Matthew Joseph Fairless

When interviewed by a potential client, Fairless stated all the things a client would want to hear, including how the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous and that his potential client’s defense was good. However, it soon became apparent Fairless’ primary objectives were to generate billable hours for hi...mself, for his colleagues, and to have a good rapport with the judge. Fairless failed to conduct due diligence on the filing of the case, where the plaintiff lacked standing to file the lawsuit. Fairless demonstrated his priority to use the case for his benefit by his decision not to immediately pursue the dismissal of this lawsuit, The case was referred to mediation, and when settlement discussions began, Fairless appeared to revise his initial stance on the merits of the case and seemed to abandon his clients’ interests. What transpired seemed to be a collaborative effort among the attorneys to settle this case out of court. It appeared Fairless went along with this effort to have a good rapport with the other attorneys and most importantly with the judge by saving the judge from having to try the case. In doing so, it gave the appearance that Fairless’ image was more important to him than his client’s interests. In addition it was discovered that opposing counsel was accepting stolen funds as compensation for their work. When Fairless was asked, "are attorneys held to the same standards as those they prosecute," Fairless looked away as if there was an unwritten code among lawyers regarding attorneys getting paid. Fairless did not do anything. IF opposing counsel did not get paid, the case would have come to a halt.