The ABA Journal reports that a federal appeals court has overturned a $3 million award to the widow of a Reed Smith partner who blamed antidepressant labeling for her husband’s suicide.

“The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday against the widow, Wendy Dolin, in an appeal by GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of the antidepressant Paxil. Dolin’s husband, Reed Smith partner Stewart Dolin, was taking paroxetine, a generic version of Paxil, when he committed suicide in 2010,” writes reporter Debra Cassens Weiss.

Dolin’s widow had maintained the drug labels should have warned of an increased suicide risk, but the court found that the wording on the drug labels was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration, and Dolin’s labeling claim under Illinois law was pre-empted by federal law.

GSK countered that Stewart Dolin committed suicide because of job concerns. He had been a partner at Sachnoff & Weaver before it was acquired by Reed Smith in 2007. He was named chair of Reed Smith’s corporate and securities group, before becoming co-chair along with another lawyer in 2010, the ABA Journal reports.

Read the ABA Journal article.

A federal judge slashed attorneys’ fees in a $115 million data breach case settlement between Anthem Inc. and its customers, according to Bloomberg Law.

“The Aug. 16 ruling by Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California closes the long-running lawsuit against Anthem. The case stemmed from a 2015 breach that exposed Social Security numbers, birth dates, and health-care data of 78.8 million customers,” explains reporter Daniel R. Stoller.

The judge ruled that attorneys for the class action plaintiffs are entitled to $31 million in fees, $2 million in expenses, and $132,000 for other operation costs. Class attorneys had requested $37.95 million in fees, or roughly one-third of the total settlement fund, which Koh approved Aug. 15.

Read the Bloomberg Law article.

A Dallas County jury awarded more than $242 million to a family after finding that manufacturer defects in their Lexus ES 300 caused their children to suffer serious and permanent injuries during a rear-end collision in 2016, reports The Dallas Morning News.

The jury found that the front seats of Benjamin and Kristi Reavis’ 2002 Lexus ES 300 were, as the plaintiffs argued, “unreasonably dangerous.” And the company didn’t warn the family about that danger, which amounted to gross negligence, jurors agreed. Their verdict included more than $143.6 million in punitive damages.

The family’s legal team presented evidence they said showed engineering, design and structural issues with the front seat backs of the vehicle, according to reporter Marc Ramirez.

“This is a danger that Toyota has known about,” attorney Frank Branson said in a press release, representing the family. “This company has had plenty of time to design around these safety shortcomings.”

Read the Dallas News article.

Bloomberg Law reports that a federal appeals court has ruled that a district court had the right to toss a jury verdict as a sanction because of the severity of a lawyer’s “continuous, contumacious” conduct.

The trial court had set aside a plaintiff’s verdict in an excessive-force claim against a Chicago police officer by entering judgment for defendants based on misconduct by plaintiff’s lawyer, Dana L. Kurtz.

The trial judge outlined the misconduct that led to the sanction, including the eliciting of barred testimony, witness misconduct and lack of preparation, lack of candor, and destruction of evidence.

Read the Bloomberg Law article.

The family of a 3-year-old who died after being left for more than four hours in a Houston day care center’s van in late July has sued the operator for negligence, according to a post on the website of Androvett Legal Media & Marketing.

The post continues:

Raymond Pryer Jr., known as R.J., was found unresponsive in the van around 7 p.m. on July 20, when his father arrived to pick him up at Discovering Me Academy. Records indicate the high temperature in the area on that date was 97, with a temperature inside the van reaching at least 113 degrees.

Discovering Me Academy and its employees failed to have systems in place to safeguard its students while on field trips, according to the lawsuit filed by Raymond and Dikeisha Whitlock-Pryer. Law enforcement reports indicate the little boy was on an outing with 28 others when the van returned to the northwest Houston day care around 2:30 p.m.

“This was a horrible, preventable death, and no child should be put at such risk,” R.J.’s parents said in a statement released by their attorney, Larry Wilson, of Houston’s Lanier Law Firm. “We are devastated, and we are angry. We trusted this day care center with the life of our son, who has now been taken away from us because of their simple, uncaring neglect. Our hope is that this lawsuit makes other operators and regulators take notice and work to prevent anything like this from happening again. That would be the greatest legacy that R.J. could leave this world.”

State records reveal that the day care was cited for several violations involving its van in 2015. One infraction included not having an electronic child safety alarm, which is used to notify the driver that a child has been left in the vehicle. The day care was also cited for not reporting a wreck involving the van in a timely manner, and for a driver’s failure to know the number of children in her group.

A Harris County grand jury investigation into the death is pending, while the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services is conducting its own investigation. This is the third heat stroke death of a child in Texas this year.

Even if the $289 verdict against Monsanto last week survives the appellate process, the plaintiff will see much of his award go the IRS because of  taxes imposed by the a new tax law involving legal fees, according to tax lawyer Robert W. Wood, a Forbes contributor.

In his article, Wood explains: “Under President Trump’s tax bill passed in late 2017, there is a new tax on litigation settlements: no deduction for legal fees. Amazingly, many legal fees simply can’t be deducted. That means [plaintiff Dewayne] Johnson must pay tax even on monies his attorney collects. That is so even though the attorney must also pay tax on the same money.”

Johnson’s suit claimed Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller caused his cancer.

Read the Forbes article.

A San Francisco jury has returned a $289 million verdict against Monsanto Co., finding that the company marketed its Roundup weedkiller products for years while aware of the brand’s cancer-causing properties. Ruling in favor of former school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, the jury awarded $39.25 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages, according to a post on the website of Androvett Legal Media & Marketing.

The post continues:

“Today the jury confirmed what we have known since our investigation began — that Monsanto knew Roundup contained cancer-causing ingredients and failed to take this product off the shelf and protect consumers. The company chose corporate profit and greed above humanity,” said Micah Dortch of the Potts Law Firm in Dallas. Although not involved in the just-concluded trial, the firm represents more than 100 clients currently with similar claims.

Johnson sued Monsanto in 2016, claiming the company has known of the health risks associated with its herbicides since at least the 1990s, when studies began showing a correlation between the products and lymphoma. As the company did not include a warning label on its products, he claimed he believed they were safe to use. Johnson suffers from advanced non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that he claims was caused by the Monsanto herbicides he regularly used as part of his job.

The Washington Post is reporting that a West Virginia House panel moved this week to impeach the state’s entire Supreme Court.

Fourteen articles of impeachment allege corruption, maladministration, incompetence, neglect of duty and potential criminal behavior — impeachable offenses under the state constitution, writes Isaac Stanley-Becker.

Federal investigators secured a 23-count indictment charging former chief justice Allen H. Loughry II, now suspended without pay, with fraud, witness tampering, lying to a federal agent and obstruction of justice. Another seat on the court was vacated when Menis E. Ketchum II resigned in July, days before he was accused of federal wire fraud.

The Post report says other justices are “accused of ‘unnecessary and lavish spending’ on renovation of their offices, travel budgets and ‘regular lunches from restaurants,’ among other expenses, as well as failure to carry out administrative duties and properly develop guidelines for the use of public resources.”

Read the Post article.

Image by Ben Sutherland

JPMorgan Chase & Co. was ordered to pay $7.1 million to the widow of a deceased American Airlines executive in a ruling that largely wiped out her portion of a Dallas jury’s $8 billion verdict against the bank for mismanaging the family estate, Bloomberg reports.

The September jury award that was the highest in the U.S. for 2017, according to reporter Tom Korosec.

“Judge Brenda Thompson concluded a final judgment was proper under the circumstances and ordered the bank to pay $781,432 in actual damages; more than $5 million in lawyers’ fees; almost $1 million in exemplary damages; and more than $255,000 prejudgment interest on the actual damages,” Korosec writes.

Read the Bloomberg article.

Exterro has published the second edition of its Basics of E-Discovery Guide and made it available for downloading at no charge.

The company says the guide is designed to quickly teach the basics of e-discovery without all the technical jargon. More than 5,000 legal professionals have already downloaded the first edition of this guide.

The second edition provides:

• Content updates based on the FRCP Amendments and subsequent case law
• Video introductions to each chapter from expert e-discovery practitioners
• Updated links to newer in-depth educational resources, including checklists, white papers, infographics, and e-books

Download the guide.

Senior U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, presiding over the Paul Manafort trial, has a reputation of displaying a no-nonsense, sharp demeanor that sometimes stings the lawyers in his courtroom, reports The Washington Post.

“He has torn my head off in front of my wife multiple times,” said Kevin Mikolashek, who recently left the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Reporter Rachel Weiner quotes defense lawyer John Zwerling, who says he warns lawyers who are new to the Alexandria, Va. court: “It’s important for him that everyone in the courtroom knows he is the smartest person in that courtroom, and just be aware that he usually is. So you better be on your A game.”

Weiner adds: “Ellis regularly interrupts trial testimony with his own questions and demands that certain lines of inquiry be cut short, clearing up ambiguity that defense attorneys hoped to create. More than one lawyer has tried to block him from doing so with pretrial motions or mid-case demands for a mistrial.”

Those attempts have been struck down, however.

Read the Post article.

A growing number of lawyers, interpreters and other professionals across the U.S. — members of Lawyers for Good Government — have mobilized to force the Trump Administration to defend its immigration policies in court.

Bloomberg reports that the organization, which was launched as a Facebook group the day after Trump was elected president, is working on behalf of people who have been detained after they sought asylum for themselves and their children because they said they feared for their lives in their home countries.

Reporter Nick Leiber writes that “L4GG has only one employee: founder, president, and executive director Traci Feit Love, a Harvard Law School graduate and former litigator for DLA Piper, one of the biggest law firms in the world. She and her board have been figuring out how to direct L4GG’s volunteers—a significant chunk of the 1.34 million attorneys in the U.S.—to make them useful.”

Read the Bloomberg article.

Brett Kavanaugh

Conservatives who were hoping to get a new justice onto the Supreme Court before a major case involving illegal immigrants’ rights to abortion reaches the justices may end up being disappointed by PResident Trump’s Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, warns The Washington Times.

Under standard court practice, Kavanaugh would have to recuse himself because he participated in the case while on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, writes reporter Alex Swoyer.

Swoyer explaqins: “While there are specific standards for district and circuit judges, there aren’t any hard-and-fast rules for the high court — only precedent. Justices set their own standards, and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.”

Read the Washington Times article.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon has suspended a Miami lawyer after he objected when a pregnant opposing lawyer sought a continuance because her due date coincided with a trial date, reports the ABA Journal.

According to a statement provided by the law firm’s administrative managing partner, Paul Reid has been suspended pending further review by firm management.

Christen Luikart of Murphy Anderson in Jacksonville, Florida, is the opposing lawyer who sought the delay.

Reid argued his client had been injured five years ago and “parental leave is not a compelling circumstance justifying the severe prejudice” that will be caused by delaying the trial.” The court overruled his objection.

Read the ABA Journal article.

A common attraction at major U.S. waterfronts and tourist destinations, the amphibious WWII-era vehicles known as Duck Boats have a long record of design flaws that make them unstable in rough water with often tragic results, according to a post on the web site of Androvett Legal Media & Marketing.

When a sightseeing boat in Branson, Missouri, sank last week in a sudden storm, killing 17, the tour company’s president acknowledged that the boat should not have been on the water during the storm. Safety experts renewed criticism of the boat’s unstable design, including a canopy that can prevent occupants from escaping. More than 40 people have died in Duck Boat accidents since 1999.

“The problems with these boats are well-known. This latest tragedy should spur operators everywhere to take a close look at safety procedures and design issues and ensure that personnel are properly trained to respond to emergencies,” said Steve Fernelius of Houston-based Fernelius Simon, who represents plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury and product liability litigation. “This tragedy must prompt operators to re-examine procedures to ensure there is no chance passengers will be caught in rough water. As these tragic deaths continue to be associated with Duck Boats, the potential liability for operators continues to grow.”

Victims of a mass shooting at a Las Vegas country music festival said they were outraged when they learned they were being sued by the company that owns the hotel where the gunman opened fire, reports the Associated Press.

At a press conference, one of the victims, Jason McMillan, a 36-year-old Riverside County sheriff’s deputy who was shot and paralyzed, said he can’t believe MGM officials would try to foist blame onto anyone but themselves. Other survivors, victims’ relatives and attorneys railed against the decision to file lawsuits against hundreds of victims.

“MGM Resorts International sued victims in at least seven states last week in a bid to get federal courts to declare the company has no liability for the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history,” writes Amy Taxin.

Read the AP article.

Bloomberg Law is reporting that a virtual currency operator accused of running off with investor funds after a 2013 hack and lying to investigators has accepted a plea deal with federal prosecutors in New York.

Reporter Lydia Beyoud writes that Jon E. Montroll of Saginaw, Texas, faces up to 40 years in prison.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said in a July 23 statement accompanying the plea agreement that Montroll “repeatedly lied during sworn testimony and misled SEC staff to avoid taking responsibility for the loss of thousands of his customers’ bitcoins,” in 2013, Berman said.

Read the Bloomberg Law article.

In a new video, lawyers from Tyler, Texas-based Martin Walker PC discuss a recent medical malpractice case that yielded their client a $43.32 million verdict, including $25 million in exemplary damages.

Jurors found the hospital grossly negligent in its retention and supervision of a doctor on probation whose abandonment and improper care led to a patient’s complete loss of his quality of life and ability to provide for his family, plaintiff’s lawyers said.

A statement from the firm continued: “In reaching the gross negligence verdict, jurors agreed that the hospital had put its patients in extreme risk by allowing Dr. Gary Boyd to treat them even though the Texas Medical Board had placed him on probation which automatically suspended his hospital privileges pursuant to the hospital’s bylaws and policies.”

After the jury’s verdict, the case settled for $9 million, with the defendants agreeing not to appeal, according to the firm’s video.

Watch the video.

A post on the website of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips discusses a case in which an Ohio federal court found that, where a contract required written revocation of consent to be contacted, a consumer’s attempt to orally revoke consent failed.

As part of the cardholder agreement between Carlton Barton and Credit One Bank, Barton provided his explicit consent to be contacted on his cellphone number in any way (such as prerecorded message, autodialer or text message), explain Diana L. Eisner and Christine M. Reilly. Barton later claimed that he revoked his consent by telling a representative of Credit One not to call him anymore.

Barton sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, but the court found that the plaintiff provided his cellphone number to the defendant when he filled out his application form and “‘a party who gives an invitation or permission to be called at [a certain] number’ has given ‘prior express consent’ to be contacted.”

Read the article.

The GOP’s bid to transform the federal bench with conservative judges hit its first significant snag Thursday as the White House withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds to serve on the powerful and famously liberal 9th Circuit appeals court, reports The Washington Post.

After an hour-long delay on the vote, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the nomination had been withdrawn. Two Republican senators planned to vote against the confirmation.

“The nomination drew widespread criticism over articles Bounds wrote in the Stanford Review as an undergraduate that ridiculed multiculturalism and groups concerned with racial issues,” writes Karoun Demirjian. “Bounds attempted to apologize for those writings earlier this year, but his apology — which focused more on his rhetoric than his views — failed to convince Democrats or satisfy all Republicans.”

Read the Post article.