Kia Franklin

Note to Journalists Covering Lawsuits: Watch Your Language

Count on the New York Times for fodder. Sunday’s paper has a huge article on the 9/11 lawyer who is being sued for his handling of the Fen Phen settlements:

[A] New York State appellate court cleared the way for a trial on a suit brought by former clients and a law firm once associated with Mr. Napoli charging that he manipulated the distribution of fen-phen settlement money for 5,600 clients. The suit contends that the settlement — reportedly $1 billion — was managed in a way that favored some clients over others and thereby increased the lawyers’ fees for Mr. Napoli’s Manhattan firm. No trial date has been set.

There’s lots to say, and I hope to provide a round up of what others in the blogosphere are saying. But for now I just want to point out two things:

The first thing is a reflection on what the lawsuit is and isn’t about. The lawsuit is about how appropriately the lawyer distributed settlement awards to his clients. It is not about whether these victims deserve adequate compensation for heart damage they suffered after taking a dangerous diet pill. It’s pretty much well-established that they do. It is about making sure victims are not further victimized, and this is something the vast majority of lawyers care very deeply about, which is often why they go into the profession in the first place. It is not about whether victims of dangerous drugs should have access to justice through the court system.

I found it important to look at what the lawsuit is and isn’t about because the language used in the article may cause confusion about that. That’s the second thing I want to point out.

By calling the litigation a “sweepstakes” and saying that “lawyers around the country cashed in” on the lawsuits, the article takes the issue of how one firm handled the awards and fees of deserving clients, and turns it into a question of whether lawsuits can be compared to the lottery. This does a huge disservice to even the most discerning of readers, who faced with this language might forget what the civil justice system does for innocent people who are harmed by another’s wrongdoing.

It certainly makes it easy for a person to associate large awards with unearned excess—regardless of how much plaintiffs deserve it, how egregious the corporate practice at issue, or how hard the lawyer worked on behalf of his or her clients. This belittles what plaintiffs go through—spending years, lots of mental and emotional energy, and often lots of money, to pursue their claims. And it downplays the hard work and dedication lawyers put into their work.

I believe it is of critical importance that we look closely at the profession and how well it lives up to its ethical obligations. But doing so doesn’t require playing into language that only serves to benefit the corporations that would rather not have any lawsuits at all, except for those they file against each other to protect their profits.

Posted at 10:29 AM, Mar 31, 2008 in Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)