Firestone Steeltex Class Action Lawsuit Attorneys Respond to State Bar Complaint from Bridgestone/Firestone to Have Them Disbarred

LOS ANGELES--Dec. 9, 2003--Attorneys in the Firestone Steeltex Class Action Litigation Group which is handling a national lawsuit against Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. today filed a response to a complaint filed against them with The State Bar of California ("State Bar") seeking to have them disbarred. According to Attorney Joseph L. Lisoni, the group provided the State Bar with documentation and a written response refuting allegations by the manufacturer that they violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and made false claims about its products.

Lisoni, a senior partner in the Pasadena, Calif., law firm of Lisoni & Lisoni, was responding to a November 4, 2003, letter from the State Bar detailing nearly two dozen instances in which Bridgestone/Firestone alleged that he made false statements or breached the legal rules of professional conduct. Similar letters were sent to attorneys Gail M. Lisoni, his wife and partner, and to Steven E. Weinberger.

The allegations made by Bridgestone/Firestone against the consumer advocate attorneys relate to a national class action lawsuit which his firm filed against the tire manufacturer on August 12, 2002, seeking damages for alleged defects from its Steeltex R4S, R4SII and A/T tires. The lawsuit contended the tires had caused multiple deaths and injuries nationwide. Subsequently, on November 15, 2002, Lisoni filed a petition with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting it reopen its previous investigation of the Steeltex tire series.

In filing the response to the State Bar, Lisoni stressed that Bridgestone/Firestone's complaint was a "desperate, dysfunctional act on its part to deflect public attention away from the extremely serious defects in their Steeltex tires." He further noted, it represented a "back door" approach to obtain information from him in the wake of the court's ruling it couldn't take his deposition.

Commenting on the tire manufacturer's effort to get him disbarred, he remarked: "What we have here is a classic `David v. Goliath' situation combined with another major multi-national corporation `cover-up.' We are a small firm which Bridgestone/Firestone has not been able to shake in the 16 months since we filed the lawsuit. If the company can't beat us in court -- which it can't -- it wants to have us removed from practicing law. Even if it succeeds, another law firm would continue the lawsuit. It also seeks to deflect attention from the faulty design and de-engineering of its Steeltex tire series that continues to cause injuries and deaths."

Lisoni said the allegations brought by Bridgestone/Firestone to the State Bar against him and his colleagues fall into three categories: making false claims about the extent of the deaths and injuries caused by alleged Steeltex tire defects; not providing the amount of documentation he claimed to support those charges; and that correspondence purportedly soliciting business was not properly labeled "advertisement" or "newsletter."

With the letter of response filed today, Lisoni produced the alleged solicitation correspondence which he emphasized clearly reveal that they were sent for informational purposes and not to solicit business. He also provided the State Bar with appropriate documentation to verify that the claims he made regarding alleged deaths and injuries were true as well as the extent of the documents and claims that he purported to have on file.

Lisoni also emphasized that all of the allegations made against him and his firm by Bridgestone/Firestone were untrue and that the corporation knew this before filing their complaint. "At this point in the litigation process for the class action lawsuit, it is not going well for Bridgestone/Firestone and they know it," he stressed.