Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1015 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2016 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-01916-MD-MARRA/JOHNSON

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

ALIEN TORT STATUTE AND
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
____________________________________________/
This Document Relates To:
ATS ACTION
_______________________________________________/
Case No. 9:08-cv-80465-KAM
DOES (1-144) et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.
Defendants
____________________________________________/

Plaintiffs Does 1-144 Response in Opposition to

Conrad & Scherer LLP's Renewed Motion to Withdraw
With respect to Plaintiffs Does 1-144, the Court should deny Conrad & Scherer
LLP's Renewed Motion to Withdraw, R. 1011, as moot. Does 1-144 have no reason to
know who Conrad & Scherer LLP or William Scherer are, since neither Mr. Scherer nor
anyone else from his firm has ever contacted them. Since Does 1-144 were never put on
notice of Conrad & Scherer LLP's claim to represent them, it would only confuse Does 1144 for Conrad & Scherer LLP to notify them that Conrad & Scherer no longer wishes to
do so.

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1015 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2016 Page 2 of 7

At one time, Conrad & Scherer LLP aggressively fought for control over Does 1144's cases. Now that the RICO witness payment enterprise has come to light, Conrad &
Scherer LLP seeks to distance itself from Mr. Collingsworth. However, the District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama has already held that Conrad & Scherer LLP
may be liable for Mr. Collingsworth's acts in the Drummond cases, since Mr.
Collingsworth was acting at all times as Conrad & Scherer LLP's agent. Additionally,
Conrad & Scherer LLP controls IRAdvocates, since two of the three board members Charity Ryerson and Christian Levesque - are Conrad & Scherer LLP employees. The
third director is Mr. Collingsworth himself.

Although Conrad & Scherer and Mr.

Collingsworth claim that he no longer works for them, both Conrad & Scherer and
IRAdvocates use the same office. Therefore, Conrad & Scherer LLP will be liable in this
case for Mr. Collingsworth's acts even if they withdraw.
Finally, presuming that Conrad & Scherer are capable of carrying out their plan to
notify thousands of Colombian war crimes victims of their withdrawal, this would serve
no good purpose, and cause widespread confusion among the many thousands of
plaintifffs in the MDL. For these reasons, Conrad & Scherer LLP's Motion to Withdraw
should be denied as moot, at least with respect to Does 1-144.
1.

There is no need for Conrad & Scherer to notify Does 1-144 of their
withdrawal, since Conrad & Scherer has never represented Does 1-144.
Neither Conrad & Scherer LLP, IRAdvocates, William Scherer, Terrence

Collingsworth, Eric Hager, or Ivan Otero have ever had power of representation over any
of Does 1-144's cases. No agent of any of these lawyers or law firms has ever met with
any of Does 1-144, who all consider Paul Wolf to be their attorney, and the four

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1015 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2016 Page 3 of 7

employees at Asesorias Paul, who are Wolf's legal assistants.1 If asked, it is very
unlikely that any of Does 1-144 would have any idea who William Scherer is, or what
Conrad & Scherer LLP is. Therefore, they have no attorney-client relationship.
When I met Does 1-144 in May of 2007, Mr. Collingsworth was not working for
Conrad & Scherer LLP. My retainer agreements with Does 1-144 didn't mention Mr.
Scherer or Conrad & Scherer LLP.

See Exhibit 1. Besides myself and Mr.

Collingsworth, the retainer agreements mentioned another attorney Bob Childs, who soon
had a falling out with Mr. Collingsworth and no longer wanted to be involved.
After I learned that Mr. Collingsworth was getting his own clients on the side in
Magdalena, I met with about half of Does 1-144,2 who signed separate documents
renouncing any relationship with Mr. Collingsworth. See Exhibit 2, which is a copy of
the form they signed. Before I completed this process with all of the original 144
plaintiffs, Defendant Chiquita Brands filed a Motion for the DC Plaintiffs to Designate a
Single Lead counsel, R 76, which was granted on August 13, 2008. R. 201. Mr.
Collingsworth responded on August 23, 2008 with a Motion to designate himself as lead
counsel and a supporting Declaration. R. 125 The Court then ordered myself and Mr.
Collingsworth to provide our qualifications for being lead counsel for Does 1-144. R.
130. I filed my response on 9/12/2008, R. 135, using Searcy Denny Scarola Barnhardt &
Shipley ("SDSBS") as local counsel, in the mistaken belief that I could not communicate
with the Court except through local counsel. Mr. Collingsworth filed a Supplemental

In the Does 1-88 v. Boies Schiller case, some Plaintiffs identified my company, Asesorias Paul, as their
lawyer, instead of myself. This is because most of their interactions have been with my staff.
2
Of the 144 Doe Plaintiffs in the first complaint, Does 2, 4, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 29, 31,
32, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 52, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 67, 70, 73, 74, 76, 77, 80, 81, 83, 86, 87,
90, 92, 93, 97, 98, 100, 105, 107, 113,118, 120, 121, 122, 126, 128, 140, 142 have all signed documents
renouncing my original agreement with them, which mentioned Mr. Collingsworth and Childs, and signed
new agreements granting power of representation only to Paul Wolf.

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1015 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2016 Page 4 of 7

Motion and Declaration on September 15, 2008. R. 137. Also on September 15, 2008,
Jack Scarola filed a notice in court that my credentials had been filed "in error," and
purported to withdraw the document I filed, without even consulting me. R. 138. I then
agreed with Mr. Scherer that his firm could act as lead counsel for the first 144 plaintiffs
in this case, in order to end the dispute. See Exhibit 3, attached hereto. A stipulation was
filed in court on September 16, 2008, R. 144, that Conrad & Scherer and Terrence
Collingsworth would be lead counsel for Does 1-144's cases.
There is a problem with this arrangement, however.

Clients can't just be

transferred without their consent. Rule 1.5 B (e) of the D.C. Code of Professional
Responsibility states that when lawyers not in the same firm jointly represent a client, the
client must be advised in writing of the identity of the lawyers who will participate in the
representation and give informed consent. Does 1-144 have never given their consent
that Conrad & Scherer LLP would represent them. Neither have the Plaintiffs who
signed documents renouncing any prior agreement that mentioned Mr. Collingsworth's
name. See FN 2 supra. Conrad & Scherer and Mr. Collingsworth know that about half
of Does 1-144 had already renounced their original agreements in writing. I mentioned
this when I presented my credentials to the Court to represent them. R 135.
My agreement with Mr. Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer required the parties
to inform all of the clients involved of the arrangment. "A joint communication will be
formulated by the parties to inform all clients of the preferred and agreed upon division
of responsibility." See Exhibit 3 at 1. On two occasions in 2008, I sent a proposed joint
communication to the clients to Mr. Collingsworth, copying Mr. Scarola on each. See

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1015 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2016 Page 5 of 7

Exhibit 4, attached hereto.3 On both occasions Mr. Collingsworth replied that he was too
busy. When I encountered Mr. Collingsworth at a meeting at Cohen Millstein Sellers &
Toll in 2010, he expressed interest in the joint notification of Does 1-144, but we never
followed through. Since none of the first 144 plaintiffs were ever notified that Conrad &
Scherer had made any agreement to represent them, there is no need to notify them that
Conrad & Scherer no longer wishes to do so.
II.

The District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has already held
that Conrad & Scherer LLC can be held liable for any damages caused by
Mr. Collingsworth's alleged defamation and RICO conspiracy.
As in the cases against the Drummond Coal Company, in the instant case, Conrad

& Scherer LLP may be held liable for damages caused by Mr. Collingsworth under a
strict liability theory inherent in the practice of law, and also because Mr. Collingsworth
has been a partner at Conrad & Scherer LLP for most of the nine years the Chiquita case
has been in court.

See Exhibit 5, Memorandum Opinion and Order of 12/7/15 in

Drummond v. Collingsworth, 11-cv-3695 (NDAL), attached hereto, at 18.

"The

unfortunate truth for the law firm is that every brief filed in this court in each of the
Drummond cases was filed by Collingsworth acting as an agent of Conrad & Scherer.
Every statement made by Collingsworth in this court in each of the Drummond cases was
made in Collingsworths capacity as an agent of Conrad & Scherer for the benefit of
Collingsworth, as well as his firm."

Id.

Although Conrad & Scherer filed an

interlocutory appeal in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, see Case No. 15-90031, we
believe the appeal is meritless for the simple reason that so many other Conrad & Scherer

The joint communique was written by Jack Scarola and is worth a careful reading. It states, as it must,
that the client herself has the power to determine which lawyer will represent her. I suspect that after
reading this, Mr. Collingsworth decided he would be better off avoiding this step, since the clients all know
me, and none of them know Mr. Collingsworth, who cannot even speak Spanish.

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1015 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2016 Page 6 of 7

LLP employees were involved in the enterprise, besides Mr. Collingsworth. "As of May
23, 2011, at a minimum, Terrence Collingsworth, Bill Scherer, Richard Drath, Billy
Scherer, Susana Tellez, Lorraine Leete, Victoria Ryan, Pauline Kroper, and Danielle
Kisslan had all received written notice that [two paramilitary witnesses] had been paid."
Drummond Opinion, Exhibit 5, at 20 n 15.
Mr. Scherer's argument that IRAdvocates can continue to represent Does 1-144
after Conrad & Scherer LLP withdraws should be viewed with skepticism. IRAdvocates
is an alter ego of Conrad & Scherer LLP. The Board of Directors of IRAdvocates
includes Terrence Collingsworth, Charity Ryerson, and Christian Levesque. See Exhibit
6, IRAdvocates IRS Form 990 filing for 2014, attached hereto. Ms. Ryerson and Ms.
Levesque still work for Conrad & Scherer LLP. Although Conrad & Scherer LLP claims
that Mr. Collingsworth no longer works for them, IRAdvocates and Conrad & Scherer
LLP still share the same office at 1301 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 350, Washington,
D.C. 20036. Since Conrad & Scherer LLP controls IRAdvocates, its withdrawal from the
case would be meaningless unless IRAdvocates also withdraws. It's also hard to imagine
that Mr. Collingsworth is now working independently of Conrad & Scherer LLP, while
IRAdvocates still work from their office.
III.

Mr. Scherer's plan to notify Does 1-144 would cause chaos if he actually tried
to do it.
We doubt that Conrad & Scherer has the ability to contact Does 1-144, or their

addresses or phone numbers. We are unaware of any contacts between them in the last
nine years. However, if Conrad & Scherer were able to locate any of Does 1-144 on their
own, this would alarm Does 1-144, who believe that I am their lawyer. Particularly those
who renounced my original agreement that mentioned Mr. Collingsworth and Mr. Childs.

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1015 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2016 Page 7 of 7

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should DENY Conrad & Scherer LLP's
Renewed Motion to Withdraw as MOOT, since Conrad & Scherer has never had any
valid power of representation in the cases of Does 1-144, or even contacted them. In the
alternative, the Court may schedule a hearing for the purpose of determining who actually
represents Does 1-144, as occurred in the Does v. Boies Schiller case. Finally, we would
suggest that trying to sort out client representation is premature at this stage, until
Defendant Chiquita Brands' Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens has
been decided.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
____________________
Paul Wolf, CO Bar 42107
Counsel for Does 1-144
PO Box 46213
Denver CO 80201
(202) 431-6986
paulwolf@yahoo.com

March 5, 2016

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on this 5th day of March, 2016, I electronically filed the
foregoing Doe Plaintiffs Reply to Doe Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Order to Supplement
Production of "Crime-Fraud" Documents with the Clerk of Court using the ECF system,
which will send notification of such filing to all persons entitled to receive such notices.
/s/ Paul Wolf
____________________
Paul Wolf, CO Bar #42107