Personal Injury Attorneys

The Supreme Court today cleared the way for the President to kill individual items of Federal spending in bills that he signs into law, but expressed no opinion on the constitutionality of such ”line-item vetoes.”

The Court said it could not rule on the new Presidential power, granted by Congress in a law enacted last year, because there was not yet a genuine ”case or controversy.” It said the members of Congress who had challenged the President’s new power in court had no legal right to do so, because they had not suffered any personal injury from its use.

President Clinton hailed the decision and described the line-item veto as a ”valuable tool for eliminating waste in the Federal budget.” He said he would use the power to attack special-interest provisions buried in big bills. Congress is now working on appropriations bills that will soon give the President many opportunities to do so.

Lawmakers opposed to the line-item veto predicted that it would ultimately be declared unconstitutional, as a result of some future suit brought by plaintiffs found to have standing.

Since the the dawn of the Republic, the President has been required to either accept or reject legislation in its entirety. But the 1996 law at issue, the Line-Item Veto Act, authorized him to cancel specific items in Federal spending and tax bills that he has already signed. He can rescind such items at any time within five days after signing the legislation.

Five members of Congress and one former member challenged the new law, arguing that the line-item veto unconstitutionally shifted power over spending and taxes from Congress to the President, ”altering the legal and practical effect” of their votes. Using this device, they said, the President can unilaterally repeal selected provisions of a statute, in violation of the lawmaking procedure set forth in the Constitution.

But in announcing the Court’s 7-to-2 decision from the bench today, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said, ”These members of Congress are not the right people to bring this suit.”

Under Article III of the Constitution, the Chief Justice said, ”no Federal court can decide a case unless the people bringing the suit have standing” to sue. To satisfy this requirement, he said, plaintiffs must have a ”personal, concrete injury, a personal stake in the dispute.”

More : query.nytimes.com

New York City paid a record $275 million to settle lawsuits and other claims for the 1994 fiscal year, according to a report released yesterday by City Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi.

The report attributed the total in part to a program started by state courts to clear some of the cases against the city that had lingered for years. The program closed about 750 backlogged cases, costing the city about $43 million. Last year, the city paid $247 million in claims.

There were also a record 30,862 claims filed against city agencies in the last fiscal year, which ended on June 30. The increase was spurred largely by an especially severe winter of 1993-94, which resulted in more personal-injury and property damage claims involving accidents on slippery roads and icy sidewalks.

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has made holding down legal costs a priority of his administration, particularly because of the city’s budget problems. For the last two years, he has unsuccessfully pressed the State Legislature to enact a package of proposals that would limit awards for pain and suffering to no more than $250,000 and that would put such cases in the hands of judges rather than juries. New York juries have a reputation for awarding large judgments against the city.

The Mayor has estimated that enacting such laws could save the city as much as $45 million a year.

But personal-injury lawyers, who would receive less money if awards went down, have lobbied vigorously against such legislation. Consumer protection groups also have complained that the city should not try to balance its budget at the expense of people who have been injured because of municipal negligence.

Lawrence S. Kahn, the city’s chief litigator, said the Mayor plans to reintroduce his proposed tort reform legislation next month.

More : query.nytimes.com

A New York lawyer and six associates bribed witnesses and faked evidence in winning millions of dollars in personal-injury cases, a Federal prosecutor charged on Friday at the opening of a trial in Brooklyn.

But in opening statements by defense lawyers, the main defendant, Morris J. Eisen, and his associates in the Eisen firm in Manhattan were described as dedicated protectors of poor people seeking legitimate compensation for accidents and injuries.

Mr. Eisen, two other lawyers, their office manager and three private investigators are charged with conspiracy and racketeering. The opening statements were made on Thursday and Friday to a jury in Federal District Court.

“These defendants decided that winning personal-injury lawsuits was the most important thing — the only thing — and they were willing to do whatever it took to win,” the chief prosecutor, Jerome C. Roth, said.

As an example, Mr. Roth said, one plaintiff had pretended to have been injured tripping over a pothole at Aqueduct Raceway. Failing to find a pothole, he said, one of the firm’s investigators took a pickax and created “an instant pothole.” “You will also hearthat the firm made a great deal of money,” the prosecutor said. Its income, he said, reached $20 million in one year, much of it from suits against New York City.

“The evidence will show that the man who ran the whole show was Mr. Eisen,” he asserted, pointing at the defendant.

The office manager, Geraldine Morganti, was Mr. Eisen’s chief aide, the prosecutor continued. He said two trial lawyers, Joseph P. Napoli and Harold M. Fishman, were in the firm’s “second tier.” The three investigators, Alan Weinstein, Dennis Rella and Marty Gabe, were described as “foot soldiers.”

In the trial, which may shed light on the practice of personal-injury law, the defendants have assembled an unusually strong team of defense lawyers.

The defense’s counterattack began with Mr. Eisen’s lawyer, James M. LaRossa, accusing the Federal Government of getting together with New York City and large insurance companies to “stop a group of dedicated lawyers.” ‘About Government Power’

More : query.nytimes.com

The trust set up by the Manville Corporation to compensate victims of asbestos poisoning, which is out of cash and will be unable to pay seriously ill people for decades, announced a plan yesterday for a quick settlement of tens of thousands of asbestos personal injury cases.

Under the proposal, the Manville Corporation would provide an additional $520 million over seven years to the trust and lift restrictions on the trust’s ability to sell a $1.8 billion Manville bond. In addition, fees for plaintiffs’ lawyers, which had consumed tens of millions of dollars, would be cut to a maximum of 25 percent of what their clients recover.

The proposal would give priority to the more seriously ill people — an estimated 23,000 who have cancer and other debilitating diseases — over those with less severe asbestos-related ailments, who would get nothing in the first year. Up to 37,500 of the less severely ill could receive a maximum of $2,000 in the second year of the plan.

If, as expected, the plan is approved by a Federal District Court, it would remove tens of thousands of cases from hundreds of state and Federal courts around the nation and slash the legal fees that have taken most of its available funds. This would be accomplished by combining all the cases against the trust into a single class action.

The Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust has become a symbol of the legal difficulties facing many former asbestos makers and their victims. Manville, for decades the nation’s leading producer of asbestos products, set the trust up two years ago to enable the company to rise out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The corporation’s legal liability was shifted to the Washington-based trust, with the intention of making timely settlements of claims and helping victims avoid costly litigation.

The trust is now facing more than 90,000 lawsuits in hundreds of state and Federal courts, legal bills of tens of millions of dollars, and decades-long delays in compensating asbestos victims, many of whom have fatal illnesses and cancers. By some estimates, more than two-thirds of the resources available for victims have been going to legal and administrative costs.

The announcement of the new plan follows an order by District Judge Jack B. Weinstein of Brooklyn to revamp the ailing trust, which he has said was unfairly denying relief to tens of thousands of asbestos victims. The plan was worked out after months of negotiations among the Manville Corporation, the trust, a committee of seven lawyers representing thousands of victims and Leon Silverman, a New York lawyer appointed by the judge to deal with the trust’s problems.

Experts said yesterday that the new plan marked a significant development in the law governing product liability and was likely to provide a new precedent for the handling of asbestos cases, which are now clogging many courts across the nation. ‘Legislated Disability Program’

“It sounds like a legislated disability program,” said Peter H. Schuck, a professor at the Yale Law School who has written a book about Agent Orange, one of the largest product liability cases and the role played by Judge Weinstein. “It will treat the cases more categorically and less individually and set priorities based on the severity of the illnesses.”

More : query.nytimes.com

LEAD: A Federal judge in Cleveland approved a nationwide class action of all personal injury asbestos lawsuits yesterday, consolidating more than 100,000 cases onto his docket and beating to the punch a Federal judge in Brooklyn who expressed the same idea last week.

A Federal judge in Cleveland approved a nationwide class action of all personal injury asbestos lawsuits yesterday, consolidating more than 100,000 cases onto his docket and beating to the punch a Federal judge in Brooklyn who expressed the same idea last week.

The certification of the class action by Judge Thomas D. Lambros, chief judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, reflected the frustration among judges who are coping with the overwhelming problem of the growing number of asbestos lawsuits. The suits represent the largest number of personal injury cases on Federal and state dockets.

The judge’s order came seven days after Federal District Judge Jack B. Weinstein of Brooklyn said he was strongly inclined toward approving a nationwide class action in asbestos cases with the intent of cutting back the enormous fees awarded to lawyers in the cases.

The Ohio order was issued without a hearing or motion, solely on the judge’s intitiative, prompting lawyers to speculate that Judge Lambros moved to maintain control over asbestos cases rather than lose ground to Judge Weinstein.

In a telephone interview yesterday evening, Judge Lambros said he was acting ”to maintain the status quo.”

”I don’t think there ought to be jurisdictional competition, but we ought to be working cooperatively,” he said. ”There has been a lot of discussion throughout the country about class actions. This is not an attempt to supersede or usurp the jurisdiction of any court.”

He strongly denied reports that he had acted at the urging of a group of plaintiffs’ lawyers. Several sources said these lawyers had sought him out last week after meeting in Chicago and expressing concern that Judge Weinstein’s action threatened to slash their fees.

Judge Lambros, asked about this, replied that he had not met with any lawyers for plaintiffs or acted on their behalf.

”If any request would have been made, then I would have called the opposition and sought their opinions,” he said. ”It’s not nice to suggest that I was requested by anyone to do this.”

Lawyers said that it was likely that his order would be appealed by some plaintiffs and defendants who have fought successfully in the past against the establishment of asbestos class actions.

But the order will not likely set off a judicial tug-of-war between Judge Lambros and Judge Weinstein, two strong-willed and innovative judges who have struggled independently to find a nationwide solution to the enormous wave of asbestos litigation.

Judge Weinstein declined comment, but he told associates that he was inclined to yield to Judge Lambros for now, in part because of his growing belief that a nationwide class action might be overturned ultimately by a Federal appeals court.

More : query.nytimes.com

ACKSONVILLE, FLA., Wednesday, Jan. 10, 1877, The more the condition of affairs in this State is investigated, the more apparent the fact that a large number of legal voters were restrained from voting in November by the fear of personal injury or of the loss of employment. It has been clearly proved that a large number of tickets were marked by printed

More : query.nytimes.com

Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have said from the beginning that the criminal trial of a prominent lawyer and some of his colleagues on charges of wholesale corruption would provide an unsavory glimpse behind the curtains of a large personal-injury law firm.

In a week of testimony in the case of the lawyer, Morris J. Eisen, two other lawyers from his firm, their office manager and three private investigators, the jury has become acquainted with such things as brown-bag payoffs to a witness and a shrunken ruler used to exaggerate the size of photographed potholes.

Personal-injury lawyers, who usually take cases with a promise of a cut of any of aplaintiff’s winnings, have long been subject to accusations of “ambulance chasing” and worse. The prosecutor in the Eisen case, Jerome C. Roth, said Mr. Eisen’s firm, Morris Eisen P.C., tested the limits of impropriety.

Mr. Roth told the jurors the Eisen firm’s lawyers “were really limited only by their own imaginations” as they routinely made up injuries, fabricated evidence and bought false testimony in personal-injury cases. Stephen DiJoseph, the former managing attorney of the 45-lawyer firm, testified that the firm’s top lawyer, Mr. Eisen, personally ordered evidence to be faked and once said he would “take care” of getting a favorable ruling from a Bronx judge.

The lawyers’ lawyers have begun a blistering counterattack. They say it was the Government lawyers, not the Eisen lawyers, who really showed how unscrupulous lawyers can be. The say they will show the jury how the prosecutors threatened witnesses, encouraged others to lie and promised corrupt people — like Mr. DiJoseph, they say — immunity from prosecution if they would help give a black eye to Mr. Eisen in particular, and plaintiffs’ lawers in general. Mr. Eisen’s lawyer, James M. LaRosa, said the prosecutors were being used by New York City and insurance companies, because they want to stop paying big damage awards to injured people. He said they want to send a chill through the ranks of the lawyers who represent accident victims. “This case sends a message: ‘Don’t win too much money and don’t fight too hard against us,’ ” Mr. LaRosa said.

Some lawyers say charges of corruption tar all lawyers in the field. “If you have a few that do things that seem outrageous,” said Victor Schwartz, a national expert on personal-injury law, “that makes people think that all plaintiff’s lawyers do it.”

The Insurance Information Institute, an industry group, estimates that as much as $8.5 billion is paid out annually across the country on fraudulent claims that are orchestrated by dishonest lawyers and other professionals.

The prosecution in the Eisen case has done its best to emphasize the outrageous.

The Eisen lawyers, according to prosecutors’ filings, kept blank doctors’ stationery in their offices so they could write their own medical reports to order. On Friday, Mr. DiJoseph quoted Mr. Eisen as saying that he frequently hired a particular engineer as an expert witness because the man would “say anything we want him to say for the right amount of money.” 2 Accidents, 1 Witness

More : query.nytimes.com

LEAD: Three members of a personal-injury law firm in Manhattan have been indicted on Federal charges that they falsified evidence and bribed witnesses to lie in 19 accident cases dating to 1979, United States Attorney Andrew J. Maloney announced yesterday. Four private investigators and an office manager for the firm were also charged.

Three members of a personal-injury law firm in Manhattan have been indicted on Federal charges that they falsified evidence and bribed witnesses to lie in 19 accident cases dating to 1979, United States Attorney Andrew J. Maloney announced yesterday. Four private investigators and an office manager for the firm were also charged.

The indictment includes two cases in which the same man was falsely used as a witness, even though the man was in prison at the time of one of the accidents he testified about, Mr. Maloney said. In another case, he said, a private investigator used a pick-ax to widen a pothole at a racetrack. The pothole was falsely identified as the cause of the accident, the prosecutor said.

The indictments fall under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The lawyers are from the firm of Morris J. Eisen at 233 Broadway in lower Manhattan. Mr. Eisen was among those charged.

”In a five-year period of time, the allegations against this firm mushroomed from about five to 19,” Mr. Maloney said at a news conference yesterday at the Federal courthouse in Brooklyn. He called the allegations ”rather gross for members of the bar to be engaged in.”

‘Not Above the Law’

Mr. Maloney was joined at the news conference by the Manhattan District Attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, and the Bronx District Attorney, Robert T. Johnson, whose offices cooperated in the investigation.

”Lawyers are not above the law, and if they commit crimes they are going to be prosecuted vigorously,” Mr. Morgenthau said.

More : query.nytimes.com

LEAD: Asbestos litigation has turned into a kind of three-dimensional judicial chess game, with plaintiffs, defendants and judges all struggling among themselves.

Asbestos litigation has turned into a kind of three-dimensional judicial chess game, with plaintiffs, defendants and judges all struggling among themselves.

The central issue for all three groups is whether tens of thousands of asbestos personal-injury lawsuits should be consolidated into one or a few jurisdictions. And if the cases should be consolidated, which judges should supervise them?

Right now, the cases are scattered throughout every Federal court and most state courts around the nation. In some areas, they are badly clogging the dockets. Asbestos personal-injury cases form the basis for the largest number of civil disputes around the nation, and some lawyers and scientists predict that they will increase drastically in the coming years as injuries from decades of exposure become apparent.

The issues surrounding the consolidation of cases are expected to come in sharp focus this week, when judges begin to take steps to resolve what has turned into a clash of class actions. On Friday an unusual meeting will be held in Washington by six Federal judges with heavy asbestos dockets.

One of those judges, Jack B. Weinstein of Brooklyn, traveled to Texas and Cleveland on Friday to discuss plans for coordination with two other judges. Judge Weinstein set off a mad scramble by lawyers and other judges last month when he indicated his intention to approve a nationwide class action. The judge’s move caused several parties to begin shopping for the best forum for their lawsuits and brought a reaction from other judges who did not want to see their cases transferred.

Within a week of Judge Weinstein’s opinion, Federal District Judge Thomas D. Lambros of Cleveland approved a class action without any motion being made by a lawyer. Four Federal judges in Louisiana who are supervising more than 1,000 cases then fired off an order telling lawyers there basically to ignore Judge Lambros because he had acted improperly in approving the class action.

At about the same time, plaintiffs’ lawyers asked Judge Robert M. Parker of Tyler, Tex., to approve a class action. The motion is still pending, along with one filed by an asbestos defendant, Eagle-Picher Industries, asking Judge Weinstein to approve a class action.

”Every hour brings me an order or fax from a court staking out turf in the class-action fight,” said a lawyer who represents a maker of asbestos.

More : query.nytimes.com

“City sidewalks, busy sidewalks,” the classic goes. “It’s Christmas time in the city.” For thousands who have tripped and fallen on those sidewalks or might know someone who has, Christmas time in New York City has always included a holiday card from Harry Lipsig.

For 60 years Mr. Lipsig, personal injury lawyer nonpareil, has sent Christmas cards to virtually everyone he ever buttonholed. He records their names on color-coded index cards — pink for lawyers, orange for firefighters, and so on — and stores them in a vast card catalogue.

With Mr. Lipsig, it is always Christmas in July. That is when his secretaries have begun addressing the 60,000 or so cards. For personal injury lawyers, for whom personal contacts are crucial, holiday cards are not sent for the reasons Bing Crosby crooned of in “White Christmas.” In fact, Mr. Lipsig’s season’s greeting have become the crux of a most unmerry lawsuit. As bells jingle and children laugh these days, the discordant sounds of Lipsig v. Sullivan & Liapakis emanate from State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

Mr. Lipsig, who will turn 89 on Dec. 26, built his career on outrageousness. He is someone who not only chased ambulances but did so flamboyantly. For thousands of accident victims, the first words out of their mouths after “Ouch!” have been “Harry Lipsig.”

Even by Mr. Lipsig’s boisterous standards, however, the twilight of his career is noisy indeed. In the last two years he has legally adopted his former office manager, a woman in her 30’s; left his law firm in a huff; formed a new firm with a woman who has since sued him; formed yet another firm, where he currently practices; and most recently, took his original partners from two firms ago, Robert Sullivan and Pamela Liapakis, to court. That’s where the Christmas cards come in.

Mr. Lipsig maintains he has been unable to send out his full complement of cards this year because Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Liapakis won’t disgorge the card file. Worse than that, he says, they have traded on his good name and deprived him of millions of dollars in referral fees, all in violation of the pact they signed upon separating.

Sullivan & Liapakis counter that not only does he have the file but also that he stole it from them. In a letter included in court papers, a former secretary to Mr. Lipsig wrote that she knew he had the file because “I could not count how many envelopes I typed last year from cards, some of which seemed to be eons old.”

Mailing the cards, the former partners say, violates both the pledge and a court order not to solicit clients from the firm where he worked for decades. Taking the matter to court, they add, is simply Mr. Lipsig’s — or his adopted daughter’s — way of keeping his name in print, propping up his practice and persuading the public that he can still practice law.

Mr. Lipsig has in fact been homebound for weeks, recuperating from pneumonia and adjusting to a new pacemaker, and has been declining interviews for the first time since Hoover was President and Babe Ruth roamed the Bronx. But in a brief conversation this week, he said: “I’m in constant contact with my office and enjoying every blasted minute of it. My law firm is doing fabulously, doing fabulously in the millions.”

More : query.nytimes.com