Opinion
Civil Action 2:22-CV-03945
06-09-2023
JANE TUCK, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL. Defendant.
JAMES D. CAIN, JR., JUDGE.
DECLARATION
KATHLEEN KAY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I, R. William Huye, III, do solemnly declare that the information furnished in this declaration is to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
1. Attached hereto as exhibits are to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief copies of the following documents:
a. Retainer agreement between Jane Tuck, McClenny, Moseley and Associates, PLLC, Galindo Law Trial Counsel, and Krause and Kinsman Trial Lawyers LLP (hereinafter “Retainer Agreement” and attached as Exhibit A).
b. Copies of letters, texts, and other communications which I drafted and were sent to Jane Tuck. (Attached as Exhibit B).
c. Estimate prepared by expert estimator hired by McClenny, Moseley and Associates PLLC on behalf of Jane Tuck (hereinafter “Estimate” and attached as Exhibit C).
d. Detailed printout of all Smart Advocate activity on this file since inception of the relationship between Jane Tuck and MMA. This printout is complete to the best of my knowledge. (hereinafter “Printout” and attached as Exhibit D).
2. Below are my written and sworn statements:
a. Although I was not personally involved with how Jane Tuck became a client of MMA, based on my review of MMA's file for Jane Tuck (hereinafter “MMA's Jane Tuck File”), it appears that Marquez Jane Tuck contacted Galindo Law Trial Counsel and signed the joint representation agreement. (See Exhibit A at p. 8 Retainer Agreement “AGREED BY: Jane Tuck March 10, 2022”).
b. My recollection is that I have not personally spoken with Jane Tuck over the telephone, however, my review of MMA's Jane Tuck File confirms that Jane Tuck received numerous letters, texts, and other communications which I drafted and sent to Jane Tuck. (See Exhibit B).
c. During my employment with MMA, the practice was to review a summary of key file information before it was used to draft complaints, which were then reviewed before filing. To the best of my knowledge, that practice was followed in the Jane Tuck case, and I believe (although I have no specific recollection) that I would have been one of the multiple MMA team members involved in the review process for that case.
d. My review of MMA's Jane Tuck File confirms that, to draft the complaint, the MMA team relied on the information provided by an Insurance Agent at Bryan Strange Smith Insurance. (See Exhibit A at p. 5 (indicating “1. Claim No. with Bryan Strange Smith Insurance under Policy No. occurring on or about August 29, 2021” and Exhibit A at p. 10 (indicating “Other Insurance Provider Answer: Bryan Strange Smith Insurance)). Additionally, the MMA team relied upon the estimation of damages provided by the estimator hired by MMA on Jane Tuck's behalf. (See Exhibit C).
e. During my prior employment by MMA, the following software applications were used by MMA for case management: Smart Advocate, Microsoft Excel, Practice Panther,
SharePoint, File Share, Outlook, and Google Sheets.
f. Based on my knowledge and belief, I am not aware of records of activity that were saved outside of the software listed in question (2)(f).
g. Although I was not personally involved with the negotiation of any fee sharing agreements, based on my review of the Retainer Agreement in MMA's Jane Tuck file, there does appear to be a fee sharing arrangement between MMA and another law firm. (See Exhibit A at p. 5 footnote detailing the fee sharing agreement).
h. I was not personally involved with the negotiation of any fee sharing agreement. My understanding is the law firms wished to work together to optimize technology and resources to best serve the client's interests. More specifically, Krause and Kinsman Trial Lawyers LLP optimized technology, processes, and resources at the direction of MMA to expedite the litigation and the eventual recovery in all cases where a recovery could be achieved. This included text and email messaging capability for client updates and information requests, software improvement, software implementation, case status setup, and reporting functions all at the direction of MMA attorneys.
i. Krause and Kinsman created processes at the direction of MMA that were designed to expedite the litigation and enhance recovery. The technology enabled MMA to update the status of each case and each task in order to trigger the next task and keep each of the cases moving forward toward resolution. This was designed to benefit all clients for whom a recovery could be obtained.
R. WILLIAM HUYE, III