PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia man has filed a lawsuit against his former lawyer, charging that the counsel in question used his underlying job injury suit as collateral to obtain litigation funding and subsequently transferred that amount’s high-interest loans to his legal fees.
Sean Murtaugh of Bryn Mawr filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 3 versus Robert S. Goggin III Esq., Goggin & Duckworth, P.C., Forceno Goggin & Keller, P.C., Keller & Goggin, P.C., Jordan Litigation Funding, LLC and Norris Jordan, all of Philadelphia.
“Beginning around 2009, plaintiff Mr. Murtaugh began working for Amtrak as a Lineman. Mr. Murtaugh was a union employee, part of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Ways Employees (BMWE). On Jan. 18, 2018, Mr. Murtaugh was installing a feeder arm on a pole with a T-Mobile antenna atop the pole near Paoli station in Paoli, Pennsylvania. The T-Mobile antenna contained active, high levels of RF and EMF energy, which was not deactivated before Mr. Murtaugh began working on the pole,” the suit says.
“While Mr. Murtaugh, and his co-worker Steve Price, were in the aerial man basket in the proximity of the T-Mobile antenna, he began to experience disorientation, cognitive loss, dizziness, dry heaving, nausea, and other similar neurological symptoms. Mr. Murtaugh had a titanium medical implant in his head and neck region, which Amtrak was aware of, and which acted as an amplifier of RF and EMF energy. Mr. Murtaugh went to Paoli Hospital, where he was diagnosed in the emergency department with only dehydration. He was discharged that day. When the tinnitus and headaches did not improve after a few days, Mr. Murtaugh was admitted to Jefferson University Hospital for night from Jan. 26 to 27, 2018. While at Jefferson, he was diagnosed with severe tinnitus.”
The suit adds that he suffered repeated symptoms of tinnitus and headaches, symptoms he continues to suffer to this day.
“Just a few days after the incident, Mr. Murtaugh hired defendant Goggin and his firm. Mr. Murtaugh sought defendant Goggin’s representation because defendant Goggin has a close relationship with the BMWE. Defendant Goggin has often attended union events to advertise his services for Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) cases and other personal injury cases. FELA is a federal statute that allows federal employees to bring claims against their employer for workplace injuries, essentially functioning as the worker’s compensation statute for federal employees. Not only did Mr. Murtaugh hire defendant Goggin, but so did Mr. Murtaugh’s co-worker, Steve Price. The contingent fee agreement between Mr. Murtaugh and defendant Goggin is undated, however, defendant Goggin sent Mr. Murtaugh a letter on Feb. 13, 2018 confirming his and his firm’s representation of Mr. Murtaugh. The Contingent Fee Agreement is silent on whether defendant Goggin has the right to take out litigation funding to cover case costs and then pass any accumulated interest onto Mr. Murtaugh,” the suit states.
“The Contingent Fee Agreement is also silent on how the repayment of liens asserted by Amtrak would be repaid and whether that number would be calculated before or after attorney fees paid. The Contingent Fee Agreement is also silent on defendant Goggin’s concurrent representation of Steve Price. Defendant Goggin never explained that the concurrent representation may cause a conflict of interest between the two plaintiffs and defendant Goggin did not obtain written informed consent for the concurrent representation. Defendant Goggin never explained the conflict that may occur if one of the two plaintiffs wanted to accept a settlement offer but the other plaintiff did not. On Sept. 17, 2018, defendant Goggin filed a single complaint in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on behalf of both Mr. Murtaugh and Mr. Price. The complaint was signed by defendant Goggin’s then-associate, now-partner James Duckworth.”
While his underlying suit was pending and on Goggin’s recommendation, Murtaugh received financial support exceeding $33,000 from defendant Jordan Litigation Funding – and he ultimately was awarded a $475,000 settlement, before trial was to occur last March.
This move was allegedly made despite Goggin initially seeking to secure a $10 million settlement, according to the lawsuit, and that defendant Goggin accepted the settlement offer without his authorization.
Furthermore, Murtaugh contends that Goggin’s office later issued him a bill for interest on other monies Goggin had received from Jordan Litigation Funding, which had been secured in order to pay for expert witnesses and depositions for the planned trial, in addition to medical bills.
But Murtaugh claims these additional loans, nearing $137,000 with accrued interest, were taken out without his knowledge or consent, and that Goggin was attempting to charge the accrued interest for this funding against him.
In a Nov. 8 session for Amtrak’s motion to enforce the settlement it entered into with Goggin, the suit says Goggin provided false testimony, stating that “Mr. Murtaugh had taken out multiple litigation loans and that the settlement had been reached on the Friday before trial” – when in fact, “it was defendant Goggin, not Mr. Murtaugh who took out multiple litigation funding agreements and the settlement was reached more than a week before trial was scheduled to start.”
It is Murtaugh’s belief that defendants Goggin and Jordan Litigation Funding “hatched a scheme to enrich themselves and to minimize their own risk at the expense of Mr. Murtaugh.”
“Defendants Goggin and Jordan Litigation Funding entered secret agreements to charge interest payments against Mr. Murtaugh without Mr. Murtaugh’s knowledge or consent. In so doing, defendants Goggin and Jordan Litigation Funding placed their own interest in recouping Jordan Litigation Funding’s investment and limiting Goggin’s risk over honoring Mr. Murtaugh’s interest in pursuing his case at trial,” the suit says.
“This scheme has caused significant economic damages to Mr. Murtaugh. Defendants carried out this scheme over the course of several years and through at least six different funding agreements. Based on the language in the funding agreement, including language that defendant Jordan Litigation Funding was giving a preferred rate because Mr. Goggin was Mr. Murtaugh’s lawyer, it is believed that defendants have conducted this scheme with other clients of defendant Goggin.”
Murtaugh further cited prior disciplinary actions against both defendants Goggin and Jordan in the Delaware Court of Chancery and by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority where each were respectively cited for unethical and fraudulent conduct.
“Thus, it should be no surprise that defendants came together to create this scheme to use defendant Goggin’s attorney services and defendant Jordan Litigation Funding’s services, to prey on people like Mr. Murtaugh by using the largely unregulated litigation funding industry,” the suit says.
While states such as Maine, Vermont and Oklahoma have passed laws preventing litigation funding from being used for paying associated legal costs, Pennsylvania, to date, has not.
Though the plaintiff filed a motion to seal the complaint and place a redacted version on the public docket on Jan. 4, the motion was denied the following day by U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John F. Murphy.
For counts of racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering in violation of the RICO statute, securities fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, civil conspiracy and declaratory judgment, the plaintiff is seeking, jointly and severally, recoverable damages in excess of $2 million, including an award of trebled damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages and actual damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and such further relief as this Court deems just and proper, plus a declaratory judgment that he is not responsible for repaying any cash advance or interest to Jordan Litigation Funding.
The plaintiff is represented by Zachary S. Feinberg and Aaron J. Freiwald of Freiwald Law, in Philadelphia.
The defendants have not yet retained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-00026
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com