Elizabeth Warren.

[007]

Warren, AKA Liarwatha or Fauxahontas after her dishonest claim to Native American ethnicity( to further her Harvard career), claims to champion the worker.

She claims to have fought 'big buisness' on behalf of those injured at work.

Yup!
As a corporate lawyer working for Travellers insurance she won a case restricting payments/compensation to workers poisoned with asbestos at work.

In the end, this self proclaimed 'champion of the worker' was paid more than 40times the amount these injured workers were paid.

Spin that Betty!

[red states rule]

007, you forgot her other name Chief Slinging Bull

Meanwhile





Poll: Brown Overtakes Warren, Leads By 3 In Massachusetts

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) has taken the lead in the marquee U.S. Senate race playing out in Massachusetts, according to a new poll (http://www.wbur.org/files/2012/10/1009_senate-poll-topline.pdf) out Tuesday.

The latest survey from MassINC Polling Group shows Brown leading Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren among likely Bay State voters (including leaners), 48 percent to 45 percent.

Tuesday's poll runs counter to what has been a persistent trend, with most surveys over the last month showing Warren outpacing Brown. In fact, Warren led by 4 points in MassINC's late-September poll.


http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-brown-overtakes-warren-leads-by-4-in

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Warren, AKA Liarwatha or Fauxahontas after her dishonest claim to Native American ethnicity( to further her Harvard career), claims to champion the worker.

She claims to have fought 'big buisness' on behalf of those injured at work.

Yup!
As a corporate lawyer working for Travellers insurance she won a case restricting payments/compensation to workers poisoned with asbestos at work.

In the end, this self proclaimed 'champion of the worker' was paid more than 40times the amount these injured workers were paid.

Spin that Betty!

Bravo!!!--:beer:
Typical lib, typical dem... nuff said.. -Tyr

[red states rule]

Bravo!!!--:beer:
Typical lib, typical dem... nuff said.. -Tyr

and now what about her law license?





U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren is facing new scrutiny (http://masslawyersweekly.com/polls-archive/) over whether she illegally practiced law in Massachusetts without a license.Massachusetts Lawyer Weekly recently polled attorneys in the state about whether Warren should be investigated for "possibly" practicing law without a license from the state.
Eighty-seven percent of the 1,134 lawyers polled want the Harvard law professor investigated.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-law-license-poll-2012-10#ixzz28oI3JKDQ

[tailfins]

and now what about her law license?

People are getting tired of the Fauxcahontas scandal. Bay Staters will go against their normal grain and vote Republican if they feel their intelligence is being insulted. That's why substituting THIS commercial is effective:

Repeating the Fauxcahontas scandal is reaching the point where repeating it more is insulting people's intelligence. However OTHER scandals await and feed the narrative that Warren has a pattern of telling whoppers about herself and expecting the most intelligent state (Commonwealth actually) in to nation to believe it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wlnUyGMHLs

This is the radio ad. There is also a TV ad, but I can't find it.

[red states rule]

The intell of the voters was insulted everytime libs call the Seante seat "Ted Kennedy's seat" as if the Kennedy clan and libs owned that seat

Warren is a liberal bimbo who does not have a cluse on what it is like in the real world - and it is showing

[tailfins]

The intell of the voters was insulted everytime libs call the Seante seat "Ted Kennedy's seat" as if the Kennedy clan and libs owned that seat

Warren is a liberal bimbo who does not have a cluse on what it is like in the real world - and it is showing

It's a shame Californians and Illinis don't have the same sensibilities as Bay Staters. Apparently they are committed come-mierdas that will swallow anything.

[red states rule]

It's a shame Californians and Illinis don't have the same sensibilities as Bay Staters. Apparently they are committed come-mierdas that will swallow anything.

Well CA is enjoying $6/gal gas and IL is enjoying a record year for murders. Both states are going broke and losing residents

So it is possible they will get fed up and actually walk away from the tax and spend libs who are destroying their respective states

[Robert A Whit]

We are stifled in CA

Bear in mind this fact

Most of the people in CA live in a large city or live so close they drive to the city for a job.

Think this over.

Dems live in closely set buildings. They shun farms or even the more laid back lifestyle. Their nature is to collect in cities as if they are tribes. Both SF and LA for instance are owned by Democrats.

Let me tell you how it is in the SF Area.

The Dems have a steel fisted hold on this area.

One thing you can see visibly is the media.

When Obama is coming to town, the media acts as if it is Xmas time and Santa is just around the turn. They treat Obama as the savior.

Romney shows up and they always make a negative statement about the man.

We live with waves upon waves of democrat demagogary abounding. Think of it as if you are at the beach. Some boy plays a prank and covers you with sand. He never lets up. After a time, you are so smothered in sand you can't breathe.

I am asked why live here.

Well, So long as I don't believe their poppycock, I personally am fine. I am often afraid to speak of politics in any fashion to my clients.

[red states rule]

http://rlv.zcache.com/funny_california_postcard-p239574448774859332baanr_400.jpg

[glockmail]

Warren, AKA Liarwatha or Fauxahontas after her dishonest claim to Native American ethnicity( to further her Harvard career), claims to champion the worker.

She claims to have fought 'big buisness' on behalf of those injured at work.

Yup!
As a corporate lawyer working for Travellers insurance she won a case restricting payments/compensation to workers poisoned with asbestos at work.

In the end, this self proclaimed 'champion of the worker' was paid more than 40times the amount these injured workers were paid.

Spin that Betty!

Sounds like the female equivalent of John Edwards.

[gabosaurus]

That is the basic premise of being a class action lawyer.
To paraphrase George Harrison, 19 for him and one for you.

[Kathianne]

Lots of problems with Warren:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warren-law-license-problem-goes-to-court/#more


Elizabeth Warren law license problem goes to Court (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warren-law-license-problem-goes-to-court/)

Posted by William A. Jacobson (http://legalinsurrection.com/author/bill/) Monday, October 8, 2012 at 2:54pm
MA Republican Party asks Court to correct BBO General Counsel’s misstatements of law and perceived “partisan agenda”

As you are aware, I have pointed out that Michael Fredrickson, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, has some explaining to do (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/massachusetts-bbo-general-counsel-has-some-explaining-to-do/):


As detailed here before, within hours of my posting about Elizabeth Warren’s lack of a Massachusetts law license (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-law-license-problem/), Michael Fredrickson, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, gave an interview to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (http://masslawyersweekly.com/the-docket-blog/2012/09/24/warren-law-license-matter-called-non-issue/) in which he defended Warren.

Fredrickson did not indicate in the interview as reported that he was speaking in any capacity other than on behalf of the BBO and seemed to be exonerating Warren.

That Mass Lawyers Weekly interview has been the basis for the defense of Warren. After all, if the General Counsel of the entity with quasi-regulatory authority publicly announced a conclusion, why treat the issue seriously? Even The Boston Globe (http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/10/03/brown-accuses-warren-hurting-victims-corporate-case-but-offers-evidence/afbwivS8teawEnBIOCY7dN/story.html) has a similar quote from Fredrickson today, and uses that quote to dismiss the issue out of hand.

Yet the issue is serious, as even people who did not initially agree with me have acknowledged (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warren-defender-with-this-bombshell-i-would-no-longer-view-the-case-against-her-as-weak/).
Fredrickson effectively quashed the public discussion by virtue of his title and position.

Fredrickson later admitted, however, that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO and was not reaching any conclusions as to Warren individually because he knew so little about her practice (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/no-mass-board-of-bar-overseers-has-not-exonerated-elizabeth-warren/)….

Normally, Bar officials everywhere are very closed-mouthed about matters under their jurisdiction. Indeed, the Massachusetts Bar Counsel, a separate office which investigates and prosecutes, did not respond (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/01/Elizabeth-Warren-Law-License-Controversy-May-Play-Role-in-Mass-Senate-Debate) to requests for comment from Breitbart.com. Even Fredrickson now is refusing further comment, according to Michael Patrick Leahy (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/03/Scott-Brown-Says-Elizabeth-Warren-s-Representation-of-Clients-Without-a-Law-License-Should-Be-Looked-Into) at Breitbart.com.

While Fredrickson no longer is talking publicly, his prior “personal” opinion, which was not based on an actual knowledge of Warren’s law practice, hangs out there as the purported BBO verdict exonerating Warren. That creates a false impression which should be remedied.


Frankly, I considered that the very serious issues I raised about Warren’s practice of law would be buried by Fredrickson’s quite unusual and ill-considered statements.

But there is hope.

The Massachusetts Republican Party has sent a letter to the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court complaining that Fredrickson appeared to politicize what is supposed to be a non-political office and judicial function. Here is the press release, which was forwarded to me by someone on the Mass GOP’s email list:

<tbody>


</tbody>


<tbody>

<tbody>


For Immediate Release

October 8, 2012

Contact:

Tim Buckley

617-947-8670

(http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warren-law-license-problem-goes-to-court/#)

MassGOP Sends Letter To SJC Questioning Recent Comments By Michael Fredrickson That “Appear To Advance A Partisan Agenda”

Boston- Today, MassGOP Chairman Bob Maginn sent the following letter to the Honorable Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland of the Supreme Judicial Court regarding recent comments made by Board of Bar Overseers General Counsel, Michael Fredrickson. The letter raises concerns about Mr. Fredrickson’s public comments that “appear to advance a partisan agenda that is inconsistent with any agency within the judicial branch.”

Supreme Judicial Court
The Honorable Roderick L. Ireland
John Adams Courthouse
One Pemberton Square, Suite 2500
Boston, MA 02108

October 8, 2012

RE: Michael Fredrickson

Dear Chief Justice Ireland:

I am writing to express concern that the Board of Bar Overseers General Counsel Michael Fredrickson has made public comments without the benefit of any investigation or due process regarding legality of U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s practice of law from her office in Cambridge without admission to the Massachusetts bar. Mindful that Attorney Fredrickson has a fine reputation as General Counsel to the Board of Bar Overseers (“BBO”), a fictional writer, and law professor, I am nonetheless compelled to make your office aware of his recent public statements, as follows:

• “Michael Fredrickson, general counsel for the BBO, says he does not believe a law professor would be considered to have ‘a continuous presence’ or ‘an office practicing law.’ ‘If they actually practice here – as some part-time law professors at some of the smaller schools do – they might,’ Fredrickson says. ‘But being a professor at one of the large schools, their office is a professor’s office, and the fact that they tend to dabble in the practice of law doesn’t run afoul of our rule. I don’t think Elizabeth Warren would fall within that, such that she would have to register here.’ (Lisa Keen, “Warren law license matter called non-issue,” Mass Lawyers Weekly, 9/24/12).

• “Fredrickson stated that he did not purport to determine whether Warren violated the applicable law. He said he was just ‘speaking hypothetically’ and not specifically as to Warren because ‘I know so little about Elizabeth Warren and her practice.’” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/no-mass-board-of-bar-overseers-has-not-exonerated-elizabeth-warren/)

• “Fredrickson confirmed that he did make the comments attributed to him in MLW, but also made clear that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO. Fredrickson said it was his ‘personal reading’ of the law, and that he was ‘not speaking on behalf of the Board of Bar Overseers.’” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/no-mass-board-of-bar-overseers-has-not-exonerated-elizabeth-warren/)

Taking into consideration the honored tradition of the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) and the BBO with regard to not politicizing the carrying out of your respective responsibilities, Mr. Fredrickson’s public comments appear to advance a partisan agenda that is inconsistent with any agency within the judicial branch. Foremost, Mr. Fredrickson’s statements arrived in the public dialogue devoid of any formal investigation, fact finding, or proper evaluation. Further, upon consultation with counsel, I understand Mr. Fredrickson’s conclusions to be incorrect. As a threshold, the part-time practice of law is not any less the practice of law; and, without an appropriate exception to the Rules of Professional Conduct, a license is required for the practice of law in the Commonwealth. Lastly, while I notice Mr. Fredrickson’s repackaged his statements as those of his own and not of the BBO they still may be attributable as opinions of the SJC and the BBO without a formal correction.

In view of the aforementioned, it may be appropriate for the SJC or the BBO to issue a statement recognizing the lack of authority and enforceability of Mr. Fredrickson’s personal views. Accordingly, with this correspondence, I deferentially request that the SJC issue a statement or direct the BBO to issue a statement to that effect.

Respectfully,

Bob Maginn

cc:
Susan Mellen, Supreme Judicial Court, Clerk
Christine P. Burak, Legal Counsel to the Chief Justice
Michael Fredrickson, Board of Bar Overseers, General Counsel
David S. Mackey, Board of Bar Overseers, Chair


</tbody>


</tbody>

Several readers have alerted me to a prior disciplinary problem (http://www.mass.gov/ethics/opinions-and-rulings/enforcement-matters/enf-section-23/section-23-a-f/michael-fredrickson-da.html) Fredrickson had at the BBO in which he let a personal agenda get in the way of his job responsibilities.


Whatever the motivation of Fredrickson, his statements need to be corrected forcefully and promptly.
[Note: The title of this post was changed shortly after publication]

[aboutime]

007, you forgot her other name Chief Slinging Bull

Meanwhile


red states rule. And her other alias as Wannabe Squaw Pants! Distant sister of Spongebob Square Pants.

[glockmail]

Lots of problems with Warren:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warren-law-license-problem-goes-to-court/#more Stop being so nitpicky. She's a Democrat. :slap:

[aboutime]

Stop being so nitpicky. She's a Democrat. :slap:


glockmail. Yep. And that's the only Honest excuse Democrat's have for anything.

If they can't think of a new version of a lie. They just think of another excuse, and claim Liberal, mental challenges.

[Kathianne]

Stop being so nitpicky. She's a Democrat. :slap:

Regardless of partisanship, law license seems a minimum for a lawyer.

[aboutime]

Regardless of partisanship, law license seems a minimum for a lawyer.


Warren reminds me of a female, self-proclaimed Indian Bubba Clinton who SHOULD lose her Law License for Lying, just like Bill did.

[glockmail]

glockmail. Yep. And that's the only Honest excuse Democrat's have for anything.

If they can't think of a new version of a lie. They just think of another excuse, and claim Liberal, mental challenges.

You know, you really need to learn to reduce stress. Tell us how you really feel about those asshole Democrats. Don't hold back. :laugh:

[logroller]

Lots of problems with Warren:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warren-law-license-problem-goes-to-court/#more

It is possible she filed the appropriate paperwork to practice in given instances, and she needn't be admitted to the bar to be in-house counsel....however, she was harvard law professor with active licenses in other jurisdictions-- she'd have been waived into the Mass Bar-- all she had to do was file an application and pay the fee. Even if she's cleared-- she comes across as either lazy and/or cheap to a fault.

[aboutime]

You know, you really need to learn to reduce stress. Tell us how you really feel about those asshole Democrats. Don't hold back. :laugh:


Thanks glockmail. Funny you should mention that. My docs have told me how impressed they are with how low my BP has gotten over the last year. Course I take the standard BP meds, but thanks to not Holding Back, or storing up my anger. Speaking about assholes so freely, and being honest about it...does the trick.

[red states rule]

It is possible she filed the appropriate paperwork to practice in given instances, and she needn't be admitted to the bar to be in-house counsel....however, she was harvard law professor with active licenses in other jurisdictions-- she'd have been waived into the Mass Bar-- all she had to do was file an application and pay the fee. Even if she's cleared-- she comes across as either lazy and/or cheap to a fault.

She is a proven liar and limo liberal who says one thing and does another. The voters in MA are strating to see this and that is why Brown is now starting to pull ahead

Like Obama, her dabate performance stunk and she showed she is not ready for prime time

[glockmail]

Thanks glockmail. Funny you should mention that. My docs have told me how impressed they are with how low my BP has gotten over the last year. Course I take the standard BP meds, but thanks to not Holding Back, or storing up my anger. Speaking about assholes so freely, and being honest about it...does the trick. After our second child, a hellion, my wife and I decided that our life's mission would be to "reduce stress". My old man kept his mouth shut until he'd blow, and has had ulcer problems for years. Yeah, its that important. :cheers2:

[Kathianne]

I think she deserves defeat for many reasons. This would be one:




Elizabeth Warren’s implausible Dow Chemical claim (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warrens-implausible-dow-chemical-claim/)

Posted by William A. Jacobson (http://legalinsurrection.com/author/bill/) Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 3:32pm


Warren represented Dow Chemical at a time it was denying any liability for breast implant claims


Elizabeth Warren did not disclose her work for Dow Chemical on the list of cases she produced minutes before the last debate.


Dow Chemical was disclosed, however, on a sworn statement (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/131357142/In-Re-Kaiser---Elizabeth-Warren-Verified-Statement) Warren filed in a 2002 bankruptcy case where she was being hired as legal counsel for one of the Committees of the bankruptcy estate, and revealed on this blog. The description Warren gave in that 2002 sworn statement was:

(http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warren-issues-incomplete-list-of-cases/)
I served in an advisory capacity to Dow Chemical, the parent company of Dow Coming, in the early days of the Dow Coming bankruptcy

I examined the likely role of Warren (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/elizabeth-warren-helped-protect-dow-chemical-against-breast-implant-claims/)in protecting parent company Dow Chemical from claims against Dow Corning by breast implant claimants.


When the Brown campaign picked up a similar theme, Warren defended by claiming all she did was help set up a trust fund for breast implant claimants, in other words, she was looking out for the women not the big chemical company paying her. Via The Boston Globe:

(http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/10/03/brown-accuses-warren-hurting-victims-corporate-case-but-offers-evidence/afbwivS8teawEnBIOCY7dN/story.html)
Warren had declined Tuesday to specify what she did for the company, saying she was bound by attorney-client privilege. But Wednesday she suggested during a press conference that she had advised the company in setting up a trust, which eventually required the firm to establish a fund to pay out $2.3 billion to victims. The 240,000 claimants were expected to receive between $2,000 and $250,000 each, according to a 2004 Houston Chronicle article provided by the Warren campaign. The campaign would not say how much Warren was paid for her work.


Similarly, in MassLive (http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/10/scott_browns_campaign_criticiz.html):


Edwards said Warren was consulted when Dow Corning went bankrupt in 1995. The bankruptcy plan ultimately set up a fund to pay $2.3 billion to settle claims filed by women who were injured by the company’s breast implants. The Houston Chronicle reported (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/No-clear-victor-in-silicone-implant-battle-1678975.php) that the victims received between $2,000 and $250,000 from the fund. The Warren campaign says establishing the trust fund was the only way to ensure all the victims would be compensated. It is unclear what role if any Warren played in establishing the trust, which was formed only in 1998, according to news reports.


The timing, however, makes clear that Warren’s story is completely implausible.

For years, including in the “early days of the Dow Corning bankruptcy,” to use Warren’s terminology, Dow Chemical fought vigorously to evade any legal responsibility for the breast implant liabilities.

In a March 24, 1994, article in the Baltimore Sun, which would have predated Warren’s involvement, a tentative setttlement involving Dow Corning was detailed, Settlement details OK’d for silicone leak victims (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-03-24/news/1994083009_1_gel-breast-implants-join-the-settlement-silicone):


Three major U.S. corporations signed a record-breaking $3.75 billion settlement yesterday with lawyers representing thousands of women who contend they were seriously injured by silicone gel breast implants.

Dow Corning Corp., Baxter International Inc. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. agreed to fund the largest settlement of a products liability case in U.S. history.


That settlement fell apart, and in May 1995, Dow Corning filed for bankruptcy, as detailed in The New York Times, Dow Corning In Bankruptcy Over Lawsuits (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/16/business/dow-corning-in-bankruptcy-over-lawsuits.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) (emphasis mine):


Overwhelmed by injury claims filed against it by hundreds of thousands of women who used silicone breast implants, the Dow Corning Corporation filed for bankruptcy protection in a Federal court in Bay City, Mich., today.


Dow Corning’s legal move will abruptly halt all new lawsuits and indefinitely delay settlement of existing litigation against the company. Dow Corning said that seeking the protection of the bankruptcy court was the only way it could devise an enforceable plan to deal with the billions of dollars of claims against it. The decision also means, however, that the bankruptcy court will have the final say in how much Dow Corning pays to compensate claimants….


The filing also focused new attention on Dow Chemical as a defendant. Dow Chemical, which is also based in Midland, Mich., has repeatedly denied that it ever played any role in the design, manufacture or testing of implants and has refused to contribute to the class action settlement. However, Judge Pointer ruled on April 25 that Dow Chemical may have been negligent in how it handled information about potential problems, based on its silicone research dating back to 1948.


Plaintiffs’ lawyers have said that the ruling gives them the ammunition to force Dow Chemical into a major contribution to the settlement talks. Now, however, Dow Corning is expected to ask the bankruptcy court to stop all claims against Dow Chemical. The argument would run that Dow Chemical would have a right to sue Dow Corning for contributing to any liability Dow Chemical had. Thus, Dow Corning could argue, any breast implant claim against Dow Chemical could worsen Dow Corning’s financial health and should be halted until the bankruptcy reorganization plan pinning down Dow Corning’s liabilities has been approved.

See also, Dow Chemical Found 20% Liable in Breast-Implant Injuries Case (http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-16/business/fi-32635_1_dow-chemical).
It was then that Dow Chemical, the parent corporation was put in the legal hot seat, Dow Chemical in the Center of a Storm (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/01/business/dow-chemical-in-the-center-of-a-storm.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) (NYT 11/1/95):
Earlier this year, executives of the Dow Chemical Company regarded the legal storm over silicone breast implants with a certain level of calm. But suddenly the company is finding itself heading down the treacherous road already traveled by several implant makers.


Just a few months ago, the giant chemical company figured that its liability would be, at worst, the $330 million value of its 50 percent stake in the Dow Corning Corporation. Dow Corning was the largest producer of breast implants in the country, but a much smaller company than Dow Chemical, which last year had $20 billion in revenues.


Also, Dow Chemical had not had to contribute to the $4.25 billion class action settlement on implant claims reached in late 1993, and Judge Sam C. Pointer Jr. of Federal District Court in Birmingham, Ala., had effectively dismissed it from liability in other breast implant lawsuits.


But in the world of high-stakes litigation, events can quickly turn.


In rapid succession, Judge Pointer reversed his decision, the global settlement failed and Dow Corning plunged into bankruptcy.


Then, this week, a Nevada jury ordered Dow Chemical to pay $14.1 million in compensatory and punitive damages to a woman who said she was injured by breast implants, the first time the company has been held solely liable in such a case.


The company, which contends that it had nothing to do with the development or testing of the implants, has said that it will appeal and will fight every breast implant case.


The Nevada case has focused a sudden light on the long and sometimes tangled relationship between Dow Chemical and Dow Corning. And it has raised questions about Dow Chemical’s strategy in the litigation and its eventual cost.


More than 13,000 implant suits are pending in which Dow Chemical is the defendant or co-defendant, and even company lawyers acknowledge that it is only a matter of time before some more come to trial.
Referring to the Nevada case, Herbert L. Zarov, a lawyer for Dow Chemical, said, “This decision will encourage plaintiffs.” ….


Initially, lawyers representing women with implants tried to shift liability by holding the larger and richer Dow Chemical and Corning responsible for the action of their offspring. But Judge Pointer turned back that bid in late 1993, holding that traditional “corporate control” theories were not applicable because Dow Corning was not a joint venture or partnership.


Undeterred, plaintiffs’ lawyers returned to Judge Pointer’s courtroom last year, providing what they said was new evidence showing that Dow Chemical was involved in the development of silicone and knew about the dangers of breast implants.


Earlier this year, Judge Pointer held that Dow Chemical could be held directly liable in breast implant cases because of its involvement in silicone work. Mr. Zarov, the Dow Chemical lawyer, said the company had asked Judge Pointer to reconsider because of what he said was misleading information provided by plaintiffs’ lawyers….


Whatever the case, a legal storm has broken over Dow Chemical, which appears headed for skyrocketing legal costs and, potentially, more jury awards. With lawsuits against Dow Corning frozen, Dow Chemical is the stuff of a plaintiff lawyer’s dream. That raises the prospect that Dow Chemical may change its tactics, said Judith Resnik, a law professor at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.


“In this litigation, the science is still new, and when there is a battle of experts who disagree, juries say, ‘Manufacturers, you bear the risk,’ ” Ms. Resnik said. “Dow Chemical’s choices are to take the line that this didn’t happen on our watch, or explore forms of settlement that adequately recognize any role they may have played.”


Dow Chemical, however, continued to fight vigorously for years. See ABA Journal October 1997 (http://books.google.com/books?id=JSX3ASx_vkkC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=%22dow+corning%22+%22dow+chemical%22&source=bl&ots=93k6mdpsAa&sig=_G3_Mobbmi9I2YtiZyaN9y0c9Kg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6hhnUMKNBobm2AXT2IDwBQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22dow%20corning%22%20%22dow%20chemical%22&f=false), PBS History of Breast Implant litigation (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/implants/cron.html); Breast implant makers offer new settlement; Dow Chemical stays out.

(http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Breast+implant+makers+offer+new+settlement%3B+Dow+ Chemical+stays+out.-a017810627)

And Dow Chemical was doing pretty well in its defense, as detailed by Joe Nocera for Fortune Magazine in September 1997, The Reversal of Fortune on Breast Implants (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/09/29/232080/index.htm):
What’s most surprising, perhaps, is that no one in the defense camp seems overly concerned about the Louisiana verdict against Dow Chemical. The company, you’ll recall, was dragged into the suit on the slenderest of reeds: back in the 1950s–nearly a decade before Dow Corning made its first breast implant–Dow Chemical did some testing of silicones for the smaller company. (It is also a 50% shareholder of Dow Corning.) Only after it became clear that Dow Corning didn’t have deep enough pockets to satisfy the plaintiffs’ lawyers did Dow Chemical become a target.


But in three states, California, New York, and Michigan, judges have dismissed all the cases against the company–a total of some 4,000 lawsuits–precisely because Dow Chemical’s involvement with implants was so tangential. In addition, with the sole exception of the Louisiana trial, all the other cases against Dow Chemical have been moved to the bankruptcy court in Michigan, where they are now, in effect, joined at the hip with Dow Corning’s bankruptcy proceedings. “It’s really quite possible there won’t be any more trials against Dow Chemical,” says Herbert Zarov, Dow Chemical’s chief outside counsel….


Most important, the Louisiana trial will almost surely fail at its real purpose: to force Dow Chemical to put up money to help settle the thousands of cases that have been in limbo ever since Dow Corning filed for bankruptcy. Dow Chemical insists that it will never ante into any larger settlement. Precisely because it seems so out of kilter with the general trend in breast implant cases, the Louisiana verdict was simply not the kind of hammer blow that the plaintiffs had originally hoped it would be.

In 1999, the Dow Corning bankruptcy was settled, although it took years for litigation over the settlement to resolve.


There are multiple problems with Warren’s narrative that she was trying to help the women:


First, the notion that Warren was representing anyone other than her client is preposterous. As an attorney, she had a duty of loyalty to Dow Chemical. If she explored possible ways in which Dow Chemical could extricate itself through settlement, her services were on behalf of and for the benefit of Dow Chemical, not the women.


Second, Warren did not represent Dow Corning, the entity which eventually set up the trust. Again, there may have been strategizing in the early days about how and whether Dow Chemical, the parent corporation, might have to contribute, but there was no resolution in the early days.


Third, during the time Warren was providing legal advice to Dow Chemical, Dow Chemical was fighting liability. As the Dow Corning bankruptcy case wound down, one of the most controversial provisions (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/1999/apr/20/nevada-women-oppose-dow-corning-bankruptcy-plan/)involved the release of Dow Chemical from liability as part of the Dow Corning reorganization plan which set up the trust.

(Analysis (http://www.weil.com/news/pubdetail.aspx?pub=8854) here, summary (http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Dow_Chemical_Company_%28DOW%29/Litigation) here, Plan (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/132897777/Dow-Corning---Final-Re-Organization-Plan) here) It also appears that Dow Chemical did not make any payments beyond its equity stake in Dow Corning and its insurance coverage to the trust (I’m still confirming this last point).


In short, in the early days of the Dow Corning breast implant litigation Elizabeth Warren was providing legal advice to Dow Chemical, which was denying liability and fighting breast implant claims for many years to come. Warren was not a legal adviser to Dow Corning, the entity which years later set up and funded a trust for implant claimants.


Absent specific additional disclosures by Warren, there is no plausible reason to believe that Warren was looking out for the interests of breast implant claimants at the time she was providing legal services to Dow Chemical.
——————
[Special thanks to Morgen Richmond, who used to blog at Verum Serum (http://www.verumserum.com/about-verum-serum), for helping locate certain of the information and documents referred to here and which will be referred to in upcoming posts.]