No. of offices 9 offices Date founded 2003 Number of attorneys 76 | No. of attorneys 80+ Founded 2003 | |
 | ||
Major practice areas Anti-Terrorism & Human Rights, Asbestos and Mesothelioma, Aviation Disasters, Catastrophic Injury, Consumer Fraud, Defective Medical Devices & Drugs, Environmental Contamination, BP Oil Spill, Occupational Disease, Products Liability, Securities Fraud, Workers Rights, Wrongful Death, Whistleblower/Qui Tam Key people Ronald Motley, Co-founding member; Joseph Rice, Co-founding member; Mary Schiavo, Former Inspector General, US Department of Transportation; William Narwold, Member Attorney Profiles | ||
2013 adao aac sponsor recognition motley rice
Motley Rice LLC is one of the largest American plaintiffs' litigation firms. Founded in 2003, Motley Rice seeks justice and accountability on behalf of people and institutions harmed by wrongdoing and negligence. The firm is currently involved in litigation seeking to hold accountable those who allegedly financed the September 11, 2001, attacks. Motley Rice is headquartered in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, and has offices in eight cities across the United States.
Contents
- 2013 adao aac sponsor recognition motley rice
- Motley rice s inaugural projectgo
- History
- Practice areas
- Notable lawyers
- Controversies
- References
Motley rice s inaugural projectgo
History
Motley Rice was formed in 2003 by co- founding members Ron Motley and Joe Rice after the breakup of the law firm Ness, Motley, Loadholdt, Richardson & Poole P.A. Ron Motley played a vital role in building a case against the asbestos industry in the 70s and also served as lead attorney in the Tobacco litigation of the mid 90s, which resulted in the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.
Practice areas
Notable lawyers
Controversies
In March 2012, Motley Rice was ordered to pay ITT Educational Services almost $400,000 in legal fees for pursuing a “frivolous” lawsuit the judge said was “based on a completely false story.” On review, the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the order and reinstated the lawsuit against ITT. The Court of Appeals was critical of the lower court's dismissal, writing, “[W]e believe that Leveski’s case is yet another instance of a district court dismissing an [False Claims Act] suit after viewing the allegations at too high a level of generality.”