Major v. Williams, No. 05-30280 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _______________ m 05-30280 _______________ ELLIOTT J. MAJOR, JR., ETC.; ET AL., Plaintiffs, VERSUS RON LIONEL WILLIAMS, ET AL., Defendants. *************** January 4, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk COURTNEY MAJOR; ET AL., Plaintiffs, VERSUS RON LIONEL WILLIAMS, ET AL., Defendants, JOHN-MICHAEL LAWRENCE, Intervenor-Appellant, VERSUS R. JOSHUA KOCH, JR., FORMER COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS COURTNEY MAJOR, ELLIOTT J. MAJOR, III, AND NICOLE MAJOR, Intervenor-Appellee, VERSUS DARRYL M. PHILLIPS, Appellee. _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana m 2:03-CV-2488 ______________________________ 2 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* John-Michael Lawrence, as intervenor, appeals a judgment denying his claim for fees and costs against Darryl Phillips and the Cochran law firm in the case of Elliott Major, III. Lawrence claimed, in the district court, that as attorney for the father, Elliott Major, Jr., he was entitled to take at torney s fees from the settlement share of the son, Elliott Major, III, because the son, as a minor, could not retain separate legal counsel. The magistrate judge, sitting by designation, disagreed, holding that Lawrence s representation of both father and son would have created a conflict of interest and that, moreover, Lawrence never acted on behalf of the son and that the son was emancipated and that his legal services contract with his counsel was valid under Louisiana law. We have reviewed the briefs of counsel and pertinent portions of the record. We agree generally with the court s conclusions, and in any event we find no reversible error. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons assigned by the magistrate judge in her comprehensive Order and Reasons entered on January 26, 2005. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
