Paul Scott is partner in the Firm and represents clients in a broad range of civil litigation, including claims for products liability, breach of warranty, trucking litigation, personal injury, premises liability, medical malpractice, trade secrets, constitutional law, employment law, and general civil litigation. In addition to representing individuals, small businesses, and government officials, Paul also represents some of the world’s most-recognized companies, including a Fortune 50 corporation and an internationally-known fashion designer.
Paul has received the Martindale-Hubbell AV® Preeminent Peer Review Rating. According to Martindale-Hubbell’s website, “AV Preeminent is a significant rating accomplishment – a testament to the fact that a lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence.” Paul was also named as a Super Lawyer Rising Star, an honor given to no more than 2.5% of lawyers in the State of Georgia.
A case of first impression involving appellate practice and the RICO Act. The plaintiff sued several employees of the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and two testing companies, claiming that the defendants violated the RICO Act, among other things. torts. The district court dismissed the RICO claims, holding that the plaintiff’s failure to allege first-party reliance defeated the RICO wire or mail fraud claims. The case proceeded to trial against one of the testing companies, who was represented by a different law firm. Before the entry of the final judgment, however, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that a RICO plaintiff does not have to allege that it relied on a false statement to state a wire or mail fraud claim. Appealing the dismissal of the RICO claims, the plaintiff argued that the Supreme Court’s opinion resuscitated its RICO claims. Faced with this change in the law, Special Assistant Attorney General Todd Carter and Paul argued that the plaintiff waived its right to rely on this new decision because the plaintiff failed to bring the change in the law to the district court’s attention before the entry of final judgment. Notably, BRBCSW’s clients, the GDOT employees, were the only parties to make this argument in this appeal. In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed with BRBCSW’s clients, holding that when there is a relevant change in the law before entry of final judgment, a party generally must notify the district court; if the party fails to do so, it waives arguments on appeal that are based on that change in the law. As a result, all of the RICO claims were dismissed. Douglas Asphalt Co. v. QORE, Inc., 657 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 2011)
A case of first impression under the False Claims Act. Along with John Bumgartner, represented a whistleblower in a False Claims Act action claiming that certain services provided to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries by a physician constituted false claims because the services were worthless. The United States Department of Justice intervened and the hospital subsequently settled. The case received significant press coverage in the local media (newspapers and television), national media (Forbes online and Yahoo! news), and also in legal trade publications. Both Health Lawyers Weekly and Credentialing & Peer Review Legal Insider noted that this case was a case of first impression. U.S. ex rel. Rogers v. Azmat, et al., (United States District Court, S.D. Ga.).
Professional negligence / destruction of evidence. Represented patient of a medical provider who sustained life-changing injuries as a result of the provider’s negligence. After hiring a forensic document examiner and proving that the medical provider altered the patient’s medical records, the case settled for the provider’s policy limits of insurance.
Maritime law. Represented several defendants in a maritime action where the plaintiff sustained burns to over 90% of his body. The plaintiff sought to over $3.2 million in medical bills, over $450,000 for future medical care, and pain and suffering damages. Through an extremely aggressive defense, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case against BRBCSW’s clients in exchange for $25,000, representing 0.68% of the plaintiff’s past medical bills. Muhs v. River Rats, Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1364 (S.D.Ga. 2008)
Nursing home and professional negligence cases. Represented several clients in health-care cases, such as medical malpractice and nursing home cases, and obtained favorable settlements. The names of clients and defendants are not disclosed to protect the privacy of our clients, and in some instances, due to confidentiality agreements.
First Amendment. The plaintiff, a tow-truck operator, actively campaigned for the sheriff’s opponent during the campaign for the sheriff’s office, and the sheriff removed the plaintiff from the wrecker-rotation list one week after the sheriff defeated his opponent. Notably, plaintiff’s counsel represented a tow-truck operator in a similar case and prevailed in the United States Supreme Court. O’Hare Truck Serv. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996). Granting summary judgment for the sheriff, the district court found that the sheriff provided an acceptable basis for removing the tow-truck operator from the rotation list. Smithey v. McDuffie, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144291 (S.D. Ga. 2010). As a result, the case was dismissed against BRBCSW’s client, the sheriff.
Commercial law. Representing the plaintiff in this case, the defendants failed to file a timely answer and a $1.6 million default judgment was entered. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the default judgment, holding that the judgment was not void because the interest rate was allegedly usurious. HRB, LLC v. Alexander, 440 Fed. Appx. 781 (11th Cir. 2011)
ERISA and non-ERISA compensation plans. Represented client in competing claims over correct beneficiary of several ERISA and non-ERISA deferred compensation plans. The client recovered over $2.5 million of the $3.1 million dollars at stake.
Fourth Amendment. In this case, law enforcement officers suspected that the plaintiffs were hosting an underage-drinking party, and the officers entered the plaintiffs’ home and arrested several occupants. During the criminal case, the trial court found that the officers’ entry into the home was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Ealum, 283 Ga. App. 799 (2007). With the criminal charges dismissed, the plaintiffs sued the officers in a civil lawsuit seeking to recover money damages for the officers’ unconstitutional entry and arrests. BRBCSW defended the civil lawsuit, and the district court dismissed all of the claims against the officers. As a result, even though the Georgia Court of Appeals found that the officers violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment, BRBCSW’s defense of the officers in the civil case resulted in the federal court dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ civil claims and the officers not paying any money to the plaintiffs. Ealum v. Wilcox, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144287 (M.D. Ga. 2010)
Products liability /Lemon Law / Regulatory Compliance. Defended manufacturers of automobiles, products, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, and all-terrain vehicles in various claims such as products liability, unfair business practices, express warranty, lemon law, revocation, implied warranty, deceptive trade, failure of essential purpose, and Magnuson-Moss. Represented automobile manufacture in numerous lemon-law arbitrations before the Georgia Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs. Paul also advises an international automobile manufacture regarding certain disclosures that the State of Georgia imposes on manufactures in connection with the sale of a new motor vehicle.
Wrongful death. Represented a sheriff’s deputy and a county in a wrongful-death action arising out of a motor-vehicle accident. The Georgia Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in denying the deputy’s and county’s motions for summary judgment. Purvis v. Steve, 284 Ga. App. 116 (2007)
A fourth-generation resident of Brunswick, Paul is married and has one son and one daughter. Paul is active in the community, having served on his neighborhood homeowners’ association and on the Board of Directors for HelloGoodbuy!, a non-profit. Before law school, Paul worked as a concert promoter. In that capacity, Paul purchased and/or promoted concerts for touring artists such as, for example, John Mayer, Outkast, and Luke Bryan.