## Facts

- Numerous product-liability actions concerning allegedly defective implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and pacemakers were centralized in a federal MDL.
- The parties executed a global settlement creating a $240 million fund intended to resolve approximately 8,550 claims, followed by a court-approved allocation plan.
- Patrick Mulligan, counsel for many MDL claimants, communicated about the tentative settlement and later urged clients to accept, repeatedly referencing only the aggregate fund and overall claimant count.
- Mulligan told clients individualized allocation information was not yet available, although he obtained the allocation plan and did not provide individual figures to clients until months later, when he sent allocation checks and release materials.
- Clients complained that Mulligan failed to respond to communications, pressured them to accept the settlement, and did not provide timely client-specific allocation information needed to decide whether to consent.

## Issues

1. Whether the MDL transferee court had authority to investigate and discipline an attorney for alleged misconduct tied to administration of an aggregate settlement in cases before it.
2. Whether counsel’s delayed disclosure of client-specific allocation information and settlement communications warranted sanctions or other discipline for violating duties of communication and informed consent.

## Decision

- The court held it had authority, including inherent supervisory authority, to investigate and address alleged attorney misconduct connected to the MDL and its settlement administration.
- The court found counsel’s settlement communications and delay in providing client-specific allocation figures were deficient and raised serious concerns about informed client decision-making.
- The court declined to impose the most severe disciplinary measures on the record presented, opting instead for a corrective, admonitory response emphasizing ethical obligations in aggregate settlements.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court may supervise and, when appropriate, discipline attorneys appearing before it to protect litigants and the integrity of proceedings, including in MDL practice.
- In an aggregate settlement, counsel must provide each client material information sufficient for informed consent, including the total settlement terms, each client’s proposed share, and the basis for allocation.
- Counsel may advise clients about litigation risk, but communications must not be materially misleading or coercive, particularly when client-specific settlement information is withheld.
- Sanctions should be proportionate to the proven misconduct and supported by the record, even where the court identifies serious deficiencies in counsel’s handling of client communications.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed its power to police attorney conduct in an MDL settlement context, criticized counsel’s delay in providing client-specific allocation information and related communications, and responded with admonition and guidance rather than extreme discipline.


In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 05-md-01708, 2009 WL 5195831 (D. Minn. Dec. 22, 2009)