Objections are Filed to Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C.,'s Improper Charges for Common Benefit Expenses in 9/11 Litigation

NEW YORK, Aug. 25 /PRNewswire/ --Today attorneys representing 9,700 plaintiffs filed scathing objections to Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C.'s request for common benefit expenses before the Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. As detailed in the filing:

(a.) The Papain firm improperly intends to charge plaintiffs $55,284.29 in "Case Specific Expenses" as defined by the allocation Neutral Protocol No. 4 as appended to the Court's Order of June 25, 2010, as Common Benefit (General) Expenses;

(b.) The Papain firm improperly intends to charge plaintiffs $13,122.00 as Common Benefit costs for depositions they did not conduct and, in some cases, failed to even attend; and,

(c.) The Papain firm failed to supply supporting documentation and invoices for over $222,063.63 it claims as costs.

Plaintiff's lawyer Paul Napoli, who represents some 9,700 ground zero plaintiffs noted, "These expenses benefited no plaintiff other than the individual in whose case the costs were incurred.  Non-Papain plaintiffs or other firms' plaintiffs should not be obliged to pay these expenses that Papain disingenuously submits as having been incurred for a 'common' benefit."  Among other things, the Papain firm asks the court to charge all of the plaintiffs $18,909.17 for the case-specific depositions of individual plaintiffs and non-party witnesses or treating physicians related to individual claimants' cases. In addition, the Papain Firm has submitted $35,550.00 for Papain plaintiff case-specific experts labeled as a charge incurred for the  common benefit of all claimants.

"It is our opinion that many of these filings fly in the face of clear orders from the Court.  Someone has to stand up for these workers.  The Papain firm knew this and clearly decided to push the limits of the Court's Order. I see no other alternative than the Court striking many of these expenses as a direct violation of the Court's June 25, 2010 Order," said Napoli. He continued: "We want to be sure that the firefighters, police and construction workers we represent, and those represented by other attorneys, are not forced to pay any charges that are clearly the Papain firm's own costs.

It is anticipated that the Court will hear these charges to determine whether Papain's expenditures will be stricken during a hearing on September 1.

This release was issued through WebWire(R). For more information visit http://www.webwire.com.

SOURCE Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, LLP