Insurance Law

Scruggs Nation, April 4: the beclownment grows

By David Rossmiller

Just a brief post again today, came back to Portland to a lot to do.

Did you see this story by Anita Lee in the Sun Herald this morning?  In a move calculated to give Jim Hood a run for the record for public self-beclownment, Zach Scruggs, like his father, is also fighting disbarment. 

Let's look at an excerpt:

The Mississippi Bar argues the Scruggses can and should be disbarred as a result of their guilty pleas. Both admitted they entered the pleas because they are, in fact, guilty.

Michael Martz of Brandon, an attorney representing both Scruggses in the disbarment proceedings, previously served as attorney for the Mississippi Bar.

Asked why the Scruggses have filed the motions objecting to disbarment, he said, "We want the bar and the court to follow the law."

To which the bar and the court respond, "Good idea, practice what you preach." Can you believe the effrontery of that spin?  Also, do you remember Zach Scruggs' letter that he was sending around asking people to write Judge Biggers and mention all the good stuff he has done in his life? The letter in which he said:

I wanted to give y'all an update on my situation. Last Friday I had to make the most difficult and painful decision of my life. As you already know, I was charged by indictment last November for conspiracy and bribery of a state court judge. I have always maintained my innocence with respect to those charges and continue to do so to this day. As a result, I was willing to face trial by myself on those charges, which carried up to 75 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.

Late last week, the government prosecutors agreed to drop all of the original bribery charges and instead charge me with a different and separate offense of “misprision of a felony,” which carries a potential 3 year sentence, and to recommend probation.  I agreed to this.  Misprision of a felony essentially means that I had knowledge of a felony and failed to report it to authorities.  The particular felony I had knowledge of was that Tim Balducci, who was not our firm’s counsel of record, had improper ex parte conversations with a state court judge about our case in an effort to obtain a ruling in our favor. Although I was not aware of any money being paid to the judge, I was aware of Tim’s personal relationship with the judge and that he was using that relationship, in part, to influence the judge. I was aware of this and failed to report it or take any action to stop it. I deeply regret this failure and have taken full responsibility for my actions. I cannot comment any further on this, but you should feel free to contact my lawyers if you need a more detailed explanation of the charge.

Questions:

• What is all this, a plea of "Guilty but Innocent"? 
• Did Zach's lawyers look over and approve that "Say what a great guy I am" letter before he sent it out? Good Grief, I hope not, I can't picture any reason on Earth they would agree to allow such a thing. 
• Is anyone else going to send a letter around asking those with contrary points of view to write letters to Judge Biggers asking for for a stiff sentence?
• What are the odds the Scruggses will exit the public scene with any grace or class?
• Why is it so important to the Scruggses that they continue to point out that Tim Balducci was not counsel of record for the Scruggs Law Firm when he bribed Lackey?  All this talk about Balducci being a wannabe or an outsider, none of it matters, none of it is an adequate excuse or even any excuse at all.  Would it be any better if Balducci had his own private plane and was Scruggsian in wealth?  Would that make them feel any better?  Why point out Balducci traded on his friendship with Judge Lackey? Does that make it OK that Dickie Scruggs traded on his friendship with Tim Balducci?

Full post as published by Insurance Coverage Law Blog on December 31, 1969 (boomark / email).