folo

In Mississippi this morning, the big news is former state Attorney General Mike Moore’s Open Letter announcing that he’s backing away from the race to succeed Trent Lott in the U.S. Senate. As you see, initial reaction in this Clarion-Ledger thread is rather more favorable to the decision than to its maker and his writing style.

But in Scruggsiana this morning, the big news is a lawsuit filed on Wednesday against the firm of Scruggs Katrina’s Group major stakeholder, David Nutt. (That link is to the December 3 folo post “More Scruggs skinny, II,” which you might want to review now — and watch for Bill Jones.)

As reported by David Rossmiller, a former paralegal of Nutt & McAlister named Maria Brown is suing David Nutt and several others, both individually and as Nutt & McAlister the firm, for sexual harrassment, employment discrimination, breach of contract, wrongful termination, and some other claims.

Ms. Brown’s complaint (pdf) alleges not only horndawg behavior by men in the firm’s upper management (again, watch for Bill Jones) but that Nutt & McAlister knowingly kept electronic records of those State Farm claims documents (the Rigsby sisters’ haul) that Alabama federal judge William Acker ordered returned in a December 2006 preliminary injunction. When Dickie Scruggs failed to return his copies, recall, he drew that charge of criminal contempt-of-court that made him hire John Keker the first time.

Well, Maria Brown alleges that when she complained about their keeping rather than returning the records, name partner Mary (Meg) McAlister told her it was “okay” because these documents were “in the public domain” and “not part of the injunction” — and then they fired her for complaining about both sexual harassment and the “illegal activity … with regard to Judge Acker’s Preliminary Injunction.”

Okay, Rossmiller notes that because Judge Acker’s order required the Rigsby sisters “and their agents” to return all copies of documents they’d taken from claims contractor E.A. Renfroe, the legally-important question is whether Nutt & McAlister was then an “agent” of the Rigsbys, so obligated to comply with the order. “Prosecutors say that Scruggs, as their attorney, was their agent,” Rossmiller writes. “But even if the SKG rather than Scruggs himself paid the $150,000 per year consulting salaries of the Rigsby sisters, that makes them agents of the SKG, not vice versa.”

If, as Maria Brown alleges, Nutt & McAlister kept electronic copies when it sent back the paper ones, that doesn’t argue to Rossmiller that they truly believed this stuff was in the public domain. “Indeed,” he says,

… [s]ome of the documents might, in fact, have previously been used in litigation or given to the media, but that is not the same thing as saying this [exempts] them from Acker’s order. We do not know, from the allegations of the complaint, whether these electronic records purportedly were of all the 5,000 to 15,000 documents taken by the Rigsby sisters, or only some.

Again, it’s only one side of the story.

Very true — but Y’allPolitics-and-Rossmiller commenter “Justus,” reading this, surmises that neither Judge Acker, State Farm, nor E.A. Renfroe will be any better pleased with Nutt & McAlister than Maria Brown sounds, and all three may be about to be heard from again. “By the way,” s/he asks,

someone remind me, if one partner of a joint venture commits an act against a third party in the course of the joint venture’s business, wouldn’t that make “all of the partners” of the joint venture legally liable anyway?

Sounds probable to me, but does anybody here have a more certain answer for Justus?

Anyhoo, the Scruggsiana kudzu creepeth around a few new necks . . .

lotus