Attorneys in a wildfire lawsuit against PacifiCorp have accused the utility of colluding with outside law firms to coerce fire survivors into unfavorable settlements, and are seeking court intervention.
In a July 18 filing in Multnomah County Circuit Court, attorneys for plaintiffs in James et al vs. PacifiCorp detailed recent alleged attempts to mislead survivors of the 2020 Labor Day fires. They asked for court orders barring further such outreach to class members, a public correction of misinformation, and to allow fire survivors who feel misled to back out of settlements with PacifiCorp.
A hearing has been set for Sept. 6 before Judge Steffan Alexander to consider whether or not these outside firms may solicit the representation of class members. The class includes roughly 5,000 survivors of the Santiam, South Obenchain, Echo Mountain Complex and 242 fires.
At issue are Swigart Law Group, Spreter & Peteprin APC, and Warren Allen LLP, which the filing referred to as “SSW.” This group recently secured a $178 million settlement for 403 class members who opted out of the James suit, as announced in a joint press release with PacifiCorp June 3.
Plaintiff attorneys, led by lead counsel Edelson PC, claimed these firms have a business model of seeking “weak settlements” that prioritize attorneys’ fees over financial recovery for victims. They noted the $178 million settlement was 50 percent less per plaintiff than a 2023 settlement with PacifiCorp over the Archie Creek Fire, and more than 13 times less than jury awards secured in the James suit.
A Portland jury found PacifiCorp liable for the Labor Day fires June 12, 2023. Since then $212 million has been awarded to 36 James plaintiffs.
Plaintiff attorneys said PacifiCorp is allegedly pushing wildfire survivors to settle through SSW rather than continue with James. The filing pointed to the June 3 joint press release. They said it was highly unusual for opposing parties to coordinate on such a release and claimed this alone was suggestive of collusion. The July 18 filing requested communications between SSW and PacifiCorp about the release and early drafts of the document.
James attorneys also pointed to quotes in the release from Pacific Power President Ryan Flynn. He called the settlement the “fairest and most efficient” resolution of wildfire claims and described class litigation as “costly and complex.” The July 18 filing noted the timing of the settlement announcement, one week after mediation in James concluded without a resolution on May 27.
James attorneys said the release was “a collaborative, joint effort to solicit James class members to hire these particular lawyers to settle claims at a PacifiCorp-approved, bargain-basement price point.”
In addition to alleged collusion, James attorneys claim SSW improperly solicited the representation of class members.Alleged examples included a recent mailbox campaign targeting survivors of the South Obenchain and 242 fires, with a letter encouraging them to call SSW for settlement information. The letter incorrectly referred to James as a federal lawsuit and inaccurately implied PacifiCorp has established a multi-billion-dollar settlement fund for survivors, said the filing.
The firms also hosted a luncheon in Lyons June 1, advertised on social media as a “litigation update” during which they allegedly solicited class members.
SSW filed a motion in James June 14 asking the court to clarify lead counsel’s scope of representation and whether or not outside firms may solicit class members. The July 18 filing was in opposition to this motion. The Sept. 6 hearing will consider arguments on the motion. Our Town reached out to SSW and PacifiCorp. In separate statements parties categorically denied wrongdoing. As of press time, they had not formally responded to the July 18 filing in court.
“Class counsel’s claims of collusion are false, preposterous, and desperate,” said PacifiCorp spokesperson Simon Gutierrez. “These public attacks on successful settlements are plainly motivated by class counsel’s desire to persuade their clients to hold out for the possibility of more money, from which they collect a significant fee percentage.”
“It is unfortunate that the James Class attorneys have turned to a mudslinging campaign,” said Benjamin Petiprin of Spreter & Petiprin, who responded on behalf of the three firms. “We seek to provide an alternative pathway to Oregonians that will allow them to recover in a timely manner,” he said.
