Those poor over worked defense attorneys.

You just have to love this piece in today's NY Times that discusses all the perks, bonuses, life style enhancements and pay increases the big defense firms have to pay in order to keep their associates happy.

You can find the article on Perks for defense attorneys by clicking here.  

This follows shortly on the other stories in the WSJ and legal press regarding the $1.2 billion spent on legal fees by Merck defending Vioxx. One of the great myths in the entire debate about the cost of tort reform, the big bad trial lawyers and others lies is that defense attorneys are just poor humble hourly employees that don't enjoy the huge pay day that contingency fee attorneys get.

Well take a look at this article and some of the other ones floating around about the law firm pay, bonuses and expense accounts of the major defense firms in the United States and I can assure you that in a case like Vioxx that the defense counsel is going to make far more then any trial lawyer in that group. One of the biggest single costs of litigation are the defense costs that are charged to insurance companies, and by extension their policyholders and shareholders. Next time you get your home owners or auto insurance bill just remember the paid massage therapists, limo services and $5000 dinners that were billed by a defense firm that needlessly prolonged litigation or avoided settlement of a just claim for the sole purpose of inflating their bill and paying their associates a bigger bonus.  

Professor Richard Nagareda, "Mass Torts in a world of Settlements."

The Legal Broadcast Network features  Vanderbilt Professor Richard Nagareda, the author of the recently published " Mass Torts in a world of Settlements." This book, available on Amazon by clicking here, covers the evolution of Mass Tort litigation through the asbestos cases, pharmaceutical litigation and up to the recently announced Vioxx settlement.

You can listen to the entire podcast interview with Professor Nagareda on " Mass Torts in a world of Settlements" by clicking here.  

In his interview with Scott Drake, host of LBN's " This week in the Law", Professor Nagareda outlines how we are now looking at torts that are too big to litigate but essentially evolve into highly complex and politically charged business transactions between big business and "big law".

A fascinating interview, the first of our new features here on The Legal Broadcast Network, and particularly timely given the recent Vioxx settlement.

You can also check out the WSJ blog that features Professor Nagareda by clicking here.  

Weekly podcast, This week in the Law

One of the new weekly features on The Legal Broadcast Network is our " This week in the Law" podcast that is hosted by Scott Drake and covers the podcasts, blog posts and new items of key interest to trial lawyers nationwide.

The first weekly podcast is available by clicking here and features Mark Wahlstrom and Jan Schlichtmann doing a wrap up of the recent CLE event in Scottsdale.  

Each week a different set of guests, podcasts and shows will be featured in a concise summary form that allows trial lawyers and others to get up to speed on cases and decisions of importance to them.  In this weeks show we cover the wide range of guests we had in Scottsdale, among them Zoe Littlepage and Rainey Booth, Angel Reyes and Jim Orr, Rex Burch, Rick Kuykendall, Rob Wood, Matt Bracy, Christina Fountain and others. We will be posting our first videos early next week of this event as well as starting to finish the CLE DVD's that will be available through the offices of WTLA.

Be sure to subscribe to our feed through Itunes, Yahoo or other podcast directories and don't miss a show. 

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor takes on special interest money.

In a thoughtful examination of the pressure special interests exert on the selection of judges, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor comes down strongly against the continued election of judges.

You can read her entire commentary in todays Wall Street Journal.  

This is a continued effort on the retired Justice to draw attention to the issue of how the independence of the judiciary in the United States is under constant attack from various sources. She has previously taken on the corporate interests who are looking to create lobbying campaigns in various states to change laws that would allow for the arbitrary removal of judges who made unpopular rulings.  The justice understands what the opponents of a free and independent judiciary understand, that if you can intimidate judges or corrupt them you can control the third branch of government.

Make sure you read this commentary today.  

The Vioxx settlement, a big win for Merck.

I don't think there is any other way to cut or spin this deal then to say that the $4.85 billion settlement announced yesterday between Merck and the trial lawyers representing Vioxx claimants is a huge win for Merck and the legal team representing them.

Mark Wahlstrom of The Settlement Channel has an excellent break down of the numbers behind this deal. He points out that after the 8% payment is taken off the top of the fund, the attorneys are paid and the medical liens and expenses are resolved that the average claimant in a MI case is probably going to net around $50,000 and the average IC, or stroke victim, can expect about $17,500. I don't think most people realize just how small an amount is going to be available for the actual victims of these injuries if this settlement is affirmed in January but given the realities facing the trial lawyers in this situation it might be the best they can hope for.

There is no other way to spin this deal other then a total and complete victory for the "bleed them white" tactics employed by Merck. By adopting a take every case to trial and then appeal every loss stance they might have spent north of $2 billion defending the cases over the last three years, but as pointed out by The Settlement Channels analysis they probably saved Merck over $15 billion in claims paid in addition to another $3 to $4 billion in defense costs during the next 5 to 7 years. To say Merck got out keep in this matter is an understatement.

The average Vioxx settlements are going to be far below those of a comparable case, the Phen Fen litigation, in which the total settlement ended up closer to $20 billion for the heart damage those drugs caused. However, given the tactics, negotiating strength and realities of moving forward this deal clearly appealed to a significant segment of the trial bar. The question now is going to be whether or not the 85% threshold of claimants can be reached and if all Vioxx claimants and attorneys will be happy with the relatively meager amounts they will receive in this settlement.

The Legal Broadcast Network will be doing a series of podcasts on the Vioxx and Merck settlement, it's impact on trial lawyers, the decision to be made by claimants and what comes next in this process. Be sure to be watching these pages and listening to these important podcasts to be up to date on the choices that both trial lawyers and claimants will be needing to make in the coming months are regards their vioxx damage claims.