Misplaced Pages

Fred Baron (lawyer): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:44, 19 February 2007 editJance (talk | contribs)3,137 edits →The []: more accurate and more well known description← Previous edit Revision as of 23:45, 19 February 2007 edit undoJance (talk | contribs)3,137 edits →Resignation from Baron & Budd and litigation: Removing truly unnotable and irrelevant smear jobNext edit →
Line 18: Line 18:
The Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy is an incident in asbestos litigation where it is alleged that Baron & Budd engaged in subornation of perjury and a cover-up.<ref name="Brickman2">Lester Brickman, , 31 Pepperdine L. Rev. 33 (2004).</ref> Though (and because) no attorneys were disciplined or sanctioned over the incident, it is frequently cited by United States ]<ref>], , ''Reason'' (June 1998)</ref> and politicians<ref name="Kyl">Additional View of Senator Kyl, at pp. 81-184 (21 Jul. 2003) (reprinting memo in full).</ref> as an example of ethical problems in the plaintiffs' bar and asbestos litigation. Baron and some academics argue that the memo was the act of a single paralegal, and that it was within the bounds of "zealous representation."<ref>W. William Hodes, The Professional Duty To Horseshed Witnesses—Zealously, Within The Bounds Of the Law, 30 TEX. TECH L. REV. 1343 (1999); Charles Silver, Preliminary Thoughts on the Economics of Witness Preparation, 30 TEX. TECH L. REV. 1383, 1398-1401 (1999)</ref> However, the ] conducted an investigation of the memo, and found that "a number of former Baron & Budd employees say that the information and techniques contained in the memo are widely used, even taught to employees" and that the "memo was not truly an aberration, but a written example of how the product-identification staff works at Baron & Budd."<ref name="Toxic">Julie Lyons, Patrick Williams, Thomas Korosec, and Christine Biederman, , 13 Aug. 1998</ref><ref name="Korosec">Thomas Korosec, , ''Dallas Observer'', 29 March 2001</ref><ref>Julie Lyons, , Dallas Observer, 13 Aug. 1998.</ref> The Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy is an incident in asbestos litigation where it is alleged that Baron & Budd engaged in subornation of perjury and a cover-up.<ref name="Brickman2">Lester Brickman, , 31 Pepperdine L. Rev. 33 (2004).</ref> Though (and because) no attorneys were disciplined or sanctioned over the incident, it is frequently cited by United States ]<ref>], , ''Reason'' (June 1998)</ref> and politicians<ref name="Kyl">Additional View of Senator Kyl, at pp. 81-184 (21 Jul. 2003) (reprinting memo in full).</ref> as an example of ethical problems in the plaintiffs' bar and asbestos litigation. Baron and some academics argue that the memo was the act of a single paralegal, and that it was within the bounds of "zealous representation."<ref>W. William Hodes, The Professional Duty To Horseshed Witnesses—Zealously, Within The Bounds Of the Law, 30 TEX. TECH L. REV. 1343 (1999); Charles Silver, Preliminary Thoughts on the Economics of Witness Preparation, 30 TEX. TECH L. REV. 1383, 1398-1401 (1999)</ref> However, the ] conducted an investigation of the memo, and found that "a number of former Baron & Budd employees say that the information and techniques contained in the memo are widely used, even taught to employees" and that the "memo was not truly an aberration, but a written example of how the product-identification staff works at Baron & Budd."<ref name="Toxic">Julie Lyons, Patrick Williams, Thomas Korosec, and Christine Biederman, , 13 Aug. 1998</ref><ref name="Korosec">Thomas Korosec, , ''Dallas Observer'', 29 March 2001</ref><ref>Julie Lyons, , Dallas Observer, 13 Aug. 1998.</ref>


===Resignation from Baron & Budd and litigation===
In 2002, Baron left Baron & Budd along with his wife, Lisa Blue. The separation from the firm he founded has not been without controversy. Baron sued his former firm for breach of contract; Baron & Budd counterclaimed alleging that Baron and Blue breached contractual, fiduciary and legal obligations to the firm by failing to receive prior consent from Baron & Budd for plans to form a new firm.<ref>Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, , ''Texas Lawyer'', 11 Dec 2006</ref>




Revision as of 23:45, 19 February 2007

Frederick Martin Baron (born 1947 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa) is a trial lawyer best known for representing victims of toxic and chemical exposure. He has also been an active figure in politics as a fund-raiser for the Democratic Party.

Career

Baron is one of America’s most prominent trial lawyers. He is a founder of Baron & Budd, P.C., a Dallas, Texas law firm and a former president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. His firm has become one of the largest firms in the country representing victims of toxic and chemical exposure particularly claims of asbestos exposure.

One academic estimated that Baron & Budd, along with Ness Motley, was one of two firms responsible for half of the hundreds of thousands of asbestos litigation claimants in the country. In the controversial asbestos litigation, Baron successfully convinced the United States Supreme Court to de-certify nationwide class action settlements involving future claims of people who are not yet ill, but who may later develop asbestos-related illnesses. The decertification addressed the problem that asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma (a fatal cancer of the lining of the lung), have a latency period of 20-40 years from the date of exposure.

Politics

Baron has been an active figure in politics as a prominent fund-raiser for the Democratic Party and fellow trial lawyer, Sen. John Edwards. Baron was the finance chair of Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign before co-chairing the Kerry Victory '04 committee, a joint effort of the Democratic National Committee and the Presidential campaign of John Kerry. Baron gave $1.7 million to the Texas Democratic Trust in the last two years and is also heavily involved in Edwards's 2008 presidential campaign, moving to North Carolina to head up fundraising there.

Controversy

Asbestos litigation tactics

As a result of his litigation of asbestos claims, Baron has been the subject of criticism by 'tort reform' advocates. His litigation tactics were criticized when a memo showing he coached witnesses was produced by his firm. The memo discussed what witnesses needed to know in preparing for their testimony, including stressing the importance of confidence in responses. In response to the criticism, Baron cited four ethics opinions: William Hodes, a legal ethics specialist from the University of Indiana, Steven McCormick, general counsel of the State Bar of Texas, as well as two two University of Texas legal-ethics professors. All concluded the client instructions were appropriate. A Texas state bar grievance committee found ethics charges without merit, and dismissed them.

The Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy

Main article: Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy

The Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy is an incident in asbestos litigation where it is alleged that Baron & Budd engaged in subornation of perjury and a cover-up. Though (and because) no attorneys were disciplined or sanctioned over the incident, it is frequently cited by United States tort reformers and politicians as an example of ethical problems in the plaintiffs' bar and asbestos litigation. Baron and some academics argue that the memo was the act of a single paralegal, and that it was within the bounds of "zealous representation." However, the Dallas Observer conducted an investigation of the memo, and found that "a number of former Baron & Budd employees say that the information and techniques contained in the memo are widely used, even taught to employees" and that the "memo was not truly an aberration, but a written example of how the product-identification staff works at Baron & Budd."


Honors and Accomplishments

External links

References

  1. Association of Trial Lawyers of America
  2. Samuel Issacharoff, ‘‘Shocked’’: Mass Torts and Aggregate Asbestos Litigation After Amchem and Ortiz, 80 Tex. L. Rev. 1925, 1930 (2002).
  3. Amchem Products, Inc. et al., v. George Windsor et al
  4. Asbestos News
  5. Cornell
  6. Democratic effort helped by lawyer's $1.7 million, Austin American-Statesman, 12 Nov. 2006
  7. Lester Brickman, "On the Theory Class’s Theories of Asbestos Litigation: The Disconnect Between Scholarship and Reality", 31 Pepperdine L. Rev. 33 (2004).
  8. Walter Olson, "Thanks for the Memories", Reason (June 1998)
  9. Additional View of Senator Kyl, Senate Report No. 108-118 at pp. 81-184 (21 Jul. 2003) (reprinting memo in full).
  10. W. William Hodes, The Professional Duty To Horseshed Witnesses—Zealously, Within The Bounds Of the Law, 30 TEX. TECH L. REV. 1343 (1999); Charles Silver, Preliminary Thoughts on the Economics of Witness Preparation, 30 TEX. TECH L. REV. 1383, 1398-1401 (1999)
  11. Julie Lyons, Patrick Williams, Thomas Korosec, and Christine Biederman, "Toxic Justice", 13 Aug. 1998
  12. Thomas Korosec, "Homefryin' with Fred Baron", Dallas Observer, 29 March 2001
  13. Julie Lyons, The Control Freak, Dallas Observer, 13 Aug. 1998.
  14. Mary Ann Thomas and Ramesh Santanam 2002. "Lawsuit against ARCO, BWXT rolls on". Valley News Dispatch.
  15. Baron & Budd: Toxic Tort Lawyers
  16. "Chair established to honor Frederick M. Baron, '71" (2001)
Categories: