Tobacco.org

• KC-based Shook Hardy blistered in judge's tobacco opinion 

If there was any doubt about the critical role Shook plays in the tobacco industry, it was laid to rest in a blistering 1,742-page opinion handed down two months ago by Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Ruling in a racketeering lawsuit brought by the Justice Department seven years earlier, Kessler lambasted the tobacco industry for its 50-year history of duplicity and denial — and excoriated the lawyers who abetted it.

“Finally,” she wrote in the introduction to her opinion, “a word must be said about the role of lawyers in this fifty-year history of deceiving smokers and the American public about the hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke, and the addictiveness of nicotine. At every stage, lawyers played an absolutely central role in the creation and perpetuation of the enterprise and the implementation of its fraudulent schemes.” . . .

“The opinion is unlike any other judicial opinion I’ve read,” said Gregory Leyh, a Kansas City lawyer who represents smokers in litigation against tobacco companies. “It’s more like the work of an investigative reporter who has spent years gathering every piece of available information about industry misconduct relating to the most preventable health crisis in American history.” . . .

What Kessler’s opinion makes clear is that Shook and other law firms not only proffered legal advice to the council. They also effectively exerted authority over the hiring and firing of scientists and the research projects they pursued.

In her opinion, Kessler cited numerous instances in which Shook influenced the nature and outcome of the council’s research, litigation and public relations strategy. A few examples, among many: . . .

“It’s interesting,” Shook chairman Murphy reflected a couple of weeks ago. “Tonight we’re going to be honored at a dinner in New York by a national organization on children’s rights for our representation of foster kids pro bono. The way we approached our representation of foster children with respect to ethics is the same way we approached our representation of tobacco clients. No difference.

“But I think sometimes when people view the popularity or unpopularity of a client, they may forget that and start looking at the ethical obligations differently. And I don’t think that really is appropriate.”

Jump to full article »

What a sad and disquieting chapter in the history of an honorable and often courageous profession.
Judge Gladys Kessler, on lawyers, in her ruling in USA v. Philip Morris, et. al.

It’s interesting. Tonight we’re going to be honored at a dinner in New York by a national organization on children’s rights for our representation of foster kids pro bono. The way we approached our representation of foster children with respect to ethics is the same way we approached our representation of tobacco clients. No difference. But I think sometimes when people view the popularity or unpopularity of a client, they may forget that and start looking at the ethical obligations differently. And I don’t think that really is appropriate.
Shook Hardy & Bacon chairman John Murphy Murphy, on Judge Kessler's ruling excoriating lawyers.