Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘ethics’

Mississippi judicial scandal: Paul Minor sentenced to 11 years

Once among the South’s most financially successful and politically influential plaintiff’s lawyers, attorney Paul Minor was sentenced on Friday to 11 years in federal prison following his conviction in a judicial bribery scandal we’ve covered extensively at this site. Two former judges convicted in the case, John Whitfield and Wes Teel, drew sentences of 110 months and 70 months respectively. Minor’s lawyers had asked that he be sentenced to time served, and supporters had sent letters by the sackful asking for leniency. (“Gulf Coast lawyer Paul Minor gets 11 years in prison for bribing Miss. judges”, AP/Natchez Democrat, Sept. 7; Jimmie Gates, “Minor, ex-judges sentenced in bribery case”, Jackson Clarion Ledger, Sept. 7).

Judge Henry Wingate also fined Minor $2.75 million and ordered him to pay $1.5 million in restitution, not quite as telling a blow to his fortunes as one might assume, given that “Minor earns up to $2.5 million a year from a settlement with tobacco companies,” not to mention all the other money he’s made (Robin Fitzgerald, “‘Lady Justice Is Sobbing”, Biloxi Sun-Herald, Sept. 8). Minor is also being sued by insurer USF&G, which paid out a $1.5 million settlement to a bank represented by Minor in a case before Judge Teel. (Julie Goodman, “Minor’s legal woes won’t end when he goes to prison”, Jackson Clarion Ledger, Sept. 8).

Filed under: , , ,

Nifong/Lacrosse update

Former Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong, railroader of the Duke Lacrosse 3, was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to one day in jail; this punishment is for lying to the trial court about the existence of DNA evidence. He reported to jail today to serve his sentence. He has already been disbarred, of course.

Next to come is the players’ civil suit, though that money is unfortunately going to come from the taxpayers of Durham rather than from Nifong. The players are attempting to negotiate a settlement before filing their suit; they’re reportedly seeking $30 million, plus changes to the legal process to allegedly prevent the district attorney from hijacking a police investigation the way Nifong did. They intend to file suit within a month if the city doesn’t settle. (AP, Herald-Sun)

And then there’s this little tidbit:

Durham’s Police Department, which helped Nifong secure the indictments, has also come under criticism. A special committee probing police handling of the case stopped working last month, however, because the city’s liability insurance provider warned that the committee’s conclusions could provide material for lawsuits.

At this point, if we were Bizarro-Overlawyered I’d be rambling about “Profits over People” or something, but since we’re not, I’ll just point out that it simply demonstrates the perverse incentives of the legal system and its unbounded discovery rules. As long as everything you put on paper can be used against you — even in hindsight — then the incentive is not to put it on paper. (Of course, I’m not suggesting that the specific wrongdoing in Durham was only obvious in hindsight; people like K.C. Johnson figured it out right away. But the incentives are the same in every case.)

Filed under: , ,

Federal court: Fieger can call judges Nazis

We’ve covered many of Michigan trial lawyer Geoffrey Fieger’s antics and legal troubles here on Overlawyered over the years; his most recent problems include being censured in Arizona and being criminally indicted for illegal campaign contributions.

But he may have managed to wriggle out of punishment for at least one of his shenanigans: his 1999 radio tirade in which he labelled as Nazis the judges who ruled against his client. He was sanctioned by the Michigan courts for this conduct, with the Michigan Supreme Court upholding the discipline against his first amendment challenge in Aug. 2006 (Yes, that’s seven years after the incident.)

But this week, a federal court bought Fieger’s first amendment argument, holding that the rules under which he was sanctioned were unconstitutional.

The rules say lawyers must treat everyone involved in the legal process with “courtesy and respect” and should “not engage in undignified or discourteous conduct” toward the bench.

In the decision released late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow said “the rules are unconstitutional on their face because they are both overly broad and vague.”

If we were snide, we might note that it could say something about Fieger that he couldn’t figure out that calling someone a Nazi is not dignified or respectful. We were amused at the Court’s reasoning for why Fieger had standing to challenge these rules:

The likelihood that Plaintiff Fieger may again say something negative about a Michigan court that could subject him to further punishment under the courtesy provisions is not the attenuated situation presented in Grendell. Plaintiff Fieger is a vocal, often harsh, and at times vulgar critic of Michigan’s judiciary.

You don’t say.

Filed under: , , ,

Ninth Circuit: Molski “Plainly lied”

We’ve been covering the exploits of professional ADA plaintiff Jarek Molski and his lawyer Thomas Frankovich for a long time now (See Aug. 3, Mar. 23, many others). When last we checked, Molski/Frankovich were appealing a federal judge’s finding in Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp. that they were vexatious litigants; the designation meant that they couldn’t file any more ADA lawsuits in the Central District of California without first getting permission from the court.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion (PDF) which upheld the finding in its entirety. The only quirky part of the case was that it was likely that many of the establishments sued by Molski/Frankovich at least technically probably had violated the ADA by not complying with its vague, onerous requirements. But the Ninth Circuit had no problem getting beyond that:

Frivolous litigation is not limited to cases in which a legal claim is entirely without merit. It is also frivolous for a claimant who has some measure of a legitimate claim to make false factual assertions. Just as bringing a completely baseless claim is frivolous, so too a person with a measured legitimate claim may cross the line into frivolous litigation by asserting facts that are grossly exaggerated or totally false.

And for some reason, neither the District Court nor the Ninth Circuit were impressed with Molski’s factual assertions:

However, it is very unlikely that Molski suffered the same injuries, often multiple times in one day, performing the same activities—transferring himself from his wheelchair to the toilet or negotiating accessibility obstacles. Common sense dictates that Molski would have figured out some way to avoid repetitive injury-causing activity; even a young child who touches a hot stove quickly learns to avoid pain by not repeating the conduct.

The Ninth Circuit was not any more complimentary towards Frankovich:

When a client stumbles so far off the trail, we naturally should wonder whether the attorney for the client gave inadequate or improper advice.

The court also found significant that Frankovich may well have broken legal ethics rules by trying to intimidate defendants into settling without hiring lawyers and giving them (bad) legal advice.

This isn’t necessarily the end for Molski/Frankovich. The vexatious litigant order applies only to the federal courts — in fact, only the federal courts in the Central District of California — and does not prevent them from filing suit; it only requires them to seek permission of the court first.

Read On…

Filed under: , , , ,

Louisiana fuel-gauge fee carve-up, cont’d

Assisted by Loyola lawprof Dane Ciolino, critics are now before a Fifth Circuit panel trying to uncover the supporting documents that back up the division of fees among lawyers following a fuel-gauge-damage settlement against Shell; the case drew national attention after the lawyers in charge prevailed on a federal judge to conceal the allocation of fees from public scrutiny, including scrutiny by members of the client class as well as dissident lawyers (Apr. 9, Jun. 7).

When Little [fee committee attorney F.A. Little] contended that naming someone other than the committee to evaluate four years of work by lawyers in the case wouldn’t yield the best result, Judge Edith Jones shot back, “Well, at least you get disinterestedness.”

That quality, Jones said she learned from her days as a bankruptcy attorney, is essential to “anyone who is dividing up the debtor’s money.”

In an interview after the hearing, Ciolino said the public needs to know everything that went into deciding attorney fees in the Shell class action. “The public distrusts lawyers, especially in class-action cases, because it looks like it’s all about fees,” he said.

(Susan Finch, “Data used to split fees sought”, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Aug. 10).

Filed under: , ,

Pa. judge indicted for insurance fraud won’t run again

According to an indictment handed down by a federal grand jury, Erie, Pa.-based state appellate judge Michael T. Joyce, a ten-year Republican veteran of the bench,

received $440,000 in settlements for injuries he claimed “affected his professional and personal life in a very significant way” after an SUV rear-ended his state-leased Mercedes Benz at a traffic light in Erie.

Joyce claimed the accident made him unable to play golf, scuba dive or exercise. He also claimed the injuries prevented him from pursuing higher judicial office, according to the indictment.

The judge complained of constant neck and back pain, headaches, difficulty sleeping, anxiety and short-term memory loss, according to the indictment. He claimed he was in such pain from May to July 2002 that he could not play a round of golf or hold a cup of coffee in his right hand, the indictment said.

During the same period Joyce made these claims, he played several rounds of golf in Jamaica, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania, went scuba diving in Jamaica and renewed his diving instructor’s certificate, prosecutors said.

The indictment also alleges Joyce used some of the settlement money to buy a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, a share in a single-engine Cessna airplane, property in Millcreek Township, Pa., and to pay down a personal line of credit.

(Peter Hall and Asher Hawkins, “Federal Indictment Looms Over Pa. Superior Court Judge’s Retention Race”, Legal Intelligencer, Aug. 17).

At first Joyce vowed to hold onto his seat, but after a public outcry, and a quick move by the state supreme court to suspend him from his duties pending resolution of the charges, he agreed not to stand for re-election in November. (“Indicted Superior Court Judge” (editorial), Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 22; Paula Reed Ward, “Indicted judge won’t seek retention”, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 21; “The Joyce indictment: A matter of integrity”, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Aug. 21).

Filed under: , , , ,

Why they call it discovery

“A lot of plaintiff lawyers simply use the litigation process to find out whether it’s a good case as opposed to trying to find that out before they sign it up,” Mr. Johnston says.

— from a profile of Randy Johnston, a Dallas lawyer who specializes in plaintiff’s legal malpractice work. (Cheryl Hall, “Randy Johnston is a lawyer who sues other lawyers”, Dallas Morning News, Aug. 20).

Filed under: , ,

Leisurely mills of legal discipline

This from Mike Frisch of Georgetown at Legal Profession Blog (Aug. 6):

The D. C. Court of Appeals disbarred [NB: should be “suspended for three years”, as commenter Richard Harrison points out] an attorney last week. The case involved acts of dishonesty including forgery and would be unremarkable but for the amount of time it took to resolve the matter. The firm that had reported the misconduct did so in 1997. Disciplinary charges — which were essentially uncontested — were filed in February 1999. It took 8 1/2 years for the D.C. bar disciplinary system to work its magic — and the lawyer was free to practice throughout that time. Most of the time was taken by the hearing committee (3 1/2 years) and the court (over three years from argument to disposition).

Filed under:

Fieger’s Arizona censure

Yet another ethical run-in for bad boy Michigan lawyer Geoffrey Fieger, aside from all the ones we’ve told you about already including his recent campaign finance indictment: the Arizona Supreme Court has censured Fieger for holding himself out on letterhead as a member of the Arizona bar, and undertaking a matter to be tried in an Arizona court, even though he was under suspension at the time. The September issue of Arizona Attorney carries the following in its “Lawyer Regulation: Sanctioned Attorneys” column:

Read On…

Filed under: , , ,

“…A possible vomit point for clients”

That’s one description of why some law firms have been reluctant to cross the psychological threshold of $1,000/hour fees for top lawyers’ services. That doesn’t mean they’re not going ahead with the increase, though. (Debra Cassens Weiss, “Top Lawyers Bill $1,000 an Hour”, Aug. 22; Althouse, Aug. 22; WSJ Law Blog, Aug. 22; Barry Leonardini, Aug. 22). It’s still fairly paltry compared with some contingency fees, of course, as with the tobacco-Medicaid caper, where the Litigation Lobby successfully defeated as too chintzy a $20,000/hour cap and some estimates of fees obtained ran five times that high.

Filed under: , ,