Blog

Sometime ago, a law student asked me whether law school adequately prepares students for the practice of law.

It seems that students study law and lawyers study fact patterns with an eye toward applying the law. The difference can be traced to the origin of the task: the law professor assigns a case to read presumably with a focus on teaching a rule of law, while the client presents a set of facts to which a lawyer must apply a rule of law.

Stick around long enough and the facts turn into repetitive patterns and the practice of law becomes a study in human nature, mistakes, challenges and ethical dilemmas. At some point the youngster carrying the casebook becomes a meld of psychologist and sociologist, a witness to the flaws, successes and conduct of government, private institutions, and people. Here are some observations:

In large corporations and those that run them, greed in its varying forms is a constant. It manifests itself in efforts to push the boundaries of the law, a calculation of the risk of being caught and, if caught, a colourable argument as to why the conduct fits within some loophole in the law. The argument need not necessarily be a logical extension of legal doctrine; it need only pose a hurdle for prosecutors, a bargaining chip if you will. Of course, ‘loophole’ is really a term used by non-lawyers to describe the law’s inability to clearly address fundamentally reprehensible conduct.

As for clients and witnesses, they seem to relish the comfort of being part of institutions. Our dog has the same level of comfort when she runs in to her dog house, where she’s protected on three sides. Yet, unlike the dog house, an institution can provide a false sense of comfort, as was the case with Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom. Employees who now face being laid-off at Turing Pharmaceutical are learning this lesson the hard way.

Institutions – as in large corporations – can also be manipulative. Think of the pharmaceutical sales representative who is unwittingly tasked with marketing drugs for unapproved purposes or the doctor who is flattered when paid to speak on behalf of a drug company, perhaps without being aware that the company is monitoring his or her prescription writing patterns and conducting return on investment analysis. Why question wrongdoing when a corporation has an internal compliance program? Surely anything bad would have been detected and abated? Not quite. Compliance programs exist in part to convince those within the institution that impropriety is not possible. The need to be accepted by the institution can also be a tide pushing against the questioning of impropriety, even when that impropriety is harmful to the employee. Think of the worker victimised by sexual harassment who continues to laud the employer. Think also of the employer tasking the marketing department to record a victimised employee’s promotion of the company as an evidentiary hedge against a potential claim.

Practice long enough and one learns that there is, as they say, always an elephant in the room. In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the United States Supreme Court will soon determine whether the First Amendment is violated when employees are compelled to pay ‘agency fees’ to a public employee labour union. Yet, is this case really about the First Amendment, or curtailing the power of unions? Are cases compelling arbitration really about judicial efficiency, or protecting powerful business from public exposure for acts that impinge on safety and health? Think about it carefully and what may come into focus is the use of procedural rulings to impact substantive rights.

All of this is to say that the application and interpretation of law has context. Facts do matter and – to some degree – the application of law without regard to context is an exercise in futility. Of course, a legal education is the starting point to reach this conclusion. It just takes time.

Reuben Guttman is a trial lawyer and founding partner at Washington, DC-based firm Guttman, Buschner & Brooks.

As debate in the US continues over mandatory arbitration clauses that have led to private adjudications, a new film focuses attention on the use of private forums and sealed proceedings to resolve matters of potential public importance.

Spotlight, starring Michael Keaton, focuses on the team of investigative journalists from The Boston Globe who exposed sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests. The movie takes its name from The Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’ of investigative reporters.

As stories about investigative journalism go, Spotlight is not All the President’s Men. It is not so much about a team of reporters finding the facts on their own as it is a story about reporters struggling to pry the facts – and story – loose from attorneys who have settled their cases in private forums or who are litigating with key documents sealed by confidentiality orders.  In Spotlight, it is the lawyers who have put the facts and story together; but it is a story that they must keep to themselves.

In a line that explains the rationale for transparency of the judicial and legislative process, Justice Brandeis notes that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Court proceedings that seemingly involve only private interests may very well have public import. For example, cases alleging sexual harassment and employment discrimination, even when brought by a single plaintiff, may involve conduct that is pervasive and thus relevant to others who might muster the courage to step forward and vindicate their own rights. Matters litigated in the sunshine may cause private entities and government oversight bodies to take action to protect against prospective injury. But for the work of the Spotlight Team, the pervasive nature of egregious conduct would not have seen the light of day.

Public litigation in the United States has brought to the surface facts that make cars safer, workplaces more tolerable for protected classes and the air we breathe less dangerous to human health. It does not even take a court ruling or jury verdict to make the point – information that comes to light during the litigation process may fuel legislative oversight and/or regulation. This is not merely a collateral benefit; it is the way the system is supposed to work. And – as Spotlight reminds us – there is a real benefit to a transparent system of justice.

Reuben Guttman is a prominent trial lawyer and founding partner at Washington, DC-based firm Guttman, Buschner & Brooks.

In settling False Claims Cases involving pharmaceutical industry misbranding and kickbacks, are State Attorney Generals leaving money on the table? The answer is maybe.

Most FCA settlements compensate for lost Medicaid and Medicare dollars. Left out of the mix are losses incurred by state and municipal health and welfare funds. Undoubtedly the money left on the table is not insignificant.

Why does this occur? One reason is that most state AG’s assign investigation of pharma fraud to Medicaid Fraud Control units. And larger investigations are coordinated among state AG’s through the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units (NAMFCU). The result seems to be that no one is watching out for the interests of  public employee health and welfare funds at the state and federal level.

With public employee health and welfare funds strapped for cash and looking to meet rising drug costs, the oversight is not immaterial. It is an oversight that should raise questions from health and welfare fund trustees. Public employee unions which bargain for dollars to fund healthcare costs should pay particular attention. Where a municipal fund needs cash to make ends meet, the shortfall generally means that workers will get the short end of the stick when it comes time to negotiating a new labor agreement.