I bet it’s so quiet here today because we’re all over at Rossmiller’s reading those explosive pdfs. The Sun-Herald (Anita Lee) and the AP have new stories up, and though the WSJ Law Blog has again not bestirred itself, our commenter NMC has:
There is a large element of “inside baseball” to parts of the Scruggs story, which is why one of the best sources for following it is called the “Insurance Coverage Blog.” In fact, it is so much inside baseball even a Mississippi lawyer with some familiarity with insurance claims has a little trouble following it.
Some of the allegations about how this litigation has been conducted have been stunning — that material witnesses are being paid six-figure sums as “consultants,” that direct threats of criminal prosecution delivered by people working for the state attorney general were being used as weapons in civil cases — so I have to wonder: Are bar complaints pending about all of this?
And yet with these allegations in the air, it seems that Judge Senter, a well-respected federal district judge, denied a motion to disqualify the attorney accused of this conduct. Without digging through the motions and his opinion, I’d have trouble seeing how that could be. I’ve read the Fifth Circuit opinion refusing to consider Judge Senter’s denial of disqualification of Scruggs, which is resolved without reference to the underlying merits. The appeals courts just do not want to hear interlocutory appeals (appeals filed before final judgment in a case) from attorney-disqualification motions and have made this really clear.
Here I’ll interject one personal opinion: I share the general respect accorded Judge Senter. He has a point-of-view about insurance companies, I suspect, but I’ve observed myself that he does not let it get in the way of conducting a fair trial.
Now State Farm has filed yet another motion to disqualify, this time not aimed solely at Scruggs (who has already withdrawn) but at the remaining lawyers in the Katrina Group. As always, Rossmiller’s insurance coverage blog has the story, with pleadings and underlying documents. The motion comes well-stuffed with evidence of very serious misconduct: paying witnesses, threats of criminal prosecution, and so forth.
Has this sort of conduct become the way litigation is conducted now, and I’m just old-fashioned about playing by the rules? The money that is flowing through it seems to be having an extraordinarily corrupting influence on the system.
Now the focus is on misconduct by the plaintiff’s bar, and it appears the magnitude of the misconduct on that side may gloss over the questions about insurance company conduct that the plaintiffs’ lawyers have made. So will these questions just disappear? I wonder.
When Katrina blew in, there were longstanding cases (established after 1969’s Hurricane Camille) that, combined with the flood exclusion used everywhere, made me wonder just what the plaintiffs’ lawyers were going to do to win those cases. Maybe we’re about to find out.
There’s a political problem that worries me also: The Scruggs scandal inevitably gives support to those arguing for tort reform and provides fodder for straight-up right-wing political arguments. (Here I will remind folks that Dickie Scruggs, who is after all the brother-in-law of Mississippi’s Mr. Republican, was one of the lawyers who appeared for the Republican party in the Mississippi redistricting litigation (pdf), side-by-side with Mike Wallace, whose Fifth Circuit judicial nomination was torpedoed because of his partisan past. I’m not interested in a reprise of that fight — Wallace had the professional background that makes for a Fifth Circuit judge, but also a fiercely partisan career).
This political ammunition inevitably is being used to accomplish goals sought by the Chamber of Commerce and their ilk — not steps taken to make sure the system is clean. For that we will have to depend (gulp!) on the Bush Justice Department or the Jim Hood attorney general’s office, both in their own peculiar ways pretty compromised institutions. The large political component of this mess makes me worry about solutions from politically-suspect institutions.
I will say that I’m glad that the indictments came from a U.S. Attorney’s office that is not known for pursuing political prosecutions.
n miss commenter
Most interesting comments, NMC. Before I came here, I went and posted a comment on Rossmiller’s site, expressing my disgust with the Mississippi Bar for its silence and abject failure to make even the slightest effort to enforce the rules of professional conduct. At the least, they could issue a statement saying these allegations, if true, are deplorable. They certainly manage to clutter my e-mail in-box all the time with their “feel-good” touchy-feely programs and requests for volunteers. Maybe they could spare a moment or two to investigate the blatantly unethical conduct described in the PDFs.
I don’t recall Dickie being involved in the federal congressional redistricting litigation — was he only involved in the state court aspect of that?
Gee, one more “lucky break” for State Farm – what a surprise!
Scruggs was involved in the state court litigation, in which the Democrats won at the trial level and then lost on appeal.
NMC, I second MSlawyer’s opening sentence and thank you for this post. It provides that moment of recognition I get when reading something good: Yeah, just what I was thinking too (even if I couldn’t have quite put it into words yet).
The foreboding gloom of “two evils don’t equal a good” that lies so heavily over Scruggsiana has from the start made me very uneasy about who will make what of the case.
I managed to skate in and out of the Florida Bar without learning much about Bar complaints (thank-ya-Jesus). But isn’t it true that, unless one reaches an unhappy conclusion for the complained-of lawyer, the public will never hear of it at all?
What kind of standing (if any) must a complainer to the MS Bar have? Could any of y’all affronted members initiate a complaint or several about what this SKG publicity has indirectly cost you? I mean, the situation hardly improves Mississippi attorneys’ community odor — so in that sense, you’re all rather aggrieved, aren’t you?
Maybe y’all saw on the “TL scarpers” post a pingback from emptywheel’s site. Early on in this series, I quoted a lawyer-commenter there, bmaz, and just now s/he put in again, something that so well fits into our discussion that I’m going to quote bmaz’s comment #6 in full:
I’m not sure how “standing” relates to bar complaints. Someone involved in some way will I hope be heeded. The way the process works is this: A complaint is filed, the lawyer gets asked to respond, an initial committee looks at it (much like a grand jury) and if it survives that, it goes on to be prosecuted. The panels are a lawyer and two judges, from another part of the state. The panel decisions go to the Miss. Supreme Court. The problem is really in part that the gears turn very very slowly– unless a lawyer craters completely (a criminal prosecution or other career-ending event), often there will be a period while the first complaints are going through the system while others pile on top.
None of this bears any relevance to what is happening here, though. The bar is going to sit back and let the criminal court system run its course. That is normally how they operate, although this one is a little screwy– that’s true of the bribery case, but not (yet?) of the State Farm mess.
So– tell us, State Farm, have you filed a bar complaint?
If you look at the documents filed immediately after the indictment, you will note the president-elect of the bar was copied because he represents the insurance industry. Might that have an “odor” to the “homeless” on the Coast depending on the court to force settlement of their claims?
Gosh-a-mickle, nowdoucit — just a LEETLE incestuous, huh? Why am I not the least bit surprised?
If I had to guess, Lotus, I’d say it was because you love fried pies – meaning no one can put you off by telling you all that lard isn’t good for you and then turn around and eat the whole plate of pies behind your back. Just a guess mind you.
Mmm. True dat, nowdoucit — but one needn’t be suspicious-minded to love fried pies. Sensate suffices, don’t you find?
Rossmiller 12/19 4:36 PM commenter “More Cowbell” says:
Yo, MC, sign on in and talk to me, woncha! Who’s Chip Merlin?
I think this answers your question about Chip Merlin, the point being, I assume, that he’s a likely candidate to take over the cases if disqualification happens.
Thanks, NMC (sorry about the piecrumbs).
Note that I have the “good manners” to bring the link to more information on Merlin – but not the skill to hook it up. Try cut/paste.
http://tinyurl.com/ynlqyd
Well, if this isn’t a fancy place – no cut/paste needed here!