Tuesday, April 15th, Judge Coleman will be holding the sanctions hearing in Jones, Funderburg v. Scruggs here in Oxford. In the last (pre-guilty plea) hearing we learned the issues will be: Did a member of Scruggs Katrina Group set out to bribe Judge Lackey? What is the appropriate sanction for that? Judge Coleman has already decided that he can and will sanction for bribery if proven, and that the non-Scruggs members of SKG are sanctionable for such action by Scruggs.
Given those guilty pleas, I guess it all comes down to “how much.” I’ll be interested to see if the Jones side puts on any proof beyond the pleas (I’d bet yes) and what sort of defense either the Scruggs side or the remaining Katrina groupees might attempt.
Both Scruggs and the remaining Katrina Group lawyers have pending interlocutory appeals from Judge Coleman’s decision that he can sanction without sending the case to arbitration.
So here’s the question for discussion: Here we have a $25,000,000 pot of money. Just how much should the sanction be? What should the judge consider as factors on that– relative effort? the cost Jones has incurred (legal fees) to get to this point? Or what?
Discuss, folks
First determine the amount out of the $25 million that rightfully belongs to the Jones, Funderburg folks. Then, from the amount of money that would have gone to the SKG, assess the entire amount as a sanction, with the money to be paid into the MSBar for use to fund a better staffed and procedurally more potent investigative arm for the organization.
I have grave concerns as to giving to the MSBar.
DO NOT GIVE THE MONEY TO THE BAR. Give it to Katrina victims who have sued State Farm but not been paid yet.
After deducting what Jones is owed, maybe State Farm should step in and get it back.
After all, the legal fees were State Farm’s money that was extorted from them by SKG’s use of the documents that the Rigsby’s took from State Farm/Renfroe.
I thought about this in generalities, and I apologize for thinking that way about this subject.
I think there were 5 firms involved in the $25 million dispute and Jones, Funderburg were one of them; looking to recoup their share after being voted out of the money split by the other 4: Scruggs, Nutt, Lovelace and Barrett. So, equally, Jones, Funderburg would be looking for $5million. Which would, generally, amount to $1.25 million each from the other 4. This, naturally is pre-bribe. And this is what amazed me. The fact that Scruggs was arguing about loss of $1.25 million for his part (and corresponding loss for the other 3). Further, I bet that if Scruggs, et. al. had offered Jones $.5 million each or +-$2 million, Jones, Funderburg would have taken it.
So Scruggs, for power or greed, got himself, son, and partners into all of this over about 1/2 million dollars. Plus, the bribe or even an act of improper influence, was to gain an arbitration decision. Go figure.
It would seem to me that Judge Coleman would only award the $5million sued for to Jones; plus attorney’s fees, as a default. Would there be any legal standing to award Jones, Funderburg any more?
Judge Coleman can award Jones punitive damages against the Defendants for mis-conduct during the litigation as an additional sanction for attempting to bribe the court.
Why do any of these lawyers – including Jones Funderburg – deserve to keep their fees from the State Farm deal? Judge Senter has found that they are all complicit in unethical conduct related to the State Farm cases. Why should any of them profit from that? I agree there is a sliding scale of misconduct here – only some of them are convicted felons who tried to bribe a judge and only some of them were actually in the trailer with the Rigsby sisters – but they are all responsible for some shady conduct. Bad analogy, but it’s like saying “I helped break into my neighbor’s house to steal stuff and then my partners robbed me of my fair share of the loot.” You’re just not a victim under those circumstances, and you shouldn’t benefit if the court decides to strip the loot from the other thieves.
Why can’t the fees go back to the clients as an equitable remedy? They seem to be the only ones without dirty hands here.
The money should go to Lecky King. She got State Farm into this mess, but it was a brilliant manuver!
All 106 million should go back to State Farm. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree. Then it can be re-disbursed to the 640 clients, if warranted, through the insurance department’s program of reexamining claims.
roger, that’s a very goofy position. You are obviously trolling for some poor moron who will agree with you.
The clients knew about the stolen documents because Scruggs was in the media every two weeks talking about them. So the clients are culpable, too. They should be required to disgorge.
The clients must pay! Or not…
The clients didn’t do anything unethical or illegal, unlike the SKG.
Another difference is that the SKG $26.5 mil is supposed to be in a trust account, but the clients’ settlement funds may already have been (probabaly has been) spent to purchase/repair housing or pay off mortgages.
Judge Coleman is going to sanction the other SKG members for something they didn’t participate in: the bribery. Similarly, Judge Senter just disqualified because the other members of SKG knew, or should have known, of the payments to the Rigsby sisters. Taking that logic to its conclusion, clients with knowledge of the stolen documents should have to disgorge.
State Farm agreed to the settlement with knowledge of Scruggs having the documents. If State Farm felt so righteous in its position that the documents were wrongfully obtained, then it should not have settled. No money to State Farm.
It’s difficult for me to see how the taint on our system can be healed if 80 million of State Farm’s dollars are still spread among clients on the coast. I feel that the solution must be comprehensive. All parties should be restored to their position before the settlement. Then matters can proceed anew as if on a blank slate.
Someone learn me on the fruit of the poisonous tree — a criminal concept — and how it has crept into contract law.
The clients weren’t the “partners” of Scruggs. The clients didn’t have a law license and weren’t obligated to follow the Rules of Professional Conduct. They didn’t benefit as partners, and they received no attorney fees. Hell, most clients did not even break even.
A different set of rules and laws governed and applied to the attorneys, including SKG. It’s really not a hard concept, unless you intentionally try to make it difficult!
State Farm is not a victim here. Well, maybe the victim of bad legal advice and its own poor corporate decision to settle when both the attorneys and SF knew, felt, believed, whatever that the documents were wrongfully obtained. No need to reward SF for its own knowing and informed decision to settle in this situation.
A1A, is there a better way to obtain altered documents?
I agree State Farm is not a victim, and it should not get anything back from anybody as a result of Jones v. SKG. At this point, they probably don’t even care about getting the fee money back (it’s small change for them), but would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to see all the fees taken away from the lawyers. But, just because State Farm would love it, does not mean it’s a bad thing. Give the fees back to the clients. It came out of their settlements in the first place.
A1A 19, State Farm is a victim of unethical conduct by SKG. The clients are a victim of that unethical conduct. And, the people and legal system of Mississippi are victims of that unethical conduct.
It’s a little more quantifiable when it comes to measuring the damages caused to State Farm — the payment of $26.5 mil in attorney fees that were extorted with unethically/illegally obtained documents by those lawyers who were paid that money.
MC 20, a party can obtain any documents, whether altered or not, with a subpoena, a request for production of documents, or a court order. Just because documents may be (or thought to be) alttered, or may disappear, does not grant a right to a person to steal those docuements. The rules still must be followed — especially by the lawyers.
I think they oughta give all the money to Ben Cole for his Harley Davidson chrome accessories fund. Chrome isn’t free, you know.
-16, Roger:
Let’s continue with your little extrapolation. How ’bout you volunteer to “collect” that money from the folks on the Coast?
I’m sure, after all they’ve been through, they’d be more than happy to give you a warm welcome.
Lotus,
I know you were worried that people would confuse Justus and I b/c our names are so similar. However, with spoutings such as #22, I don’t think anyone will ever confuse our opinions.
Because of the unethical behavior by Scruggs, everyone has forgotten the sins of State Farm. The company has a history as a bad acts and refusal to pay claims going back decades to tornado damage in Oklahoma.
How can you say to a good faith claimant, who’s only possession in the world is a concrete slab, that 0% of their damage was caused by wind?
If your State Farm you deny the claim, and use the money to buy advertising that reminds people like Justus -”like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.”
Justice 25, apparently we have a different concept of “Justice”.
You apparently believe that its okay to act unethically/illegally towards someone “if” that someone has also acted unethically/illegally towards you or someone else. By that, I mean that you apparently believe that because State Farm sinned, its okay for SKG to commit sin against State Farm.
I disagree for two reasons: 1) that’s not how the law or the rules work that govern lawyers’ actions; and 2) I was raised to believe that two wrongs don’t make one right.
I’m no fan of State Farm, but I’m also no fan of anyone who perverts our legal system by paying off material witnesses, approves, makes or condones those payments, or participates in it through silence.
Dittos Justus