Pagkas was hired to represent Edward Mumbert. Mumbert was being sued by Delia Styles. Now, pay attention — it quickly gets messy. Mumbert fired Pagkas and filed a malpractice suit against him. At the same time, Mumbert retained new counsel and appealed the default judgment.
So now there were two cases: the malpractice action and the original case. What did Pagkas do? He went to Styles and bought Styles's rights to the judgment. Pagkas then sought to substitute himself (represented by another lawyer from his same firm that originally represented Mumbert) as the respondent in the appeals court. Mumbert was the appellant, while Styles was the respondent, and Pagkas wanted to replace Styles.
Needless to say, Mumbert didn't think that was very kosher. After all, Pagkas owed duties to Mumbert under the Rules of Professional Conduct. And the court agreed, saying that Pagkas's efforts here were "without precedent" in terms of potentially undermining public confidence in the legal system. Pagkas could conceivably have planned this from the start; he could have pretended to represent Mumbert, gotten all the confidential information, and then become Mumbert's actual opponent. What a devastating blow to Mumbert's chances! It's no wonder that the court concluded that Pagkas "made a mockery" of the Rules of Professional Conduct. They also slapped some sanctions on him.
My suggestion? If you end up with a default judgment against your client, don't try to buy it and become your client's opponent!
