Cornell & Associates Pro

timeliness of replying to client inquiries and availability of attorneys to phone calls

I was represented by G. Ware Cornell of Cornell & Associates P.A, regarding a legal matter from 2007 through 2011. To my knowledge, Lisa Cornell was not an employee of the law firm but she was actively involved in my case from jury selection to other matters, that included asking me, the client, “to come stay with them” at their residence when I waivered on settlement negotiations in a lawsuit (See Exhibit A). Her actions, participation and motives, as well as, those of her husband, G. Ware Cornell, proved extremely questionable. Mr. Cornell engaged in deceptive practices throughout the four years that he represented me. When I finally uncovered Mr. Cornell’s deception and confronted him about it, he used that opportunity to withdraw from the case. Unfortunately, at that point, he had convinced me to file a meritless appeal in a third lawsuit.
For background purposes in this matter: Mr. Cornell filed three separate lawsuits, 10 to 18 months apart, in three different venues, concerning the same nucleus-of-operative-facts and requesting the exact same damages by merely splitting the defendants. He refused to include all of the defendants in a single lawsuit and provided a legal reason for his actions by stating that I could only sue my employer (the Company) in that type of litigation (See Exhibit B). His legal advice proved disastrously incorrect. There is a basic concept in the law called Collateral Estoppel or in this case Defensive Collateral Estoppel that prohibits such actions. The cases were filed as follows:
1.The first lawsuit was filed in Federal Court in April 2007 in the Southern District of Florida-Case No. 07-60510-CIV-Ungaro. A Jury Trial took place in July 2008- A Judgment was rendered in my favor in August 2008, based upon the evidence. It was later determined at this point in August 2008, that ALL of my legal claims and damages had been adjudicated. The damages awarded were severely restricted because Mr. Cornell had refused to include all of the defendants in the lawsuit. I was denied Punitive Damages based upon the jury instructions because management had not been included in the lawsuit. Mr. Cornell provided false information as a reason for not adding them (See Exhibit C). Mr. Cornell also reasoned that I should accept the small settlement offer in the case because he was asking for $8,000,000.00 in the second lawsuit (See Exhibit D). Catastrophically, the court granted Summary Judgment to the defendants in that lawsuit just two months later.
2.The second lawsuit was filed in Federal Court in February 2008 in the Middle District of Florida-Case No. 08-00393-CV-23EAJ (Two-Counts). Count I was decided at summary judgment in favor of the defendants in July 2009. Mr. Cornell filed under a statute that only “Provided the Right to be Free from Slavery”. A judgment was entered against me. Mr. Cornell stated that “the federal court was lazy” about interpreting the case and that an appeal was warranted (See Exhibit E). He filed the appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. About seven months later, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision issued by the lower court in February 2010 and remanded Count II to State Court. The Court’s decision resulted in a Citation of Law (See Exhibit F). Mr. Cornell requested a Rehearing on Count I. The Court reaffirmed their original verdict in April 2010.
3.The third lawsuit was filed in Florida State Court in August 2009 in Hillsborough County-Case No. 09-CA-019545. That case was decided in favor of the defendants at Summary Judgment because of Defensive Collateral Estoppel. Mr. Cornell stated that the Court was incorrect in its findings and defense counsel’s pleading for Defensive Collateral Estoppel was without merit (See Exhibit G). He further stated that defense counsel was a sneaky, underhanded, witch and a poor excuse for an attorney (See Exhibit H). H