Quantcast

Fen-phen lawyer gets key ruling from Texas SC to explain $20M he kept from clients

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Tuesday, December 24, 2024

Fen-phen lawyer gets key ruling from Texas SC to explain $20M he kept from clients

Attorneys & Judges
Texassc

Texas Supreme Court

AUSTIN, Texas (Legal Newsline) – The Texas Supreme Court has armed a plaintiffs lawyer fighting with his clients with a defense that could doom their attempt to recover some $20 million he withheld from a mass settlement.

The court on Oct. 9 ruled for lawyer George Fleming, who signed up about 8,000 clients to sue over the diet drug fen-phen, which allegedly caused cardiac problems in some of its users. About half of those clients sued Fleming because he took around $20 million from the $340 million settlement.

He did so to reimburse himself for the costs of medical screenings of 40,000 potential plaintiffs. After a trial of six randomly picked disgruntled clients, Fleming came out on top.

Fleming wanted to use this result to stop the cases of the rest of the clients, who complained that when he attached the verdict as evidence, he did not submit a supporting affidavit or aver that the copies were true and correct.

However, he pointed at a watermark that read “Unofficial Copy Office of Chris Daniel District Clerk” and a stamp on the document. The trial court ruled he could use the verdict as evidence to back his collateral-estoppel defense, but an appeals court overturned.

The state Supreme Court decided Fleming’s exhibits were good enough and can be used to make his argument against his remaining clients.

“The documents bore a diagonal watermark from the district clerk’s office, a stamp and signature noting when they were filed in the clerk’s office, and the trial judge’s own signature,” the Supreme Court ruling says.

“The Wilson plaintiffs never suggested that the documents were faked, forged or altered, but instead complained only that they were not certified copies.

“Considering the documents’ appearance, contents, substance… (and) other distinctive characteristics,’ taken ‘together with all the circumstances,’ we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by accepting the documents as authentic.”

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News