Posts Tagged ‘asbestos’

Self-Introduction

Please allow me to introduce myself, I’m a man of . . . pseudonyms and a small blog.

Greetings. I am The Monk, founder and primary author of The Key Monk a small politics-and-sports blog I started in April and which my old high school buddy and I now work on in our spare time.

I am a lawyer in Texas who has run the law firm private practice gamut: large general practice firm to medium-size insurance defense firm (where I was on the frontlines in the asbestos wars) to a small commercial litigation boutique. No, I haven’t seen it all, but I’ve seen a lot. I now practice primarily appellate litigation, which I prefer because it is analytical and there’s no discovery in appellate litigation. I have also worked as a prosecutor in North Carolina, a pro bono lawyer in Boston and was a journalist of sorts as the sports editor and advertising manager of my college newspaper.

The best work I’ve done as a lawyer is easy to select: my pro bono work for the Shelter Legal Services Foundation (formerly the Veterans Legal Services Project) — a foundation dedicated to providing legal help to homeless and indigent veterans, battered women and other people in the Boston area who cannot afford most legal services.

Hopefully I can bring some perspective as a practicing attorney who has worked in a variety of legal settings. I look forward to contributing to Overlawyered.com — long one of my bookmarks (sycophancy alert!) — for the next week.

Read On…

More Madison County forum shopping follies

Luke Lindau lives in a Chicago suburb and suffers from mesothelioma. He sued 59 different defendants for his personal injuries in Madison County; many defendants, expecting to be railroaded, don’t even bother to litigate asbestos cases once they’ve been sued in Madison County (Point of Law Oct. 5 and links therein), so he became a millionaire from the settlements–not bad for a retired 78-year-old who has already exceeded average life expectancy. However, Lindau made his way into Madison County by claiming that he was exposed to asbestos during the construction of Southern Illinois University Edwardsville in 1959-1962. Unfortunately for this theory, it was SIU-Carbondale that was being built then; ground wasn’t broken on the Edwardsville campus until 1963. So the two remaining deep pocket defendants actually insisted on protecting their rights and appealed the venue decision. The plaintiff settled–either to get money immediately or to avoid an adverse precedent for future plaintiffs, though his lawyer, Scott Hendler, has the chutzpah to complain about the “abuse of process” of the appeal. It’s not clear whether the two last settling defendants paid more than nuisance sums, as Hendler elides the issue in his discussion with the reporter. (Brian Brueggeman, “Man reaches $4 million deal in asbestos lawsuit”, Belleville News-Democrat, Dec. 8).

That “million dollar Vioxx” page

Monday’s post on the “Get your million dollars” webpage drew a big response from readers, many of whom commented on the question of the page’s sponsorship (the elusive “Leon”, interviewed by New York Sun reporter William Hammond). A typical response was that of reader T.J. McIntyre, who wrote:

You might already know that this appears to be an attempt to make money via the Google AdSense program. You’ve already commented on this in the related context of paid keywords and asbestos.

As such, I suspect that this site isn’t affiliated (at least directly) with any law firms. The webmaster is probably making the bulk of his money from pay per click advertising. Still sleazy, but if he was linked to specific law firms, he wouldn’t be using AdSense, which gives him no control over which firm’s ads will appear. For more on AdSense see this link.

And, of course, “Leon” is also trying to make money by selling for $100 the document containing supposed secrets of Vioxx litigation that Lawyers Don’t Want You To Know. Reader Matt Baucom suspects the page is “filled with outlandish info just to get people to come and click on the links or purchase the document”. That sounds right, too.

Read On…

Update: billions demanded over WTC cleanup health effects

“Hundreds of people who worked on the World Trade Center cleanup have filed a class action lawsuit against the leaseholder of the towers and those who supervised the job, alleging they did little to protect workers from dust, asbestos and other toxins in the air. … David Worby, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he will seek billions of dollars” from Silverstein Properties and four construction companies that oversaw the removal of 1.5 million tons of debris, no doubt teaching a lesson to future construction companies so rash as to volunteer their services for an emergency mission. A spokesman for Silverstein “said the cleanup was conducted by the city and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ‘We had no control over that operation and no ability to supervise what safety precautions were taken’.” (Karen Matthews, “Class Action Filed Over Health Effects of World Trade Center Cleanup”, AP/Law.com, Sept. 14). See also Nov. 21-22, 2001.

Asbestos: new at Point of Law

Over at Point of Law, which has an entire category devoted to asbestos litigation, there are several new posts on the subject. Ted Frank reports on a potentially major turnaround in Madison County, Ill. handling of asbestos suits, occasioned by the arrival of a new judge. Guest blogger Michael DeBow links to a substantial Houston Chronicle article on the crisis. As for me, I’ve got posts on how an Australian court has approved a claim for psychological injury from asbestos, on how Dallas tort czar Fred Baron is allegedly retired from the asbestos business (well, sort of), and on the “rocket docket” operation of court schedules in, again, Madison County.

Criticizing copyright

“Copyright is a trial lawyer’s dream — a regulatory program enforced by private lawsuits where the plaintiffs have all the advantages, from injury-free damages awards to liability doctrines that extract damages from anyone who was in the neighborhood when an infringement occurred. …Recently, David Boies, famous for his representation of Al Gore, signed a rich contingent-fee deal to pursue a claim that Linux open-source software violates his client’s copyright. Last month, he launched test cases against DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone. If he prevails, businesses all across the country could find themselves paying big damages simply for having purchased Linux servers. It’s asbestos litigation for the Internet age.” (Stewart Baker, “Exclusionary Rules” (review of Lawrence Lessig’s Free Culture), Wall Street Journal, Mar. 26, reprinted at Steptoe & Johnson site)(more on technology and IP law). P.S.: David G. Post of Temple reviews Lessig’s book in the November Reason, and is in turn reviewed (before the fact) by Frank Gilbert at Slinkard Review.

New at Point of Law

If you’re not reading our sister site PointOfLaw.com, you’re missing out on a lot. I’ve been doing about half my blog writing over there, on topics that include: a powerful new St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation of asbestos litigation in Madison County, Ill. (here, here and here, with more to come, and note this too); the busy borrowings of Harvard’s Larry Tribe; when “not-for-profits” organize employment suits; Erin Brockovich’s respectability; crime without intent; experts and the CBS scandal; stay open through a hurricane, go to jail; suits over failure to put warnings on sand (yes, sand); West Virginia legal reform; Merrill Lynch/Enron trial; Hayek and the common law, reconsidered; getting creative about tapping homeowners’ policies; AdBusters sues to have its ads run; plaintiff’s lawyers represent criminal defendants to put drugmakers behind the eight ball; update on the law firm that competes on price; Spitzer and investors; Ohio med-mal crisis (and more); a welcome Schwarzenegger veto; dangers of firing your lawyer; ephedra retailer litigation; churchruptcies (if banks can do it…); and hardball in nonprofit hospital litigation.

Plus Ted Frank on tort reform in Mississippi and Jim Copland on California’s Proposition 64 (which would reform the notorious s. 17200 statute); the federal tobacco trial and Boeken; gender bias at work; and Rule 11 revival.

Better bookmark PointOfLaw.com now, before you forget.

Update: blame it on Riyadh

Even though the 9/11 commission (debunking certain widely circulated stories to the contrary) concluded that the government of Saudi Arabia did not fund al-Qaeda, several institutional victims of the terrorist attacks, including Cantor Fitzgerald Securities and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, recently filed suit against a long list of foreign entities including the Saudi government and various financial institutions for their alleged role in the attacks (Larry Neumeister, “Port Authority to Join Suit Against Saudi Arabia Over 9/11 Attack”, AP/Law.com, Sept. 13). The U.S. government has been highly critical of the freelance use of private litigation to second-guess the state of U.S.-Saudi relations, which has in no way deterred colorful asbestos-tobacco zillionaire Ron Motley from setting up his own mini-CIA-cum-State-Department-for-profit toward that end (Jennifer Senior, “Intruders in the House of Saud, Part II: A Nation Unto Himself”, New York Times Magazine, Mar. 14)(see Jul. 11, 2003). And in the New York Observer, Nina Burleigh in February profiled attorney Brian Alexander of the prominent plaintiff’s air-crash firm of Kreindler & Kreindler, who had “already filed a suit — on behalf of the families of more than 1,000 9/11 families?against a list of foreign entities hundreds of pages long.” (“Air Disasters, Legal Fees And Justice for the Victims”, New York Observer, Feb. 23).

U.S. News regrets

Major media foulups, cont’d: in its Sept. 20 issue, the newsmagazine U.S. News sets forth a lengthy and on the whole abject apology (couched, not at all accurately, as a “Clarification“) regarding a piece it ran in its Aug. 8 issue, “Secrets Behind the Mask“, by Christopher H. Schmitt, which had assailed the 3M company for alleged deficiencies in face masks which left workers unprotected against on-the-job hazards. The Aug. 8 article had consisted of little more than a recitation in sensational language of various claims advanced by plaintiff’s lawyers who’ve been naming 3M as a defendant for years (mostly without success) in asbestos and other workplace-injury litigation. In that respect it resembled a good many media pieces which are less a product of investigative journalism as such than of the “litigation communications” branch of public relations.

The details revealed by U.S. News’s inquiry into its own misreporting are damning indeed. Here’s the first:

Read On…

New at Point of Law

Dozens of new posts at our sister site, including: plagiarism on the Harvard Law faculty; bill to revive Rule 11 sanctions for meritless litigation moving through House; more coverage of a lawyer’s attempt to collect “referral fee” of more than $140,000 from Illinois widow; Steve Bainbridge on attorney campaign donations and scoundrel Joe Kennedy; a sonnet on scientific evidence; class action fees in the InfoSpace and Ameritech cases, plus a paper on coupon settlements and an in-production Madison County movie; in praise of the Michigan Supreme Court; big fees in the really old days; public environmental suits, including the one on global warming; and Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus urges philanthropists to support legal reform.

For employment-law buffs, there are new posts on legal protection for messages on employee T-shirts, California and federal overtime regulations, and the Wal-Mart class action. For those who follow product liability there’s coverage of fen-phen fraud arrests, firearms liability and asbestos bankruptcies. Plus election-year politics, including Jim Copland, Ted Frank and more. Shouldn’t you bookmark it today?