In the Wilson case in the Northern District of Mississippi, Tim Balducci has filed a handwritten answer. First, it admits the allegations of the complaint. Second, it moves for a hearing on damages at the appropriate time . Third, it asks for apportionment of the damages among the various defendants or unnamed third parties. Here it is.

What does this mean?
Not sure what you are asking, midus. Wilson is the case where Roberts Wilson was suing Scruggs for not paying shared fees in asbestos cases. Scruggs along with his lawyers Langston and Balducci and fellow co-conspirator Steve Patterson have entered guilty pleas that they used another lawyer, Ed Peters, to illegally influence the judge in Wilson’s case (that’s Judge DeLaughter).
Because of all that, Wilson filed a new suit in the Northern District of Mississippi against all the coconspirators, saying they had combined to cheat him out of a properly made decision. In response to that lawsuit, Balducci has filed a hand-written answer saying “Yes, you are right, we cheated you. Now we need to figure out how much the damages would be and who is responsible for them.”
That’s what it means.
Thanks NMC, I just wasn’t sure why Balducci had a ‘hand written’ letter submitted and what the letter was leading to.Seemed kind of odd.
NMC
how do you predict scruggs will reply
Good question, and I’ve thought some about it.
He’s got a few options. Keep in mind that like a legal malpractice claim, there’s a suit within a suit. The “framing” suit (to borrow terms from storytelling) is a slam dunk– Scruggs entered a guilty plea that he bribed a judge. The “contained” suit is where his focus has to be. One thing that’s tricky is he can’t really say on the “contained” suit “I have no liability AND I have no damages,” because there was never any question he owed Wilson fees, just a question of how much. I would predict he will respond: “Judge DeLaughter was correct because I didn’t owe Wilson anything more than what I’d paid, so therefore no harm/no foul.”
And Merkel, Slater et al. will feel they are living in (the movie) ground hog day, with Scruggs arguing “you don’t get punitive damages because you have no actual damages.” That’s what Scruggs pretty much has to say, not that it is likely going to work that well for him.
NMC, Would a conviction in the DeLaughter case render your proposed Scruggs argument even weaker? More generally, how would a Delaughter conviction affect Wilson?
I am sure Wilson is out for blood. Is it just Scrugg’s blood he wants? Langston already settled with Wilson, right? Balducci seems to be showing similar remorse as Langston, but he has less financial means. I say give Wilson Peter’s forfeited money, then Wilson gets whatever the jury/judge says he gets out of Scruggs, Peters, Balducci and Delaughter.
The whole situation is sad.