Miles's blog

Stories like this demonstrate why I hate lawyers.  Not all lawyers, of course, but the tenor of the way the law is practiced and the manner in which lawyers can express the most outrageous of statements, and file the most frivolous lawsuits with impunity from a profession which fails to police itself.

Last June, a man killed four people in a robbery of a pharmacy, the target of which was prescription drugs for his wife.  There is nothing in the reporting of the case indicating the killer was on drugs or addicted to drugs.  He claimed at sentencing his wife needed prescription medication.  It is unclear why he chose to commit the robbery because the police found 2000 hydrocodone-type painkillers in his home. The gunman was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. His wife was convicted of robbery but not murder because the DA said they could not prove she was aware of his intent to commit murder.  (I guess they don’t have felony murder in New York or it does not apply to robbery.)

This is a horrific case and the facts are inexpressibly sad.  Two of the victims were killed merely because they happened to walk into the store at the wrong time.  Another was a 17-year old store employee.  None of the victims offered any resistance.  At sentencing the victims’ families expressed their understandable outrage and pain in strong terms.  

Now, egged on by a lawyer apparently with both dollar signs in his eyes and self-promotion in his heart, one of the families has filed a lawsuit seeking $20 million in damages from anyone and everyone who had any tenuous connection to this case.  First of all, watch the video and see the sportcoat this jerk is wearing.  Is there any question his primary purpose in life is to draw attention to himself?  Then, read who he is suing and why.

The suit names drug maker Abbot Labs as a defendant for failing to prevent inordinate prescriptions of its painkillers. Does this mean the lawsuit is asserting that a drug manufacturer should monitor the prescriptions of its medications to make sure no individual doctor is prescribing too many for an individual patient? I don’t know exactly how the lawyer knows which specific drug was involved here or how he knows what kind of monitoring was done.  But that ignores several issues.  The patient was not the defendant, but his wife.  There is no allegation that excessive drug use by the killer caused him to do anything.  In fact, it was not the overuse of drugs, but the couple’s, perceived at least, need for more that was the motive for the robbery.  If the wife were an addict, any “monitoring” to restrict her use would have only given more incentive to steal drugs they could not get legally.  If the theory is that some sort of overprescription in the past created the wife’s addiction fueling the need to steal, I fail to see his this lawyer can know that or pinpoint exactly how that happened or articulate in any way how Abbot Labs or any other drugmaker can prevent an individual’s addiction.

Of course, drug companies are deep pockets and lawyers love nothing more than well-heeled defendants.  Not satisfied to sue only a company with the means to fight back, the lawyer also named the doctor who had written prescriptions for the killer and his wife.  The article does not indicate what the prescriptions were for, or again, how that prescription use led to the murders.  The doctor claims he perceived abuse was going on which led to his refusing to write more prescriptions, apparently prompting the pair to turn to robbery to get more.  Again, without evidence the killer was irrational based on drug use, or that the doctor created the addiction I can see no nexus between his medical practice and the murder.  

But lawyers like to sue lots of people—a tactic well-settled in the civil lawsuit community.  Governments are good targets because no one likes them.  So the lawyer has sued the local police department and its chief.  Why? Months before the murder, the killer’s mother claimed he stole money from her.  During the investigation a detective recommended that the killer’s permit to carry a pistol should be revoked.  No further action was taken, but there has been brought to light no evidence showing why the permit should have been revoked.  The murderer had no prior criminal history.  Of course, people willing to commit murder often are not deterred by a violation of a regulatory statute such as permission to carry the gun they use to murder with.  Hard to see how any action would have stopped him.

Not content to sue a lot of people who have access to funds to hire attorneys, the lawyer has chosen to sue the owner of the pharmacy himself.  The store had been previously robbed and, according to the lawsuit, the owner had a legal obligation to customers (the lawsuit is on behalf of the children of one of the customers) to take steps to prevent further robberies.  The pharmacy did have surveillance cameras, but the lawyer said they should have had an armed security guard.  Maybe a security guard would have made a difference, maybe not.  Armed guards, even police officers, have been murdered by robbers.  But even had one made a difference, does the lawsuit contend that every pharmacy, indeed every business subject to being robbed, should have armed guards on duty at all times?  Can you imagine?  This would certainly make the cost of things in the store pretty expensive.

In the Wall Street Journal the lawyer acknowledged that his legal theory is unique.  According to him all the defendants created the murder as a public nuisance.  

"Every one of these defendants, including the drug company, have created and knew they were creating a public nuisance when they dispensed these drugs to addicts like Laffer. Every abuser of drugs is a public nuisance and they should be liable, the defendants, who created and served the public nuisance."

Forgetting whether or not the killer was an addict, whether anyone knew he was an addict, or whether the police should fall within this statement since they gave out no drugs, or additionally whether a pharmacy which fills a prescription should be liable for actions done by those who take the drugs (which is a lot of things to forget), the idea that every drug abuser is a public nuisance is so outrageous as to constitute sophistry pure and simple. America has millions of drug addicts.  Why some people become addicts is a mystery which has never been solved, and who is “responsible” for their addiction can never be determined.  But most of all, blaming everyone but the addict himself for his decision to murder innocent people elevates the idea of legal responsibility far beyond anything supported by logic, common sense, legal precedent or public decency.

The idea that a clownishly-clad lawyer can file a lawsuit using such an artifice, and then play on the pain of two children, even trotting out a suffering 17-year-old, is what I find disgusting.  

I assume this lawyer will drum up some business out of this press conference, which I suggest is his goal far and above trying to squeeze out some money for his clients. Using their suffering for his personal gain goes well beyond normal ambulance chasing.  Forcing the civil defendants to respond to his effluent disguised as pleadings is offensive, and that tax dollars will need to be expended to do so makes it more infuriating.  I am glad I am no longer part of a profession which approves of this kind of legal practice, but punishes lawyers who lie to axe murderers.