Author Archive

Connecticut scandal: the tobacco-fee angle

Four years ago (Feb. 16, 2000) we noted that the state of Connecticut had chosen three politically connected law firms to handle the state’s role in the multistate tobacco litigation, a bit of business that yielded a very handsome $65 million in fees. (Other firms that wanted to be considered for the work were cut out.) The three firms included two linked to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and one, Carmody & Torrance of Waterbury, whose managing partner, James Robertson, was personal counsel to Republican Gov. John Rowland.

Now the firm of Carmody & Torrance has turned up amid the ethical storm swirling around Gov. Rowland, who may face impeachment over various personal financial irregularities. After Rowland nominated Robertson for a Superior Court judgeship, it developed that the Carmody firm had not only performed extensive free services for Rowland but had also agreed to defer payment of some $100,000 worth of paid services. In recent weeks the Connecticut press has had a lot to say about the (relatively small) amounts of conventional legal work that the state government has awarded to Carmody & Torrance in recent years, but (unless we’ve missed something) has expressed little curiosity about the selection of the firm for tobacco work, perhaps having swallowed the fiction by which the $65 million fee supposedly did not come at the state’s expense. (“Rowland lawyer says governor owes firm $100,000”, AP/Stamford Advocate, Feb. 13; Tobin A. Coleman, “Judges asked about gifts for Rowland”, Stamford Advocate, Feb. 14; Gregory B. Hladky, “Rowland?s ethics scandal snowballing”, New Haven Register, Feb. 16; “State ethics law loophole doesn?t exist, Plofsky says”, AP/New Haven Register, Feb. 22).

Conversation at NYU’s Brennan Center tomorrow

The Brennan Center at NYU Law School would typically be found on the opposite side of many or most of the views aired on this page. Which makes it all the more broad-minded of them to have invited me in as the speaker tomorrow (Tuesday) at their periodic lunch series at their Manhattan offices (161 Ave. of the Americas, 12th floor, (212) 998 6730.) I’ll be speaking to the question: “Should Progressives Favor Curbing Litigation?” and arguing the affirmative, naturally. Reservations: 212-992-8647 or email ab145 – at – nyu – dot – edu with a subject line of RSVP: Conversations.

County to volunteer: stop plowing that trail

In suburban Chicago, Geneva resident Dave Peterson has for some time been dragging a homemade snowplow behind a mountain bike to clear the Fox River Trail, both for his own use and as a matter of public-spiritedness. No longer: “The county has asked him to stop because if there’s an expectation that the trail will be plowed, there’s a greater chance for litigation, said Kane County Forest Preserve District operations supervisor Pat McQuilkin. ‘If a person falls, you are more liable than if you had never plowed at all. Crazy world,’ wrote AnnMarie Fauske, the district’s community affairs director, in response to a letter to Peterson. ‘Unfortunately, the times we are in allow for a much more litigious environment than common sense would dictate.'” When Peterson pointed out that plowing the trail was important to commuters who use bicycles to get to work, the “forest preserve quickly replied that, while a ‘wonderful gesture … your act of kindness may also be open to legal issues should someone fall after your care.'” (Garrett Ordower, “County tells bicyclist thanks, but stop plowing trail”, Daily Herald, Feb. 21).

Nader flashback

Our least favorite litigation advocate is running for President again. Here’s what we said about him four years ago, and on occasions since then. More: Michael DeBow (Southern Appeal) takes note of a curiously worded reaction from a Green Party official. And: Mark Kleiman has more (“One of the bitterest lessons I learned as a young and naive liberal staffer on Capitol Hill was that the ‘public interest research’ produced by the Nader groups was systematically fraudulent.”), as do Megan McArdle and Jacob Levy.

Update: “Diaz, Minor face additional counts”

Mississippi Supreme Court scandal, cont’d: “A federal grand jury added extortion and attempted bribery charges Friday against Justice Oliver Diaz Jr. and trial lawyer Paul Minor, postponing their March 1 trial. … The new charges allege Minor in 2001 tried to extort $20,000 for Diaz from trial lawyers representing Dawn Bradshaw, who was awarded $9 million after poor hospital care led to pneumonia and brain damage.

“The high court upheld the $9 million verdict Oct. 11, 2001. According to the indictment, 14 days later, Minor told two unnamed lawyers that Diaz ‘helped swing the vote … in favor of their client, Dawn Bradshaw, and that the vote could have gone either way but for … Diaz’s influence,’ pointing out the justice would soon be voting on the motion for rehearing their case. Minor asked the pair for at least $20,000, which would pay for a function at the bed and breakfast operated by Jennifer Diaz [ex-wife of the justice], the indictment says. The lawyers refused, the indictment says.” Minor called the new charges “false” while his attorney, Abbe Lowell of Washington, D.C., called them “outrageous” and said his client would plead not guilty to them. An attorney for Diaz said his client neither spoke to the lawyers from whom the indictment says he attempted to extort money nor “authorized anyone to speak to them on his behalf.” (Jerry Mitchell, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Feb. 21). See Dec. 19, Aug. 19, Jul. 27 and links from there. Update Apr. 30, 2005: Diaz’s ex-wife reaches plea agreement with prosecutors.

Picking at the salmon bones, pt. III

Updating our reports of last Dec. 14 and Jul. 30: a judge in Alaska has approved a plan to divide $40 million in settlement proceeds from a lawsuit charging price-fixing in purchases of Alaskan sockeye salmon. Plaintiff’s lawyers will get $16.4 million in fees and expenses, defendants who prevailed in court will get $13.8 million to pay their lawyers and legal costs, and plaintiff fisherman will share less than $10 million. (“Court approves salmon lawsuit settlement”, AP/Anchorage Daily News, Feb. 6)

GOP Florida Senate primary heats up

Updating our Dec. 15 report: former U.S. Rep. Bill McCollum has been hammering former HUD secretary Mel Martinez for his past work with the Florida Academy of Trial Lawyers and for his donations to Democratic candidates including an opponent of former Republican Sen. Connie Mack. In response, “Martinez campaign officials said McCollum had broken Ronald Reagan’s ’11th commandment’ to not speak ill of other Republicans.” (Ken Thomas, “Unity suffering in GOP Senate race”, AP/Sarasota Herald Tribune, Feb. 21; Joel Eskovitz, “McCollum goes on attack against Martinez”, Naples Daily News, Feb. 14; Ken Thomas, “McCollum criticizes Martinez’s work with trial lawyers”, AP/San Jose Mercury News, Feb. 10; Adam C. Smith, “GOP is selective in lashing lawyers”, St. Petersburg Times, Jan. 29). Update Sept. 3: Martinez wins primary.

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”.

Common Good “Five worst lawsuits of 2003”

Common Good, the organization founded by author/attorney Philip K. Howard (The Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good) and dedicated to “Reforming America’s Lawsuit Culture”, has announced its picks for Top 5 Ridiculous Lawsuits awards of 2003, in what is intended to be a continuing annual series. Two of the five have been written up previously on this site: Blair Hornstine’s suit demanding to be made sole valedictorian of her school in Moorestown, N.J. (see Aug. 21, Jul. 12 and links from there) and a jury’s award of $10 million against the state of Washington over an assault committed in part by two foster kids in the state’s foster care program (see Nov. 24). The other three:

* Perri v. Furma Restaurant, Inc. (Illinois Court of Appeals, Jan.): “Parents can sue Chinese restaurant for hot tea burn, even though a child from their family caused the burn by spinning the lazy susan.”

* Gary Dailey v. Board of Review, et. al (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Nov.): “Truck driver, who lied about having driver?s license, wins suit to get unemployment benefits.”

* Ellen Hall v. Tim Henn, et. al (Illinois Supreme Court, Dec.)(unpublished opinion): “Woman who broke her arm on backyard snow luge can sue neighbor who invited her and other friends and neighbors to use the luge.” The court held that a state statute protecting landowners from liability for opening their land to the public did not apply to invited guests and that the luge could be “considered an ‘unnatural and dangerous condition’ even though the victim called and asked if she and her daughter could come over and use it.”