Call David Nutt
Nutt:
Member of Nutt McAlliter law firm. It was in the SKG. There was a joint venture agreement.
Tollison: Obj. relevancy.
Understands that we are here on a sanctions issue. I did not have any knowledge anyone was contacting Judge Lackey to corruptly influence him or to bribe him. Learned about it when I read about it in the paper. I did not recognize Tim Balducci until I read it in the paper the day after the indictment. Never heard of him or met him. He has not represented me or my firm.
I know Joey Langston and have met him in passing maybe twice. Have spoken to him. Never did any legal work with him or was associated with him in any matter.
Did not know Tim Balducci was doing anything on anyone’s behalf in the Jones v Scruggs litigation. He was not authorized to do anything on my behalf.
I know Steve Patterson. Met him when he was living in Jackson. He was a Democrat, which I also am. Knew him up through the time he became state auditor and left the office of state auditor. Last time I had any conversation with him was during the time he was leaving as state auditor. I have not spoken to him in 12 years. I have had no contact with him. I did not know he was doing anything for any of the Scruggs defendants.
I have heard the name P.L. Blake. I don’t know him. I did not know he was doing anything on behalf of any defendant in this case. Did not authorize Steve Patterson or P.L. Blake to do anything in the case or on behalf of Nutt McAlister.
When I read about this in the paper, according to the paper a false invoice had been submitted for Mr. Balducci by Mr. Scruggs. I went to the office and got Mr. Bill Jones who is the comptroller for SKG and works in my law firm and asked if he recalled an invoice for voir dire to Balducci. He did not recall it. I asked him to search our records and he did. There was a manifest with many items and among those items was the Balducci invoice. After he secured the invoice I met with Barrett and Mr. Lovelace and thought we should call the FBI and be very open with them and show them what we had in our office. Set up a meeting with Delaney to come to my office, which they did in a couple of days. Present in the meeting were Bill Jones, Lovelace, Barrett, myself. I walked Mr. Delaney through the process by which this invoice got paid, a total $750,000 check for reimbursement that we had paid. Showed them the invoice for voir dire in the Lisanbe (sp?) case which was handled exclusively by Mr. Scruggs’s office. They had done all the legal work and the client contact. My office were handling hundreds of cases, but had nothing to do with the Lisanbe case.
Term: Special handling cases: Cases that Mr. Scruggs thought were very important for one reason or another. Special handling would mean the Scruggs firm would handle those cases exclusively.
Did not ratify the actions of Mr. Scruggs.
FBI agent Delaney called and asked if Mr. Bill Jones would testify for the government in the Dick Scruggs case to admit that invoice into evidence and to admit the $750K check of which this invoice was part. I said that would be fine and Jones was scheduled to testify.
Never saw an order compelling arbitration.
Never communicated in any way with Balducci, Patterson, or Blake about this case, nor has anyone in my firm.
Never had a joint defense agreement in the Jones case. Defending it is not part of the joint venture. Mr. Barrett recommended hiring the Daniel Coker firm and I agreed, as did Dick Scruggs and his law firm. The firm agreed they could represent us individually.
Never authorized Scruggs law firm to take any action on my behalf in the fee dispute case. Scruggs did not have a right to control the litigation in this fee dispute, and Nutt McAlister did not have the right to control it for other defendants. Did not intend for the fee dispute case to be within the joint venture agreement.
The manifest submitted with the $40,000 in it: Scruggs prepared it– Nutt does not know whether Scruggs prepared it or someone else in his office.
Nutt did not know about matters set forth before he read about it in the newspaper.
Cross exam by Tollison
Was David Nutt charged with paying any judgment in the Luckey or Wilson case: I was not charged with that. Everyone who took fees in the tobacco case was charged with paying part of it. Scruggs and Nutt had the largest amount of liability. Nutt actually did not have an interest in the outcome of the Luckey and Wilson case.
In Luckey case the main thrust of that case was to have Luckey somehow attached to the tobacco case. Judge Davis ruled that Luckey had no interest in the tobacco fee. When I testified, Judge Davis had ruled and it made no difference. Nutt paid half of the fee in Luckey. Nutt paid nothing of the Wilson settlement. Did pay the Wilson legal fees. Nutt did not know that the lawyers representing his interest in that case were Balducci and Langston. Did not know that. Scruggs came after the fact and made a request and plea that we pay that judgment in the Luckey case because it would never have been had there been no tobacco ligitation. I got an opinion from Butler Snow that I had no liability on those fees and Mr. Scruggs came wanting them again and I did not want to get into a litigation about it.
Pretty sure Scruggs did not bill for fees after the case was back in Hinds County.
Nutt paid attorneys fees but not judgment in Wilson case. Did not pay $3 million in fees relating to Peters, did not know about that till read about it in the paper.
Bill Jones has been with Nutt for 20 years. Does not think Mr. Jones worked for Patterson at a bank years ago. Jones was the chief of audit under Steve Patterson. Jones had worked for me previously.
Patterson did not leave the state audit office on good terms with me or Bill Jones. If I had known Patterson was involved in this case I would have screamed loudly.
Went to a meeting at Daniel Coker about the case. Communicated with them. Wanted the matter to go into arbitration.
Did $40,000 seem a reasonable request to pay to do a voir dire? It did.
Tollison asked how many lawyers were involved in these various firms. Nutt did not know SKG had hired a full time lawyer just to work on these cases. Would not be surprised if this had been done and Nutt didn’t know.
There were expenses from the Scruggs firm that were questioned in 2006 and 2007. Heard that Meg McAlister questioned some invoices but he was not involved in that process. Is sure she refused some invoices. He never reviewed any invoices.
Did not have any conversations with Meg McAlister about Scruggs’s invoices. Nutt was charged under the SKG agreement with reviewing the invoices. Jones was doing that work. Nutt was not responsible for checking, the firm was. Nutt owned most of the stock in Nutt McAlister.
Did not know anything about a $500K check to Patterson and Balducci. There wasn’t one. (The question is premised wrong– it was 5 $100K checks, not one $500K check).
Lisanbe case has not been tried. After the trial it was continued. Nobody knew anything about it. Barrett’s firm is handling it. There was no voir dire. I asked the FBI where the $40K was, and if they had it I wanted it back.
Is aware of the payments to the Rigsby sisters.
Nutt firm remitted the payments to the Daniel Coker firm. March 2007 until late Nov or Dec: we’d advance some of the payment for Daniel Coker. Everyone was going to pay their share of legal fees. SKG did not pay out of SKG funds. Nutt-McAlister advanced it simply out of convenience. Advanced the entire bill.
Advancing the fees for Daniel Coker by Nutt firm: I did not know it had happened. I was surprised to find out it had happened. Bill Jones just did that I assume because he was accustomed to our advancing. The invoice from Balducci had Balducci’s name. Patterson is somehow in that law firm but I didn’t know about it until after the indictment.
Have not gone back to see if there are separate $100K checks going to Patterson or Balducci. I did tell Bill Jones to see if there were payments to those individuals and would have brought it to the attention of the FBI if there were.
Mayo asks if Nutt received the seal order by mail.
Tollison objects –that he hand-delivered the seal order to Scruggs within an hour of entry.
Redirect:
News broke of indictment: Lisanbe case was set for trial right after the indictment. It was continued because of the indictment.
I didn’t realize so much info was going to come out at THIS hearing…
David Nutt has HEARD the name PL Blake? What a crock. PL Blake’s tobacco money is deducted from Nutt’s tobacco payments every quarter.
Bill Jones used to work in Steve Patterson’s office when Steve Patterson was state auditor.
Nutt paid fees in the Wilson federal case. The Scruggs v Merkel case and the Luckey arbitration. Grady needs to ask if Nutt contributed to the settlement of the Wilson tobacco claims.
oops. Never mind I see he did ask.
Thank you, NMC!
while NMC is talking on his cell phone, he missed Sparky Lovelace’s testimony, it was very short he said he didnt know what happened and did not authorize Scruggs or Balducci to control Jones v Scruggs
they are about to give final arguements, Don Barrett does not have to testify
Nutt would have denied knowing Scruggs if the questioning had not of been in the same courtroom. I think he’s got the Tobacco Pot of Gold, and would deny his own mamma to keep it.
"If the motion to sanction is granted it would be to all defandents " judge coleman
Defense is arguing if innocent defendants can be punished for something they had no knowledge of.
Coleman said, “Weather they knew or not my ruling applies to all defendants.”
However defense is trying to prove this is the wrong ruling. Did Nutt, Lovelace, and Barrett have bad faith, if not the have no reason to be sanctioned should they?
impose sanctions against my clients just because a partner bribed a judge seems to be there basic argument
sure they are…lie down with dogs you get fleas
Me thinks the defendants are er……..screwed.
iratetoday
roger that.
Throw in blewed and tattooed.
Is there any indication as to whether or not Judge Coleman plans on ruling from the bench or issuing an order later?
It’s the Duggins case. If Grady wins this joint liability argument, does he implicate his clients’ liability in the Wilson v. Scruggs mess?
dmwriter -10
They should try living in the business world where business owners get hit for things all of the time they didn’t have knowledge of. Oh yeah …. they are plaintiff lawyers and usually making the same case on the other side …. (I know this is a sanction hearing, but it was a pad’nu’ship … maybe Nutt and the other defendants can sue Scruggs for this if they suffer consequences. Truly they are eating their own.)
What’s Duggins, Jsh 16?
Uh OH NMC is back
Duggins has been discussed here today and I think they say it changes the law that all partners are responsible of sanctioned or sued.
Colemen expects to give final ruling tomorrow.
Joint representation of a client is joint venture and joint venturers are charged with joint liability even if not actively involved in the tort.
This case is a little different because Nutt, Scruggs and Barrett were not involved in joint representation of themselves? Nutt, Scruggs and Barrett are parties who were jointly represented by Daniel, Coker/Balducci/Scruggs.
Jsh 16 is right. Jones is digging his grave in matters to come in Wilson v. Scruggs. If there is joint sanctions liability here for a co-counsel’s conduct, then Jones is on the sanctions hook for Scruggs, Langston and Balducci in Wilson.
So, if Jones gets the money here, maybe it will wind up going to Wilson in the end when he gets a big, fat judgment against all of them in his case.
jsh
these are all issues being raised
lesser sanctions is another request made by defense
if sanctions at all
Yo, jim — you watching this? “Circles and cycles,” m’man!
Judge plans on ruling in the morning. He’s going to work on an opinion tonight and this afternoon.
BTW, I had a helpful note-taker spell me while I was out of the room and filled in the bit I missed from those notes.
Nice round of applause for dmwriter, folks!
NMC: I can’t thank you enough for being there. This beats the hell out of court tv.
thanks to you also, dmwriter!!
NMC, almost as good as a real time court reporter! Good work.
If these sanctions go badly, will the group go running to Wilson and try to settle before it reaches the court.
Lotus – sometimes the circles and cycles are little tight ones that bite one’s rear quickly … man you can’t swing a dead cat in here without hitting another potential legal issue!
That’s some mighty fine live bloggin’ there NMC.
And a nice pickup by dmwriter.
-Nice round of applause for dmwriter, folks!-
and the crowd roared!
(To repeat myself): NMC, just blows me away what a good job you make of one of the hardest tasks there is, liveblogging a legal proceeding. Dayam. Hardly anybody’s equipped to do it well, and here we lucked into you.
Curly 32, true dat.
I call BS!
You don’t approve a $40k bill for voir dire on a case (basically the same as all of the other Katrina cases), and not inquire as to why it is so much higher?
So, now you’ve got Balducci being requested by Scruggs to act illegally on behalf of all of the other SKG joint venturers against Jones by making a payoff to Judge Lackey, and you’ve got one of those other SKG joint venturers that’s the bank for the whole venture (Nutt & McAlister) cutting the check to reimburse Scruggs for the payoff. PLEEEEASE! These are sophisticated lawyers — they are not dummies!
Edit – One more thing, Joey Langston can rebut Nutt’s testimony that they didn’t know each other. I’ll bet that Joey would cooperate with the Feds on that in exchange for a reduction in his sentence. If so, then the Feds will have Nutt for perjury.
NMC is awsome! maybe you should reconsider law and go into court reporting, haha.
I am always happy to help yall!
I think looking at the Scruggs scandal overall, this could be the beginning of a little ‘legal world meets blogging world’ history. Way to go NMC, dmwriter and the rest of the contributors….now, what’s next?
Justus: Amen.
Now if Nutt was charged with legal fees in Wilson v. Scruggs is he jointly liable with Balducci/Langston/Scruggs for the misbehavior there?
dmw, was smoke rising offa his keyboard?
And here’s a better qusetion: if all of the tobacco people contributed to PL Blake’s money — are they jointly liable with PL Blake for things he did wrong?
Lotus
I so look forward to NMC’s “after action report” . His observations and impressions of the subtilties in the room, if he’s inclined (hint- hint – hope- hope)
And what about people who got money from PL Blake and the tobacco boys, are they jointly liable as well? whew !! I’m dizzy.
You’n'mebof, Seacrest.
Yeah, I’m not sure how far the “see no evil” defense goes with the keeper of the cash.
(wondering “Where DO it end,” flaps petals at overwhelmed Jsh)
Merkel is licking his lips right now for sure…
I just hope Brewer or some other photog got snaps of Mike Moore and however many colors his face turned.
As are Slater and Kirksey!
Not sure if this matters, but I seem to recall that the P Blake money was paid to Langston by Nutt, then on to Blake. (my memory is shaky though)
Nutt made it sound like he barely knew Langston is the impression I got.
lotus,24–you bet I am watching and listening!
Hee hee, jimbo.
btw, my helpful notetaker when I was out was my wife and fellow lawyer. DMWriter helped in comments, too.
Well, in that case, W00tie w00tie W00T fer JOYCE!
My recollection is that Scruggs, not Nutt, funneled the money through Langston to Blake.
Excellent work by NMC, Mrs. NMC, and DMWriter!!!! My billable hours suffered today . . .