For more on the new book, Circle of Greed, chronicling the exploits of uber-trial lawyer Bill Lerach, check out Kim Strassel’s review from yesterday’s WSJ.

Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Lawsuit Abuse, Trial Lawyers | No Comments »

The New York Times Deal Blog has a good, extensive review of a brand new book that describes the rise and fall of trial lawyer titan, Bill Lerach.  The book’s title: Circle of Greed.

An excerpt from the review describing how Lerach began his rise to fame:

“’…Mr. Dillon and Mr. Cannon trace how…Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, began paying secret fees to people who agreed to serve as the representative plaintiff in their cases. In those days, securities class actions were a race to the courthouse, with the first to file often controlling the litigation. Called ‘pets,’ these plaintiffs were lapdogs willing to serve Milberg Weiss while taking a cut of any settlement in the case, while telling the court that they had received nothing more than what any other class member got from the case.’”

And how his tremendous fall began:

“[F]ederal prosecutors in Los Angeles in late 1999 began the painstaking task of putting together a criminal case against the firm and four of its name partners for making secret payments to plaintiffs and an expert witness. The criminal case began almost by accident when one of the “pet” plaintiffs, trying to avoid a substantial prison term, spilled what he knew about Milberg Weiss. Over the next nine years, prosecutors painstakingly pulled together a case that resulted in the conviction of four of the named partners in Milberg Weiss and the firm itself.”

Unfortunately the reviewer, Peter Henning, misses the point of what Bill Lerach represented when he writes:

“But was his crime all that significant? In one sense, the answer is ‘No’ because it is hard to identify any real victims from making the secret payments. But the answer is ‘Yes’ because Mr. Lerach showed an utter disregard for the legal system, and any defense of the Milberg Weiss payments devolves into an argument that ‘the end justifies the means.’”

Yes, Lerach represents unchecked arrogance and the utter disregard for our legal system. But his crimes were far from “victimless.” 

Those of us who have been fighting in the trenches for many years against unscrupulous trial lawyers know all too well that Bill Lerach stood as the singular example of jackpot justice and trial lawyer greed.  The abusive actions of Lerach and dozens of others like him have cost every one of us very dearly.  Many American Courthouse readers know the stats well - but here’s just one: according to the 2008 Towers Perrin study on US tort costs, every man, woman and child in the U.S. pays a “lawsuit tax” of $835 per year. That’s more than $3300 a year for a family of four.  We pay this tax through higher prices for products and services due to the ever-increasing costs of litigation…all brought to you by the likes of sleazy Bill Lerach.

Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Lawsuit Abuse, Tort Reform, Trial Lawyers | 1 Comment »

Legal Newsline has a piece tracing the trial bar’s largesse to the Senate’s second  highest ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin.  Although he isn’t up for re-election until 2014, Durbin has already raked in more than $86,000 from asbestos litigation mill Simmons Cooper, making the firm his #1 funder.  All told, lawyers and law firms have funneled more than $2.4 million into Durbin’s war chest, according to the invaluable folks at opensecrets.org.  That’s more than triple the donations of any other industry. 

So what is the trial bar buying?  According to Jim Copland, who runs the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy:

“He is the majority whip of the Senate so he can basically prevent any sort of legal reform ideas that are adverse to the plaintiffs’ bar from getting through the Senate.  Similarly, he can help to drive legislation through the Senate to expand litigation, to expand liability.” 

We already know the trial bar successfully kept medical liability reform out of bills to overhaul the health care system.  As Copeland noted last week in the Wall Street Journal, in the last election cycle, lawyers donated about $25 million more than all the doctors, pharmaceutical companies, HMOs, hospitals and nursing homes combined.

Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Trial Lawyers | No Comments »

Better Courts for Missouri scored a victory last week when a state court invalidated a challenge to their proposed ballot initiative.  The initiative would change the way the state chooses most of its judges - currently via “merit” selection (aka the “Missouri Plan”) - in favor of direct elections.  Better Courts for Missouri will now begin collecting signatures in hopes of qualifying for the November 2010 ballot.

Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Judicial Elections, Missouri | No Comments »

In a November post, I asked whether the fix was in on California Governor Jerry Brown’s investigation into ACORN, after an ACORN official was caught on tape referring to Brown as a “political animal” whose office had given ACORN brass indications the group had little to fear from an AG investigation. 

 Well, Derrick Roach has given us a partial answer in a special report on Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com.  According to Roach, instead of conducting a real investigation, Governor Brown has “crumpled like an aluminum can cowardly hiding behind state bureaucrats and a wall of state agencies.”  Among the highlights:

“In the wake of Jerry Brown alerting ACORN to an investigation that was to be conducted by his office, ACORN’s actions of dumping records into a dumpster in what appeared to be possible obstruction of justice, statements from ACORN officials that some interpret as possible collusion between ACORN and the Attorney General’s office and a referral of an investigation to another state agency in what appears to be an abdication of responsibility and the equivalent of a political passing-of-the-buck now comes new allegations that ACORN did in fact violate multiple California state and federal laws.

“It is astoundingly amazing that with video evidence obtained by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, documents that show an undisputed pattern of political activism by a “non-profit” organization, millions of dollars that have been unaccounted for and a congressional investigation that has documented a pattern of criminal activity that has deprived the State of California from desperately needed tax revenues; that California Attorney General Jerry Brown has yet to show any real sign of leadership or fortitude necessary to protect the citizens of California or seriously investigate ACORN.”

Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: ACORN | No Comments »

The “merit” selection campaign is run by sophisticated political operatives, whose public messages are likely tested through polling and honed by focus groups.  That’s why they always claim “merit” selection is merely about bringing “fairness” and “impartiality” to our courts.  Who could be against that? 

But every now and then, someone blurts out the truth and gives the game away.  Today’s exhibit is a little item I stumbled onto from H. Lee Sarokin, a retired federal judge.  After some throat-clearing about how “unseemly” and “demeaning” it is for judges to have to campaign, Judge Sarokin gets down to business: 

“I do not mean to suggest that elected judges are necessarily unqualified or corrupt, but rather that merit selection is far superior to selection by election, since the voting public does not have the slightest idea which candidates are qualified or what are the qualifications for a good judge.”  [my emphasis]

Most “merit” selection proponents understandably shy away from such blunt “voters are dunces” arguments.  They know that asking citizens to strip themselves of their right to vote for their public servants on the bench is a pretty steep hill to climb, so they offer up meaningless fig leaf of retention elections so voters can labor under the illusion they’re still involved.  Judge Sarokin is having none of it:

“As I have said previously, there is a suggestion that elections should be retained because they make judges accountable to the people, but there should be no such accountability.”  [my emphasis]

Judge Sarokin proclaims that judges are only “accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law” – and I’ve heard other “merit” selection lobbyists make similar comments.  This sounds so noble and high-minded that I’m embarrassed to confess I don’t have the slightest idea what it means.

I’ve seen the Constitution at the National Archives in Washington, DC.  There is truly something awe-inspiring about seeing thousands of people quietly lining up every day to take just a quick glimpse at this faded parchment, then march solemnly on with a renewed appreciation for the genius of our Founders.    But by what mechanism can this miraculous document hold a judge “accountable?” 

Every top government official takes an oath to support the Constitution:  the president, House members, Senators, judges – and in states, the governor, legislature and judges.  They all swear a duty to uphold it, but someone has to determine whether they have fulfilled that responsibility.  In a democracy, that someone is the voters.  Saying judges should not be accountable to the people, but only to what their own conscience suggests the Constitution demands is the same as saying they are accountable to no one.

Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Judicial Elections | 2 Comments »

That great ultra-liberal windbag Bill Moyers slammed the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which that found that corporations have First Amendment rights to free speech and that Congress cannot use its power to muzzle speech it finds inconvenient during election time.  (I didn’t watch the Bill Moyers Journal broadcast on PBS myself, but Billionaires Against Elections - aka Justice at Stake - summarized the lowlights on Gavel Grab.) 

Moyers frets that the ruling “greatly expands corporate power over our politics” and “that corporate muscle just got a big hypodermic full of steroids.”  Between bouts of such bloviating, he enlisted legal scholar/analyst/pooh-bah Jeffrey Toobin, who said the answer to this decision was - you guessed it - “merit” selection:

“When you have bipartisan groups of people, screenings, or even governors alone picking judges, it almost invariably produces a better, fairer, more qualified, less partisan judiciary than when voters do it.”

Toobin offered no evidence to support this condemnation of democracy, or if he did, the folks who want to Grab the Gavel from the American people chose not to report it. 

The truth is, Citizens United will probably not alter corporate spending on campaigns all that dramatically.  Corporations have always been able to donate.  The only difference now is these donations can be used to expressly advocate for a particular candidate, rather than going right up to the edge with issue ads.  Any increase in corporate political spending is likely to be dwarfed by the trial bar and trade unions – two groups whose future prosperity is so dependent on their ability to pull the levers of government power. 

In any event, Moyers himself had no concrete proof of any vast corporate conspiracy, other than a mysterious reference to a “very rich oilman” who paid $300,000 “to get a moment of President Clinton’s ear.”  Did this fat cat get anything in return?  I guess we’ll have to wait until the next episode.

Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Citizens United, Judicial Elections, Justice at Stake | 1 Comment »

President Obama has said he’s willing to work with Republicans on “a comprehensive package to deal with” medical liability reform.  But according to news reports, the new package he unveiled yesterday contains not a peep about a reform that even the Congressional Budget Office estimates could cut health care costs by $54 billion.

Throughout the health care debate, the president has never been shy about trashing doctors he believes order up tonsillectomies so they can make more money.  He’s also put health insurers in his sights, proposing to put Washington in charge of setting insurance rates.  I guess crossing the powerful and generous trial bar ($781 billion in contributions to congressional Democrats since 1990, and yes, that’s billion with a “b”) is a bridge too far.

Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Medical Liability, Obama Administration | No Comments »

Congressman Darrell Issa is out with a blockbuster new report that lifts the rock on ACORN’s corrupt activities and its connection with the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU).  The report makes four key findings:

• “First, ACORN and SEIU’s illegal agreements, and the crimes committed in furtherance of these agreements, constitute a criminal conspiracy.”
• “Second, there is a pattern, signature or ‘trade secret’ of corruption common to all ACORN affiliates called ‘Muscle for the Money.’”
• “Third, ACORN, as a corporation, is responsible for thousands of fraudulent voter registrations throughout the United States.”
• “Fourth, ACORN contributed to the risky lending that led to the financial collapse.” 

The media has mostly ignored Issa’s report, but a summary can be read at Human Events.

Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: ACORN | 1 Comment »

“Merit” selection suffered a setback earlier this week – right in the backyard of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who has become the most high-profile lobbyist for this system which empowers legal special interest groups to select judges. 

Under a proposal passed by Arizona’s Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, voters could have the opportunity to scrap “merit” selection and replace it with a federal-type system where judges are appointed by the governor with confirmation by the Senate. 

Although Arizona’s “merit” commission is less top-heavy with lawyers than panels in other states, Senator Jack Harper suggested the system has been skewed toward keeping conservative judges off the bench:  “There’s no chance that this committee is ever going to be middle of the road.”

The system has also completely insulated Arizona’s top judges from public accountability.  Since “merit” selection was adopted in 1974, only two judges have lost their seats in retention elections. 

The proposal still has a long way to go before it reaches voters – and you can expect special interest groups led by Justice at Stake and Justice O’Connor to fight tooth and nail against it.  Still, it’s refreshing to see someone standing for the not-so-radical idea that judges – like every other public official – should be accountable to the people they serve.

Posted by Dan Pero in the categories: Arizona | No Comments »