Via Kirkendall, Carl Icahn talks about litigating in a judicial hellhole against Joe Jamail. NSFW, but a spectacular punchline.
More on Jamail.
Posts tagged as:
Joe Jamail
The Houston Chronicle has more on Joe Jamail’s defeat of John O’Quinn in the expense-ethics battle earlier detailed in this space (Jul. 19, etc.). Several of the experts quoted seem at pains to minimize the seriousness of O’Quinn’s ethical lapse, but there’s a good quote at the end from Dallas legal-malpractice lawyer Randy Johnston: “When John O’Quinn goes up against Joe Jamail, I promise you, it isn’t all about the money.” Why? Because it’s about the ego too. (Mary Flood, “Legal trend of leveling suits against fellow litigators likened to cannibalism”, Houston Chronicle, Jul. 21)(via ShopFloor).
{ 3 comments }
As we reported in April, trial lawyer John O’Quinn is subject to a potential contempt hearing for allegedly improperly withholding $18.9 million of settlement money from his breast implant clients. It turns out that this wasn’t the first mention of the scandal in Overlawyered. In August 1999, Walter reported:
As one of the wealthiest and most successful plaintiff’s lawyers ever, Houston’s John O’Quinn has been known to call press conferences at which he’s leveled charges highly damaging to his opponents’ reputations, accusing them (for example) of conspiring to “remain silent, conceal or suppress information” about problems with their products and operations. So what happened June 4 when O’Quinn was himself sued by a group of unhappy former breast-implant clients seeking class-action status against him? As Brenda Jeffreys reported in the June 14 Texas Lawyer, O’Quinn “didn’t hesitate before pummeling the class action lawyers with a libel suit” charging the lawyers with “encourag[ing] the news media to disseminate false, slanderous and libelous comments about Plaintiff” — said encouragement consisting of their press release about the lawsuit, and the press conference they were planning that would have explained it further.Had the lawyers challenging O’Quinn succeeded in holding their press conference, interesting questions might have been aired. Their suit charges that a group of women numbering at least 2,000 were wrongfully overcharged tens of millions of dollars in claimed expenses, and that the firm of O’Quinn and Laminack breached its fiduciary duty to them; it sought a fee forfeiture totaling $580 million. But O’Quinn’s firm rushed to court to ask for a temporary restraining order to prevent the lawyers from holding a press event, and on June 7, while a judge was considering that motion, they agreed to a gag order and called off the conference they’d scheduled for that day. The whole process — from the first public notice of the suit to the gag order in hand — had taken only three days. “O’Quinn’s quick action may have prevented a firestorm of public attention to the class action suit,” writes the Texas Lawyer’s Jeffreys. It is not recorded whether any of the defendants O’Quinn has sued have ever tried, let alone succeeded in, such a tactic against him.
Here’s an entertaining wrinkle we haven’t reported: the case was sent to an arbitrator, because trial lawyer O’Quinn had required his clients to sign a binding arbitration agreement in the event of disputes! (The irony here is far greater than any Judge Bork personal injury suit.)
The Houston Chronicle reports that the three Houston attorneys on the arbitration panel determined in March that O’Quinn’s deduction was not authorized by his contracts with his clients, and that they are now deciding damages. The former clients, now represented by Joe Jamail, are asking for O’Quinn to completely disgorge all of his fees, a legitimate possibility under the Burrow v. Arce decision, which would be over half a billion dollars. Arbitration decisions are generally not appealable. It’s unclear what has happened to O’Quinn’s countersuit against his clients alleging libel. (Mary Flood, “O’Quinn’s law clients win round against him”, Houston Chronicle, Jun. 9 (h/t W.F.)).
Arbitration is generally quicker than litigation, but O’Quinn seems to have successfully stalled this case for over seven years, not to mention avoid any publicity from it. To date, we are the only media source that has even mentioned the contempt hearing.
It’s back on YouTube (via Prof. Childs and Nicole Black).
These guys are nothing like Joe Jamail, but honestly, does this scene make you want to be a jurist?
The notorious Joe Jamail/Edward Carstarphen deposition video (Apr. 8, Apr. 27) has been getting another round of attention thanks to new links from Andrew Sullivan and Dale Carpenter. Among a number of interesting reader comments at the latter site is this from John Steele (excerpt):
…For years now, I’ve been having my students do dramatic readings of both the famous Jamail depos. The reaction is usually a mixture of laughter and disgust. If anyone wants the two transcripts, shoot me an email….
{ 2 comments }
A belated viewing of the now infamous deposition video (see Apr. 8) stirs memories for Prof. Bainbridge of a few highlights from the suave and distinguished career of zillionaire Houston litigator Joe “You could gag a maggot off a meat wagon” Jamail (Apr. 20). In comments, “Thief” of “Thief’s Den” points out that famously civility-challenged lawprof Brian Leiter holds the “Joseph D. Jamail Centennial Chair in Law” at the University of Texas, Austin.
Dignity of the profession dept.: this YouTube video of the famed Texas lawyer and UT benefactor in action is making the rounds (warning: offensive everything). It’s discussed by BrainWidth, Froomkin, Childs, Hurt, Kirkendall, Caron, Metafilter, etc. One of those present The man in the chair is named Edward Carstarphen. [note: a commenter says we erred in initially reporting that Carstarphen was the witness being deposed; see also David Stone, Apr. 11]. For more on Mr. Jamail’s record as a paladin of civility, see Apr. 19, 2000 (”gag a maggot off a meat wagon”). Update: link changed to working YouTube location, see Jan. 9, 2007.
{ 6 comments }
Florida class action (Engle), 2003: “A $710 million loose end“, Jun. 24; ““Trial lawyers get spanked’“, May 24-26; “Court overturns $145 billion Engle award“, May 22-23. 2001: “Angles on Engle“, May 24. 2000: “‘Not even thinking about’ fees“, Aug. 11-13; “Smoking and responsibility: columnists weigh in“, Jul. 28-30; “‘Poll: majority disapprove of tobacco fine’“, Jul. 24-25; “Florida verdict: more editorial reaction“, Jul. 24-25; “Smoking and responsibility: columnists weigh in“, Jul. 28-30; Editorial roundup“, Jul. 19-20; “Florida tobacco verdict“, July 18; “Tobacco: why stop at net worth?” (punitive damage rulings by judge), Jul. 10; “Another Mr. Civility nominee” (Stanley Rosenblatt), Jun. 2-4. 1999: “$49 million lawyers’ fee okayed in case where clients got nothing” (secondhand smoke class action), Sept. 28; “Personal responsibility takes a vacation in Miami“, Jul. 8; “The Florida tobacco jurors: anything but typical“, Wall Street Journal, Jul. 12, 1999.
Tobacco fees reconsidered, 2003: “Senate panel nixes tobacco-fee clawback“, May 9-11; “Feds indict former Texas AG“, Mar. 8-9; “‘Not a pretty picture’“, Jan. 10-12. 2002: “Judge overturns $1.3 billion tobacco fee award” (Castano Group), Sept. 27-29; “Welcome Fox News viewers/ readers“, Aug. 2-4; “Tobacco fees: one brave judge” (New York), Jul. 30-31 (& Aug. 2-4, Jun. 21-23, Oct. 16-17, Oct. 25-27, 2002; Feb. 11 & Jun. 6-8, 2003; May 11, 2001).
“‘Lawyers who won $10 bil. verdict had donated to judge’“, Apr. 30, 2003; “A bond too far“, Apr. 4-6; “Appeals bonds, again“, Apr. 2-3; “Mad County pays out again” (”light” cigarette class action), Mar. 24, 2003.
“‘Nanny Bloomberg’” (NYC smoking ban), Oct. 22, 2002.
Tobacco fees, state by state, 2003: “‘Law firms in tobacco suit seek $1.2b more’” (Mass.), May 19 (& Jan. 2-3, 2002, Dec. 22, 1999); “Feds indict former Texas AG“, Mar. 8-9 (& May 22, Sept. 1-3, 2000; Jun. 21, Aug. 29-30, Nov. 12, 2001, Jul. 15, Jul. 30-31, 2002; Jan. 10-12, 2003). 2002: “Judge overturns $1.3 billion tobacco fee award” (Castano Group, California), Sept. 27-29; “Tobacco fees: one brave judge” (N.Y.), Jul. 30-31 (& Aug. 2-4, Jun. 21-23, 2002, Oct. 16-17, 2002, Feb. 11, 2003, May 11, 2001); “Dewey deserve that much?“, Mar. 6; “Mass., Ill., NYC tobacco fees“, Jan. 2-3. 2001: “Michigan tobacco fees“, Sept. 19-20; “Tobacco-fee tensions” (Fla. resumes investing in tobacco cos.), Jun. 21 (& letter to editor, Jul. 6); “Missouri’s tagalong tobacco fees“, Jun. 5 (& Sept. 21, 2000); “‘Lungren now a paid advocate for his former foes’” (Calif.), Apr. 5; “(Another) ‘Monster Fee Award for Tobacco Fighters’” (Calif. cities and counties), Mar. 21-22; “Reclaiming the tobacco loot“, Mar. 15; “Lawyers get tobacco fees early“, Mar. 5; “Tobacco arbitrator: they all know whose side I’m on“, Feb. 16-19. 2000: “Beehive of legal activity: Utah tobacco fees“, Nov. 6; “South Carolina tobacco fees: how to farm money“, Oct. 25; “Gore amid friendly crowd (again)” (Fla.), Apr. 12 (& “Dershowitz’s Florida frolic?“, Jul. 17; also see Dec. 8-10, 2000, Aug. 8-9, 2000, Dec. 27-28, 1999); “Sooner get rich” (Oklahoma), Jun. 7; “‘Lawyers’ tobacco-suit fees invite revolt’” (Ohio), May 23; “North Carolina (& Kentucky & Tennessee) tobacco fees“, May 2; “Connecticut AG has ‘no idea’ whether lawyers he hired are overcharging“, Feb. 3 (& update Feb. 16); “Pennsylvania tobacco fees: such a bargain!“, Jan. 10 (& Oct. 24, 2002). 1999: “Maryland’s kingmaker” (Peter Angelos), Oct. 19 (& Dec. 9, 1999, Oct. 16-17, 2000, June 21, 2001, Apr. 10, 2002); “Illinois tobacco fees“, Oct. 16-17; “My dear old tobacco-fee friends” (Kansas AG, like Connecticut’s, gave tobacco business to her old law firm), Oct. 11 (see also Sept. 21, 2000); “Boardwalk bonanza” (N.J.), Oct. 1-3; “News judgment“, Aug. 6; “Puff, the magic fees” (Wisc.), Jul. 13.
Tobacco-fee tycoons, 2003: “Class action lawyer takes $20 million from defendant’s side” (Joseph Rice), Mar. 15-16; “‘Not a pretty picture’“, Jan. 10-12; 2002: “Rumblings in Mississippi” (Scruggs, Minor), Oct. 9-10 (& Nov. 6); “Judge overturns $1.3 billion tobacco fee award” (Castano Group), Sept. 27-29. 2001: “Settle a dispute today” (O’Quinn vs. Jamail), Sept. 18; “Ness monster sighted in Narragansett Bay” (Rhode Island, Ness Motley), Jun. 7 (& see Oct. 6-9, 2000, July 17, 2000, Nov. 1, 1999). 2000: “Punch-outs, Florida style” (Robert Montgomery), Nov. 17-19 (& see Aug. 8, April 12, 2000; Aug. 21-22, 1999); “Friend to the famous” (Williams Bailey), Oct. 12; “Senator Lieberman: a sampler” (voted to curb tobacco fees), Aug. 8-9; “Trial lawyer candidates” (Minnesota’s Ciresi), Jul. 6 (& update Sept. 15-17; loses primary bid); “‘Lawyers’ tobacco-suit fees invite revolt’” (USA Today editorial), May 23. 1999: “Who’s afraid of Dickie Scruggs?“, Dec. 2; “Maryland’s kingmaker” (Peter Angelos), Oct. 19 (& Dec. 9, 1999, Oct. 16-17, 2000, June 21, 2001); “The Marie Antoinette school of public relations” (tobacco lawyers pose for photo shoot on their yachts, horse farms, etc.), Aug. 21-22; and see lawyers’ campaign contributions.
Humor: “Dave Barry on tobacco settlement, round III“, Sept. 16-17, 2002; “Dave Barry on tobacco suits, round II“, March 16, 2000; “Dave Barry on federal tobacco suit“, Oct. 26, 1999; “Cartoon that made us laugh” (”….We can’t take those off the market! Dangerous products are a gold mine for the government!”), Jan. 21-23, 2000.
.
Terms of state tobacco settlement, 2003: “Appeals bonds, again“, Apr. 2-3. 2002: “We did it all for the public health, cont’d” (Alabama devotes more proceeds to tobacco farmers than to smoking reduction), Aug. 22; “Tobacco settlement funds go to tobacco promotion” (N.C.), Jun. 28-30; “‘Bush budget surprise: $25M for tobacco suit’” (Martha Derthick, Up in Smoke), Feb. 20. 2001: “Tobacco-fee tensions” (Fla. resumes investing in tobacco cos.), Jun. 21 (& letter to editor, Jul. 6); “Reclaiming the tobacco loot“, Mar. 15; “Push him into a bedroom, hand him a script” (Bill Clinton testimonial for tobacco lawyers), Mar. 9-11; “Lawyers get tobacco fees early“, Mar. 5; “Tobacco arbitrator: they all know whose side I’m on“, Feb. 16-19; “Safer smokes vs. the settlement cartel“, Feb. 7-8. 2000: “Missouri tobacco fees“, Sept. 21, 2000; “Tobacco- and gun-suit reading” (Stuart Taylor, Jr.), Aug. 21-22, 2000; “Challenging the multistate settlement“, Jul. 17, 2000. 1999: “‘Few Settlement Dollars Used for Tobacco Control’“, Dec. 27-28; “Tobacco bankruptcies, and what comes after” (state gov’ts, trial lawyers would become cigarette producers), Dec. 13; “How the tobacco settlement works” (the more cigarettes sold, the more money states get), Nov. 2; “Addictive tobacco money” (states sued over alleged burden on their taxpayers — so are they using the proceeds to cut taxes?), Sept. 7; “Collusion: it’s an AG thing” (terms of settlement cartelize cigarette industry), Jul. 29. Also see Walter Olson, “Puff, the magic settlement“, Reason, Jan. 2000.
“‘Tough tobacco laws may not deter kids’“, Jun. 7-9, 2002; “Blind newsdealer charged with selling cigarettes to underage buyer“, Sept. 16, 1999.
“Sin-suit city” (Banzhaf), Jun. 10, 2002.
“Ad model sues tobacco company“, May 1-2, 2002.
“Australian party calls for banning smoking while driving“, Jun. 3-4, 2002; “‘Positive nicotine test to keep student from prom’” (over-18 student, off-premises consumption), Apr. 26-28, 2002 (& update May 10-12: school backs down); “Judge orders woman to stop smoking at home“, Mar. 27-28, 2002; “‘Smokers told to fetter their fumes’” (smoking in homes that bothers neighbors), Nov. 26, 2001; “Utah lawmakers: don’t smoke in your car” (when kids present), Oct. 5-7, 2001; “Apartment smoking targeted“, Jan. 3, 2000.
“Australian party calls for banning smoking while driving“, Jun. 3-4, 2002 (document retention case); “International tobacco suits: not quite such easy pickings“, Feb. 1-3, 2002; “‘Saudi Arabia finally gets tough on terrorism!’“, Dec. 10, 2001; “More from Judge Kent” (Bolivian suit), Aug. 3, 2001; “Smoker’s suit nixed in Norway“, Dec. 18-19, 2000; “They call it distributive justice” (government of Saudi Arabia sues tobacco cos.), Nov. 16, 2000; “Spreading to Australia?“, Dec. 29-30, 1999; “Israeli court rejects cigarette reimbursement suit“, Oct. 7, 1999.
“Veeps ATLA could love” (Durbin, D-Ill., as guardian of tobacco lawyers’ fees), July 7, 2000 (& see Apr. 25, 2002).
“Competing interests: none declared”. “The unconflicted Prof. Daynard“, April 21-23, 2000 (& update: letters, Jan. 2001, June 2001; Aug. 2, Dec. 17, 2001).
Federal tobacco suit: our views: “‘Bush budget surprise: $25M for tobacco suit’“, Feb. 20, 2002; “Judge throws out half of federal tobacco suit“, October 2, 2000; “Good news out of Washington…” (House votes to cut off funding for suit), June 21, 2000 (& update June 26: action reversed, funds approved); “Feds: dissent on smoking = racketeering“, Sept. 23, 1999; “Guest column in Forbes by Overlawyered.com’s editor“, Oct. 25, 1999.
“Prison litigation: ‘Kittens and Rainbows Suites’” (cellmate’s smoking violates rights), Jan. 11-13, 2002.
Boeken v. Philip Morris: “Boeken record“, June 19, 2001; “$5,133.47 a cigarette“, Jun. 11, 2001; “Tobacco plunder in Los Angeles” ($3 billion damage award), Jun. 8-10, 2001.
Federal tobacco suit: others’ views: “Columnist-fest” (Jacob Sullum), Jun. 22-24, 2001; “Blatant end-runs around the democratic process” (former Labor Secretary Robert Reich), Jan. 15-16, 2000; “Dave Barry on federal tobacco suit” (plus novelist Tom Clancy’s critique), Oct. 26, 1999; “‘This wretched lawsuit’” (Jonathan Rauch in National Journal ), Oct. 13, 1999; “Feds’ tobacco shakedown: ‘A case of fraud’“, Sept. 29, 1999 (roundup of editorial pages); “Feds as tobacco pushers” (columnist Andrew Glass recalls encouragement of smoking in U.S. Army), Sept. 24, 1999; “Hurry up, before the spell breaks” (leading plaintiff’s lawyer wants feds to sue fast since public losing interest), Sept. 24, 1999.
Regulation by litigation: “Tobacco- and gun-suit reading” (law prof Michael Krauss), Aug. 21-22, 2000; “Convenient line at the time” (tobacco is unique, said state attorneys general — sure), May 15; “Stuart Taylor, Jr., on Smith & Wesson deal” (”Guns and Tobacco: Government by Litigation”), Apr. 11, 2000; “Arbitrary confiscation, from Pskov to Pascagoula” (Michael Barone in U.S. News on threat to rule of law), Jul. 24-25, 1999; “Guns, tobacco, and others to come” (Peter Huber in Commentary on the new mass-tort cases as “show trials”), Jul. 20; “‘A de facto fourth branch of government’” (prominent trial lawyer Wendell Gauthier’s view of plaintiff bar’s role), Jul. 4, 1999.
“Dewey deserve that much?“, Mar. 6, 2002; “Health plans rebuffed in bid to sue cigarette makers“, Jan. 11, 2000.
“Terrorists, American business execs compared“, Sept. 28-30, 2001.
“Columnist-fest“, Jun. 22-24, 2001 (Amity Shlaes on asbestos synergy case); “Best little forum-shopping in Texas” (state’s Medicaid suit got filed in Texarkana, contributing $6.1 million to local economy), Aug. 27, 1999.
“The Kessler agenda” (former FDA chief calls for cigarette ban), Jan. 12-14, 2001; “Kessler rebuked” (FDA claim of authority over tobacco), March 27, 2000.
“Updates” (baby Castano suit nixed in N.Y.), Dec. 26-29, 2000.
“Wal-Mart’s tobacco exposure“, Sept. 25-26, 2000; “The Wal-Mart docket” (sued over tobacco sales), July 7, 2000.
“Another billion, snuffed” (antitrust lawsuit between snuffmakers), May 10, 2000.
“Hollywood special: ‘The Insider’“, Mar. 30, 2000.
“Because they still had money” (Hausfeld’s price-fixing suit), Mar. 2, 2000.
“Tobacco lawyers’ lien leverage“, Feb. 29, 2000.
“Feds’ tobacco hypocrisy, cont’d: Indian ’smoke shops’“, Jan. 25, 2000; “Do as we say, please” (Indian tribes, after profiting immensely from tax-free smoke shops, turn around and sue suppliers), Jul. 14, 1999.
“The joy of tobacco fees“, Jan. 20, 2000.
“Calif. state funds used to compile ‘enemies list’“, Jan. 5, 2000.
“‘Trial lawyers on trial’” (Trevor Armbrister, Reader’s Digest), Dec. 23-26, 1999.
“Philadelphia Inquirer Tech.life: ‘Web Winners’” (this page is recommended), Dec. 15, 1999.
“Ohio tobacco-settlement booty“, Nov. 8, 1999.
“Public by 2-1 margin disapproves of tobacco suits“, Nov. 5-7, 1999.
“Not-so-Kool omen for NAACP suit“, Nov. 1, 1999.
“Minnesota to auction seized cigarettes“, Oct. 21, 1999.
“Reform stirrings on public contingency fees“, Oct. 15, 1999.
“Big guns” (tobacco example shaped gun litigation), Oct. 5-6, 1999.
“Plus extra damages for having argued with us” (”lesson of tobacco”: you can get punished for defending your product), Aug. 19, 1999.
“‘Settlement bonds’: are guns next?” (how Wall Street finances expropriation of industries), Aug. 5, 1999.
Do the tobacco wars that began in the mid-1990s represent an unprecedented triumph for public health? Are they an inevitable response to legislative gridlock on smoking policy? Or are they our legal system’s own updated version of the Gilded Age scandals that brought American government into disrepute a century ago, siphoning billions of dollars of publicly obtained money into the hands of politically connected attorneys? Commentaries on Overlawyered.com (above) may help you decide. In the mean time, the following links offer a way into the wider tobacco controversy:
Anti-tobacco groups, most of which are supportive of litigation as well as other coercive government actions aimed at curtailing tobacco sale and use, are well represented on the web. They include Tobacco.org, federally funded antitobacco activist Stanton Glantz’s Tobacco Control Archives, Americans for Non-Smokers’ Rights, Action on Smoking and Health, and the American Council on Science and Health. Tobacco.org’s links list is especially comprehensive. The empire associated with Prof. Richard Daynard, participant in tobacco suits, oft-quoted expert, and professor at Northeastern U., includes the Tobacco Products Liability Project and Tobacco Control Resource Center, as well as the State Tobacco Information Center. The Castano Group, a vast joint venture of trial lawyers cooperating to file tobacco class actions, maintains a website that is distinctly uninformative (unless you’re a lawyer/member or a cooperative pressie).
Relatively neutral sites include Yahoo Full Coverage.
Critics of the anti-tobacco crusade often note that it curtails individual liberty, freedom of contract and freedom of association. As part of its Breaking Issues series (”Fining Smokers“), Reason magazine includes a list of online articles skeptical of the government’s role in the tobacco field, while Reason senior editor Jacob Sullum is the author of 1998’s For Your Own Good : The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health. At the libertarian-oriented Cato Institute, Robert Levy has criticized “The Tobacco Wars“, written that “States Share Blame for Tobacco Lawyers’ Greed“, and called tobacco settlements “Dangerous to Your Liberty“; the state Medicaid suits, he argues, are “Snuffing Out the Rule of Law“. Cato’s Jerry Taylor describes the battle as “The Pickpocket State vs. Tobacco“. “The Anti-Tobacco Crusade” by Joseph Kellard, Capitalism magazine, March 1998, argues from a viewpoint supportive of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. In Colorado, the Independence Institute maintains a Center for Personal Freedom run by Linda Gorman which draws the connection to other paternalist crusades on issues like drinking, seatbelt use and mandatory helmet laws. The Heritage Foundation’s Todd Gaziano makes the case that a proposed federal lawsuit against tobacco companies is “elevating politics over law” (July 30, 1999 Backgrounder). Overlawyered.com’s editor has taken exception to the retroactivity of the crusade, to its manipulative treatment of children, and to the hardball or demagogic tactics used in the Castano and Engle cases. Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) delivered a notable critique of the tobacco litigation at a Congressional hearing held Dec. 10, 1997 (no longer online).
An extensive site offering an aggressive defense of smoking and smokers, along with a large collection of links, is Forces International (”Fight Ordinances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking”).
July 19-21 – Disabled lap dancing just the start. Our recent item (Jul. 16-17) on demands for accessibility in lap-dancing facilities reminded an alert Australian reader of a recent case from his country in which a disabled complainant filed charges against the proprietors of a “swinging house party”, which was found in unrelated proceedings to be operating as an unlicensed brothel, for excluding her because of her status as a wheelchair user. (Ball v Morgan & Anor [2001] FMCA 127)(adult content warning, though it’s a court opinion). (DURABLE LINK)
July 19-21 – Stolen silence? Via WSJ OpinionJournal Best of the Web Today: “The London Sun reports that Nicholas Riddle, who heads a firm that owns the copyright to the late John Cage’s composition ‘4′ 33″ ‘–which consists of four minutes, 33 seconds of silence–is suing ‘pop guru’ Mike Batt, whose new band, the Plantes, has just released an album with a track called ‘A One Minute Silence.’ Riddle alleges that Batt violated Cage’s copyright. ‘John always said the duration of his piece may be changed, so the Planets’ piece doesn’t escape by virtue of its shorter length,’ Riddle tells the paper. ‘We want our royalties.’” Oh please, let this be a Monty Python skit and not an actual lawsuit (Thomas Whitaker, “Silence is old ‘un”, The Sun (London), Jul. 18). (DURABLE LINK)
July 19-21 – Enron’s other helpers. If Arthur Andersen & Co. is going to get run out of business for approving Enron’s dubious financial deals, why is its outside law firm, Vinson & Elkins, unlikely to face similarly devastating consequences for approving and helping structure the same deals? Well, one reason is that accountants are conceived of as having broad obligations to the general public, while lawyers mostly aren’t. Rather convenient for the lawyers, don’t you think? Julie Hilden makes a valiant effort to defend the double standard as a principled one (”Scummery Judgment”, Slate, Jun. 21). (& see letter to the editor, Oct. 23) (DURABLE LINK)
July 18 – “Family of boy injured by leopard may sue”. “In April, Eric River, 11, sneaked into the Rosamond Gifford Zoo at Burnet Park with friends, tried to feed and pet a snow leopard, got 10 deep lashes to his face, arm and back, and received 500 stitches. Now, three months later, his mother, Terry Wells, is threatening to sue the zoo’s owner, Onondaga County, for failing to properly secure and police the zoo after hours.” River and three friends managed to get into the zoo by scaling one 8-foot fence, squeezing through a gap in another, and scaling a 4-foot fence before finally approaching the leopard in its cage. (Teri Weaver, Syracuse Post-Standard, Jul. 17) (see Sept. 21, 1999). (DURABLE LINK)
July 18 – “Trauma center reopens doors”. The only trauma center in southern Nevada has reopened, “ten days after a state malpractice insurance crisis forced its closure”. (Las Vegas Review-Journal, Jul. 14; Joelle Babula, “University Medical Center: Trauma center closing”, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Jul. 2; Steve Kanigher, “Trauma cases to shift to nearest hospital”, Las Vegas Sun, Jul. 2; William Booth, “Las Vegas Trauma Center Closes as Doctors Quit”, Washington Post, Jul. 4; Las Vegas Review-Journal, coverage at a glance). Crisis continues in Mississippi: Reed Branson, “Doctors shutting practices amid epidemic of lawsuits”, GoMemphis.com, Jul. 11; John Porretto, “Exodus of doctors causing crisis for moms-to-be in Mississippi”, AP, Jul. 11. Texas: Mary Ann Roser, “Doctors at a crossroads”, Austin American-Statesman, Jun. 17. (DURABLE LINK)
July 18 – “Edwards’ fund raising a strong suit”. Why are we not surprised that he’s vaulted ahead of some better-known Democrats on the money-raising front? “Reports released Monday show that two fund-raising committees controlled by Edwards raised a combined $2.6 million in the second quarter of this year and that the North Carolina Democrat now has more than $4.4 million in the bank. … A News & Observer analysis of Edwards’ PAC money showed that more than 77 percent of it came from lawyers or law firms.” (John Wagner, Raleigh News & Observer, Jul. 16). All five of the top contributors to the Edwards campaign are plaintiff’s law firms, the list topped by Girardi & Keese of Los Angeles and Baron & Budd of Dallas, both familiar to longtime readers of this site. (David Brown, “The Candidate”, The Recorder, Jun. 14). (DURABLE LINK)
July 16-17 – By reader acclaim: quadriplegic sues strip club over wheelchair access. Edward Law of Orlando, Fla., who is quadriplegic, “has sued a strip club, charging that it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act because the lap dance room does not have wheelchair access.” In addition to suing the Wildside Adult Sports Cabaret of West Palm Beach, Law has also recently sued a second strip clup, “an Orlando restaurant and a Daytona Beach Harley-Davidson motorcycle shop”; we don’t know yet whether to assign his filing activities to this category. (”Orlando quadriplegic sues strip club over wheelchair access”, AP/Palm Beach Post, Jul. 15)(for more on lap-dance handicap accommodation, see Sept. 27-28, 2000). (DURABLE LINK)
July 16-17 – Mercury in dental fillings. For well over a century dentists have used a mixture of metals including mercury in standard tooth fillings, and both the U.S. Public Health Service and Consumers Union have declared that patients have no grounds for alarm that the fillings pose a risk to health. That hasn’t convinced a small if longstanding body of dissenters who hold that exposure to even trace amounts of the heavy metal must be having toxic effects on users’ bodies. The dispute has lately turned litigious, with Van Nuys, Calif. personal injury and environmental attorney Shawn Khorrami spearheading several suits which accuse the American Dental Association and dentists of wrongly promoting the material, and the ADA striking back with a defamation suit. (Doug Bandow, “Killer teeth?”, Cato Institute Dailies, Jun. 28; Raymond J. Keating, “Lawsuits and Legislation Causing Pain for Dentists”, Small Business Survival Committee, Jun. 7; AltCorp (anti-mercury testing firm); Stephen Barrett, “The Mercury Amalgam Scam”, QuackWatch.com, last revised Apr. 23; search QuackWatch on “amalgam”; American Dental Association on ADA v. Khorrami). (DURABLE LINK)
July 16-17 – Hizzoner’s divorce, settled at last. “Anyone who’s been appalled at the depths to which the parties stooped in this Hanover/Giuliani split just hasn’t been divorced from a millionaire often enough. As big splashy divorces go, this was no uglier than most.” (Dahlia Lithwick, “Hats Off to Rudy”, Slate, Jul. 12). (DURABLE LINK)
July 16-17 – “Spanking Client Not Legitimate Trial Prep Tactic”. Just plain bizarre: U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny has ruled that an attorney’s malpractice insurer is not obliged to pay out in a case in which Derby, Ct. attorney Milo J. Altschuler allegedly took a client across his lap and spanked her before a court appearance. “The woman claimed Altschuler, before removing her panties and stockings, told her he needed to spank her so the judge didn’t think she was lying.” Judge Chatigny ruled that the spanking did not constitute the rendering of professional services, although Altschuler “acknowledged that he used [threats of spanking] in representing more than a dozen other clients to make them ‘more afraid of him than they would be of the prosecutor.’” (Scott Brede, Connecticut Law Tribune, Jul. 15). (DURABLE LINK)
July 15 – “Morales’ $1 Million Tobacco Fee Under Fire”. “Former Attorney General Dan Morales told lawyers that a $1 million contribution to his political campaign fund was a condition for joining his anti-tobacco legal team, a Houston lawyer testified in a newly released document.” In a 1999 interview that has only now been made public in court proceedings, an assistant to Texas Attorney General John Cornyn questioned Houston attorney Wayne Fisher, a former president of the State Bar and a former president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, under oath. Fisher “said Morales outlined two separate requirements during a meeting he had with the then-attorney general in 1995. Fisher said one condition of employment was to ‘front’ the legal expenses and a second was to ‘commit to contribute $1 million to (Morales’) political campaign — to (Morales’) political campaign fund, as I recall it.’” Fisher “chose not to join Morales’ legal team”; he also “recalled wondering later if the meeting was a ’sting operation.’” Fisher’s account seems to buttress earlier recollections by noted plaintiff’s attorney Joe Jamail, who also did not join the state’s team (see Sept. 1-3, 2000, May 22, 2000, June 21, 2001, Aug. 29-30, 2001, Nov. 12, 2001).
The five law firms eventually hired by Morales are all “major contributors to Democratic candidates and causes”. Michael Tigar, attorney for the five, denies that any of their tobacco fees or expenses went to Morales but concedes that “some was paid to Austin political consultant George Shipley. Tigar said all the payments to Shipley were first reviewed by University of Texas law professor Charles Silver, who was retained by the lawyers as an ethics adviser.” (Clay Robison, Houston Chronicle, Jul. 12). (DURABLE LINK)
July 15 – Paper currency should accommodate blind, suit argues. “The American Council of the Blind, which seeks to improve conditions for the visually impaired, has sued the Treasury Department to force its way into the currency revamping process. …The group is not promoting a specific change that would help blind and sight-impaired Americans sift through their money, but hopes the government will study an array of options that would be helpful. A major step could be offering denominations in different colors or sizes with large-print features, like many other countries, [Ralph] Brunson said. Braille and textures also are possibilities, although the markings are prone to wearing off. ‘We did not specify a particular option because, primarily, at this point we’re trying to get the dialogue going,’ Brunson said.” (Mark Babineck, “Blind Group Sues U.S. over Currency”, AP/FindLaw, Jul. 1). (DURABLE LINK)
July 15 – New civil rights target: “linguistic profiling”. With assistance from a Ford Foundation grant, the National Fair Housing Alliance and Stanford education and linguistics professor Dr. John Baugh have launched a project “to study the impact of linguistic profiling on housing discrimination. This summer, Baugh will track the instances of bias that the housing markets show toward speakers of non-standard English over the telephone. Baugh says speakers who do not ’sound white’ often are discriminated against over the telephone. ‘Even though the courts are reasonably well equipped to prosecute cases of face-to-face discrimination,’ says Dr. Baugh, ‘they have a hard time understanding and applying the law to linguistic profiling, and that’s where this research will help.’” “National Study on Linguistic Profiling in Housing Announced”, Jun. 26)(via Scott Norvell, FoxNews.com, Jul. 1). (DURABLE LINK)
July 12-14 – Welcome Salon.com readers, Bill O’Reilly listeners. We’re cited in Janelle Brown’s excellent article on parental lawsuits against teachers (”L is for Lawsuit”, Jul. 12) which mentions our subpage on overlawyered schools. And our editor is appearing today (Fri.) on Bill O’Reilly’s popular radio show to discuss the case of a New York City jury’s award to a woman who lay down on the subway tracks (see Jun. 26-27), along with other cases featured on our personal- responsibility subpage. Update: and welcome BBC-5 listeners, for whom our editor taped an interview arising from the Salon piece (DURABLE LINK)
July 12-14 – Credibility up in smoke? Environmentalist groups have strenuously denied that their use of litigation to stall road building, logging and the construction of firebreaks worsened this year’s raging wildfires out West (see Jul. 1-2). But it turns out that a recent General Accounting Office report, much cited by the enviro groups to show that they don’t sue often, actually may show nothing of the sort. “Environmental appeals delayed 48 percent of the [Forest Service]’s fire-suppression projects in fiscal 2001 and 2002, thereby stalling efforts to clear the brush and small trees that fuel the catastrophic wildfires plaguing the West, according to an internal Forest Service report obtained by The Washington Times. The report, slated for release [Thursday], found that 155 of the agency’s 326 plans to log overgrown, high-risk national forests were stymied by appeals. In Arizona and New Mexico, sites of some of this summer’s worst wildfires, that figure rose to 73 percent, and climbed to 100 percent in the Pacific Northwest”. (Valeria Richardson, “Forest Service Says Activists Played Role in Fires,” Washington Times, Jul. 11; Kimberley A. Strassel, “Truth Under Fire “, Wall Street Journal/ OpinionJournal.com, Jul. 11). (& see letter to the editor, Oct. 23) (DURABLE LINK)
July 12-14 – Read the label, then ignore it if you like. “Two carpet installers who admit they read the label of an adhesive they used, admit they understood the adhesive was flammable and should not be used inside, used it inside anyway, caused an explosion, were burned badly, sued, and won $8 million dollars.” (Phil Trexler, “2 installers get millions in blast suit”, Akron Beacon Journal, Jul. 10) (link and description via MedPundit, Jul. 10). (DURABLE LINK)
July 12-14 – Financial scandals: legislate in haste. The “chief sponsor of the House [financial-reform] legislation, Republican Michael G. Oxley of Ohio … complained that some aspects of the Sarbanes bill appeared to be turning into ‘a gravy train’ for trial lawyers.” (Richard A. Oppel Jr., “Senate Backs Tough Measures to Punish Corporate Misdeeds”, New York Times, Jul. 11). House Republicans are particularly critical of provisions which, in line with a long-term goal of the plaintiff’s bar, increase the time permitted to bring securities fraud lawsuits. The Mobile Register editorially warns that a number of ideas emanating from the Senate “would be a huge boon to voracious plaintiffs’ attorneys. And the last thing the nervous stock market needs, now or ever, is to worry about companies being ruined by ever-more creative lawsuits whose practical effect would do far more to enrich the lawyers than to protect the interests of individual investors.” (”Bush right, Shelby not, on business reform” (editorial), Mobile Register, Jul. 10). “Robert Musil” has some thoughts on the newly popular idea of requiring CEOs to certify their company’s financial filings on penalty of perjury (Jul. 7). And before assuming that it was management malfeasance alone that destroyed the market value of such companies as WorldCom and Adelphia, it would be wise to note that Europe, without benefit of major scandal, has managed to see most of the value of its telecom stocks evaporate since the sectoral bubble burst, with historic enterprises like Deutsche Telekom, France Télécom and Royal KPN of the Netherlands losing 80 or 90 percent of their value, and Britain’s BT doing not much better (Edmund L. Andrews, “Europe Shares Pain of the Fall in Phone Stocks”, New York Times, Jul. 11). And see Steve Chapman, “Real and phony fixes for corporate corruption”, Chicago Tribune, Jul. 11). (DURABLE LINK)
July 12-14 – “Court Tosses ‘Sopranos’ Suit”. Following an appellate court’s ruling against them, the Italian-American Defense Association has dropped its suit against HBO charging that “The Sopranos” offends the dignity of Italian Americans in supposed violation of the Illinois Constitution’s “individual dignity” clause. Score one for free speech (N.Y. Daily News, Jul. 2)(see Apr. 6-8, 2001). (DURABLE LINK)
November 19-20 – New frontiers in discrimination law: Harleys among the cyclamens. Lawmakers in Ohio, South Carolina and several other states are pushing legislation that would prohibit businesses from turning away customers on motorcycles. Georgia state Sen. Joey Brush, who rides a Harley-Davidson, “introduced the legislation because of a long-running dispute with Calloway Gardens, a private, nonprofit horticultural garden that doesn’t allow bikers to drive onto the grounds. The ban, in place for the garden’s entire 49-year existence, is meant to protect the serenity and peace for which the grounds are known, said spokeswoman Rachel Crumbley. ‘We feel it’s not a civil right to ride a motorcycle wherever you please,’ Crumbley said.” An Ohio rider who supports such legislation “said a waitress at a restaurant near Cincinnati once placed him and his wife in a corner away from other patrons when the couple pulled up wearing leather boots, chaps and vests.” But the biker community, which in the past has often sided with libertarian causes such as opposition to mandatory helmet laws, is far from unanimous on this one: “As a business owner, they should have right to decide who they want,” says spokesman Steve Zimmer of Ohio’s pro-biker ABATE group — clearly someone who hasn’t forgotten that biking is supposed to be about freedom. (Andrew Welsh-Huggins, “Laws Seek to Protect U.S. Bikers”, AP/Yahoo, Nov. 14). (& letters to the editor, Feb. 28) (DURABLE LINK)
November 19-20 – Can’t find the arsonist? Sue the sofa-maker. “With the two-year statute of limitations almost up, lawyers representing victims of New Jersey’s Seton Hall University dormitory fire are working frantically to find parties to sue.
“The fire, which authorities believe was intentionally started, broke out in the Boland Hall dormitory on Jan. 19, 2000, killing three students and injuring 58 others. Seton Hall, which enjoys charitable immunity from suit, has settled out of court with some of the plaintiffs. Still, lawyers contemplate suits against other people who may have contributed to the conflagration — the arsonists, the maker of the sofa that ignited and any other potentially responsible parties.” (Charles Toutant, “Seton Hall Fire Victims’ Lawyers Still Scrambling to Identify Defendants”, New Jersey Law Journal, Nov. 14) (see June 1, 2000). (DURABLE LINK)
November 19-20 – By reader acclaim: football’s substance abuse policy challenged. “New England wide receiver Terry Glenn has sued the NFL, claiming a disability makes it difficult for him to adhere to certain rules in the league’s substance abuse policy. … Glenn filed the complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but it did not specify what disability Glenn suffers. Glenn claims he should not have been suspended by the NFL for the first four games of the season for violation of the substance abuse policy.” (”Glenn’s suit doesn’t specify disabilities”, AP/ESPN, Nov. 4). Plus: reader Rick Derer, outraged by the Casey Martin episode, has put up an ADA horror stories website to call attention to what he terms “the worst law ever foisted on the American people”.
November 19-20 – Municipal gun suits on the run. Cause for thanksgiving indeed: the lawless and extortionate municipal gun-suit campaign has been encountering one setback after another. “In a major victory for gun manufacturers, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on [Nov. 16] upheld the dismissal of a suit brought by Camden County, New Jersey, that accused gun makers of creating a ‘public nuisance’ and sought to recoup the governmental costs associated with gun-related crimes.” Arguing the losing side were radical law prof David Kairys and class-action firm Berger & Montague. The three-judge panel was unanimous. (Shannon P. Duffy, “3rd Circuit Shoots Down Gun Suit Theory”, The Legal Intelligencer, Nov. 19). The city of Atlanta is desperately trying to keep its anti-gun suit alive in the face of legislation enacted by its parent state of Georgia making it as explicit as humanly possible that the city has no authority to press such a suit (Richmond Eustis, “Atlanta Asks State Appeals Court to Keep Alive Suit Against Gun Makers”, Fulton County Daily Report, Nov. 15).
Yale law professor Peter Schuck describes the gun lawsuits as based on the “most tenuous” theories yet of government rights of recoupment (”subrogation”) and tort law as “one of the last places” we should look to resolve the policy issues of gun control (”Smoking Gun Lawsuits”, American Lawyer, Sept. 10). And Bridgeport, Conn. mayor Joseph Ganim, who had taken perhaps the highest profile among Northeastern mayors in support of the gun suits, is likely to be less heard from for a while given his indictment last month on two dozen felony counts including extortion, bribery and mail fraud. (He denies everything.) (John Christoffersen, “In Connecticut, a growing and unwelcome reputation for corruption”, AP/Charleston (W.V.) Gazette, Nov. 16; Chris Kanaracus et al, “Ganim on the Spot” (pre-indictment coverage), Fairfield County Weekly, undated). See also Kimberley A. Strassel, “Bummer for Sarah Brady”, OpinionJournal.com, Nov. 15 (expressing optimistic view that municipal gun suits have been contained). (DURABLE LINK)
November 16-18 – Profiling perfectly OK after all. “State highway safety officials said they have received a $700,000 federal grant to help them crack down on two groups of chronic violators of the state’s seat belt law: drivers and passengers of pick-up trucks, and all male drivers and passengers between 18 and 55. … [Louisiana Highway Safety Commission Executive Director James] Champagne said state and federal studies have consistently shown pickup drivers and all male drivers are less likely to buckle up than any other groups of drivers or front-seat passengers. State law requires both the driver and front-seat passengers of vans, sports utility vehicles, cars and trucks to use seat belts. … Asked if the targeting of males and pickup drivers and passengers is profiling of a certain group, Champagne said, ‘Absolutely.’” To recap, then: the federal government strictly bans giving extra attention to 25-year-old males from Saudi Arabia at airport check-in. While they’re driving to the airport, on the other hand, it positively encourages them to be profiled. Perhaps the explanation is that it’s willing to swallow its scruples in order to combat really antisocial behavior — like failing to wear seat belts, as opposed to hijacking planes into buildings. (Ed Anderson, “Police to harness seat belt scofflaws”, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Nov. 10 — via InstaPundit). Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union is soliciting racial-profiling plaintiffs in New Jersey. “The ACLU billboard, which went up last month, shows a photograph of two minority men and between them the words ‘Stopped or searched by the New Jersey State Police? They admit to racial profiling. You might win money damages,’ the sign reads. The ad includes the ACLU’s toll-free number.” (”Billboards in New Jersey Ask for Trooper Praise, Not Profiling Complaints”, FoxNews.com, Nov. 14).
November 16-18 – EEOC approves evacuation questions for disabled. To the relief of many in the business community, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has announced that it is not unlawful to ask workers about the state of their health for the purpose of formulating plans for emergency building evacuations. The September attacks called attention to the difficulty experienced in disaster situations by evacuees with such conditions as blindness, paraplegia, extreme obesity, and asthma. While employers may ask about problems that might impede evacuation, they should not insist on getting actual answers; EEOC officials recommend that they let each worker elect whether to disclose the information. The Americans with Disabilities Act has generally been interpreted as conferring on employees a broad legal right to conceal health problems from their employers. (Kirsten Downey Grimsley, “EEOC Approves Health Queries”, Washington Post, Nov. 1).
November 16-18 – Et tu, UT? Perhaps envying California its litigious reputation, the Supreme Court of Utah has ruled that it will not enforce releases in which parents agree to waive their children’s right to sue for negligence. The case involved a child thrown from a rented horse; the mother had signed a release before the accident, but then decided she wanted it invalidated so she could sue anyway. Attorney James Jensen, who represented defendant Navajo Trails, “listed many activities that now may be affected or curtailed, including school field trips, religious organization youth activities, scouting programs, amusement parks and ski resorts. ‘Anybody that provides recreational activities to minors,’ he said.” (Andrew Harris, “Utah High Court Says No Release of Liability to Children”, National Law Journal, Nov. 12).
November 15– “Poor work tolerated, employees say”. We keep hearing that if we were really serious about airport security we’d kick out those ill-paid Argenbright bag screeners and swear in a new 28,000-strong corps of federal employees to replace them. But a “new study concludes that federal workers themselves view many of their co-workers as poor performers who are rarely disciplined. The survey of 1,051 federal workers, conducted for the Brookings Institution’s Center for Public Service prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, found that on average federal employees believe 23.5 percent of their colleagues are ‘not up to par.’ Meanwhile, only 30 percent believe their organization does a very or somewhat good job of disciplining poor performers.” Those numbers are worse than the ones you get when you poll employees of private firms. At least when Argenbright botches things you can kick it out in favor of another contractor (Ben White, Washington Post, Oct. 30; Gregg Easterbrook, “Fighting the Wrong Fight”, The New Republic Online, Nov. 13).
November 15 – Lawyers’ immunity confirmed. In a dispute arising out of a developer’s plan to buy Fisher Island, home to many celebrities and wealthy persons, a Florida court has ruled that the developer cannot pursue a countersuit for tortious interference against residents who filed lawsuits aimed at derailing the deal, even if it can show they knew the suits to be unmeritorious. The court relied on a 1994 case in which the Florida Supreme Court ruled that an attorney’s acts in the course of litigation are subject to an “absolute” privilege: “We find that absolute immunity must be afforded to any act occurring during the course of a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the act involves a defamatory statement or other tortious behavior such as the alleged misconduct at issue, so long as the act has some relation to the proceeding.” Or, as the Miami legal paper puts it, “litigation itself is immune from litigation”. Put differently, people engaged in litigation boast an “absolute immunity” to engage in injurious behavior that would have a remedy at law if you or I tried it (Julie Kay, “Lawsuits of the Rich and Famous — and Their Two Dozen Law Firms”, Miami Daily Business Review, Nov. 1).
November 15 – Exxon Brockovich vs. Erin Valdez. The Ninth Circuit has struck down as excessive an Alaska jury’s $5 billion punitive award against Exxon over the Valdez oil spill, sending the case back for further litigation; compensatory damages are unaffected by the ruling (Henry Weinstein & Kim Murphy, “Court Overturns $5-Billion Judgment Against Exxon in ‘89 Alaska Oil Spill”, L.A. Times, Nov. 8; Yahoo Full Coverage)(update Dec. 30, 2002: judge cuts award to $4 billion). Meanwhile, toxic-tort celebrity Erin Brockovich is helping spearhead a new effort to recruit plaintiffs from among the more than 15,000 workers who took part in the cleanup effort a dozen years ago, some of whom believe that it caused their health to take a turn for the worse. A Los Angeles Times account, after sympathetically relaying what would seem to be the most striking such cases the plaintiff’s team could come up with, concedes that “most health officials remain unconvinced that the cleanup left anyone sick”. (Nick Schulz, “Busy Bee Brockovich Looking to Sting Again”, TechCentralStation, Nov. 9; Kim Murphy, “Exxon Oil Spill’s Cleanup Crews Share Years of Illness”, L.A. Times, Nov. 5; Mary Pemberton, “Erin Brockovich probes Exxon complaints”, AP/ Anchorage Daily News, Nov. 6).
November 14 – “Rejoice, rejoice”. “[Y]esterday’s liberation of Kabul and much of the rest of Afghanistan is a great victory. … The moving scenes from the Afghan capital remind us … that most believing Muslims reject the rigorist insanity that bin Laden and the Taliban promote in their name, and are happy to worship God without having to wear a beard or a burqa. They can sing and dance again; women can work, and children can learn. The Taliban’s scorched-earth devastation of so many Afghan villages reveals their contempt for their own people, and their desertion of so many of their own Arab and Pakistani jihadis shows their capacity to betray. … Today, though, everyone who cast doubt on the possibilities of success and everyone who sneered at American ‘gung-ho’ should observe a period of silence. The rest of us should, to use a famous phrase from another war, ‘just rejoice rejoice’”. ((editorial), Daily Telegraph, Nov. 14; Paul Watson, “Taliban torturers on the run”, L.A. Times, Nov. 14; Christopher Hitchens, “Ha ha ha to the pacifists”, The Guardian, Nov. 14; Dexter Filkins, “In Fallen Taliban City, a Busy, Busy Barber”, New York Times, Nov. 13).
November 14 – Insurance market was in trouble before 9/11. With alarms being heard about an impending crisis in the availability of commercial insurance, it’s worth noting for the record that conditions were deteriorating rapidly in that market even before Sept. 11, mostly because insurers were pulling back from liability exposures: “Among the lines tightening the most are products liability, umbrella liability, contractor liability and nursing home liability, insurers and brokers say,” reported the July 2 issue of the trade publication Business Insurance. Also in scarce supply was coverage for “anything with an occupational disease exposure, like insulation and cell phones,” said one industry observer, Tom Nazar of Near North. “Generally, premiums for most liability lines are increasing anywhere from 25% to 60%,” with transportation risks seeing rate hikes of 100-200 percent and nursing homes 150 percent, said another insurance exec — all this well before the WTC attacks hit carriers with the largest losses from a single insured event in history. (Joanne Wojcik, “Transportation takes biggest hit in hardening market”, Business Insurance, July 2 (online subscribers only), and other contemporaneous coverage in the same publication). Directors’ and officers’ liability was another big problem area, especially for companies in fields such as high tech and telecom, financial services and health care. “The risks facing the steepest premium increases are pharmaceutical companies, nursing homes and contractors, especially organizations located in the litigious markets of California, Illinois and New York, insurance executives said.” In workers’ comp, “loss severity continues to deteriorate”.
And then there was asbestos: an August Standard & Poor’s report indicated that insurers were setting aside an additional $5-10 billion this year for asbestos claims, above earlier amounts reserved. “The implications to the insurance community are potentially devastating,” says the report. “Other analysts and ratings agencies recently have estimated that the insurance industry would need to put up as much as $20 billion to $40 billion more to cover their asbestos exposure. In May, ratings firm A.M. Best Co. calculated that insurers have set aside $10.3 billion to pay additional asbestos claims, having already paid out $21.6 billion.” A not-insubstantial portion of those sums, as we know, will go to compensate persons who are not sick from asbestos and never will be — raising once again the question of why we don’t try harder as a society to reserve the limited pool represented by insurance for situations where it’s really needed (Christopher Oster, “Insurers to Set Aside Additional Billions For Asbestos Claims”, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 1 (online subscribers only)). On proposals to bail out insurance markets since the attacks, see Scott Harrington and Tom Miller, “Insuring against terror”, National Review Online, Nov. 5. (DURABLE LINK)
November 14 – “Diabetic German judge sues Coca-Cola for his health condition”. Why should American lawyers have all the fun? In a trial that began Monday in Essen, Germany, Hans-Josef Brinkmann, 46, a judge in the east German town of Neubrandenburg, says the beverage company is partly responsible for his developing diabetes after drinking two bottles of Coca-Cola a day for years. He further “disputes the contention of the drinks company that Coca Cola is a ‘flawless foodstuff’ … Brinkmann plans to bring a similar case against Masterfoods, manufacturers of Mars Bars, Snickers and Milky Way chocolate candy, in January.” Whether Herr Brinkmann wins or loses these suits, we hope he’ll come to America — we bet he’d have no trouble landing a job at one of our law schools. (AFP/Times of India, Nov. 14) (more).
November 13 – From the paint wars: a business’s demise, a school district’s hypocrisy. “Sherwin-Williams Co. acquired Mautz Paint Co. Thursday after the local company said it could no longer afford facing a costly lawsuit filed by the city of Milwaukee. Bernhard F. ‘Biff’ Mautz, the company’s chairman of the board, said negotiations to sell the [family-owned] firm intensified in April after the city of Milwaukee filed suit seeking more than $100 million in damages over the manufacture of lead-based paints decades ago.
“‘Although we believe the city’s case is meritless and Mautz will ultimately be absolved of any responsibility, for the first time in our history we were faced with years of litigation, which even if (the plaintiff was) unsuccessful, would destroy our small company,’ he said. …
“The sale price was not released, but Mautz President Dan Drury said it was discounted to reflect the costs of the lawsuit. Founded in 1892, Mautz employed 260 people at its 33 retail stores and manufacturing plant. It had sales of $32 million last year. …
“Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce said the sale of the one of Madison’s oldest businesses will make it more difficult for the state to attract new businesses. ‘This is a sad day in the state of Wisconsin,’ said James S. Haney, the organization’s president. ‘This is every business person’s worst nightmare. Mautz got in the gun sights of the contingency fee trial lawyers and the bureaucrats and now another homegrown locally owned business with strong ties to the community is gone.’” (”Mautz announces acquisition by Sherwin-Williams”, AP/Janesville (Wis.) Gazette, Nov. 9).
Meanwhile: In Houston, where contingency-fee lawyers have been recruiting local school districts to go after paint companies, the lawsuit filed by the Spring Branch School District claims that residual paint from decades past exposes students and teachers to “a substantial risk of lead poisoning” — a dramatic charge indeed. Which left Jon Opelt, executive director of Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse Houston and the parent of a child in the district, wondering why “the school district has never notified me, as a parent, of the presence of any health or safety risks related to lead. No cautionary notes have been sent home with my children. No alarming studies have been released discussing the severity of the problem in our schools.’”
Which naturally raises the question: is there a genuine lead hazard, which the district has been covering up from parents, or just a phony hazard, which their lawyers are conjuring up in an effort to squeeze money from manufacturers? Opelt: “Ron Scott, a lawyer for the school district, is quoted in a Houston Chronicle article as saying: ‘This isn’t a panic issue. People don’t need to feel their schools are unsafe.’ Duncan Klussmann, a district administrator, told me, ‘Your child is not at risk.’ These are the very same people who signed onto a lawsuit that says there is a ’substantial risk of lead poisoning.’ What are we to believe? District officials are telling parents their schools are safe but their lawsuit demands millions of dollars for addressing a dangerous situation caused by lead paint. Both cannot be true.” (CALA Houston website, “Parent Urges School District To “Get The Lead Out“, “Contrary to Other Reports“, David Waddell, “Why Should Safety Be a Secret?“, Annette Baird, “District: Lead-paint concerns in check”, Houston Chronicle, Oct. 17). (DURABLE LINK)
November 13 – Update: ousted quartet member wins damages. “A Pennsylvania judge has ordered three members of the Audubon Quartet to pay their former colleague David Ehrlich more than $600,000 in damages, adding yet another dramatic twist to the legal battle that has largely silenced the internationally acclaimed quartet since February 2000 and cost the group its home at Virginia Tech.” (Kevin Miller, “Ousted quartet member should receive damages, judge rules”, Roanoke Times, Oct. 16; “In Support of the Audubon Quartet“; summary of court opinion) (see June 5, 2000, June 14, 2001). Update May 10-12, 2002: defendants could lose house.
November 13 – Women’s rights: British law, or Islamic? According to columnist Theodore Dalrymple of The Spectator, a misguided multiculturalism has led authorities in the United Kingdom to adopt a hands-off policy toward some British Muslim families’ trampling of their young daughters’ rights (”The abuse of women”, Oct. 27).
November 12 – “Morales trying to ‘clear the air’ before campaign”. Many assumed the political career of former Texas attorney general Dan Morales was dead, dead, dead after allegations began flying in the papers about the circumstances under which he’d hired outside lawyers to represent the state in the tobacco affair and share one of the largest fee windfalls in history (see Sept. 1-3, 2000). But now Morales wants to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Phil Gramm and is insisting with new vehemence that he never acted improperly and that it’s all been a misunderstanding. Two of his lawyers have “asked a state district court in Austin to let Morales lay the groundwork for a possible defamation suit by taking the sworn testimony of four former associates. Morales wants to question John Eddie Williams Jr. of Houston — one of five trial lawyers who shared $3.3 billion in legal fees from the tobacco case — and three former assistants in the attorney general’s office — Harry Potter of Austin and Jorge Vega and Javier Aguilar of San Antonio. He indicated that Williams and Potter, who was actively involved in the tobacco suit, could be targets of any suit he may file.” Pull up a chair, this promises to be interesting (Clay Robison, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 7). Morales also continues to deny “allegations by Houston trial lawyer Joe Jamail that Morales improperly solicited $1 million from each of several lawyers he considered hiring for the tobacco suit.”
November 12 – Short-sellers had right to a drop in stock price. At least that’s the premise underlying this press release and lawsuit from a class action law firm seeking the right to sue on behalf of short-sellers who feel their speculative bets against the stock of Intelli-Check Inc. were stymied by the company’s allegedly over-sunny fiscal projections. (”Speziali, Greenwald & Hawkins, PC Announces the Filing of a Class Action Suit on Behalf of Short-Sellers of Intelli-Check, Inc. (Amex: IDN) Securities”, Yahoo/PR Newswire, Oct. 18).
November 12 – “U.S. Debates Info on Chemical Hazards”. “Separate hearings in the House and Senate [were] held this week to reassess the safety of chemical and industrial facilities in the light of recent terrorist attacks. A key policy at stake is the so-called ‘right to know’ law, which requires the federal government to publicly disclose sensitive information about facilities around the country that could be used by terrorists to target the most dangerous locations.” Jeremiah Baumann, a spokesman for the Nader-empire U.S. Public Interest Research Group, called for preserving public access to the sensitive information. “‘Let’s at least make the bad guys work for it,’ countered Amy E. Smithson, a chemical and biological weapons analyst for the Henry L. Stimson Center think tank.” Smithson said “[t]he Clinton EPA’s decision to post those plans for some 15,000 plants on the Internet in August 2000 ‘wasn’t just bad, it was colossally bad’.” (John Heilprin, AP/Yahoo, Nov. 8) (see Oct. 1). More: Carol D. Leonnig and Spencer S. Hsu, “Fearing Attack, Blue Plains Ceases Toxic Chemical Use”, Washington Post, Nov. 10 (chlorine use at Washington sewage treatment plant); Jonathan Adler, “How the EPA Helps Terrorists”, National Review Online, Sept. 27; “Environmental Danger”, Oct. 11; Angela Logomarsini, “Laws that Make Terror Easy”, New York Post, Oct. 12; “‘Right To Know’ Hearings – Taking Away Terrorist Tools”, Competitive Enterprise Institute press release, Nov. 7.
September 8-10 – Netscape “Cool Sitings” of the day. Overlawyered.com was one of the picks on Thursday’s edition of Netscape’s much-surfed “Cool Sitings” feature. Their write-up: “Legal Shenanigans. If the joke: ‘What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start’ rings true for you, check out this site” (Sept. 7). And we’re also today’s (Friday’s) web pick of the day at the Memphis Commercial Appeal’s “C.A. Eye“.
September 8-10 – …Than never to have been born at all. By a 4-3 margin, the Ohio Supreme Court has declined to let a 7-year-old with spina bifida sue her parents’ doctors on a claim of “wrongful life”. The little girl’s argument — at least, the argument put forth on her behalf in court — is that had the doctors told her parents about the availability of a prenatal test that would have disclosed her abnormality, they would have had an abortion, and that she suffered injury because they failed to do so. “Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, writing for the majority, said courts do not have the authority to decide if a person should or should not have been born.” Justices Paul Pfeifer, Andrew Douglas and Alice Robie Resnick dissented. (Spencer Hunt, “Girl has no right to sue”, Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 7; “Ohio Court Rules Against Parents”, AP/FindLaw, Sept. 7; decision, Hester v. Dwivedi) (see also May 9).
September 8-10 — “NZ kids get ‘license’ to play with toy guns”. “Children as young as four in New Zealand are being required to apply for ‘licenses’ for toy guns.” They must explain why they want one, and playing cops and robbers is not a good enough reason. (Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 6). Also: an Australian radio talk show host, convicted of improperly soliciting information about the deliberations of a jury, was “given a 15-month suspended sentence … because the judge believed he was too wealthy to fine and too famous to jail.” (Stephen Gibbs, “Laws too famous to jail, says judge”, Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 6).
September 8-10 – “A perverse use of antitrust law”. “The Justice Department could hardly have come up with a more harmful set of demands than those it now makes [on Microsoft],” writes Charles Munger, vice chairman of famed investor Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. “If it wins, our country will end up hobbling its best-performing high-tech businesses. And this will be done in an attempt to get public benefits that no one can rationally predict.” (Charles Munger, Washington Post, Sept. 1). More: “Did Microsoft Harm Consumers? Two Opposing Views”, by David S. Evans, Franklin M. Fisher, Daniel L. Rubinfield, and Richard L. Schmalensee, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies (abstract, full text (PDF format), order form); David Boaz, “The theft of Microsoft”, Cato Daily, July 27; Jonathan Rauch, “The Microsoft Case: Fair, Necessary, and Totally Random”, National Journal, June 10.
September 8-10 – “State errors unfairly cast some dads as deadbeats”. A federal law has mandated toughening of state child support collection systems. Unfortunately, reports Marilyn Gardner of the Christian Science Monitor, the resulting overhauls have increased the rate of billing errors in some of the systems and led to parents mistakenly being labeled deadbeats (August 9).
September 8-10 – $1.5 million estate bill included 900 hours spent on fees. An Indiana appeals court has rebuked a law firm which billed heirs $1.5 million for handling an inheritance case, including 900 hours it says it spent calculating its fees. The Indianapolis law firm of Henderson, Daily, Withrow & DeVoe had worked on the estate of former Conseco Inc. executive Lawrence W. Inlow, who died without a will at age 46 in a helicopter accident leaving an estate of $185 million. “Requiring a client to pay an additional amount for being told what he owes in the first instance is neither good business nor good law,” wrote Judge Sanford M. Brook for the appeals court. (”Court Rejects Attorneys’ Charge”, AP/FindLaw, Sept. 7) (court opinion, Inlow children v. Estate of Inlow).
September 6-7 – Prosecution fears slow crash probes. Aviation accidents almost never used to result in the filing of criminal charges, but in recent years they’ve been the subject of several highly publicized prosecutions. A House Transportation Committee hearing in late July looked into evidence that fear of incarceration or fines is now discouraging witnesses from cooperating with crash investigators. “For decades, we had relied on individuals to tell us what happened in an accident — and they usually, sometimes reluctantly, do so,” said Daniel Campbell, managing director of the official National Transportation Safety Board. But “what has been reluctance to cooperate may become refusal to cooperate.” Campbell said prosecution fears had also made it hard to investigate a recent nonaviation accident, a fatal pipeline explosion in Bellingham, Wash., last year. As a result, “more than a year later, we still have not been able to talk to most of the key individuals who were operating the pipeline when it ruptured and may not be able to in the foreseeable future.” A federal grand jury subpoena also “resulted in a significant delay in the investigation,” Campbell said. “In our view, too much lawyering went on before we were able to test the physical evidence of that tragedy.”
“The recent trend towards the criminalization of aircraft accidents is extremely alarming in that it has the potential to cripple industry’s ability to learn from incidents and accidents, essentially guaranteeing that we will repeat them,” said Capt. Paul McCarthy of the Air Line Pilots Association. He cited the 1996 ValuJet crash in Florida, the USAir 1989 crash at LaGuardia, and the recent Alaska Air crash off the California coast as examples of cases where safety investigations had been slowed. (House Transportation Committee, Aviation Subcommittee, hearing summary, Campbell, McCarthy statements; thread on Professional Pilots bulletin board)
September 6-7 – Update: second chance for Wal-Mart. The giant retailer has won a rematch in the case of former employee Ricky Bourdouvales, who sued alleging discrimination based on transsexualism (male-to-female). Judge Douglas Hague issued a default judgment of $2.1 million when Wal-Mart failed to show up in his New Jersey court (see July 21), but has now agreed to grant a retrial. (”Judge Tosses Trans Bias Award”, PlanetOut, Aug. 28).
September 6-7 – Australian roundup. A now-retired New South Wales judge has come under criticism from the losing plaintiffs in a large case, who complain in their appeal that more than 200 pages of his 247-page opinion consist of material cut and pasted from the submissions made by the two sides. The judge had called the case, over the Copper-7 contraceptive IUD, the longest and most complex product liability case in Australian history. (”Judge ‘cut and paste’ in making his decision on IUDs”, AAP/The Age (Melbourne), Aug. 29). Five partners of a Sydney law firm that handles a large volume of immigration work are suing Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock for defamation, “claiming he implied they were unethical and overcharged clients.” (”Ruddock sued for defamation by lawyers”, AAP/The Age (Melbourne), Aug. 29). And a 1998 finding by a federal justice that a prominent Brisbane law firm engaged in abuse of legal process ignited a debate about the condition of the law in Australia; a national TV show explored widespread discontent over the gamelike aspects of adversary process, interviewing both leading insiders of bench and bar and two outspoken critics, former defense lawyer and prosecutor Brett Dawson and journalist Evan Whitton (”The justice system goes on trial”, Ross Coulthart, reporter, Sunday/NineMSN, Transcript #252, undated). One passage among many that caught our eye:
REPORTER: Do you think there’s a case to argue that some of the ethical rules that lawyers have actually almost encourage dishonesty among lawyers?
JUSTICE [GEOFFREY] DAVIES: Yes I do. One of the examples is that a lawyer can ethically deny an allegation in the opponent’s pleading knowing it to be true.
REPORTER: You’re kidding – so you can basically lie?
JUSTICE DAVIES: Well, what lawyers would say is that you are putting the other side to proof.
REPORTER: It’s a lie though isn’t it?
JUSTICE DAVIES: It is.
September 6-7 – Bill for pizza delivery: $1.25 million? A Cocoa Beach, Fla. jury voted, but a federal judge almost immediately threw out, an award of one and a quarter million dollars to a black family that ordered home delivery from Pizza Hut and found a racial slur included as part of the computer-generated receipt. Judge Patricia Fawsett ruled that responsibility lay with the unauthorized actions of a rogue employee and could not fairly be charged to the company. (”Judge throws out $1.25M verdict against Pizza Hut”, Orlando Sentinel, Sept. 1).
September 5 – EEOC: offbeat beliefs may be protected against workplace bias. “Belief in radically unconventional scientific notions, such as ‘cold fusion’ or cryptic messages from extraterrestrials, may merit the same workplace protections as freedom of religion, according to a ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a job-discrimination case.” The case arose from the April 1999 firing by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of patent examiner and astronomer Paul A. LaViolette, who claims the action was taken because he holds unconventional beliefs, including a belief in the highly controversial theory of energy generation through “cold fusion”. In the words of the Washington Post, LaViolette’s website, www.etheric.com, “details his ‘proof’ of the existence of alien radio communication, his theory that the zodiac is a ‘time capsule message’ warning of emanations from the galactic center and his views on the Sphinx, the Tarot and Atlantis, along with his considerable accomplishments in mainstream science.” (Curt Suplee, “EEOC Backs ‘Cold Fusion’ Devotee”, Washington Post, Aug. 23).
September 5 – Tax software verdict: pick a number. A Hinds County, Mississippi jury “awarded the state of Mississippi $474.5 million in its suit against a company that failed to deliver on a new tax processing system that was supposed to modernize the state’s collection efforts.” The verdict against Fairfax, Va.-based American Management Systems Inc. included $299.5 million in actual damages and $175 million in punitive damages. A few days later, the company settled the suit by agreeing to pay the state $185 million. The company has contracts with seven other states to operate similar computerized tax systems; no other lawsuits are pending. (”Company loses tax software suit”, AP/USA Today, Aug. 24; “Settlement cuts tax software verdict”, Aug. 29).
September 5 – Juries and cost-benefit analysis. W. Kip Viscusi, professor at Harvard Law, says businesses today get conflicting signals on the use of cost-benefit analysis in safety matters: a large academic literature encourages them to engage in such analysis as part of their responsibility to the public, but juries get furious when they think that sort of “cold-blooded calculation” has gone on. Moreover, there’s evidence to support the paradoxical finding that the higher a valuation of life and limb a company employs in such an analysis, the more stringently it will be punished by subsequent juries. (”The Trouble With Lawsuits”, TechCentralStation, May 29; Manhattan Institute, luncheon transcript).
September 4 – Emulex fraud: gotta find a defendant. “With the manhunt for the perpetrator of the Emulex fraud [false news report torpedoed company's stock] apparently over, investors burned by the company’s $2 billion post-fraud swing are now hunting for someone, anyone, to sue for legal damages. Two lawsuits have already been filed, one against Internet Wire, which originally distributed the bogus press release, and one against both Internet Wire and Bloomberg, the financial news service that sent out a story based on the press release.” (Craig Bicknell, “Emulex Victims: Who Can We Sue?”, Wired News, Sept. 1).
September 4 – Record-breaking securities class action fee: $262 million. A federal judge in New Jersey last month approved a fee of $262 million for plaintiffs’ lawyers in the securities fraud case stemming from the collapse in the stock price of Cendant Corporation (see June 20). Judge William Walls upheld the record-breaking fee against objections from New York City, a member of the investor class, reasoning that the two lead law firms, New York’s Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman and Philadelphia’s Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, had taken part in a fairly run auction to determine who would get to represent the investors. (Daniel Wise, “Cendant Lawyers Get Record $262 Million in Securities Fraud Case”, New York Law Journal, Aug. 22).
September 4– “Just put the candy in the bag, lady.” “I’ve been watching the lawsuits over Columbine with interest bordering on disgust. It seems the argument is that someone (preferably a government agent not affiliated with the Postal Service, or failing that, any random person with deep pockets) should have foreseen the future and intervened,” writes Paul Kelly, a former vice chair of the Boulder, Colo. Democratic Party. “…If this new ‘everybody’s negligent all the time’ social philosophy seems silly to you, it’s probably because you’re not a lawyer. To a lawyer this is like Halloween to a 10-year-old. ‘Just put the candy in the bag, lady. And hurry. There are still five families on this block I haven’t sued yet.’” (”Doing nothing may be best option”, Denver Post, Aug. 13).
September 1-3 – Texas tobacco fees: Cornyn’s battle. In December 1998 an arbitration panel awarded a stupendous $3.3 billion in legal fees to five law firms selected by former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales to represent the state in the tobacco-Medicaid litigation, which had ended in a $17 billion settlement. The Big Five firms, all high rollers in Lone Star State personal-injury litigation and all major Democratic Party donors, include Beaumont, Texas’s Provost & Umphrey (Walter Umphrey), Houston’s Williams & Bailey (John Eddie Williams), Harold Nix’s law firm in Daingerfield; Beaumont’s Reaud, Morgan & Quinn (Wayne Reaud); and John O’Quinn’s firm in Houston.
Mr. Morales’s Republican successor as Texas Attorney General, former Texas Supreme Court Justice John Cornyn, ran for office in part on a pledge to investigate the circumstances surrounding the fees, and his probe soon led to some eye-opening revelations (see May 22). A Houston lawyer named Marc Murr, who’d earlier worked at the same law firm with Morales, had stepped forward after the settlement to claim a $520 million (later $260 million) share of the proceeds, a mystifying claim since participants could not remember Murr doing work on the case or being considered part of the state’s team. Murr pointed to a hitherto unsuspected contract with Morales entitling him to a piece of the action, but Cornyn hired forensic experts who concluded that the contract had been doctored and backdated. Rather than be put under oath about the matter, Murr withdrew his claim to the fees; a U.S. attorney’s office has the matter under investigation.
As for the circumstances by which the Big Five came by their fees, Cornyn’s investigation has met with a stone wall of resistance and non-cooperation from Umphrey, Williams, Nix, Reaud and O’Quinn. In particular, he would like to investigate what the Houston Chronicle describes as “longtime allegations that [Morales] solicited large sums of money from lawyers he considered hiring” for the suit. Two years ago famed Houston attorney Joe Jamail, who wasn’t among those picked to represent the state, “said Morales solicited $1 million from each of several lawyers he considered hiring”, in addition to the $2 million that each of the five agreed to front to finance the case. “The money, according to memos prepared by Jamail, purportedly was for a fund to help Morales defend himself against political or public relations attacks from cigarette companies during the litigation.” Last year in sworn testimony Dawn Nelson, ex-wife of Big Five lawyer John Eddie Williams, said “Williams had told her that Morales wanted $1 million from one or more of the lawyers that were hired for the tobacco case,” the Chronicle reported.
In an interview last November cited in the same Chronicle reportage, Morales said that the purpose of the money might have been misunderstood and that he didn’t intend it to be used for his personal or political benefit. In May, the Five filed statements in court saying they had not paid any consideration for the chance to participate in the litigation. But they’ve consistently refused to go under oath to answer Cornyn’s questions, and skillful legal maneuvering on their behalf has kept at bay that alarming prospect — first by their successful removal of his legal action away from state court and into the hands of the same federal judge in Texarkana whom they initially selected to hear the Medicaid-recoupment case (see “Best little forum-shopping in Texas”, Aug. 27, 1999), and now with their obtaining of a ruling by that judge last month that Cornyn has no independent right to question the lawyers except under such terms as he, the judge, may see fit to approve in future (Cornyn plans an appeal of that ruling to the Fifth Circuit). The Five have also sought a gag order to prevent the press or anyone else from getting a look at documents generated by the investigation, notwithstanding the usual publicly proclaimed stand of organized trial lawyers that “protective orders” of that sort are an affront to the public’s right to know and serve only to shroud wrongdoing in secrecy. And, like other lawyers who have represented the states in the tobacco recoupment litigation, they have argued that the fees are not an appropriate subject for review by representatives of the taxpayers because they are formally structured so as to be paid directly by the cigarette companies, rather than be routed through the state as part of its payment as is customary.
The Big Five also claimed $40 million in reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses (as distinct from legal fees) but at the end of May they returned $6.9 million of this money, saying the earlier sum had been overstated. “Their misrepresentation of expenses just raises more questions and strongly reinforces the need to determine what happened in the tobacco case,” Cornyn said. “After 18 months of assuring the people of Texas that their expenses were justified in every way … [they] are now returning millions of dollars with no satisfactory explanation as to why.” Michael Tigar, attorney for the Five, said the earlier sum had been a good-faith estimate and that deviations from such estimates are common. (DURABLE LINK)
SOURCES: Kelley Shannon, “Cornyn, rebuffed in federal court, vows to appeal”, AP state and local wire, Aug. 16, not online, available on NEXIS; “Five attorneys say Morales not paid for contract in anti-tobacco lawsuit”, AP state and local wire, May 12, not online, available on NEXIS; Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, “As Tobacco Lawyers Return Money, Questions Return”, Texas Lawyer, June 9; “Tobacco trial lawyers admit misrepresentation”, Cornyn press release, June 1; Susan Borreson, “Tobacco Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Won’t Enforce Contract With State”, Texas Lawyer, December 2, 1999; Robert Bryce, “Nicotine Fit”, Texas Observer, November 26, 1999; Janet Elliott, “‘Tobacco Five’ Want Confidentiality Order”, Texas Lawyer, Sept. 9, 1999.; Clay Robison, “Cornyn moves in on anti-tobacco lawyers”, Houston Chronicle, April 27. Murr case: Miriam Rozen, “Smoke-filled room”, Dallas Observer, Sept. 17, 1998; “Pay up?”, April 22, 1999; Patrick Williams, “Buzz”, Dec. 17, 1998, May 20, 1999; Jim Brickman, “What Would I Ask Former Attorney General Dan Morales In the Grand Jury Investigation?“, Citizens for Lawsuit Abuse Houston; John R. Butler, Jr., “Dan Morales and Marc Murr Have Some Explaining To Do To All Texans“, CALA Houston.
September 1-3 – “Olympic trials”. At least ten athletes, after falling short in efforts to make the U.S. Olympic team in their sports, have insisted on going to arbitration or in one case to federal court, according to columnist Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal’s online Opinion Journal (Aug. 31; see also Mark R. Madler, “Judges Wrestle With Epic Case of Olympic Athlete” (wrestlers), American Lawyer Media, Aug. 31.
September 1-3 – “Don’t talk to the humans”. Some years back the federal government issued regulations on universities’ use of human experimental subjects. How strictly are these rules being enforced? So strictly that a scholar can get in big trouble by not asking an official committee’s permission before visiting a retirement home and chatting with one of the elderly residents about his life. (Christopher Shea, Lingua Franca, Sept.) (via Arts & Letters Daily).
