Merck wants Leonel Garza’s $13 million verdict reviewed. (AP/Boston Globe, Sept. 1). For other doubts about the case, see Ted’s post of Apr. 23 and Point of Law coverage here.
Posts Tagged ‘ethics’
Billing fraud at a major law firm?
No, that couldn’t possibly be true. There must be some error in the report. (WSJ law blog, Aug. 30; Nathan Koppel, “Lawyer’s Charge Opens Window On Bill Padding”, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 30 ($); Stephen Bainbridge, Aug. 30; Carolyn Elefant, Aug. 31; Matthew Farmer (ex-Holland & Knight) letter to judge in PDF format).
And I think something else happened that day
Attorney celebrations in the news:
“Joseph P. Awad, the incoming president of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association and a partner in Garden City, N.Y.’s Silberstein, Awad & Miklos, was one of the lawyers who participated in TLC. He said the group was holding a dinner on the fifth anniversary of the [September 11] terrorist attacks to celebrate ‘the largest pro bono project in history.'”
(Anthony Lin, “Attorney’s $2 Million 9/11 Fee Called ‘Shocking, Unconscionable'”, New York Law Journal, Aug. 28).
Kentucky fen-phen lawyers suspended
Melbourne Mills, Shirley Cunningham Jr. and William Gallion were “temporarily suspended” from the practice of law by the Kentucky Supreme Court this week. The three had taken well over half of a $200 million settlement Wyeth had given them on behalf of 440 fen-phen users they had represented. (Brandon Ortiz, “3 Fen-phen case lawyers are suspended”, Lexington Herald-Leader, Aug. 25; Andrew Wolfson, “Fen-phen case fees poured into racehorses”, Louisville Courier-Journal, May 30; Andrew Wolfson, “Judge: Fen-phen lawyers breached duty”, Louisville Courier-Journal, Mar. 10; Beth Musgrave and Jim Warren, “Fen-phen settlement is back in the courtroom”, Lexington Herald-Leader, Jan. 29, 2005 (reprint)). More: May 10, 2005 (civil lawsuit); Mar. 6 (judge who profited from approval of settlement resigns).
Mills was recently in the news because he won a suit against a secretary who claimed (with the help of a recording) that he promised her an “Erin-Brockovich”-style payment for her help in the settlement. (Brandon Ortiz, “Ruling benefits Melbourne Mills Jr.”, Lexington Herald-Leader, Apr. 4). (cross-posted at Point of Law)
Mich. high court reinstates Geoffrey Fieger reprimand
By a 4-3 margin, the Supreme Court of Michigan has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect “the interests of an officer of the court in uttering vulgar epithets toward the court in a pending case” (decision in PDF format, p. 19) and has therefore sent back a case involving the disciplining of Geoffrey Fieger with instructions to reinstate the reprimand. After seeing a $15 million medical malpractice verdict overturned, Michigan’s most prominent plaintiff’s lawyer had described the appellate judges who ruled against him as variously “jackasses”, “Hitler”, “Goebbels” and “Eva Braun”, said that he was declaring war on them, said that they could kiss a portion of his anatomy not generally revealed in public, and repeatedly proposed that various objects be employed to assault a similar location on their persons.
In dissent, Justice Michael Cavanagh wrote that it matters not whether Fieger violated “a disciplinary rule he swore to obey when admitted to the practice of law”. The point is instead that “the judiciary, upon which is conferred unique powers, significant influence and considerable insulation, must not be so shielded that the public is denied its right to temper this institution”. Which raises at least one question: in what sense should Fieger be counted as a member of the “public” for these purposes? As a lawyer deputized with power to initiate compulsory process to drag unwilling parties into the Michigan courts, wouldn’t it be fair to say that “unique powers, significant influence and considerable insulation” have been conferred on him, too, in exchange for which he might reasonably be asked to submit to professional rules not applicable to the general public to guard against the abuse of these unique powers? (Dawson Bell, “Fieger reprimanded for attacks on judges”, Detroit Free Press, Jul. 31; Charlie Cain, “High court reinstates Fieger reprimand for comments”, Detroit News, Aug. 1).
We covered the controversy at hand (and its underlying lawsuit) Sept. 14, 1999, May 3, 2001, and Apr. 3, 2006. Other coverage of Fieger’s antics can be found here.
Dead man suing
Madison County, Illinois, inimitable as ever: “For two-and-a-half years the Lakin Law Firm has carried on a Madison County class action lawsuit with a dead plaintiff,” reports the Madison Record, which says Lakin lawyer Jeffrey Millar did not inform Circuit Judge Daniel Stack about his client’s having assumed room temperature. The defendant, American Family Insurance, eventually twigged to it, and now the Lakin firm plans to switch to a live plaintiff from Ohio so as to keep the suit going. “Millar has confirmed the death of [client Manuel Hernandez of Granite City], but he has not answered questions that American Family Insurance submitted about his knowledge of it. Millar objected to the questions, arguing to Stack that American Family Insurance should submit them not to Hernandez’s attorney but to Hernandez himself.” (Steve Korris, “Dead plaintiff should answer questions, class counsel argues”, Jul. 20)(via Insurance Coverage Blog).
Great moments in lawyer discipline
Way back in 2000, a Texas trial judge dismissed a $2 billion products liability suit against DaimlerChrysler and imposed sanctions of $865,000 on San Antonio attorney Robert Kugle and two associates at his firm, Andrew Toscano and Robert “Trey” Wilson III, also referring the matter to the State Bar of Texas for possible disciplinary action. As we summarized the episode in our post of Jul. 20, 2003, the judge found “that the steering decoupler of the sued-over Dodge Neon had been altered to simulate mechanical failure and that Mexican policemen had been asked to change their accounts of the accident giving rise to the suit. An appeals court called the firm’s conduct ‘an egregious example of the worst kind of abuse of the judicial system.'” Now, six years later, the leisurely process of state bar discipline still hasn’t run its course in Toscano’s case, Wilson drew a two-year probated suspension, and both men are practicing law in San Antonio. The American Tort Reform Association doesn’t think that’s a suitable outcome. (Mary Alice Robbins, “‘Texas Justice Massacre’ Billboard Targets Attorney’s Alleged Misconduct”, Texas Lawyer, Jul. 5; David Shepardson, “Chrysler takes fight to lawyers”, Detroit News, Mar. 21).
Calif. high court: Flatley can sue for extortion
Updating our Sept. 14, 2004 post: The California Supreme Court has ruled that Irish dancing impresario Michael Flatley (“Riverdance”, “Lord of the Dance”) can proceed with a suit against a woman who falsely accused him of rape and a lawyer who demanded money on the threat of proceeding with the accusation. “Lawyers for [Tyna Marie] Robertson and [D. Dean] Mauro argued that the lawsuit brought by Flatley should be thrown out because the letter was a settlement offer and was protected under the First Amendment. The state Supreme Court rejected the argument. ‘Mauro’s communications constituted criminal extortion as a matter of law and, as such, were unprotected by constitutional guarantees of free speech or petition,’ the six-member panel wrote.” (“Michael Flatley wins court ruling in extortion case”, AP/San Jose Mercury News, Jul. 27; “California court OKs Flatley’s extortion lawsuit”, AP/Chicago Sun-Times, Jul. 30).
Joe Jamail depositions: coming soon to community theater?
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….
“L.A.’s scariest lawyer”
In the New Yorker, Ken Auletta profiles entertainment lawyer Bertram Fields, whose name has turned up regularly in the Anthony Pellicano scandal and whom Auletta dubs the “most feared lawyer in Hollywood”. A snippet (via Lattman): “his pugnacity frightens opponents. One Fields client says, ‘If he’s on the other side, he’s a nightmare. He going to make your life miserable. Someone who actually enjoys beating people up, there’s something wrong with them. But when you hire a litigator you want a p***k.'”