As we noted Jan. 13 and Jan. 23, the structure of the great 1998 tobacco robbery puts state governments under financial pressure to restrict or suppress the activities of maverick cigarette makers that do not participate in the settlement fund. Vice Squad, which has been following this issue, has recent posts detailing how this is happening in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida (Feb. 23) and Pennsylvania again (Feb. 26)(Florida is one of four states with their own settlements with the tobacco majors paralleling the 46-state main settlement).
Posts tagged as:
tobacco settlement
Who’s serving as muscle to enforce a cartel that costs American consumers billions of dollars a year? Why, the National Association of Attorneys General, that’s who. As reported in our Jan. 13 item, the Big Four tobacco companies are starting to lose significant market share to small, regional and foreign cigarette companies that either do not contribute to the MSA (multistate settlement agreement) or do not contribute as much as the majors proportionally. Now AP confirms that NAAG sees this as a big problem and is urging states to pass laws closing the supposed “loophole” (which loophole appears to consist simply of the smaller companies’ not having to pay for past sins absent any showing that they’ve committed such sins). AP also obtained a confidential September memo from NAAG that’s a bit of a smoking gun, we’d say, as far as illuminating the true motives behind the plan. The memo “warned states to expect a $2.5 billion decrease in settlement payments due April 15, down from a projected $9.3 billion. It says about $600 million of that decrease, or 25 percent, is the result ‘not of a decline in smoking but rather of NPM (nonparticipating manufacturer) sales displacing sales by Participating Manufacturers.’ ‘NPM sales confer no benefits on the States,’ reads the memo…. ‘All States have an interest in reducing NPM sales in every State.’” (”Small cigarette makers cut into Big Tobacco’s markets, states’ pockets”, AP/Raleigh News & Observer, Jan. 16). (via Vice Squad).
{ 2 comments }
More trouble (besides the trouble described yesterday) for states financially dependent on the spoils of the great 1998 tobacco robbery: the market share of companies that signed the agreement is eroding at a surprisingly rapid clip, despite the passage of harsh state laws aimed at protecting the loot by discouraging the rise of new, small or foreign cigarette companies. “In four years, the market share of the small cigarette companies has multiplied more than tenfold, from 0.5 percent of cigarettes sold in the United States in 1998 to 6.5 percent in 2002, according to the National Association of Attorneys General. The group said the numbers for 2003 will be more startling.” (”Small Cigarette Companies Whittle Away At Big Tobacco’s Sales”, AP/WRAL, Jan. 5) (via Vice Squad)(& see Jan. 23)
{ 2 comments }
We’ve been saying it for years (here and here, for instance), and now we can cite authority from one of the nation’s most distinguished jurists, Judge Ralph Winter of the Second Circuit: the 1998 tobacco settlement was skillfully designed to create the sort of cartel among cigarette manufacturers that would have gotten tobacco executives packed off to jail had not state attorneys general been on hand to bestow their blessing. In a case called Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer (yes, the New York AG, a vocal defender of the 1998 travesty, continues to be on the wrong side), a three-judge panel headed by Winter reinstated a lawsuit by a cigarette importer challenging the deal’s anticompetitive provisions.
A reader asks, in the wake of our discussion of Dr. Dean’s 1988 letter, whether other candidates have spoken out on tort reform.
{ 1 comment }
“Dan Morales, the former attorney general jailed for scheming to steal millions of dollars from Texas’ tobacco settlement, says sealed court documents could show wrongdoing on the part of private lawyers who represented the state.” (see Nov. 2 and links from there). Morales said a year ago that he believed the Big Five tobacco lawyers he hired may have breached their loyalty to the state in the course of taking home $3.3 billion in fees, and now says documents sealed as part of his criminal case would show such misconduct if made public. The documents were sealed by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks at the request of attorney Mike Tigar, representing the Five. “Also Friday, Marc Murr, a former Houston lawyer charged as a co-defendant to Morales, was sentenced to six months in federal prison. In October, Murr pleaded guilty to mail fraud.” (Janet Elliott, “Morales urges probe of tobacco attorneys”, Houston Chronicle, Dec. 20).
{ 1 comment }
Law firms Brown Rudnick Berlack & Israels and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein now say they’ll sue the state of Massachusetts for the whole $2 billion they say they’re entitled to — a 25 percent contingency share of the state’s $8 billion tobacco-settlement booty — rather than accept the measly $775 million they’ve been awarded in arbitration. The Associated Press says the firms “risk becoming poster children for attorney greed at a time when the profession is already under attack for high damage awards. ‘This lawsuit is about greed and it’s about selfishness. They should be ashamed of themselves,’ said former Maine Attorney General James Tierney, who worked with attorneys general from around the country to help negotiate the $246 billion master settlement.” (”Law firms go to court to make Massachusetts pay full tobacco legal fee”, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 3; Steve Bailey, “Pigs at the trough”, Boston Globe, Oct. 10) For earlier coverage of the Massachusetts fees, see May 19; Jan. 2-3, 2002; Aug. 13-14, 2001; Dec. 22, 1999. (& see Dec. 17)
{ 3 comments }
“Former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales was sentenced Friday to four years in prison for filing a false income tax return and mail fraud in a case stemming from the state’s $17 billion tobacco settlement.” Although Morales had entered a guilty plea as part of a plea agreement, “he insisted most of the accusations about public misdeeds were untrue.” (AP/Tyler Morning Telegraph , Oct. 31; Janet Elliott, “Morales ordered to prison”, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 1). Background: Oct. 2, Jul. 17, Jun. 26 and links from there.
{ 1 comment }
It’s been a great couple of weeks for impunity for the devisers and beneficiaries of the gigantic 1998 tobacco heist. On July 31 a New York appellate panel unanimously slapped down Judge Charles Ramos’s attempt to launch an inquiry under his own authority into the ethical status of the $625 million in fees awarded to lawyers representing the Empire State in the litigation. The panel found that Judge Ramos lacked authority to pursue such review in the absence of controversy between the parties to the litigation and said he had mistaken a variety of points of law along the way. The politically well-connected recipients of that $625 million bonanza had good reason to heave a sigh of relief, since it seems practically no one in the state other than Judge Ramos is curious as to what they did to become entitled to the money (Daniel Wise, “N.Y. Panel Rejects Review Of Tobacco Fee Award”, New York Law Journal, Aug. 1)(see Jul. 30-31, 2002 and links from there). Meanwhile, “[o]nce again, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected an antitrust challenge to the $200 billion settlement between the top four tobacco companies and 46 states, finding that while the mega-deal did result in stifled competition, the state officials who agreed to it are immune from suit.” Previously, a suit by cigarette wholesalers had been dismissed on the ground of antitrust law’s Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which immunizes anticompetitive conduct related to lobbying and government action itself; the newly dismissed suit was filed on behalf of consumers (Shannon P. Duffy, “Smokers’ Antitrust Challenge Rejected”, The Legal Intelligencer, Jul. 31).
“A Mississippi Supreme Court justice and a wealthy attorney who helped land the state millions in tobacco settlement money were among five people indicted Friday on federal fraud and bribery charges. Biloxi attorney Paul Minor is accused of funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Justice Oliver Diaz Jr., Diaz’ former wife, Jennifer, and to two lower court judges. In return, Minor allegedly received favorable treatment for Minor and his clients in cases involving multimillion dollar judgments.” The 16-count indictment also names former Harrison County Judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. Prominent in the state’s tobacco litigation, Minor is the son of a well known Magnolia State political columnist, Bill Minor. (Jack Elliott Jr., “Justice, Attorney Charged in Mississippi”, AP/Sarasota Herald Tribune, Jul. 25; Jerry Mitchell, “Justice, 4 others indicted”, Jackson Clarion Ledger, Jul. 26; Jerry Mitchell, “Charges may alter opinions of Miss. judiciary”, Jackson Clarion Ledger, Jul. 27; Jack Elliott Jr., “Indictment of justice and lawyer come amid debate between Mississippi business, trial lawyers”, AP/New Orleans Times Picayune, Jul. 27). More: Beth Musgrave, “‘Go see Paul Minor’”, Biloxi Sun Herald, May 18. For our earlier coverage, see: Oct. 9-10 and Oct. 11-13, 2002; May 7 and Jul. 24, 2003.
Former Texas Attorney General and key tobacco-suit figure Dan Morales, long a focus of scrutiny on this page, has withdrawn his former plea of innocent and has agreed to a four-year prison term, pleading guilty to one count each of mail and tax fraud; he will also pay fines of up to $1.25 million (Ken Herman & David Hafetz, “Morales pleads guilty to mail fraud, tax evasion”, Austin American Statesman, Jul. 17; more stories). The mail fraud charge relates to a backdated contract in which Morales purported to bestow a chunk of the state’s tobacco-settlement booty on his friend Marc Murr (see Jun. 26 and links from there). Our big question — our only question, really — is: does this mean he’ll talk?
“Former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales was ordered to remain in jail while awaiting trial on federal fraud charges after a judge determined today that he may have lied on two recent car loan applications and was a risk to commit financial crimes.” Morales, a key figure in the multistate tobacco litigation and long a familiar figure to readers of this site (see Jul. 15, 2002 and links from there; Jan. 10-12, 2003), was indicted in March (see Mar. 8-9) along with his friend Marc Murr and pleaded innocent to charges of having made improper efforts to gain hundreds of millions of dollars in fees for Murr from the state’s tobacco settlement. In the new development, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Blankinship presented U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks “with documents that he said showed Morales had purchased two used cars — a Mercedes and a Lexus — within days of filing a sworn affidavit with the court indicating that he had no income,” entitling him to representation by an appointed public defender. “According to Blankinship, Morales paid about $70,000 for the Mercedes and Lexus, both 2000 models. On loan applications to buy the cars, Morales listed his income as either $20,000 a month or $20,800 a month.” Judge Sparks remanded Morales into custody. (”Judge orders former attorney general to remain in jail”, AP/Houston Chronicle, Jun. 26; “Judge orders ex-AG Morales to remain jailed until October”, AP/Dallas Morning News, Jun. 26; David Pasztor, “Dan Morales jailed”, Austin American-Statesman, Jun. 25.)
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”).
Bar discipline and client protection, 2003: “Probate’s misplaced trust” (Washington Post series), Jun. 16-17. 2002: “Crumbs from the table“, Feb. 8-10. 2001: “Law firm sued over fen-phen settlement practices“, Dec. 28; “Updates” (IOLTA), Dec. 15-16 (& Jan. 31); “Holiday special” (Canadian lawyer’s misconduct), May 28; “Mills of legal discipline” (updates on Brock, Hager, Fieger cases), Mar. 3; “Dangers of complaining about lawyers” (Ga. considers easing defamation counter-complaints by lawyers), Mar. 30-Apr. 1. 2000: “‘Judge Lenient With Perjurer, Cites Clinton Case’“, Oct. 16-17 (& May 16); “Disbarred, with an asterisk” (Mass. has let many attorneys resume practice), Sept. 20; “Funds that don’t protect” (client protection funds), Aug. 23-24; “Fit to practice?” (California bar disciplinary board), Aug. 21-22; “That Hager case” (American U. law professor Mark Hager, settlement of Warner-Lambert Nix lice treatment case), Feb. 23 (& update May 3, 2001: board recommends three-year suspension).
“New legal ethics weblog” (ethicalEsq.?), Jun. 6-8, 2003.
Judicial conduct, 2003: “Year’s most injudicious judges“ (NLJ roundup), May 6. 2002: “‘Federal authorities say judge offered illegal payoff’“, Sept. 3-4; “‘Privileged chambers’” (Albany Times-Union series), May 30; “‘Injudicious conduct’” (NLJ roundup), May 1-2; “La. officials seek oyster judge recusal“, Mar. 25-26; “So depressed he stole $300K“, Mar. 19. 2001: “‘Pseudologica fantastica’ won’t fly” (judge’s resum?ibs), June 7 (& update Aug. 20-21); “‘Judges behaving badly’” (NLJ roundup), May 11-13. 2000: “Year’s most injudicious judges“, Jun. 5, 2000; “Brockovich story, cont’d: the judges’ cruise“, Apr. 18; “New Hampshire high court blowup“, Apr. 5 (& updates Oct. 11: chief justice acquitted at impeachment; May 3, 2001); “The costs of disclosure” (Washington state, Grant Anderson case), Jan. 19.
“Class action lawyer takes $20 million from defendant’s side“, Mar. 15-16, 2003.
“Politico’s law associate suspended over ‘runner’ use” (Louisiana), Feb. 14-16, 2003.
Civility: “Law’s attraction for the bully“, Dec. 13-15, 2002; “‘Attorney Ordered To Pay Fees for “Rambo” Tactics’“, Oct. 5-7, 2001; “Mills of legal discipline” (Geoffrey Fieger tirade against judges), May 3, 2001 (& more on Fieger: Apr. 23-24, 2002, Sept. 14, 1999; “Another Mr. Civility nominee” (”dreck”, “scum”), June 2-4, 2000; “From the incivility frontier” (”gag a maggot off a meat wagon”, “proctology exam”), April 19; “Majesty of the law” (alleged threat to kill opposing counsel), March 13, 2000 (& update May 17: attorney sanctioned); “Bright future in some areas of practice” (”abusive, hostile” applicant for law license), Oct. 13, 1999 (update, Nov. 23).
“Race-bias cases gone wrong“, Jan. 24-26, 2003.
“Lawyers fret about bad image” (Fla. bar plans to rate and monitor tone of journalists’ coverage), Oct. 3, 2002.
“FTC cracks down on excessive legal fees“, Oct. 1-2, 2002.
“Second Circuit: we mean business about stopping frivolous securities suits” (scope of Rule 11), Aug. 29-Sept. 2, 2002.
“Lawyer’s 44-hour workday“, Jun. 28-30, 2002; “Charged $16,000 for brief he copied from book“, May 17-19, 2002; “Lending rules trip up litigation-finance firms“, Dec. 3, 2001; Letter to the editor (incremental billing disclosed?), Oct. 22, 2001; “Law-firm bill-padding? Say it isn’t so!“, Nov. 18, 1999.
“‘Student gets diploma after threatening lawsuit’“, Jun. 13, 2002.
Truth value, 2002: “Lying’s not nice, especially when representing the bar“, Jul. 30-31; “Columbia Law School survey on public attitude toward lawyers“, Apr. 26-28; “‘Ex-student sentenced for rape lie’” (wants to become attorney), Jan. 11-13 (& see May 26-29, 2000: Stephen Glass graduates Georgetown Law). 2001: Criminal defense attorneys, doing what they do best“, Dec. 15-16; “‘Lawyers pay price for cruel hoaxes’” (phony heir claims after plane crashes), Aug. 3-5; “‘Lie-tery winners’“, April 20-22. 2000: “What was the Florida court thinking?” (Boies-submitted affidavit), Dec. 11-12; “‘Judge Lenient With Perjurer, Cites Clinton Case’“, Oct. 16-17 (& May 16); “The judge wasn’t asleep” (sanctions for submission of dubious affidavits), June 14-15. 1999: “If true, then all the better” (excerpt from Campos, Jurismania), Dec. 3-5; and see witness coaching, below.
“‘”Little” done for firm, Rendell says’” (law firms provide no-show jobs for politicians), May 9, 2002.
“‘Former clients sue attorney O’Quinn’” (Kennedy Heights case), Apr. 8-9, 2002 (& Aug. 4, 1999).
“Gary & Co. shenanigans at Maris trial“, Apr. 1-2, 2002.
“Lawyers stage sham trial aimed at inculpating third party“, Mar. 22-24, 2002.
Disclosure: “Lending rules trip up litigation-finance firms“, Dec. 3, 2001; Letter to the editor (incremental billing disclosed?), Oct. 22, 2001; “Trial lawyers knew of tire failures, didn’t inform safety regulators“, June 25 (& June 28)(& letter to the editor, July 6); Letter to the editor (ghostwriting), June 13; “ABA’s toothless ethics proposals“, Jan. 17, 2001; “Contingency fee reform“, Nov. 1, 2000.
Contingent fees, 2001: “Lending rules trip up litigation-finance firms“, Dec. 3; “Red-light cameras“, Sept. 6, 2001; “‘The Louima millions’“, July 24; “The rest of Justice O’Connor’s speech“, July 6-8; “Evils of contingent-fee tax collection, cont’d“, May 30; “Reclaiming the tobacco loot“, March 15; “Hugh Rodham’s ’success fee’“, Feb. 23-25; “Dangers of tax farming“, Jan. 10 (& letter to the editor, Jan. 16). 2000: “Contingency fee reform“, Nov. 1; “‘Lawyer take all’” (equity stakes in clients), Oct. 27-29. 1999: “Piece of the action” (contingent fees for public officials), Dec. 3-5; “Reform stirrings on public contingency fees“, Oct. 15.
Witness coaching, 2001: “GAF sues asbestos lawyers“, Feb. 12-13, 2001 (& see Dec. 10). 2000: “‘N.Y. lawyer charged in immigrant smuggling’“, Sept. 22-24; “Sunday’s Times on Fred Baron“, June 5 (& see “Thanks for the memories” by Walter Olson, Reason, June 1998 and subsequent letters exchange with William Hodes). 1999: “State of legal ethics” (hey, what’s wrong with witness coaching?), Sept. 9.
“‘The Great Mouthpiece’” (Manhattan’s Bill Fallon, 1920s), Dec. 28, 2001.
“‘Halliburton shares plunge on verdict’” (law-firm whistleblowing), Dec. 10, 2001.
“‘2d Circuit Upholds Sanctions Against Firms for Frivolous Securities Claims’“, July 23, 2001 (more on sanctions: Jul. 30-31, 2002).
“Estate law temptations“, July 6-8, 2001; “Lawyers charged with $4.7 million theft from clients“, April 10, 2000; “Lawyers stealing less, clients say“, Dec. 21, 1999.
“Lost his live client, had to substitute dead one instead“, April 11, 2001; “Turn of the screw” (lawyers alleged to have sued without client consent), Oct. 24, 2000; “Curious feature of lawyer’s retainer” (allowed him to settle case without client consent), Sept. 12, 2000.
“‘It’s time to disarm the hired guns’” (Arianna Huffington), Feb. 28-March 1, 2001; “Trustworthy professionals” (survey of public confidence), Dec. 11-12, 2000.
“Fed prosecutors chafe at state ethics rules“, Oct. 16-17, 2000.
“Lenzner: ‘I think what we do is practice law’” (private investigator in Oracle scandal), July 28-30, 2000.
“Access to something” (lawyer accused of working for Social Security Administration while helping clients sue it), July 13, 2000.
“Ready to handle your legal needs” (Stephen Glass graduates Georgetown Law), May 26-29, 2000.
“Steering the evidence” (DaimlerChrysler gets sanctions against lawyers for evidence and witness tampering), May 23, 2000 (& update June 26).
“‘Ad deal links Coke, lawyer in suit’” (Willie Gary, suing Coca-Cola on behalf of clients, enters into a lucrative ad deal with it), May 11, 2000.
“Splash of reality” (sanctions for frivolous litigation in case of claimed Jackson Pollock painting), May 4, 2000.
“Brockovich story, cont’d: the judges’ cruise“, April 18, 2000; “Brockovich story breaks wide open“, April 17, 2000 (& see Dec. 21).
“Majesty of the law” (Phila. attorney Marvin Barish could face sanctions for allegedly threatening to kill opposing counsel during trial break), March 13, 2000; “Relax, you’re being taken care of” (Barish advances injury client’s rent and expenses), Dec. 14, 1999.
“Legal ethics meet medical ethics” (lawyers advise schizophrenic murder defendant to go off his medication for trial), Feb. 26-27, 2000.
“Secrets of class action defense” (assisting cooperative opponent to draft complaint), Feb. 25, 2000.
“Watchdogs could use watching” (fee-splitting in Florida securities cases), Jan. 20, 2000.
“The costs of disclosure” (lawyer reveals misconduct by client, judge), Jan. 19, 2000; “Pack your toothbrush, son” (Ala. law-firm whistleblower), Dec. 20, 1999.
“Popular CLE course: ‘How to Hammer Allstate’” (insurer charged with unauthorized practice of law), Dec. 22, 1999 (update, April 18, 2000).
“Splitsville, N.Y.” (New York mag on divorce), Dec. 17-19, 1999.
“Victory in Florida” (plaintiffs deliberately run up gunmakers’ costs for leverage), Dec. 14, 1999.
“Weekend reading: evergreens” (St. Petersburg Times Pulitzer series on probate law), Dec. 3-5, 1999; “From the evergreen file: L.A. probate horror” (estate of art collector Fred Weisman), Nov. 20-21; “Weekend reading: evergreens” (Denver probate nightmare), Oct. 23-24, 1999.
“Class action fee control: it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law“, Nov. 30, 1999; “Class action coupon-clippers“, Nov. 15; “$49 million legal fee okayed in case where clients got nothing“, Sept. 28, 1999.
“Accommodating theft“, Nov. 11, 1999.
“Who loves trusts-and-estates lawyers?“, Nov. 8, 1999.
“Criticizing lawyers proves hazardous“, Nov. 4, 1999 (update, Nov. 30); “No spotlight on me, thanks” (Houston’s John O’Quinn), Aug. 4, 1999.
“State of legal ethics” (lawyers take out glossy ad to stir up will-contest litigation), Oct. 5-6, 1999.
“Weekend reading: evergreens” (lawyer-abetted accident fraud), Sept. 25-26, 1999; “Wages of wrongdoing” (Staten Island lawyers convicted), Sept. 8, 1999.
“Join our new Verdict Rewards program” (checks for jurors), Sept. 13, 1999 (updates, Sept. 17-19, 1999 and Aug. 4-7, 2000).
“Cook County law bills a secret“, Sept. 11-12, 1999.
“My lawyer is an impostor“, Sept. 3, 1999.
“ABA thinks it can discourage ‘pay-for-play’“, Aug. 11, 1999 (& Aug. 14-15 update).
“Like calling the Orkin man to talk about bugs” (ABA convention), Aug. 10, 1999; “Weekend reading” (ABA choice of speakers), Aug. 28-29, 1999.
“No need for speed“, Aug. 3, 1999.
“Weekend reading” (at execution sale, law firm buys up client’s right to sue it for malpractice), July 31-Aug. 1, 1999.
“Honey, you’ve got mail” (solicitations from divorce lawyers arrive before unsuspecting spouses know they’re being divorced), July 15, 1999.
| Articles by Overlawyered.com editor Walter Olson: “Thanks for the memories” (coaching of witnesses), June 1998 (& subsequent letters exchange with William Hodes) “Tobacco Analysts Meet the Plaintiff’s Lawyers” (abuse of pretrial discovery), Wall Street Journal, August 30, 1995. “Juries on Trial“, review of The Jury by Stephen J. Adler and We the Jury by Jeffrey Abramson, Reason, February 1995. “Sue City: The Case Against the Contingency Fee“, excerpt from The Litigation Explosion, Policy Review, Winter 1991 [in two parts] [part one] [part two] “Dentists, Bartenders, and Lawyer Unpopularity“, Manhattan Institute Civil Justice Memo #37, April 1999. “Lawyers with Stethoscopes: Clients Beware“, Manhattan Institute Civil Justice Memo #26, June 1996. “Taming the Litigators: Why Not More Disclosure?“, Manhattan Institute Civil Justice Memo #24, February 1996. |
| Codes of ethics: ABA Center for Professional Responsibility Some online articles of interest: James McCauley, “The Ethics of Making Legal Services Affordable…” (Virginia bar; discusses unauthorized practice, pro se litigation) Rep. Chris Cox, Testimony on tobacco settlement (1997) Lawrence Schonbrun, “Class Actions: The New Ethical Frontier” (Manhattan Institute, 1996)
“Meanwhile,” the Hattiesburg paper continues, “four trial lawyers who have been active in lawsuits against prescription drug manufacturers are named as defendants in a growing number of court actions in Jefferson County. In at least four suits filed to date, trial lawyers Dennis Sweet, Shane Langston, Richard Freese and Richard Schwartz, all of Jackson, have been named as defendants in cases in which it is alleged that the four either withheld settlement money from clients or failed to pay hired ‘runners’ who were employed to enroll plaintiffs in cases which the lawyers filed in several different counties in Mississippi, including Jasper County.” (May 5 article, cited above). See also Bob Pittman, “Judge asked to step aside in trial lawyer suit”, May 1; Bob Pittman, “Suit alleges lawyer used ‘fake clients’”, May 1. (DURABLE LINK) The bit in the NLJ’s report that drew our attention was the following: Grobe’s suit alleged that her employer was negligent “for placing the tables in the entrance and for failing to comply with store policy by not having two male employees available.” Perhaps we’re missing something, but wouldn’t the employer have faced likely liability exposure if it had enforced a policy of “having two male employees available” to handle heavy deliveries? As any self-respecting sex-discrimination litigator would point out, such a policy closes off some work opportunities to women and trades on impermissible (no matter how generally accurate) stereotypes of men as wielding greater upper-body strength. (DURABLE LINK) { 1 comment }
In a separate story that will bear close watching as it unfolds, “Federal authorities are investigating whether state court judges took out loans that were repaid by nationally prominent trial lawyers from South Mississippi whose cases the judges handle. Investigators believe the judges, including state Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr. of Biloxi, borrowed thousands of dollars from The Peoples Bank, which has headquarters in Biloxi, and Merchants & Marine Bank in Jackson County. Plaintiffs’ attorneys who try multimillion-dollar cases before the judges subsequently repaid the loans, investigators believe. Paul Minor of Ocean Springs and Richard ‘Dickie’ Scruggs of Pascagoula are being investigated by the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office in Jackson, according to a source close to the investigation.” Scruggs, of course, is among the most powerful lawyers in the country and did more than any other figure to engineer the $200-billion-plus settlement between the tobacco industry and state governments; he is also the brother-in-law of Sen. Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) Scruggs “has said that he expects to earn about $844 million from tobacco settlements” while Minor expects to receive something like $70 million from tobacco settlements. (Anita Lee, Tom Wilemon and Beth Musgrave, “Loans to Judges Probed”, Biloxi Sun-Herald, Oct. 7; Jerry Mitchell, “Judges’ loans focus of probe”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Oct. 8; “Coast newspaper reports lawyer-judge link to loans being checked”, AP/Alabama Live, Oct. 7). Scruggs “denies that he repaid loans for Diaz or any other judge.” (”Investigation Targets Lawyers, Judges & Loans”, WLOX, Oct. 7). Update Oct. 11-13 more allegations; May 7, 2003 investigation widens. (DURABLE LINK) In litigious Belleville, Ill., patients can obtain a long list of medical services only by heading over to St. Louis. “Several years ago, Belleville physicians decided to transfer all critically ill children to St. Louis Children’s Hospital or Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital. Anne Thomure, public relations director for Memorial Hospital in Belleville, said many of these young patients could have gotten comparable care in the community, but liability risks were deemed too great”. “Trauma is routinely sent to St. Louis because of the medical-legal climate,” said one doctor. Other Belleville doctors have stopped handling high-risk pregnancies, administering clot-busting TPA to stroke patients, and performing surgery on complex elbow fractures, which often lead to complications. Many neurosurgeons are shunning brain surgery in favor of relatively safe spinal procedures. Dr. Kathy Maupin “said almost every doctor involved in trauma care gets sued, because outcomes are unpredictable and patients do not have a pre-existing relationship with the doctors.” Don’t miss this priceless quote from the other side, from “Bruce Cook, a personal injury lawyer in Belleville” who “has little sympathy for doctors lamenting liability coverage costs.” “Perhaps the doctors retiring early are the doctors who are sued too much,” he said. “Perhaps they should have been accountants.” (Judith VandeWater, “Insurance rates pinch doctors, care”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 6). The Bloviator (Sept. 27) summarizes the terms of the federal malpractice-reform bill, H.R. 4600 Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2002″, which passed the House Sept. 26 but is considered unlikely to make it past the litigation lobby’s grip on the U.S. Senate. Last Thursday, Pennsylvania doctors held rallies in Philadelphia and Scranton to protest the state legislature’s inaction on malpractice reform (AP/New York Times, undated; MedRants, Oct. 4; Politically Active Physicians Association, organization of Pa. doctors). New York doctors may not be holding demonstrations yet, but according to William Tucker in the New York Post, they pay the highest malpractice premiums in the country. From “1994 to 1999, the average New York jury verdict tripled, from $1.7 million to $6 million. Empire State physicians settled $633 million in malpractice claims in 2000, 80 percent more than second-place Pennsylvania ($352 million) and triple third-place California ($200 million, for twice the population)”. California, unlike New York and Pennsylvania, has a strong cap on noneconomic damages. (New York Post, Sept. 26). The disarray in Mississippi’s malpractice system “extends to the state’s ambulance companies and their workers”, reports AP. (Matthew Volz, “Paramedics face malpractice suits, too”, AP/Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Sept. 19). A past president of the Mississippi Trial Lawyers Association pooh-poohs the concerns, saying he “cannot recall off the top of my head a single substantial or even moderate verdict against an ambulance company in the state of Mississippi” — note how by framing the issue as one of verdicts only, he gets to sidestep the question of how often ambulance operators are named in complaints resolved before that point. On the Mississippi legislature’s lack of seriousness in pursuing tort reform, see the Clarion-Ledger’s editorial, Sept. 25. A study from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and other neurosurgery groups finds that liability woes have plunged that specialty into a state of emergency across the country. (Sept. 25 study in PDF format, press release, resource page). And while litigation lobby stalwarts such as the misnamed “Center for Justice and Democracy” have tried to scapegoat malpractice insurance providers as the source of the crisis (Sept. 25), a report last month from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services thoroughly refutes that contention, pointing out that: 1) states that have enacted serious liability limits are not undergoing a crisis; 2) actuarial data show a sharp upturn in the past few years in large medical claims in unreformed states, as well as in the high verdicts which influence the magnitude of settlements; 3) medical malpractice insurers have not generally suffered major losses due to speculative or volative investments, and a relatively small share of their investment is in the stock market; 4) the decreasing competitiveness of the insurance market is itself a reflection of the liability-driven increase in claims expense; and 5) liability reforms in states like California have not made it impossible to sue — the number of claims has not been declining there lately — but have kept medical care affordable, notwithstanding the influence of the much-cited “insurance cycle”. (”Update on the Medical Litigation Crisis: Not the Result of the ‘Insurance Cycle’”, HHS, Sept. 25). (DURABLE LINK) Meanwhile, on a national level: “Disenchanted with the public outcry against attorneys and the legal profession, Robert Clifford, who heads the American Bar Association’s Litigation Section and is a founding partner of Clifford Law Offices, a personal injury firm in Chicago, personally financed a $250,000 national telephone survey for the ABA of 750 households.” The results could hardly have been welcome. “Only 19 percent of the respondents expressed confidence in lawyers’ work compared with a 50 percent confidence rating for doctors.” (Physician readers, take note, and heart.) The survey effort “also included 10 focus groups in five cities including Chicago and Los Angeles whose respondents repeatedly described attorneys as ‘greedy, manipulative and corrupt.’ … The public lambasted criminal defense, personal injury and divorce lawyers”, praising only real estate and civil rights attorneys. (& see letter to the editor, Oct. 23) To its credit, the National Law Journal’s roundup of the matter airs not only the legal establishment’s view — which is that the profession is merely misunderstood and suffering from bad public relations — but also the views of critics both inside and outside the profession who think the best way to improve lawyers’ image would be, well, to start cleaning up the bad things that go on in legal practice. Tallahassee Democrat columnist Bill Cotterell, a critic of the Florida bar program, notes: “People don’t like lawyers gaming the system for personal profit — enormous profit — and not caring who gets hurt.” Cotterell “recommended adopting ‘a loser pays‘ system under which the losing plaintiff in a meritless suit would pay the defendant’s legal expenses.” And Catherine Crier, the Court TV host and former judge whose book “The Case Against Lawyers” is forthcoming momentarily, says bar p.r. campaigns “don’t do anything to address the underlying areas. I’d rather see a campaign that introduces ethics classes.’ Crier would prefer to see the law ‘eliminate contingency fees except in cases aimed at the poor and institute loser pays in all categories. In that way, good lawyers can proceed with dignity and pursue cases that are meritorious, and those pressing frivolous actions corrupting our system will no longer have a forum.’” Hear, hear! (Gary M. Stern, “Polishing the Image”, National Law Journal, Sept. 16). (DURABLE LINK) * A judge has dismissed attorney Peter Angelos’s effort to bring the cellphone industry to trial on the theory that using its wares causes brain tumors, ruling that the proffered scientific evidence for that proposition is insufficient (see Apr. 23 and Jan. 11, 2001) (Gretchen Parker, “Judge Dismisses $800M Cell Phone-Brain Tumor Suit “, AP/Washington Post, Sept. 30) (opinion in PDF format) * In a unanimous decision written by Judge Alex Kozinski, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Judge Vaughn Walker should not have interpreted the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act as a mandate to take an active lead in selecting plaintiffs’ counsel to run lucrative securities fraud cases. The decision, which may put the kibosh on “auction” methods by which courts induce plaintiff’s counsel to accept work at lower fees, was a victory for Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach in its quest to represent security holders in a suit against Copper Mountain Networks Inc. (Jason Hoppin, “9th Circuit Strikes Down Class Action Fee Experiment”, The Recorder, Sept. 17) (opinion in PDF format)(see Sept. 25, 2001) * Well, that’s a relief: “A British Telecommunications Inc. patent issued prior to the advent of the Internet does not cover hyperlinking, a New York federal judge ruled … Tossing out British Telecom’s infringement suit against Prodigy Communications Corp., U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York said no jury could find that Prodigy infringes the patent by providing hyperlinks, the coded, highlighted text that links one Web page to another.” (see Feb. 13) (Brenda Sandburg, “Closely Watched Hyperlink Patent Case Tossed”, The Recorder, Aug. 23). (DURABLE LINK)
“One of Mr. Wolk’s complaints was that we did not supervise our chat room to prevent libelous comments about him being published by our subscribers. We have corrected that. Another of Mr. Wolk’s complaints was that our characterizations instigated some of our subscribers to libel him. We will no longer characterize matters in such a way as to bring apparent discredit upon anyone.” [The consequences of such a formula for the future of hard-hitting journalism can be imagined. And the mind reels at what is involved in the task of avoiding all characterizations which, whether or not libelous themselves, might instigate others to commit that offense. -- ed.] “While the defense of Mr. Wolk’s lawsuit has been expensive, he nonetheless has been gracious enough to settle with us for a payment to charity. In fact, even in settlement negotiations, when there was a demand for money, it was always to be contributed to charity, none for Mr. Wolk himself. He steadfastly insisted that his lawsuit was not about money and we have come to believe him.” [Why would it be thought surprising that the aim of such a lawsuit might be more to silence certain critics than to obtain cash from them? -- ed.] As we say, read the whole thing, which lays out at considerable length Mr. Wolk’s reasons for considering himself libeled. AVweb then goes on to publish a sort of protracted advertisement for Mr. Wolk’s services, in the form of tributes and testimonials from grateful clients he has represented in litigation, as well as others. Also included is the painfully self-abasing apology of one of the reader-posters who found himself individually sued by the powerful lawyer — outgunned in every way, and facing who knows what sort of prolonged personal exposure to the cost of litigation. Among the lessons many observers will draw, we think, will be the old one: watch what you say about lawyers. (DURABLE LINK) Addendum: one of our less sympathetic readers calls to our attention this Sept. 13-dated press release and article from Epilepsy Action Scotland (EAS), describes it as proving that the above report is “not true”, and chides us for not referencing it in our original post. To begin with a minor housekeeping point, this reader is apparently unaware that items on this site dated “Sept. 13-15″ will in most instances have been posted in the final hours of Sept. 12, so that a fair bit of clairvoyance would be required to anticipate the contents of a press release issued the next day (even in Scotland, which is a few time zones ahead). More substantively, although it may well be that other press reports did misstate the Rennie/Young case, it is by no means clear that EAS is questioning the accuracy of the Daily Telegraph report linked above. Both EAS and the Telegraph (and our excerpt) make clear that the overall award arose in the context of a car crash and drew on a number of factors. EAS is at pains to emphasize that the court did not rule that “watching a seizure in itself [emphasis added] provides grounds to sue for compensation” absent some other entitlement to compensation such as a physical injury — and of course it’s a familiar practice in compensation systems to let mental injury piggyback on physical injury but not stand alone as a claim. The one interviewee quoted in the Telegraph piece as wondering aloud whether a bystander’s distress at watching a person collapse might stand alone as a damage claim was the spokesman for EAS itself (”Does this mean…?”). This makes it less surprising that the organization would four days later make a point of reassuring the public that, no, it probably doesn’t mean that. Does Epilepsy Action Scotland, as our reader seems to think, now therefore regard the Rennie/Young case as some kind of overblown urban legend that should never have gotten play in the papers, and regret that its spokesman had been so critical of the ruling before? Quite the contrary: it makes clear the extent to which it continues to be alarmed and upset at the case (”we have forcefully put across the points that this is a shocking case”), it has called for investigations and organized protests, and it “has offered its full support if [Mr. Young] decides to pursue the matter” on appeal. Nothing inaccurate in our post that we can see. (DURABLE LINK)
|
