Carmen Macri
Words by Carmen Macri
Farah & Farah was once one of Folio Weekly’s most consistent and generous advertisers. Like most local media outlets, we relied heavily on their ad dollars. And when a sponsor puts that kind of money behind a publication, certain privileges tend to follow. Case in point: On May 10, 2005, “Folio Weekly” ran a glowing cover story on Eddie Farah titled “Anatomy of a Trial Lawyer”—arguably one of the most flattering pieces our prior ownership group published.
But a lot has changed since then.
“Folio” is no longer tied to advertiser influence. Our editorial board is committed to pursuing the kinds of stories other outlets often avoid. Meanwhile, the personal injury law game has gotten a lot more aggressive — and State Bar Associations, a lot less vigilant.
As of 2025, Jacksonville ranks 47th in the nation among designated marketing areas (DMAs), according to Nielsen. DMAs are ranked by viewership and help determine what advertisers pay to reach an audience. Surprisingly, Jacksonville sits above several major Florida markets, including Tampa, Orlando, and parts of South Florida. That makes ad space here relatively cheap — and a prime target for South Florida law firms looking to expand their reach without breaking the bank.
Jacksonville’s major media landscape is more consolidated than most markets with fewer companies controlling more outlets. When one company owns multiple major stations in a single market, it’s called a duopoly. Jacksonville doesn’t just have one — it has two. That leaves just three real sources for local TV news.
First Coast News produces content for WTLV (NBC, channel 12) and WJXX (ABC, channel 25), both owned by Tegna Inc. Cox Enterprises runs the newsroom for WFOX (Fox, channel 30) and WJAX (CBS, channel 47). Then there’s WJXT (channel 4), the only major independent station in town, owned by Graham Holdings Company.
On the print side, you’ve got outlets like “The Florida Times-Union” and “Jacksonville Business Journal,” plus radio stations like WOKV — also owned by Cox.
Nearly every major media outlet in Jacksonville is owned by a national corporation with profit at the core. These companies rely on commercial sponsorships, and in many cases, the line between editorial and advertising isn’t just blurry — it’s crossed. Frequently.
Years ago, local reporter Nikki Preede Kimbleton made a simple comment on Facebook expressing frustration over Farah & Farah’s role in a lawsuit involving a family member. Someone at the firm saw it. Not long after, a station manager reprimanded her. Even off-the-clock, reporters weren’t free to speak their minds — especially when it came to big advertisers. It’s a clear example of just how much influence million-dollar sponsorships hold over local media outlets.
Recent Farah & Farah Investigation
The Florida Bar has been investigating and prosecuting Charlie Farah of Farah & Farah for years. But when Folio Weekly’s reporters and sleuths dug through media archives, we found barely a whisper—most stories never made it to air, and the rest were buried in tiny blurbs. Meanwhile, these same outlets have no problem reporting when a local attorney gets a DUI or crosses the line with a client. So why the silence when it comes to one of the city’s most prolific advertising lawyers?
In the Opinion, the Florida Supreme Court found Charlie Farah guilty of violating Florida Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.3, 4-1.4(a), 4-1.16(a)(1), and 4-1.5(f)(2) in contrast to a neutral referee finding in Farah’s favor. The Florida Bar desired a 30-day suspension from the practice of law, and the Florida Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the referee with additional guidance.
According to a federal court order, four respected district judges found that in 2008, Charlie Farah and attorney Wilner filed tobacco litigation claims on behalf of hundreds of people who had never authorized them, and in some cases, had never even smoked. More than 500 of the supposed plaintiffs were, in fact, deceased. The mess only came to light after the court, frustrated by the situation, brought in a special master to investigate. Despite pushback from the attorneys—who insisted everything was above board—the special master sent questionnaires directly to the individuals listed as plaintiffs. That’s when the truth came out. The special master’s report concluded that Farah and Wilner had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the Middle District’s Local Rules and Florida’s Rules of Professional Conduct.
Federal Judges William G. Young, Timothy J. Corrigan, Marcia Morales Howard and Roy B. Dalton Jr. co-authored and signed a 148-page order outlining serious misconduct by Farah. According to the judges, Farah’s actions clogged the system: “Other litigants faced increased delays as the court had to divert its attention to cleaning up the mess that was the Engle docket.” They went on to say it was Farah’s “obstructive,
deceptive and recalcitrant behavior,” combined with hundreds of frivolous filings, that forced the court to pursue sanctions.
The result was a record-breaking penalty of $9,164,404.12. That figure was based on 1,200 bogus lawsuits, each costing the court around $7,000 to resolve. On top of that, Farah and Wilner were ordered to cover the cost of a special master’s seven-month investigation — roughly $435,000. That amount was eventually reduced to $4,329,668.43, with Farah covering half. As far as we can tell, it’s the largest sanction ever handed down to lawyers in this district.
As the four federal judges put it: “On the rare occasion when attorneys undermine that integrity and trust, there must be consequences. This is one of those rare occasions.” The court went further, saying that given the “litany of abuses recited here,” it could “never, in good conscience, sanction another lawyer in the future for failing to investigate a single claim if counsel’s failure here to investigate hundreds of actions were to be passed over.”
All these years later, the Florida Bar is still investigating Charlie Farah and trying to hold him accountable. And yet, not a single television news outlet has reported on this ongoing case.
The Florida Supreme Court repeatedly cites the 2017 federal order in its 2025 opinion. It points out that if Farah and his firm had “diligently conducted a pre-suit investigation in each case and maintained client communication, he surely would have learned” that some clients had already passed away or missed filing deadlines that doomed their cases. The Court found that 500 clients had died before a complaint was even filed, and another 572 had never authorized Farah and Wilner to file or maintain a lawsuit on their behalf.
And if you browse Farah & Farah’s online reviews today, you’ll see similar complaints: poor communication, clients unable to reach their assigned attorney and widespread frustration with a high-volume intake model that seems built for quantity over quality.
Recent Morgan & Morgan Investigation
The ethical issues that come with prioritizing quantity over quality aren’t exclusive to Farah & Farah. Turns out, bigger isn’t always better — in fact, it’s often worse. Take a recent case at Morgan & Morgan involving a hoverboard injury. John Morgan’s son, Mike Morgan, pulled together a legal team from inside the firm and filed suit. However, as key deadlines approached, associate Rudwin Ayala filed a motion in limine with Mike Morgan’s name still attached. Later, Morgan claimed he hadn’t even reviewed the filing.
When asked for comment by a Tampa media outlet, firm founder John Morgan didn’t sugarcoat it: “One of our lawyers relied solely on AI and fucked up.”
According to the same report, the case is playing out quietly in a Wyoming courtroom and has barely registered in the mainstream press. No surprise there — given how much Morgan & Morgan spends on advertising, most outlets won’t touch it. Behind the scenes, big firms are rushing to draft internal memos, while small-firm lawyers keep shaking their heads, wondering how this even happened in the first place.
The court called it exactly what it was: an “AI hallucination.” The fake cases weren’t a technical glitch — they were the result of attorneys failing to verify the citations. Judge Rankin put the blame squarely on the lawyers. In a court order, he wrote: “On January 22, 2025, Plaintiffs’ attorneys, Mr. Rudwin Ayala, Mr. T. Michael Morgan, and Ms. Taly Goody filed Motions in Limine that cited nine cases, but eight did not exist.” By Feb. 10, the attorneys admitted the cases were AI-generated fakes.
Just like in the Farah case, the judge ruled that Morgan & Morgan’s conduct violated Rule 11(b). He didn’t mince words: “A fake opinion is not ‘existing law,’ and citation to a fake opinion does not provide a non-frivolous ground for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law.”
Judge Rankin ruled that Ayala “will receive the highest sanction,” revoking his ability to represent the plaintiff in the case and hitting him with a $3,000 fine. As for Mike Morgan, the court noted he “was not the drafter” of the motion, but still fined him $1,000 for failing to meet his obligations under Rule 11. The judge wrote that while Morgan’s conduct was less severe than Ayala’s, “the imposition of a fine is the least severe punishment to deter future misconduct.” Local counsel didn’t escape unscathed either — they were fined $1,000 as well.
In an apparent attempt to bury the story, John Morgan quickly pushed out a self-serving headline within 24 hours, announcing he was launching a new political party. The timing wasn’t subtle. It helped drown out the fact that the so-called “world’s largest law firm” had just been sanctioned by a federal judge for citing not one, but eight fake cases in what should have been a routine legal filing.
It’s just another example of how some big firms can’t seem to manage their own mess, but when major mistakes happen, they often get a pass from the very institutions that are supposed to protect the public from exactly this kind of conduct.
The Real Anatomy of an Advertising Trial Lawyer
For every sanctions order, Bar violation or public reprimand that makes the record, there are countless stories that never do. Juanita Johnson is one of them. After seeing the nonstop commercials, she believed she could count on Farah & Farah when she was injured on May 20, 2016. That day, she sat in a floor model chair at her local Pier 1 Imports — unaware it had already been recalled. The chair collapsed beneath her, sending her crashing to the floor.
Despite reaching out to Farah & Farah, Juanita Johnson never spoke with — or was assigned to — anyone named “Farah.” Like most clients at big-name firms, she was handed off to a junior associate with no real experience handling a case like hers. According to court filings, that associate, Jeff Gadd, filed a complaint that left out key claims required under Florida law, like product liability, negligent assembly by store employees and other applicable theories. Instead, he filed a single-count premises liability complaint — and named the wrong defendant.
Things went further off track from there. Farah & Farah served a Proposal for Settlement to Pier 1 on June 7, 2018. According to the case file, Ms. Johnson testified that this was done without her knowledge or consent. In fact, records show she repeatedly told the firm not to move forward. She even documented in writing that she didn’t want her case settled until after a second back surgery.
On September 17, 2018, fed up and still in pain, Johnson filed her own handwritten protest with the court, stating plainly that Farah & Farah had failed her. But because she was still technically represented by the firm, the court couldn’t accept her filing.
Under oath, Farah & Farah’s attorney blamed the situation on untrained paralegals, despite the firm’s legal obligation to train and supervise them. Chuck Farah later testified in federal court that Ms. Johnson had been unclear about whether she wanted to accept the settlement, even though the record shows otherwise. She made her position plain — verbally and in writing: do not settle.
Instead of honoring their client’s wishes, Farah & Farah’s own file reveals their lawyers called opposing counsel at Pier 1 and urged them to push for enforcement of the unauthorized settlement, rather than walk it back. Meanwhile, the firm dragged its feet at every turn and failed to secure the settlement funds. So when Pier 1 filed for bankruptcy, Johnson was left with nothing.
If justice delayed is justice denied, this went far beyond delay. It was abandonment.
Why is this happening?
A former employee at a major advertising agency agreed to speak with us on the condition of anonymity. They cited fears of violating a non-disclosure agreement and, more pointedly, the risks of speaking out against “powerful lawyers.”
The former employee told us one of the biggest problems is the lack of training at these high-volume firms. Young lawyers are hired fresh and tossed into a “pod” system, working alongside case managers and paralegals juggling hundreds of files at once. Paralegals, they said, are sometimes pushed to the edge — doing work that arguably crosses the line into practicing law without a license.
Many of the attorneys are paid salaries well below the industry average, making commissions and settlement bonuses their only real path to earning a living. That kind of compensation model breeds conflicts of interest — lawyers are financially incentivized to settle quickly rather than take a case to trial, which costs time, money and effort. Insurance companies know exactly which firms will take the bait and which will fight in court. It’s a dynamic that doesn’t just raise ethical questions — it borders on outright false advertising.
Another former employee told us about their experience working for Morgan & Morgan. Each office would hold “settlement days” where insurance adjusters would come into the office with hand-written checkbooks or laptops that could print checks on the spot. Lawyers, paralegals and adjusters would sit down, discuss open claims and come to a last offer, as if it were some flea market accessory they were all negotiating. This strategy ramped up every spring. Partners at Morgan & Morgan offices would set a target — say, $1 million in fees for the month. If the combined total from case managers, paralegals, and attorneys hit that number, everyone got an all-expenses-paid vacation. The pressure to settle cases fast wasn’t just implied, it was incentivized.
We spoke with multiple local attorneys for this story, and they all echoed the same thing: personal injury cases should settle when the time is right, not when a bonus is on the line. That means waiting until the client is healing and has a clear medical prognosis and real understanding of their long-term needs. Only then can the true value of a case be weighed, especially when non-economic damages like pain and suffering can swing wildly from modest to massive. Settlement timelines can stretch for months, even years. What they shouldn’t be is rushed to meet arbitrary firm goals or packaged up just to score someone a free vacation.
Forcing cases to settle in an arbitrary 30-day period seems to create conflicts of interest and wouldn’t make many clients happy if they knew. The former lawyer at Morgan & Morgan agreed with many of the local lawyers we spoke with, but also noted that lawyers at these firms are not supposed to talk about the incentives or how the settlement offer came to be.
Perhaps this is why lawyers get a bad rap. But part of raising the bar should be more transparency, not less. When the media won’t ruffle the feathers of their advertisers, these stories get lost. Our court dockets are filled with people seeking justice and getting further harmed by their hired advocates.
Deceitful Advertising
In legal advertising, nothing beats the prized “testimonial” ad. It’s the gold standard — clients singing your praises straight to camera. With tens of thousands of clients at any given time, you’d think firms like Farah & Farah and Morgan & Morgan would have an endless stream of glowing reviews to choose from. Apparently, that’s not the case.
Recently, Farah & Farah ran numerous advertisements featuring their “real client” Chloe. Chloe was featured in a number of ads telling her story, standing beside Eddie and Chuck Farah. Not one ad mentioned that Chloe was simultaneously employed by Farah & Farah as their marketing specialist. Let us reiterate — their paid marketing employee doing multiple testimonials in a television campaign.
Florida’s ethics rules generally say you can’t give someone a benefit in exchange for a testimonial. But if the person giving the review is a paid employee? That’s a gray area. Is it technically a violation? Probably not. Should it be disclosed that Chloe works in the firm’s marketing department? Absolutely. According to Google’s own policy, employees — past or present — aren’t supposed to leave reviews about their workplace because of the obvious bias. It muddles the waters. Now, imagine if Chloe wanted to leave a bad review. Could she? Doubtful. We’ve already seen local media take heat for less. Lawyers are supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety — so why is being upfront in advertising such a hard ask?
Ironically, one of our freelance writers here at “Folio” was also featured in an attorney testimonial commercial in the last few years. When we asked him about it, he stated that he wasn’t actually a client of the firm, not ever. He went on to explain that he was contacted by a talent agency seeking someone who looked like him to be in a TV commercial. He simply had to show up and let them film him standing in a group of people who were supposed to be smiling. He was to be “acting” as if he were a very satisfied client of the firm, as if he had received a large settlement. He was paid $500 for a few minutes of his time by the talent agency, and that was that.
If you thought that was bad, wait until you hear what happened on “The Howard Stern Show” about six months ago. Ronnie Mund, Howard’s longtime limo driver and now a regular on the show, vented one morning about how a moving company trashed some of his stuff. Enter Mike Morgan — yes, that Morgan — who slid into Ronnie’s DMs offering legal help. That’s a problem. Florida Bar Rule 4-7.18 bans lawyers from soliciting clients, especially when it’s for “pecuniary gain.” But it gets worse. Ronnie later told the Stern audience he was asked to do a video testimonial — and in it, he was told to say he called Morgan & Morgan. That’s not how it went down.
Over the course of a week, Stern had a field day mocking both Mund and Morgan & Morgan. Stern warned Mund that he couldn’t use his name or likeness like that, pointing out how the commercial seemed to capitalize more on Stern’s celebrity than on Mund’s actual lack of it. To make matters worse, the “Stern Show” crew ripped into Mund for letting Morgan & Morgan use him like that with the commercial implying Mund suffered a much bigger loss than just some damaged property. Mund claimed it was smart marketing by Morgan, with an ad designed to confuse customers about what kind of case they were really handling. Clever? Maybe. But it’s a clear violation of Florida’s advertising standards.
Florida Bar’s Recommendations
Article V, Section 15 of the Constitution of the State of Florida gives the Supreme Court of Florida exclusive authority to oversee the practice of law, including discipline against attorneys. The Florida Bar is the investigative and prosecutorial authority in the lawyer regulatory process. All lawyers must answer to the Bar, but the state now has over 100,000 lawyers.
In 1982, the Florida Bar implemented a board certification program for lawyers. It is voluntary, but is officiated by the Florida Supreme Court and administered by The Florida Bar. The program was designed to help the public select lawyers who are distinguished in particular areas of law.
While it is certainly challenging to pinpoint, the Florida Bar states that only about 6% of eligible members are board-certified. And it’s likely that a significant portion of board-certified attorneys in Florida advertise, however, it’s interesting that the big money firms advertising don’t seem to be board-certified, as they certainly are not proudly displaying that accreditation. Perhaps it’s because they are continually being investigated and may not actually qualify to be distinguished as such.
To become board certified by The Florida Bar, a lawyer must be in good standing and meet standards set by the Florida Supreme Court. Certification is available in over 25 practice areas — from civil trial and criminal law to real estate, immigration and intellectual property. Requirements include at least five years of legal practice, significant experience in the chosen field, passing a rigorous exam, strong peer reviews and completion of continuing legal education specific to the specialty.
According to the Florida Bar, more than 4,887 Florida lawyers have achieved certification. Board certification used to be the “expert standard” in the state, meaning only board-certified lawyers could call themselves experts in those fields, but advertising lawyers challenged the standard under the First Amendment. Now, any lawyer can be called an expert, including lawyers who let AI write their briefs or who file lawsuits on behalf of clients they haven’t heard from in years. However, you can always check to make sure you are hiring a real “expert” by consulting the Florida Bar’s website.
The point is, big firm ad dollars work a lot like political lobbying. There is no surprise that money, influence and silence are all tangled up in the same web. It starts to feel a lot like politics, doesn’t it? And just like in politics, transparency tends to disappear when there’s too much at stake. Even investigative reporters at major networks know better than to cross certain lines — because doing so could cost them their job. Luckily for us and you, we can’t be bought.
When a news station deliberately avoids reporting negative information about a major advertiser, it’s not just questionable — it’s a breach of journalistic integrity. The reasons vary, but the root cause is usually money. Sometimes it’s a clear conflict of interest: the station relies on advertising dollars from the very people they’re supposed to be holding accountable. Other times it’s fear—fear of retaliation, of losing ad revenue, of getting cut off from future access. There’s also internal pressure. Management might quietly steer coverage away from controversy, especially when the subject has deep pockets and a PR team on speed dial. And then there’s self-censorship — journalists who know what stories won’t fly, so they never pitch them. The fallout? The public is left in the dark. Trust erodes. Credibility slips. And the people who rely on the press to tell them the truth are left reading between the lines.
Follow FOLIO!