Lawsuits have been filed for years blaming automakers for exposure to asbestos found in brake pads and other auto parts, but the volume of such litigation appears to be sharply increasing. Between February 2002 and February 2003 the number of cases filed against Ford nearly doubled, from 25,000 to 41,500. “In a filing with the SEC, Ford said that it is facing a rise in lawsuits as the original manufacturers of the components have gone bankrupt over the past several years. Ford’s report said, ‘In most asbestos litigation, we are not the sole defendant. We believe we are being more aggressively targeted in asbestos suits because many previously targeted companies have filed for bankruptcy.'” (Robert Lane, “Asbestos Suits Costing Ford As Others Go Broke”, Blue Oval News, Apr. 14; Ed Garsten, “Automakers see asbestos lawsuits rise”, Detroit News, Mar. 21).
Posts Tagged ‘asbestos’
Occasions of authorial pride
The new softcover edition of The Rule of Lawyers, promoted in this space only a few days ago, arrived this afternoon from the printers. Yes, it looks nice. The front inside pages reprint eight excerpts from favorable reviews the book received last year in its hardcover edition, including the following from Gene Epstein at Barron’s: “With a marvelous combination of irony, insight, and outrage, Olson covers the whole range of opportunistic litigation over tobacco, asbestos, breast-implants, autos, and guns. And yes, he knows that tobacco and asbestos can kill people, and that corporations aren’t angels. Olson even proposes sensible ways of reforming the jury system that might actually make a difference.” The hardcover edition continues to be available here.
The Rule of Lawyers: the softcover edition
If you enjoy this website, and especially if you want to learn more about the “big” lawsuit campaigns that generate fortunes for lawyers and tag industries with billions in liability, you would probably enjoy my book The Rule of Lawyers, which got a fair bit of attention when it was published last year. Now St. Martin’s, the publisher, has come out with a new softcover edition, just now posted on Amazon at an attractively priced $10.47. It includes a newly written epilogue in which I discuss major developments of the last year such as the fast-food litigation, the enactment of comprehensive tort reform in Texas, and the surprise move by the ABA to support reform of asbestos and class-action litigation, as well as the latest twists in gun, tobacco, fen-phen and lead paint courtroom battles, among others.
The hardcover edition of The Rule of Lawyers continues to be available here and seems to be a popular gift for Father’s Day and for new graduates, law school or otherwise. The Manhattan Institute maintains a site that compiles publicity about the book, related op-eds, etc. As for the spanking new softcover, the publisher tells me that the first copies will be in hand today, and that it will ship later this month. Its back cover is graced with an excerpt from Robert Lenzner’s rave review of the book for Forbes.com, in which he calls it: “A truly gripping read about tort lawyers … a brilliant expose of the way courts are being overwhelmed by mass tort actions.” (& thanks to David Giacalone for (end of item) his kind words).
It’s a mad, mad, mad Madison County
As we noted Apr. 15, Griffin Bell, who served as U.S. Attorney General in the Carter Administration, called last week for a federal law enforcement probe into the handling of asbestos litigation by the courts of Madison County, Ill. What happened next: state court judge Nicholas Byron (more: Mar. 24, Apr. 4-6, Apr. 30, 2003), who presides over Madison County’s asbestos docket, declared that lawyers from King & Spalding, the big Atlanta-based law firm with which Bell is associated, would be unwelcome in his courtroom. Reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “A lawyer who was before Byron Friday morning said that Byron twice told a capacity crowd of lawyers in his courtroom for an asbestos lawsuit hearing that he was barring King & Spalding. The lawyer, who asked not to be identified, said Byron asked, ‘Is anyone here from the Atlanta firm of King & Spalding? I’m banning them from practicing in the county.’ ‘He clearly wasn’t joking,’ the lawyer said.” Bell, who served for many years as a federal judge before becoming Attorney General, appears to have taken the news in stride: “He can debar all the defense lawyers, but then again, he’d run into the constitutional problem that you are allowed to have a lawyer of your choice.” “Bell, 85, said that his firm does not handle asbestos litigation and to his knowledge had no cases in Madison County. ‘I don’t know that we would have lost anything by being barred anyway,’ Bell said. ‘If Judge Byron feels that way, I doubt he would give us a fair hearing.'” (Paul Hampel and Trisha Howard, “Criticism of court leads to ban on Atlanta law firm”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Apr. 17).
Madison County now an asbestos magnet
About one quarter of mesothelioma cases nationwide are filed in Madison County now, and the overwhelming majority of those are set for trial–even though the majority of those cases do not involve plaintiffs who have any connection with Madison County. Former attorney general and federal judge Griffin Bell, who served under Jimmy Carter from 1977-1979, has called for a DOJ investigation into the “stain on our system” behind the curiously plaintiff-friendly courts. Bell identifies some of the egregious practices in Madison County, such as blanket subpoenas of high-ranking corporate executives who know nothing about the individual details of a case, and the setting of multiple cases for trial the same day, with only plaintiffs knowing which case will actually be tried. (Trisha Howard, “Lawyer in big-money suits is scornful of ex-attorney general”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Apr. 14; Susan Skiles Luke, “Former attorney general calls for asbestos court reform”, AP, Apr. 14; “Asbestos cases quadruple in Madison County, Ill.”, St. Louis Business Journal, Apr. 14; Sanford J. Schmidt, “Lawyers spar over asbestos filings”, Alton Telegraph, Apr. 15; Brian Brueggemann, “Forum participants: Investigate Madison County court system”, Belleville News-Democrat, Apr. 15).
Asbestosis testing scandal
The Mobile Register has a devastating expose of the asbestosis screening mills (Jan. 21 and links therein). Dr. David Egilman, who had testified for over 100 plaintiffs, has switched sides in the wake of abuses.
Over the years, he said, as the trial lawyers who hired him sent along the medical records of the plaintiffs, Egilman became increasingly troubled by what he saw.
“I realized at some point that some of these people are not really sick,” Egilman said in a telephone interview last week. “From a policy perspective, I’m interested in justice. If all the people who are not sick get money, then there won’t be enough money for the people who are sick — that’s the main issue.”
Egilman said he believes that screening companies do two things that violate good public policy: They help generate tens of thousands of plaintiffs who aren’t suffering from asbestos-related illness, thus draining billions of dollars from those who are ill; and they can create substantial health concerns on the part of those who get tested.
The Register also interviews Dr. Greg Nayden, who quadrupled his salary by returning a 100% hit rate in his asbestosis screenings, and uncovers a number of similar incredible tales. (Eddie Curran, “Diagnosing for dollars?”, Mobile Register, Apr. 4). As Professor David Bernstein points out, the failure of judges to enforce existing standards for expert testimony in the asbestos context has made such abuses possible. (“Keeping Junk Science Out of the Asbestos Litigation”, 31 Pepperdine L. Rev. 11 (2003)).
“Lawyers Bid Up Value Of Web-Search Ads”
Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that online legal-ad spending has risen nearly 500% in the last year, as law firms pay $50 to $70 a click to have their web sites associated with search terms like “mesothelioma” — because such cases can lead to quick settlements with asbestos-related defendants with low-risk contingent recoveries to attorneys of hundreds of thousands of dollars. As a result of other search-engine gaming efforts, “eight of the top 10 nonpaid listings in a recent Google search of ‘mesothelioma’ were for sites sponsored by law firms, pushing down nonlawyer sites such as the National Cancer Institute.” (Carl Bialik, Wall Street Journal, Apr. 8 (subscription only)). Meanwhile, far less is spent each year on mesothelioma research than on lawsuits. (Wall Street Journal, Apr. 8 (subscription only)).
Rail union head got FELA kickbacks
“The president of the United Transportation Union pleaded guilty to a racketeering conspiracy on Thursday, admitting that he solicited bribes from lawyers trying to get access to lucrative legal work for rail workers.” In a scheme that dated back to 1995, Byron Boyd and three other officials of the Cleveland-based union “solicited cash from lawyers who wished to represent injured rail workers in personal injury lawsuits against rail employers. Those are potentially very lucrative suits since there is no limit to legal damages under federal law. … The men got at least $477,000 in cash”. (“Transportation Union Chief Admits to Racketeering”, Reuters, Mar. 12). “U.S. Attorney Michael Shelby said a scheme like the one Boyd was involved in is not uncommon in labor unions and the federal government will continue to investigate such schemes. … The case was handled out of Texas because five of the lawyers that paid money as part of the scheme were from the Houston area and they cooperated with prosecutors, Shelby said.” (Juan Lozano, “Union president pleads guilty to labor racketeering”, AP/Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Mar. 11). Railway workers are covered by the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), which affords more lucrative recoveries than does workers’ compensation law; they have also been major filers of asbestos claims.
Update: “Asbestos Exposed”
Oh, working for them
Two years ago we noted that the Environmental Working Group, a frequent source of anti-business stories in the press, seemed to be rather deeply involved with the litigation biz (see May 23, 2001). The group more recently has come in for sharp criticism from the conservative Capital Research Center (Bonner R. Cohen, “The Environmental Working Group: Peddlers of Fear”, Jan.) (PDF)(mentions this site) and from the American Tort Reform Association (also mentions this site).
Looking over EWG’s website recently, we noticed a page dated Nov. 17 of last year on the MTBE liability controversy (on which, see Nov. 25). It seems EWG took out big ads in Roll Call and The Hill calling for oil companies to be held liable for underwater spread of the gasoline additive (sample ad in PDF format, linked from Nov. 17 page). On EWG’s own webpage (see bottom of left column) appears the following notice: “Advertisements paid for by Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA)”. Curiously, that reader advisory didn’t appear in the sample ad itself. Wasn’t there room to fit it in?
And today EWG released a report that echoes the major assertions of the plaintiff’s trial bar on the topic of asbestos, and adds some controversial claims of its own, including a claim that deaths from asbestos-related disease are on the rise. The report doesn’t have much to say about perjury mills or about the domination of the asbestos docket by unimpaired claimants. It turns out (as you learn if you reach this page) that the new report “would not have been possible without the financial, intellectual and material support of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA)”, and in particular a “grant in the amount of $176,000 from ATLA to the EWG Action Fund.” You might almost think there’s a pattern here.