Tobacco fees: one brave judge

July 30-31 -- Tobacco fees: one brave judge. Although most of the press from the New York Times on down continues to ignore this developing story, on July 10 Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Ramos "told lawyers for six law firms that were awarded $625 million for their work in the historic 1998 tobacco settlement in no uncertain terms that he will examine whether the fee award is unethical. The April 2001 decision of the arbitration panel that issued the award set off 'a flashing light that got my attention' that the $625 million fee might violate the New York Code of Professional Responsibility's proscription against illegal or excessive fees, Ramos told the throng of lawyers that filled his courtroom," reports Daniel Wise in the New York Law Journal. Virtually the entire array of lawyers in the case was lined up against Judge Ramos: the trial lawyers themselves of course were furious, the tobacco companies were disputing his jurisdiction over the matter, and New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office was defending the mega-fees in a brief. Outside the courtroom, meanwhile, establishment legal ethicist Stephen Gillers was scoffing that "There doesn't seem to be any legal or ethical basis for this inquiry." There doesn't? The state's Disciplinary Rule 2-106 bars lawyers from collecting "an illegal or excessive fee," and it says nothing about excessive fees being okay so long as the other parties in the case have been dragooned into not objecting. (Daniel Wise, "New York Judge Begins Query Into Tobacco Fees", New York Law Journal, Jul. 12)(see Jun. 21-23, 2002; May 11-13, 2001). Correction Jul. 31: our first report mistakenly named the scene of these proceedings as the Superior Court; it is in fact the Supreme Court (which in New York is a trial court and not the highest appellate body).

On July 25 the judge held a further hearing which even fewer press outlets seem to have covered -- the only account we've seen ran on the Bloomberg wire ("N.Y. Judge Calls Tobacco Pact Legal Bills 'Offensive", Bloomberg News Service, Jul. 25, fee-based archive (search on date in litigation category, pulling up additional screens if necessary)). Judge Ramos pointed out that the $625 million fee amounted to $13,000 an hour, a figure he described as "offensive". Although the trial lawyers who are set to collect those fees include many powerful insiders in New York politics -- the sort of men who can make or break the career of an elected judge -- the judge seemed admirably uncowed by them. He compared the lawyers' overcompensation to "the problems now emerging in large corporate America", which prompted Philip Damashek of Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek & Shoot, which was awarded $98.4 million in fees, to demand an apology for "comparing me and my colleagues to these Enron people'". And Ramos "ordered another attorney at the firm, Harvey Weitz, removed from the courtroom when he loudly told partner Brian Shoot not to let the judge interrupt him. 'You're sandbagging us,' Weitz shouted at Ramos as he was escorted out. The judge threatened to hold him in contempt." The judge "ordered the attorneys to file a new application supporting their fee request by August 30, or submit papers challenging his jurisdiction in the matter. The attorneys declined to say after the hearing how they planned to respond."

More: in Texas, Attorney General John Cornyn's ethics investigation is turning up the heat on the Big Five tobacco lawyers who for years now have dodged being put under oath over the terms of their hiring by Cornyn's predecessor Dan Morales (Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, "Investigation of Texas Tobacco Litigators Still Smokin'", Texas Lawyer, Jul. 22)(see Jul. 15 and links from there). (DURABLE LINK)

Outside the courtroom, meanwhile, establishment legal ethicist Stephen Gillers was scoffing that "There doesn't seem to be any legal or ethical basis for this inquiry."

Let me be the first to say that this guy is a complete moron. His legal ethics textbook may be the worst book I have ever read.

He compared the lawyers' overcompensation to "the problems now emerging in large corporate America", which prompted Philip Damashek of Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek & Shoot, which was awarded $98.4 million in fees, to demand an apology for "comparing me and my colleagues to these Enron people'".

You have to give credit to this judge. He knows how to hit this trial lawyers in the throat HARD. Comparing them to the heads of corporations whom they have demonized and plundered for years must really sting!

OH!For a major slip-up or something that was overlooked!I would like to see something that would get these liars/lawyers caught in serious felony trouble and put in prison.

This is beautiful! I had no idea that this was going on. This judge is very brave indeed.
The high dudgeon the one lawyer displayed at being compared to the unapologetic corporate kleptomaniacs is richly comical. Of course they are directly equivalent thievings.
God bless you, Judge Ramos.

To: JeanS; *puff_list; Just another Joe; Gabz; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; Tumbleweed_Connection; ...

This judge better be careful crossing the street or using the subway. He is messing with some pretty tough guys--tobacco lawyers.

He is messing with some pretty tough guys--tobacco lawyers.

It depends on which side you are talking about.

If you are talking about the anti-tobacco lawyers - you're 100% correct.

If you're talking about the Tobacco Company lawyers - you're wrong - They have tpo be the wimpiest group of lawyers that ever passeda bar examination.

They have tpo be the wimpiest group of lawyers that ever passed a bar examination.

Gutless wonders.

On the bright side - GO JUDGE RAMOS!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.