Dan McLaughlin on Geoffrey Fieger’s disciplinary win (Baseball Crank, Sept. 25).
Also, Links We’re Sorry We Clicked: Geoffrey Fieger art (via AJP).
{ 1 comment }
Posts tagged as:
Geoffrey Fieger
As Walter noted, Lerach was a bundler for Edwards; his plea agreement included an agreement by the government not prosecute illegal campaign donations. Still, while Edwards is giving back Lerach’s personal donation, he’s holding on to the rest of the $78,000 that Bill Lerach raised for him, even as Edwards criticizes Hillary Clinton for holding a fund-raiser at Jones Day (whose attorneys have given more money to Obama) and taking money from lobbyists. Edwards hasn’t given back the $125,000 Geoffrey Fieger is indicted over raising for him either.
We’ve covered many of Michigan trial lawyer Geoffrey Fieger’s antics and legal troubles here on Overlawyered over the years; his most recent problems include being censured in Arizona and being criminally indicted for illegal campaign contributions.
But he may have managed to wriggle out of punishment for at least one of his shenanigans: his 1999 radio tirade in which he labelled as Nazis the judges who ruled against his client. He was sanctioned by the Michigan courts for this conduct, with the Michigan Supreme Court upholding the discipline against his first amendment challenge in Aug. 2006 (Yes, that’s seven years after the incident.)
But this week, a federal court bought Fieger’s first amendment argument, holding that the rules under which he was sanctioned were unconstitutional.
The rules say lawyers must treat everyone involved in the legal process with “courtesy and respect” and should “not engage in undignified or discourteous conduct” toward the bench.In the decision released late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow said “the rules are unconstitutional on their face because they are both overly broad and vague.”
If we were snide, we might note that it could say something about Fieger that he couldn’t figure out that calling someone a Nazi is not dignified or respectful. We were amused at the Court’s reasoning for why Fieger had standing to challenge these rules:
The likelihood that Plaintiff Fieger may again say something negative about a Michigan court that could subject him to further punishment under the courtesy provisions is not the attenuated situation presented in Grendell. Plaintiff Fieger is a vocal, often harsh, and at times vulgar critic of Michigan’s judiciary.
You don’t say.
{ 5 comments }
Yet another ethical run-in for bad boy Michigan lawyer Geoffrey Fieger, aside from all the ones we’ve told you about already including his recent campaign finance indictment: the Arizona Supreme Court has censured Fieger for holding himself out on letterhead as a member of the Arizona bar, and undertaking a matter to be tried in an Arizona court, even though he was under suspension at the time. The September issue of Arizona Attorney carries the following in its “Lawyer Regulation: Sanctioned Attorneys” column:
Longtime Overlawyered favorite Geoffrey Fieger, a fixture in Michigan politics and personal injury law for many years, and his law partner Vernon (Ven) Johnson were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of unlawfully “conspiring to make more than $125,000 in illegal contributions to presidential candidate John Edwards’ 2004 campaign”. Fieger, who’s being represented by Gerry Spence, says it’s all a plot by Republicans in the U.S. Department of Justice. (Oakland Press; Detroit News, more; Detroit Free Press, more)(& Pattis).
{ 3 comments }
- Reversing course, Rhode Island attorney general drops rape charge based on 32-year-old “repressed memory”, thus disappointing some advocates [Volokh; Jul. 10]
- Massachusetts disciplinary panel files misconduct charges against Judge Ernest Murphy over the “bring me a check and keep quiet” surrender-Dorothy letter he sent to Boston Herald publisher during his (successful) libel suit [Ambrogi; Dec. 23, 2005, May 11, 2007, etc.]
- California jury rejects tippling speeder’s lawsuit against landowner, automaker, town, etc. in the case we headlined “Shouldn’t Have Put Its Berm Where He Wanted To Skid” [Dec. 24, 2005; Douglas Domel v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., City of Santa Clarita, and Does 1 to 50, inclusive (PC030045Y), L.A. Superior Court, L.A. Daily Journal, no free link]
- Nominal damages only against German teens accused of scaring ostrich into impotence [UPI/ScienceDaily; Mar. 6]
- Dubious bill authorizing lawsuits against OPEC may be headed to President’s desk [W$J/CattleNetwork; Jun. 8]
- Jury convicts press baron Conrad Black on four counts, acquits on nine [Telegraph; Kirkendall, Bainbridge, Ribstein; Mar. 19, Jun. 5]
- Michigan Supreme Court reinstates reprimand against Geoffrey Fieger over abusive language [NLJ; Jul. 3, Aug. 2, 2006, etc.]
{ 1 comment }
- Represented by repeat Overlawyered mentionees Cellino & Barnes/The Barnes Firm, this injured upstate New Yorker got a settlement of $35,000 which worked out after expenses to — are you ready? — $6.60 [Buffalo News]
- Not yet a laughingstock: AMA backs off idea of labeling video-game addiction [Wired News, L.A.Times/CinciPost, HealthDay/WilmNJ]
- Restaurant critics fear losing their physical anonymity, which means a Bala Cynwyd eatery has a sword to hold over the Philadelphia Inquirer reviewer it’s suing [PhilaWeekly] (More: AP/CNN)
- Dad of the year? Father who didn’t have much contact with 30-year-old son during his life shows up to claim half his $2.9 million 9/11 compensation award [NYDN, NYLJ, PDF brief courtesy Taranto/WSJ]
- Fie on goodness: Geoffrey Fieger engages Harvard’s Dershowitz to try to quash federal grand jury probe, and he’s still battling Michigan judges too [DetNews]
- In suburban D.C. middle school, high-fiving could mean detention under no-touching rule [Washington Post, AP/CNN]
- Law firm whistleblowers? Ex-employees allege billing fraud in tobacco suit by high-flying Kansas City, Mo. trial lawyer [Legal NewsLine]
- U.K. government panel bans egg ad as not encouraging healthy eating [Times Online, Guardian, Telegraph]
- Lawprof is keen on expanding tort law to open door for more suits against schools over kids’ bullying [Childs]
- 1,001 ways to self-publicize: one is to become a “trial groupie” [Elefant]
- Guess what? This site just turned eight years old [isn't it cool]
We’ve previously reported on this case and the underlying Hollins v. Jordan $30 million trial verdict (in 2004 on Nov. 20, Oct. 11, and Aug. 31) blaming an obstetrician and hospital for microcephaly in a four-pound, five-ounce birth. The case is scheduled to be heard by the Ohio Supreme Court May 23, and the more recent briefing is on line; the Dr. Jordan merits brief is especially interesting. Of note, and not previously mentioned:
- Plaintiffs attorney Geoffrey Fieger has already twice asked the entire Ohio Supreme Court to recuse itself.
- Plaintiffs are seeking $50 million in prejudgment interest.
- The claim that the caesarean was delayed is entirely bogus; plaintiffs’ experts deliberately confused the “emergency” (i.e., non-scheduled) caesarean with a “crash” caesarean.
- Plaintiffs sandbagged the damages claim by claiming before trial they would only seek $4 million, and then changing the estimates on the stand by making hypothetical assumptions not supported by any expert evidence.
- Fieger’s opening argument regularly made references to evidence excluded in limine.
- Fieger had an anesthesiologist opine on neurological matters.
- Fieger’s prejudicial conduct at trial, including race-, religion-, and class-baiting, has to be read to be believed. How there wasn’t a mistrial or a revocation of pro hac vice status is jaw-dropping.
- Counsel of record for two of the co-defendants is Drug and Device Law co-blogger Mark Herrmann.
Again, the lengthy dissent in the appellate court is worth reading.
Geoffrey Fieger (May 5, 2006; Mar. 24, 2005; Mar. 13, 2005; Aug. 31, 2004; etc.) got some favorable rulings in a South Carolina medical malpractice case. Fieger claims that the hospital fatally overdosed the plaintiff’s dead husband; the hospital argues that, as an autopsy showed, he died of a rare heart condition. Because the hospital only had copies of the original records, and not the original records themselves, Fieger persuaded the judge to instruct the jury that the defendant hospital had engaged in a cover-up and that the jury could draw an adverse inference; moreover, the jury wasn’t told about a side-deal Fieger cut with a co-defendant that apparently resulted in that defendant making only a token defense at trial in exchange for a limitation of damages, a sequence that a non-settling co-defendant doctor protested futilely as Fieger directed his closing argument at her, calling her a killer and a liar. Fieger asked for $55 million including punitives, the jury returned $30 million in “compensatory” damages but the judge threw the whole verdict out as obviously the product of passion or prejudice. Fieger says he looks forward to retrying the case. The case was brought before South Carolina capped malpractice awards. (John Monk, “$30 million verdict overturned”, The State, Mar. 9; John Monk, “$30 Million awarded in death of physician”, The State, Aug. 12).
{ 2 comments }
By a 4-3 margin, the Supreme Court of Michigan has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect “the interests of an officer of the court in uttering vulgar epithets toward the court in a pending case” (decision in PDF format, p. 19) and has therefore sent back a case involving the disciplining of Geoffrey Fieger with instructions to reinstate the reprimand. After seeing a $15 million medical malpractice verdict overturned, Michigan’s most prominent plaintiff’s lawyer had described the appellate judges who ruled against him as variously “jackasses”, “Hitler”, “Goebbels” and “Eva Braun”, said that he was declaring war on them, said that they could kiss a portion of his anatomy not generally revealed in public, and repeatedly proposed that various objects be employed to assault a similar location on their persons.
In dissent, Justice Michael Cavanagh wrote that it matters not whether Fieger violated “a disciplinary rule he swore to obey when admitted to the practice of law”. The point is instead that “the judiciary, upon which is conferred unique powers, significant influence and considerable insulation, must not be so shielded that the public is denied its right to temper this institution”. Which raises at least one question: in what sense should Fieger be counted as a member of the “public” for these purposes? As a lawyer deputized with power to initiate compulsory process to drag unwilling parties into the Michigan courts, wouldn’t it be fair to say that “unique powers, significant influence and considerable insulation” have been conferred on him, too, in exchange for which he might reasonably be asked to submit to professional rules not applicable to the general public to guard against the abuse of these unique powers? (Dawson Bell, “Fieger reprimanded for attacks on judges”, Detroit Free Press, Jul. 31; Charlie Cain, “High court reinstates Fieger reprimand for comments”, Detroit News, Aug. 1).
We covered the controversy at hand (and its underlying lawsuit) Sept. 14, 1999, May 3, 2001, and Apr. 3, 2006. Other coverage of Fieger’s antics can be found here.
{ 7 comments }
We covered this case as Hollins v. Jordan in 2004 on Nov. 20, Oct. 11, and Aug. 31. In a disingenuous 2-1 opinion, an Ohio appellate court overturned the lower court’s grant of a new trial, and reinstated the liability verdict. The court did hold that the $30 million verdict was too high, but it is unlikely to be reduced more than 20%. I found the dissent, starting on page 23, persuasive; the majority opinion falsely claims that the defendants did not challenge liability on appeal to argue that there was no need for a new trial. New detail that the press did not cover: the plaintiff suffered from microcephaly—is there a legitimate doctor out there who wishes to claim that brain damage from microcephaly results from the failure to perform a C-section? Also worth reading in the dissent is the detailing of the dishonesty with which Geoffrey Fieger characterized testimony. Lawyers plan to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. (AP/Canton Repository, May 5 (link fixed 5:45 pm)).
One of our profession’s enfants terribles, Geoffrey Fieger, is back in court, this time defending his right to call Michigan appellate judges who ruled against him “jackasses” and “nazis.”
Fieger faces a reprimand from the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission for insulting three state appellate judges on a radio talk show in 1999 after the judges overturned a $15 million verdict he won in a medical malpractice case.
Fieger’s lawyer, Michael Alan Schwartz, maintaining that Fieger’s comments outside the courtroom are protected by the First Amendment.
Summing up Fieger’s modus operandi nicely, Schwartz offers this:
“There’s no law that says you’ve got to be dignified.”
He also offers Standing Committee on Discipline v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 and Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367 (1947) to support his client’s right to criticize the judges.
UPDATE: Sorry folks, I neglected to include a link to the story. It is the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission seeking to reprimand him. The Commission is “the investigative and prosecutorial arm of the Michigan Supreme Court for allegations of attorney misconduct.”
{ 7 comments }
Getting wilder by the week: “Federal agents raided the law office of Geoffrey Fieger late Wednesday looking for evidence that he laundered $35,000 in campaign contributions to the John Edwards 2004 presidential campaign through his employees.” (David Ashenfelter and Joe Swickard, “Federal agents raid Fieger’s office”, Detroit Free Press, Dec. 1). “A former associate in trial attorney Geoffrey Fieger’s firm said Friday that he and his wife each gave $2,000 to Democrat John Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign on the promise that they would be reimbursed by the firm.” Joseph Bird, an attorney later fired by Fieger’s firm, “said he had ‘no clue’ at the time that it was illegal for employers to instruct people to give to a campaign and then reimburse them.” (Sarah Karush, “Lawyer says firm demanded political contributions to Edwards”, AP/Winston-Salem Journal, Dec. 2; same story with more details at Detroit News site, Dec. 4). For earlier evidence suggesting the likelihood of laundering in trial lawyers’ donations to Edwards, see Apr. 28-29 and May 8, 2003. For more on Fieger, see Nov. 17, Nov. 10 and links from there.
Further fireworks from the frequently fascinating Fieger files:
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox accused a potential 2006 political opponent, high profile Oakland County lawyer Geoffrey Fieger, of blackmail Wednesday, claiming that Fieger threatened to reveal his extramarital affair if Cox did not drop an investigation into the lawyer’s alleged campaign finance violations.
(Dawson Bell and L.L. Brasier, Detroit Free Press, Nov. 9). For more on Fieger, whose activities have long been a mainstay of this site, see Mar. 13, Oct. 24, and many others.
More on the story: David Shepardson and Mike Martindale, “Sex scandal”, Detroit News, Nov. 10 (check sidebar for over-the-top statement by Fieger); L.L. Brasier and Patricia Montemurri, “Figure in Fieger-Cox sex scandal has criminal past”, Detroit Free Press, Nov. 10); Dawson Bell and L.L. Brasier, “Cox: Fieger made threat over affair”, Detroit Free Press, Nov. 10 (“one of the most bizarre events in recent Michigan political history”):
Fieger has a long history of stirring up trouble, both for himself and others, and sometimes on a personal level.In 1998, when he was the Democratic nominee for governor, he suggested that his opponent — then-Gov. John Engler — was not the father of triplet daughters born to his wife, Michelle, in 1994.
{ 2 comments }
You will recall that Geoffrey Fieger’s modus operandi is to engage in outrageous behavior to get judges thrown off of cases and otherwise accuse judges who rule against him or his clients of misconduct (Nov. 20; Mar. 24). Now, in the aftermath of Hollins v. Jordan (Nov. 20 and links therein), Fieger is attacking an Ohio probate court judge who is daring to try to protect the settlement of the brain-damaged and legally incompetent plaintiff from Fieger’s machinations.
“This is all about intimidation,” [Judge] Corrigan said. He accused the plaintiffs’ out-of-town lawyers of “forum-shopping” to take the case away from him and give it to a Michigan judge more acquiescent to their wishes.
(James F. McCarty, “$30 million verdict spawns new legal battle”, Cleveland Plain-Dealer, Oct. 9). This dispute is over a $1.5 million pretrial settlement with another defendant; the $30 million verdict is also on appeal.
Back in Michigan, Fieger is offering to spend millions of dollars of his own money to run for Michigan Attorney General on the Democratic ticket. (Steven Harmon, “Fieger ready to pour own cash into attorney general fight”, Grand Rapids Press, Oct. 21). Fortunately for the Democratic Party, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of support for the idea. (Kathleen Gray, “Fieger considers running for state attorney general”, Detroit Free Press, Oct. 12). John Engler easily beat Fieger, 62 percent to 38 percent, when Fieger ran for governor in 1998.
The targeting of the incumbent attorney general, Mike Cox, may be related to “an ongoing criminal investigation of a complaint from Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land about alleged filing irregularities on $400,000 of Fieger-financed spending opposing the successful 2004 re-election of Republican Michigan Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman.” (George Weeks, “Fieger isn’t faking bid for attorney general”, Detroit News, Oct. 13). Fieger has demonstrated his misunderstanding of principles of federal jurisdiction with a federal lawsuit against Cox and Land in an attempt to squelch the campaign finance investigation. (AP, Oct. 13).
{ 1 comment }
You may recall the $21 million verdict thrown out by the Michigan Supreme Court last year (Jul. 24) because of misconduct by Geoffrey Fieger at trial. (Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler (Mich. 2004); parties’ briefs; Brian Dickerson, “Judges use Fieger tactics to rebuke him”, Detroit Free Press, Jul. 26; yclipse blog). Fieger had had a buddy “expert” social worker testify that the alleged harassment caused Gilbert’s pancreatitis, and told the jury that Gilbert was like a “Holocaust victim.”
After losing, Fieger responded by filing ethics complaints against the four justices who ruled against him, and, when that didn’t work, filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court against the justices. This tactic, far more often seen performed by unstable pro se litigants than by prominent trial attorneys, was, as could have been expected, rejected by the trial court and then by the federal court of appeals. (Gilbert v. Ferry (6th Cir. Mar. 10, 2005), affirming 298 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Mich. 2004)) (via yclipse).
Jameel Talley had been fired from the local police department, but the mayor of North Randall (pop. 893 and dropping) “sent what he called a ‘second chance’ letter to Maple Heights, saying Talley should not have been fired. The mayor said he ‘erred in judgment’ and ‘recommends 100 percent (that) Talley continue his career in law enforcement.’” So Maple Heights hired him for their police department, where Talley had a spotless record, and the local Dillard’s hired him for off-duty work as a security guard.
Unfortunately, Talley had been fired from North Randall for shooting at a shoplifting suspect.
And, unfortunately again, 41-year-old Guy Wills, under the influence of drugs, decided to shoplift a leather jacket at Dillard’s, and then resist arrest from the much larger Talley. So Talley smashed him upside down into the concrete floor. Unfortunately again, Wills checked himself out of the hospital, got sick at the police station, refused treatment or a trip to the emergency room–and then fell into a coma, and when he woke up, he was dead. Shortly after the incident, Dillard’s shut down the store. Talley was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for excessive force, and sentenced to three years. And Dillard’s, as the deep pocket, was sued. (NewsNet5: Jan. 18 (featuring the great line “Dillard’s attorney, who’s [sic] name is unknown at this time”), June 23, 2003; Nov. 14, 2002; “Dillard’s to close Raleigh Springs store”, Memphis Business Journal, Jan. 27, 2003).
The attorney was none other than Geoffrey Fieger (Oct. 11 and Aug. 31 and lots of links therein), but the trial wasn’t going so well, so he adopted what seems to be a standard tactic: deliberately try to alienate the judge, and then loudly complain about prejudice.
[Judge Nancy Margaret] Russo leveled a litany of legal wrongs against Fieger, including: insulting and berating lawyers and calling them liars; making faces after she ruled against him; repeatedly interrupting testimony; entering objections loudly; and threatening an insurance adjuster with the loss of his job.“He has been nothing but bullying, loud, obnoxious and unprofessional,” Russo said. “I have tried for three weeks to rein him in. I have done my best.”
The final straw came Thursday after attorney Larry Zukerman accused Fieger of accosting him and threatening to have his client — former Dillard’s store manager Frank Monaco — arrested for obstruction of justice.
Russo threatened Fieger with contempt, and Fieger responded by pulling himself off the case and asking for a mistrial. For some reason, Russo rewarded the antics with exactly what Fieger wanted, and now Fieger gets to start all over with another judge, and a second bite at correcting whatever problems he saw with the first trial. (James F. McCarty, “Lawyer quits case on judge’s threat”, Cleveland Plain-Dealer, Jan. 29; James F. McCarty, “Mistrial in wrongful-death case of shoplifter”, Cleveland Plain-Dealer, Feb. 1). And shame on our Cleveland readers for not letting us know about this one sooner.
{ 2 comments }
Fark would mark this entry with an “Obvious”: Fans at the now-infamous Detroit-Indiana basketball game Friday night have started filing lawsuits. According to the Detroit Free Press, video shows season ticket holder William Paulson dousing Indiana Pacer Ron Artest with a drink after Artest charged the stands and pummeled an innocent bystander, but he’s suing three players, the Pacers, and the arena over a concussion he allegedly suffered in the brawl. John Ackerman also claims to have suffered a concussion; he’s told different reporters that he was hit by a chair and hit by Jermaine O’Neal. The lawyer is your friend and mine, Geoffrey Fieger (Aug. 31 and links therein). (Ben Schmitt and Frank Witsil, “Victims? Suspect? Prosecutor identifies fan who started brawl”, Detroit Free Press, Nov. 23; Mike Martindale, “Find chair-tosser, get cash”, Detroit News, Nov. 24; Daniel Howes, “Lawsuits over Palace fight show a culture of litigation”, Detroit News, Nov. 24; Bisi Onile-Ere, “Lawsuits come in Palace brawl”, ABC-12, Nov. 23).
{ 1 comment }
