts is who can get to a member of the Supreme Court first and with the biggest political punch. And Virzi? His sister, Barbara Seymour, is the #1 assistant to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel Lesley Coggiola who reports directly to the Supreme Court. This ought to be a political and personal fight to which the Court can sell tickets and cure all of their budget woes.
February 26, 2009 at 3:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
twini1 (anonymous) says...
You have some serious anger issues that you need to deal with as well as a superiority complex. I wish you the best in Law school and hope your narcissistic tendancies don't follow you much longer. As I have stated before everyone is entitled to their opinion and need to be respectful of others.
February 26, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
amicus_non_ego (anonymous) says...
Hilarious Twini1.....I will assume that your silence on every point and counterpoint I raise can be taken as concessions. Respect is earned, and you won't get it from me when you respond to a well written post by calling me "uneducated." Anything that you presume to be narcissistic in my following post was simply a defense of my 28 year education. Now I hope you say 5 Our Fathers and 10 Hail Mary's for the name calling...
February 26, 2009 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mabilene (anonymous) says...
Thanks for sharing your insights, amicus -- Godspeed to you!
twini1 -- you have apparently not ventured about enough yet, in someone else's shoes, to be diagnosing neuroses and dispensing advice.
amicus is right -- respect has to be earned. It doesn't suddenly materialize just because someone summons it.
~IMHO~
February 26, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mabilene (anonymous) says...
Oh -- and Todd -- you always have tasty morsels of truth. I heart you, man!
I will be the first in line to buy a ticket to that!
February 26, 2009 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mabilene (anonymous) says...
Republican is a worn out expression, blue_eyes. Meaningless around here. Like our national currency is about to be.
The molesters in question are Catholic, which is not always synonymous with conservative -- or even Christian. Republican means "nothing" in this context.
February 26, 2009 at 6:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
amicus_non_ego (anonymous) says...
And irrelevant....let's not bait people into a partisan debate when there is no application in the current thread...
Mabilene - you're welcome. I actually worked on a case against the Diocese of Charleston, and it was pretty ridiculous how long they had known about a particular priest's affinity for young boys and did nothing about it. By the way, (I don't post enough, so...) what does ~IMHO~ mean?
February 26, 2009 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mabilene (anonymous) says...
~In Mabiliene's Humble Opinion~
;)
February 26, 2009 at 6:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
amicus_non_ego (anonymous) says...
Haha....Thanks!
February 26, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
just1reader (anonymous) says...
Amicus, if you are in your 3rd year of law school, you should be aware by now that lawyers are subject to a civility oath ... be mindful.
February 26, 2009 at 10:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mabilene (anonymous) says...
amicus, ignore the thought police that skulk around here.
They are pitiable, at most.
amicus' unadulterated opinions are much more valuable to civility than are yours, just.another.lawyer.thug!
February 26, 2009 at 10:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
amicus_non_ego (anonymous) says...
just1reader - I'd love to know how 1) I have been uncivil and 2) how you think the civility oath lawyers take applies in the least to anonymous online commentary. I will say this - I am always mindful, especially of people like twini1 and you who think they possess some sort of moral high ground rooted in some institutional dogma.
Thanks for the heads up though....I'll be sure take it under advisement....
February 26, 2009 at 11:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MP (anonymous) says...
I love it when lawyers go after lawyers. Kind of like rats going after cheese.
February 27, 2009 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mabilene (anonymous) says...
It's what they do best. Takes one to know one, you know!
February 27, 2009 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Out with old ...
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- Tough times have taught comedian's sister to love life
- Off campus
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
