Jim Hood & Bailey Perrin "slaughtered" in Zyprexa lawsuit

Y'all Politics shares this piece (Blogging attorneys dissect Miss. Zyprexa decision) from Legal News Line that discusses a recent post by attorneys James Beck and Mark Herrman describing Attorney General Jim Hood's (represented by Bailey Perrin in a no-bid contingency fee contract) recent defeat in the Zyprexa case. They write at Drug and Device Law blog and title it "Pigs Get Fat, Mississippi Got Slaughtered."

Legal News Line explains

Twelve states didn't participate in a 33-state, $62-million settlement last year. Of those 12, six have reached eight-figure settlements while six are still holding out.

Three of those states -- Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Mississippi -- are represented by Bailey Perrin Bailey of Houston.

The entry makes a note of Mississippi's inability to settle. Weinstein had pushed for a mass settlement, appointing a special settlement master and even ordering the states to take 30 days off from their suits to try to reach an agreement last year.

"Mississippi was - again unable or unwilling - to come to such a settlement, so its claims, which were legally meritless in any event, come to naught," the entry says.

We've previously posted that the federal judge called Hood's case "slash-and-burn-style of litigation would arguably constitute an abuse of the legal process" and a Mississippi legal blogger called the ruling "a disaster for General Hood."

Federal judge calls out Jim Hood on "slash and burn" litigation, "an abuse of the legal process"

Judge Jack Weinstein, Senior U.S. District Judge in New York, handed Mississippi Attorney General a legal defeat yesterday, accompanied with a side of smack down.

In his decision, Judge Weinstein granted Eli Lilly & Company's motion for summary judgment except on one issue still before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals; and denied Hood's own motion for summary judgment. Judge Weinstein said the fines and damages sought by Hood are unConstitutional under the Eighth Amendment as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment and called it

"grossly disproportionate to both the injury Mississippi has suffered and the seriousness of Lilly's allged misconduct."

Judge Weinstein wrote,

"the State's claims could result in serious harm or bankruptcy for this defendant and the pharmaceutical industry generally....For the legal system to be used for this slash-and-burn-style of litigation would arguably constitute an abuse of the legal process....courts cannot be used as an engine of an industry's destruction."

Y'all Politics noted:

Eli Lilly has paid massive criminal penalties and settled with the federal government and most states. It seems that what Judge Weinstein is saying is that even considering all of that, Mississippi's suit (seeking BILLIONS in damages) is way over the line.

LegalNewsline.com broke the story and noted that the lead law firm representing Mississippi is connected to $75,000 contributed to Hood. Kenneth Bailey, the firm's principle partner, has also come under fire in Pennsylvania for making "repeated and significant contributions" during "the precise time period in which" similar no-bid contingency-fee contracts were "negotiated and executed."

Joey Langston (Hood's largest campaign contributor) and Timothy Balducci (also a major contributor to Hood) formerly worked this case for Hood before they were removed due to their guilty pleas in the Scruggs Scandal.

This is at least the second federal judge this year to call into question Hood's tactics or motives. Back in May, US District Court Judge Jed Rakoff noted:

The Court in not unaware of disturbing allegations that state entities not unlike MissPERS [the Mississippi state retirement system], and law firms not unlike Bernstein Litowitz, have engaged in “pay-for-play” arrangements, by which such an entity will not even consider hiring such a law firm unless the law firm has contributed to the campaign fund of the relevant state elected official, such as the attorney general.

Lawsuits as usual for Jim Hood and his campaign contributors.

Billion Dollar Set Backs for Jim Hood

Last week was a bad one for Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood. First, Hood lost before a three judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals over a billion dollar lawsuit accusing Memphis of stealing Mississippi's water.

Apparently Hood is looking to take this to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Either way, Mississippi will get its day in court and Memphis will have to answer and account for its theft of Mississippi's water," Don Barrett, lead counsel for the state, said in a text message Friday afternoon.

Mississippi Atty. Gen. Jim Hood, who filed the suit, said the ruling addresses only the proper court for the case, not its merits.

"We look forward to stopping the flow of our pure water to the Memphis pumps and recouping restitution for the loss of Mississippi resources," he said in a statement.

Oh yeah, lead attorney Don Barrett is a long time trial lawyer handling asbestos, tobacco, firestone tires, ford gas caps, vioxx - but very notably head of the Katrina Litigation Group (along with the Scruggs Firm and others). I tell you what, a contingency fee on a billion dollars is a nice deal if you can get it. It must be nice to be like Hood's family.

This case is also interesting because Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley has said he wants to get involved in it, too.

Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley said he'll push for the PSC to get involved in water rights litigation between Mississippi and Memphis.

Presley told the DeSoto County Board of Supervisors Tuesday the regulatory agency needs to represent water customers in a lawsuit alleging that Memphis is taking Mississippi's water.

"I think the PSC has to have a role in that case," Presley said. "It's on the minds of everybody in DeSoto County to make sure we've got that water supply here."

Presley said the previous PSC didn't act on the water rights lawsuit in time to be a party to it. He said the case is scheduled to be heard in U.S. District Court in Oxford in February.

Whatever the outcome, he anticipates the case will be appealed, and the PSC will get an opportunity to file a friend of the court brief.

The second big lost came to Hood's challenge of Mississippi Power's $2 billion Kemper Coal Plant, unanamously rejected by the three members of the Mississippi Public Service Commission. Hood, the Sierra Club, and two independent power producers (Entegra Power Group and Magnolia Energy) all had filed challenges to stop this new facility and the PSC rejected them all. It was a good win for Mississippi Power.

The Clarion Ledger and the Neshoba Democrat both editorialized this as a victory for more energy and more jobs.

Judge Notes "Pay to Play" in a Hood Case

NMissCommentor.com and Y'allPolitics both bring us this sad recognition that the Court recognizes "pay to play" scernarios between plaintiff firms and attorneys general, in a case which Jim Hood is participating along with his special counsels, who happened to contribute more than $30,000 to his campaign.

From a footnote in the US District Court Judge Jed Rakoff's opinion:

The Court in not unaware of disturbing allegations that state entities not unlike MissPERS [the Mississippi state retirement system], and law firms not unlike Bernstein Litowitz, have engaged in “pay-for-play” arrangements, by which such an entity will not even consider hiring such a law firm unless the law firm has contributed to the campaign fund of the relevant state elected official, such as the attorney general. See, e.g. John C. Coffee, Jr., ‘Pay-to-Play’ Reform: What, How, and Why, New York Law Journal, May 21, 2009, p. 5. But no such allegations are presently before the Court in this case.

Check NMC and Y'all for the full story.

Florida Free Speech Victory

This news from Florida is welcomed by those of us who cherish free speech, especially political speech.

In a major victory for free speech, U.S. District Judge Stephan Mickle today issued an opinion striking down Florida’s “electioneering communications” law—the broadest regulation of political speech in the nation. The ruling frees community groups and educational non-profits across Florida and the nation to speak about candidates and issues on the Florida ballot without registering with the government and navigating bureaucratic red tape.

“This is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment right to speak about politics without the government getting in the way,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Bert Gall. “Florida’s law put everyday political speech under the thumb of campaign finance bureaucrats. But with today’s ruling, all Floridians—not just political insiders—can now discuss important political issues without fear of being punished or forced to submit to onerous regulations.”

Just before last November’s election, Judge Mickle issued a preliminary injunction preventing Florida from enforcing the law, noting that “no court has ever upheld such a sweeping regulation of political speech.” Today’s decision permanently halts the law’s enforcement.

In today’s ruling Judge Mickle wrote, “While it is true that the legislature has the power to regulate elections, it does not have the power to regulate purely political discussions about elections.”

Under Florida’s “electioneering communications” law, any group of people that simply mentioned a candidate or a ballot issue in a public newsletter or on a website had to register with the government and report all of its spending and donors, even those who never intended their gift to go towards political speech. Groups that failed to comply faced fines and possible jail time for their speech. Individuals were also subject to burdensome reporting requirements if they spent just $100 of their own money to speak.

Florida’s law was passed after the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2003 McConnell ruling upheld the federal “electioneering communications” ban in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or McCain-Feingold. But Florida regulated far more speech in more forums by more speakers than the federal law, which is again before the High Court this term in the Citizens United case.

“Florida’s political speech ban was a classic example of a bad idea at the federal level morphing into an even worse idea in the states—and of how speech regulation leads to more speech regulation,” said Gall. “Hopefully, this ruling will reverse that trend as more courts take seriously the threat to First Amendment rights posed by campaign finance regulation.”

Chief Justice Responds

Jimmie Gates writes in the Clarion Ledger that a priority for new Supreme Court Chief Justice William Waller Jr. will be "A full review of the Code of Judicial Conduct as it relates to the judicial election process."

I should - hope - so.