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).
Posts Tagged ‘Madison County’
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).
Med mal: around the blogs
Not that this exactly qualifies as news, but Sen. Tom Daschle says things to pro-tort-reform constituents back home that are rather different from what he says in Washington, notices the South Dakota Politics blog (Apr. 4, Apr. 7). And the departure of a surgeon in MedPundit Sydney Smith’s home town, coinciding with a particularly obdurate sound bite from ATLA-admired Sen. Patrick Leahy, prompts her (Apr. 10) to give the Vermont Democrat an Open Secrets look-up (see also MedRants, Apr. 8, with comments section). Dr. Smith also notes (Apr. 6) that the med-mal crisis in famed Madison County, Ill., may play a role in the contemplated closure of Scott Air Force Base in Belleville.
Madison County lawyers get $84M, class members get $8M
“Lawyers took home 10 times more than their clients in a $350 million settlement with AT&T and Lucent Technologies Inc. that ended a class-action suit in Madison County, according to figures provided recently by Lucent.” Even though class members only received $8.4 million, compared to the $84.5 million paid out to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, the settlement was announced as a $350 million settlement. Thus, in the well-publicized, but flawed, Eisenberg-Miller study that purports to show that plaintiffs’ lawyers aren’t overpaid in state court (Feb. 20 and Jan. 16), it would be counted as a return of 24%, rather than over 90%. Class lawyer Stephen Tillery, who is regularly in the news (e.g., Jan. 2), and whose firm collected $16 million of the fees, has suddenly decided that ethical obligations regarding current litigation prohibit him from discussing numbers when asked for his version of the figures, which he initially disputed. (Trisha Howard, “Lawyers profit most in suit, defendant says”, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Mar. 30).
Update, April 8: Professor Eisenberg disingenuously defends as an “exception” the Lucent settlement against a USA Today editorial–based on his own flawed study! (Theodore Eisenberg, “Separate myths from facts”, USA Today, Apr. 7; Editorial, “Fees line lawyers’ pockets”, USA Today, Apr. 7) (via Bashman).
Update: Ness Motley and James Down
A feature from the Chicago Tribune on the Ness Motley sellout of its clients in the James Blair Down case (see Jul. 7 and follow-ups Aug. 24 and Jan. 17) is revealing about forum-shopping:
[Blair] Hahn told his clients he knew exactly where to find the class-action judgment they needed: in Madison County, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis.
In testimony later, [former Secret Service agent James] McGunn said Hahn assured them he could “manipulate” the court, and that “his wishes would be granted.”
“The reason that they selected Madison County was because the judge there looked very kindly on Ness Motley and would be very favorably impressed with whatever they said,” McGunn recalled Hahn telling him. “They would have no problem in Madison County.”
On February 18, Madison County Judge Phillip Kardis (Oct. 7) held a twenty-minute hearing and preliminarily approved a class action settlement that provided millions for the lawyers and little for the class. (Greg Burns, “The lawsuit capital”, Chicago Tribune, Mar. 8).
Hot Illinois Supreme Court race
Expect a hard-fought battle over the vacant seat on the Illinois Supreme Court for the Fifth District, which includes fabled Madison County (Jan. 5 and links from there) as well as 36 other counties in the southern part of the state. The race pits Democratic candidate Gordon Maag, heavily backed by trial lawyers and himself formerly of the Lakin Law Firm of Wood River, against Republican Lloyd Karmeier (site), who’s garnering support from business and lawsuit-reform backers such as the Illinois Civil Justice League. (Sanford J. Schmidt, “Tort reform takes on political edge”, Alton Telegraph, Feb. 28; Kevin McDermott, “Tort reform is key issue in race”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Feb. 2). Both men currently serve as judges; the Illinois State Bar Association deems Karmeier “highly qualified” and Maag “qualified” for the high court post. (Jeff Smyth, “State Bar Releases Supreme Court Candidate Evaluations”, The Southern Illinoisan, Jan. 29).
One reason the race will be closely watched: under Illinois’s unusual system of judicial selection, the supreme court justice for the district appoints judges to vacancies on the lower courts within the 37 counties. Karmeier starts as an underdog: “No Republican has won the 5th District seat since 1969. Since then, every occupant has been a resident of Madison County. Karmeier lives in Washington County.” (Michael J. Berens, “Business running in judicial contest”, Chicago Tribune, Mar. 8). In the 1997 case of Best v. Taylor Machine Works, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down what had been one of the most wide-ranging liability reform measures enacted by a state legislature. (Richard E. Anderson, “When Judges Run Amok”, at Doctor’s Company site).
USA Today on magnet jurisdictions
USA Today has a front-page story on magnet jurisdictions. (Martin Kasindorf, “Robin Hood is alive in court”, Mar. 8). It leaves unrebutted the false claim by Public Citizen’s Joan Claybrook that “federal courts are judicial hellholes” because “the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago recently denied class-action status to people who allegedly were harmed when Firestone tires blew out on their Ford Explorer SUVs”; the class that the Seventh Circuit rejected was a nationwide class of all Explorer owners, including those who had suffered no harm. Consumers who were injured by Firestone tires have many lawsuits pending unaffected by the Seventh Circuit’s decision; indeed, as the Seventh Circuit pointed out, anyone who had a significant injury would likely have been advised to opt out of a class action rather than risk having their claim subsumed by the class action. (In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Products Liability Litigation opinion; see also Jul. 8).
It is telling that Ms. Claybrook is suggesting that a court that refuses to countenance a class action on behalf of people who have suffered no harm is “anti-consumer”–it demonstrates that to her, “pro-consumer” means a pure wealth transfer from shareholders to lawyers.
USA Today also understates the problem of Madison County (see Sept. 26, Jan. 5, etc.): it’s not just that class actions have gone to 107 in 2003 from 60 in 2001; in 1998, there were only three class actions filed in Madison County. “There’s some merit to the accusations of bias in Madison County, says retired circuit judge John DeLaurenti, who heard cases there for 27 years until 2000. ‘I don’t know if it’s a judicial hellhole, but just figure it out,’ he says. ‘When people come from hither and thither to file these cases, there’s gotta be an inducement, doesn’t there? They’re not coming to see beautiful Madison County.'”
Disclosure: My law firm represented Ford in the Firestone class action litigation before the Seventh Circuit; my colleague, John Beisner, is quoted by USA Today.
In Madison County, a totally spontaneous outpouring
The editorialists of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have described the court system of nearby Madison County, Ill., as aromatic (see Sept. 26, Jan. 5, etc., etc.), but now a group called Victims and Families United has formed to defend the county’s far-famed litigation culture. According to the group’s spokeswoman, “behind every lawsuit is a real victim or family who is seeking justice and democracy”. (Sanford J. Schmidt, “Victims say suits justified, to offer malpractice fixes”, Alton Telegraph, Feb. 17). Was the formation of this group a totally spontaneous outpouring of gratitude by the citizenry of Madison County toward its benefactors in the plaintiff’s bar? Some have their doubts: David Giacalone (Feb. 19) is one who suspects that these particular grass roots “got fed some fertilizer”.
Super Bowl Kerfuffle II
Erstwhile defender of Madison County legal practice Evan Schaeffer attacks the recent lawsuit over Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl halftime show. (“Notes from the (Legal) Underground” blog, Feb. 8). Mr. Schaeffer’s legal analysis is this instance is impeccable — and ironic.
Madison County coffee case
It’s an entry that seems like self-parody for this site — a Madison County lawsuit over spilled coffee — but the lawsuit against Starbucks is true. It differs from the McDonald’s case in that it involves a defective cup, but the alleged second-degree burns show that, once again, the plaintiffs’ bar’s claim that McDonald’s coffee was unusually likely to burn was somewhat fictional. (Brian Brueggeman, “Lawyer: McDonald’s coffee case different”, Belleville News-Democrat, Jan. 27) (via Obscure Store).