AUSTIN - A federal judge is recommending at least one defendant be dismissed from an Austin law firm’s $10 million lawsuit, which seeks damages from former clients for their alleged “refusal to pay earned and contractually owed attorneys’ fees and expenses.”
Williams Simons & Landis filed suit against Riskon International, Ecoark, Zest Labs Holdings and San Francisco-based law firm Bartko Pavia earlier this year in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
Court records show that on July 20, U.S. Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell issued a report in the case, recommending the presiding court grant Bartko’s motion to dismiss, and deny the Zest defendants’ motion to dismiss.
According to the lawsuit, WSL’s legal services for the defendants produced “extraordinary” results, including landmark jury verdicts and a massive settlement against Walmart.
The suit states WSL obtained a $115 million jury verdict and judgment in the case against Walmart in its home forum. After securing the benefit of WSL’s work, the defendants undertook a “concerted course of conduct” to avoid payment, conceal settlement proceeds, and place assets beyond WSL’s reach.
WSL asserts that rather than honor their contractual commitments once recovery was achieved, the defendants refused to pay, in conjunction with Bartko withheld critical information regarding settlement proceeds and restructured their affairs in an effort to circumvent the firm’s contractual and equitable rights.
The report found that the Zest defendants retained Bartko and other counsel to represent them in the new trial ordered in the Walmart Litigation, and WSL “dutifully assisted the new lawyers in taking over the” litigation.
After a second trial, the Zest Defendants obtained a $223 million jury verdict “using the same evidentiary record originally created by WSL.”
Bartko moved to dismiss WSL’s claims against it, arguing that they are barred by the doctrine of attorney immunity and fail to state a claim. Conversely, WSL contended that Bartko’s alleged conduct falls outside the scope of attorney immunity and insists that it adequately pleaded its claims against Bartko.
“Here, Bartko’s entitlement to attorney immunity is evident from the face of WSL’s complaint,” the report states. “WSL brings claims against Bartko for tortious interference with contractual relations and unjust enrichment… WSL’s allegations thus center on Bartko’s legal advice to the Zest Defendants and management of the settlement proceeds of the Walmart Litigation, both of which fall within the ambit of conduct undertaken in the representation of a client.”
Case No. 1:26-cv-00034-RP
