#the Scruggs law firm | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

skinks · 4 years

Note

hi!!! what are your favourite movies? like actually good ones but also any trashy comfort movies? is IT (2017) one of them?

Hello!! IT (2017) IS ABSOLUTELY ONE OF THEM oh man, thank you for this, I love talking about movies!!!! This is possibly the most difficult question you could have asked me. Apologies for how absolutely off the rails this got, I just... love movies so much lmao

I’ve said this before, but opening night of IT ch1 was the best cinema experience I’ve ever had, I’m so glad I got to see it with a fully packed audience who were all laughing and screaming together the whole way through. I’m a huge fan of... everything ch1 was doing, the 80s nostalgia, the summer-coming-of-age themes, the solid ghost train funhouse JOY of the Pennywise performance and scares, the washed-out cinematography, the tiny background details to make everything that much more eerie, the kids’ ACTING?!

Like, a lot of the time I find child actors can be really awkward and stilted to watch, but I remember leaving the cinema really impressed by JDG and Sophia Lillis in particular. I liked that they were all allowed to be little shitheads with potty mouths, it felt like a callback to 80s movies like The Lost Boys or Stand By Me. The whole thing worked to make me really care about what happened to the kids (even if I do still have issues with how they handled Mike. I understand even ch1 had limitations with juggling so many characters, but still). I saw it another 2 times in the cinema and have rewatched it at least, I dunno, 7-10 more times since then?

Add to all of that the retroactive CANON R+E baby pining subplot? I just love it, as if that wasn’t obvious by now given my Whole Blog. It’s a really special movie to me!

Anyway!! Ok, the main handful of movies I rewatch all the fucking time are:

Back to the Future, The Lost Boys, Pride and Prejudice (2005), Jaws, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, The Breakfast Club, Ocean’s 11, POTC 1, The Dark Knight, Inception, Die Hard, LOTR trilogy, Snatch, The Nice Guys, Logan Lucky, Mad Max Fury Road, Clueless, 10 Things I Hate About You, Billy Elliot, Dirty Dancing, Tomb Raider (2018)...

Those are the easily consumable ones that I’ve seen so many times I don’t really have to concentrate or think about them, but I really love them and unfortunately often KEEP rewatching them instead of new stuff. It would take too long to go into why I love all these movies so much because I could write the same amount as I already did for ITCH1, and everyone already knows why those movies are good, so, lol.

I think I’m gonna have to subdivide and categorise this whole post because there are too many separate criteria for... goOD MOVIES, AUUHH 😩

Okay so first off, HORROR MOVIES? I’m especially in love with Re-Animator (1985) and its sequel Bride of Re-Animator, they’re such good examples of camp and batshit 80s practical effects, and also EXTREMELY funny. I’m actually just gonna post my list of my fave horror movies that I do actually keep on my phone at all times lmao. These are in no particular order:

Wholeheartedly recommend every one of these. I’ve never been so scared in my life as I was watching Hereditary in the cinema, hoo boy. Mother! by Aronofsky is one of the strangest experiences I’ve ever had (and I actually saw it on the same day I saw IT ch1 for the first time!! That was a fun day)

Psycho (1960) and The Fly from 1986 should also be on there but I couldn’t fit them in the screenshot.

I’m a HUGE fan of a ton of martial arts movies too, like Kung Fu Hustle, Shaolin Soccer, Ip Man, The Raid movies, John Wick 3 is my fave of the trilogy, Drive from 1997 with Mark Dacascos is incredible, SPL 2, Ong-Bak, Operation Condor, Project A, Iron Monkey, and Zatoichi (2003) are some favourites.

My favourite Tarantino is Reservoir Dogs, fave Coen brothers are Raising Arizona, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and O Brother Where Art Thou. Love some old-timey colour correction and weird offbeat dialogue. I also love Goodfellas!!! And Donnie Brasco! And The Firm, I’m so easy for any good crime/law/gangster/heist procedural like that, especially if they’re from the 80s or 90s in a super dated way.

Fave Disney movie is Tarzan, favourite Ghibli movies are Spirited Away and Lupin III. I remember watching Spirited Away during a thunderstorm one time and it being.... god! Transcendent! Favourite Pixar movie is The Incredibles (the first one. ALSO the documentary “The Pixar Story” is great and well worth a watch, it’s very comforting for some reason) and my favourite Dreamworks movies are HTTYD1 and Spirit: Stallion of the Cimmaron.

I tend to watch more anime movies than tv shows, so stuff like Akira, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, Summer Wars, Journey to Agartha, and my ultimate fave anime is Sword of the Stranger (2008). The climactic fight in that movie is fucking stunning and should be counted in “bests fights” lists right alongside anything live action

Also if we’re talking animated movies another hearty favourite is Rango, and a Belgian stop-motion (which at one time I considered my favourite movie ever) called Panique Au Village (2009) which is one of the funniest movies ever made imo.

As for TRASHY movies, I’m not sure if that’s the right word for how I feel about these ones but.. dumb/silly/slightly guilty pleasure movies? Ones that I feel need some kind of justification lmfao

Troy - something u must know about me is that I’m a giant slut for the Assassin’s Creed franchise, so if a movie smashes historical and mythological nonsense together with fun costumes and sword fights, I’m gonna enjoy myself. Even if they should have made Achilles and Patroclus gay. Other movies in this vein are King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, and Immortals (2011)

Gods of Egypt - I know all the reasons this movie is whitewashed bullshit. But it was already bullshit with giant Anubis mecha and giant snakes and bad acting and ridiculous CGI and frankly I had a blast at the cinema (my friend who I forced to come with me did not have a blast. Sorry H***)

Avatar - yes, the one with the big blue people. This movie gets a lot of flack nowadays but I really do enjoy it just for the spectacle. The full CGI world technology was so new at the time and I love to wallow in the visuals and daydream about riding a cool dragon around in the jungle

George of the Jungle - I’ll defend this movie to the death ok this movie shaped me as a person, it is fucking hilarious and Brendan Fraser is the himbo to end all himbos. It’s perfect. The song Dela is perfect. I still want to write a reddie AU about it. It’s one of the best movies ever made and I’m not being ironic

Set It Up - I KNOW this is a dumb Netflix original romcom but consider this; it was funny and the leads had great chemistry. I got butterflies. I once watched it and then literally immediately set it back to the start so I could watch it again

The Brady Bunch Movie - when people talk about great satires or parodies you will see them bring up the same movies over and over again, Blazing Saddles, This Is Spinal Tap etc, but they never talk about The Brady Bunch Movie from 1995 for some reason, which they should. It is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen and every time i watch it somehow it gets funnier

Some more general favourites that I do still love but don’t rewatch as often, and don’t wanna go into more detail about are:

Moon (2009), Crna Mačka Beli Mačor, The Sixth Sense, Parasite, The Handmaiden, Tremors, Wet Hot American Summer, Tucker and Dale vs Evil, What We Do In The Shadows, Hunt For the Wilderpeople, The Secret of My Success (I love kitschy 80s movies, is that obvious by now), The Green Mile, When Harry Met Sally, Rear Window, The Odd Couple, Breaking Away, Pan’s Labyrinth, To Kill A Mockingbird, The Eagle, Gladiator, The Artist, The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec, Call Me By Your Name, Master and Commander, Pacific Rim, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Legend (1985), Emma. (2020), Flash Gordon, Trolljegeren, Hross í Oss, Beverly Hills Cop, Coming to America, WarGames, District 9, Ajeossi (2010), Tracks (2013), Sightseers, Mud (2012), Pitch Black, Four Lions, Shaun of the Dead, Starship Troopers, The Truman Show, Withnail & I....... Jesus Christ ok I need to stop

NOTABLE EXTREME FAVOURITES that I didn’t include in the regular rewatch list because they’re too heavy/not as well known/require more attention.:

Thin Red Line (1998), Badlands (1973) both dir. Terrence Malick

Malick’s brand of dreamy impressionistic filmmaking is something I find really appealing, both of these movies are gorgeous and unusual and poignant and, in the case of Thin Red Line at least, have a lot of things to say about a lot of rough subjects. I don’t totally understand all those things sometimes, but a theme with a lot of my favourite movies is that I’ll be more likely to love something long-term if it raises unanswered questions, or is surreal/esoteric etc. Plus the cinematography is incredible, and I wish there was a way to get Jim Caviezel’s narration from The Thin Red Line as an audiobook because it’s very poetic and soothing.

Let the Bullets Fly (2010) dir. Jiang Wen

This movie is WILD, it’s so much fun. It’s sprawling and intricate and epic and smart and really fucking funny, it! Has! Everything! A gang of very tolerant outlaws!! Jiang Wen’s beautiful broad chest!!! Chow Yun Fat absolutely DECIMATING the scenery, and the two of them outsmarting each other in order to gain control of a small Chinese town!!! Plus it’s long, but it packs so much nonsense and intrigue that it goes by really fast. Wow what a flick

A Field in England (2013) dir. Ben Wheatley

I know I included this in my horror list but aaaaahhh ahhhh Wheatley is one of my favourite directors (he also made Sightseers, and is directing the Tomb Raider sequel which makes me absolutely rabid.) This is a surreal black-and-white psychological horror black comedy set in the English Civil War about some deserters who may or may not meet the Devil in a field. People eat mushrooms. It’s bonkers. I love being blasted in the face with imagery that I don’t understand

Mandy (2018) dir. Panos Cosmatos

Speaking of being blasted in the face!!!!! This movie... I saw it in the cinema and I can’t even begin to explain the experience, but I’ll try. My favourite review site described it like this:

“...somewhere between a prog album cover come to life and a metal album cover come to life, and subscribes to both genre's artistic tendency towards maximalism: what it ends up being is basically naught else but two glorious hours of being pounded by bold colors...”

So, prog and metal are my two favourite genres of music. This movie opens with the quote “When I die, bury me deep, lay two speakers at my feet, put some headphones on my head and rock and roll me when I'm dead.” and then a King Crimson song, it is SURREAL to the nth degree, it’s violent and bizarre and Nic Cage forges a giant silver axe to destroy demonic bikers and there is a CHAINSAW DUEL. A galaxy swirls above a quarry. Multiple animated horror nightmare sequences. At one point a man says “you exude a cosmic darkness” and releases a live tiger. At another point Cage says, in a digitally deepened voice, “The psychotic drowns where the mystic swims. You’re drowning. I’m swimming.” and I haven’t stopped thinking about it for two years

Paper Moon (1973) dir. Peter Bogdanovich

Really fantastic movie set in the Great Depression (and also in black & white) about a conman and a little kid who may or may not be his daughter, running cons across the Midwest. It’s beautifully shot, so sharp and sweet and the progression of their dynamic is really well done because they’re played by an IRL father and daughter. Tatum O’Neal was NINE YEARS OLD and she’s so amazing in this movie she’s actually the youngest person to win a competitive category Oscar. I keep trying to get people to watch this fbdjfjdbf it’s wonderful

Alpha (2018) dir. Albert Hughes

THIS MOVIE IS A VICTIM OF BAD MARKETING ok, the trailers made it look like some twee crappy sentimental Boy And His Dog Adventure, plus it had voiceovers in American-accented english? That’s a total disservice to one of the coolest things about this film; the fact that they got a linguist to construct an entirely original Neolithic language that all the characters speak for the entire runtime. And yes, it is eventually a Boy And His Wolf adventure, but it’s COOL and fairly brutal, and it has some really incredible cinematography. The landscapes are so strange and barren and alien, you really get the sense that this is an ancient world we no longer have any connection to. And it’s also about like, the birth of dog & human companionship sooo it’s perfect.

Free Solo (2018) dir. Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi, Jimmy Chin

The Free Climbing Documentary. I loved climbing as a kid, I love outdoor sports, and I love movies that elicit a physical reaction in me, whether that’s horny, scared, real laughter, overwhelming shivers, or in the case of Free Solo - HORRIBLE SWEATING TENSION. Like, I knew about Alex Honnold beforehand because of this adventure film festival I go to every year and I followed him on IG so obviously I knew he lived, but the actual climb itself was torture. My hands sweat every time I see it!! It’s incredible, such a cool look into generally what the human body can do, and more specifically, why Honnold’s psychology and life means he’s so well suited to free soloing. It’s such an exercise in getting to know an individual and get invested in them, before they attempt something very potentially fatal.

Brokeback Mountain (2005) dir. Ang Lee

I can’t even talk about this. When I was around 13 I snuck downstairs to watch this on TV at 11pm in secret, and my life was forever changed. I wouldn’t be who I am if I hadn’t seen Brokeback at the age I did. I seriously can’t talk about this or I’ll write an even longer essay than this already is

God’s Own Country (2017) dir. Francis Lee

The antidote to Brokeback Mountain, I’m so glad I managed to see this one in the cinema too. It makes me cry every time, as someone who’s spent years working on a cold British farm with sheep it was very realistic, which is expected since Lee grew up on a farm in Yorkshire. I love that this movie isn’t really about being closeted, but about being so emotionally repressed and self-loathing that the main character finds it so hard to accept love. Or that he deserves to be loved. The cinnamontographies.... lordt... but also the intimacy and sex scenes are fucking searing wow who hasn’t seen this movie by now. 10 stars. 20 stars!!!

Tomboy (2011) dir. Céline Sciamma

I saw this years ago but I’ve never forgotten it, it cut so deep. It’s from the director of Portrait of a Lady on Fire and it’s about a gnc kid struggling with gender and misogyny and homophobia in a really raw, scrappy way, it reminded me very much of my own... childhood... ahh the central performance is amazing for such a young age. I haven’t seen Portrait yet but I feel like if you went nuts for that, you should definitely check this out, it’s lovely.

Donnie Darko (2001) dir. Richard Kelly

EVERY TIME I WATCH THIS MOVIE I UNDERSTAND LESS AND LESS and that’s what I love so much about it. I love surreal movies, I love time-fuckery and stuff about altered perception etc etc and Donnie Darko scratches all my itches. I wish I could find a way to figure out an IT AU for it, because I know it would work! Somehow! Plus it’s got the subdued 80s nostalgia and I found it at an age when I was really starting to explore movies and music and the soundtrack FUCKS.

Offside (2006) dir. Jafar Panahi

I wish more people knew about this!!! It’s an Iranian film about a disparate group of women and girls who are football fans and want to watch Iran’s qualifying match for the World Cup, but women aren’t allowed into the stadium, so they all get thrown into the Stadium Jail together? They don’t know each other beforehand, but it’s about their changing relationships with each other and the guards and just, their defiance alongside hearing the match from the outside and WOW it’s so lively. Great dialogue and very funny, and such a different kind of story from anything you usually see from Hollywood.

The Fall (2006) dir. Tarsem Singh

This movie... I guess it’s the ideal. This is the platonic ideal of a film for me, it has fantasy, magical realism, glorious visuals, amazing score and costumes and production design and a really interesting, heartbreaking relationship at the core of it. I don’t know why so many of my favourite films feature incredibly raw performances by child actors but this is another one, Catinca Untaru barely knew any English and improvised so much because of that, and it’s fascinating to watch! Also the dynamic with Lee Pace is one of my favourites, where a kid forms a friendship with a guardian figure who isn’t their parent, but the guardian grows to really care for them by the end. It’s like Paper Moon in that sense. What is there to even say about this movie, it’s pure magic joy tempered and countered by genuine gutwrenching emotional conflict in the real world, it’s also ABOUT old moviemaking, in a way, and it’s stunning to look at!

Mad Max Fury Road (2015) dir. George Miller

I know I included this in my “most rewatched” section but it deserves its own thing. We all know why this movie is fucking incredible. I remember clutching my armrests in the cinema and feeling like my skeleton was being blasted back into the seat behind me and tbh that is the high I’m constantly chasing when I go to see any movie. What a fucking gift this film is

Théo et Hugo dans le Même Bateau (2016) dir. Olivier Ducastel, Jacques Martineau

I only found this movie last year and it became an instant favourite. Initially I was just curious because I’d never seen a movie with unsimulated sex before, but it’s so much more than the 18 minute gay sex club orgy it opens with. No, not more than, AS WELL AS. The orgy is important because this movie is so candid and frank about sex and HIV treatment in the modern day, it was eye-opening. Another thing that really got me is that I’d never seen a real-time film before. It’s literally an hour and a half in the lives of these two men, their intense connection and conversation and conflict in the middle of the night in Paris, with some really nice night photography and just!!! Wow!!! AMAZING CHEMISTRY between the actors. This is such a gem if you’re comfortable with explicit sexual content.

Ok. This is already over 3k but film is obviously one of my ridiculous passions and I can and do talk about it for hours. I’ve been reading magazines about it for years, listening to podcasts and reading review blogs and recently, watching video essays on YouTube because the whole process is so interesting to me and I want to learn more!!

Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about the concept of valuing form over narrative. The idea that story can often come second to the deeper physical experience and emotional reaction that’s created by using ALL the elements of filmmaking and not just The Story, y’know? Whether that’s editing, shot composition, colour, the sound mix, the actors, how it should all be used to heighten the emotional state the script wants you to feel. And so, I think for a few years now this approach has been influencing the types of films I really, really love.

I think I love surreality and mind-bending magical realism in films specifically because the filmmakers have to use all those different tools to convey things that can be way too metaphysical for just... a script? I’m always chasing that physical response; if a movie can make me stop thinking “I wonder what it was like to set up that shot” and instead overwhelm that suspension of disbelief, if I can be terrified or woozy or crying for whatever reason, that’s what I’m looking for. That’s why I watch so many fuckin movies, and why I’ll always remember nights like seeing IT (2017) for giving me another favourite.

Thank you again for this question, I didn’t mean to go so overboard. Also there’s no way to do a readmore on tumblr mobile so apologies to anyone’s dashboard 😬

#long post #films #this is like bill hader being asked to pick his fave comedies and he gives a 4 page list #he has such good taste though ahhahbfhfhfhh lemme talk with him nonstop about movies while i ride him. thank you

36 notes · View notes

spookyhausblack · 4 years

Text

Top Ten Richest Lawyers In The World

So, who are they? Here's a fast look in the richest attorneys in the entire world, ranked from the lowest net worth to the greatest. Please note that the individuals on this list are all practicing lawyers or judges. There are plenty of additional "attorneys " using a substantially higher net value, but they just possess a law degree and no more use it.

Alan Dershowitz: $25 million

After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1962, Alan Dershowitz went to work. By 1964, he had become a member of the Harvard Law School school and in 1967, he was made a full professor. (He murdered in 2013.) While teaching courses, he was also making a name for himself in the criminal law area. Thanks to his reputation as the "top lawyer of last resort," he's a bevy of high-profile customers, including Mike Tyson, Jim Baker, Leona Helmsley, O.J. Simpson, and Jeffrey Epstein. In addition, he's composed over a dozen novels. Everything together helped him collect his fortune

Thomas Mesereau: $25 million

Additionally a criminal defense lawyer (Are you noticing a trend?) , Thomas Mesereau graduated from Harvard University and The University of California's Hastings College of Law and has been appointed "Trial Lawyer of the Year for 2015" by the National Trial Lawyers. (He has won plenty of other awards including "Criminal Defense Lawyer of the Year. ") He's notorious for carrying high stakes instances with hopeless odds and receiving extraordinary results. He was Michael Jackson's attorney when he was acquitted of 14 child molestation charges and has won an unprecedented three national criminal jury trials in a row. While his hourly rate is so large it's not published, he also does pro bono work through the Mesereau Free Legal Clinic.

Jane Wanjiru Michuki: $60 million

Educated at the Kenya School of Law and Warwick University, Jane Wanjiru Michuki is a managing partner at Kimani & Michuki Advocate, a corporate law firm in Nairobi, Kenya that represents several of the biggest companies in Kenya, for example Equity Group Holdings Limited. In addition to her law career, she is the biggest female stockholder in the Nairobi Stock Exchange, which is where a fantastic piece of her net worth comes from.

Richard Scruggs: $1.7 billion

A 1976 graduate of the University of Mississippi School of Law and also a prominent trial attorney, Richard Scruggs is famous for his love of tobacco and asbestos cases as well as the fact he won more than $1 billion in judgements against different companies. He was also highly involved in 2000's Ritalin class action lawsuits, as well as the 2003 case against Lehman Brothers which he won a $51 million verdict. But in 2007, he had been accused of judicial bribery. In 2008, he pled guilty and eventually served six years in federal prison. Today, in age 70, he has completed his sentence and has retained his large fortune.

1 note · View note

stateofutobitha · 4 years

Text

Top Ten Lawyers In Usa

So, who are they? Here's a fast look in the wealthiest lawyers in the entire world, ranked from the lowest net value to the greatest. Please note that the people on this list are practicing lawyers or judges. There are plenty of additional "attorneys " using a substantially higher net value, but they simply possess a law degree and no more use it.

Richard Scruggs: $1.7 billion

A 1976 graduate of the University of Mississippi School of Law and a prominent trial attorney, Richard Scruggs is famous for his love of tobacco and asbestos cases as well as the fact he won more than $1 billion in judgements against different companies. He was also highly involved in 2000's Ritalin class action suits, as well as the 2003 situation against Lehman Brothers for which he won a $51 million verdict. But in 2007, he was accused of judicial bribery. In 2008, he pled guilty and finally served six years in prison. Today, in the age of 70, he's completed his sentence and has kept his massive fortune.

Roy Black: $100 million

Still another criminal and civil defense attorney, Roy Black, a graduate from the University of Miami, is the senior associate at Black, Srebnick, Kornspan, & Stumpf. For over 40 decades, he's represented high profile customers, including William Kennedy Smith (acquitted on rape charges), Albertson's, Inc., and Helio Castroneves. Known by many in the industry for getting "the very best national reputation in Florida," he also acts as a legal advisor on "The Now Show" and "Good Morning America" and instructs advanced criminal signs at the University of Miami.

Jane Wanjiru Michuki: $60 million

Educated at the Kenya School of Law and Warwick University, Jane Wanjiru Michuki is a managing partner at Kimani & Michuki Advocate, a corporate law firm in Nairobi, Kenya that represents several of the largest corporations in Kenya, such as Equity Group Holdings Limited. In addition to her law career, she is the biggest female stockholder in the Nairobi Stock Exchange, which is where a fantastic bit of her net worth stems from.

Willie E. Gary: $100 million

Nicknamed "The Giant Killer," Willie Gary has taken on a number of the nation's most important corporations, such as Anheuser-Busch and Disney. He's won a number of the largest settlements and jury awards in the U.S., including several cases valued at over $30 billion. A graduate of Shaw University, he is now the managing director at Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson, and Gary, P.L.L.C., functions as a motivational speaker, and has appeared as a legal analyst on "The Early Show. "

Lynn Toler: $15 million

Better known as the judge by TV's Divorce Court as 2007, Lynn Toler previously served as the sole municipal court judge in Cleveland Heights, OH for more than 8 decades. After receiving her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1984, she concentrated on civil law before getting municipal court judge. Within this function, she was famous for enforcing nontraditional sentences, like writing essays. In addition to presiding over divorce court, Lynn is the author of 3 novels.

Mark Geragos: $25 million

A 1992 graduate of Loyola Law School, Mark Geragos is a criminal defense attorney who's also been involved in several of landmark civil litigation class action cases. He's represented everyone from Chris Brown, Michael Jackson, and Winona Ryder to Scott Peterson and Susan McDougal. Named "One of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in California," he holds a listing for a few of the top 10 verdicts in California history to get a 2008 situation in which he acquired a jury verdict awarding more than $38 from a pharmaceutical company. He currently serves as a managing partner at Geragos and Geragos.

1 note · View note

doomonfilm · 5 years

Text

Review : Richard Jewell (2019)

I was a sophomore in high school when the Olympics came to Atlanta, Georgia, and with the World Cup having just been in the United States two years prior, Americans were eager to put their best foot forward. The world was changing rapidly at the time, and the 24 hour news cycle was just beginning to present itself, though we had yet to name it or identify how it would be so powerfully influential. Then, in one fleeting moment, a random bomb changed all of that, and a man went from being a security guard to public enemy number one in the blink of an eye. Clint Eastwood has always had an eye for humanity, especially when in the director’s chair, which piqued my interest when it was announced that he would be taking on the previously mentioned story in the form of his latest film, Richard Jewell.

In 1986, a young Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser) meets attorney Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), and the two men form a bond that Jewell was unable to make with any of the other attorneys and partners that he worked for at the firm. Ten years later, Jewell has landed a job as a security guard at Piedmont University, which finds him closer to his dream of a job in law enforcement. After repeated reports of abuse of power, however, Dr. W Ray Cleere (Charles Green) is forced to fire Jewell, who transitions into a job as security for the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia. Shortly after midnight on July 27, Jewell breaks up a group of drunk and unruly teens, but notices a suspicious package in the form of a backpack that was near the ruckus. Jewell urges the officers on location to call in the package, and when the bomb inspector investigates, he discovers three extremely large pipe bombs. Jewell and the authorities attempt to clear the area, but the bomb explodes, injuring or killing over one hundred people. Jewell is initially seen as a hero, but after Atlanta Journal Constitution reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde) coerces a tip out of FBI Agent Tom Shaw (Jon Hamm), she runs a story identifying Jewell as the primary suspect, causing worldwide attention to be cast upon Jewell and his mother Bobi (Kathy Bates). With the help of Bryant, Richard Jewell attempts to fight attacks from the FBI and the news media, all in hopes of clearing his name.

Richard Jewell manages to provide a redemption portrayal for its titular subject without completely absolving him of base humanity or the capacity for wrongdoing. Rather than presenting a case for specifically absolving Jewell of past accusations and completely clearing his name, the film reaches for the bigger goal of setting an example of how wrong things can go when those accused find themselves guilty until proven innocent. It is flatly stated that Jewell could, in theory, fit the ‘false hero’ narrative, and due to being a Southern man with dreams of a role in law enforcement, his knowledge of guns, bombs and criminal personalities harm him more than help him. Most of all, his weakness is his kind nature, and his defensive mechanism of trying to trust in the law becomes the dramatic tension that cause Bobi and Walter pain, which in turn forces Jewell to the breaking point of having to stand up for his innocence.

Interesting, as evenly as Clint Eastwood decides to posture his protagonist, he is unflinching in the manner that he positions the government and the media squarely as antagonist. Be it the constant drone, presence and forceful nature of communication in the form of the media, or the calculated power bundled with sheer intimidation that the FBI utilizes, both parties (as entities) are looked at quite subjectively. The characters of Scruggs and FBI Agent Shaw are not completely devoid of empathy, though Shaw does seem to be fighting his own battle over pride in his job and whether or not he will be viewed as competent, to the point that he blindly seeks the indictment of Jewell. Watching Bates play Bobi on the verge of breakdown due to her lack of ability to protect Richard from this dual threat hits hard, hence her Golden Globe nomination.

Eastwood makes some interesting decisions as director that work well conceptually. The visual flare, fancy camera moves and hectic editing that defines most biopics is set aside for measured camerawork, allowing the story to be the sensation rather than the way it is presented. The choices of what is presented as stock footage, like Tom Brokaw or the Katie Couric interview, play like echoes of times when media was simpler and easier to trust, while the portrayal of Scruggs and the AJC staff, the horde of reporters, or even a recast Bryant Gumbel (Garon Grigsby) using ‘gotcha journalism’, play like personal indictments on these institutions and practices. The muted, reserved way that the film qualifies as a period film is different than normal... period specific dress, haircuts, vehicles and the like are around, but the way that reflections on the era are used narratively, like the Michael Johnson scene, play much stronger. The sensationalist hunger of the media and their search for the next big story is also referenced, with nods to TImothy McVey, OJ Simpson and Ted Kaczynski all popping up. The film also manages to find ways to present humor, with most of it being found in the funny moments that manage to pop up in the extreme moments of life.

Paul Walter Hauser finds a curious rhythm that mostly involves him embodying the news media portrayal and public perception of Jewell, with brief but powerful outbursts of emotion that reveal fear in a shell-shocked man. Kathy Bates embodies all of the motherly support that can be captured and displayed on film, with a handful of powerfully emotional moments of her own that resonate long after the film is done. Sam Rockwell’s natural charm and offbeat nature work well in his portrayal of an anti-establishment attorney, with him showing an ability to focus force both vocally and with intense staredowns... Nina Arianda works well in tandem with Rockwell, providing a strong and supportive sense of guidance that pushes Rockwell’s character in the right direction. Olivia Wilde finds a unique balance of her own as a comedicaly straight antagonist, posturing in extreme ways while bolstering the choices with a matter of fact nature, all the while keeping a touch of humanity in the chamber for the resolution-based moments. Jon Hamm puts another notch on the ‘charming villain’ belt, somehow managing to be an intimidating good cop in comparison to Ian Gomez and his standard look and operation as an FBI agent. Appearances by Niko Nicotera, Mike Pniewski, Dylan Kussman, Wayne Duvall, Garon Grigsby and Charles Green round out the film.

Clint Eastwood continues to rack up a strong directoral catalog, and Richard Jewell stands as evidence of this. The potential director in me noticed a couple of mistakes that modern directors probably would have erased in the post, but these mistakes just further enforce the old school aesthetic that Eastwood uses. With the film itself being an echo of a recently bygone era, all of this works to Eastwood’s benefit... this one won’t be cracking my top ten, but it is certainly worth seeing.

#ChiefDoomsday #DOOMonFILM #ClintEastwood #RichardJewell #PaulWalterHauser #KathyBates #SamRockwell #NinaArianda #OliviaWilde #JonHamm #IanGomez #NikoNicotera #MikePniewski #DylanKussman #WayneDuvall #GaronGrigsby #CharlesGreen

1 note · View note

moviesquotes22 · 4 years

Text

The Insider (1999) Movie Summary

In Lebanon, Hezbollah militants escort producer Lowell Bergman (Pacino) to Hezbollah founder Sheikh Fadlallah, where Lowell convinces him to be interviewed by Mike Wallace (Plummer) for CBS show hour . In Louisville, Kentucky, Jeffrey Wigand (Crowe) packs his belongings and leaves his Brown and Williamson office, returning home to his wife Liane (Venora) and two children, one among whom suffers from acute asthma. When Liane asks about the boxes in Wigand's car, he reveals that he was fired from his job that morning.

Returning home to Berkeley, California, Bergman receives an anonymous package containing documents concerning tobacco company Philip Morris, and approaches a lover at the FDA for the name of a translator. Bergman is mentioned Wigand, and calls him at his home only to be steadfastly rebuffed. Curious with Wigand's refusal to even speak to him, Bergman eventually convinces him to satisfy at the Seelbach Hotel in Louisville. within the privacy of their bedroom , agrees to translate the tobacco documents, but stresses that he cannot mention anything due to his confidentiality agreement. After leaving with the documents, Wigand appears at a gathering with Brown and Williamson CEO Thomas Sandefur (Gambon), who orders him to sign an expanded confidentiality agreement, under threat of revoking his severance pay, medical coverage and initiating legal proceedings. Wigand, enraged at the threats and believing that Bergman notified Sandefur about their confidential meeting, calls and accuses Bergman of treachery.

Bergman visits Wigand's house subsequent day and maintains that he didn't reveal anything to Brown and Williamson. Reassured, Wigand talks to Bergman about the seven CEOs of 'Big Tobacco' perjuring themselves to the us Congress about their awareness of nicotine's addictiveness, which the CEOs should fear Wigand. Bergman says Wigand has got to decide himself whether to blow the whistle on big tobacco. Bergman returns to CBS Headquarters in ny City, where he and Wallace discuss Wigand's situation and therefore the potential damage he could do to Big Tobacco. A lawyer at the meeting claims that Wigand's confidentiality agreement, combined with Big Tobacco's unlimited checkbook, would effectively silence Wigand under mountains of litigation and court costs. Bergman proposes that Wigand might be compelled to talk through a court of law which could give him some protection against Brown and Williamson should he do an interview for hour .

Find Best Al Pacino quotes

The Wigand family enter a more moderen , cheaper house, and Wigand begins teaching chemistry and Japanese at a Louisville highschool . One night while asleep, he's alerted by his daughter to sounds outside the house. Upon investigation, he discovers a fresh shoe print in his newly planted garden, and begins to become paranoid. subsequent night, Wigand and Bergman have dinner together, where Bergman asks Wigand about incidents from his past that Big Tobacco might use against him. Wigand reveals several incriminating incidents before declaring he can't see how they might affect his testimony. Bergman assures him they're going to .

Bergman contacts Richard Scruggs (Feore) and Ron Motley (McGill), who with Mississippi's attorney general Mike Moore are suing Big Tobacco to reimburse the state for funds wont to treat people with smoking-related illnesses. The trio express an interest in Bergman's idea and tell him to possess Wigand call them. Meanwhile, Wigand receives death threats via email and finds a bullet in his mailbox, prompting him to contact the FBI, who after subtly accusing him of emotional imbalance confiscate his computer for evidence. Enraged over the threats to his family, Wigand phones Bergman and demands that to fly to ny and tape his testimony immediately. During Wigand's interview with Wallace, Wigand states that Brown and Williamson manipulated nicotine through ammonia chemistry to permit nicotine to be sooner absorbed within the lungs and thus affect the brain and central systema nervosum through impact boosting. He continues by saying Brown and Williamson have consciously ignored public health considerations within the name of profit.

In Louisville, Wigand begins his new teaching job and talks to Richard Scruggs. Upon returning home, Wigand discovers that Bergman has given him some security personnel. Wigand's wife is struggling under the pressure and tells him so. Days later, Wigand travels to Mississippi, where he receives a restraining order issued by the State of Kentucky to stop him from testifying. Though the restraining order, issued by Brown and Williamson's lawyers, was thrown call at Mississippi, Wigand is told that if he testifies and returns to Kentucky he might be imprisoned. After a lengthy period of introspection, Wigand goes to court and provides his deposition, during which he says nicotine acts as a drug. Following his testimony, Wigand returns to Louisville, where he discovers that his wife and youngsters have left him.

At now the film shifts its emphasis from Wigand to Bergman. Bergman and Wallace attend a gathering with CBS Corporate about the Wigand interview. A legal concept has emerged, referred to as Tortious interference. If two parties have an agreement, like a confidentiality agreement, and one among those parties is induced by a 3rd party to interrupt that agreement, the party are often sued by the opposite party for any damages. it's revealed that the more truth Wigand tells, the greater the damage, and a greater likelihood that CBS are going to be faced by a multi-billion dollar lawsuit from Brown and Williamson. it's later suggested that an edited interview take the place of the first . Bergman vehemently disagrees, and claims that the rationale CBS Corporate is leaning on CBS News to edit the interview is because they fear that the prospect of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit could jeopardize the sale of CBS to Westinghouse. Wallace and Don Hewitt comply with edit the interview, leaving Bergman alone within the stance of airing it uncensored.

A PR firm hired by Big Tobacco initiates a smear campaign against Wigand, dredging up details about his life and publishing a 500-page dossier. Through Wigand, Bergman discovers that Big Tobacco has distorted and exaggerated numerous claims, and convinces a reporter from the Wall Street Journal to delay the story until it are often disproven. Bergman contacts several private investigators who do begin their own investigation. Bergman releases his findings to the Wall Street Journal reporter and tells him to push the deadline. Meanwhile, thanks to his constant fights with CBS management, Bergman is ordered to travel on vacation.

Soon after, the edited interview is broadcast. Bergman attempts to call Wigand at his hotel but receives no answer. He instead calls the hotelier , who opens Wigand's door but is stopped by the deadbolt. Peering into Wigand's room, the hotelier spies Wigand sitting alone, lost during a daydream about the idyllic life he could have led without his testimony. Per Bergman's commands, the hotelier convinces Wigand to simply accept Bergman's call . Wigand screams at Bergman, accusing him of manipulating him into his position. Bergman tells Wigand that he's important to tons of individuals which heroes like him are briefly supply. After hanging up, Bergman contacts the The ny Times and divulges the scandal that occurred at hour , causing the ny Times to release a scathing article that accuses CBS of betraying the legacy of their esteemed reporter, Edward R. Murrow (who was famous for defying and denouncing the red-baiting Senator Joe McCarthy within the 1950s). Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal exonerates Wigand and divulges his deposition in Mississippi, while condemning Big Tobacco's 500-page smear as 'the lowest sort of character assassination'. hour finally broadcasts the complete interview with Wigand.

In the final scene Bergman talks to Wallace and he tells him that he's quitting saying, 'What got broken here doesn't return together again'. the ultimate shot is of him leaving the building. A series of title cards appear stating the $246 billion settlement that big tobacco made with Mississippi and other States in their lawsuit, that Wigand lives in South Carolina. In 1996, Dr. Wigand won the Sallie Mae first-class Teacher of the Year award, receiving national recognition for his teaching skills. Lowell Bergman works for the PBS show Frontline and teaches at the grad school of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley.

#the insider

0 notes

glenngaylord · 5 years

Text

IT TAKES A VILLAIN - My Review of RICHARD JEWELL (3 1/2 Stars)

[Excerpted from: https://thequeerreview.com/2019/12/08/it-takes-a-villain-film-review-richard-jewell-%e2%98%85%e2%98%85%e2%98%851-2/ ]

Have you ever loved a movie you know deep in your gut has problematic elements? Did you appreciate the gorgeous cinematography of Triumph Of The Will even though it’s a Nazi propaganda film? How can Birth Of A Nation simultaneously exist as something revolutionary and deeply racist? What’s next? Well, welcome to Clint Eastwood’s latest film, Richard Jewell, a compelling, empathetic look at a hero who morphed into a suspected villain after the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games bombing. Because of the current times we live in, and because we’re all acutely aware of Eastwood’s perceived conservatism, the film almost goes as far as a certain White House occupant in calling the Press, “the enemy of the people”. Still, Eastwood and his very left leaning writer, Billy Ray (Captain Phillips), have crafted an impressive underdog story which just may make you think twice about the next heavyset rube you judge too quickly.

The film stars Paul Walker Hauser, so memorable in I, Tonya, as a security guard who spots an unattended backpack in Centennial Park and attempts to clear the area. Although his actions minimized the fatalities and saved many lives, the FBI and the Press soon enough painted him as the culprit. He went from hero to zero overnight and one could argue his reputation never fully recovered. The first act provides us with Jewell’s backstory as a law firm’s mailroom clerk, presided over by Sam Rockwell’s Watson Bryant. They strike up an unlikely friendship which will pay dividends at a later time. Jewell eventually moves on to become a put-upon campus security guard with aspirations to join the police force. He lives at home with his loving mother Bobi (a vivid, lived-in performance by Kathy Bates) and despite the jeers he gets from students, he has a fearless, confident, jump-right-in approach to everything he does. I appreciated this early section for not painting Jewell in angelic strokes. He has a temper and a slightly authoritarian streak, which will clearly come back to haunt him.

After the bombing, the FBI, represented here by Jon Hamm and Ian Gomez, start to realize that everything doesn’t add up, leaving Jewell as a prime suspect. When reporters from the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) catch wind of this, the events systematically begin to dismantle Richard’s life. Olivia Wilde as real-life reporter Kathy Scruggs and David Shae as her fellow journalist Ron Martz appear ominous at first, prowling the city at night like some shadowy figures ready to pounce. While Martz comes across as the slightly mysterious straight man, Wilde lives up to her last name and barrels through the film. It’s a fearless, middle finger, flirty, seductive, scene-stealing role, and Wilde clearly relishes it.

Unfortunately, the suggestion that Scruggs traded on her sexuality for intel has caused much controversy and consternation amongst viewers and even amongst the staff of the AJC, who have come to her defense since she sadly passed away in 2001. I can understand this, considering Eastwood’s political leanings. The main villains in the film seem to be the FBI and journalists. It sounds so 2019, doesn’t it? Personally, I look back at the Richard Jewell story as a bellwether for things to come. We saw then how public perception can turn on a dime, something all-too-common now.

It’s enough to leave an icky taste in my mouth were it not for the excellent filmmaking, writing, and performances. Eastwood achieves great tension during the inciting incident and allows Hauser’s fantastic skills to guide us through his truly affecting emotional journey to clear his name. Lesser films would have presented Jewell as a gentle giant, a saint with no faults whatsoever. Jewell may have a sad sack quality, but he’s also cunning, a bit of a blowhard, and disarmingly direct. Try watching a late scene involving a donut without wanting to give the guy a big hug as you quietly pat your tears dry. Rockwell also excels as a man who learns to beam with pride at a man he once barely noticed.

With Richard Jewell and the upcoming Bombshell, we get conservative characters at the center of their stories. Is Hollywood catering to Trump’s base now? Should Hollywood only explore stories with liberal themes? It’s a conundrum far too icky for me to dwell upon, especially when the filmmakers evoke the “fake news” mantra and give Jon Hamm such a sneering final line. It all makes me want to stick my head in the sand and just cheer for the little guy who finally gets his day in the sun.

0 notes

fringelover · 4 years

Text

Top Ten Richest Lawyers In America

So, who are they? Here's a fast look at the richest lawyers in the world, ranked from the lowest net worth to the highest. Please be aware that the individuals on this list are practicing lawyers or judges. There are loads of other "attorneys " with a substantially higher net worth, but they simply have a law degree and no more use it.

Thomas Mesereau: $25 million

Additionally a criminal defense lawyer (Are you noticing a trend?) , Thomas Mesereau graduated from Harvard University and The University of California's Hastings College of Law and has been appointed "Trial Lawyer of the Year for 2015" from the National Trial Lawyers. (He has won lots of other awards including "Criminal Defense Lawyer of the Year. ") He's known for carrying high stakes instances with impossible odds and getting extraordinary results. He had been Michael Jackson's lawyer when he was acquitted of 14 child molestation charges and has won an unprecedented three national criminal jury trials in a row. While his hourly rate is so high it's not published, he also does pro bono work through the Mesereau Free Legal Clinic.

Wichai Thongtang: $1.1 billion

Considered by many in the industry to be "one of the top names in the profession from around the globe," Wichai Thongtang is a strong lawyer in Thailand. After graduating from Thammasat University in 1970he moved to corporate law, where he represented a range of top Thai executives and businesses and took the opportunity to learn about the stock exchange and investing. In addition to his law career, Thongtang is the Chairman of Cable Thai Holding PLC and owns 15 percent of Dusit Medical, a Bangkok healthcare firm.

Richard Scruggs: $1.7 billion

A 1976 graduate of the University of Mississippi School of Law and also a prominent trial attorney, Richard Scruggs is famous for his love of tobacco and asbestos cases and the fact that he won more than $1 billion in judgements against various companies. He was also highly involved in 2000's Ritalin class action suits, as well as the 2003 situation against Lehman Brothers for which he won a $51 million verdict. But in 2007, he was accused of judicial bribery. In 2008, he pled guilty and eventually served six years in prison. Now, in the age of 70, he's completed his sentence, and it has kept his massive fortune.

David Boies: $20 million

Currently serving as the chairman of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, David Boies previously served as Chief Counsel for the US Senate. He graduated from Yale University in 1966 and almost immediately made a name for himself. He gathered his fortune by representing several large corporations, including IBM, Napster, George Steinbrenner (owner of the NY Yankees), CBS, and the NBA Players Association throughout the 2011 NBA lockout. According to Fortune magazine, he's "corporate America's number-one hired gun. "

0 notes

zultanmalik · 4 years

Text

Top Lawyers In Usa

So, who are they? Here's a quick look in the richest lawyers in the world, ranked from the lowest net worth to the greatest. Please note that the individuals on this list are all practicing lawyers or judges. There are loads of additional "attorneys " using a substantially higher net worth, but they simply have a law degree and no more use it.

Wichai Thongtang: $1.1 billion

Considered by many in the industry to be "one of the best titles in the profession from around the planet," Wichai Thongtang is a powerful lawyer in Thailand. After graduating from Thammasat University in 1970, he went into corporate law, by which he represented a range of top Thai executives and businesses and took the chance to learn about the stock market and investing. Besides his law career, Thongtang is the Chairman of Cable Thai Holding PLC and owns 15% of Dusit Medical, a Bangkok healthcare firm.

David Boies: $20 million

Currently serving as the chairman of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, David Boies formerly served as Chief Counsel for the US Senate. He graduated from Yale University in 1966 and almost instantly made a name for himself. He gathered his fortune by representing a number of big corporations, including IBM, Napster, George Steinbrenner (proprietor of the NY Yankees), CBS, and the NBA Players Association during the 2011 NBA lockout. According to Fortune magazine, he's "corporate America's number 1 hired gun. "

Richard Scruggs: $1.7 billion

A 1976 graduate of the University of Mississippi School of Law and a prominent trial attorney, Richard Scruggs is famous for his love of tobacco and asbestos cases and the fact that he won more than $1 billion in judgements against various companies. He was also highly involved in 2000's Ritalin class action lawsuits, in addition to the 2003 situation against Lehman Brothers which he won a $51 million verdict. But in 2007, he was accused of judicial bribery. In 2008, he pled guilty and finally served six years in prison. Today, at the age of 70, he's completed his sentence, and it has kept his massive fortune.

John Branca: $50 million

A graduate of the UCLA School of Law, John Branca has had a lengthy career as an amusement and corporate attorney with a focus on representing rock and roll acts and separate investors. He's represented over 30 members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and is about pretty much every list of premier entertainment lawyers on earth. On one note, he functions as the co-executor of Michael Jackson's estate.

Willie E. Gary: $100 million

Nicknamed "The Giant Killer," Willie Gary has taken on several of the country 's biggest corporations, such as Anheuser-Busch and Disney. He has won some of the largest settlements and jury awards at the U.S., including several cases valued at over $30 billion. A graduate of Shaw University, he is currently the managing director at Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson, and Gary, P.L.L.C., functions as a motivational speaker, and has emerged as a legal analyst on "The Early Show. "

Judge Joe Brown: $30 million

Best known for his day court series which ran for 15 decades, Judge Joe Brown received his law degree from UCLA. After serving as the initial African American prosecutor in Memphis, TN, he opened his own clinic prior to working as a criminal court judge in Shelby County, TN. While presiding over James Earl Ray's appeal for the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., he caught the eye of TV producers. The majority of his wealth was obtained through the show. In 2014, he ran for district attorney general in Shelby County, but lost to the incumbent.

0 notes

kansascityhappenings · 4 years

Text

Metro lawyer helping arrested protesters for free: ‘This is why I became an attorney’

RIVERSIDE, Mo. — Kansas City police have reported more than 160 protest-related arrests over the last five days.

A local attorney is hoping to get the charges all thrown out, and she’s doing it for free.

“As a black woman, this is why I became an attorney. This is why I went to law school to help my community, help people that are in need,” said Natasha Scruggs, a criminal defense attorney.

“Police brutality is a huge issue in Kansas City, St.Louis and a lot of cities over Missouri and Kansas, as well as most of the major cities throughout the country. This is something that needs to be talked about.”

Scruggs said the pro bono work by her and other attorneys is a movement inside of a movement.

Her law firm, the Scruggs Law Firm, along with Stacy Shaw and Associates, is working to save potential clients thousands of dollars in legal fees for various misdemeanor charges.

“Failure to comply is probably the main charge that they get, and that gets confusing,” Scruggs said. “I think that the protesters have the right to protest. I think they shouldn’t be arrested for being outside, for speaking their voice.”

There is a social media callout for other attorneys to join.

Groups and celebrities around the country also raising money to help cover bail for protesters.

Local nonprofit “One Struggle KC” has an online bail fundraiser. They have already raised $1,000 and helped with a woman’s release.

For more information on Scruggs’ offer, fill out this form or call 816-203-0732.

from FOX 4 Kansas City WDAF-TV | News, Weather, Sports https://fox4kc.com/news/metro-lawyer-helping-arrested-protesters-for-free-this-is-why-i-became-an-attorney/

from Kansas City Happenings https://kansascityhappenings.wordpress.com/2020/06/03/metro-lawyer-helping-arrested-protesters-for-free-this-is-why-i-became-an-attorney/

0 notes

onebigdeal · 5 years

Text

Top Ten Richest Lawyers In The World

So, who are they? Here is a quick look at the richest attorneys in the world, ranked from the lowest net worth to the highest. Please be aware that the people on this list are all practicing attorneys or judges. There are loads of other "lawyers" using a substantially higher net value, but they simply have a law degree and no more use it.

Jane Wanjiru Michuki: $60 million

Educated in the Kenya School of Law and Warwick University, Jane Wanjiru Michuki is currently a managing partner at Kimani & Michuki Advocate, a corporate law firm in Nairobi, Kenya that represents several of the largest companies in Kenya, for example Equity Group Holdings Limited. In addition to her law career, she is the largest female stockholder in the Nairobi Stock Exchange, which is where a good bit of her net worth stems from.

Jose Baez: $8 million

Probably best known for defending Casey Anthony in 2011', 47-year-old Jose Baez is absolutely an American success story. After dropping out of high school, he joined the Navy, got his GED, and eventually earned a law degree from St. Thomas University School of Law. He has been engaged in several of high profile instances that led to acquittals, including the murder case of Nilton Diaz, which has been known as "the biggest legal mad because O.J., among others [3]. He's considered by many to be the most pursued criminal attorney in the U.S. and now reflects former NFL star Aaron Hernandez. He is also the writer of this bestselling publication, Presumed Guilty: Casey Anthony: The Inside Story.

Judy Sheindlin: between $150 million and $250 million

Best known for being a no-nonsense TV judge, Judge Judy earns $47 million annually. A 1965 graduate of New York Law School, Judge Sheindlin was initially a corporate lawyer, though she immediately grew tired of it and decide to become a family court prosecutor. Back in 1982, she was appointed as a criminal court judge, where she gained a reputation for a "demanding " judge and presided over more than 20,000 cases. This, along with several books she wrote, caught the attention of TV executives and finally led to her TV show. In addition, she is the author of seven novels and has served as legal analyst on various TV shows.

Richard Scruggs: $1.7 billion

A 1976 graduate of the University of Mississippi School of Law and a prominent trial attorney, Richard Scruggs is best known for his love of tobacco and asbestos cases and the fact that he won more than $1 billion in judgements against various companies. He was also highly involved in 2000's Ritalin class action lawsuits, in addition to the 2003 situation against Lehman Brothers for which he won a $51 million verdict. However, in 2007, he had been accused of judicial bribery. In 2008, he pled guilty and finally served six years in federal prison. Now, in age 70, he's finished his sentence and has kept his massive fortune.

Lynn Toler: $15 million

Better known as the judge by TV's Divorce Court since 2007, Lynn Toler formerly served as the only municipal court judge in Cleveland Heights, OH for at least 8 decades. After receiving her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1984, she concentrated on civil law until becoming municipal court judge. In this function, she was known for enforcing nontraditional sentences, such as writing essays. Besides presiding over divorce court, Lynn is the author of three novels.

Robert Shapiro: $50 million

Presently a senior partner at Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs, Howard, Avchen, and Shapiro, LLP, Robert Shapiro graduated from Loyola Law School in 1968 and began a career as a criminal lawyer. After working on O.J. Simpson's legal team (and representing several other actors ), he opted to move into civil litigation. Besides his law career, he has written a kids 's publication and is a co-founder of LegalZoom and Shoedazzle.com.

0 notes

jamesgeiiger · 6 years

Text

Netflix’s ‘Bird Box’ success gets Hollywood clucking

SAN FRANCISCO — Netflix said 45 million subscriber accounts worldwide watched the Sandra Bullock thriller “Bird Box” during its first seven days on the service, the biggest first-week success of any movie made for the company’s nearly 12-year-old streaming service.

Netflix, which typically refuses to provide viewership numbers, made the rare disclosure in a recent tweet as movie producers, writers, actors and investors continue to size up a company that has already reshaped the way the world watches video.

The first-week audience means nearly one-third of Netflix’s 137 million subscribers watched the movie from Dec. 21 through Dec. 27 — a holiday-season stretch when many people aren’t working and have more free time. Had 45 million people actually gone to a theatre in the U.S. to watch “Bird Box,” it would have translated to about $400 million in box-office revenue, based on average ticket prices.

But people were watching the movie on a service for which they already had paid and had the luxury of doing so without leaving their homes. That makes watching “Bird Box” more comparable to watching a television program, Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter said.

By that yardstick, the viewership for “Bird Box” is less impressive. For instance, the Super Bowl typically attracts 100 million to 110 million viewers in the U.S. alone. The annual telecast of the Academy Awards has drawn a U.S. audience of 26 million to 40 million in recent years. And those totals are for a single day, not a week.

Television viewership and theatrical box-office numbers are typically calculated by third-party firms, unlike the “Bird Box” figure released by Netflix. The Los Gatos, California, company has steadfastly refused to divulge its viewership because it regards the data as a competitive advantage in deciding what programs will attract subscribers. All Netflix will say about its “Bird Box” number is that it counted only accounts that watched at least 70 per cent of the movie. Multiple viewers sharing a single account are counted once.

Netflix so far has made its biggest splash with highly acclaimed TV series such as “House of Cards,” “Stranger Things,” and “The Crown.” “Bird Box” is the latest example of the company’s resolve to become a bigger player in movies, too.

To pull it off, Netflix is borrowing billions of dollars to pay for original movies and TV series. But beyond money, Netflix needs to appease directors and actors who want their work to also be seen in movie theatres, both for their larger screens and for award consideration. That’s why Netflix has been arranging for films like “Bird Box,” “Roma,” and “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs” to have limited runs in theatres first.

That’s a strategy that Amazon had already been following, enabling its “Manchester By The Sea” to win Academy Awards for best actor and original screenplay in 2017. An ESPN documentary, “O.J.: Made In America,” also won an Oscar in 2017 after appearing in theatres before its debut on the TV network.

By breaking tradition and disclosing viewership numbers for “Bird Box,” Netflix cleverly created even more buzz, Pachter said. “They are masters at getting attention and they knew revealing the numbers would get the media to write about it,” he said.

That, in turn, gets the attention of movie producers and directors, as well as luring back investors who had sold off Netflix in recent weeks as part of a broader sell-off of tech stocks. The company’s stock closed Wednesday unchanged at $267.66, but has dropped 37 per cent from its peak in June — a slump that has wiped out nearly $70 billion in shareholder wealth.

Netflix quickly found itself grappling with another problem Wednesday as it acknowledged censoring an episode from its “Patriot Act” series in Saudi Arabia to comply with laws in that country.

Netflix’s ‘Bird Box’ success gets Hollywood clucking published first on https://worldwideinvestforum.tumblr.com/

0 notes

mikemortgage · 6 years

Text

Netflix’s ‘Bird Box’ success gets Hollywood clucking

Netflix quickly found itself grappling with another problem Wednesday as it acknowledged censoring an episode from its “Patriot Act” series in Saudi Arabia to comply with laws in that country.

from Financial Post http://bit.ly/2F30T86 via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

#IFTTT #Financial Post

0 notes

sincereshitbitch · 6 years

Text

Top Usa Lawyers

So, who are they? Here is a quick look in the richest attorneys in the world, ranked from the lowest net worth to the highest. Please note that the people on this list are all practicing lawyers or judges. There are loads of additional "attorneys " using a considerably higher net worth, but they just have a law degree and no longer use it.

Richard Scruggs: $1.7 billion

A 1976 graduate of the University of Mississippi School of Law and a prominent trial lawyer, Richard Scruggs is best known for his love of asbestos and tobacco cases as well as the fact he won more than $1 billion in judgements against various companies. He was also highly involved in 2000's Ritalin class action lawsuits, in addition to the 2003 case against Lehman Brothers which he won a $51 million verdict. However, in 2007, he had been accused of judicial bribery. In 2008, he pled guilty and finally served six years in federal prison. Today, at age 70, he's completed his sentence, and it has retained his massive fortune.

Bill Neukom: $850 million

Currently serving as the creator and CEO of the World Justice Project, which is dedicated to encouraging the rule of law all over the world, Bill Neukom is a corporate lawyer who is famous for his philanthropy. After graduating from Stanford Law School in 1967, he worked at a small firm until he was asked to do work for Microsoft, which had been in its beginning stages. Finally , he became Microsoft's legal counsel, a position he held for 25 decades. Formerly, he was an investor in the San Francisco Giants.

Mark Geragos: $25 million

A 1992 graduate of Loyola Law School, Mark Geragos is a criminal defense lawyer who has also been engaged in a number of landmark civil litigation class action instances. He has represented everyone from Chris Brown, Michael Jackson, and Winona Ryder into Scott Peterson and Susan McDougal. Named "One of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in California," he holds a listing for one of the top 10 verdicts in California history to get a 2008 situation where he acquired a jury verdict awarding more than $38 from a pharmaceutical company. He currently serves as a managing associate at Geragos and Geragos.

Willie E. Gary: $100 million

Nicknamed "The Giant Killer," Willie Gary has taken on several of the nation's biggest corporations, including Anheuser-Busch and Disney. He's won a number of the largest settlements and jury awards at the U.S., including several cases valued at more than $30 billion. A graduate of Shaw University, he is now the managing director at Gary, Williams, Parenti, Watson, and Gary, P.L.L.C., works as a motivational speaker, and has emerged as a legal analyst on "The Early Show. "

John Branca: $50 million

A graduate of the UCLA School of Law, John Branca has had a lengthy career as an entertainment and corporate lawyer with a focus on representing roll and rock acts and separate investors. He has represented more than 30 members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and is about pretty much every record of premier entertainment attorneys on earth. On a side note, he serves as the co-executor of Michael Jackson's estate.

0 notes

one-free-nation-blog · 6 years

Link

Join us in welcoming our new Chamber member The Scruggs Law Firm at their grand opening on December 1, 5:00 pm at 2703 NW Platte Rd. Riverside, MO 64150. Enjoy catered appetizers and open bar. Ribbon cutting at 5:20 pm.

0 notes

beatdown-strider · 6 years

Text

Best Lawyers Of All Time

So, who are they? Here's a fast look in the wealthiest lawyers in the entire world, ranked from the lowest net value to the highest. Please be aware that the individuals on this list are all practicing attorneys or judges. There are plenty of other "lawyers" with a considerably higher net value, but they simply have a law degree and no more use it.

Bill Neukom: $850 million

Currently serving as the creator and CEO of the World Justice Project, which is dedicated to encouraging the rule of law all over the world, Bill Neukom is a corporate attorney who is well-known because of his philanthropy. After graduating from Stanford Law School in 1967, he worked at a small business until he was asked to perform work for Microsoft, which had been still in its beginning phases. Eventuallyhe became Microsoft's legal counsel, a position he held for 25 years. Previously, he had been an investor at the San Francisco Giants.

Richard Scruggs: $1.7 billion

A 1976 graduate of the University of Mississippi School of Law and also a prominent trial lawyer, Richard Scruggs is best known for his love of tobacco and asbestos cases and the fact he won more than $1 billion in judgements against various companies. He was also highly involved in 2000's Ritalin class action suits, as well as the 2003 situation against Lehman Brothers for which he won a $51 million conclusion. But in 2007, he had been accused of judicial bribery. In 2008, he pled guilty and finally served six years in prison. Today, in age 70, he's finished his sentence and has retained his massive fortune.

Lynn Toler: $15 million

Better known as the judge by TV's Divorce Court as 2007, Lynn Toler previously served as the sole municipal court judge in Cleveland Heights, OH for at least 8 decades. After receiving her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1984, she concentrated on civil law until getting municipal court judge. Within this role, she was famous for enforcing nontraditional sentences, like writing essays. Besides presiding over divorce court, Lynn is the author of 3 books.

William Lerach: $900 million

Although he had been disbarred in 2009 for his participation in a kickback scheme, William Lerach had a lucrative career as a corporate attorney with a specialty in private securities class actions suits for more than 30 years, which is how he amassed his substantial fortune. Nicknamed the "King of Pain" and frequently referred to as the most dreaded attorney in American during his heyday, Lerach, a University of Pittsburg School of Law graduate, holds the record for the largest sum ever recovered at a group of securities class actions suits for its $7.12 billion judgement he obtained against Enron.

Mark Geragos: $25 million

A 1992 graduate of Loyola Law School, Mark Geragos is a criminal defense attorney who's also been involved in several of landmark civil lawsuit class action cases. He's represented everyone from Chris Brown, Michael Jackson, and Winona Ryder into Scott Peterson and Susan McDougal. Named "One of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in California," he also holds a record for a few of the top 10 verdicts in California history to get a 2008 situation where he acquired a jury verdict awarding more than $38 from a pharmaceutical firm. He currently serves as a managing associate at Geragos and Geragos.

Judy Sheindlin: between $150 million and $250 million

Best known for being a no-nonsense TV judge, Judge Judy earns $47 million a year. A 1965 graduate of New York Law School, Judge Sheindlin was initially a corporate lawyer, though she quickly grew tired of it and choose to become a household court prosecutor. Back in 1982, she was appointed as a criminal court judge, where she gained a reputation as a "tough" judge and presided over more than 20,000 cases. This, along with various books she wrote, caught the eye of TV executives and eventually resulted in her TV show. Additionally, she's the author of seven novels and has served as legal counsel on various TV shows.

0 notes

hottytoddynews · 7 years

Link

Photo courtesy of National Public Radio.

Editor’s Note: Dick Scruggs brought down big tobacco draws a parallel between tobacco and opioid litigation in this piece written for a law publication.

Is the rising spate of opioid litigation comparable to the litigation that resulted in the mega-billion dollar settlement with Big Tobacco? The answer is, sort of. This article highlights the similarities and differences in these two public health initiatives.

Recap of tobacco As a refresher, the Tobacco litigation was a legal action by state attorneys general, public health advocates and outside counsel to recover smoking-related health costs and to reform the marketing practices of the Tobacco Industry. The principal defendants were the five tobacco companies which accounted for nearly all of the cigarette sales in the United States.

Mississippi filed the first suit in May 1994, followed by Minnesota, West Virginia, and Florida. Early successes in those suits prompted more than 40 states and territories to join the fight over the following two years. In early 1996 Liggett Group (L&M) settled, dispelling the myth of Tobacco’s solidarity and invincibility and prompting a dozen more states to join the litigation. In June 1997 a global settlement was reached with the remaining companies, an agreement that made them pay $368.5 billion to the states and the federal government. It also severely curtailed the marketing of tobacco products, especially advertising appealing to minors.

The global settlement fell apart a year later when Congress failed to pass enabling legislation. The settlement was restructured several months later, however, so as to eliminate federal involvement. In the resulting “Master Settlement Agreement,” the amount was reduced to approximately $ 206 billion for 46 states, with another approximately $40 billion for four states who had separately settled in the interim.

States’ legal theories The states’ respective legal theories varied, but nearly all contained counts for consumer fraud, public nuisance, restitution and unjust enrichment. Some states, like Florida, asserted Civil RICO claims. In general, however, the operative theories were equitable claims or consumer protection claims that only an attorney general had standing to bring.

Venue decision Most states made strategic choices to bring their suits in state courts and assert only claims based in state law. There was a feeling among the states’ counsel that federal courts (after 12 years of business-friendly judicial appointments under Presidents Reagan and Bush) would not be receptive to litigation that threatened a large industry. Since states themselves are not considered “citizens” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the tobacco companies could not remove the cases to federal court.

Damages model Although the scientific case had largely been made that cigarettes caused lung cancer, heart disease and high levels of general morbidity, quantifying the medical dollar cost of smoking was a daunting challenge. Luckily for the states, researchers at the University of California had independently developed reliable statistical methods to determine the “tobacco-attributable fraction” of overall health care costs. The Industry furiously attacked the use of statistical models for assessing legal damages, but the credentials, scientific rigor and peer review of the work of the team at Cal generally withstood the Industry’s evidentiary challenges.

FDA intervention Of considerable help to the states (and visa versa) was the FDA’s 1995 initiative to class cigarettes as drugs (nicotine delivery devices) and thereby assert jurisdiction over cigarette manufacturing. This effort was an existential threat to the Tobacco Industry because FDA jurisdiction would likely have meant the banning of cigarettes. While not formally connected to the states’ suits, the FDA’s action added to the public sense that Big Tobacco was in trouble.

Smoking guns The states’ suits also got huge boosts from leaked internal documents and testimony from corporate insiders. The so-called “Brown and Williamson” documents were a treasure trove of smoking guns (pun unavoidable). One of these, penned by a former corporate General Counsel, boasted that the Tobacco Industry “was in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug useful in the treatment of stress mechanisms.”

Insiders As portrayed in the Academy Award-nominated movie “The Insider,” Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, a former tobacco company Vice-President of Research, provided documents and testimony that his company was lacing cigarettes with ammonia compounds and other dangerous chemicals to “boost the bioavailability” of nicotine. Dr. Wigand’s revelations were the subject of two 60 Minutes segments and a Pulitzer Prize-winning story for the reporters at The Wall Street Journal.

Serendipitous factors Of arguably greater significance were serendipitous factors without which the tobacco litigation would likely not have succeeded: Moore’s prestige –Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, at the time President of the National Association of Attorneys General, commanded the respect of the other state AG’s, many of whom joined the litigation on the strength of Moore’s recommendation. MSM antipathy –The “mainstream media” seemingly held a grudge toward Big Tobacco for past bullying and threats of ruinous lawsuits. The states’ lawyers often got favorable press even when they fouled up. On the other hand, revelations and documents embarrassing to the Industry usually got front page coverage. Care in selecting co-counsel –In Mississippi and other states represented by the same private lawyers, great care was taken in the selection of co-counsel. Political affiliation and prestige were important factors in selecting a legal team. Big Tobacco had cultivated powerful law firms and politicians in every state, such that it was crucial to neutralize the Industry’s ability to undermine the litigation through vexing legislation and cronyism. Personal relationships — As it turned out, the personal relationships between AG Moore and the author with President Clinton, FDA Commissioner David Kessler, Presidential Adviser Dick Morris, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott proved to be key serendipitous factors in starting and nurturing the negotiations that led to the settlement. Experienced and well-healed lawyers –The value of the litigation experience and financial resources of many of the outside firms retained by the states cannot be overstated. Most of these firms agreed to contingency-like contracts where they carried all expenses and charged no fees unless there was a recovery.

So, how does the Opioid litigation compare?

Insufficiently mature to perfectly compare First off, the Opioid litigation is not yet sufficiently mature to make an unequivocal comparison with Tobacco. The writer of this article, moreover, has no special insight into the strategy and planning of the Opioid initiatives. Still, given the commonalities of outside counsel, legal theories, and political and attitudinal factors, it is possible to make some cautious comparisons with the Tobacco litigation:

Gov’t plaintiffs Like the Tobacco suits, the principal parties plaintiff are governmental entities: Thus far, seven states, thirteen counties; five cities; and at least one large Indian nation (The Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma) have filed suit. There is also a parallel non-governmental class action pending in Arkansas. The profusion of county and municipal plaintiffs (and a tribal nation) is different from Tobacco, where only a few governmental subdivisions sued when their state attorneys general refused to join the litigation.

Multiplicity of defendants Whereas there were only five principal defendants in Tobacco who accounted for nearly all cigarette sales, there are at least 20 opioid manufacturers and 13 distributors sued to date. The plethora of defendants complicates strategy for both the plaintiffs and defendants. Big Tobacco was highly unified in its legal, political and public relations strategies, even after Liggett broke ranks an settled. It is unclear how unified the Opioid defendants will become.

Unified control

Similarly, it is unclear how unified the Opioid plaintiffs are or might become. Whereas in Tobacco Mississippi Attorney General Moore, Arizona’s Grant Woods and Florida’s Bob Butterworth, along with their unified legal teams were the putative center of gravity among the state attorneys general, it is unclear whether Mr. Moore and Mr. Woods, despite their past success and reputation, will have the same valence in the Opioid litigation. At this stage, the litigation sounds more like musicians warming up than an orchestra playing a symphony.

Consumer protection and equitable theories Like the Tobacco suits, the Opioid plaintiffs assert claims sounding in state consumer protection statutes and equitable principles (rather than tort), the latter theories being predominantly claims for public nuisance, restitution and unjust enrichment.

Non-tort based These equitable, non-tort-based claims are the most threatening to the Opioid defendants, in this author’s judgment, because they do not hinge on fault, but rather on who should pay when the public is damaged by the conduct of a legal business. These non-fault-based equity claims enable the states to say, “so what” to the Industry’s defensive claims that the FDA preemptively regulated opioids and that their addiction warning labels were ipso facto sufficient.

New “diversion” theory Unlike Tobacco, many of the Opioid plaintiffs are asserting claims for “diversion,” charging that the defendants breached duties to secure the distribution chain from diversion of large quantities of opioid-containing prescription drugs to criminals. The diversion theory was not used in the Tobacco litigation and seems to be unique to the Opioid cases. The Cherokee Nation asserts only diversion claims against the Opioid distributors–curiously leaving the manufacturers out of their litigation entirely.

The essence of the Opioid claims is that the manufacturers and distributors of opiate-containing drugs fostered the explosion in the abuse of all types of addicting drugs–whether manufactured by a defendant or resorted to by addicted patients when their prescribed drugs became legally unavailable. Having allegedly caused the epidemic, the plaintiffs want the manufacturers and distributors to pay for the enormous governmental costs of treatment and law enforcement.

Defenses Preemption The defenses asserted by the Opioid defendants prominently include federal “preemption” by dint of FDA approval of opioids and the labels/warnings accompanying their sale. This is similar to the argument made by the Tobacco industry that the Federal Cigarette Labeling Act preempted state-based claims that cigarette warnings were insufficient. In addition to preemption and the standard technical objections to the specificity of the states’ factual pleadings, the Opioid defendants challenge factual causation, i.e., that there’s a causal connection between the defendants’ opioids and the epidemic of drug abuse sweeping the nation. Causation will be an issue for the states unless they develop statistical or other methods of linking opioids with the epidemic of general drug abuse.

Tobacco lawyers now going after Opioid defendants It is significant that the states have retained many of the key lawyers from the Tobacco litigation. Former Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, who originated and led the Tobacco litigation, now represents Mississippi and Ohio. Former Arizona Republican Attorney General Grant Woods is another leader from the Tobacco wars. Law firms like Motely-Rice of South Carolina and Nix-Patterson of Texas were leaders in the Tobacco litigation. These and other firms bring experience and deep pockets to the Opioid cases. (Ironically, The Cherokee Nation is represented by William Ohlemeyer of the Boies-Schiller firm, who formerly defended Big Tobacco and was Associate General Counsel of Altria Group [formerly Phillip Morris]).

The Opioid defendants likewise have retained Tobacco and mass tort-experienced lawyers in addition to the usual blue-chip firms. Shiela Birnbaum of Quinn Emanuel, who is defending Purdue Pharma, is a particularly able and experienced mass tort litigator who also has a vision for resolutions.

Damages difficulty Importantly, it is not yet clear how the states and governmental plaintiffs will calculate damages. Governmental entities undoubtedly bear heavy costs in law enforcement and medical treatment resulting from the opioid epidemic. It seems more than a stretch, however, to claim that all of the costs of law enforcement are related to illegal opioids, or that all government-borne health care costs are opioid-related. After all, there are other addicting drugs that might not follow from the use of opioids, such as methamphetamine, barbiturates and benzodiazepines.

This issue was addressed in Tobacco (as discussed above) through the use of statistical models comparing the health costs of smokers with those of non-smokers, controlling for other factors that drive health expenditures such as obesity, alcohol and risky lifestyles. Whether it is feasible with similar statistical methods to derive an opioid-attributable-fraction of law enforcement and medical costs is not apparent. Perhaps the states will prove-up damages in other ways?

Empty chair potential A related uncertainty is whether all potentially liable Opioid defendants have been joined in the suits. In Tobacco, there were only five well-known companies who sold cigarettes. In contrast, there are at least 20 opioid manufacturers and a dozen distributors sued so far. While there are overlaps in Opioid defendants among the different suits, the lack of uniformity creates the potential for “empty chair” defenses where the missing defendant gets blamed by the others for causing the problem. This seems to be a vulnerability in The Cherokee Nation’s suit against only distributors.

Equally sympathetic press It is likely that the “mainstream media” will be sympathetic to the states’ litigation. Given the daily headlines of drug company price gouging and false advertising, of drug-related violence and overdoses resulting in the deaths of increasing numbers of young Americans, Big Pharma is not a very appealing defendant. Moreover, unlike Big Tobacco, the manufacturers and distributors of opioid-containing drugs have been heavily sanctioned by federal and state regulators. (Purdue Pharma has already paid more than $600 million and pleaded guilty to misbranding the opioid drug OxyContin by falsely touting it as less addictive than rival products.) These factors could create a de facto presumption of liability.

Long before the first state Tobacco case was filed, the states’ lawyers conducted extensive opinion research better to inform their legal claims and strategy. Public attitudes about Tobacco, litigation in general, and many other relevant issues were polled and focus-grouped. The Tobacco industry had for years conducted extensive attitudinal research about smoking and health. Presumably, the lawyers for both sides of the Opioid litigation have similarly conducted opinion surveys and have shaped their strategies accordingly.

Settlement prospects In conclusion, the success of the Opioid cases will depend upon whether the plaintiffs can muster sufficient legal, political and public relations pressure to force a settlement. That will not likely happen without a perceptibly higher degree of coordination among the plaintiffs and their outside counsel. The plaintiffs should already be discussing and agreeing on what it is that they want the Industry to do (other than pay lots of money). The Industry is not likely (and would be foolish) to settle piecemeal on ad hoc terms.

In the meantime, the plaintiffs must develop a methodology for reliably estimating the dollar cost to the public of the opioid epidemic. This will be harder for the Opioid plaintiffs than in Tobacco, where there were only five defendants who sold all the cigarettes. Preferably, the plaintiffs should enlist the scientific community to develop a Tobacco-similar statistical model that also controls for costs attributable to addicting non-Opioid-containing drugs, such as methamphetamines, barbiturates and benzodiazepines.

The defendants, on the other hand, should also decide upon a unified legal, political and public relations strategy. In Tobacco (save Liggett) the largest four defendants had developed very concerted and sophisticated responses on each of these fronts. The Tobacco Industry was not quick, however, in realizing that the essential claims were non-tort-based equity claims where warnings and risk assumption were legally insufficient. Fault was not important in a case for unjust enrichment–only who should pay as between the general public and the Industry whose otherwise legal products caused the epidemic.

Bottom line, it’s too early to pick winners and losers.

Dick Scruggs is an American former A6A naval aviator and prominent trial lawyer who represented the state of Mississippi against the tobacco companies in the 1990s.

For questions or comments, email [email protected].

The post The Oxford Man Who Brought Down Big Tobacco Asks Are Opioids the New Tobacco? appeared first on HottyToddy.com.

#hottytoddy #olemiss #oxfordms #oxford ms #mississippi #university of mississippi #the grove

0 notes