A federal grand jury has indicted Houston attorney Gene Burd and chiropractic clinic owner Paul Samson Christie on tax charges. Among the allegations against Burd are that he employed runners to bring in car-crash victims which he signed up as clients and referred as patients to the chiropractic clinics; that the clinics kicked back about half the fees they charged to him; that he conspired to defraud insurance companies in the resulting lawsuits; that he settled some clients' cases without their knowledge or consent, and misrepresented to them the share of the settlement money that he was keeping; and (perhaps his most fateful lapse, if the allegations prove true) that he failed fully to report the income from all this for federal tax purposes. Lawyers for Burd and Christie assert that their clients are not guilty and Burd's lawyer attributes the indictment to "a misunderstanding by the government". (U.S. Department of Justice press release, Apr. 12; Mary Alice Robbins, "Houston Attorney, Clinic Owner Face Federal Tax Charges", Texas Lawyer, Apr. 23).
David Giacalone (May 4) has another update in the ongoing saga 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 later admitted in a deposition that he lived in Florida and had never tried a case (see Jun. 17-18, 2002 and Dec. 5, 2003). It seems a state court has now suspended Shapiro from practice in New York for a year over transgressions that include misleading commercials as well as "a solicitation letter to a comatose hospital patient". Shapiro said he sold his Rochester law practice six months ago. (Matter of James J. Shapiro, Apr. 30; "NY Lawyer Known for Ads Suspended", AP/New York Lawyer, May 3).
Last week (May 13) we commented that it we found somewhat ironic that lawyer client protection funds, run collectively on behalf of the legal profession, generally cap recoveries by defrauded clients at a very stingy level, given the profession's jaundiced view of capping recoveries in other settings. David Giacalone, with whom we agree on so many other issues, very strongly disagrees with our comments (May 20) and we respond to his criticisms in a three-paragraph addendum to our original post.
Cynthia Allen Mann retained the Dweck Law Firm on a contingency basis to represent her in an employment discrimination claim. Mann turned down a $1,035,000 settlement offer, so Dweck went back to the table, and negotiated a 30% larger $1.35 million settlement offer. But when Mann turned down this offer after (it claims and Mann disputes) Dweck refused to reduce its fee to increase her take-home amount, Dweck sued her.
The court dismissed a 2002 complaint for breach of contract, so the law firm amended the complaint to allege bad faith, and Southern District of New York federal Judge Shira Scheindlin recently ruled that the suit could go forward. "Where a client refuses a settlement offer because she believes her claim is worth more, and that her attorney has not effectively advocated on her behalf, she is not acting in bad faith," the court said. "If, on the other hand, the client believes the settlement offer is satisfactory, but refuses it because she does not want to forfeit any recovery to her attorney, her actions may constitute bad faith." ("Law Firm Has Claim Against Former Client For Rejecting Settlement Offer in Bad Faith", ABA/BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct, May 19).
It remains unclear how one is to determine this subjective state of mind except through litigation--if a plaintiff takes the position that she does not want to settle because she wants to have a greater recovery than the combination of settlement offer and contingent fee permits, is that good faith or "bad"? The court made no effort to consider the ex ante effect of allowing law firms to have a plausible threat of suing a client if the client refuses to accept a settlement of a contingent case, especially given lawyers' ethical obligations to their clients. Of course, the problem is more often the converse case: a risk-averse client wants a settlement, while a plaintiffs' lawyer, who spreads his or her risk over several cases, wants the chance of a big payday.
Most of organized lawyerdom, as we know, strongly opposes any notion of capping damages recoverable by victims, even as applied to "non-economic" damages claimed for intangible harms such as pain and suffering or emotional distress. It turns out, however, that the bar enthusiastically supports the capping in nearly every state of one particular form of compensation, namely, the compensation of clients who are embezzled from or otherwise defrauded by their lawyers. In Pennsylvania, for example, the official Pennsylvania Lawyer Fund for Client Security (more) caps damages payable to defrauded clients at $75,000, although the loss actually sustained by the victimized client often runs far higher than that. Columnist Don Spatz of the Reading, Pa. Eagle notices the irony: "Even if you can prove your lawyer stole $200,000 from you, you're out of luck. There's a cap. ... I haven't heard lawyers worry about caps taking away those victims' rights." ("First, lawyer, heal thyself", Reading Eagle, Mar. 24, at HALT site).
It should be noted that the damages clients attempt to recover after being defrauded by their lawyers are typically direct out-of-pocket economic losses, as opposed to money for humiliation, psychic distress and the like. Yet lawyers in most states have secured payout caps even lower than Pennsylvania's $75,000, often much lower: Illinois lawyers cap their collective responsibility at a paltry $10,000 per case, for example, and Nevada's at $15,000. (2002 ABA Center for Professional Responsibility survey of state plans, reprinted at Michigan Bar Association site, PDF, scroll to Chart II, part 2). Perhaps these lawyers are worried that setting caps at a more generous level (or, heaven forfend, removing them entirely) would increase the premiums currently assessed against them to cover the risk pools. In Pennsylvania, according to columnist Spatz, these premiums were recently running at the very extravagant level of $45 per lawyer per year.
In a number of states, it should be noted, lawyers impose an effective cap of zero on this particular kind of claim, by the simple method of not having established any collective client protection scheme at all. And there is a certain very plausible logic to that position: why after all should rank and file attorneys be asked to clean up the messes left by their errant brethren? Is a lawyer his brother's keeper? It's just that this argument would sit better were the leaders of the bar not constantly denouncing the medical profession for its alleged failure to police itself.
More: David Giacalone, with whom we agree on so many other issues, strongly disagrees with this post (May 20). He thinks I should have made it clearer that the client protection funds with their caps kick in only as a sort of consolation prize when clients are unable to recoup losses by direct suit against an embezzling or otherwise misbehaving lawyer, and that such direct suits are not subject to damage limitations. He also believes I should have been more charitable in acknowledging that it was gracious of the legal profession to have consented to the establishment of such funds at all. And he thinks no one should be expected to sign a "blank check" for 100 percent compensation of the profession's client/victims: "The funds have limitations on how much each client can be reimbursed, because there is a finite amount of money in each fund, and it would be unfair to have clients with the largest losses (often those with the largest estates or investments) receive payments that empty the fund, leaving nothing for other victims." I suspect that logic may strike a responsive chord among some other groups in society that get asked to pick up compensation bills of uncertain potential magnitude.
I observed that most state plans are even stingier than Pennsylvania's, which limits client recoveries to $75,000 and assesses lawyers $45 a year. He prefers to talk about New York's plan, which is abnormally generous. Fine, but when he agrees with HALT (which preceded me in reprinting columnist Spatz's Reading Eagle piece) that "client protection funds need to be better funded in many states", isn't he simply making much the same point as mine in a different way?
Nor is it the case that doctors escape paying for their errant brethren while lawyers cheerfully volunteer to do so. In Pennsylvania and other states, assigned-risk and joint underwriting agreement schemes redistribute the cost of liability insurance for "high-risk" doctors (such as those in the most-sued specialties) to buyers of medical liability insurance in general, or to wider categories of insurance buyer. Since medical liability policies commonly now run into the tens of thousands of dollars annually per doctor, it seems more than likely that many doctors who never face suit themselves are paying "brother's keeper" premiums far exceeding $45 a year, the proceeds of which go to pay for the (uncapped) liability awards that their brethren incur. In fact, isn't it typical for organized lawyerdom to back the creation of assigned-risk schemes applicable to doctors, drivers and other defendants, since such schemes expand the availability of deep pockets in case of injury? If so, it is more than a fair question to ask why they themselves should manage to dodge the application of this principle of collective risk-spreading.
Good news dept.: Although it's still very, very difficult to prevail in a case of malicious prosecution against someone who's wrongfully sued you, in California it's now slightly less difficult than it used to be. Last month "the state Supreme Court, in a case of first impression, ruled unanimously that lawyers could be sued for malicious prosecution if they continue to pursue a case after learning it isn't supported by probable cause." (Mike McKee, "Pursue a Bad Case, Risk Getting Sued for Malicious Prosecution", The Recorder, Apr. 21). George Wallace and David Giacalone comment, and the latter tells a personal war story.
The Mobile Register has a devastating expose of the asbestosis screening mills (Jan. 21 and links therein). Dr. David Egilman, who had testified for over 100 plaintiffs, has switched sides in the wake of abuses.
Over the years, he said, as the trial lawyers who hired him sent along the medical records of the plaintiffs, Egilman became increasingly troubled by what he saw.The Register also interviews Dr. Greg Nayden, who quadrupled his salary by returning a 100% hit rate in his asbestosis screenings, and uncovers a number of similar incredible tales. (Eddie Curran, "Diagnosing for dollars?", Mobile Register, Apr. 4). As Professor David Bernstein points out, the failure of judges to enforce existing standards for expert testimony in the asbestos context has made such abuses possible. ("Keeping Junk Science Out of the Asbestos Litigation", 31 Pepperdine L. Rev. 11 (2003))."I realized at some point that some of these people are not really sick," Egilman said in a telephone interview last week. "From a policy perspective, I'm interested in justice. If all the people who are not sick get money, then there won't be enough money for the people who are sick -- that's the main issue."
Egilman said he believes that screening companies do two things that violate good public policy: They help generate tens of thousands of plaintiffs who aren't suffering from asbestos-related illness, thus draining billions of dollars from those who are ill; and they can create substantial health concerns on the part of those who get tested.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to require lawyers to attend periodic classes on eliminating bias, rejecting the contention that such courses amount to a form of compulsory indoctrination. ("High court upholds required anti-bias classes for lawyers", AP/Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Mar. 25; David L. Hudson, Jr., "Required Course on Bias Upheld", ABA Journal eReportl, Apr. 2). See Nov. 21 and links from there. For a defense of the program, see David Giacalone, Mar. 25.
The Denver and Colorado bar associations have succeeded in getting the local Better Business Bureau to yank from the airwaves a 15-second ad premised on the notion that there might actually be some attorneys out there who exploit their clients. "You inherited a fortune ... You hired a lawyer ... Now it's his fortune," the announcer says in the ad. Declaring the ad offensive, the bar associations demanded a hearing before the BBB's own unfair-advertising panel. Jean Herman, president and chief executive of the Denver/Boulder BBB, agreed to pull the ad, saying, "I don't agree with them ... but I don't want to go around ticking people off". Ad spots warning about bad plumbers, mortgage lenders and limousine drivers will continue as usual in the BBB's "Check With Us First" campaign. Interestingly, Greg Martin, deputy executive director of both bar groups, said the groups would not agree to a suggestion that the offending line be amended from "You hired a lawyer" to "You hired the wrong lawyer." "Obviously, our goal was not to have that ad on TV anymore," Martin said. (John Accola, Rocky Mountain News, Mar. 13). David Giacalone (Mar. 16) has an excellent analysis. Of course, it remains perfectly normal and acceptable for lawyers' own ads to promote the idea that other people's professions and businesses are injurious and not always aboveboard.
Be sure to check out the last few sentences of the Rocky Mountain News article, in which Martin, the bar official, blasts the whole idea of applying to lawyers the BBB approach of documenting a record of complaints so that consumers can see for themselves which operators have numerous unresolved grievances outstanding. Martin says the BBB lacks any "special knowledge about attorneys" and says the profession is already highly regulated by its own (with emphasis, as we might add, on its own) disciplinary committees. Now suppose that some other profession or industry -- medicine, say -- were to assert that its mysteries are so esoteric, and its success in self-regulation so complete, that lay observers should not presume even to compare notes with each other on their bad experiences with it. Hard to imagine, these days, isn't it?
Bad idea: billing clients for time spent responding to their grievances filed with the bar against you. The Georgia Supreme Court disbarred Bobby Glenn Adkins Jr. for this and other practices, including putting a lien on the house of one such client. (Jonathan Ringel, Fulton County Daily Report, Mar. 8; Georgia Supreme Court decision; David Giacalone comments).
...draws ire in Oz. (Michael Pelly, "Lawyer's 27-hour day fuels calls to set legal bills to rights", Sydney Morning Herald, Feb. 4).
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.
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).
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)
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.
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).
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. Update Jan. 7: judge dismisses case against Gary and partner on second day of trial.
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."
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.
"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).
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)
"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)
The Wall Street Journal reports that SCO Group, which has sued IBM and threatened to sue many other companies based on the premise that the open-source Linux operating system infringes its intellectual property, has negotiated an arrangement with the law firm of Boies Schiller & Flexner. Under the arrangement, Boies Schiller will be granted a 20 percent contingent fee applicable not only to judgments and settlements arising from the lawsuits but also to certain events relating to SCO itself as an entity, including sales or equity financing. Corp Law Blog, commenting (Nov. 5), says: "SCO's willingness to essentially give Boies 20% of SCO -- whether through license fees, equity financings or a sale of the company -- suggests that SCO is little more than a publicly traded lawsuit." See William Bulkeley, "Boies's Firm Could See $49.4 Million From SCO", Wall Street Journal, Nov. 6 (sub). (via Prof. Bainbridge)
Lawsuit-funding companies, which advance litigants cash in exchange for a share of the eventual booty, have apparently departed the state of Ohio since a decision this summer by the Ohio Supreme Court (see Aug. 4) finding that such activities violate a 180-year-old state law against champerty and permit intermeddlers to "gorge upon the fruits of litigation". "Several states, including Massachusetts, New Hampshire and South Carolina, have lifted their prohibitions against the practice. At least 100 lawsuit-funding companies have emerged nationwide since 1998 when Perry Walton, a litigation-finance pioneer from Nevada, started holding seminars to teach other entrepreneurs how to make money by doing what some critics say is akin to betting on lawsuits." ("Lawsuit-funding companies avoid Ohio after court ruling", AP/Miami Herald, Oct. 1)(more on champerty, from The Litigation Explosion).
"A unanimous Louisiana Supreme Court removed Orleans Parish Civil District Court Judge C. Hunter King from the bench Tuesday, finding that his misconduct -- forcing employees to work on his re-election campaign and then lying about it under oath -- demanded a severe penalty. While the justices stopped short of saying King should face criminal prosecution, they said his admitted conduct likely constituted perjury and public salary extortion, both felonies." (New Orleans Times-Picayune coverage: Gwen Filosa, "Judge is removed from bench" Oct. 22; "An appropriate ouster" (editorial), Oct. 23; James Gill, "Politicking doesn't do justice to the bench", Oct. 24). King, named one of "America's worst judges" in the November Reader's Digest, presided over a trial this summer in which attorney Johnnie Cochran extracted a $51 million award on behalf of an 11-year-old girl who fell out of the window of a city streetcar, after which jurors posed in celebratory fashion with both Cochran and Judge King. ("A streetcar named excessive", Aug. 29, Sept. 15).
"Three years after more than 60 lawyers, county employees and medical professionals were arrested on charges of bilking Florida's Miami-Dade County out of millions of dollars through fraudulent personal injury claims, the county has filed a civil racketeering lawsuit against the accused perpetrators and others." In the 715-page complaint, Miami-Dade County charges that 85 defendants, including nearly 70 South Florida lawyers, were implicated in schemes in which "attorneys who filed personal injury lawsuits against the county paid kickbacks to county risk management employees in return for expedited and inflated settlements. Miami-Dade Police Director Carlos Alvarez has said that county claims adjusters typically received 10 percent of the settlements. The claims against the county generally involve slip and fall accidents on county property, injuries on county buses, accidents with county cars and false arrests." Defendants dispute some of the indictments as vague and untimely and point out that not all those sued had faced criminal charges earlier. (Matthew Haggman, "Miami-Dade Files Massive RICO Civil Suit", Miami Daily Business Review, Oct. 8).
EthicalEsq?, one of the very short list of weblogs that we recommend to absolutely everyone interested in the law, is suspending publication while its author, David Giacalone, concentrates on health battles. Even if we didn't find ourselves in agreement with David's views as expressed on the site (and we nearly always do) we'd admire the way he's staked out one vital beat, legal ethics, and come through with consistently insightful commentary. Let's hope David enjoys a speedy return to good health; in the mean time, in less than half a year of publication so far he's compiled valuable archives on such subjects as class actions, lawyer discipline, and, of course, fees.
The series of unfortunate occurrences continues in the Magnolia State: "An early morning fire at former Judge John Whitfield's law office may have destroyed some documents he was preparing to use in his defense of federal fraud and bribery charges, his lawyer said. Authorities said the fire remains under investigation, but a private fire investigator hired by Whitfield concluded it was arson." (Beth Musgrave, "Whitfield's office burns", Biloxi Sun-Herald, Sept. 16; Jerry Mitchell, "Lawyer says house fire an act of intimidation", Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Sept. 16; WLOX, Sept. 15)(via Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy). For background on the Mississippi judicial investigation, see Jul. 27, Aug. 19 and links from there.
Last month, the same newspaper reported that "Mississippi Supreme Court officials were seen shredding documents as federal prosecutors flooded the high court with subpoenas for judges' tax forms, records of the cases over which they presided and how cases are assigned"; but a spokeswoman for the court denied that any documents were shredded that were responsive to the subpoenas, and Chief Justice Edwin Pittman called the allegations a "deliberate and false attack being waged against the Supreme Court of Mississippi by people with intimate knowledge of the workings of the court." Pittman also said "there has been no unusual document shredding at the court and that the court's computer system is able to retrieve any written communication." (Beth Musgrave, "Witnesses: documents shredded", Aug. 21; "Chief Justice: 'Deliberate attack waged against court'", Aug. 22; Pittman statement; "Allegations need to be investigated" (editorial), Hattiesburg American, Aug. 23). See also Jerry Mitchell, "FBI questions law clerks on rulings in high court probe", Jackson Clarion Ledger, Aug. 29.
You may be shocked to find how little you'll net from the proceeds of your lawsuit, how little experience your lawyer has, or how hard it is to proceed against him later if you think he has wronged you. Where are the consumer protectionists demanding advance disclosure? (Brigid McMenamin, Smart Money, Sept. 15)(for more on these issues, don't miss EthicalEsq?'s "Informing Consumers" section)(its comments on this post).
Ernie the Attorney has more (Sept. 14) about that trial in New Orleans two weeks ago (see Aug. 29) in which attorney Johnnie Cochran won a startlingly high verdict of $51.4 million for the family of an 11-year-old girl injured when she fell out the window of a streetcar five years ago. We and others raised our eyebrows at the verdict's aftermath, in which the jury posed for celebratory photos with not only attorney Cochran but also the judge who presided over the case, C. Hunter King. And now, reports EtA, "Judge C. Hunter King appeared before the State Supreme Court this past week to plead for a limited suspension of one year (as opposed to permanent removal from the bench). His prior transgression was that he made his staff work on his campaign, and then when a complaint was lodged against him he lied and said he hadn't forced his staff to do campaign work. .... This transgression came to light (including the part about lying) back in May, but Judge King was still allowed to continue to sit on the bench to hear select cases, including the one that Johnny Cochran tried." Update Oct. 25: Judge King removed from bench.
Down Under, Victoria's Attorney General has come out in favor of a pretty far-reaching set of legal reforms designed to protect consumers:
While it is appropriate that justice is blind, that does not mean the Bracks Government is blind to the needs of the Victorian public.
With some inspiration from an article at a previous Overlawyered post, David Giacalone is inquiring into whether ethics classes make one more ethical.
"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).
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.
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?
Well, the man who "even lawyers sa(y) ha(s) given lawyers a bad name" is now in the clear, so far as the Florida Bar is concerned.
I remember being a little upset at Mr. Rimmer when I first heard about this last year, but I think there's an important consideration here. There's a tendency to treat a lawyer's argument in one case as completely separate from his arguments in other cases, not to be prejudicecd against an advocate merely because of the positions he's advocated in the past. I think that's probably a good thing.
Thus, when Solicitor General Ted Olson makes an argument in front of the Supreme Court, the court shouldn't hold it against him that he argued in Bush v. Gore, and when Johnnie Cochran defends an accused murderer, we shouldn't say, "well, he got O.J. acquitted, so this guy's probably guilty too."
Obviously these things don't form a perfect analogy here, but I think they're a reminder of a rule we might otherwise ignore-- that a lawyer's job in the courtroom is to make the best case on the evidence that he can, and that our job is to pretend that he's a dispassionate advocate, and ignore the question of what he does with the rest of his time.
Maybe being a prosecutor is different, because of the discretion involved, but then again, maybe that discretion doesn't detract from the lawyer's right to have each case considered in balkanized isolation.
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).
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).
In a recent speech, Scruggs denounced "McCarthy-like investigations" which he said were plotted by the Bush administration and business interests to disable trial lawyers' effectiveness (Tom Wilemon, Margaret Baker and Beth Musgrave, "Scruggs attacks 'McCarthy' probes", Biloxi Sun-Herald, Aug. 1). Scruggs has also clashed with the Sun-Herald concerning a story in the paper identifying him as the unnamed "intermediary #2" mentioned in the federal indictments. (Margaret Baker, Tom Wilemon and Beth Musgrave, "Scruggs unnamed figure in indictments", Biloxi Sun-Herald, Jul. 29; "Setting the record straight on Scruggs' ad" (editorial), Jul. 31). Mississippi blogger Scipio ("Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy") has penned an unashamedly opinionated summary of where the whole mess stands at present (Aug. 18, scroll up and down for related posts).
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).
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.
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).
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).
"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).
"A Mississippi Supreme Court justice and a wealthy attorney who helped land the state millions in tobacco settlement money were among five people indicted Friday on federal fraud and bribery charges. Biloxi attorney Paul Minor is accused of funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to Justice Oliver Diaz Jr., Diaz' former wife, Jennifer, and to two lower court judges. In return, Minor allegedly received favorable treatment for Minor and his clients in cases involving multimillion dollar judgments." The 16-count indictment also names former Harrison County Judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. Prominent in the state's tobacco litigation, Minor is the son of a well known Magnolia State political columnist, Bill Minor. (Jack Elliott Jr., "Justice, Attorney Charged in Mississippi", AP/Sarasota Herald Tribune, Jul. 25; Jerry Mitchell, "Justice, 4 others indicted", Jackson Clarion Ledger, Jul. 26; Jerry Mitchell, "Charges may alter opinions of Miss. judiciary", Jackson Clarion Ledger, Jul. 27; Jack Elliott Jr., "Indictment of justice and lawyer come amid debate between Mississippi business, trial lawyers", AP/New Orleans Times Picayune, Jul. 27). More: Beth Musgrave, "'Go see Paul Minor'", Biloxi Sun Herald, May 18. For our earlier coverage, see: Oct. 9-10 and Oct. 11-13, 2002; May 7 and Jul. 24, 2003.
In April the Washington Supreme Court issued a six-month suspension from practice to Douglas Schafer, the Tacoma-based attorney who had divulged client confidences in the course of a successful effort to expose a corrupt judge (see Jan. 19, 2000)(Gary Young, "Attorney's suspension sparks debate", National Law Journal, Apr. 28; Adam Liptak, "Lawyer Whose Disclosure of Confidence Brought Down a Judge Is Punished", New York Times/Council of Public Relations Firms, Apr. 20; Schafer's website)
Why is there a secret snickering every time the legal profession poses as heroic champions of the Right to Privacy? In part because of stories like this one: "A New York state trial court has ruled that it is ethically proper for attorneys to advise their clients on how to surreptitiously tape-record their conversations with managers, co-workers and other third parties. ... It is the first court ruling on the issue since the American Bar Association reversed its stand in 2001 and issued an ethics opinion that supports an attorney's right to provide advice on surreptitious taping." (Steve Seidenberg, National Law Journal, Apr. 28).
Our editor has an op-ed in today's Journal on the latest developments in California's "shakedown lawsuit" scandal, in which law firms were discovered to be mass-mailing demand letters holding up small businesses for thousands of dollars apiece under the state's uniquely liberal "unfair competition law", otherwise known as Business and Professions Code 17200. In brief, the Democratic leadership of the state legislature in Sacramento is using the scandal as an excuse to push through legislation that, along with a bit of window-dressing reform directed at the more obvious shakedown artists, would actually increase lawyers' leverage to obtain settlements from defendants under section 17200. (Walter Olson, "The Shakedown State", Wall Street Journal, Jul. 22). We covered the scandal earlier on Jan. 15-16 and Mar. 3; for more on California's bounty-hunting Prop 65, follow these links and in particular our post for Nov. 4-5, 2002. More: The Civil Justice Association of California maintains a lot of information on the status of section 17200 legislation, especially here, here and here.
Disgraced law professor Mark M. Hager, after being suspended by the District of Columbia bar for a year, at last has resigned his tenured job at American University's law school, the Washington Post reported in April (James V. Grimaldi, "Hearsay: The Lawyer's Column", Washington Post, Apr. 21 (not online); Mary P. Gallagher, "How Not To Settle a Multiparty Suit", New Jersey Law Journal, May 5 (not online); Julianne Basinger, Jamilah Evelyn, and Katherine S. Mangan, "Suspended Law Professor Loses Tenured Job", Chronicle of Higher Education", May 9 (not online). In December the District of Columbia Court of Appeals found Hager "to have engaged in 'conflicts of interest, dishonesty' and 'improper conduct' when he represented two southern Virginia mothers who wanted to sue the makers of the lice-killing shampoo Nix. The court upheld the D.C. Bar's one-year suspension of Hager and further ordered him to disgorge the $225,000 fee he shared with co-counsel." (James V. Grimaldi, "Misconduct in Lice Case Puts AU Professor's Job in Jeopardy", Washington Post, Mar. 10). For our earlier coverage of the Hager affair, see Feb. 23, 2000 and May 3, 2001.
David Giacalone is posting more interesting stuff at his new EthicalEsq? blog than we can hope to keep up with, particularly on the topic of excessive contingency fees (on which he challenges Public Citizen to amend its not-exactly-pro-consumer stance). One state that has taken a step in the right direction lately is Arizona, whose Supreme Court in June adopted new Rules of Professional Conduct that come down harder on overreaching fees than do the rules of the American Bar Association (Jun. 30).
In recent years Arizona has made itself into something of a laboratory for legal innovation. Of particular interest to us (see Jul. 7 commentary) is a seemingly minor one-word change to the state's Rules of Professional Conduct (Jun. 6). To quote the court system's press release, the change "removed the obligation of an attorney to be a 'zealous' advocate of his/her client and substituted to 'act honorably' in the furtherance of a client’s interests. According to Arizona Supreme Court Vice-Chief Justice Ruth McGregor, 'Arizona is the first state in the country to make this crucial rule change.' ... 'We are advised that this definitional change will also be considered by the American Bar Association,' says McGregor. 'This change may appear to be subtle,' explains Chief Justice [Charles E.] Jones, 'but in fact, it's a very significant foundational change in the Rules of the Court, and one that is designed to send a distinct message to attorneys.' The term 'zealous' was eliminated from the preamble, because it was erroneously being used by some attorneys to defend behavior that was seen as unprofessional and potentially belligerent, according to one committee member. 'Jones explains that the State Bar committee's recommendation ... harkens back to a time when lawyers were closely identified as officers of the court. As such, they were duty bound to represent their clients with personal and professional ethics and integrity in mind.'"
We're impressed. Time and again, in our experience, the putative obligation to represent clients in a "zealous" fashion has proved the last resort of the scoundrel litigator and ethical edge-skater. Yes, in principle there can also arise dangers when lawyers aren't zealous enough, but no sane observer could imagine that the big problem with American litigation is that lawyers care so much for honor that they aren't combative enough. We'll be watching with interest to see whether the change produces any felt difference in Arizona litigation practice.
Mississippi: "Civil lawsuits filed in Jefferson County allege that lawyers signed up fake clients for a 1999 lawsuit that resulted in a $150 million jury verdict against the makers of a diet drug." According to the allegations, lawyers knew that some clients being recruited into the action had never actually taken the diet drug but "looked the other way". Defendant lawyers called the allegations "ridiculous" and "preposterous". Federal law enforcers will not disclose details of their investigation of Jefferson County product liability litigation (see Jun. 29, May 7 and links from there), but it is known that the FBI has subpoenaed prescription records from Fayette's Bankston Drug Store, which is frequently named in suits (see May 4-6, 2001). (Tom Wilemon, Beth Musgrave and Margaret Baker, "Lawyers faked diet-drug case clients, lawsuits claim", Biloxi Sun-Herald, Jul. 1; "Miss. lawyers accused of wrongdoing in suit", AP/Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Jul. 2).
"A prominent San Francisco attorney who represented the young, sick and poor was arrested Tuesday on federal charges of stealing $2 million of his clients' settlement money to support a lavish lifestyle that included a six-bedroom mansion and a 73-foot yacht." At its website, the successful San Francisco law firm of Tehin + Partners boasts of having "achieved an exceptional record of performance in litigation and trial through our 20 years + experience as a contingency fee-based plaintiff's law firm", not to mention "A Legal Philosophy That Sets Us Apart". Today's San Francisco Chronicle has a full helping of grotesque details (Stacy Finz, "S.F. attorney charged with bilking underdog clients", Jul. 16)
It bears repeating that of all the institutions to which the temporal wealth of poor people is entrusted, law firms are among the least regulated; when outside authorities finally step in to clean up the mess, as here, it is typically after the fact, rather than in a preventive way through the sorts of regular disclosure and auditing requirements that banks or pension funds must meet. Nikolai Tehin lists among his affiliations Board of Directors, San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association.
The Texas case we covered on May 23 and Jun. 26, 2000 and Mar. 17 of this year has now eventuated in a suit by DaimlerChrysler against the Kugle Law Firm. A trial court dismissed the Kugle firm's $2 billion suit against Chrysler and imposed sanctions of $865,000 against three of the firm's lawyers after finding 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.'" "The senior lawyer at the firm, Robert A. Kugle, has been suspended from the Texas bar and has moved to Mexico. He could not be located for comment." (Adam Liptak, "Law Firm Is Sued Over Conduct in Liability Case", New York Times, Jul. 10; AP/Miami Herald; San Antonio Express-News). More: David Giacalone at EthicalEsq.? weighs in.
A federal jury in Chicago awarded $36 million ($8.3 million compensatory, the rest punitive) to the former client of class action plaintiffs' firm Ness, Motley for breach of contract and fiduciary duty. The law firm negotiated a settlement (over the objection of its clients, which it fired at the behest of the defendant) with a convicted felon with tens of millions in frozen assets that gave the firm $2 million in fees, but "next to no compensation" for the ostensible injured parties. (Ness, Motley has since broken up.) (Adam Liptak, "Big Litigation Firm Found to Have Acted Unethically," NY Times, July 4). The Manhattan Institute issued a press release and a study of the case last August.
Archived entries before July 2003 can also be found here.
Bar discipline and client protection, 2003: "Probate's misplaced trust" (Washington Post series), Jun. 16-17. 2002: "Crumbs from the table", Feb. 8-10. 2001: "Law firm sued over fen-phen settlement practices", Dec. 28; "Updates" (IOLTA), Dec. 15-16 (& Jan. 31); "Holiday special" (Canadian lawyer's misconduct), May 28; "Mills of legal discipline" (updates on Brock, Hager, Fieger cases), Mar. 3; "Dangers of complaining about lawyers" (Ga. considers easing defamation counter-complaints by lawyers), Mar. 30-Apr. 1. 2000: "'Judge Lenient With Perjurer, Cites Clinton Case'", Oct. 16-17 (& May 16); "Disbarred, with an asterisk" (Mass. has let many attorneys resume practice), Sept. 20; "Funds that don't protect" (client protection funds), Aug. 23-24; "Fit to practice?" (California bar disciplinary board), Aug. 21-22; "That Hager case" (American U. law professor Mark Hager, settlement of Warner-Lambert Nix lice treatment case), Feb. 23 (& update May 3, 2001: board recommends three-year suspension).
"New legal ethics weblog" (ethicalEsq.?), Jun. 6-8, 2003.
Judicial conduct, 2003: "Year's most injudicious judges" (NLJ roundup), May 6. 2002: "'Federal authorities say judge offered illegal payoff'", Sept. 3-4; "'Privileged chambers'" (Albany Times-Union series), May 30; "'Injudicious conduct'" (NLJ roundup), May 1-2; "La. officials seek oyster judge recusal", Mar. 25-26; "So depressed he stole $300K", Mar. 19. 2001: "'Pseudologica fantastica' won't fly" (judge's resumé fibs), June 7 (& update Aug. 20-21); "'Judges behaving badly'" (NLJ roundup), May 11-13. 2000: "Year's most injudicious judges", Jun. 5, 2000; "Brockovich story, cont'd: the judges' cruise", Apr. 18; "New Hampshire high court blowup", Apr. 5 (& updates Oct. 11: chief justice acquitted at impeachment; May 3, 2001); "The costs of disclosure" (Washington state, Grant Anderson case), Jan. 19.
"Class action lawyer takes $20 million from defendant's side", Mar. 15-16, 2003.
"Politico's law associate suspended over 'runner' use" (Louisiana), Feb. 14-16, 2003.
Civility: "Law's attraction for the bully", Dec. 13-15, 2002; "'Attorney Ordered To Pay Fees for "Rambo" Tactics'", Oct. 5-7, 2001; "Mills of legal discipline" (Geoffrey Fieger tirade against judges), May 3, 2001 (& more on Fieger: Apr. 23-24, 2002, Sept. 14, 1999; "Another Mr. Civility nominee" ("dreck", "scum"), June 2-4, 2000; "From the incivility frontier" ("gag a maggot off a meat wagon", "proctology exam"), April 19; "Majesty of the law" (alleged threat to kill opposing counsel), March 13, 2000 (& update May 17: attorney sanctioned); "Bright future in some areas of practice" ("abusive, hostile" applicant for law license), Oct. 13, 1999 (update, Nov. 23).
"Race-bias cases gone wrong", Jan. 24-26, 2003.
"Lawyers fret about bad image" (Fla. bar plans to rate and monitor tone of journalists' coverage), Oct. 3, 2002.
"FTC cracks down on excessive legal fees", Oct. 1-2, 2002.
"Second Circuit: we mean business about stopping frivolous securities suits" (scope of Rule 11), Aug. 29-Sept. 2, 2002.
"Lawyer's 44-hour workday", Jun. 28-30, 2002; "Charged $16,000 for brief he copied from book", May 17-19, 2002; "Lending rules trip up litigation-finance firms", Dec. 3, 2001; Letter to the editor (incremental billing disclosed?), Oct. 22, 2001; "Law-firm bill-padding? Say it isn't so!", Nov. 18, 1999.
"'Student gets diploma after threatening lawsuit'", Jun. 13, 2002.
Truth value, 2002: "Lying's not nice, especially when representing the bar", Jul. 30-31; "Columbia Law School survey on public attitude toward lawyers", Apr. 26-28; "'Ex-student sentenced for rape lie'" (wants to become attorney), Jan. 11-13 (& see May 26-29, 2000: Stephen Glass graduates Georgetown Law). 2001: Criminal defense attorneys, doing what they do best", Dec. 15-16; "'Lawyers pay price for cruel hoaxes'" (phony heir claims after plane crashes), Aug. 3-5; "'Lie-tery winners'", April 20-22. 2000: "What was the Florida court thinking?" (Boies-submitted affidavit), Dec. 11-12; "'Judge Lenient With Perjurer, Cites Clinton Case'", Oct. 16-17 (& May 16); "The judge wasn't asleep" (sanctions for submission of dubious affidavits), June 14-15. 1999: "If true, then all the better" (excerpt from Campos, Jurismania), Dec. 3-5; and see witness coaching, below.
"'"Little" done for firm, Rendell says'" (law firms provide no-show jobs for politicians), May 9, 2002.
"'Former clients sue attorney O'Quinn'" (Kennedy Heights case), Apr. 8-9, 2002 (& Aug. 4, 1999).
"Gary & Co. shenanigans at Maris trial", Apr. 1-2, 2002.
"Lawyers stage sham trial aimed at inculpating third party", Mar. 22-24, 2002.
Disclosure: "Lending rules trip up litigation-finance firms", Dec. 3, 2001; Letter to the editor (incremental billing disclosed?), Oct. 22, 2001; "Trial lawyers knew of tire failures, didn't inform safety regulators", June 25 (& June 28)(& letter to the editor, July 6); Letter to the editor (ghostwriting), June 13; "ABA's toothless ethics proposals", Jan. 17, 2001; "Contingency fee reform", Nov. 1, 2000.
Contingent fees, 2001: "Lending rules trip up litigation-finance firms", Dec. 3; "Red-light cameras", Sept. 6, 2001; "'The Louima millions'", July 24; "The rest of Justice O'Connor's speech", July 6-8; "Evils of contingent-fee tax collection, cont'd", May 30; "Reclaiming the tobacco loot", March 15; "Hugh Rodham's 'success fee'", Feb. 23-25; "Dangers of tax farming", Jan. 10 (& letter to the editor, Jan. 16). 2000: "Contingency fee reform", Nov. 1; "'Lawyer take all'" (equity stakes in clients), Oct. 27-29. 1999: "Piece of the action" (contingent fees for public officials), Dec. 3-5; "Reform stirrings on public contingency fees", Oct. 15.
Witness coaching, 2001: "GAF sues asbestos lawyers", Feb. 12-13, 2001 (& see Dec. 10). 2000: "'N.Y. lawyer charged in immigrant smuggling'", Sept. 22-24; "Sunday's Times on Fred Baron", June 5 (& see "Thanks for the memories" by Walter Olson, Reason, June 1998 and subsequent letters exchange with William Hodes). 1999: "State of legal ethics" (hey, what's wrong with witness coaching?), Sept. 9.
"'The Great Mouthpiece'" (Manhattan's Bill Fallon, 1920s), Dec. 28, 2001.
"'Halliburton shares plunge on verdict'" (law-firm whistleblowing), Dec. 10, 2001.
"'2d Circuit Upholds Sanctions Against Firms for Frivolous Securities Claims'", July 23, 2001 (more on sanctions: Jul. 30-31, 2002).
"Estate law temptations", July 6-8, 2001; "Lawyers charged with $4.7 million theft from clients", April 10, 2000; "Lawyers stealing less, clients say", Dec. 21, 1999.
"Lost his live client, had to substitute dead one instead", April 11, 2001; "Turn of the screw" (lawyers alleged to have sued without client consent), Oct. 24, 2000; "Curious feature of lawyer's retainer" (allowed him to settle case without client consent), Sept. 12, 2000.
"'It's time to disarm the hired guns'" (Arianna Huffington), Feb. 28-March 1, 2001; "Trustworthy professionals" (survey of public confidence), Dec. 11-12, 2000.
"Fed prosecutors chafe at state ethics rules", Oct. 16-17, 2000.
"Lenzner: 'I think what we do is practice law'" (private investigator in Oracle scandal), July 28-30, 2000.
"Access to something" (lawyer accused of working for Social Security Administration while helping clients sue it), July 13, 2000.
"Ready to handle your legal needs" (Stephen Glass graduates Georgetown Law), May 26-29, 2000.
"Steering the evidence" (DaimlerChrysler gets sanctions against lawyers for evidence and witness tampering), May 23, 2000 (& update June 26).
"'Ad deal links Coke, lawyer in suit'" (Willie Gary, suing Coca-Cola on behalf of clients, enters into a lucrative ad deal with it), May 11, 2000.
"Splash of reality" (sanctions for frivolous litigation in case of claimed Jackson Pollock painting), May 4, 2000.
"Brockovich story, cont'd: the judges' cruise", April 18, 2000; "Brockovich story breaks wide open", April 17, 2000 (& see Dec. 21).
"Majesty of the law" (Phila. attorney Marvin Barish could face sanctions for allegedly threatening to kill opposing counsel during trial break), March 13, 2000; "Relax, you're being taken care of" (Barish advances injury client's rent and expenses), Dec. 14, 1999.
"Legal ethics meet medical ethics" (lawyers advise schizophrenic murder defendant to go off his medication for trial), Feb. 26-27, 2000.
"Secrets of class action defense" (assisting cooperative opponent to draft complaint), Feb. 25, 2000.
"Watchdogs could use watching" (fee-splitting in Florida securities cases), Jan. 20, 2000.
"The costs of disclosure" (lawyer reveals misconduct by client, judge), Jan. 19, 2000; "Pack your toothbrush, son" (Ala. law-firm whistleblower), Dec. 20, 1999.
"Popular CLE course: 'How to Hammer Allstate'" (insurer charged with unauthorized practice of law), Dec. 22, 1999 (update, April 18, 2000).
"Splitsville, N.Y." (New York mag on divorce), Dec. 17-19, 1999.
"Victory in Florida" (plaintiffs deliberately run up gunmakers' costs for leverage), Dec. 14, 1999.
"Weekend reading: evergreens" (St. Petersburg Times Pulitzer series on probate law), Dec. 3-5, 1999; "From the evergreen file: L.A. probate horror" (estate of art collector Fred Weisman), Nov. 20-21; "Weekend reading: evergreens" (Denver probate nightmare), Oct. 23-24, 1999.
"Class action fee control: it's not just a good idea, it's the law", Nov. 30, 1999; "Class action coupon-clippers", Nov. 15; "$49 million legal fee okayed in case where clients got nothing", Sept. 28, 1999.
"Accommodating theft", Nov. 11, 1999.
"Who loves trusts-and-estates lawyers?", Nov. 8, 1999.
"Criticizing lawyers proves hazardous", Nov. 4, 1999 (update, Nov. 30); "No spotlight on me, thanks" (Houston's John O'Quinn), Aug. 4, 1999.
"State of legal ethics" (lawyers take out glossy ad to stir up will-contest litigation), Oct. 5-6, 1999.
"Weekend reading: evergreens" (lawyer-abetted accident fraud), Sept. 25-26, 1999; "Wages of wrongdoing" (Staten Island lawyers convicted), Sept. 8, 1999.
"Join our new Verdict Rewards program" (checks for jurors), Sept. 13, 1999 (updates, Sept. 17-19, 1999 and Aug. 4-7, 2000).
"Cook County law bills a secret", Sept. 11-12, 1999.
"My lawyer is an impostor", Sept. 3, 1999.
"ABA thinks it can discourage 'pay-for-play'", Aug. 11, 1999 (& Aug. 14-15 update).
"Like calling the Orkin man to talk about bugs" (ABA convention), Aug. 10, 1999; "Weekend reading" (ABA choice of speakers), Aug. 28-29, 1999.
"No need for speed", Aug. 3, 1999.
"Weekend reading" (at execution sale, law firm buys up client's right to sue it for malpractice), July 31-Aug. 1, 1999.
"Honey, you've got mail" (solicitations from divorce lawyers arrive before unsuspecting spouses know they're being divorced), July 15, 1999.
| Articles by Overlawyered.com editor Walter Olson: "Thanks for the memories" (coaching of witnesses), June 1998 (& subsequent letters exchange with William Hodes) "Tobacco Analysts Meet the Plaintiff's Lawyers" (abuse of pretrial discovery), Wall Street Journal, August 30, 1995. "Juries on Trial", review of The Jury by Stephen J. Adler and We the Jury by Jeffrey Abramson, Reason, February 1995. "Sue City: The Case Against the Contingency Fee", excerpt from The Litigation Explosion, Policy Review, Winter 1991 [in two parts] [part one] [part two] "Dentists, Bartenders, and Lawyer Unpopularity", Manhattan Institute Civil Justice Memo #37, April 1999. "Lawyers with Stethoscopes: Clients Beware", Manhattan Institute Civil Justice Memo #26, June 1996. "Taming the Litigators: Why Not More Disclosure?", Manhattan Institute Civil Justice Memo #24, February 1996. |
| Codes of ethics: ABA Center for Professional Responsibility Some online articles of interest: James McCauley, "The Ethics of Making Legal Services Affordable..." (Virginia bar; discusses unauthorized practice, pro se litigation) Rep. Chris Cox, Testimony on tobacco settlement (1997) Lawrence Schonbrun, "Class Actions: The New Ethical Frontier" (Manhattan Institute, 1996)
Posted by Walter Olson at 11:35 AM
|