Posts tagged as:

Motley Rice

Update: Ness Motley to fight misconduct verdict

by Walter Olson on August 24, 2003

Not unexpectedly, the billionaire tobacco/ asbestos plaintiff’s law firm says it will contest a jury’s $36 million verdict, including $28 million in punitive damages, for having allegedly placed its own financial interests ahead of those of its clients in a class action settlement over a Canadian telemarketing swindle (see Jul. 7). The verdict is said to be the second-largest against a law firm in the past ten years: “‘Anytime you see an award of that magnitude, you can expect the jury senses lawyer greed, and that angers them,’ said Joe McMonigle, a San Francisco attorney and former chairman of the American Bar Association’s committee on lawyers’ professional liability.” (Frank Norton, “Reputations hinge on Ness Motley appeal”, Charleston Post & Courier, Aug. 3; “Lowcountry law firm contesting verdict in legal ethics case”, AP/The State (Columbia, S.C.), Aug. 4).

Meanwhile, two lawsuits by former Ness Motley attorneys are painting an unattractive picture of life inside the giant firm, which is now known as Motley Rice (more than two dozen attorneys and employees quit and formed a second firm, Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook and Brickman.) In one case, dissident attorneys have asked a judge to ground a $13 million Dassault Falcon used by star lawyers Ron Motley and Joe Rice; in another, a female attorney charges a pattern of sexual harassment and misconduct at the firm, which it strenuously denies (Tony Barthelme, “Court filings shed light on Ness Motley schism”, Charleston Post & Courier, Aug. 22).

Tagged as: asbestos, Canada, class actions, ethics, harassment law, Motley Rice, tobacco

{ 1 comment }

Motley’s Sept. 11 crusade

by Walter Olson on July 11, 2003

Profile of bigshot tort lawyer Ron (“U.S. foreign policy, c’est moi”) Motley, who after ultra-successful runs in asbestos and tobacco and a far less successful run against lead paint manufacturers has embarked on a crusade to sue various rich Saudi Arabians over Sept. 11 because they allegedly had paid off bin Laden over the years, whether from sympathy, fear or other motives. The State Department has repeatedly complained that the suit (with its demands for compulsory discovery of foreign nationals, etc.) threatens to upset the delicate management of U.S.-Saudi relations, but who (aside from the U.S. Constitution) says the executive branch should get to run foreign relations anyway? Quotes our editor (Tony Bartelme, “The King of Torts vs. al-Quaida [sic] Inc., Charleston Post & Courier, Jun. 22). Newsiest nugget to us: according to the article, Motley has hired full time to work on the case a well-connected Washington lawyer named Harry Huge; this is pretty rich once you consider something not spelled out in the article, which is that Huge served on most if not all of the arbitration panels that awarded the Ness Motley firm vast fortunes in the state tobacco litigation. What could be more ingenuous and conflict-of-interest-free than for Motley to turn around and give him a job?

Tagged as: airlines, arbitration, asbestos, lead paint, Motley Rice, Saudi Arabia, September 11, tobacco

Class action firm subject to judgment

by Ted Frank on July 7, 2003

A federal jury in Chicago awarded $36 million ($8.3 million compensatory, the rest punitive) to the former client of class action plaintiffs’ firm Ness, Motley for breach of contract and fiduciary duty. The law firm negotiated a settlement (over the objection of its clients, which it fired at the behest of the defendant) with a convicted felon with tens of millions in frozen assets that gave the firm $2 million in fees, but “next to no compensation” for the ostensible injured parties. (Ness, Motley has since broken up.) (Adam Liptak, “Big Litigation Firm Found to Have Acted Unethically,” NY Times, July 4). The Manhattan Institute issued a press release and a study of the case last August.

Tagged as: class actions, ethics, Manhattan Institute, Motley Rice

{ 2 comments }