I’ve been posting tidbits from a long complaint Derek Wyatt filed against the Scruggs Katrina Group members. The complaint has attached as exhibits invoices relating to expenses for Scruggs that Nutt & McAlister approved as SKG expenses–
* flights on Scruggs’ personal jet $352,066.56
* Washington Public Relations consultants $612,475.00
* Regional public relations consultants $350,456.44
* Marketing consultants $24,754.25
Along with something alleged to be a Scruggs-controled 501(c)(3) charity, the Institute for Compatible Development, which got $21,817.41.
I’m more than slightly curious how these “expenses” were accounted for when they divided things up with the clients. Did these “expenses” come off the top?
I’m concerned about them regional pubic relations.
Isn’t this where someone should follow-up with, “(Insert item here)….priceless”?
You’re right, Phantom:
Seven year sojourn in Kentucky: Priceless.
Keeping up good Washington and Regional public relations while on a seven year sojourn in Kentucky: priceless.
I would like to know who these Washington DC and regional “consultants” were and exactly what “aid” they were to provide for the Katrina litigation — what politicians did they contact for “help” and what did those politicians do and get in return. A lot of questions raised by these allegations and listed expenditures. And I suspect this was SOP from the tobacco and asbestos litigation models.
Hiring PR consultants for litigation —- who would have thunk it? Now that is something they didn’t teach us in law school, nor did any of my legal mentors. I suppose we were just old fashioned.
To AFOTL: I, too, am a “slow learner”. However, the more I see and think about how these scoundrels operate, the “simpler” it has become for me to understand. The money in these mass tort cases is mind-boggling in amounts, including the expenses. The “key” to success in these cases is getting appointed to “the Committee”, which guarantees reimbursement of your out-of-pocket expenses and a breath-taking “windfall” at the end of the case on the theory of “common benefit”. These guys have made a science of really simple things like 1+1=2; 2+2=4, etc. Since no one ever really challenges the Judges’ awards in such cases (challenges are few and far between), there has to be a way to “funnel” money in cash to the Judges and to those who control the Judges during the course of the litigation to ensure that the Judges will do what everyone expects them to do at the proper time. Hence large fees for “consulting” or “professional services” or whatever (maybe even reimbursement for private jet air travel – one could “hide” a lot of cash “payoffs” in claiming such expenses, and without any audit by an unbiased accounting firm, who’s to know whether the expenses were actually incurred, or precisely for what?). If I sound cynical, then my personal experiences with the legal system since 8/29/05 have made me cynical, particularly about “rich and powerful” plaintiffs’ lawyers and the Judges before whom they practice. And remember, just because they wear black robes doesn’t mean that they aren’t just “politicians” who owe a “ton” of favors to the people who put them where they are now, particularly the Federal Judges. The “justice” that has been visited on Mr. Scruggs, et al, awaits many more deserving mass tort lawyers and Judges.
Some of the individual Katrina plaintiffs who dumped Scruggs complained later of getting bills for expenses that had never been incurred (summons issuance, service of process where process was actually accepted without the need for formal service and all of which was a matter of public record). I would imagine where you have 100s or 1000s of plaintiffs, it is very easy to pro-rate these so-called expenses among all of them, whether legitimate or not.