“A lawyer’s attempt to save a time-barred malpractice suit by wrapping it up as a federal RICO and civil rights case has drawn an unorthodox sanction [under federal Rule 11]: Rather than dock the lawyer for fees, the judge ordered him to take courses in federal practice and procedure, professionalism and legal ethics.” We still prefer fees, though (Charles Toutant, New Jersey Law Journal, Aug. 26).
Posts Tagged ‘ethics’
Illicit Bargaining
The Curmudgeonly Clerk has laudably detailed (if slightly disturbing) coverage of the case of Municipal Judge Charles Maestas, convicted of exchanging reduced sentences for sexual favors. The CNN report is available here.
Free and Clear
I don’t know how many of y’all remember the King murder trials from last summer. Prosecutor David Rimmer was pursuing cases against both Mr. King’s two sons and an outsider named Mr. Chavis, and created a huge stir because the theory he was pursuing in one case was inconsistent with the theory he was pursuing in the other. Given that prosecutors are supposed to prove their cases beyond reasonable doubt, a lot of people were skeptical– if one tries to prove two contradictory things, surely it’s reasonable to doubt either or both?
Update: Ness Motley to fight misconduct verdict
Not unexpectedly, the billionaire tobacco/ asbestos plaintiff’s law firm says it will contest a jury’s $36 million verdict, including $28 million in punitive damages, for having allegedly placed its own financial interests ahead of those of its clients in a class action settlement over a Canadian telemarketing swindle (see Jul. 7). The verdict is said to be the second-largest against a law firm in the past ten years: “‘Anytime you see an award of that magnitude, you can expect the jury senses lawyer greed, and that angers them,’ said Joe McMonigle, a San Francisco attorney and former chairman of the American Bar Association’s committee on lawyers’ professional liability.” (Frank Norton, “Reputations hinge on Ness Motley appeal”, Charleston Post & Courier, Aug. 3; “Lowcountry law firm contesting verdict in legal ethics case”, AP/The State (Columbia, S.C.), Aug. 4).
Meanwhile, two lawsuits by former Ness Motley attorneys are painting an unattractive picture of life inside the giant firm, which is now known as Motley Rice (more than two dozen attorneys and employees quit and formed a second firm, Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook and Brickman.) In one case, dissident attorneys have asked a judge to ground a $13 million Dassault Falcon used by star lawyers Ron Motley and Joe Rice; in another, a female attorney charges a pattern of sexual harassment and misconduct at the firm, which it strenuously denies (Tony Barthelme, “Court filings shed light on Ness Motley schism”, Charleston Post & Courier, Aug. 22).
Mississippi ripples
Continuing fallout from the Mississippi scandal: “State Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr. and two former judges are under indictment for loans guaranteed or paid off by Gulf Coast trial lawyer Paul Minor, but they are not the only ones to receive such help from Minor.” State Chief Justice Ed Pittman, for example, benefited from a $40,000 loan guarantee. (Jerry Mitchell, “Loan to chief justice cited”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Aug. 17). “Pascagoula lawyer Dickie Scruggs said he guaranteed an $80,000 loan to state Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr. in his 2000 runoff,” saying it was necessary to keep business interests from buying the court (“Tobacco lawyer: Influence not factor in funding help”, Aug. 17; Jack Elliott, Jr., “Scruggs defends Diaz, Tuck loans”, AP/Biloxi Sun-Herald, Aug. 15)(see Jul. 27 and links from there).
UK: fraud charges fly after collapse of claims group
An investigator has told the BBC that fraudulent claims were much more widespread than previously believed at the now-collapsed Accident Group, which had been the largest personal injury claims firm in Great Britain. “”At a very conservative estimate there were 200 people suspected of making claims up,” of a 1,500-person sales force, said Paul Stott. “With some of the people that I have dealt with, from the day that they started until their activities were brought under the umbrella of an investigatory procedure, every single claim that they wrote was fraudulent. It was apparent to a man with one eye.” (Pip Clothier, “Accident Group fraud investigator speaks out”, BBC News, Jul. 30). In Parliament, Merseyside MP Peter Kilfoyle “said sales reps targeted vulnerable, poverty-stricken people, enticing them to fabricate claims. He claimed some reps waited for vulnerable people outside Job Centres, others even stood outside Liverpool Prison to persuade people to claim they had a bad back caused by sleeping on lumpy mattresses.” Meanwhile, execs were tooling around in company-owned Ferraris and a Bentley and the company founder had amassed “assets in excess of ?40m, including a ?3.5m home in Cheshire”, said Mr. Kilfoyle (Ian Craig, “Sales reps ‘lay in wait for poor'”, ManchesterOnline, Jul. 18). The Accident Group made headlines in May when it suddenly announced that it could not pay its bills and dismissed 2,400 workers, informing many of them by text messages to their mobile phones (BBC, “Bust company sacks workers by text”, May 30).
Litigation finance runs afoul of champerty doctrine
Opining that “a lawsuit is not an investment vehicle,” the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that a personal injury plaintiff who settled her case for $100,000 “need not honor a contract that required her to pay nearly $20,000” to a Nevada-based litigation finance company and an Ohio broker. What’s more, plaintiff Roberta Rancman is not required to return the $8,800 advanced to her by the two companies. A National Law Journal article takes a look at the litigation finance industry, in which “financiers typically offer cash advances to plaintiffs who might be out of work because of an injury or otherwise unable to meet their daily living expenses. The financiers get back their advance, not to mention a usually quite substantial premium, only if the suit leads to a settlement or an award.” (See Gary Young, “Two setbacks for lawsuit financing,” The Nat’l Law Journal, July 28). Update Oct. 25: litigation-finance firms pull out of Ohio after ruling.
Brooklyn judges scandal
It’s looming as the worst judicial scandal in years: “Since Barron’s conviction [Judge Victor Barron of Brooklyn was sentenced to three to nine years in prison for taking thousands of dollars in bribes], authorities have arrested a second Brooklyn judge [Gerald Garson] for allegedly accepting gifts from a corrupt lawyer, kicked a third off the bench for breaking rules on rental property and scrutinized a fourth for his handling of his elderly aunt’s life savings.” The borough’s judicial selection system, which gives party bosses a key say in nominating jurists to the bench, is being widely blamed. (“Corruption Scandal Shakes Brooklyn Court”, AP/ABCNews.com, Aug. 3; Jack Newfield, “‘Regime Change’ Should Be Goal of Judge Probe”, New York Sun, Jun. 30; “Norman schemes while B’klyn burns”, New York Daily News (editorial), Jun. 30; Anthony M. DeStefano, “Their Goal: Dismissal”, Newsday, Jul. 14; Mark Berkey-Gerard, “Judges”, Gotham Gazette, Aug. 8) (many links via former Parks Commissioner Henry Stern’s NYCivic.org).
Debunker debunked on contingency fees
David Giacalone at ethicalEsq? has posted a critique of a law review article entitled “Seven Dogged Myths About Contingency Fees“, published 2002 in the Washington University Law Quarterly and written by Prof. Herbert Kritzer of the University of Wisconsin, known as one of the more ardent academic defenders of the contingency fee. “Far from debunking the most important ‘myths’ about contingency fees,” Giacalone writes, “the Kritzer Article sets up an army of strawmen, shoots statistical and rhetorical blanks at them, and assures a hollow victory in the battle by using volunteer soldiers from the ranks of p/i lawyers.” (Jul. 30).
Abuse of process claim revived
“A federal appeals court has revived an abuse of process suit against a law firm and lawyer that allegedly used unfair tactics in litigation — including hiding documents, obstructing discovery and fabricating privilege claims — after finding that a lower court improperly determined that such conduct was immune from suit under the doctrine of judicial privilege.” A Philadelphia judge had found that insurer Fireman’s Fund and its Washington, D.C.-based law firm, Gilberg & Kiernan, had committed extensive misconduct in defending asbestos coverage claims brought by policyholder General Refractories Corp. GRC proceeded to file an abuse of process action against the insurer and its law firm, but a federal judge ruled that lawyers enjoy near-absolute immunity from abuse of process claims when engaged in litigation, under a privilege for “judicial communications”. Not so, said an appeals court, which construed the privilege more narrowly and reinstated the suit: it would frustrate the purpose of rules against abuse of process to let lawyers exempt themselves so sweepingly from liability for such abuse. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Suit Over Litigation Tactics Revived”, The Legal Intelligencer, Jul. 30)(via Legal Reader).