Insurance Coverage Blog

This recent Anita Lee story in the Sun Herald tells how hundreds of former clients of the disqualified Katrina(less) Litigation Group have migrated, at the suggestion of KLG lawyer Don Barrett, to the Texas tobacco litigation firm Umphrey-Provost.  You can see the Barrett letter to clients at this post I wrote earlier.  Some other former clients, as I mentioned recently, chose not to get new lawyers but instead to settle their claims.

Now, let's look at what is happening with Ex rel. Rigsby, also called the False Claims Act case, also called the Qui Tam, but which I like to call, simply, the Trailer Lawyer case.  Late last week State Farm (or in the lexicon of suspected Trailer Lawyer Chip Robertson, "Snake Farm") filed a rebuttal to the latest Trailer Lawyer filings.

These filings include a brief calling State Farm's attempt to disqualify the Trailer Lawyers the last desperate act of a desperate company (actually, it sounds more like the first act of the Katrina Follies, the musical I am writing: "If this trailer's rockin', don't come a-knockin', Trailer Lawyers are busy inside, tappin' on the keyboard with the Rigsby Sisters, surfin' through the claims files till their fingers blister").   These filings also included another brief that avoided the use of the word "trailer" like it was a gift basket of pit vipers ("Sir? Special delivery from Snake Farm. Sign please").  See this prior post for more information. 

State Farm's rebuttal brief contains these paragraphs, which seems a good excerpt to kind of sum up their position (boring legal citations omitted, and some explanatory information inserted):

The Rigsbys’ [Trailer Lawyers'] response and opposition briefs confirm even more clearly why all of their counsel must be disqualified. Counsel admit that they knew of the payments to the Rigsbys soon after they began, “either in late Summer or early Fall of 2006” and knew that any payment to the Rigsbys was improper on multiple levels and violated the ethical rules. Yet, for the next year and a half Counsel made no effort to stop these payments or to disassociate themselves from Richard F. Scruggs (“Scruggs”), his law firm, or the Rigsbys. As in McIntosh v. State Farm [the case where the KLG was first disqualified by Judge Senter], Counsel’s “failure to take timely and reasonable remedial steps or to object to this arrangement amounts to a ratification of Scruggs’s actions” and warrants disqualification.

. . .

In McIntosh, this Court disqualified the remaining SKG lawyers because they were in a joint venture with Scruggs and knew or should have known about his unethical conduct, but did
nothing to stop it. In this case, all Counsel were similarly in a joint venture with Scruggs, admittedly knew of his unethical conduct, and did nothing to stop it.

Further, Counsel’s ties to the SKG are much more significant than they disclose. Chip
Robertson has in fact not only entered an appearance and served as co-counsel with Scruggs and the SKG in the appeal of Tuepker v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., he actually argued the appeal before the Fifth Circuit. Similarly, BFRG [Robertson's firm] served as co-counsel with Scruggs and the SKG on behalf of the McIntoshes in In re State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. This representation is especially significant, as it pertained to State Farm’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from this Court’s denial of State Farm’s first disqualification motion. BFRG also served as co-counsel in Cori Rigsby & Kerri Rigsby v. Gene Renfroe & Jana Renfroe. 

Here's a copy of the State Farm brief, which includes a number of exhibits, 168 pages or so in all, that I've provided here as well.     

Good stuff David.

Seems I saw another disqualification notice stating Congressman Taylor became aware of privileged information before the seal was lifted? If so, it is almost certain Senator Lott became aware of same. On a different note and I hate to digress, but Taylor and Lott have made righteous indignations regarding the ripping off of the NFIP by shifting potential wind payments to flood...surely they returned their $350,000 flood payments? Especially considering they settled out-of-court with Snake Farm and probably made a profit on their claims?

David - doesn't the paying of hundreds of thousands of dollars to a fact witness seem to run afoul of 18 U.S.C. 1503 (an obtuse statute that has as one of its many subsections (actually just phrases) the corrupt endeavor to influence the due administration of justice)?

That letter from Don Barrett to clients on behalf of the SKG or KLG (or whatever it was by then) is just slimy. "This is a wonderful development for you," it says. Am I seeing things, or, between the lines of that letter, does it really say "This will be a semi-wonderful development for those of us in the SKG/KLG/HeeBeeGeeBees, but only if you, Dear Client, actually go with the new firm we're recommending, since we'll be getting a decent referral fee if you do" -- ?

And how about that Chip Robertson, having no affiliation whatsoever with the SKG, except of course for all those affiliations he forgot about, which State Farm annoyingly brings up in its brief? Of COURSE Robertson and the rest of 'em said nothing to Skruggs when he was paying his key witnesses. What, and risk Skruggs' wrath? Dickie was the Golden Child, able to leap tall buildings -- and bring deep pocket defendants to their knees -- in a single bound. The present-day scattering of those who formerly jockeyed for position just to stand in Dickie's glow, reminds me of outings to the beach with my 4-year-old twins: they get as close to the edge of the water as possible because that's the fun place to be, but once the scary waves rush to shore and threaten to swallow them up, they can't run fast enough to get away.

When did Snake Farm know about the payments to the Ribsby's? When did they protest? Was it after the settlement which they wanted as badly as the plaintiffs'attorneys?

The Missouri lawyers didn't pay the Rigsbys. The Scruggs lawyers did for policyholder claims. The Missouri lawyers didn't know anything more about the SKG or KLG paying the Rigsbys than you or I or State Farm and yes, JSmith even they didn't do anything about it until April of this year!

I believe Judge Senter, in his first ruling, stated that State Farm had waited too long to bring the question of paying the Ribsbys to the court. I ask all the people that post here to think back to when they knew of the payments and why they are shocked now.

Didn't Scruggs pay the witnesses in the tobacco cases? Did all the attorney generals get DQ b/c they knew about the payments?

No one is shocked about the payments. It doesn't matter when State Farm learned of the payments. The point is that lawyers, officers of the court, upholders of justice, were paying off witnesses. Who knows why State Farm waited until they did to push this point? Maybe they thought no one would listen while Dickie was the golden boy riding the PR wave. Perhaps they had to take a few depositions so they could gather proof to present to the court. Who would have listened while Dickie was riding high and State Farm had no proof whatsoever? Now they have proof and people are listening. Can you hear it? Buh Bye Trailer Lawyers!

I ask all the people that post here to think back to when they knew of the payments and why they are shocked now.-----

I learned way after, like this year, and I was shocked.

Tom, I leave possible violations of the law to those with much greater expertise in criminal law, such as yourself, although just as a casual observation, paying material witnesses has many ethical implications, especially when they formerly worked for your litigation opponent and took documents illictly from that opponent. Hard to believe, in my opinion, that it went on as long as it did.

Jsmith:

Do you think we shouldn't be shocked? Do you think that we should be blase about the way Scruggs and his accomplices attempted to corrupt the process?

Is that OK with you?

Or is it just a timing problem to you? Do you think that we should have a finite window within which to be shocked, and if nothing happens in that time, it is thereafter OK?

For what it is worth, I wasn't shocked when the Rigsby story broke. It had been my working assumption that Scruggs was an unethical crook, so I wasn't at all surprised that he proved me right. But that doesn't make the conduct OK, and it doesn't excuse the other lawyers who chose to become his co-conspirators.

Or do you think otherwise?

The Missouri lawyers were no more responsible for paying the Rigsbys than State Farm. They found out about it when everyone else did -- in the news reports. Does that mean every lawyer in the nation should have called up and done something about it? State Farm knew and they didn't do anything. Why did they continue to allow it? They are just as responsible for knowing about it and not doing anything if every other freaking lawyer that wants to oppose them is supposed to be responsible for not saying anything.

Belle, please, the correct nomenclature is Trailer Lawyers. Also, Missouri IS the Show Me the Money State.

Let us not forget Dickie was paying the twisted sisters for "consulting work." Once Judge Senter read their depositions and realized the sisters were being paid $150,000 a year to work less than 4 hours per week, he realized (and stated) the "consulting work" guise was a sham.

Yes, that is good work if you can get it. I applied, hoping to reduce my weekly hours by some 75 to 80, but regrettably Scruggs was not interested.

Didn't State Farm:

1> uncover the Rigsby corruption, and
2> file various motions to address the problem?

Did they have some other remedy available to them that they failed to use?

I say just disqualify State Farm from all Katrina related lawsuits and be done with it.

"... the sisters were being paid $150,000 a year to work less than 4 hours per week, ..."

Thanks, Dickie Scruggs, for ruining my chance for a big payday with you. I would've turned whistleblower for you on whatever you wanted if I could have been paid $750 per hour by you.

"Belle, please, the correct nomenclature is Trailer Lawyers. Also, Missouri IS the Show Me the Money State."

Now, mind you, I was born and raised in Missouri and it is a great state to be from. However, what can one say for a state that loves its dead politicians. It is the state that not only elected a dead guy to be a U.S. Senator but my sister came within 33 votes of being re-elected to a local school board the day after she died.

xerac---what a hoot. Dont feel alone--small select counties in Mississippi have dead people actually casting a vote.

Disqualify Snake Farm from all Katrina litigation? I'm sure they would jump at the chance. Maybe Allsnakes would take the cases.

MORECOWBOY HELP: In your statement you're asking if the "tobacco" witnesses were paid, or it seems you're drawing an anology to what was in the "tobacco" era circa 1994-1998. That is the Medicaid Lawsuits and the MasterSettlement Agreement, first filed as a lawsuit by Mike Moore in May, 1994, with Scruggs' Mississippi "vangard" AG Assistants.

I think the drill has to be sharpened a bit for you, since you've often rehatched the scenes of the tobacco issue with the Rigsby "witnesses". So here it is.

You're right to make that analogy. However, you need to study the actual "Master Settlement" history in order to write about "witnesses". Why do you want to do this? First, the initial "lawsuits" were designed as "amorphous Plaintiff" vs big tobacco,as in Mississippi Ex Rel [Moore's filing], followed by Laughton Chiles' nearly identical lawsuit, followed by Umphrey, et.al., lead Plaintiff lawyer in the Texas lawsuit.

These were the only lawsuits in the "tobacco" litigation. [There is one exception, which was Chip Humphrey's Minnessota lawsuit, designed as a totally legal document-driven case. And because the legal team, {headed by the Cerisi firm) wanted nothing to do with the Mike Moore people, the Humphrey's lawsuit was intent on having witnesses, calling them, and actually had a post-settlement "trial". Here you can follow that "witnesses" were intended in the only three lawsuits, as intended to be complete in discovery, etc., with rules in Equity Court in Mississippi, and in District Courts in Florida and Texas.

Since I am familiar with the witness list(s), mostly in Mississippi, and know that in some of the line-up's, the purpose on both sides, was to "catch" wrong-doing or at least to invoke some kind of plan - impeachment, e.g., but you really have to discuss the concept and design of the witness prospects as a non-starter.

By 1996, the tobacco cartel [you may use RICO cartel because of the ruling by the D.C. Judge who ruled against big tobacco, but last known, it was feckless, and may still be winding through appeals] was set on protection from lawsuits, and with Bennett LeBowe's push, the well-known protection for tobacco companies was a done deal.

Most people assume that the tobacco industry in English-speaking countries actually went off the deep-end and cried about having to pay off States and lawyers, but the truth was just the opposite. Think twice. You're eating their tax write-off's.

As early as 1984, the Products Liability in-house and out-house firm lawyers were seeking government [either in Federal or State] protection from higher, more frequent taxes, as well as continuing bounces in the French, German, UK, CAD, and AUD stock markets. Relief was a long term plan. The three [four, op.cit.] lawsuits that were filed for Court, not as piggy-backers, which the rest of the States are known as - just as add-on's to the big complete format of tobacco protection, weren't settled in to "witnesses" in the Medicaid Settlement.

The Settlement, as it was known, was in Congress in 1997, in the Senate in 1998, and Trent Lott shut the process down in 1998, and let Christine Gregoire (Dem. Gov. WA State) finsish the process.

It's a shame that there weren't actually ANY witnesses in the Mississippi case. Dr. Martin Cline, for example, of UCLA, was a "paid" witness once called by Florida as a witness - and if you knew that he had been paid by tobacco's Shook, Hardy, Bacon, for years and for millions, he could be your kind of witness, just as well as the "Rigsby" witness issue seems prone to manifest a sort of taint. Truth is, Mr.Cowbell, there's very little value with the comparison of Moore's lawsuit, the years of "settlement" and "paid witnesses".

Tobacco had finely tuned it's witness program and that was called Special Projects - probably inadmissable "pay-off" because of lawyer-client privilege.

The present history gives some insight into the mindset of how different it is to have a legal beef for getting money from an inherently dangerous product which, when used as intended, will kill you, and an act of God unexpected by insurance companies, intent on clauses to defend themselves against what was "fraud", an exception to privilege, so blantly obvious in the tobacco company profile, - subjectivity aside, a witness to fraud is making a judgement, and it should be a matter of public knowledge, and I think Scruggs' Rigsby's wasn't nearly as good of a show as his monumental project in tobacco. I do think it's really over-reaching to pound the Rigsby's for being part of the prey where, even in the least diabolical set of circumstances, the lawyer is directing the moral, ethical, and preception of lives under the ruthless challenges of simplicity (as in you stole my marbles), and just about as sensitive, everything that touches the legal hand gets dirty so blame falls on the laps of the very least culpable. And by that I think seduction is the most proper way of grasping the analogy. Lawyering has a way of getting clean hands by knowing where the toilet is; the victims of lawyers are great scape goats.

BS states - "The Missouri lawyers were no more responsible for paying the Rigsbys than State Farm. They found out about it when everyone else did -- in the news reports."

So, when Robertson states that he learned of the payments in late Summer or early Fall of 2006, you regard that as the same time that everyone else learned of them via news reports?