Posts Tagged ‘Madison County’

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).

The Lawsuits of Madison County

In 2002, Madison County (Dec. 3, Oct. 7, etc.)–where juries and judges are notorious for finding liability where no other courts will–led the nation in class actions per capita when there were 77 filed in the state courts there. In 2003, the number of class actions filed in Madison County rose to 106. The number was three as recently as 1998. (Brian Brueggeman, “Class-action lawsuits set a record”, Belleville News-Democrat, Jan. 2; Sanford J. Schmidt, “Debate renews in wake of record class action filings”, Alton Telegraph, Jan. 4; Michael Bobelian, “Congress Eyeing Major Reforms Of Class Actions”, New York Lawyer, Jan. 5).

One example of the forum shopping is a 2003 asbestos case of Whittington v. U.S. Steel. The plaintiff claimed to have been injured as a result of exposure to asbestos on the job in Gary, Indiana, and sued his former employer, U.S. Steel. A plaintiff-friendly judge let a legally frivolous argument against application of workers compensation laws go to the jury–which appears to be the first time a tort suit against an employer for asbestos exposure was permitted to get to a jury. The jury, on flimsy evidence that the asbestos exposure occurred at U.S. Steel or that U.S. Steel was negligent (helped by a ruling precluding U.S. Steel from showing the safety measures they had employees take), awarded $50 million in damages and $200 million in punitives. “I could hardly write it down,” the jury foreman said. “I’ve never seen numbers that big.” The size of the award, compounding at 9% interest, caused U.S. Steel to decide to settle for a fraction of that amount rather than take their chance with an appeal. (Paul D. Boynton, “$250 Million Asbestos Verdict Awarded Against U.S. Steel”, Lawyers Weekly USA, 2004; Peter Page, “Asbestos Exposure Cases Draw Big Awards”, National Law Journal, Apr. 10, 2003; Brian Brueggemann, “Man awarded $250 million in cancer case”, Belleville News-Democrat, Mar. 29, 2003).

2003’s largest verdicts

The Associated Press uncritically reports Lawyers Weekly USA’s claim that the top ten jury verdicts of 2003 were supposedly “unusually” small, with the biggest “only” $254 million (Dec. 15). (“Juries Hand Out Fewer Big-Ticket Verdicts”, Jan. 2). Which is funny, because the same publication names Stephen Tillery (Jun. 12) a “lawyer of the year” for winning a substantially larger award in judicial hellhole Madison County (Mar. 24). (Jaclyn Jaeger, “Landmark $10.1B Light Cigarette Award A ‘Career Event’ For Veteran Litigator”, Lawyers Weekly USA, 2003). Of course, that was a judge who made that decision (Apr. 30), but the publication seems to have also missed November’s $11.9 billion Alabama jury award (Dec. 1).

Update, April 6, 2004: A Lawyers Weekly USA writer writes to tell me that there is no inconsistency, because the “Top Ten” list was limited to “individual” awards. Which is fair enough, but that only accentuates the main point that the publication–and the Associated Press–has no basis to claim that 2003 featured fewer “big-ticket” awards in a year where multi-billion dollar awards were shockingly commonplace. For what it’s worth, the #1 “individual” award on the list involved more than one plaintiff.

Speaking of year-end awards, if I may toot my own horn, my firm, O’Melveny & Myers, received the “Litigation Department of the Year” award from American Lawyer magazine. (Jim Schroeder, “O’Melveny & Myers Lawyers Named as Top Litigators”, Dec. 31).

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.

Madison County: “We’re number one!”

When word arrived that the American Tort Reform Association had named Madison County, Ill. (Oct. 7, Jul. 12, etc.) the worst of its “judicial hellholes” nationwide (Nov. 20) and the least fair in according due process to accused defendants, “Randy Bono, a plaintiffs’ attorney with The Simmons Firm in East Alton, led a group of lawyers in his office in a mock cheer of the announcement Wednesday afternoon. ‘We’re number one! We’re number one!’ chanted the lawyers, who were preparing for asbestos lawsuit trials next week.” (Paul Hampel, “Report rips Madison County as top ‘judicial hellhole'”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Nov. 6). More on Madison County: David Bailey, “Illinois county court a corporate ‘hellhole'”, Reuters/Forbes, Oct. 5; Jon Sawyer and Eric Morath, “Senate debate on class actions spotlights Madison County”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 21 (county is a place “near and dear to me”, says Sen. Dick Durbin — we’ll bet).

Back from travel & award

I’m finally on web duty again following my trip to give a talk before the American Tort Reform Association gathering in Las Vegas. ATRA has two current projects that especially merit readers’ attention. One is its recent update of its “Judicial Hellholes” reports on local jurisdictions famed for unfairness to outsider defendants, such as Madison County, Ill., Jefferson County, Miss., St. Louis, Philadelphia, Miami and Los Angeles. Recent news coverage can be found here.

The other project is ATRA’s recent launch of what it calls the Legal Reform Champions List. The list is intended to address a widespread (and sometimes infuriating) phenomenon: many lawyers who make a career specialty of litigation defense quietly undermine their clients’ interests by working covertly or openly to block reforms that would curb the volume or cost of litigation, often mindful of their own self-interest in ensuring there are plenty of future lawsuits requiring their services to defend. ATRA’s new list takes a relatively positive approach to this problem: rather than denounce by name defense lawyers who operate as effective allies of the litigation lobby, it singles out for praise those who (often at a real cost to their strict monetary interest) work in the public policy process to combat excessive litigation. We wrote about this problem in The Rule of Lawyers (in a passage not online through conventional means, but available with registration through Amazon’s book-peek feature).

I am happy to report something I wasn’t expecting when I set off for the trip: at my Monday appearance ATRA was kind enough to give me its “Civil Justice Achievement Award” 2003. This seems to be the year for me to receive handsomely engraved awards (see Sept. 24). Thanks! (& welcome Ernie the Attorney readers)

Oxycontin: a Rush for clients

A law firm in notorious Madison County, Ill. (more) may succeed in capitalizing on the publicity accorded to news of talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s prescription pill addiction. The Simmons Law Firm of East Alton “is waging a national media campaign in search of potential plaintiffs who allegedly have become addicted to the painkiller, OxyContin, the same drug [Limbaugh] is accused of obtaining illegally.” (Sanford Schmidt, “Law firm seeks users of OxyContin”, Alton (Ill.) Telegraph, Oct. 13). For our coverage of trial lawyers’ campaign against drugmaker Purdue Pharma, see Apr. 10, 2002 and links from there. On the Limbaugh affair’s implications for federal narcotics policy, see Robyn Blumner, “Limbaugh scandal puts Oxycontin on trial”, St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 19 (formatting problems); Jacob Sullum, “Drug rush”, Reason, Oct. 17.

Update: Madison County

Notorious Madison County (e.g., Mar. 24, Sep. 26, and too many other entries on this blog to list), across the river from St. Louis, continues to make news. The Illinois Supreme Court is reconsidering the state’s venue rules in the Madison County case of Gridley v. State Farm Insurance in the wake of the county’s reputation as a home for plaintiffs’ venue-shopping. In Gridley, the plaintiff is from Louisiana, all of the percipient witnesses in the case are in Louisiana, the defendant’s headquarters are in Bloomington in central Illinois, but the “plaintiffs say in documents that Madison County is the proper venue because two Madison County residents who have worked for State Farm will be called to testify about how the company handles salvage titles.” (Kevin McDermott, “Big companies aim to dent county’s popularity as venue for lawsuits”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sep. 13). The Belleville News-Democrat explores the role of plaintiffs’ lawyers’ money in Madison County. (Mike Fitzgerald, “Where money talks”, Oct. 5; see also David Bailey, “Illinois county court a corporate ‘hellhole'”, Reuters, Oct. 5). The consequences are real for the laypeople of Madison County: doctors are closing shop as medical malpractice insurance rates triple. (Shawn Clubb, “Another doctor leaving Alton”, The Telegraph, Oct. 4). But the class actions continue: Mattel finds itself a defendant to plaintiffs complaining that the “limited edition” Barbie dolls weren’t sufficiently limited, though they acknowledge that Mattel disclosed that it would make up to 35,000 of them. Plaintiffs are trying to keep the case before Judge Kardis, who issued the original decision permitting venue in Gridley. (Beth Hundsdorffer, “Litigation Barbie”, Belleville News-Democrat, Oct. 5).

The Madison County scent

That was quite an editorial from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “The scent of fish in Madison County finally reached the noses of the Illinois Supreme Court judges. It’s about time. The court should crack down on venue rules that make Madison County a Mecca for plaintiff’s lawyers and a ‘judicial hellhole’ for corporations.” (“Plug the hellhole”, Sept. 19). See Kevin McDermott, “Penchant for attracting class-action suits is damaging business climate, petition says”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 9 (industry and legal experts petition for venue rules restricting plaintiffs from strategic selection of Madison County). A ruling last month has lawyers on both sides hopeful/fearful that venue reform may be coming in Illinois: “In a case involving a 1997 collision in Macoupin County between a truck of Union Pacific Railroad and a tractor of a private individual, the justices overturned lower court rulings that the case be heard in Madison County. The Supreme Court said a judge must consider more than just where a plaintiff would like the case heard. Judges must also weigh other factors, such as where the event that led to the suit occurred and where the parties live or work.” (Trisha L. Howard, “High court orders case moved from Madison County”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 21) (see recent John Stossel coverage, and our earlier coverage).

Class Action Fairness Act on ABC

Though the “20/20” web page is featuring Macaulay Culkin’s new role as “a cross-dressing, gay, sociopathic killer,” the ABC program will also have a John Stossel segment on Friday, September 5, on “magnet county” state courts and on S. 274, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. The bill would expand federal jurisdiction over class actions, limiting the ability of plaintiffs to file multiple class actions in multiple state courts in hopes of finding a court willing to certify a nationwide class. Earlier discussion: June 25 and here (scroll to “Madison County”). Addendum: transcript of Stossel show is here.