Prof. Lester Brickman of Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law, a noted legal ethicist and the leading academic critic of the asbestos litigation, has a devastating new 137-page article out in the Pepperdine Law Review. His contention: mass attorney solicitation of claimants has combined with willfully unreliable medical screening and witness-coaching by law firms to generate hundreds of thousands of fundamentally fraudulent claims which are obtaining unjustified payouts in the billions and even tens of billions of dollars. The only likely catalyst for reform at this point, he argues, would be a full investigation by a grand jury armed with subpoena powers. (Stuart Taylor, Jr., Dec. 31; Paul Hampel, “Many asbestos suits are fraudulent, professor says”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 13). The article, not online but available to those with LEXIS access or in law libraries, is Lester Brickman, “On the Theory Class’s Theories of Asbestos Litigation: The Disconnect Between Scholarship and Reality”, 31 Pepp. L. Rev. 33. For our coverage of asbestos, see, e.g., Nov. 12, Oct. 24, Sept. 25, and earlier posts.
Posts Tagged ‘ethics’
Update: judge upholds verdict against Ness Motley
Updating our Aug. 24 report: “A federal judge has upheld the $36 million malpractice verdict against Ness Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole. U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer agreed that the defunct South Carolina firm put its fees above the interests of Irish client Interclaim Holdings.” Appeal is planned. (Lori Patel, law.com, Jan. 14; “$36 Million Malpractice Award Against Firm Upheld”, New York Lawyer, Jan. 13).
“Lotto loser’s lawyer defends his actions”
Lawyer of the week? Once-obscure Ohio attorney Sheldon Starke seemed to revel in the sudden worldwide publicity as he represented Elecia Battle in her claim to be the true winner of a $162 million lottery jackpot — until her story fell apart and she turned out to have a rap sheet. “A Cuyahoga County judge has threatened to find Starke in contempt of court after seeing Starke’s animated defense of Battle this week on television — after Starke had said he couldn’t come to court because of an injured back. And Starke can’t seem to avoid questions about how he handled Battle’s incredible claim on the Mega Millions lottery — about how he maintained his belief in Battle’s story when just about nobody else did. ‘I felt like a fool,’ said Starke, who insists he handled the case properly. ‘If there was one person that was damaged this week, it was me.'” (Scott Hiaasen and Jesse Tinsley, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Jan. 10)
Judge dismisses ethics case against Gary
Well, that was quick: “A judge Wednesday dismissed ethics complaints against prominent attorney Willie Gary and his partner. Circuit Judge Brian Lambert didn’t offer a reason for throwing out the case against Gary and Madison McClellan on the second day of a three-day hearing, although he had been considering several motions for dismissal, including one arguing there was a lack of evidence.” (see Jan. 5 and Apr. 1-2, 2002). “Judge dismisses ethics case against Willie Gary”, AP/Palm Beach Post, Jan. 7). (Note: this is AP’s corrected account, replacing an earlier version which affirmatively attributed the dismissal to lack of evidence.). More on the dismissal from Law.com: Harris Meyer, “Florida Judge Dismisses Ethics Case Against Willie Gary”, Miami Daily Business Review, Jan. 8. Update Sept. 5, 2005: underlying case and related litigation settle for sum upwards of $120 million.
In related matters, Evan Schaeffer, a plaintiff’s attorney practicing in fabled Madison County, Ill., links to our coverage of Gary and also recommends (as “antidote”) a Jonathan Harr New Yorker profile (PDF) which takes a rather more favorable view than we do of the Stuart, Fla.-based lawyer’s successes. And the St. Petersburg Times analyzes Gary’s recent $18 million win against Gannett in a “false light” defamation case (see Dec. 23; Mar. 30, 2001). The interesting thing about the “false light” doctrine is that it lets a publication be held liable for defamation even if all of the individual facts it printed were correct. (Stephen Nohlgren, “State: Case’s verdict shows truth no certain shield for media”, Jan. 4).
Willie Gary ethics trial begins tomorrow
Following up on our Apr. 1-2, 2002 coverage: “Gary and one of his law partners, Madison McClellan, are charged with multiple ethics violations involving their representation of baseball legend Roger Maris’ family business during a 2001 trial against the world’s largest beer brewer, Anheuser-Busch.” Trial is scheduled for tomorrow in Ocala “on allegations including falsifying evidence, making false statements, using profanity, improperly appealing for the jury’s sympathy and insulting opposing attorneys.” (Pat Moore, “Ethics trial begins Tuesday for noted lawyer Willie Gary”, Palm Beach Post, Jan. 4)(via Legal Reader, who had it from How Appealing) On Gary’s flamboyance, see Dec. 23 as well as links from the Apr. 1-2, 2002 item. Updates Jan. 7: judge dismisses case against Gary and partner on second day of trial; Sept. 5, 2005: underlying case and related litigation settle for sum upwards of $120 million.
SUV wars: any means to an end?
Reviewing Adam Penenberg’s newly published book Tragic Indifference: One Man’s Battle with the Auto Industry Over the Dangers of SUVs, which recounts the Firestone tire/Ford Explorer imbroglio mostly from the standpoint of plaintiff’s attorney Tab Turner, FindLaw reviewer Matt Herrington (Oct. 10) writes that the book “provides an interesting view of the interrelationships between the plaintiffs’ bar, the expert and consumer advocacy industries, and corporate America” but is “painfully, almost comically, one sided”: “anyone who helps the plaintiffs is a hero” while “anyone who raises any obstacle to their quest for justice must be evil”. The result? “Even bad behavior, if it helps the plaintiffs, is depicted as heroism. For example, Penenberg describes how two experts who make their livings as critics of the auto industry obtained a purportedly ‘suppressed’ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study of uncertain provenance; they believe the study contradicted NHTSA’s public statements. But they got the study ‘through the mail’ — it was not an official document, it had no provenance — it was not, and here is the key point, admissible evidence. This technicality is resolved through trickery that is at least unethical, and likely illegal too. Penenberg reports that one of the experts ‘stashed the analysis in one of the [NHTSA] dockets concerning rollovers and then went off for lunch. When he returned, [he] informed a clerk he needed a certified copy of the report, and described where to find it. A couple hours later [he] got it back complete with NHTSA’s official seal and tied with a blue ribbon.’
“That’s not a cute story. Not even close. It’s a story of an ethical violation, a lie to the government, and a confidentiality breach.”
Trying too few cases = legal malpractice?
Two legal malpractice lawsuits against the Madison County, Ill. firm of Goldenberg, Miller, Heller and Antognoli claim that the firm settled injury cases for too small a sum and in particular allege that it lacked credibility among defense counsel because it too seldom took cases to trial. Although the Goldenberg firm was one of two major plaintiff’s firms handling asbestos claims in Madison County, for example, one rival lawyer contends that it had not taken an asbestos case to trial in ten years. (Paul Hampel, “Madison County law firm is sued again”, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Nov. 29, via Lori Patel, Law.com). The article is noteworthy for the way it sheds light on longtime feuds among plaintiff’s lawyers in the notorious county (see Dec. 3 and many others).
The case also draws comment (Dec.3) from David Giacalone, who we are delighted to say has resumed limited posting at his website. Giacalone has further information about the tale (see Jun. 17-18, 2002) of Rochester, N.Y. attorney Jim (“The Hammer”) Shapiro, who advertised that “I want to get YOU the biggest, fattest cash award I can, as fast as I can, from as many defendants as I can find. Just call me! Day or night, I’ll talk to you free.” but who later admitted in a deposition that he lived in Florida and had never tried a case. See Jeff Williams, “Lawyer ads get loud”, PrairieLaw, undated.
Update: second cardiologist sued over alleged fen-phen fraud
“A second doctor was accused of fraud [earlier this month] in a federal lawsuit filed by the AHP Settlement Trust, the entity created to process claims related to the $3.75 billion fen-phen settlement.” (see Sept. 21, Sept. 25). The new suit alleges that a New York City cardiologist conspired with an unnamed law firm to submit medically unreasonable claims of heart valve injury, resulting in the payment of millions of dollars in claims. “Compensation was a motivating factor in the fraud, the suit alleges, noting that for each VHD [valvular heart disease] certification, Mueller allegedly received an immediate payment of $500 over and above the $900 he received for interpreting the echocardiogram. The suit alleges that Mueller received another payment of $1,500 following compensation to the claimant, earning more than $1 million.” Contingency fees for expert witnesses are not necessarily prohibited as such in American courtrooms, though they have been widely viewed with distaste by ethics authorities. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Fen-Phen Settlement Trust Sues Second Doctor for Fraud”, Legal Intelligencer, Nov. 17).
Privileged, confidential…and in the dumpster
What’s that in the dumpster at the University Park Plaza in Fort Myers, Fla., available for curious strangers to pick through? Why, it’s thousands of personal, confidential client files, abandoned after the Florida law firm of Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards, and Roehn went bankrupt and closed its local office. (“Attorneys abandon old client files”, MSNBC, Oct. 30)(via Carolyn Elefant)
In Seattle, serious sanctions
“An unprecedented $400,000 fine against one of Seattle’s largest law firms is shaking the legal community, prompting some lawyers to predict that local litigation may never be the same. … In an opinion circulating throughout the city’s law offices, a King County Superior Court judge found that the Dorsey & Whitney law firm had no good reason for filing eight of the 18 claims in a wealthy client’s prolonged, high-stakes business dispute. … In her opinion, King County Superior Court Judge Suzanne Barnett wrote that lawyers sometimes need to say no to deep-pocketed clients even if it’s ‘bad for business.'” Fans of the ruling hope it will discourage shotgun litigation in which lawyers aim as many likely and unlikely claims as they can assemble in hopes something will hit the target, while critics complain that the prospect of sanctions will discourage attorneys from being appropriately “zealous” on behalf of their clients (on which argument see Jul. 17). (Kathy George, “Law firm fined for ‘piling on’ claims”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 10)