Insurance Coverage Blog

I've been reading some of the excerpts from the treasure trove of letters asking the Court for leniency in the Scruggs sentencing tomorrow.  And after reading them, I've had a change of heart.  You know what I say?  He's suffered enough, just let him go! I mean, lighten up a little here, let's not get all harsh, let's not go all Torquemada on the dude!  Just kidding.  And now back to reality.

Here's a link to the Sun Herald story with the excerpts -- you remember it was the Sun Herald who did the quick thinking and filed a motion with Judge Biggers asking to see the letters in the public interest. 

My overall impression: about what I expected.   Scruggs has done a lot of good things for certain people, I'm sure, although I don't find that very relevant to what is going on with his sentencing.  As with most folks with a lot of dough or power, it's not hard to find any number of people to swear what a great guy he is.  It's funny how that works.  When I started practicing law, one of the partners at the firm I was with told me how becoming a partner was a real self-improvement for him: he got more attractive, his jokes were funnier, he became wiser -- and the strange thing is that the longer he was a partner the more true this was!  He said he hated to go home sometimes, because for some strange reason they were out of step there and never laughed at his jokes and they never were amazed at his wisdom. A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, I guess. 

About leniency for Scruggs, I would say this -- a five-year maximum sentence already seems pretty lenient, considering he participated in a scheme to bribe a judge, and that he is a lawyer.  You know, the cost of monitoring everybody is just too high, to a great degree the legal system or any system doesn't work unless people behave themselves, unless they are willing to accept that the system is more important than their individual needs or desires. Engaging in corruption of the legal system, the same system you use as a backdrop for your claims of great beneficence and altruism, isn't really excused by scattering checks along the way like a trail of bread crumbs for the birds to follow on the way to your sentencing.

I see that a number of people cited Scruggs' tobacco litigation as a reason to take it easy on him -- as if firmly entrenching a rent-seeking cigarette cartel that is impervious to competition or destruction as long as it pays its annual tax to attorneys general and plaintiffs' lawyers is some noble accomplishment.   There were some touching stories, such as the one about Scruggs paying funeral expenses.  Again, almost everyone has their good side, but Scruggs isn't being sentenced for the crime of being a monster, he's being sentenced for bribery.  Merely because he has done good for some doesn't mean the bribery or the danger that poses to the legal system goes away. 

As a Shakespeare fan, I took special interest in this excerpt from one of the letters: 

"Recall William Shakespeare's famous words in the play Julius Caesar: 'The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.' Nevertheless, Dick's failing does not change all the good he had done and the enormous credit he deserves for changing so many people's lives for the better."

Interesting.  This is taken from Mark Antony's funeral oration, of course, and Antony, although he said he came to bury Caesar, not to praise him, intended to do exactly the opposite of what he said.  The implication of the line is that the conspirators who killed Caesar buried a lot of good with him, and what's more, that this "evil that men do" may be the assassination of Caesar itself, not Caesar's illegal usurpation of power.  Is this line apropos in these circumstances?  Scruggs, at the max, only goes away for five years, and he's unlikely to be flogged daily and fed on thin gruel and weevil-infested bread.  And after he gets out, he still has all that dough to keep on doing all that good to make sure it isn't interred with his bones.  Also, there was no conspiracy to get Scruggs here -- he Scruggsed himself.  If ever one has gotten enormous credit for "changing so many people's lives for the better," it is Scruggs, the master of media manipulation.  It's not about whether Scruggs is an angel or a Hitler -- it's just about paying the piper.    

Even mafia bosses look like kind benefactors in the sunlight. It's when they get in private that the dirty stuff starts. Seems to me that Dickie's most notable accomplishments were throwing money at people or things. Pretty easy to do when you are sitting on a pile of money (he did need some tax breaks). I'd be more impressed if he actually donated his time to some community organization.

My question is whether this sea of letters actually PROVES what Scruggs is accused of doing, which is using his power and money to influence the legal system that he has admitted to conspiring to corrupt? Why in the world would Judge Biggers listen to this garbage from the very people who have benefitted from the crime (and alleged crimes) that Scruggs has pled guilty to committing and been further accused of by admitted felons? I am just at a loss here to think why Scruggs--or better yet his attorneys-- would think this campaign would benefit him in any way.

Question: If Judge Biggers said, "Dickie I'm going to give you five years or you can forfeit that FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS you still have socked away, that you got by doing what you got caught at here," what do you think Dickie's answer would be? I think he's say, like several of my clients have said over much less socked away, "What's a few years at Club Fed compared to keeping my stockpile when I get out?" What a country! What a crime! What gall!

David,

You hit the nail on the head. I count myself as a friend of Dickie Scruggs, yes I was asked to write a letter, yes I tried to do so, but in the end I couldn't. Ultimately everything I tried to say just didn't seem to be of any help and I thought it would hurt more. As I have read what others (including many friends) have written, I also think what they have said will hurt more than help in the end. I didn't write a letter not because I didn't want to help Dickie, I really thought my letter would hurt him. Dickie has done what ultimately is one of the worst things a lawyer could do -- and he did it not just to himself but to our profession. I think somewhere along the way he lost what the practice of law is really about. Its not about the money or the prestige, its about helping people. Yes, I and others make a good living doing it, but along the way I am proud of the people we help. Many, many people without receiving a dime. Unfortunately, while Dickie also helped many people, he forgot it was not about the "money" and that's what has led to his downfall, I am afraid. Tomorrow I will not celebrate (like some others seem to do). I will grieve for Dickie, Sid and Zach, their families and more importantly for our profession, which despite these aberrations is still very honorable and worthwhile in my opinion. I am sadden by it all, but we will hold our heads high and continue to do it the right way. Thanks for all your efforts and analysis I have truly enjoyed your blog.

Notice how the word "prominent" is thrown around for Scruggs and his co-horts, even those who wrote the now-public letters on his behalf?

Check out (near the bottom of the page): http://www.funwithcelebrity.com/?cat=5

I sincerely hope that I am never described as "prominent."

The pompous sounding letters from Chancellor Robert Khayat and others may very well get Mr. Dick Scruggs more time than less. Judge Biggers is a serious minded man. He can see this whole picture very clearly.

Tim, you have written an eloquent comment which I wish Judge Biggers could read. Neither will I celebrate at the sentencing today, except for the profession. I also will grieve, not for Dickie, because I think he became twisted and self-serving while proclaiming otherwise, but I'll grieve for Zach because of his youth and his being misled by his father, and I'll grieve especially for Sid and his family.

He got the max of five years plus fine. According to NMC at folo, Judge Biggers used Khayat's suggestion that incarceration "would be a waste of taxpayers money" in coming up with a hefty fine.

Mr Scruggs got caught attempting to influence a judge no doubt and should recieve the maximum sentence for his actions. But I am appauled at the lawyers that worm their way out of the woodwork at a time like this to trash a colleague knowing full well that the problem here is not the colleague but the system itself; and that they themselves are the ones responsible for the ultimate crime because no matter what happens they won't fix it.
Who is responsable for allowing attorneys to contribute money to judges election coffures, a large percentage of which likely winds up in his personal accounts? And how is an average attorney with his average income going to fight injustice against a mega conglomerate like State Farm who has all the money in the world to influence judges. An investigation of judges' personal incomes will reveal how many really resist influence, very few I predict. Mr Scruggs is no worse than the rest of you, he just got caught and I disagree that he wasn't set up. Instead of blathering about what a terrible person he is, do what you should do--fix the system.

MSMS, what you wrote is just trying to justify a most heinous crime committed by Scruggs. No one forced him to do what he did, which had nothing to do with trying a case, reaching a settlement for clients, etc. What he tried to do was bribe a Federal Judge to rule in his favor. He was not set-up, as he claimed at first and even said the tapes of the conversations would show he was set up, but instead apparently initiated the chain of events that led to his downfall. After he and his lawyers listened to the tapes he decided to reach a plea agreement with the Feds. That alone tells me he was not set up, as you claim he was, but was indeed guilty. If the tapes would have, as he at first claimed, cleared him then he would not have pled guilty.

By the way, he is worse than most lawyers since most lawyers, even State Farm's, have not even attempted to bribe a Federal Judge, or any judge, for that matter. You can blame the system all you want but the bottom line is Scruggs brought it on himself. He was not acting under duress nor was he in any way forced to do what he did. Also, Scruggs was the equivalent of a Mega Company himself, so that arguement is just plain wrong.

XERAC,we can argue all day about whether Mr Scruggs was setup or not--when I listen to the tapes I see enticement,pursuit and a setup and I believe it will be vindicated one day.
You, my friend,are naive if you think lawyers and "even" State Farm and their lawyers do not bribe judges. I believe such clandestine activites have been going on in this whole affair involving Katrina, and I'm not refering to Mr Scruggs. Who benefited the most from Mr Scruggs' conviction--State Farm of course. This company has been convicted of fraud and other charges in courts on
many occdasions in the past and they just pay their way out of it. If you or I committed fraud like these people have done we would be in prison for it. And they have done it again--they have committed gross fraud on the federal governmemt and upon the suffering people of Mississippi. The proof is there, in the documents that the whistleblowers obtained, but now that Mr Scruggs is "out of the way" I fear that justice may never prevail over this ruthless corrupt company----again! So, no I don't celebrate Mr. Scruggs' conviction as so many others do--we have lost our advocate, the captain of our ship and we are now sinking in a sea of injustice... You still didn't address my issue about the system. Do you not feel that lawyers contributing money to judges is a conflict of interest--or what about a mega insurance companys contributing money to state insurance commissioners? Do you honestly feel these people are not influenced?

MSMS,

So from your post I would think you had actually read the stolen documents. Is that correct? If not, then how do you know they prove SF is guilty? That's right, the big guy with the deep pockets is always wrong. If SF did wrong, they should be punished, but that has yet to be seen.

Also, please don't try the tired argument that a settlement by SF shows their guilt. Sometimes it is best to simply cut your losses and run.

MSMS, you make claims without proof. You say bribing goes on all the time but such a claim is without any proof. You say State Farm has been find guilty of fraud in the past but that doesn't mean fraud in Katrina nor is there even a pattern of fraudulent behavior. You say the stolen documents prove State Farm's guilt but you have not even seen the documents so you again make an unfounded allegation. You call State Farm a ruthless corrupt company without any proof. You say you've listened to the tapes and you say they prove Scruggs was setup and prove he was not guilty (that is what you implied). So if that is the case then why did Scruggs plead guilty?

Bottom line, you make a bunch of unfounded allegations and accusations.

MSMS, here is an additional thought. Scruggs is guilty of what you accuse the insurance companies of. He contributed 6 figures to Jim Hood's campaigns, essentially "buying" the State AG. He also spent thousands defesating the State Insurance Commissioner to try and install his own person. He succeeded in the primary but failed in the general election. So by your standard Scruggs is as guilty of corruption as the Insurance Companies your rant against but rant against without proof.

Anyone care to guess the identity of MSMS's insurance carrier? I would love to find yet another person on this blog who whales away at State Farm but then has to sheepishly admit that is their insurer.