Scruggs Cries Foul (through lawyer) in WSJ piece on Jim Hood

Counsel for Dickie Scruggs sent this letter to the Wall Street Journal demanding a retraction for the 11/15 piece on the Hood/Scruggs connection on the State Farm shakedown.

To the Editor:
The Wall Street Journal should immediately retract a false statement regarding my client
attorney Richard F. Scruggs contained in its November 15,2007 editorial entitled “Mississippi
Hoods. ”

The editorial purorts to recount events leading up to a lawsuit brought by E.A. Renfroe
& Co., Inc. against their former employees Cori Rigsby and Kerri Rigsby. Renfroe sued the
Rigsbys after they went public with evidence they believe shows that State Far (one of
Renfroe’s largest clients) wrongfully denied insurance coverage to victims of Huricane Katrina.
The Journal asserts that “Mr. Scruggs convinced two Renfroe employees-sisters Cori Rigsby
Moran and Kerri Rigsby-to steal documents to aid his civil litigation against State Far.”
This statement is false. First, it is not true that Mr. Scruggs “convinced” the Rigsbys to
copy State Farm’s documents. Many months before they first met Mr. Scruggs, the Rigsbys
independently concluded that State Farm was treating its policyholders unfairly, and they began
collecting evidence of what they observed. Indeed, Cori Rigsby has testified that she and Kerri
Rigsby decided “on our own” to copy a batch of documents in June 2006. Mr. Scruggs
commends the Rigsbys for their courage and determination.

Second, neither of the Rigsbys ever “stole” any documents. As they have testified
repeatedly, they copied documents evidencing what they saw as State Farm’s unfair practices,
but they did not take original State Farm documents. The Rigsbys had the right to make such

copies to provide them to law enforcement and others with an interest in investigating and
correcting the fraud they believe has occurred.

The Journal’s November 15, 2007 editorial concludes with the line “You can’t make this
stuffup.” Yet, with the respect to the above statement, it appears that the Journal did just that.
Accordingly, I insist that the Journal issue an immediate retraction.

Very truly yours,
John Keker