Monica Kelly’s lawyer writes to say that a entry contained false and defamatory matter about his client. He encloses a 2016 report of the Review Board of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission recommending that, contrary to the Hearing Board’s conclusion that Kelly filed a frivolous pleading and recommending that she be suspended for 60 days, Kelly’s pleading in fact did not violate ethical rules and that she should not be suspended as a result. Glad to provide her lawyer’s full input on the matter below.
Aviation journalist Christine Negroni reports in Forbes that Monica Ribbeck Kelly, the lawyer who instituted “frivolous” legal proceedings after Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went missing, has herself disappeared. Not only was the Illinois Ethics Committee after Kelly, but she was being sued by victims of an airline disaster in China for promising to file suit on behalf of victims but failing to do so before the statute of limitations expired, leaving the victim’s without any legal recourse. It appears that Kelly has shuttered her law office and gone back to her native Peru.
According to Negroni, maybe this is the last we see of Ribbeck:
There are few successful days in court associated with Monica Ribbeck [Kelly]’s high-profile representation of air disaster victims. So while her departure from the US may deprive dissatisfied clients . . . of any legal recourse, it could be the last we see of her shenanigans with the American legal system.
The Illinois Attorney Ethics Committee has filed a complaint against Monica Ribbeck Kelly, the Chicago lawyer who started legal proceedings on behalf of a passenger’s family shortly after Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went missing. One of the problems for Kelly is that the missing passenger’s parents denied that they ever authorized Kelly to represent them.
According to an ABC news story, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee also claimed in its complaint that Kelly has engaged in… conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute…”
According to the complaint, Kelly’s allegations were frivolous:
[Kelly alleged] that Siregar had been a passenger on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, that the aircraft had crashed, that Siregar had been killed. .[Kelly’s] allegations… had no basis in fact and were frivolous, because [Kelly] knew at the time she filed the petition that no evidence had been discovered regarding the location or disposition of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.”
The ethics commission also criticizes Kelly for suggesting that a mechanical malfunction had contributed to the tragedy when committee said there was “no evidence” suggesting such a malfunction.
Full story and video at ABC News.
Shortly after the crash of Malaysia Flight MH 370, Monica Kelly of the Ribbeck Law Firm announced that her firm was filing litigation in Chicago seeking to preserve evidence and identify other possible defendants who might be involved in the missing Boeing’s manufacture and upkeep. The filing generated quite a bit of fanfare and media coverage for the Ribbeck Law Firm and, at the time, the firm said that it expected to represent families of more than 50 percent of the passengers on board.
But the filing hasn’t turned out so well. The judge has now tossed it out of court, ruling that it was improper and should never have been brought. Further, she noted that she has tossed out previous petitions improperly filed by Ribbeck, so the firm should know better. According to the Chicago Tribune, the judge was not amused:
Ribbeck Law had filed virtually identical petitions last year after separate fatal airplane crashes in San Francisco and Laos, and [Judge Flanagan] had dismissed both for the same reason.
“Despite these orders, the same law firm has proceeded, yet again, with the filing of the (Malaysia crash) petition, knowing full well there is no basis to do so,” Flanagan wrote.
The judge said she “will impose sanctions” if Ribbeck Law continues to make such filings.
According to another article in the Tribune, Ribbeck and Kelly have been in trouble before:
Last year, after the Asiana crash, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that Illinois regulators investigate the firm over allegations its attorneys violated U.S. law barring uninvited solicitation of air crash victims in the first 45 days after a crash. . .
In 2008, Kelly’s brother and partner in the firm, Manuel von Ribbeck, was cited while working for another firm he allegedly posed as a Red Cross worker when he approached a man who’d lost his wife and daughter in a plane crash in the Bahamas. . .
Kelly was recommended for censure last month for allegedly continuing to try to represent a survivor of a 2009 Turkish Airlines crash in the Netherlands that killed nine passengers and crew. The survivor had sent a letter terminating the relationship, records show.
It seems Ribbeck’s problems are not limited to aviation cases:
On March 20, von Ribbeck was found in civil contempt of court after he failed to set up an escrow account for child support as ordered by the judge overseeing a 2009 paternity suit filed against him in Cook County, court records show.
In the order, Judge Lionel Jean Baptiste said von Ribbeck must show up in court April 14 and pay $17,000, or a warrant could be issued for his arrest. . .
April 16 Update: For more, see Christine Negroni’s post "Flim Flam and Shenanigans"
The last thing a victim needs just after an accident is for a crush of lawyers to show up on his doorstep, uninvited, pressuring him to sign up for a lawsuit. But that’s what happens after just about every major air crash. That type of lawyer solicitation is distasteful, to say the least.
But thanks to a special law passed by Congress in 1996, it’s also illegal. The law applies only to airline crashes and prohibits lawyers from contacting victims for the purposes of soliciting business for 45 days after the accident.
Unsolicited communications.— In the event of an accident involving an air carrier providing interstate or foreign air transportation and in the event of an accident involving a foreign air carrier that occurs within the United States, no unsolicited communication concerning a potential action for personal injury or wrongful death may be made by an attorney (including any associate, agent, employee, or other representative of an attorney) or any potential party to the litigation to an individual injured in the accident, or to a relative of an individual involved in the accident, before the 45th day following the date of the accident."
Every aviation lawyer knows the rule. But, unfortunately, not every aviation lawyer follows it. When lawyers cross the line, it’s up to the NTSB to set them straight.
Immediately after the Asiana 214 crash, word circulated within the aviation bar that, as usual, some attorneys couldn’t seem to restrain themselves and were doing whatever they could to get to the crash victims and get them to sign up for a lawsuit — even if it meant violating the law. According to an AP article by Paul Elias and Ian Mader, one firm in question is Chicago-based Ribbeck Law Chartered, which made the news recently after it filed legal papers on behalf of 83 of the Chinese victims it claims to represent.
The National Transportation Safety Board says it has received an unspecified number of complaints. . . NTSB spokesman Keith Holloway said. . . the NTSB reported one firm, Chicago-based Ribbeck Law Chartered, to the Illinois agency that regulates attorneys for further investigation of its on line communications and in-person meetings with passengers."
According to the article, Ribbeck Law is not the only firm that has shown up at the hotel where victims were staying. The question will be whether the firms were invited or if they simply showed up.
Related Post: Attorney Solicitation