Posts Tagged ‘John Edwards’

John Edwards on wacky warnings

There’s been a lot of discussion over wacky warnings in the last couple of weeks (e.g., Jan. 8). Professor Jonathan Turley has criticized the wacky-warnings lists as examples of “bad lawyering,” rather than bad law; it’s essentially an allegation that highlighting these warnings is attack on strawmen. Relatedly, Eugene Volokh expressed skepticism yesterday about the liability rationale for refusing to give aspirin.

Well, what do plaintiffs’ lawyers have to say about warnings when these things go to trial? Here’s an example from the trial lawyer presidential candidate’s mouth:

“[Edwards & Kirby partner David Kirby] had asked [the defendant’s chief engineer] a fairly straightforward question: ‘Would you agree that the manufacturer of a product has an obligation to inform all of the users of its products of all the dangers that are known that are associated with the use of their product?’

“‘I don’t believe that.’ The reply was chilling.”

(John Edwards, Four Trials 197-98 (emphasis added).) Well, I don’t believe that, either, and neither do the vast majority of people: that’s why there isn’t a warning on my bottle of Poland Spring that excessive water drinking can be fatal. But Edwards went on to use that deposition excerpt at trial to argue that the defendant exhibited “corporate indifference.”

The warning in question would have been merely redundant and irrelevant, rather than wacky, but Edwards’s position can be one of only two things: either (1) omitting the tiniest detail from a list of warnings is “chilling” indifference to safety; or (2) it’s perfectly alright for trial lawyers to lie about the meaning of deposition excerpts and misrepresent a reasonable answer as damning evidence.

Separately noted about the District of Columbia Public Library, without comment:

  • Number of copies of Four Trials by John Edwards, districtwide: 18.
  • Number of copies of Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman, districtwide: 1.

Sen. Edwards’ record (and some kind words)

Bill Dyer (Dec. 30), following up on Stephen Bainbridge (Dec. 28), has some thoughts about “whether Edwards’ career as a lawyer who primarily represented plaintiffs in personal injury cases is, by itself, a factor that ought to cut against his being President.” Along the way, he has some kind things to say about the authors of this site, which are much appreciated.

The question of what sort of pro bono work Sen. Edwards did during his legal career has also been getting attention recently (as in this guest post at Andrew Sullivan’s). For our take on that, see Jul. 27, 2004.

November 21 roundup

  • Today at AEI: Panel (and webcast) on Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court argument on carbon dioxide regulation. [AEI]
  • Paulson to Economic Club of New York: “Legal reform is crucial to the long-term competitiveness of our economy.” [Paulson; WSJ; WaPo; NYT; American]
  • One who reposts on Internet allegedly libelous news article immune from liability in California. One hopes this deters a certain attorney complaining about a six-year-old Overlawyered post recounting a 2000 LA Times article. [Point of Law; Volokh]
  • It’s an obvious point, but many judges simply refuse to acknowledge it in failure-to-warn litigation: overwarning can be counterproductive. [WaPo]
  • Congress holds that Psalms 37:21 trumps Leviticus 27:30; Senator Obama objects. [WaPo]
  • Russia: woman successfully sues Coca-Cola for causing gastrointestinal distress. [Kevin M.D.]
  • More on breast implants. [Bernstein @ Volokh]
  • More on the New Zealand no-fault med-mal system. [Point of Law]
  • Posner on Friedman. [Posner]
  • John Edwards seeks to cut in front of line to purchase Playstation 3 at Wal-Mart. Which of the Two Americas is that again? [Taylor @ Reason via Kirkendall]

Justinian Lane: reform supporter?

Until now, we’ve ignored a small left-wing think-tank’s admitted attempt to create a Bizarro-world version of Overlawyered. The writers are a recent college graduate and a recent law-school graduate who don’t appear to have actually read anything reformers write in support of reform. (For example, one post links to Overlawyered when defending the infamous McDonald’s coffee lawsuit, but fails to address any of Overlawyered’s arguments for why the McDonald’s coffee case is meritless, and simply repeats ATLA propaganda that Overlawyered refuted.) The blog has consisted mostly of thoughtless regurgitation of trial-lawyer talking points; when original analysis is attempted, it rises to the level of self-parody, such as an analysis of Leonard v. Nationwide (see POL Sep. 7 and links therein) that ignores the language of the insurance policy, the relevant Mississippi precedent, the existing discussion in the blogosphere, and any semblance of public policy rationalization in lieu of a Wikipedia definition to argue that the decision (and the defendant) are racist because some African-American plaintiffs might lose as a result.

Another such post is Justinian Lane’s “The Myth of the Frivolous Lawsuit.” The standard trial-lawyer talking point on such issues is to redefine “frivolous lawsuit” to consist of an exceedingly narrow subset of what it is laypeople are talking about when using the term “frivolous lawsuits,” note that the legal system has some mechanisms to address this narrow subset of cases, and then conclude that there’s no problem and thus no need for reform. (Or, as per John Edwards, announce Potemkin legislation to tackle this artificially constrained set of “frivolous lawsuits” that does nothing to actually address the problems of the tort system.) But Lane, perhaps because of his unfamiliarity with the legal system, bites off more than he can chew and inadvertently proves the reformers’ point.

Read On…

Eating their own: Fred Baron v. Baron & Budd

Apparently there is no honor among thievesplaintiffs’ attorneys. The Texas Shark Watch Blog tells us that John Edwards’ money-man, Fred Baron, has sued his former law firm:

Never one to overlook any conceivable cause of action, Baron alleges in his petition filed in Dallas state district court breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty, tortious interference, conspiracy to tortious interference, fraud or alternatively negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy to fraud, fraudulent transfer, conversion, legal malpractice, negligence, unjust enrichment, and alternatively promissory estoppel or quantum meruit.

The blog has much more about plaintiffs’ bar involvement in Texas politics, including the use of over a million dollars of trial-lawyer money to support the independent-Republican candidacy of Carole Strayhorn, presumably to split the Republican vote and unseat a governor who has done much for reform. Efforts by trial lawyers to supplant reform-friendly Republican legislators with their own stalking-horse candidates in Republican primaries were unsuccessful, however.

Trial lawyer “Wikiality”

Stephen Colbert jokingly called Wikipedia’s strange notions of reality “wikiality”; his suggestions for edits to the Wikipedia articles about elephants caused the Wikipedia servers to crash and the article to be “protected.”

But Wikipedia in general suffers from a severe bias; articles about controversial topics reward persistence over accuracy. Wikiality is especially a problem in articles criticizing the plaintiffs’ bar. Articles on Fred Baron, ATLA, and John Edwards’s legal career have been sanitized into hagiographies; articles on medical malpractice and tort reform have been rewritten to emphasize the anti-reform position, deleting pro-reform statistics, arguments, and evidence.

Update: $9,500 fine for Edwards campaign finance violations

Peter Lattman reports:

The Federal Election Commission has fined an Arkansas law firm for making illegal contributions to John Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign. Tab Turner solicited four $2,000 contributions from his co-workers at Little Rock law firm Turner & Associates in January 2003 and illegally reimbursed them for their contributions using a company credit card, according to the FEC. He also used a company credit card to make an illegal campaign contribution in his own name and to pay for various campaign expenses. Federal law prohibits donors from making contributions in others’ names and prohibits direct corporate contributions to a federal candidate. Edwards for President also agreed to pay a $9,500 fine, and called the commission’s announcement “old news,” reported the AP.

We covered the laundering story Apr. 28, 2003.

* * *

Clarifying note by W.O. [editor], Jan. 25, 2014: This archival post has drawn reader interest in light of more recent straw-donor enforcement controversies. It is worth noting that while the Edwards campaign paid only a $9,500 civil fine for accepting the illegal contributions, the lawyer and law firm that arranged the donations paid a larger fine of $50,000, several times the size of the original contributions, in a civil (not criminal) penalty.

Update: Feds raid Fieger’s office in campaign laundering probe

Getting wilder by the week: “Federal agents raided the law office of Geoffrey Fieger late Wednesday looking for evidence that he laundered $35,000 in campaign contributions to the John Edwards 2004 presidential campaign through his employees.” (David Ashenfelter and Joe Swickard, “Federal agents raid Fieger’s office”, Detroit Free Press, Dec. 1). “A former associate in trial attorney Geoffrey Fieger’s firm said Friday that he and his wife each gave $2,000 to Democrat John Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign on the promise that they would be reimbursed by the firm.” Joseph Bird, an attorney later fired by Fieger’s firm, “said he had ‘no clue’ at the time that it was illegal for employers to instruct people to give to a campaign and then reimburse them.” (Sarah Karush, “Lawyer says firm demanded political contributions to Edwards”, AP/Winston-Salem Journal, Dec. 2; same story with more details at Detroit News site, Dec. 4). For earlier evidence suggesting the likelihood of laundering in trial lawyers’ donations to Edwards, see Apr. 28-29 and May 8, 2003. For more on Fieger, see Nov. 17, Nov. 10 and links from there.

Leading NC Democrat loses cerebral palsy case

Wade Byrd gave $100,000 in soft-money to John Edwards, and a personal-injury attorney at his firm was named chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, but Byrd failed to follow in Edwards’s footsteps in a recent cerebral palsy case when a jury that had sat through the five-week trial found for all of the defendants after an hour of deliberation. Byrd had sought $30 million from Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, two doctors, and a nurse who had the bad fortune to be present when Joseph O’Hara was born with severe brain damage. Though O’Hara had lesions on his placenta, and though there’s no relationship between C-sections and cerebral palsy rates, Byrd tried to claim that the fetal heart rate monitor showed wrongdoing. (James Romoser, “Doctors found not liable in baby’s brain damage”, Winston-Salem Journal, Nov. 23).

In other cerebral palsy litigation news, a clever group has reserved the web-domain AskTheDoc.org, and must be paying a fortune to advertise on Google for “cerebral palsy” search terms. While masquerading as medical advice (and the website does have some rudimentary resources), the website encourages parents of children born with cerebral palsy to believe that most cerebral palsy is caused by malpractice. It’s not clear if trial lawyers are behind the website (as they are with this similar site that fails to distinguish between “it’s” and “its” and is registered in the same state with a similar IP address), or if it’s just a spam source. The latter website gives some “indicators” that “a medical mistake may have caused your child’s cerebral palsy,” including “a specialist was called to care for your newborn.”

Valerie Lakey v. Sta-Rite

Five-year-old Valerie Lakey suffered devastating injuries when she was literally disemboweled when she sat on an open pool drain in 1993. Throughout the 2004 presidential campaign, John Edwards made much of his trial victory in this case against the manufacturer of the pool drain cover, Sta-Rite, and it immunized him from much criticism, with the media regularly making encomiums to his dramatic closing argument invoking his own dead son.

But it turns out the facts of the case are much more complicated than John Edwards and the media made out.

Valerie Lakey suffered horrendous injuries because other children at her municipal swimming pool vandalized the safety equipment protecting the pool drain and the city didn’t fix the problem. “‘I don’t believe this has anything to do with product design—it’s an issue of maintenance, an issue of a missing cover and the child sitting down on it,’ said Ken Giles, a spokesman for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.” (“Drain that injured girl lacked cover”, Raleigh News & Observer, Jun. 24, 1993). According to the same article, “The National Spa and Pool Institute, along with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, issued a list of precautions for pool owners and managers in 1982. It states that covers must be checked daily to see whether they are in good repair and to make sure they cannot be removed without tools.”

The powerful circulation pump, manufactured by another defendant, didn’t have a readily-accessible emergency shut-off switch. After John Edwards settled with the municipality and pump manufacturer for $5.9 million, guaranteeing him a hefty profit on the case, he was able to focus on the lottery-litigation against the manufacturer of the pool drain cover at trial, blaming them for not doing more to protect the pool drain from vandalism—including the standard second-guessing of the “failure to warn” the municipality of the obvious problems of letting the pool drain be vandalized. There was no evidence that the additional warning to screw in the drain cover would’ve made a difference: county regulations already required the pool drain cover to be screwed in, and the pool managers testified that they had done so several times in the year before Lakey’s accident. (“Defense argues pool staff knew to screw down drain covers”, Raleigh News & Observer, Jan. 10, 1997.)

The defense decided not to settle after it tried the case in front of four focus groups that agreed that it acted reasonably. But the jury in the Lakey case wasn’t allowed to make that decision: the judge erroneously instructed the jury that Sta-Rite acted unreasonably as a matter of law, apparently overreacting to a discovery dispute. Edwards had asked Sta-Rite to provide documents relating to the specific model of pool cover, and then thought to modify his request to include documents relating to all covers a week before trial—and when Sta-Rite provided the newly requested documents (which related mostly to hot tubs), Edwards accused them of having deliberately hidden the documents. (“Final stages of pool drain trial to begin”, Raleigh News & Observer, Jan. 6, 1997.)

Because of the risk of bankrupting punitive damages, Sta-Rite settled for slightly above insurance limits rather than appeal. According to Raleigh News & Observer, after the trial, a number of jurors said they could have gone either way until the judge instructed them on the question. (Anne Saker, “Focus groups becoming vital tool for N.C. lawyers”, Jan. 18, 1997.)

Sta-Rite had been putting warnings on its pool-drain covers since 1987, so the case did nothing to change their product; if anything, the additional safety innovation hurt them at trial because it was used against them to argue that they should have acted earlier.

The Monkeytime site has some additional details, including Edwards’s invocation of his son’s death.