MOBILE, Ala. — The attorney representing South Alabama Medical & Rehab and two individual defendants in a fraud case brought by Mobile County prosecutors has moved to withdraw, citing a conflict he declined to describe.
In a Sept. 11 motion, attorney Gresham appeared to make clear the development was unrelated to the district attorney’s past arguments, stating the conflict was “not between the represented Parties.”
The Earlier Disqualification Fight
Prosecutors previously tried to have Gresham disqualified from the case over alleged conflicts between the defendants he represented, particularly given a pending criminal investigation.
In a February filing, the DA’s office argued Gresham could not simultaneously represent SAM&R, Loveless and Walters because their interests could be at odds if Walters possessed information about how accident reports or victim data were being sourced.
That argument reflects a standard problem in joint representation. When one client may hold information damaging to another, a single lawyer cannot advocate fully for both, and the conflict typically surfaces once a criminal investigation raises the stakes for individuals differently than for the entity.
The Underlying Allegations
South Alabama Medical & Rehab was sued by prosecutors in July 2025 after an investigation uncovered allegations that its clinic on Old Shell Road was aggressively contacting injured crash victims with promises of free care and directing them to sign attorney fee contracts during their first visits, to litigate their medical expenses with an at-fault driver’s insurance.
A legal complaint against the clinic claims these patients were then subject to “claim jacking,” in which medical services and bills were intentionally inflated to increase legal settlements.
The practice described — obtaining crash victim contact information, soliciting patients directly, and bundling medical treatment with legal representation — touches several areas of regulation at once, including rules on solicitation of accident victims, the handling of accident report data and prohibitions on inflating medical billing.
The Discovery Impasse
The DA and Gresham have repeatedly clashed over attempts to require the business to fully disclose its ownership structure.
Most recently, each of Gresham’s defendants invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in light of the outstanding criminal probe — which the attorney has claimed leaves no one available to answer the state’s discovery demands.
That creates a genuine procedural knot. A civil case can proceed while a criminal investigation is open, but individual defendants retain the right against self-incrimination. When every person capable of answering on behalf of an entity asserts that right, the state’s civil discovery stalls.
Attempted Workarounds
Prosecutors have attempted multiple approaches to the impasse. At one point they proposed that the court assign a special master over the clinic. More recently they suggested Judge Windom allow the DA’s office to subpoena records from Gresham’s law firm, Starnes Davis Florie, to identify who has been paying the defendants’ legal fees.
Identifying who funds a defense is a recognized investigative avenue in cases where ownership is contested, because the source of legal fees can indicate who holds an economic interest in the outcome. It also runs directly into attorney-client and work-product protections, which is why such subpoenas are litigated rather than routinely granted.
The Firm’s Position
In an email response on Tuesday, Sept. 15, Gresham declined to disclose the nature of the new conflict and clarified that it was also unrelated to the recent subpoena.
“The firm’s motion to withdraw was unrelated to the subpoena and filed in accordance with the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, and we have satisfied those obligations,” Gresham stated.
In a motion also filed Sept. 11, Starnes Davis Florie asked Windom to quash the DA’s request for records, arguing Gresham has already provided the information sought.
Where the Case Stands
The defendants have not been convicted of any offense, and the allegations in the civil complaint remain allegations. No criminal charges arising from the referenced investigation have been announced.
The court has not ruled on the motion to withdraw or on the motion to quash.