There is no joy for the taxpayers today as Judge Senter has DQ’d the Missouri duo law firms. The gist of his reasoning is that they found out about the consulting arrangement after the fact and took no action when they found out. I’m uncertain as to what action they could have taken except withdraw but Judge Senter’s reasoning is what it is. Here is the pdf of the today’s order.
Now we are up to 2 and a half years with no justice for the slabbed.
sop
…and justice delayed is justice denied.
However, Judge Senter was very definite in clearing the Rigsby sisters of responsibility for the payment and he also went to great lengths to establish only this one point of disqualification – and to his credit disregarded all that was thrown at this Motion.
The bottom line is you’re right – the taxpayers lost again today; but “we’re all in this together” and have yet another puzzle – have we seen all the evidence about the arrangement between the Rigsby sisters and Scruggs?
You’re right about what Judge Senter had to say about the Rigsby sisters. It’s a blow none the less though Nowdy.
Twisting words in depositions wasn’t required however as Senter’s reasoning put DeWitt, Robertson and Graves in an impossible position. You may recall Senter himself knew about the payments and did nothing about it when he said no to State Farm the first time. Now he holds co-counsel to a different standard.
One theory I’ve heard today is he wants these cases off his docket so he can slow down again. I won’t share the theory involving pictures and farm animals. Scruggs is toxic now and he has infected all who interacted with him even the ethical lawyers like Lumkin Reeves, Zach Butterworth, Chip Robertson, Todd Graves and Tony DeWitt.
I wouldn’t hold out much hope for a successful appeal should one be filed but who knows. The policyholder cases that were solid have had no trouble attracting quality representation. DeWitt and company fought hard to stay on and they are nationally recognized False Claims Act experts. No doubt they think this case is solid so I bet it will attract a quality firm should today’s decision stick.
In the meantime justice delayed continues…..
Bingo on that double standard – Sop – and that’s a basis for appeal IMO because it was the only guidance available to any firm until now.
more on that later
Maybe Judge Senter should disqualify himself! He knew about Scruggs paying the Rigsbys and didn’t do anything about it.
Well, Sop, it looks like they are going to appeal and I say good on them! I don’t believe they had any more control over Scruggs than the judge himself did.
From the Chicago Tribune:
I’m glad Mr DeWitt went public with his outrage. Senter’s ruling is BS and has further damaged the confidence of the public in the judicial system, especially here on the coast.
I agree with Belle. Given the inconsistencies in Senter’s rulings and the fact that as a sitting judge he took no action against Scruggs for paying the Rigsby sisters it is time he too stepped aside in keeping with the spirit of his rulings.
When the public anger at large businesses like State Farm using the court system as a profit center and generally being above the law manifests itself politically, the insurance industry apologists over at Folo and ICLB may not be quite so smug with the impact of Senter’s rulings.
sop
Seems like every rapist and murderer in the state is getting counsel of choice, a trial and/or appeals. Judge Senter has lost me on this one. Is this justice being served?
Is this justice being served?
Yes.
Senter is saying, most plainly, that there are things lawyers can’t do.
That comes as a shock in Mississippi among the plaintiff’s bar, as it was their belief that there really were no ethical boundaries they had to honor. Bribing witnesses, bribing judges, trying cases in the press, leveraging criminal exposure to extort civil settlements, all SOP in Mississippi.
If the Rigsby’s are dying to pursue this, they need to go get lawyers unaffiliated with the prior bunch. If the case has merit, that won’t be hard. But it is clear that Dickie no longer gets to stage manage this at all: no referrals, no nothing. He and his gang are out. Maybe, just maybe, lawyers will remember this case the next time they are tempted to cut corners.
Mr. Claimsguy this is not about the Mississippi plaintiff’s bar.
Senter knew like everyone else what Scruggs did in paying the Rigsby sisters. He is holding the Missouri lawyers to a different standard than he held Scruggs himself not that long ago.
Many people may not have liked it when he DQ’d KLG but I think most everyone understood why, upon thoughtful review that had to happen. No one here understands the logic he used to boot the lawyers from Missouri. It is just that simple.
Justice delayed is justice denied. In this case depriving the Rigsby sisters of the lawyers of their choice, lawyers who did nothing unethical or wrong is in fact delaying justice. Even worse it not only is justice delayed but Senter also turned the clock back on justice to around August 2006 when the news first broke about Scruggs arrangements with the sisters.
The lesson ordinary people are learning loud and clear is that it is OK for a large company to fuck their customers because there will be no justice for years, if ever. Just ask the State Farm insured in Oklahoma City who waited 7 years for their money, Jeannie Hampton in Kansas who waited 10 years and a criminal trial on trumped up charges and now the McIntosh family in Biloxi at 33 months and counting.
Parden my french as I normally don’t drop the F word much but if the lawyers think any of this is lost on the public I have some waterfront in New Mexico for sale.
sop
Thanks for YOUR opinion claimsguy. The Rigsby’s were not bribed. I know it would make your job easier if they had been. And as much as you say it was a bribe, it was not, never was and has not been charged or proven to be a bribe. Lets stick to the facts.
Quote:
“No one here understands the logic he used to boot the lawyers from Missouri. It is just that simple.”
Then you have reading comprehension issues. Senter writes quite plainly, and pretty much everyone else who has commented on the ruling understands it.
Quote:
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Well, if Scruggs, et al hadn’t chewed up six months with frivolous assertions of privilege, we’d be six months closer to resolution, wouldn’t we?
And for that matter, if Scruggs, et al had chosen to litigate this matter BY THE RULES, the case might be nearly over.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason Dickie and his friends felt the need to lie, cheat and steal on this case was because they didn’t like the case very much if it were litigated fairly? Isn’t that the real problem here?
Quote:
“The lesson ordinary people are learning loud and clear is that it is OK for a large company to @#$% their customers because there will be no justice for years, if ever. ”
If that is the lesson people take from Katrina claims, it is because they haven’t looked closely enough. Look at the billions and billions of dollars paid by the carriers, and how quickly those dollars went out, and you will see that delay was not the widespread program.
However, there are times when a carrier thinks someone is trying to get it to pay for something that it doesn’t owe. (Like flood damages when the policyholder didn’t buy flood coverage.) In such cases, many carriers have been known to dig in and fight for what they think is right, and such a fight might include appeals of verdicts that the carrier thinks are wrong. The right to appeal belongs to every litigant, not just policyholders.
As for the Rigsby’s bribe, call it whatever you want. But the essence of the transaction was “steal documents for me and give me the testimony I want/need, and I will pay you money to which you are not otherwise entitled.” What would you call it? A tip? A no-show job, like on The Sopranos? I don’t think you can rebrand that transaction into anything more savory.
His writing was clear Mr Claimsguy it is his logic that has everyone scratching their head. Senter knew about the payments to the Rigsby sisters just like the Missouri lawyers just like State Farm’s lawyers did. Senter did nothing, in fact you could argue he ratified those payments when he initially ruled against State Farm.
People here know that State Farm opinion shopped their engineers just like they did in Oklahoma City.. If these claims were meritless like you say State Farm would not be settling these claims as quickly as possible. And an insurer trying to weazel it’s way out of a valid wind claim has nothing to do with not having flood insurance. Katrina was not a windless Hurricane.
The Risgby sisters left 6 figure jobs blowing the whistle on State Farm. They were entitled to whatever Scruggs paid them but they could not be witnesses if they were paid. Finally if State Farm had nothing to hide then people taking documentation on how they adjusted claims should not matter. Then again if it was all above board Lecky King of State Farm would not be takling the 5th amendment.
Quote:
“If these claims were meritless like you say State Farm would not be settling these claims as quickly as possible.”
Wait a minute. One minute you complain about State Farm delaying, and now you complain that they are paying quickly. Get your story straight.
Quote:
As for Senter, again, you seem to find difficulty where no one else does. Do you really think that Senter’s duty as the judge is the same as the duty of The Trailer Lawyers? If you really believe that, then you clearly have no idea how the American civil justice system works. (Not to mention having a poor grasp on the facts, which show that The Trailer Lawyers new of the Grigsby bribes well before anyone else did.)
I don’t know what it is that you are good at, but commenting on legal matters clearly isn’t it. You are wrong far more than you are right. Maybe you should get some help.
You can call it anything you want claimsguy, but it wasn’t a bribe. The Rigsbys were hired to help the lawyers understand the insurance industry.
It wasn’t a bribe? At $150K for four hours a week?
Really?
You do understand, do you not, that there are lots of insurance consultants that would be happy to explain the insurance business to Scruggs (as if he needs that: the very idea is funny) for rates that are much, much, much cheaper?
Walks like a duck, talks like a duck…
Senter is holding the Missouri lawyers responsible for the behavior of Dickie Scruggs in a case in which they had no interest. Senter also knew of the consulting agreement and did nothing about it when State Farm filed the first time to have him DQ’d. Those are facts.
The man is a sitting judge who is responsible for insuring the intgrity of the system, especially in his courtroom. He knew about those payments and did nothing yet holds others to a different standard. He actually pretends DeWitt could have done something about the payments in a case they had no interest. I don’t know how you could apply reason or logic to his ruling or ignore the implications of it.
Having to sue to get an insurer to honor a contarct is by definition delay. 33 months is delay, for both the taxpayers and the remaining litigants here. 7 years was the time frame in Oklahoma City. It is not me that has a problem with the facts Mr Claimsguy though I have repeated noted your skill twisting the facts. That is most telling, right along with Lecky King’s love for taking the 5th amendment.
Those facts, just like these cases are not going away.
I don’t twist the facts. I straighten them out.
The facts here are that the Trailer Lawyers knew of the bad behavior and did nothing. They got lucky the first time Senter heard the DQ motion, for reasons that frankly escape me. But he got it right later on.
Look at it this way: when the KC lawyers found out about the bribes, what should they have done? If your answer is “do nothing, and dummy up” you flunk the ethics test. (Although you may still be eligible for the MIss Bar, apparently.)
They faced a fork in the road and made the wrong choice. Such a wrong choice should not be without consequence.
As I have said before:
1> If Scruggs had played this case straight, it would be well on the way to trial by now, and
2> If the case is as good as you say, the Rigsby’s will get another lawyer pronto.
But I think that item 1 reflects poorly on item 2. That is, I don’t think Scruggs liked this case on the merits. That’s why he cheated.
Claimsguy, there you go again. How can you bribe someone to lose their jobs and pay them the same amount only just for a year or two?
The facts do not indicate that the qui tam lawyers knew anything that anyone else did not know. Sop is correct. The judge knew and he didn’t do anything and now he is blaming the qui tam lawyers for not doing anything when they were not in a position to do anything or know about it beforehand. When they did find out when everyone else did they did not ratify it even though they weren’t in a position to ratify it. Senter is acting like an angry parent who beats the kids for doing something they didn’t do.
As for the validity of the lawyers getting the boot, I don’t have any opinions one way or the other on that so I won’t comment on it further. As for the Sisters, I feel a bit sorry for them in that I believe they may have been duped by Dickie in this whole ordeal and may have not realized what they were getting into up front, and may have some real concerns now as things have turned out. They gotta be worried that Dickie will hang them out to dry, based on his history of how he treated other people he was associated with (the attorneys that sued him for fee disputes, etc), plus with all the other problems he has in his personal and professional life. There is a real possibility they will never work in the insurance industry again, and based on what I have read they probably wouldn’t qualify as an expert for consulting purposes in insurance litigation cases. Might get a case here and there, but there are far more qualified people out there to chose from.
One issue I have seen here that I want to comment on is them leaving Renfroe for SKG for the same pay. I don’t know what they made at Renfroe, and just have taken their word that it was for the same amount a year. I read their depositions and it doesn’t say, and I guess SF is trying to get that type of info too. I have heard that most of the work at Renfroe for claims people is “contract work” and it is temporary, so when they work and how often is a gamble if they are. I have also heard that claims people working storm work put in a ton of hrs (like 12-14 hr days, 7 days a week until things start getting under control), so that pay they are getting when broken down by the hr isn’t quite as much as it looks. I read some of the sister’s depositions and it is quite apparent that they didn’t work many hours “consulting” after they went to work for Dickie, but it was never revealed exactly how much. In one of the depositions, Kerri said she worked about 5 hrs during November 07, which would figure out to be about $2500 per hour. The gross pay may be similiar, but the working conditions sure aren’t anywhere near comparable.
I get the impression that the damages that Renfroe is going after would be the “benefits” that the sisters got from this whole mess, and based on reading the depositions, that is going to entail not just the pay, but value of legal fees and a whole lot more. If they went into the situation with their eyes wide open and knew all the ups and downs about it, I don’t have any bad feelings about the position they are in. If they were duped by Dickie, I do feel sorry for them as they may be in a world of hurt.
Fair enough Mr. Beau. As a coastie I believe the Rigsby sisters were sincere in their intentions. However they also have said they still count “Dick” as their friend and have disclosed they are concerned about the ramifications of the litigation.
Industry people I respect have told me good cat adjusters make 6 figures so I take the sisters at their word on what they made. I agree concerning their working conditions and the fact their income stream is lumpy.
I don’t think the Alabama suit will go anywhere. I do think the sisters will get new lawyers for the False Claims Act suit.
My non legal mind does not think history will not remember Senter’s performance kindly. His rulings were reversed in Leonard, Broussard and Tuepker. He ruled both ways on the Scruggs DQ.
The Missouri lawyers were put in an impossible position by Senter. The Qui tam suit was sealed when ABC broke the story so they could only talk to the USA. What a mess.
Mr Claimsguy gets the Ed Wood award for having the sack to go on record with his prediction on the outcome of the DQ motion. No one pegged Senter’s exact reasoning though in true Talebesque fashion NMC @ Folo and Rossmiller got their desired outcomes.
Contra NMC I’ve had several lawyers without an interest in the litigation tell me it could have easily gone the other way.
We had a good day here on slabbed. Welcome again Mr Beau.
sop
Beau, I’m working on a post that discusses their contract; so, if you check back first thing in the morning, I think you’ll find the answer to some, if not all, of your questions. Actually, I’ll probably have it up later tonight – if you’re a night owl, you might find it up.
If I happen to miss something, let me know and I’ll take another look at my notes and see if I can come up with what you’re looking for – or if I catch it myself, I’ll comment here.
Good to hear from you again.
Anyone who thinks $150K a year for working long hours under miserable conditions is the same as $150K for doing nothing is divorced from reality.
By the way, I agree with those who think that the Rigsby’s have been badly used here. Dickie used them, abused them and hung them out to dry. As we know, that is not exactly surprising, as that has been his history.
The Rigsby’s career in insurance is over. They are toxic. No carrier will hire them, and they are self-impeaching should they try to find work as testifying experts. At most, they could work as consultants for plaintiffs, but that work is pretty limited if you can’t also testify in court. And they can’t, without having the whole document-stealing episode come out on cross, which no plaintiff lawyer would sign up for.
Belle, I pose the same question to you that I posed to SOP: if you are the KC lawyer, and you learn that Scruggs has been paying the Rigsbys, what do you do? If your answer is “look the other way”, you too have flunked the ethics test.
I don’t remember taking a legal ethics test Mr Claimsguy. I do know the options of DeWitt and company were severely limited because the Qui Tam suit was under seal. It is that part of Senter’s ruling that gives me the most heartburn as I don’t think he fully considered those implications because it isn’t so much that they looked the other way as much as their hands were fairly well tied.
In this instance going public on 20/20 hurt the Qui Tam case immeasuably IMHO as once the consulting cat was out of the bag and the Missouri lawyers knew (but could do nothing except withdraw) their fate was sealed in Senter’s world.
sop
No, SOP. You have studiously refused to answer the ethics question.
I didn’t say you answered it, I said I posed it to you.
Nor do I really expect you, Belle or the rest of the apologists to answer it: it’s too hard. If you say you would look the other way, you flunk. If you say that any other course of conduct was required, you admit that the KC lawyers flunked. Choose your poison.
Come on now Mr Claimsguy you know better than that. I’ve taken many of your tests and passed everyone but I do insist you ask the right question.
Your question is the right one when it comes to the old Katrina Litigation Group and we agreed Nutt et al looked the other way and behaved unethically in doing so. However the False Claims Act case is unique and different from that fact pattern in many respects, despite the fact you won’t acknowledge it.
So teach you keep coming at us with those tests and we’ll keep letting you know when the questions are wrong. 🙂
sop
What evidence do you have that they looked the other way? They did NOT look the other way. They made a point of not ratifying those payments as far as their suit with qui tam was concerned. You are talking about an USAG and former chief justice here.
claimsguy, what’s not ethical to me is judging the action the Qui Tam attorneys took with the 20-20 vision of hindsight – or looking the other way when Judge Senter’s decision does exactly that.
State Farm has much more money than Dickie and the Rigsbys pay reflected that. State Farm paid them a lot more.
All the talk about the amount Scruggs paid the Rigsby sisters, duesouth, is a smokescreen IMO. If folks would remember the usual first line of defense in Qui Tam is to discredit the Realtors, they’d be able to put all of this in perspective – if their intent was a just resolution. Frankly, it’s pretty obvious that’s not the end some have in mind.
Any idea how far those KC lawyers can appeal Senters opinion for disqualification.
duesouth, hop on over to comments on the newer post on Senter’s order and you’ll see the appeal options are limited. They’ve got a shot at it but not an easy one.
I suppose there are other ways to skin the cat but I’m not sure what they are – at some point I suppose they’ll issue a statement or we’ll see something filed somewhere.
You all continue to dodge the question.
I put it again, as simply as I know how:
You are Todd Graves. You discover that your co-counsel is paying your prime fact witness an amount of money that cannot be justified as fees for services rendered. What do you do?
Todd’s answer was “do nothing”. (Someone here complained that I mischaracterized that when I described it as “looking the other way”, but I believe that to be a fair description of what he did.)
Who here thinks “do nothing” is the right answer?
It is a really simple question. Why won’t any of you step up and answer it?
I’ll answer your question where you show me where Todd Graves said he did nothing or “looked the other way”. You are making an assumption that I am not willing to make. I told you to show me the facts. But you will not do it. If Todd Graves murdered someone yes, that would criminal, but that doesn’t mean he murdered anyone.
Mr Claimsguy we answered your question. The case was under seal when the news broke. Graves’ options were thus limited. Using the reasoning contained in Senter’s ruling his only effective option was to withdraw. Besides Todd Graves, the entire coast and State Farm knew the same thing around the same time. You conveniently forget that inconvenient fact.
You guys took deposition excerpts out of context and used it to smear the character of otherwise highly thought of legal professionals. State Farm and their lawyers alone must have killed a small forrest for the paper containing all that trash that was filed with Senter. IMHO this portrays some of what is wrong with our legal system.
According to Chip Merlin there was an interesting suit filed in Montana against ALL. It strikes at the heart of what I’m talking about when I say people are sick of big business using the court room as a profit center. Those dang McKinsey documents again, the roadmap to institutionalized claimant abuse.
Gotta run. Salute
sop
So, do you think “do nothing” is the right response? (Leave aside what Graves did or didn’t do. What SHOULD he have done. )
Yes or no. Is “do nothing” an appropriate response?
Pass the ethics test or flunk it.
Or keep ducking.
claimsguy, you’re the one ducking. You are saying none of us pass your ethics test because we won’t do the unethical and that’s agree with you unproven claim.
An ethics test that requires someone to be unethical to pass it isn’t an ethics test, it’s a set-up.
This isn’t about proof. I am not asking you to agree that Graves did anything. I am asking you what SHOULD he have done when he first discovered the payments.
I assume that we all agree that he DID, at some point in time, discover them. I further assume that we all further agree that he had, at the moment of that discovery, free will: he could do things or not do things, all at his option.
That being the case, what was the ethical thing to do?
Was it to do nothing? Again, for purposes of this quiz, I am not asking you to assume or agree that he did nothing. (Although I believe that to be true.) I am not asking you to agree to any other facts. I am asking you whether doing nothing was the right answer, or whether some other course of action was better.
Again, it isn’t hard. Just answer. Was “do nothing” an acceptable ethical course of conduct?
Very clearly, your continue refusal to answer speaks volumes.
Tell me teach what would you have done?
sop
I’ll answer the question after any one of you do.
But I doubt that i will have to. You people will never answer it.
Thanks for letting us know you have no better answer either teach. Like I said, Graves, DeWitt and Robertson were in a dang tough spot.
In hindsight I think it’s clear that 20/20 show Dickie Scruggs and the Rigsby sisters starred in was Scruggs 2nd big mistake, right along with SKG paying witnesses in policyholder cases.
sop
Claimsguy, here’s an assumption for you. Let’s say NMC who is in a joint venture with Todd Swanson in GA and Thomas D. Bever also from GA defending Moultrie in the beef plant case. Let’s say NMC is working on something else not related to the beef plant case — and Moultrie is a fact witness in that case but also he has expertise in construction and NMC wants to use his expertise in that arena as consultant and pays him for consultations. (Also there are 2 other law firms in a joint venture with NMC down here working on this case. Now, Todd and Thomas find out about it. What do they do?
Let’s also assume that, Todd Swanson is the Todd in the trailer in March, but NMC doesn’t know that.
I’ll answer yours when you answer mine.
We answered yours. Claimsguy, it was brought to the attention of the judge and he didn’t do anything!
No, Belle, you didn’t answer the question. My question is what would YOU do, not what someone else would do.
Come on Claimsguy, I am not a lawyer. I do work for a lawyer and I know when there is nothing going on with a case he is handling, he doesn’t even look at it while it is in limbo — under seal, in this case –he focuses his attention on the other matters that he is obligated to give his attention to without distraction– good lawyers have a lot of clients who need their attention. The docket in McIntosh is 100 pages long — there were 18 lawyers working for the McIntoshes. If I were in MO and didn’t have anything to do with McIntosh or SKG or KLG, I frankly would not be paying attention because as it was they had quite enough lawyers in the bunch to figure out what they should do in their own joint venture. I would say it was none of my business.
Actually, those lawyers were damned if they did anything and damned if they didn’t. They were not a part of SKG or KLG and to intervene in a case that wasn’t there’s would put them in with the bunch that they weren’t a part of.
Belle: you don’t get to comment on legal matters when it suits you and claim ignorance of the law when it doesn’t. You’re in or you’re out.
Having said that, I give you credit for answering the question. That’s more than the rest of your buddies can say.
Sadly, you flunked. “Do nothing” is the wrong answer, as Graves discovered. The right answer? I can think of several. Some jurisdictions let you go to the State Bar’s disciplinary folks and get an advisory opinion when you have a tough call. That would have been good. Or, if a judge had been assigned to the QT case when Graves discovered the problem, he could have gone to the judge, laid out the problem, and asked for guidance. That works, too. Or, he could retain an attorney that specializes in legal ethics issues (there are a surprising number of them out there) and get an opinion.
Of course, the problem with all of those choices is that you run the risk of getting an answer you don’t like, and then you are pretty much boxed in to doing what the judge/lawyer advises you to. But that is the essense of thorny ethical problems: at least one of your options is something you really don’t want to do. (Helpful hint: in any ethical delimma, the thing you want to do least is probably the right thing to do.)
As to your hypothetical, I have a request for clarification on two points:
1> Is the consulting relationship with Moultrie a sham one or a real one? It probably matters.
2> Is the “other case” at all related to the beef case (parties or facts in common) or is it unrelated? That probably matters, too.
I gather that you are talking about a real case, but it is one I haven’t followed, so if you need for me to know more than the facts in your hypo, you will have to spell them out. Give me those additional facts, and I will give you my answer.
Well it was wrong according to Senter who thinks anyone that as Sop said, “stood next to him at a urinal” in a public restroom is deemed associated with Scruggs. But he (and I counted 64 lawyers in McIntosh and goodness knows how many more in Shows) didn’t do anything either.
The joint venture NMC has with Swanson and Bever are real.
The other case involves beef plants but doesn’t involve The Facility Group.
‘
Wait, what? You haven’t followed this case? Aw come on. Why not? (it’s not real)
Belle:
You miss my point. Had Todd gone the consultation route, he MAY have given the Court reason to respect his judgement to stay on (if that’s what the consultation led to) or he would have seen the light and bailed before he got the public spanking. Either would have been better for him than what happened.
And ANYTHING would have been better than asserting the Sgt. Schultz defense. That just made him look stupid in front of the vast majority of people following the cases.
As to your hypo, if I may restate for clarity:
Lawyer 1 is co-counsel with lawyers 2 and 3 on Case 1. Lawyer 1 engages a fact witness from Case 1 as an expert witness in areas of the witness’s expertise in Case 2. The retention is a good-faith one: that is, the witness is being paid a reasonable fee for services rendered, on an arms-length basis.
You ask what ethical duties lawyers 2 and 3 have regarding the expert witness retention. My answer would be that they have the same ethical duties all lawyers have: to report and disengage from any ethical violation of co-counsel. Since I don’t see that lawyer 1 did anything wrong (the use of the witness was an arm’s-length deal, paying a reasonable sum for services on an unrelated matter, as opposed to a Rigsby-style sham agreement), I don’t think lawyers 2 and 3 have anything to report.
If the witness arrangement is NOT arms-length, the answer changes. This is what distinguished the Rigsby problem: the arrangement there was transparently a bribe, and any lawyer associated with it had an affirmative duty to report it and disengage.
I note many of you commenting that “Graves was in a tough spot”. I agree. He was. But if you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Hanging with Dickie is, in the best of times, fraught with ethical peril. He knew that, and he let the sweet smell of big money overwhelm whatever good judgement he had.
Which other firm did what, exactly?
There were two firms claimsguy. BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON,ROBERTSON &GORNY, PC and Graves, Bartle & Marcus both of Missouri — the relators’ attorneys.
No member of BFRG was asked to ratify a decision by others to pay any amount to the Relators for any purpose. BFRG expressly disavowed any participation in payment of any funds to the Realtors and suggested that, as to the qui tam action, such payments would not be proper , and no payments could be made to the Relators except by the United States upon the successful completion of the false claims litigation.
3. Payments to Relators
Relators are clients of BFRG. Relators have never had an employment relationship with BFRG. The relationship has remained that of counsel and client. That relationship prohibits payments of any sort to the client. Miss.R.P.C. 1.8. BFRG has not reimbursed any of their expenses, and has not compensated them in any way.
Second, there have been no payments to fact witnesses (or anyone else) in this case (or in any other case) by or on behalf of BFRG or GBM:
b. No payments have been made to Relators by BFRG or GBM.
Third, as previously stated, the fact of ratification by BFRG of payments by SKG does not exist. Indeed, BFRG expressly disavowed the payments when it learned of them after the fact because the ethical rules prohibit payments to clients. See, Ms. R.P.C. 1.8(e) (Robertson at
Regardless of the merits of State Farm