Here is a Notice of Hearing from the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois that provides background information on Colson dispute intervenor A&O Life. The notice accuses A&O of acting as an unregistered investment adviser in Illinois in connection with its viatical life “investments.” Apparently, A&O sold interests in its “investments” as a bond fund. It identifies one of A&O’s principals as Adley Wahab, a charged felon in the State of Texas in 2004 for forgery of a financial instrument.

The Notice identifies Wahab as a 1996 graduate of LSU.

Week before last there were two civil trial going on in Warren County Circuit Court at the same time. In Bougois v. Magnolia Marine Transport the jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict of $1,697,000. The plaintiff injured his back on a barge in 2001 when he was 42 years old. He had two surgeries and was permanently disabled. he alleged that Magnolia Marine failed to provide him with a dolly that he needed to safely perform his job, leading to his injury. The plaintiff’s attorney was Kelly Loyacono of Vicksburg. Defense counsel was Ernie Lane of Oxford.

The other trial was a med-mal case with a lawyer as the named plaintiff. The jury returned a defense verdict for the doctor.

These two verdicts illustrate the fact that it is easier to obtain information about plaintiff verdicts than it is for defense verdicts. Defendants win as many trial as plaintiffs, perhaps more. But the cases that make it into the newspaper are the ones involving large awards to the plaintiff.

More facts emerged this week from the Kroger beating case. The Plaintiff presented the following evidence against Kroger at trial:

1. The assailant told his two accomplices that he had “hit” the Kroger twice previously in the past few months.
2. Kroger had two incident reports for parking lot muggings where the assailant’s description matched the assailant in this case.
3. Kroger paid to have off-duty JPD and Hinds S.D. deputies patrol the store to guard against shop lifters. There had been no violent crimes in the store.
4. Kroger had an unarmed security guard in the parking lot who had no power to arrest individuals. The parking lot security cost half ($10.00 per hr.) what the in store security cost. ($17.00-20.00 per hr.).
5. Kroger could have had armed off-duty law enforcement officers in the parking lot at no extra cost by stationing the security guard in the store and the police officer or deputy in the parking lot.
6. Kroger gave its customers no warning of the recent history of violent crimes in the parking lot.
7. At trial Kroger blamed the victim for attempting to defend herself and keep the assailant from taking her purse.

It’s amazing to me that anyone can criticize this verdict.

A Madison County jury awarded a plaintiff $1.9 million today in a car accident case. The verdict may be the largest verdict in the history of the county. The trial judge was Judge William Chapman.

The plaintiff’s medical bills were approximately $200,000 and there were over $1 million additional economic damages. The plaintiff’s attorney was John Davidson of Jackson.

On Friday a Hinds County Circuit Court jury rendered a $2.5 million verdict for Linda Knox, a 62 year old woman who in 2007 was severely beaten in the parking lot of the Kroger Grocery Store on I-55 in northeast Jackson. Ms. Knox was hospitalized for two weeks following the attack and was permanently blinded in one eye. Her two attackers targeted older women in shopping center parking lots. Ms. Knox’s attorneys were Rocky Wilkins and Ashley Ogden of Jackson. Kroger’s attorney was Bill Luckett of Clarksdale.

Viewing the comments to the story on the Clarion-Ledger’s website , there is sympathy for Kroger’s defense, which the Ledger described as follows:

But Luckett said there was no way Kroger could have prevented “crazy, drugged out thugs” from carrying out the attack.

Luckett said one of those charged in the crime said they had driven around the parking lot looking for a female to snatch her purse.

“Look at it as an unfortunate event that happened on Kroger’s lot,” Luckett said.

I’m going to argue the other side of the coin on this one. Businesses on the I-55 corridor in Jackson invite customers in and take their money, but never disclose that there is a history of crime activity in their parking lots. There are many purse snatchings and similar assaults in the parking lots of these businesses. Most do not make the news. Visit that Kroger and I promise you that you will never see a sign that says: “Warning! Crazy drugged out thugs beat up an old lady in the parking lot last week. Shop at your own risk.” Businesses like Kroger should either disclose the crime history on their premises or provide protection for their customers.

To get a verdict in a premises liability case the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was on notice of a dangerous condition. Ms. Knox and her attorneys presumably met this burden. I doubt that Ms. Knox knew about the crime wave in the Kroger parking lot–most people do not. Kroger knows this and likes it that its customers do not know, otherwise they might drive out to the Wal Mart. The critics of this verdict would not give Kroger or another business their sympathy if they were attacked in the parking lot of a business with an undisclosed history of crime activity.

There is a good Bloomberg analysis of the recent pro-consumer decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the key points:

The Wyeth case illustrated one of the challenges companies face in some Supreme Court cases: persuading members of the court’s conservative wing to limit the powers of state courts and legislatures.

Clarence Thomas, a justice who typically joins the court’s conservatives on social issues, sided with the pro-consumer majority in the Wyeth case. Thomas wrote that the high court shouldn’t block state product-liability lawsuits simply because they interfere with federal objectives.

Similarly, Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia, another conservative on social issues, have said the Constitution doesn’t put any limits on damage awards.

The entire article is available at the above link.

The Clarion-Ledger had the following blurb today stating that Judge Vollor is stepping down after twenty years on the bench:

Circuit Judge Frank Vollor of Vicksburg will retire May 31 after 20 years on the bench.

Vollor, 60, said he is stepping down for economic reasons. Gov. Haley Barbour will appoint someone to fill the unexpired term, which ends in December 2010.

Judge Vollor’s circuit includes Warren, Issaquena and Sharkey counties. Judge Isadore Patrick is also a Circuit Judge for the circuit.

With twenty years of service Judge Vollor, is eligible for full state retirement benefits. He can collect those benefits while also working in private practice. I do not know what his plans are, but as an experienced and respected trial court judge he can probably work all he wants as a mediator.

How would you feel if you were sentenced to two years in prison for speeding because murder has gotten out of hand? Chances are you wouldn’t like it, since a petty offense like speeding doesn’t have anything to do with serious crimes. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and tort reform supporters commit a similar bait-and-switch when pushing the tort reform agenda.

An April 28 Bloomberg article discusses the Chamber’s renewed push for tort reform and cites shocking statistics about the unfairness of arbitration proceedings for employees and consumers. The Chamber’s tort reform advertisements are pure propaganda. The Chamber cites lawsuits that sound frivolous. But the Chamber does not seek remedies that hold filers of frivolous lawsuits accountable. Instead, it seeks to put caps on recoveries in all cases, including for victims in legitimate cases with large damages. It’s like arguing that you should be put in jail for speeding because there is a murder problem. The public does not understand this distinction, which is how the Chamber wants it.

Tort reform passed in Mississippi years ago. The public does not understand what legislation passed or what it means. I have yet to meet a client or potential client who understood that tort reform caps damages for meritorious cases. Everyone just assumes that it only affects frivolous lawsuits, since that’s what the Chamber and other tort reformers talk about. Unfortunately, there has been no organization with the funding or marketing acumen to educate the public on the Chamber’s propaganda.

The Bloomberg article also cites a study that found what many lawyers have long suspected, that arbitrators favor business interests in the hopes of getting hired in future cases:

Alexander Colvin, a labor professor at Cornell University, published a study in January that examined employment dispute statistics from the American Arbitration Association. Employees won 31.6 percent of the time if the employer had no other case with AAA; 16.9 percent of the time if the employer had more than one case with AAA; and 12 percent of cases where an employer and a particular arbitrator were involved in cases more than once.

Colvin worries that “repeat player bias” is at work, with arbitrators favoring employers in hopes of being selected for future hearings

Of course, the Chamber argues for arbitration with claims that it is quicker, cheaper and just as fair as a court proceeding. In a previous post I criticized the costs of arbitration, but now there is solid evidence that arbitration is unfair in addition to being expensive. There is currently an arbitration fairness act pending in Congress that would ban pre-dispute arbitration agreements in some consumer agreements, such as nursing home admission agreements. Look for the Chamber’s propaganda push to fight this legislation. You can bank on the fact that the Chamber’s ads will be based on its frivolous lawsuit bait and switch tactics.

A Canadian Medical Association article compiles statistics from several studies regarding medical malpractice and the compensation of its victims. Studies show the following:

In 2004, Healthgrades, an independent health care ratings company…. [examined] 37 million patient records from all 50 states, representing 45% of all US hospital admissions, found 195,000 hospital deaths from preventable medical errors annually between 2000 and 2002, (www.healthgrades.com).

In 1990, Harvard researchers examined more than 30,000 randomly selected records from New York hospitals. They concluded that 1% of patients were negligently injured, while only 4% of those who were injured, sued.

Harvard researchers [concluded that jury awards and settlments were fair] when they examined files from 1452 malpractice claims (NEJM 2006;354[19]:2024-33). Almost three-quarters had outcomes consistent with their merit. Only 10% of patients received payouts in the absence of error, while 16% received no payout despite the presence of error. “Portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown,” the researchers concluded. The system performs “reasonably well” in dismissing such lawsuits and in compensating the injured.

The article also cited studies that show that jury awards are keeping up with the costs of medical care and are not out of line.

Attorneys who represent medical malpractice victims will not be surprised by these statistics. Experienced med-mal attorneys decline to accept the vast majority of cases that they review. Of the cases accepted, the negligence appears clear with substantial damages. But even with stringent screening, med-mal cases are difficult to win with juries looking for reasons to find for the physician or hospital.

There is also a “circle the wagons” mentality among physicians in Mississippi. This results in open hostility by physicians to plaintiffs and their attorneys, even from doctors who are not defendants in the case. In addition, Mississippi physicians almost never admit that another physician was negligent or that negligence caused the victim’s injuries. This stacks the deck in favor of medical defendants in Mississippi.

The legal industry is being hit hard by the recession. Several blogs provide daily updates and there is a layoff tracker at LawShucks.com :

Major law firms are turning out to be just as susceptible to general economic conditions as every other industry. Historically, layoffs by top-tier firms were kept quiet and were done on a one-off basis. We’re trying to shed a little light on the situation.

As of March 31, 2009, there have been over 9,946 people laid off by major law firms (4,046 lawyers / 5,905 staff) since January 1, 2008. For the first quarter of 2009, 7,999 (3,149 lawyers, 4,850 staff), 3,677 in March alone (1,334 attorneys, 2,343 staff).

Subscribe to the blog Above the Law on your google or other reader and prepare to be depressed. The site provides daily updates from mega-firms complete with bootlegged emails announcing that the ax has been dropped.

It appears that the site defines major law firms as huge firms based in major cities. I do not believe that any firm with a presence in Mississippi fits their criteria for a major firm, but the recession is being felt everywhere. There is no doubt that Mississippi firms, attorneys and support staff are suffering. Hiring by law firms in Mississippi is down. There are rumors around town about layoffs, particularly of contract attorneys and staff. I have also heard that law school graduates are finding it very difficult to find a paying job in the legal field.

In the litigation arena Mississippi began its recession a good five years ago with the change in joinder law, tort reform and a conservative supreme court sending mass tort plaintiff lawyers in search of greener pastures in other states. Katrina related litigation helped, but those cases have mostly been resolved. There are just not as many big cases in Mississippi as 5-10 years ago, with cases like Eaton v. Frisby being the exception. And no one I know sees that changing anytime soon.