Comments on: Some quick observations about Kings of Tort

By: Rodney

Rodney — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:43:14 +0000

Jowett worked on the Occupational Hearing Loss litigation. She worked those cases from the late 80′s until 1997. After a likely few bushels of sweet potatoes it was adjudicated that Jowett had forgone tobacco money for a percentage of the hearing loss fees. Hearing loss cases settled for close to $20 million and Jowett got a big goose egg there, too. Judge James Backstrom was the judge over the hearing loss cases and his son, Sid, is now locked up in a federal prison in Arkansas. Small world.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:58:41 +0000

Jowett is Juliet Lawson of Scruggs, Millette, Lawson, Bozeman & Dent, P.A. which was incorporated following the ouster of Luckey. Lawson was an 8% shareholder until mid 1998 and the dirt of the situation is the subsequent litigation to value her shares which should have included 8% of all tobacco fees since the tobacco litigation was settled prior to her ouster from Scruggs, Millette. Jowett v. Scruggs played out in federal, chancery and circuit courts. Ironicly, Jowett worked for both Scruggs and Minor in joint venture hearing loss litigation.
Amazing that Kings of Tort would detail much about Luckey/Wilson litigation, but not scratch the surface of the Jowett cases. Jowett apparently got screwed out of tens of millions of dollars.

By: NoMiss

NoMiss — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:32:21 +0000

I do know that there is a lot of dirt buried deeply down on the Coast, but I don’t know the dirt in Jowett v. Scruggs. Please tell.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:59:15 +0000

“The way corruption worked in Wilson is a great story. The story of how Scruggs presented himself to the world, versus what he was, is a great story.”

The Wilson v. Scruggs story was great because the corruption was unveiled. Why no mention of the Jowett v. Scruggs story? That dirt is buried deeply down on the Coast.

By: NMC

NMC — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:24:35 +0000

Tom:

Interesting point. A couple of responses:

1) Lange and Dawson really don’t use their book for a political point about tort reform– much. It’s more more an attempt to tell the story, although the conclusions Lange wants to draw about Minor are about plainitffs lawyer abuses to a degree.

2) The first version you cite is a cartoon, and the second insufficient to tell the whole story. Scruggs is an interesting figure in this, not for the political story, but a story about corruption. And Peters/DeLaughter is even more so. Some of this asks the same questions asked by Pen Warren’s All the King’s Men, about ends and means in politics, and come out exactly where Pen Warren did– that you can’t know how it will turn out, that it’s ulimately wrong to use corrupt means. (But also leave hovering the same questions– and will the hospital/bridge get built?)

The way corruption worked in Wilson is a great story. The story of how Scruggs presented himself to the world, versus what he was, is a great story. Presenting it as a downfall as both Lange and Curtis Wilkie (title: Fall Of The House of Zues) apparently do is not as interesting to me.

By: Tom Head

Tom Head — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:15:01 +0000

I think there are two elements to the Minor/Scruggs/Peters/DeLaughter thing: the Minor/Scruggs aspect of it, which is based on the idea that lawyers are corrupt, tort reform was needed, Democratic lawyers needed to be hammered because they were milking the system, etc.; and the Peters/DeLaughter aspect of it, which is a more bipartisan scandal and deals with cases in which people’s lives were destroyed for no good reason, the criminal justice system abused, and civil liberties (for all of us) put at risk by a system of racial and economic injustice. The former story bores me a little as it gets more esoteric and personality-driven as it unfolds; the latter is one that really needs to be blown wide open, partly because it’s never really been told, partly so that some cases can be retried.

By: Disgusted

Disgusted — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:00:10 +0000

You might want to check with some of Mr. DeLaaughter’s past associates before you decide that he’s a “good family man”, honest, and “not arrogant”. He has a propensity to take care of himself and he really doesn’t care about anybody else.

By: NMC

NMC — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:47:08 +0000

Tom Head, pretty much everything in the book except the inside stuff from Dawson and some of the prosecutor-side details about the Minor case are done at the billboard/headline level–

DeLaughter== Beckwith! Movie! Peters is his mentor!

No mention of what exactly he did as a prosecutor other than Beckwith, or explanation of exactly how the deal with Peters worked. There are a lot of details out in the public forum that aren’t in there.

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:45:42 +0000

“Horrible and hard to forgive” That’s just about the way the whole deal goes, making the ” devoted family man ” something from the pass. You must care for your family but the courts make it impossible to do it well. MS. justice system is a dog eat dog world with little to do regarding actual law. There are some arrogant crazy people out there with friends and family. Stay low out of their sights. What happens to a persons education of law went they get to the real world anyway. Bravery, Honor, Justice doesn’t stand a chance against an organized bunch of crooks. And why are everyday citizens putting up with it when in time of war they are the ones doing all the fighting and dying.

Why aren’t we dropping these folks dishonest to our country in a hot LZ. Let them gain an understanding.

By: Rob head

Rob head — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:09:35 +0000

I believe I will wait for Curtis Wilkie’s book.