Home|Login|Register  |    
Today, Federal Judge L.T. Senter disqualified the Katrina Litigation Group and associated attorneys from pursuing cases against State Farm. He further ruled that the Rigsby Gals could no longer be considered witnesses and that the evidence that they stole from State Farm would be inadmissable. This is an earthshattering development in that ongoing litigation.

Here is the Memorandum

Here is the Order


From the Memorandum

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
MEMBERS OF THE KATRINA LITIGATION GROUP AND ASSOCIATED COUNSEL
The Court has before it the second motion [966] of State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company (State Farm) and the motion [978] of E. A. Renfroe & Company (Renfroe) to
disqualify the attorneys and law firms of the former Scruggs Katrina Group (SKG) and
the associated firm of Hesse & Butterworth P.L.L.C. (and other attorneys associated as
counsel for the plaintiffs by these firms) from representing the plaintiffs in this action.
For the reasons set out below, these motions will be granted.
The SKG Joint Venture was formed to litigate property damage claims following
Hurricane Katrina. This action was filed by the original members of the SKG. The
motions [890] [891] of Richard Scruggs (Scruggs) and the other attorneys of the
Scruggs Law Firm, P. A., to withdraw as counsel in this case have been granted. The
motion [1079] of Mike Moore of the Mike Moore Law Firm, L.L.C., to withdraw as
counsel has also been granted. The other members of the SKG joint venture, the
Barrett Law Office, P.A. (Barrett); Nutt & McAlister, P.L.L.C. (Nutt); and the Lovelace
Law Firm, P.A. (Lovelace), remain as counsel of record. These remaining joint
venturers have associated Hesse & Butterworth, P.L.L.C. as counsel for the plaintiffs.
When Scruggs and two other members of the Scruggs Law Firm withdrew as
counsel of record in this case, Barrett, Nutt, and Lovelace regrouped and formed the
Katrina Litigation Group (KLG). The members of the KLG have undertaken to
represent the plaintiffs in this case and in a large number of other cases against State
Farm and Renfroe now pending in this Court.
State Farm and Renfroe have moved to disqualify the members of the KLG on
the grounds that Scruggs, acting on behalf of the SKG, engaged in unethical conduct
that is sufficiently egregious to justify disqualification of the other SKG joint venturers in
order to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and to assure public confidence in
the litigation of this case and the other similar cases now pending in this Court.
-2-
State Farm and Renfroe have charged Scruggs with two basic types of ethical
misconduct and with conflicts of interest, all of which relate in one way or another to the
relationship between Scruggs and the SKG and two former Renfroe employees Cori
and Kerri Rigsby (the Rigsby sisters). State Farm and Renfroe allege 1) that Scruggs
participated and encouraged the Rigsby sisters to wrongfully appropriate and disclose
confidential documents in which both State Farm and Renfroe had a legitimate right to
confidentiality; and 2) that Scruggs paid the Rigsby sisters a substantial sum in
furtherance of Scruggs’s efforts to encourage the misappropriation of these documents.
State Farm and Renfroe have alleged additional acts of misconduct relating to other
witnesses and to the plaintiffs’ counsel having obtained documentary and physical
evidence without following the established procedure for the use of out-of-state
subpoenas in the discovery process.
I have determined that disqualification is required because Scruggs, acting in
furtherance of the SKG joint venture, paid the Rigsby sisters a substantial sum of
money (a consulting fee of $150,000 per year) despite Scruggs’s knowledge that the
Rigsby sisters were material witnesses in connection with many hurricane damage
claims that were likely to become the subject of litigation. While Scruggs made the
arrangements for these payments, the other members of the SKG joint venture knew or
should have known that the payments were being made, and I am of the opinion that
their failure to take timely and reasonable remedial steps or to object to this
arrangement amounts to a ratification of Scruggs’s actions.
While the other ethical
misconduct alleged by State Farm and Renfroe are substantial, the payments to the
Rigsby sisters are, in and of themselves, sufficient to warrant disqualification.
It is apparent to me, from my review of the deposition testimony of the Rigsby
sisters, that there was no legitimate reason for these payments and that the “consulting”
work that ostensibly justified these payments was a sham. Even if this were not the
case, the performance of legitimate work that is closely related to a matter in litigation
cannot justify an attorney’s payment of a substantial sum of money to a non-expert
material witness. Payments to non-expert witnesses are specifically limited to statutory
witness fees; reasonable expenses actually incurred for mileage, meals, and lodging;
and reasonable compensation for time lost from work while attending a trial or testifying
by deposition. (Opinion No. 145 of the Mississippi State Bar Ethics Committee, March
11, 1988). The payments Scruggs made to the Rigsby sisters bears no reasonable
connection to any work they performed or to any of expenses they incurred in testifying.
These payments were clearly improper. N.L.R.B. v. Thermon Heat Tracing Services,
Inc., 143 F.3d 181 (5th Cir.1998); Golden Door Jewelry Creations, Inc. v. Lloyds
Underwriters Non-Marine Ass’n, 865 F.Supp 1516, 1526 (S.D.Fla.1994); Rentclub, Inc.
v. Transamerica Rental Fin. Corp., 811 F.Supp 651, 653 (M.D.Fla.1992), aff’d 43 F.3d
1439 (11th Cir.1995); Wagner v. Lehman Bros. Kuhn Loeb Inc., 646 F.Supp 643
(N.D.Ill.1986).
-3-
Even though the payments to the Rigsby sisters originated with Scruggs, the
other members of the joint venture were aware or should have been aware that the
payments were being made and did nothing to prevent their continued payment. In
these circumstances, all of the other members of the original SKG are responsible for
this breach of ethics. Those whom these firms have subsequently associated must
also be disqualified to prevent the appearance of impropriety in the remainder of this
litigation. See MRPC 5.1(c) (“A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer’s
violation of the rules of professional conduct if: (1) the lawyer orders or, with knowledge
of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved . . . or . . . knows of the conduct at
the time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take
reasonable remedial action.”); See American Can Co. v. Citrus Feed Co., 436 F.2d
1125, 1128-29 (5th Cir.1971).
The payments made to the Rigsby sisters require the disqualification of the
successors to the SKG and those whom they have added as associates from further
participation in any litigation in this Court against State Farm and Renfroe arising from
property damage attributable to Hurricane Katrina. The motions to disqualify will be
granted.
An appropriate order will be entered, and the plaintiffs in all cases affected by
this disqualification shall be allowed a period of forty-five days in which to retain new
counsel or to notify the Court of their intention to proceed pro-se. For good cause, this
period may be enlarged at the discretion of the United States Magistrate Judge
assigned to the case. The plaintiff’s failure to retain new counsel or to inform the court
of the intention to proceed pro-se will make a case subject to this order eligible for
dismissal without prejudice. The attorneys subject to disqualification by the terms of
this order shall send, via United States mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the opinion and
order in this case to each client affected by this ruling.
The Rigsby sisters will be disqualified as witnesses in any actions now pending
on this Court’s docket against State Farm or Renfroe in which the SKG or the KLG has
represented the plaintiffs, and any documents supplied by the Rigsby sisters to the
SKG or the KLG or its associates shall also be excluded from evidence unless the
plaintiffs can show that the documents were obtained through ordinary methods of
discovery.


Posted April 4, 2008 - 3:21 pm
16 Comments:

Folks this is huge news.  Dickie & Zach Scruggs, Former AG Moore and the rest of the SKG/KLG crowd has hurt these litigants (their clients) critically through their actions.

Posted by Alan on 04-04-2008 at 04:33 PM [link]

It just keeps sickening me.  So many people have held Scruggs in the highest esteem.  He is nothing more than a common criminal. 
Scruggs, Minor, Teel, Whitfield, Diaz(he took money from Minor and Scruggs...lots of it!!!), Moore and the others . . .  they have been in this purely for greed and power.
The facade of helping the “little guy” is over.
These people have significantly set (some still are) Mississippi back.

I feel sorry for all the people they manipulated along the way.

Posted by Fyodor1 on 04-04-2008 at 05:39 PM [link]

Maybe these clients could sue their lawyers for ______________??(fill in the blank).

Posted by hdmatthias on 04-04-2008 at 06:02 PM [link]

Moral of the story:  Don’t mess with the insurance business or you’ll get taken down

Posted by PappyOdaniel on 04-04-2008 at 07:43 PM [link]

Maybe these clients could sue their lawyers for ______________??(fill in the blank).

aggravated ignorance maybe ???????

Posted by CDavidS on 04-04-2008 at 08:15 PM [link]

The tragedy of it all is that State Farm is going to be allowed to ride rough-shod over their former customers.  I don’t particularly care for Scruggs and the rest of the Apple Dumpling Gang, but at least he had the financial backing to take on the small army of lawyers on retainer for State Farm...also, one interesting note in all of this.  In 2007 Haley Barbour received a $200,000 donation to his campaign fund from one Carl H. Lindner, who owns American Financial Group, which in turn owns State Farm.  Kind of odd timing don’t you think for an exec in Cincinatti, OH to make such a big contribution.

Posted by PappyOdaniel on 04-04-2008 at 08:21 PM [link]

Maybe it’s time to start blaming BIG LAW for all of our state and country’s woes, hmmm?

And who ever held Dickie Scruggs and all of those ambulance chasers in high esteem?  Maybe John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, or Barry Obama?

The things that I would like to know are:

Can State Farm bring civil litigation against these attorneys and the Rigsby Sisters to collect money to assist in paying their legal fees?

Can the Rigsby sisters be charged with any kind of larceny or theft?

Posted by Two Dogs on 04-04-2008 at 09:18 PM [link]

John Grisham holds them in pretty high esteem.

Posted by db-mo on 04-05-2008 at 07:30 AM [link]

Skruggs will likely be the poster boy for tort reform legislation for the next decade.  the pendulum will swing back toward the middle where business can stand on a level playing surface with big law.

Posted by jumboshrimp on 04-05-2008 at 07:38 AM [link]

Not a lawyer and didn’t stay in a Holiday Inn last night.  Can the lawyers out there tell us if clients, Renfroe and/or State Farm have a cause of action against SKG/KLG or the Rigsby girls?

Posted by noflo on 04-05-2008 at 02:49 PM [link]

Pappy, if there was one single thing untoward about the contributions to Barbour, Ronnie Agnew would be all over it.  And it is very, very odd that you say State Farm is owned by AFG when State Farm is one of AFG’s biggest competitors.

HERE‘s the link, you have to scroll down a good way to the heading “Principal Competitors.”

Posted by Two Dogs on 04-05-2008 at 08:08 PM [link]

With this ruling statefarm will think they are free and clear and will really stick it in us. The worst insurance company I know of i was really hoping dickie would own it. But hey state farm if you can live with it, I can live without it.
truly yours,
Dang A Lang

Posted by ElPabloPolitico on 04-05-2008 at 08:32 PM [link]

Of course it’s untoward when State Farm donates to a political candidate.  It’s untoward when anybody donates to a political candidate, because the presence or absence of donor support influences political candidates of all stripes to such a degree as to constitute an aggregate form of bribery.  It also ensures that rich people will always have disproportionate influence over who gets elected.

But public funding of political campaigns sucks, too, for many reasons--not least of which being that it gives the government even more control over political candidates than private donors have.

I don’t have a solution, but “untoward” is a good word for the entire political process.  And that’s why the donations Barbour received from State Farm don’t bother me a bit.  Politics is intrinsically untoward.

Posted by Tom Head on 04-06-2008 at 02:00 AM [link]

Pappy, no the moral of the story is that, no wrong, illy perceived or real, justifies lying or fraud to remedy or correct in the eyes or the law or morally. 
Carl Lindner or American Financial Group have nothing to do with State Farm, which is a “policyholder owned company”.  Carl Lindner can have good reason to donate money to enact and maintain good government just as much as can the AFL-CIO. 

Ship Island

Posted by ship island on 04-06-2008 at 04:36 AM [link]

Pappy...you’re way off base here.  As two dogs pointed out, you’re wrong on State Farm ownership.  State Farm is a mutual company, meaning owned by policyholders.  It is unlikely that a mutual company would stick it to it’s owners because, unlike stock companies, owners of a mutual company don’t have to sell anything to leave...they just leave.  One underanalyzed issues here is, “has State Farm been unjustly villified here?” As the light of day hits the issues, it’s looking more like they handled their obligations honorably.  The marketplace is smarter than you and I and bloggers combined and the marketplace keeps SF in demand.

Posted by jumboshrimp on 04-06-2008 at 10:16 AM [link]

The timing of this story was wierd (with the tornado and all) and definitely got lost in the media shuffle this weekend.  This is one of the most significant and far reaching stories to come out of the Scruggs debacle.  There are over 100 lawsuits affected by this ruling.

Posted by Alan on 04-07-2008 at 07:30 AM [link]
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. And yes, you can still keep your identity anonymous. See the instructions on the registration page.
recent comments


©2005-2008 Jackson New Media, Inc. All rights reserved.