Paducah Attorney Adam Futrell, who now represents Madisonville native and former Hopkins County Attorney Todd P’Pool, filed a countersuit against the Nottingham, Maryland based business Mariner Finance, LLC, on Dec. 28 claiming $6.2 million is owed to his client.
“We believe well in excess of $5 million is owed to P’Pool from both the damages to his practice and reputation and also on the earned attorney’s fees,” Futrell said.
According to the countersuit, P’Pool and Futrell are claiming a total of $1.2 million is owed in attorney’s fees and $5 million in loss of profit.
P’Pool was named the defendant, along with the P’Pool Legal Group, in a lawsuit filed on Nov. 9 by Mariner Finance, LLC. The civil suit seeks damages for alleged breach of contract, conversion, negligence and includes a petition for injunctive relief and a restraining order.
The suit also claimed that P’Pool owes Mariner Finance $337,421.50 in funds that his firm allegedly collected over his time as working for the finance company in collecting debt owed.
However, Futrell said that P’Pool was blamed by Mariner Finance after the company was sued by numerous debtors.
“P’Pool was hired as a lawyer for Mariner Finance,” said Futrell on Tuesday. “Mariner Finance and its hedge fund owners gave Mr. P’Pool inaccurate information concerning some of the debts they hired to collect. When Mariner was sued by several of its debtors, Mariner turned around and blamed Mr. P’Pool for its woes.”
Futrell added that the termination of P’Pool’s contract agreement with Mariner was a breach of that contract.
“Mariner terminated their contract with Mr. P’Pool in breach of that contract, and has failed to pay Mr. P’Pool for the fees that he earned providing legal services to them,” said Futrell. “So, Mr. P’Pool is just seeking to receive those earned attorney fees.”
The countersuit goes into detail talking about the time Mariner employed P’Pool.
“On information and belief, Mariner breached the representations and warranties … of the agreement … providing Mr. P’Pool with erroneous debtor information, inflated debt amounts, debt amounts calculated in an unlawful manner, debt amounts that were uncollectable by law and debt amounts including interest charged after Mariner decided to ‘charge off’ debtors’ accounts,” according to the countersuit. “Mariner failed to communicate accurately and timely information to debtors, routinely misleading debtors regarding payments, settlements and obligations.”
The suit continues claiming that Mariner refused to accept legal advice from P’Pool providing one example that P’Pool advised Mariner that charging continuing interest on accounts “charged off” internally by Mariner was a violation of law.
Futrell said no hearings have been set and both parties have filed their pleadings allowing for discovery to begin and to proceed with the litigation.
Attorneys representing Mariner Finance did not return phone calls seeking comment on the suit.