Baron & Budd, P.C.

Baron & Budd, P.C.
Industry Law
Founded 1977 (1977)
Headquarters 3102 Oak Lawn Venue, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas, U.S.
Number of locations
 5
Area served
 Main office in Dallas, Texas. Other offices in Austin, Texas; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Key people
 Russell Budd, President and Managing Shareholder
Services Mesothelioma and asbestos, water contamination, online scams, Qui Tam/False Claims Act, Chinese Drywall, dangerous drugs and medical devices, commercial litigation, FCPA/Whistleblower, securities fraud
Number of employees
 260
Website Baron & Budd

Baron & Budd, P.C. is one of the largest plaintiffs’ law firms in the country. The firm focuses on individuals, municipalities, and entities harmed by environmental toxins, fraud, or disregard for safety [1] and remains active in cases involving pharmaceutical litigation, financial fraud, Chinese Drywall, and California Proposition 65.

History

Baron & Budd began its practice in 1977. The firm’s first major case involved a lead smelter adjacent to one of Dallas’ largest public housing projects. Baron & Budd represented more than 200 families in a lawsuit that eventually closed the smelter and provided sizable damage awards for court-supervised trusts that benefitted 445 children.

Mesothelioma

Baron & Budd was one of the first law firms in the nation to successfully try a mesothelioma case.[2] Baron & Budd eventually took its defense of mesothelioma victims to the Supreme Court, battling asbestos companies and, in some cases, other plaintiffs’ firms that wanted to turn all asbestos cases into class action lawsuits.

Asbestos

When a Halliburton subsidiary filed for bankruptcy reorganization in the late '90s, Baron & Budd stepped in to protect the rights of the firm’s asbestos victims.[3] Russell Budd, the firm’s managing shareholder, negotiated with Halliburton and became the chief architect in establishing a trust fund that would protect current and future asbestos victims throughout the United States. The agreement reached between Halliburton and Baron & Budd created the largest asbestos trust fund of its kind anywhere in the world.

Asbestos Fraud

Baron and Budd attorneys gave written instructions to clients on what to say during depositions. The firm produced a document titled “Preparing For Your Deposition.” The document was released into the public from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina as Trial Exhibit GST-1270 in the Garlock Sealing Technologies Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.[4]

On the first page of the document, the firm writes: “The burden of proof is on you, the Plaintiff, to show how you know it was their product you were exposed to.” (Italics are displayed here exactly as displayed in the Baron and Budd document).[4]

On the next page, Budd and Baron writes in a section called Insulating Cement: “Insulating cement was usually a gray powder which came in large 500 or 100lb sacks. Remember to say you saw the NAMES on the BAGS.” (ALL CAPS are displayed here exactly as displayed in the Budd and Baron document). A few paragraphs later, the document directs the Plaintiffs to understand that although several companies made insulating cement, they should focus only on remembering the name of the company that they are suing. “Remember, the names you recall are NOT the only names there were. There were other names, too. They are JUST the names that YOU remember seeing on your jobsites.”[4]

The Preparing For Your Deposition document repeats this pattern for the following products:[4]

Towards the end of the document, Baron and Budd writes: “It might help to pretend you are a ‘prisoner of war’ in an enemy camp where you must only give ‘name, rank and serial number’. Answer ONLY the question asked and DO NOT VOLUNTEER any information!” Finally, the document states: “Any other notes, such as what you are reading right now, are ‘privileged’ and should never be mentioned.”[4]

In the bankruptcy case of Garlock Sealing Technologies, Garlock hired Lester Brickman, a law professor and expert on asbestos lawsuits and the use of “mass screenings”.[5]

Brickman proposed that plaintiff law firms had created an “entrepreneurial model” approach to asbestos litigation. He testified that the model spurred hundreds of thousands of claims that were “manufactured for money”, according to a federal judge. in the Garlock case, Brickman testified via a written statement that Baron and Budd targeted Garlock for litigation because other asbestos manufacturers were already bankrupt. Brickman's testimony also asserted that Baron and Budd’s attorneys suppressed evidence of their clients’ exposure to other non-earlock asbestos products. He wrote: “The evidence presented in Part IV indicates that clients’ recoveries are maximized by plaintiffs’ falsely denying exposures to the products of the bankrupts in responding to discovery, failing to dislose prior trust claim filings as well as the intention to file trust claims as soon as the tort suit is concluded—even in jurisdictions where providing this information is mandated by courts’ case management orders and standard interrogatories.”[5]

Regarding the Garlock case specifically, Brickman testified that Baron and Budd used the litigation screening process to generate "tens of thousands of nonmalignant suits. The Baron & Budd ’script memo’, described infra §27, instructed clients to lie about their exposure to the products of bankrupts and ‘implanted false memories’ with regard to the products to which plaintiffs’ claimed exposure”.[5]

In January 2014, the judge overseeing the Garlock bankruptcy case reduced Garlock’s liability for asbestos exposure from $1.4 billion to $125 million. The judge accused plaintiffs and their attorneys of coming up with the higher $1.4 billion number based on “manipulation of exposure evidence”. According to Forbes, "In a pattern long known to defense attorneys, plaintiff lawyers coach their clients to “remember” working with only products made by the company they are suing, then file claims with bankruptcy trusts alleging other exposures.”[6] Case documents in the Garlock case were originally sealed by the bankruptcy judge. However, the legal news journal Legal Newsline appealed, and a judge overruled, meaning that the case documents had to be released to the public.[7]

In January 2014, Garlock filed Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuits against four plaintiffs law firms.[7] All four firms employ attorneys who used to work for Baron and Budd.[8]

Water Contamination

In 1985, Baron & Budd filed suit on behalf of more than 1,600 Tucson-area residents against an aircraft manufacturer, the City of Tucson, and the Tucson Airport Authority over trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination of the community’s groundwater.[9] Throughout the ensuing 21-year legal battle that Baron & Budd ultimately won, the law firm helped to define Arizona law on pollution coverage. The case is widely considered as among the most important in U.S. history involving personal injuries caused by water pollution.

In 2003, Baron & Budd represented the City of Santa Monica in a landmark MTBE contamination settlement with the major oil companies. MTBE contaminated five of Santa Monica’s 11 wells, forcing the city to begin importing water in 1996 for $3 million a year. In 2008, Baron & Budd played a lead role in negotiations with major oil companies that had contaminated drinking water through the use of MTBE as a gasoline additive. Baron & Budd’s efforts resulted in a landmark settlement, requiring the oil companies to pay a substantial cash settlement, nearly $1.5 billion, to 153 public water providers in 17 states, as well as a number of private well owners.[10]

In 2010, Scott Summy, the head of Baron & Budd’s water contamination team, was one of four attorneys nationwide chosen to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee for the Gulf Oil Spill Multi-District Litigation (MDL) and as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC).[11]

In August 2010, environmental attorney and Baron & Budd shareholder Burton LeBlanc of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Baron & Budd were retained by the state of Louisiana to provide counsel to the state’s designated trustees in connection with issues related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the resulting oil spill.[12]

Chinese Drywall

In 2011, Baron & Budd, along with co-counsel, represented the first Chinese Drywall client to be remediated by the Chinese Sheetrock manufacturer Knauf.[13]

External links

References

  1. ↑ The History of Baron & Budd
  2. ↑ , Baron & Budd, P.C. Wins $9 Million [http://yoursblog.us/tag/dallas-mesothelioma-attorneys/ Mesothelioma Cancer Verdict Against Dow Chemical] Business Wire, March 7, 2011. Accessed April 7, 2011.
  3. ↑ Jonathan Glater, The Path Taken By Halliburton To Reach a Deal In Asbestos Suits, The New York Times, December 31, 2002. Accessed February 15, 2007.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 "Baron & Budd 'Script' Memorandum", Trial Exhibit GST-1270. IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division. IN RE: GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, et al., Debtors. Case No. 10-BK-31607. Chapter 11.
  5. 1 2 3 "Expert Report of Lester Brickman, Esq., Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law", IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division. IN RE: GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, et al., Debtors. Case No. 10-BK-31607. Chapter 11.
  6. ↑ Fisher, Daniel (14 November 2014). "Judge To Open Files Supporting Garlock Asbestos Fraud Claims Next Week". Forbes. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
  7. 1 2 O’Brien, John (21 January 2015). "Unsealed RICO complaints detail fraud allegations against asbestos plaintiffs firms". Legal Newsline Legal Journal. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
  8. ↑ "The Double-Dipping Legal Scam". The Wall Street Journal. 25 December 2014. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
  9. ↑ "Tucson-Area Water Contamination Victims Triumph in Arizona Appeals Court Ruling Against Insurer", Claims Journal, October 1, 2004. Accessed February 15, 2007.
  10. ↑ Associated Press, "Most oil companies in MTBE lawsuits settle", MSNBC, May 9, 2008. Accessed April 5, 2011.
  11. ↑ Marilyn Tennisen, "Texas attorneys appointed to plaintiff steering committee for BP MDL cases",Southeast Texas Record, October 13, 2011. Accessed April 6, 2011.
  12. ↑ "Environmental Attorney Burton LeBlanc of Baron & Budd, P.C. Hired by Louisiana Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration" MSNBC, August 13, 2010. Accessed April 5, 2011
  13. ↑ ,"Baron & Budd enter Chinese drywall fray", Dallas Business Journal, May 5, 2009. Accessed April 6, 2011.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, April 03, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.