JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – New questions have arisen in our ongoing I-TEAM investigation into a serial litigant who is now targeting more than 40 local businesses.
Wanda Moore is a wheelchair bound double amputee who is threatening even more lawsuits over potential breaches of federal disability access rules.
The I-TEAM found there could be possible ethics violations involving her attorney, Robert Gibson, who also works as a chiropractor.
The disclosure of a possible conflict of interest came after news broke Wednesday that Moore may not have visited these businesses.
Some of the business owners suspect her son, Rumley Moore, did. He works in some capacity at Gibson's law office.
A number of businesses called, emailed and reached out on social media with concerns about lawsuits filed over their compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act after the I-TEAM's story aired Tuesday.
At least 40 lawsuits filed since January were filed by Gibson on Moore's behalf.
Legal experts raised ethical questions about the circumstances involved in the lawsuits. One is whether Wanda Moore actually visited the businesses she's suing. The second is if Gibson knowingly filed litigation based on misleading information.
Two businesses contend the woman never entered their building, but acknowledged her son did and that he took photographs when he came by.
"She's never been in my shop," said Nina Teuscheld, of Lubi's Hot Subs. "We would notice a handicapped person, especially one in a wheelchair, because we get one in a wheelchair every two to three months."
Gibson, who advertises himself as "The Law Doc" on YouTube, stands to recover attorney’s fees from each case he files on Moore's behalf. In each of the 40 suits filed so far, he wrote that Wanda Moore “personally visited the premises.”
A legal expert said that if it's proven she did not personally visit and Gibson knew that, that violates Federal Procedure Rule 11. That rule requires attorneys to investigate facts before filing lawsuits. The rule also says lawyers cannot allege facts they know to be wrong.
A second ethical issue is this: The Florida Bar rules require attorneys to show "Candor to Tribunal," which means a lawyer must be honest with a judge and avoid even the risk of misleading a judge. If Gibson sued a business knowing Wanda Moore didn't visit there, that could spell trouble.
The I-TEAM pored through hundreds of pages of court documents related to the cases. In some cases, it appeared Gibson or a subordinate was copying and pasting from complaint to complaint. For instance, in the suit against Bill's Diner, the paperwork refers to a different business: Hook Fish and Chicken.
The same pattern is found in lawsuits against Captain D's and Sunrise Caribbean Gourmet. The complaints erroneously mention Bono's Pit Bar-B-Q. Another suit against Mama Lu's Filipino and Chinese Restaurant refers at one point to Lucky Food Mart.
Gibson did not return a message left with a woman who identified herself over the phone as his wife. On Wednesday, Gibson called a different News4Jax reporter, Jim Piggott, to say he and the I-TEAM's Lynnsey Gardner "don't mix."
One business said it is planning to file an ethics complaint with The Florida Bar about Gibson. The Bar would not comment for this story.
Legal experts encouraged anyone with surveillance video documenting that the visits by Moore did not take place as described in the lawsuits to preserve it as evidence.
The I-TEAM wants small businesses that have not been targeted to know there is only one way to protect themselves from paying a plaintiff's attorney fees if they're faced with future lawsuits: Comply with the ADA.
A new state law passed this year allows protection from the plaintiff fees if and only if the business is working to become ADA-compliant before a lawsuit is filed.
The I-TEAM is working to get an accurate number of local businesses threatened with litigation by the Law Office of Robert Gibson and Wanda Moore. Please email at iteam@wjxt.com. Additionally, if you’ve settled or are involved in a current lawsuit, you can remain anonymous.