One can understand why Mr. Alston is so upset with the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Last October, Mr. Alston stood to gain $12,000,000 through his representation of the estate of Dr. Edsel Stewart, which had claimed that Prudential Life Insurance Company improperly denied $1 million dollars worth in coverage.

The jury had awarded $1.4 million in compensatory, and $35 million in punitive damages.

That is, until the Mississipi Supreme Court overturned the verdict, 7-2.

I tell you what, if a court stripped me of $12 million, I'd be writing op-eds also.

But one has to wonder if your claim that it would be "odd" were Mr. Alston to have a "beef" with corporations isn't totally forthcoming.

$12 million dollars buys a lot of beef.

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/dickerson_how_much_justice_can_you_afford/

The post Lawyer links to has a great example of how loser pays can be exceedingly unfair when one party has more wealth than another:

"The case involved Dr. Edsel Stewart, a McComb ob-gyn, who purchased a $1 million life insurance policy from Prudential and wrote out a check for $20,000 to put the policy in effect. Sadly, Stewart had a stroke the following day and died about a month later.

When his family attempted to collect on the insurance, Prudential refused to honor the policy. It was Prudential’s position that the policy was never officially approved, even though the company had reviewed Stewart’s medical history, provided him with an annual fee quote and accepted his check.

....

Instead of punishing Prudential for breech of contract, the Supreme Court rewarded the company for what most reasonable people would consider bad-boy behavior. As a result, the Stewart family will have to pay court costs and Prudential’s legal fees—something that could send them into bankruptcy—all because they demanded that an insurance company honor its policy."

hmmmm, arbitration sounds like a decent option.

Justinian:

Good job dodging the issue showing Mr. Alston's extreme bias against the Mississippi Supreme Court. This post was about an op-ed, remember?

And if you're going to pull the bait-and-switch, you should probably use the opinion.

First, the $1 million in life insurace was to cover Dr. Stewart's tax liability. Second, the estate pays the appellate fees, not any "family." So query whether any family members will be going bankrupt any time soon.

Furthermore, the case involved the following:

Dr. Stewart submitted an application for insurance, with an annual premium of $100k. He then slipped into a coma. Prudential responded to the application with correspondence indicating that it would only write a policy for $105k per year. Since Dr. Stewart was already in a coma, it then directed its agent not to write any policy.

Under contract law, you need an "offer" and "acceptance" of that offer, such that both parties' understandings of the terms are identical. Meeting of the minds, so to speak. Since there wasn't any such meeting here, no contract was formed. And since no policy was ever written, Prudential didn't really want to pay.

I'll leave it open as to whether this behavior constitutes punitive damages worth $35 million.

But what isn't an open question is whether it's disingenuous to pretend like a man who just lost $12 million dollars at the Mississippi Supreme Court has this magical neutral opinion because he defended a few corporations in the past.

Lawyer,

No dodging here. I didn't know about that case, but I do know that Mr. Alston is a corporate lawyer who has spent time on both sides of the aisle, and probably experienced wins and losses on both sides too. He also self-identifies as someone who has litigated on behalf of businesses. This is the oddity that I point out. As someone who has made a living defending these corporations in court, his perspective on this issue clearly is not purely plaintiff-friendly. Indeed, he even says in the op ed that it would be bad for a court to make decisions, either way, based upon donors to judicial elections.

The lawyer does not believe in a statistical universe. Mr. Alston should show us a decision induced by bias. Otherwise this op-ed is calumny and mere bile.

"[H]is perspective on this issue clearly is not purely plaintiff-friendly."

Really? What about representing plaintiffs for millions isn't plaintiff-friendly? What about his op-ed wasn't plaintiff-friendly?

Let's follow the math:

(1) In November, the Mississippi Supreme Court judges are up for re-election.

(2) Mr. Alston just had literally $12 million against an insurance company taken out of his pocket, at the hand of the State Supreme Court.

Therefore, (3) he writes an opinion piece with the following language, sprinkled with convenient anti-"insurance company" language:

"The defendant...insurance company prevailed in 100 percent of these cases."

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and insurance companies should be ecstatic..."

"Think of the money it saves the insurance companies not to pay a claim, knowing they are safe with the state Supreme Court."

"powerful corporations, hospitals, and insurance companies have prevailed in the state Supreme Court"

"insurance companies, large corporations, and doctors poured millions"

"Voters should be wary of Supreme Court candidates who insist that they have been especially fair to large corporations and insurance companies"

"If powerful corporations and insurance companies have financed a justice's campaign...his or her rulings will most likely be in favor of his donors"

But, in his defense, at least he sums up his piece with a call to civic duty against these "insurance companies" that are ruining our lives:

"Is there anything we can do? Yes, we can get involved in the election."

His perspective may not be "plaintiff-friendly," but it sure bears an uncanny resemblance to a perspective very "Alston-friendly."

Lawyer, rather than point out how biased this guy may or may not be, can you refute his statistics? If not, then his bias is irrelevant. And cashing a check is usually a pretty good sign of offer and acceptance.

Justinian:

(1) His bias was put into issue by Kia, not me. Are you saying that the substance of Kia's posts are "irrelevant"? She wrote:

"Is this just statistical trickery by a trial lawyer with a beef against corporations? Well, in this case that would be quite odd, given that the trial lawyer in question made his living defending corporations in business litigation."

(2) I agree that cashing a check is a good sign of acceptance. Problem is, Prudential never cashed any check. Read the case. The estate planner received $20,000 for what the estate planner said was for services, not life insurance. Only after Dr. Stewart died did Mr. Alston & the estate claim that it was an installation on an insurance policy that was never written and demand punitive damages.

"He also self-identifies as someone who has litigated on behalf of businesses."

Oh, well, if a plaintiffs' lawyer who just lost a meritless $35 million lawsuit in front of the Mississippi Supreme Court says that, then he must not have any bias at all!

Justinian's comment, in the wake of Kia's repeated false claims that the writer is business-friendly, is remarkably dishonest, but it's easy enough to address:

The quantitative numbers tell us nothing, because they're at least as (and probably more) likely to reflect the notorious pro-trial-lawyer biases of the lower Mississippi courts. Let's see the qualitative data: which Mississippi Supreme Court opinions are wrong? Because I can identify several that overturned really outrageous lower-court decisions that had no business getting to the Mississippi Supreme Court if the lower courts had been doing their jobs correctly.

(We're seeing the same sort of smear being made against the Texas Supreme Court, which has had to correct some pretty appalling and lawless decisions of trial-lawyer-controlled lower courts.)

False claims and dishonesty? Oh wait, that's just Ted commenting.

Do we care at all about ensuring fairness in the system? Or is it just about what works well for businesses? You claim it's "as likely" that the data reflects a pro-plaintiff bias in the lower courts. But...100% of the cases (as in, not ONE plaintiff that appealed was correct)? And 88% of the businesses were correct? That's just as likely as the possibility that this indicates an inherent pro-business bias in decisions by judges whose elections are largely supported by the corporate lobby? Anything is possible, but just as LIKELY? No.

I never said the author was business-friendly, nor do I think he should be, nor do I think he needs to be in order for his assessment of the Court's bias to be credible. I merely pointed out that he is someone who has spent time defending corporations as well as individuals. He is presenting both data (as Justinian points out) and a perspective that reveal a real problem in the way justice is administered in cases between individuals and corporations in Mississippi.

He's pointing out a problem he has with the system. Why does this have to mean he's some corporation hater? Why can't he just be someone who cares deeply about restoring fairness to the courts for regular people?

For God's sake, Ted, get some new material. There's nothing dishonest about my comment. ANY writer's bias (even yours) is irrelevant if what he writes is true.

NB you didn't bother to read the article before labeling him a plaintiffs' lawyer:

"Jackson attorney Alex A. Alston Jr. has litigated hundreds of cases, primarily for defendant corporations, over the past 44 years, including scores of cases argued before the Mississippi Supreme Court, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and other circuits, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He has served as president of the Mississippi Bar and has taught and written extensively on issues of trial advocacy. He is the co-author of an upcoming book, Immune to Prosecution: The Long Road to Justice in Mississippi."

If you had bothered to research the man any further, you would also have found that he's a member of the Mississippi Defense Lawyers Association, which describes itself as "a statewide association of attorneys who practice primarily in the defense of civil litigation."

Care to retract your false claim that he's a plaintiffs' lawyer, and apologize to Kia?

"Do we care at all about ensuring fairness in the system?"

Yes. Which is why the Mississippi Supreme Court shouldn't be criticized for ensuring fairness in a system that was wildly and infamously unfair -- such as an unfair $36 million verdict against an insurance company brought by a plaintiff trying to defraud them.

"a real problem in the way justice is administered in cases between individuals and corporations in Mississippi."

Indeed there is a real problem in the way justice is administered in cases between individuals and corporations in Mississippi. You should be looking at the lower courts that are getting reversed. Overlawyered and Point of Law actually look at and analyze cases, rather than counting noses and demanding that one side wins or loses. This blog has yet to provide legitimate legal analysis on a single case, and apparently feels that the rule of law is irrelevant.

Kia, identify five cases where the Mississippi plaintiff appealed and should have won under the law but didn't. You may be able to find one or two where the court made a mistake, but unless you can find a systemic error, there isn't a problem with the court's actions. Jonathan Lee Riches has brought hundreds of cases and lost every single one of them. That doesn't mean judges are treating Jonathan Lee Riches unfairly.

"I never said the author was business-friendly"

Kia, don't treat your readers like idiots if you want to have non-idiots reading your blog. What you said is right there in the post above you. "Is this just statistical trickery by a trial lawyer with a beef against corporations? Well, in this case that would be quite odd, given that the trial lawyer in question made his living defending corporations in business litigation." Really now. When Clinton claimed he didn't know what "is" meant, people justifiably made fun of him. Don't be a sophist. You pull that sort of pretend nonsense with a real judge, you're going to hurt your client. You deliberately tried to mislead people into thinking that this was a business-friendly author who thought the court had gone to far rather than someone upset that he didn't get the millions that Mississippi trial lawyers of the 1990s extorted from the system because the Mississippi Supreme Court stopped taking bribes.

Justinian, anyone who seeks $35 million in punitive damages after trying to rip off an insurance company for $100,000 is accurately characterized as a plaintiffs' lawyer. If I'm in-house, and I learn my defense lawyer is bringing that sort of lawsuit, he's not going to be my defense lawyer very long.

"if what he writes is true."

I see no evidence that what he writes is true beyond the simple metrics of counting, and even there I'm skeptical.

"Justinian, anyone who seeks $35 million in punitive damages after trying to rip off an insurance company for $100,000 is accurately characterized as a plaintiffs' lawyer."

FAIL.

Let's not forget the irony of the timing of this op-ed and its allegedly-neutral author.

Wasn't a plaintiffs lawyer -- one of the "richest men in Mississippi" -- recently sentenced to 5 years in prison for bribing Mississippi judges? What was his name again...? Slugs? Suggs? Something like that.

Of course, in the upcoming judicial election, that's not important to Alston. Instead of focusing on bribery, according to Alston, "[v]oters should be wary of Supreme Court candidates who insist that they have been especially fair to large corporations and insurance companies."

[Insert eye-rolling here]

Damn! I bet Kia it would be Ted that brought up Scruggs to muddy the waters... Oh well.

And what's so wrong with asking voters not to vote for candidates who promise to be "especially" fair to anyone? A good judge is equally fair to everyone.

I bet Ted that you would try to skirt the issue and not respond substantively.

I won.

My initial comment questioned the post's insinuation that Mr. Alston holds a pro-defense opinion since he "defend[s] corporations." In fact, the body he is criticizing -- and seeking to change through voter action -- took away his $36 million dollar plaintiff verdict.

You replied by pointing out that the case, where the court tossed his $36 million verdict, is a "great example of how loser pays can be exceedingly unfair."

I then pointed out to you that the case was actually meritless, and repeated my assertion that, contrary to the post's claim, Alston would have $12 million reasons to be biased.

You responded that if I can't "refute his statistics...then his bias is irrelevant" and then repeated a fact incorrect about the case.

I responded that Kia's post intentionally stated that Mr. Alston is a "corprate defender," to prove that he has no bias, and I didn't create the issue.

You repeated your assertion that his bias is "irrelevant."

I then pointed out the irony of the timing of the op-ed, considering that one of the richest men in Mississippi, a plaintiffs' lawyer, was just sentenced to 5 years for actually bribing judges. The irony, of course, being that the op-ed complains that campaign contributions from "powerful corporations" have tacitly corrupted the state supreme court.

You responded that I'm "muddying the waters" and then proceeded to play a semantical game, implying that someone who's "especially fair" to one person cannot be "equally fair" to all. The fact that you anticipated this irony, and still have no substantive response, is telling.

But at least we both enjoy gambling.

Some plaintiff's lawyers sometimes represent defendants. That doesn't make them defense lawyers. Alston's membership in the defense lawyer's association makes him a defense lawyer who sometimes represents plaintiffs. And he believes that the courts are biased in favor of the defendants he usually represents. The $12 million figure would have more relevance if we knew how much he had made representing defendants.

Sure, the timing of the op-ed is a little ironic, but whatever Scruggs did has no bearing on Alston's claims. Besides, corporate defendants contributed far more to judicial campaigns than Scruggs gave legally or illegally to judges.

If, as reformers often suggest, judges can be bought with plaintiff campaign contribtutions so too can they be bought with defense contributions. If you want to argue that campaign contributions don't bias judges one way or the other, well, that's a tough argument to make. I think the founding fathers had it right by going with judicial appointments.

It's not a semantic game. Either you're fair, or your not. Imagine this statement: "I was fair to the plaintiff in this case, but I was especially fair to the defendant." Does that sound like an impartial judge to you? If both sides aren't getting exactly the same treatment, the judge isn't being fair.