Insurance Coverage Blog

Dickie Scruggs' sentencing hearing has been moved again.  Here's the story.  I wonder how that federal investigation of the Wilson case is doing. Walter Olson has some news, including links to a post on the folo blog and a story by Patsy Brumfield. 

-- In other matters, here's a story Anita Lee wrote in the Sun Herald about the Trailer Lawyers' attempt at a comeback tour, with a nice picture of the Rigsby sisters.  I still say it's too bad they ever got involved with Scruggs.  Just a guess on my part, but I bet they will feel the same one day, if they don't already.  You may recall the post I did earlier this week about the Trailer Lawyers' brief requesting Judge Senter reconsider his disqualification, a brief that suggests they have been quaffing some abundantly spiked Scruggsian Kool-Aid.

-- You might have seen the recent article by syndicated columnist David Ignatius on Scruggs, which contained these paragraphs: 

What destroyed [plaintiffs attorney  Melvyn] Weiss and Scruggs was a system in which the money just got too big. The two had helped spawn an industry of class-action mega-cases that was so lucrative, the plaintiffs couldn't afford to lose. So the "good guys" began to cut corners.

Weiss and Scruggs got in trouble in part because they were especially aggressive in representing people they believed had been wronged. "They were the Daniel Boones, who cut through the Cumberland Gap," argues Alex MacDonald, a prominent plaintiff's lawyer with the Boston firm MacDonald Rothweiler Eisenberg LLP. 

The system destroyed Scruggs? Wrong.  Scruggs destroyed Scruggs.  Scruggs got in trouble "in part because [he] was especially aggressive in representing people [he] believed had been wronged"? Like who, himself?  Is that why he participated in the bribery scheme, because he was especially aggressive in representing those wronged people?  That description makes it sound like he's a cop who got suspended for knocking over some shelves of canned peas while rescuing hostages in a grocery store.   

And here I'd thought Ignatius was only ignorant about Obama, the Iraq war, and national politics in general.

You are absolutely correct, the convicted got what they deserved and committed professional suicide.

They did what they did because it was so easy and profitable they thought they would never be caught.

The people who let them get away with it so long, by entering into settlements rather than take the cases to trial, can also share a part of the blame.

Absolutely tons of money that are normally the result of disasters corrupt those who can get it, absolutely whether lawyers, insurance adjusters, public insurance adjusters, contractors, or any one else who can take advantage of those who are suffering.

If Scruggs obtained exactly what the insured homeowners were entitled to under their policies and took out his fee they still did not have enough to rebuild.

David, I don't believe Ignatius was talking about the legal system. He was talking about the system "in which the money just got too big." You seem to have a lot of personal anger invested in all of this. I wonder why. After having read the Motion for reconsideration on Judge Senter's Order and Memo in Support I don't understand why you think they have been "quaffing some abundantly spiked Scruggsian Kool-Aid." They weren't allowed a hearing on the matter and they were not in a joint venture with SKG or KLG regarding the policyholder lawsuits. In fact, they weren't involved in a joint venture with Scruggs regarding the qui tam. He just filed the original complaint and that was that. They didn't have any more responsibility to ratify or not ratify what SKG or KLG were doing at all, so I don't understand what your gripe is all about. By the time they became aware of the details they had an order from the court denying the motion to disqualify and they had two expert opinions on the matter. The Fifth Circuit agreed.

It seems to this untrained legal eye that many, including Judge Senter, have been so shocked by Scruggs' actions that they have overlooked fundamental legal principles. Some have gone on "witch hunts" and as one commenter posted "anyone that can spell D I C K I E is considered quilty of something. I am sure that many in legal circles are embarrassed by the fact that they accepted and lauded D I C K I E and had him prove them so wrong. Keep a level head, though, judicial system.

Destroyed Scruggs? Scruggs ain't destroyed. He'll spend a few years in the penitentiary with at least FIFTY MILLION socked away for when he gets out,
spend a few years without a license, apply to the Mississippi Bar for another one and, in a few more years, get a new one. In the interim, he may take up TV or tent revival preaching and write a book or two. The King of Torts will not be destoyed by this, but a lot of his pawns will, and it will be interesting to see how much support he provides them after he's out.

Quote: "It seems to this untrained legal eye that many, including Judge Senter, have been so shocked by Scruggs' actions that they have overlooked fundamental legal principles."

I thought that bribing witnesses was against "fundamental legal principles".

I really don't understand why many in MS continue defending Dickie. Do you really think he has made anything better for any of the policyholders? He might have settled a few cases, but he has also, by cheating and stealing documents, put a question mark over every claim made by an insured. He's caused delays and vast confusion. He's created such a hostile environment that the insureds are screaming for blood and the insurance companies are forced to defend against ridiculous demands. He's abused the court system, which could once be trusted to act as a neutral decisionmaker. Now nobody trusts it. Could someone please tell me why you all believe he's still the white knight come to rescue homeowners (at 40% commission, that is)?

Belle, what makes SF, Rossmiller, and all of us different than Chip N Todd is that Chip N Todd cooperated with Scruggs, were co-counsel with Scruggs, and co-represented the Rigsbys with Scruggs.

Here are quotes straight from the Judge:

The current attorneys were not part of the SKG joint venture… (but were part of a ) cooperative effort equivalent to a joint venture under Mississippi

When the current attorneys learned of the financial arrangement among
Scruggs, their co-counsel in this case, and the Rigsby sisters, their clients, they took no action.

While the current attorneys assert that they affirmatively disavowed any participation in any payments to the Relators in fact they continued to represent the Rigsby sisters with Scruggs acting as their co-counsel. I do not consider this to be a repudiation or disavowal.

Belle, your response?

Claimsguy, you seem to pick out one statement and ignore the rest of the post. Bribing witness is against fundamental legal principles but I question why it was not bribing before Scruggs' indictment and then became bribery after the indictment. Why was it not bribery in the tobacco litigation when Scruggs bought whistleblowere houses and boats? I think to disqualify the attorneys in McIntosh because they "should have known" when Judge Senter himself ruled differently in his first opinion is wrong.

INTERESTED: "...Why was it not bribery in the tobacco litigation when Scruggs bought whistleblowere[sic] houses and boats?" Good question. Wrong facts.

Otherwise, imagine the relative notions AS fact, and there IS an interesting observation to be drawn from the tobacco litigation history.

First, the notion as proposed above exists in a a wild sequence of timed events following a sort of "shock and awe" with blitzkreig maneuvers conducted by Mike Moore and the Scruggs vangard of Mississippi Assistant Attorneys Generals. Real lawman appointees.

While the "documents" might well be considered "stolen" by the law and the lawyers, they eventually end up in Congress.

As far as I know, Moore and Scruggs aren't named as "document thieves", but there's substative evidence to draw that conclusion.

Those events, solely the acts of lawyers and multifarious medical authorities in various jurisdictions [UCSF, Stanton Arnold Glantz, "B&W Documents",for example] were factually both in and outside of the radar from the time of "possession" by Congressman Henry Waxman (D.Rep.CA.), circa May, 4, 1994 through November, 1994. Also, massive national press coverage subdued a more likely "hot pursuit" by tobacco lawyers and their P.I.'s.

The Moore/Scruggs directed act intended to disclose "fraud". It was both diverse and complex - so much so as to disguise any pretense of unlawful or unethical posession of [evidence].

When Congress held the "goods", it was Constitutionally argumentative that such production is "public", or "protected", and "immunity" kicks in; as memory serves, the D.C.Court did uphold some theories favorable to Waxman's authority.

Further, when Rep. Waxman held hearings based on his legal possession of potential "fraud/exception to privilege" documents in early June, 1994, he included thousands and thousands of additional "documents" based on the original holdings.

In a Congressional Hearing, it was difficult to assert evil doing by a Congressman when the "Plaintiff/tobacco" was hiding from the heat of big-time fraud.

At the same time, UCSF began collecting documents "delivered" by Don Barrett and Dickie Scruggs (as Mr. Butts) and presumably retaining copies for the "Butler" non-smoker wrongful death lawsuit.

And all of this, while directed by Moore and Scruggs, was protected by the CA law and protected by the CA Supreme Court's decision - frustrating efforts to hold lawyers and non-lawyers accountable for alleged illicit "stolen documents" in Maddox et al vs Unknown Defendant, Jefferson County Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky, September 29, 1993.

So, if the issues in INTERESTED were a bit more shiney, the broader scope of what is or isn't "fact" is probably more in the context of a slippery slope in terms of what Moore/Scruggs "took" prior to handing stuff over to Congressman Waxman.

Actually, the theory of Rigsby "theft" becomes less and less attractive by comparison to the tobacco litigation.

"...boats, houses," might just as well be slander claim for Scruggs or Moore, but it's certainly not a very astute observation for "bribes".

As far as I am aware, there's absolutely no fact or evidence in the tobacco litigation concerning bribes, and no tobacco lawyer presented evidence that made that point in any Court. No one, including Scruggs and Moore, was accused of bribery. "Theft" is good.

Belle, I understand what you're driving at but Scruggs helped invent the current system. However, it didn't destroy him, he destroyed himself. He chose to do what he did, no one forced him to. He is not a victim, he is a crook, a liar and he put his own self-interest ahead of the interests of his clients, the only ones who can even claim to be victims.

Witness bribing was always wrong. For years Scruggs had the political juice to keep people from calling him on it. He no longer does, and he and his ilk now have to play by the same rules as the rest of us mortals.

Hiding behind Senter's first, misguided opinion is wrong, too. The guy made a mistake and then fixed it. But his mistake was nevber a "get out of jail free" card for anyone else. No principle of law I am familiar with can get you there.

A Lawyer friend in Mobile always say "Get it down where the goats can get it!!" All of this is just plain old garden variety greed and ego -- Simple. It destroys everything in its path when it takes over. That's what happened to Dickie Scruggs and others- simple - and that's down there were the goats can get it.