RI SC Lead Orals - You asked me what I REALLY think

Those of us who acquired enhanced brandnames or lucrative accounts because of the Rhode Island lead paint public nuisance litigation better think about moving on to another reputational or financial sugar daddy.  You asked me what I REALLY think and here it is:

I thought I was hearing wrong when one the of Justices cut Motley Rice attorney Fidelma Fitzpatrick short when she was starting her usual rant about lead paint is bad.  I looked over to the man sitting next to me.  He was bug-eyed.  So, we both hadn't heard wrong.  It was going to get a lot more intense.

The smart four men they are - one justice recused - they were going to find a narrow passageway through the public nuisance and contingency messes through questions of law.  That's what they wanted.  The attorneys representing the defendants Sherwin-Williams, Millennium Holdings and NL Industries and acquitted Atlantic Richfield stuck to the points of law.  The plaintiff representatives did not.  They came prepared with stylized rhetoric and kept to the script. 

Clearly, the Four Horsemen didn't eagerly embrace this challenge of extricating the state from this man-made legal edifice.  I even wonder if they were grateful for those almost 75 amicus briefs that came in - and they had to read.  The lion's share came from non-profits supporting the plaintiff.

A group of Justices which receive an unwelcome challenge will not cut too much slack for the those who created the whole enchilada called the RI Lead Paint Case.  I expect them to come down hard not only on the plaintiff but also the el als. - private counsel contingency partner, trial judge, and maybe even that historian who pored over those thousands of documents.

No question this is the beginning of the end for lead paint public nuisance.  Other states are watching and they probably are blown away by today.  Also, if the Justices in their opinion gut the concept of public nuisance as applied to anything but the 12 dogs next door barking and crapping everywhere the golden age of public nuisance might never get to happen.

What will the ruling be?  Will it overturn the verdict?  Or will it be less radical and grant a new trial?  Yesterday I would have merely hoped for a new trial.  Today is a game-changer.  They may just let the defendants off the hook.  Then the defendants can decide if they want to legally push-back in any way.

As for contingency, I suspect the Justices will rule against that on the basis of violation of the separation of powers.  That will affect what's going on in Santa Clara, California.  So, contingency in mass tort could suffer a major hit.

The compensatory damages?  I say forget it.  The Justices wanted a fuller, more detailed accounting of all those supposed costs of dealing with lead paint.  They explicitly said that not all lead poisoning is from lead paint.  From what was said about the numbers the plaintiff does have, I don't think they will bear up under scrutiny.

Abatement? It should be ancient history.  I wonder if in their ruling, the Justices will stop that train.  It was explicitly asked if the process was still continuing, even in the face of this RI SC review.  The plaintiff attorney answered yes.  Wrong answer, methinks.

The "twist & spin the facts" will probably be referred to a disciplinary board to review both contempt convictions. I have a hunch that they will be overturned and Lynch's money returned.

All good things come to an end and that includes the fascinating saga of the lead paint public nuisance litigation.  I am considering moving on to interviewing ex-cons about re-entry which usually means recidivism.  In Jersey City, New Jersey, my grandfather and two uncles had all been guests of the state.  I am just figuring out now why they were so self-destructive and self-defeating.

Let us know what you intend to do with your career post-lead paint.  Please leave a comment or contact Mgenova981@aol.com.