— You might have seen the recent article by syndicated columnist David Ignatius on Scruggs, which contained these paragraphs:
What destroyed [plaintiffs attorney Melvyn] Weiss and Scruggs was a system in which the money just got too big. The two had helped spawn an industry of class-action mega-cases that was so lucrative, the plaintiffs couldn’t afford to lose. So the “good guys” began to cut corners.
Weiss and Scruggs got in trouble in part because they were especially aggressive in representing people they believed had been wronged. “They were the Daniel Boones, who cut through the Cumberland Gap,” argues Alex MacDonald, a prominent plaintiff’s lawyer with the Boston firm MacDonald Rothweiler Eisenberg LLP.
The system destroyed Scruggs? Wrong. Scruggs destroyed Scruggs. Scruggs got in trouble “in part because [he] was especially aggressive in representing people [he] believed had been wronged”? Like who, himself? Is that why he participated in the bribery scheme, because he was especially aggressive in representing those wronged people? That description makes it sound like he’s a cop who got suspended for knocking over some shelves of canned peas while rescuing hostages in a grocery store.
Insurance Coverage Blog