The Legal for “Like hell you will, bubs”
This website moved Sunday, Feb. 10, to a new address - http://www.folo.us. Please go to http://www.folo.us to enter your comment! Thanks.
Ladies and gents, sweeties and trolls, I (that’s a lie: NMC and PACER) give you His Honor, Judge Neil Biggers (oh, um, pdf):
… Mr. Farese cites as reasons in support of his motion that his withdrawal will not prejudice David Zachary Scruggs or the government and that the defendant has indicated an intent of hiring other counsel and has terminated Mr. Farese’s services. Upon review of the record, however, the court finds that the defendant has not moved to substitute counsel; nor has any other attorney attempted to make an entry of appearance on behalf of David Zachary Scruggs, and if this motion were granted at this time, while Richard F. Scruggs would have five attorneys of record, Zachary would be left undefended. No further reasons are presented for the basis of this motion.
Because David Zachary Scruggs would be left with no attorney of record if the court were to grant the motion at this time and because the court will not sanction any action that would be grounds by the defendants for a future motion for a trial continuance, the court finds that Mr. Farese’s motion to withdraw should be denied until such time as a new attorney makes an entry of appearance on behalf of David Zachary Scruggs and the court is assured that this motion is not made for delay. …
and fu’thermore:
… The record herein shows that Mr. Coghlan previously represented Richard F. Scruggs’ codefendant, Steven A. Patterson. Mr. Coghlan moved to withdraw from that representation and to substitute attorney Hiram Eastland, Jr., on December 17, 2007. The motion was granted by Magistrate Judge Allan Alexander on December 20. Now Mr. Coghlan wants to reenter the case on behalf of Richard F. Scruggs.
Before Mr. Coghlan will be approved as attorney of record for Richard F. Scruggs, the court must receive an explanation as to why such action would not be prejudicial to Patterson if at a later date Patterson were to testify against Mr. Coghlan’s present client, Richard F. Scruggs, and thereby be subject to cross-examination by his former attorney in this case. The reverse situation would be of equal concern – that is, in the event Scruggs is called upon to testify against Patterson, his team of attorneys, including Mr. Coghlan, would have a conflict of interest by the knowledge they have gained through Mr. Coghlan’s representation of Patterson. …
Tony Farese’s motion denied, Ken Coghlan’s “not approved.”
lotus and her po’ riddled attorneys-of-record page rise to salute good Judge Biggers and, if she knew what he drinks and had any money, would send him a case of it just on general principles.
Your Honor, with respect I submit that you rawk.
lotus
P.S. I’ve also got another related thingie from NMC/PACER that I’ll update here should I ever figure out how to. 
January 9, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Lotus, you’re getting too worked up here.
I will say that you are wise to hold off updating your who-represents-whom list.
January 9, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Actually, NMC, I’m getting too worked down.
But I strictly, fully mean what I say about respecting Judge Biggers (and would even if I weren’t a judgment-proof civilian).
January 9, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Am I the only one reminded of Abbot and Costello right now? Lotus who’s on first?
http://www.abbottandcostello.net/who.htm
January 9, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Hey, Sop.
Dunno, babe, but I was just trying to tell a friend about this “screwball comedy of the most tragic sort.”
January 9, 2008 at 8:56 pm
daily journal
not sure if already posted
http://djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=263907&pub=1&div=News
January 9, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Lo, even with your gift for words, this one is beyond description.
I’m with you - worked down but pumped up over Judge Biggers’ - surprised no, not with his record of knowing who’s on every base, Sop, and who’s way off base.
January 9, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Given my question in the previous thread, I’m not too surprised by Coghran’s motion being denied.
However, if I were Zach Scruggs I think I’d be shopping for a new attorney about now.
January 10, 2008 at 3:07 am
As a group, you’ve got too broad an age range for them to have been in school at the same time regardless of where they went. So broad, in fact, that even if in the same fraternity, they would not have been undergraduates at the same time. I believe Backstrom went to LSU and the others to Ole Miss. Even if in the same fraternity, as you can see, none would have been active at the same time. Dickie Scruggs and Mike Moore were in law school together for one year; but, Scruggs is 7 or 8 years older and enrolled in law
school after 4 years of military service. The year Moore was 1st year law, Scruggs was 3rd year and editor of the Law Journal.
Whatever else this group may prove to be, it is now a group of fraternity brothers continuing a party. If this doesn’t tell you all you really wanted to know, try Google.
January 10, 2008 at 3:09 am
Make that “not” a group of fraternity brothers.
January 10, 2008 at 7:39 am
I tell you folks this is a mess! If what could happen here turns out to happen I will be totally ashamed of us allowing this to go on right under our noses. Who is to blame — the citizens, the legal system, the lack of check and balances? I fear this is a part of a “good old boy network” that is made up mostly of legal and political types that has been at work in our beloved State for many years. I hope that I am wrong but I have a feeling that I am much closer to right than wrong.
January 10, 2008 at 8:22 am
http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=263917&pub=1&div=News
The above daily journal article suggests Patterson may plea by Monday. This, of course, remains to be seem. If Patterson pleas, Coghlan would not have been his lawyer at the time of the plea.
But if Patterson is out and no longer a defendant this may clear a way for Coghlan to come back in.
If the events suggested come true, I see a defense of Dickie devoted solely to defending Dickie by blaming Patterson and Baldducci.
If Patterson pleas it will preclude further federal charges, but he would still be open to charges from the State.
I am still struggling with the ethics of Coghlan comin back in.
January 10, 2008 at 8:45 am
Patterson pleading guilty doesn’t fix the inherent conflict of interest problem that exists. If anything, it makes it worse, because Patterson, if he were to plead, would likely be agreeing to testify as part of that plea (or he would still be getting hammered out on his sentencing guidelines and he might as well go to trial).
There is no ethical way to participate in a cross-examination of a former client, as a hostile and adverse witness, about the exact same facts and issues you earlier represented him on, and about which you undoubtedly recieved lots of confidential and privileged information.
There isn’t even an ethical way to have one of the other attorneys representing Scruggs do it, if a former Patterson attorney is part of the defense (there is no “taint team” for defense attorneys).
January 10, 2008 at 9:01 am
Well, this isn’t the first time we’ve asked, “Bloody ‘ell, what were they thinking?”
But it does set a standard that will abide in my mind.
January 10, 2008 at 10:37 am
jim, sadly, I think you may be right - if so, the answer to Lotus’ question is “they weren’t”.
Think back to the reactions to my Kohlberg post, yours and that of N Miss particularly. It wasn’t that I was “color-blind” but that you applied personal knowledge perspective to the theory.
When N Miss later stepped back and focused on a document, he demonstrated the application of theory to practice - the highest level of moral thinking at an equally high level of intelligence and the resulting justice.
Evidence suggests but has not yet proved, at some point in time, there was someone with similar capacity who saw certain laws as barriers to justice - and believe that justified circumventing those laws to achieve justice.
All who did likewise thereafter functioned at the lower and more common level of moral reasoning and intelligence that follows rules and law established by others - even those with the capacity for functioning at a higher level. These “law abiding citizens” were, unfortunately, abiding by law established by the authority of an individual, and not the established law of society.
What is so conflicting about the current situation, should allegations of unlawful conduct be proven, is that the individuals involved have contributed much to the good of society - bringing to mind “the saddest words of tongue and pen are these few words ‘what might have been’…”
January 10, 2008 at 11:02 am
Nowdoucit wrote:
>Evidence suggests but has not yet proved, at some point in time, there was someone with similar capacity who saw certain laws as barriers to justice - and believe that justified circumventing those laws to achieve justice.<
I don’t see that at all, either in theory or in actual fact here. First, the facts: When did someone see a law that was a barrier to justice? Scruggs with the Rigsby sisters? I don’t think so. There are ways that what Scruggs did was a parody of what he should have done (a parody for which the technical legal name is abuse of process and worse if some of the deposition testimony I’ve read is so). Balducci with Lackey? Uh, that doesn’t bear answering.
And the theory: There are times when the law does not produce justice. Leaving it to an individual citizen (or worse an officer of the court) to decide “well, injustice is here, so the rules are off the table” would produce both moral and legal chaos. I know there are times when the injustice produced by the legal rules is so great that disobedience is a moral choice, but those times are relatively rare, and the range of choices for disobedience that are moral are pretty circumscribed. For instance, I certainly view the era of Jim Crow and slavery as eras when injustice was so great that civil disobedience was warranted. I view the choices for civil disobedience made by the leaders of the civil rights movement as largely moral and justifiable. I view the choices made by John Brown and Nat Turner otherwise. I might even understand what Nat Turner did (Brown just seems crazy to me) but I wouldn’t accept calling it moral.
January 10, 2008 at 11:24 am
n miss, I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said.
I simply failed to make it clear that the “point in time” would have been long before now - and, of course, there still the “if” of if it happened as I believe it did.
There is nothing I know of about any case related to the individuals involved - both those known and unknown at this time - that would justify “civil disobedience”.
Interestingly enough, however, I believe that over time this situation of apparent “civil disobence” - regardless of anyone’s guilt or innocence, will also result in a change of law. When that happens, future “Davids” will be able to stone a “Goliath” with the stone of law.
January 10, 2008 at 1:27 pm
You know what folks? I think a point in time has come (maybe very temporary) that I “am going to lay by the water hole and see what swims by”. Should be interesting!
January 10, 2008 at 2:54 pm
The level of intellectual discourse here is excellent. I am a believer of the old sayings that two wrongs don’t make a right but I am also very sympathetic to Nowdoucit’s argument so well illustrated by NMC that sometimes there is a higher moral good than the law itself.
However there is a slippery slope to that “higher moral good” as illustrated by people like Eric Robert Randolph who concluded killing others was morally acceptable in pursuit of his higher good. I think only history can judge such matters.
The tie in here of course is whether the methods Dickie Scruggs used against State Farm rose to a higher moral standard. I don’t know what was in Mr. Scrugg’s heart but I am still reminded of what a lawyer I respect down here told me about taking on big insurance the way Scruggs did and why he wasn’t planning to take those type cases: “You got to get dirty to take on those guys.”
Consider the issues involved with the Rigsby sisters and the documents they took. Would State Farm and Renfroe returned the documents under discovery? Consider this recent case involving Allstate and some of the same issues, which were no doubt known by Dickie Scruggs.
“Since 2004, Allstate has been defying an order by the same court to make available public copies of some 12,500 PowerPoint slides McKinsey prepared for the insurer, which form the basis of the book. That’s quite unusual — big companies almost never ignore judicial orders. In a court filing, Allstate has characterized its actions as “respectful civil disobedience.”……With the Supreme Court ruling in hand in March, 2004, Berardinelli returned the McKinsey material he had to Allstate and demanded a clean copy, free of the restrictive printing. Allstate refused, prompting the trial court judge to hit it with the most extreme civil sanction a court can order, a default judgment — finding it liable without trial in the underlying bad-faith case.”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_18/b3982072.htm
Again I’m not saying two wrongs make a right but perhaps Mr. Scruggs was willing to get dirty for the good of his clients who were made homeless by Katrina, in pursuit of a higher moral good. Many here on the coast would tend to agree with that sentiment because State Farm did prove far more amenable to treating it’s customers fairly once Mr. Scruggs had the goods on how they adjusted their claims and we didn’t have to waste three years finding out if they would have produced the documents in question.
Another higher moral question I have is the propriety of allowing insurers to use our court system in furtherance of a goal of systematically delaying their contractual obligations. The people in Oklahoma City had to wait 7 years for justice in cases resulting from tornadoes there in 1999 that were beyond open and shut. Three years ago when the claims practices of insurers first made my radar screen, there was little on this subject on the internet while today the google hits on this subject run into the tens of thousands. There is a political backlash coming IMHO, from people like myself who will not stand for this type predatory behavior out of any business including insurers. Perhaps when this is done a lawyer won’t have to get dirty to obtain justice for their clients.
I now leave the soapbox to others.
sop
January 10, 2008 at 3:03 pm
sop:
Not to disagree with your position, but I think there’s some apples and oranges being compared here.
Scruggs, et al. have been indicted for alleged judicial bribery in a case involving strictly the division of legal fees.
If the little man had tried to gain a leg up by using civil disobedience, that might be understandable.
January 10, 2008 at 3:11 pm
sop, while some of that analysis may be applicable to understanding the battle v State Farm being waged by Scruggs and the other attys on the team, it in no way has ANYTHING to do with the judicial bribery case Scruggs now faces, as it arose out of a dispute between lawyers over fees. So, even if one bought that type of mindset as a valid basis to ignore the law, it provides no pass to Scruggs in the bribery case.
IMO, such ethical analysis does not pass muster when considering the actions undertaken in the State Farm case. I do not subscribe to the “any means to a good end” theory as a guide to my personal conduct. As an attorney, we are guided by ethical rules as a profession —rules which were apparently broken in almost every conceivable way they can be in the zeal to get State Farm. At a minumum, several attys should be losing their license to practive law in the future, regardless of whether they are found guilty of a crime or not.
And from reading Rossmiller’s insurance blog, I am not yet certain that State Farm doctored any expert reports, as the timeline suggests that the alleged “doctored” expert report may not have even been seen by State Farm before it was doctored. Rossmiller seems to suggest, to some extent, that it is possible that State Farm was set up, and threatened with documents that it did not even have. We shall see soon enough. IF State Farm did doctor expert reports to aid its claim handling to its benefit, then heads will need to roll. But, such does not justify breaking every ethical rule of the profession. There were several ways to properly handle such a situation in a legal and ethical manner, and still get the needed information —these avenues, for whatever reasons, were apparently not chosen.
January 10, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I’m sure not going to take up for State Farm at all, as it is hard to live on the Mississippi gulf coast and not have some personal knowledge of some pretty indefensible acts on the part of State Farm. Many of which appear criminal to me, and I have the background to make a pretty good evaluation
But, to say that their behavior justifies Scruggs behavior doesn’t fly. From what I have seen, Scruggs could have obtained what he needed on State Farm without breaking the law. What did him in was impatience and arrogance.
And, I’m fairly sure that Scruggs’ lawyers will not be taking the position that as long as Scruggs was really guilty of bribery, the legality of what the FBI or prosecutors did, or did not do, to catch him does not really matter.
January 10, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Welcome to folo, NAAS, and welcome back, afotl! Thank you for these comments, which summarize the situation as well as it probably can be.
I’ve been trying to visualize all the widening waves of collateral damage about to be inflicted on the entirely-innocent (these guys’ families and employees, their communities, on out from there . . . ) — only just the part I can see already takes my breath away.
And yes, afotl, I do expect Scruggs and its related cases[-to-be] will gut the GOB system of Mississippi, just as Siegelman, etc., will in Alabama.
Somewhere I was just skimming — sorry, was flashing by too fast to remember where I was (WSJ?) — quipped that yesterday’s developments alone could provide a good law-school exam question.
Hell’s bells, before it’s over, I bet you could draw up a pretty good whole-state-day-of-the-Bar-exam based on no more than the criminal, civil, and ethical issues of Scruggsiana.
God only knows where the waves roll from here.
January 10, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Deep and wide, lotus, deep and wide.
January 10, 2008 at 4:50 pm
And, you know what? It probably is overdue and has been a long time coming.
It makes me sick to watch it unfold on one hand, but glad it is being exposed on the other. I guess most people probably feel that way.
January 10, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Me, too, observer, me too - just heart sick for the impact on all of us. It’s a real John Bell Williams day - “if you can’t trust a Trustee, who can you trust?”
January 10, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Mr. Observer I was throwing out food for thought and putting forth a very real sincerely held public perception without judging its validity. While I agree with the principle about ends not justifying means and like most who post here, endeavor to live by that credo in my conduct personally and professionally, this mess and the totality of what Scruggs was taking on by going against State Farm also reminds me of the old saying, “Pigs love mud.” Again my viewpoint is non-legal and non-judgmental - it is simply the way this thing has come down for better or worse.
Mr. Friend I completely disagree that State Farm’s conduct had nothing to do with the judicial bribery case. If you are indeed a devoted reader of Mr. Rossmiller’s blog then you should clearly understand the myriad of ways that what happened here on the Mississippi coast involving Scruggs and State Farm intersects with the allegations against Mr. Scruggs.
I am also aware of Mr. Rossmiller’s theories involving McIntosh case. Despite his and your unsubstantiated suggestions that State Farm was “set up”, case evidence unequivocally indicates that Lecky King did indeed order multiple reports when the results did not match her pre-determined conclusions including her use of tactics like threatening the engineer’s involved with termination. If you have something more concrete to back up your statement in that regard I’d love to see it in furtherance of enhancing our group understanding of the events that lead to Mr. Scruggs indictment. Also any explanation you can give for Ms King repeatedly taking the Fifth Amendment in her civil depositions would be greatly appreciated.
sop
January 10, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I think there may be a lot of intersects with a lot of cases. Ido not think you can micro case this thing. The Feds may be casting a wider net than we realize. I will not be surprised if this does not eventually touch asbestos, tobacco, Katrina, Lackey bribery and with side visits to Wilson, Luckey and others. Folks we may not can see the forest for the trees.
I am still “laying by the water hole”.
January 10, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Lllllook out, waterhole — JIM’s on a mission!
W00T!
January 10, 2008 at 7:09 pm
nowdoucit, wasn’t that Ross Barnett with the trustee? (we really probably don’t want to start exchanging asinine things ol’ Ross said because it’ll take over the blog).
January 10, 2008 at 7:14 pm
sop there is no theory of ethics that you can offer that could possibly justify bribing a judge for pecuniary gain, or any other motive. It is illegal, and clearly contrary to our governing ethics laws for lawyers. A disbarring offense.
I was present in the Okolona courtroom when the lawyers for Scuggs, and the lawyers for the other attys, were arguing there cases in front of Judge Lackey re the fee dispute. I had a small matter scheduled on the docket that day to be heard after the Scruggs fee dispute matter. No representatives or lawyers for State Farm were present. State Farm was not a party to that case. State Farm was simply the party paying the settlement money, out of which the fees were being paid. It was, quite simply, a dispute between lawyers over disbursement of legal fees. And considering the amounts involved (26 plus million), I was shocked that such a contract would be so poorly drafted that it sent the lawyers into litigation. Appeared to me to be greedy lawyers fighting over fees. And one side apparently decided to try to bribe a judge to get what they wanted in the matter. Not sure how one can pin that on State Farm.
Not defending any conduct by State Farm mind you –assuming State Farm did all that you say it did. But, just don’t see the connection.
And the severe ethical lapses in the other cases coming to light, no matter what State Farm did or allegedly did, are going to warrant disbarment of several attys —mark my words. There is NO WAY that type of behavior is going to allowed to slide. I won’t stand for it, nor will any other attorney that I know. The Bar will not be able to ignore it. Nor should it.
January 10, 2008 at 7:32 pm
My God. Ol’ Ross. Hadn’t thought of that ol’ buzzard in decades. (Happily.)
January 10, 2008 at 7:39 pm
“Roll with Ross!” I stayed up all night cooking chickens for one of his famous (infamous) “come one,come all” gatherings–back in the early 1960’s.
January 10, 2008 at 7:48 pm
friend, the theory I posted and referenced today is a theory on the development of intelligence related to moral reasoning.
In other words, it explains the thinking behind such a justification but it doesn’t condone bribery nor do I - nor did I see any indication Sop was either.
Actually, it’s a great theory for attorneys to know - it explains how IQ impacts an individual’s ability to know right from wrong.
January 10, 2008 at 7:53 pm
n miss, A.F. Sumner told me that tale long enough ago for me to get confused; but, reportedly it is what John Bell said when a body was discovered in the foyer of the Governor’s mansion and he learned one of the Trustee’s had killed another.
If I’m wrong and it was Ross, roll on!
January 10, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Meanwhile, ’tis with very great pride and pleasure that I invite all y’all upstairs to NMC’s first post as folo co-blogger — and boy, does he have us some news . . .
January 10, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Scruggs et al would have never had that fee dispute if it wasn’t for what State Farm did to the people on the coast Mr. Friend. I helped Mr. Beckham track down the engineer that assessed his property and in the process helped this 70 year old man discover that State Farm had altered his engineering report, which after all is the genesis of the mess.
I will let the readers be the judge; here is the original report obtained directly from Mr. Monie, the engineer who authored the report:
http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/BeckhamA.pdf
Here is the report State Farm attached to Mr. Beckham’s denial letter:
http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/BeckhamB.pdf
Not defending any conduct by Dickie Scruggs mind you –assuming Dickie Scruggs did all that you say he did.
These documents appear to demonstrate that an illegal act has occurred. We on the coast will NOT STAND for this type of behavior out of large insurers just as we do not condone unethical lawyers.
sop
January 11, 2008 at 7:30 am
My perception of Scruggs’ and Hood’s behavior in the whole McIntosh versus State Farm thing was that you had people who were really experienced in civil matters, trying to conduct their own criminal investigation, without any real experience (Hood included) and they got frustrated and started to fall back on their usual repertoire, which is being disclosed at present as primarily bribery and graft.
State Farm really needs to be investigated, and really needed to be investigated. But just not by this bunch, who have muddied the waters so badly, that whoever follows in their footsteps, trying to do the job right, has a much heavier burden.
And that is why I am glad that as many of them as possible will be going to prison for this. But, next, I want State Farm to get the same attention from the professionals. The ones Scruggs and company are meeting right now.
January 11, 2008 at 7:34 am
I apologize for that piece of grammar goo, above, darn the no- edit-function (I wrote it, got called away from the computer, came back, and forgot I hadn’t proofed it yet).
January 11, 2008 at 7:37 am
Sounds like a plan to me. Damn the fools, the waters they’ve muddied need so much “settling” to be navigable again it’s appalling.
January 11, 2008 at 7:41 am
I think I fixed it, observer — provided I guessed the case you meant correctly.
Apologies for not supplying commenter-editing yet.
January 11, 2008 at 7:55 am
Thanks. That’s more like it, LOL.
January 11, 2008 at 8:01 am
Ye olde mind-outruns-fingers syndrome, how we love it.
January 11, 2008 at 9:10 am
sop, that is like blaming a car wreck on your job because you had to drive to work, as opposed to the negligence of either driver.
I teach Business Law and Accounting, each of which includes ethical decision making. I am unfamiliar with the ethical theory that justifies judicial bribery, and would be interested to hear it explained in simple terms and given a name. I may share your thoughts with my students next week to get their reaction. It sounds like a cousin to the utilitarian approach (cost/benefit), in a twisted sort of way. But, somehow, whatever name it is given, I don’t think the MS Bar will be impressed. IF the MS Bar is persuaded by such reasoning and lets bribery, stealing documents, contempt of court, using the threat of criminal prosecution for advantage in civil litigation, etc. slide, then I will strongly consider resigning my Bar license and finding a more noble career, as mine has just went to the crapper.
January 11, 2008 at 10:14 am
friend, re my comment posted 7:48 last night - no one - not Sop, no me - is or every has said there is an ethical theory of theory that justifies bribery. How could there possibly be?
I teach the theory in question and you’re not going to pass my class if you keep looking on Sop’s paper - it’s Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning related to the development of intelligence. (posted 1-06 at 10:21 on another thread)
Sop is explaining what might cause someone to justify wrong-doing, not claiming it’s right.
If the bar isn’t interested in it, it should be - as it explains thinking about right and wrong at various levels of intelligence.
January 11, 2008 at 10:17 am
Mr. Friend, I am unaware of any ethical standard employed by State Farm and Rimkus engineering that allowed them to defraud a 70 year old man despite your assertions to the contrary.
The end of “corporate profit” is not a legitament justifcation for the means used by State Farm against their customers.
I remain thankful my own business law professor knew the difference and was capable of applying the same standard of conduct to individuals as well as large corporations.
sop
January 11, 2008 at 10:32 am
SOP said: “The end of “corporate profit” is not a legitament justifcation for the means used by State Farm against their customers.”
Corporate profit as it relates to it’s own policyholders is not very relevent when applied to a mutual company such as State Farm.
State Farm is a “Mutual Insurance Company” and as such is wholly owned by it’s policyholders. It seems strange and highly unlikely to accuse a Mutual Insurance Company of defrauding policyholders for “Corporate Profit” which in turn goes to the owners. . .who are the policyholders.
Being a Mutual Insurance Company does not mean that a corporation is immune to making mistakes and/or doing wrong, but it would certainly seem that “Profit” would not be a likely motivation if it comes at the expense of the policyholder/owners.
January 11, 2008 at 10:52 am
I see that Sop has been drinking Gene Taylor’s koolaid. That explains a lot about his posts.
January 11, 2008 at 11:00 am
sop, I have never in this thread defended the alleged State Farm actions of which you refer. Not once. IF State Farm is guilty of such actions, once again, I say that “heads should roll”.
IF you have the evidence you say you do in the lawsuit in which you are involved, then you should have no trouble convincing a jury to rule in favor of your client on the contract, and then hammer State Farm for bad faith. No judicial bribery, juror bribery, or any other tainting of our legal system will be necessary. A fair and impartial jury will take care of the justice.
So, to make the record clear, I don’t condone the alleged actions of State Farm in any way, shape, or form. You are making a straw man argument at my expense. And, in essense, preaching to the choir.
My saying that the actions and/or alleged actions of the attorneys involved in the State Farm litigation on the side of the plaintiffs (as has been specifically referenced) has been unethical (at least, maybe illegal) does not mean that I condone State Farm’s alleged actions. Quite frankly, I just don’t understand that logic.
There are many, many, many fine, honest, capable, competent attys in the state of MS who could represent these coast plaintiffs very well against State Farm and other insurers, without breaching our ethical laws and criminal laws in the process.
Your arguments ring of emotions run unchecked. Take a deep breath. Its gonna be ok. MS’s legal system functioned quite well before this new breed of unethical attys took center stage. Our state will survive this mess, and life will go on. And those who have done wrong, including State Farm, will have their day of reckoning.
For that matter, “we all have it coming to us”, in one form or another. (this principle borrowed from the “Unforgiven”).
January 11, 2008 at 11:22 am
NightTrain, you mean these folks eat their young? How disgusting!
They just gave $1.5 million to some group here to promote drop-out prevention - we’ve got kids on the Coast that just need a place to do their homework. Surely their “owners” didn’t come up with that.
January 11, 2008 at 11:29 am
Actually I have no direct or indirect financial interest in the Katrina litigation. I find the freedom to speak my mind unfettered of a personal stake in the outcome beyond righting a moral wrong to be most liberating.
I’ve enjoyed the banter on this thread and find the rapid succession of replies to my last post to be most revealing. You guys must be new to blogging, none the less I thank each of you for thinking enough of my posts on this thread to reply the way you have.
Mr Friend another way of expressing that quote from Unforgiven is “we all get what we deserve”. The tidal wave of Katrina is changing the landscape of trial law in Mississippi as well as the insurance industry as a whole, to which certain corporate and trial lawyers owe so much of their personal fortunes. Perhaps when this is done and the medicine is taken, some real societal good will arise from the destruction.
sop
January 11, 2008 at 11:31 am
Nighttrain, how about this as a supposition for a motive by State Farm to cheat? — They don’t have the assets available to pay all of the legitimate claims they are facing from Katrina (and by “claims” I use the traditional definiton, and not the one State Farm has adopted in its public defense of it’s actinos as just claims it has deemed worthy and paid or has been ordered to pay).
January 11, 2008 at 11:45 am
Hey, Observer, that works for me - and 3x not enough explains a lot of things.
January 11, 2008 at 11:56 am
There could be another explanation Mr. Observer, in fact, the same one that could also apply to Mr. Scruggs as so eloquently expressed by observers like Mr. Rossmiller: State Farm treated people that way because that’s the way they’ve been conducting business and skating on it for years.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/17/lt.01.html
sop
January 11, 2008 at 11:15 pm
“The level of intellectual discourse here is excellent.” SOP
Wellll- true when you said it. Nothing like having the thoughts of other posters placed in your mouth? I think the legal profession has a few real problem which has been revealed on these legal blogs. Problem one—if the glove doesn’t fit, tell the jury it did. It seems alot of lawyers who post on the net (not folo) have no problem with mistating the evidence or what some other poster said. Wake up. What you post is here for a long time and others will come back and correct the mistatements you make. Then the reader can examine the record side by side. Its not like a courtroom where the words you speak are not typed out for the jury to re-read. So you have to ditch that technique on the net. If someone didn’t say a word about Scruggs it only makes you look bad when to try to insert words in their mouth. If an report said wind and water; don’t tell the readers it said wind only. Then get called on your inaccuracy and reports wind only. The cheap tricks which work in an verbal environment don’t work in a written one. Just a tip.
January 12, 2008 at 6:27 am
I say again (Scruggs, State Farm)–Two wrongs do not make a right.
Look guys this thing ( the genesis) is going back to 1994 or earlier. The money greed involving State Farm/Katrina legal squabble may have brought it to the surface but the true genesis will be prior to Katrina.
January 12, 2008 at 6:58 am
It’s hard not to notice on the coast, that the heavily capitalized insurance firms, like AIG, quickly paid off on the exact same type claims, with the exact same coverage, that State Farm and other undercapitalized companies are being sued for not paying.
What insurance company defenders can’t overcome with me, or the thousands of other people on the coast, is not what we’ve heard, but what we have all been witnesses to. It’s easy for them to make their case in New York, it’s a lot harder to make it to the ones they cheated, and the friends and neighbors of the ones they cheated.
And, everytime we hear that “Good neighbor” thing, we want to go find the ad man who thought that one up and do violence (knowing that two wrongs wouldn’t make a right, but that it sure would feel good).
January 12, 2008 at 7:07 am
No argument from me on that point observer.
January 12, 2008 at 10:11 am
Not that my preference matters as the internet is free for all but I wished his thread had become a part of the written archive, but against my advice Steve had to chip in beating a dead horse. Steve, I’ve been asked to convey a message that you check your email.
Since Mr. Observer keeps repeating the assertion that State Farm is somehow undercapitalized and thus could not honor their contractual obligations I’ll continue pointing out State Farm was profitable in both 2005 and 2006 and carries a net worth of around $58 billion dollars as of 12-31-2006 such figure being net of 1.3 billion of Katrina related claims. AIG administered the wind pool which did pay after the storm but that wasn’t AIG’s money. The big two property and casualty underwriters in Mississippi were State Farm and Allstate. Allstate found religion fairly early on and settled most of their cases. State Farm didn’t and the rest is history. Otherwise I agree with Mr. Observer’s points.
Mr. Jim nobody has said two wrongs make a right and depending on what comes down the pike from 1994, the roots of this mess may go back that far, possibly further. My point is that everything discussed on this thread except Steve’s post is part and parcel of the gumbo pot this mess has become and is fair game for discussion.
I’ll also add that for better or worse, credentials don’t impress me on an internet blog, in fact quite the opposite is true with me personally. What I do respect is well thought out arguments in support of a position. Even better is when such arguments are supported by facts.
I am seriously behind and am signing off. I’ve enjoyed this discussion and appreciate the viewpoints of both you gents.
sop
January 12, 2008 at 10:15 am
I’ll add my “no argument” to jim’s, observer. It’s hard to see it and believe it; much less sit in NY and imagine it.
The folks down there are under some sort of August deadline, too, and all “the mess” is costing valuable time.
January 12, 2008 at 10:50 am
No argument with you either SOP. I agree it is ALL a part of the Gumbo! I have made several posts regarding the big picture and that you can not micro case this thing. The FEDS have cast a wide net to catch all of their shrimp and crabs to make this rich gumbo.