Judge allows Nugent racketeering case to move forward

ALBANY — Dougherty Superior Court Judge Stephen S. Goss has ruled that a suit filed by attorney Christopher Cohilas on behalf of Alexandra C. Myles charging attorneys Kenneth Nugent and Christopher Warren as well as Kenneth S. Nugent PC and The Nugent Law Firm LLC with conspiracy, violation of the state’s RICO Act, fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, civil theft, professional negligence and several other claims are valid and may move forward.

Goss’ ruling came as a response to nine motions filed in the case brought by Myles, who was injured in a 2011 automobile accident and hired the Nugent law firm to represent her claims against the city of Smithville and its employee, James McGrady.

“We are absolutely elated to see this ruling on groundbreaking issues that will permit our client’s claims of racketeering (against Nugent, Warren and the law firm) to move forward,” Cohilas said. “Judge Goss, I think, did an outstanding job of considering all of the evidence in this case when making his decisions. We look forward to moving forward with a trial.”

According to information in the case transcript, McGrady, who was an employee of the city of Smithville, failed to yield at a stop sign at the intersection of Georgia Highway 3 and Livingston Road while working for the city on Jan. 14, 2011. The city vehicle he was driving, a Ford Econoline van, slammed into Myles’ Ford Expedition while traveling of a speed of around 60 mph.

McGrady was ticketed by responding law enforcement officers at the scene.

As a result of the collision, Myles suffered glass cuts to her mouth, legs and arms. She also suffered damage to a number of discs and lumbar, injuries that may eventually require spinal surgery.

Myles, seeking damages for the medical costs associated with the wreck and, according to court documents, enticed by television advertising for the Nugent Law Firm, sought to hire Nugent to handle her personal injury claim.

According to court documents, over the next two years Myles never met Nugent, had only one face-to-face meeting with Warren, who was working as an attorney in Nugent’s Albany satellite office, and when she finally did meet with Warren — after several attempts to contact him — was told (erroneously, it turned out) that the two-year statute of limitations had run out on her case.

Warren, though, according to court documents, encouraged Myles to accept a $10,328 settlement offer after he apologized for allowing the statute of limitations to run out in the case. Further court documents show that the Nugent firm actually accepted the settlement offer, even after Myles said she would not accept it, and had someone endorse Myles’ name on the check made out to “Alexandra Myles & her attorney Kenneth S. Nugent.” The check was then, documents show, deposited in the firm’s escrow account.

In an amended complaint for damages and relief on Myles’ behalf, Cohilas referred to the Nugent firm as a “settlement mill” and a “dumping ground for thousands of personal injury clients, such as the plaintiff, who are harvested through fraudulent advertising and other deceptive means.” In court documents, Cohilas referred to Nugents’ methods as a “bait and switch scheme.”

The plaintiff’s attorney referred to advertisements on local television stations as part of the “bait” and “fraudulent contracts” drawn up, usually by office personnel who are not attorneys, as the switch through which the firm acquired “power of attorney,” which Nugent said in a deposition he felt entitled the firm to settle cases on clients’ behalf, with or without their permission.

Asked during a deposition if a provision in the Nugent firm’s contracts “authorizes the attorneys of Kenneth S. Nugent PC to go make and accept settlement offers without consulting with the client,” Nugent answered, “I would say that in certain situations — well, are you asking me if it would allow it, allow them to do it … is that what you actually asked me? Yes, it certainly allows them to do it.”

In his Amended Complaint for Damages, Cohilas refers to state law that notes, “A client who enters into a contingent fee contract with an attorney cannot relinquish the right to decide whether to accept a settlement offer.”

In the Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief, Cohilas makes claims of conspiracy against all defendants; joint venture in reference to Nugent, Nugent PC and Nugent Law Firm LLC; respondeat superior, in which the defendant is liable for claims the plaintiff would have recovered (since the claim against the city of Smithville was “settled” with the acceptance of the $10,328 payment); violation of the Georgia Civil RICO (racketeering) Act; conspiracy to commit violations of the RICO Act; aiding and abetting violations of the RICO Act; actual fraud and constructive fraud; breach of fiduciary duties; conversion/civil theft; professional negligence; gross professional negligence; negligent (and grossly negligent) training/supervision/implementation of policies, practices and procedures; injunctive relief; punitive damages; damages, and attorney’s fees and expenses.

Goss granted a summary judgment on Myles’ behalf in regards to the “settlement” check; denied Nugent’s motion to dismiss the suit; denied Nugent’s motion for summary judgment as it pertains to the firm’s “illegal” contract; refused to dismissed certain counts of the case; refused to protect local television station WALB’s claim that the amount of advertising fees paid the station by Nugent’s firm is privileged; denied a motion to separate Nugent’s firms from the case; reserved a ruling on striking parts of the amended claim concerning RICO charges, and deferred ruling on The Nugent Law Firm LLC’s motion for summary judgment as they relate to RICO charges.

Cohilas said he hopes the case will go to trial “by the end of the year.”