This week marks the ten year anniversary of the Station Nightclub Fire. All Rhode Islanders were touched by the accident. Coverage of the anniversary and my interest as an attorney pushed me towards downloading and reading Killer Show by John Barylick, one of the lead plaintiffs attorneys.
1. My biggest takeaway from the book was how avoidable the catastrophe was. If any number of laws or ordinances were to have been followed the fire could have been avoided or slowed. The rub wasn't that there wasn't enough regulation, but that the regulations already on the book weren't enforced. This is something to probably consider for any debate on guns.
2. The Derderians were horrible people. I was most struck by how so much of their behavior was just bullying. With each business they purchased, they forced their employees to immediately work at least partially under the table. These were guys who were middle class to slightly wealthy forcing employees who were making people earning next to nothing work without protection. For example, one of the club's bartenders worked for $40/night and tips.
One of the more disgusting tricks used by the brothers was keeping a $20,000 "deposit" from a prospective buyer and refusing to return it. Even the foam insulation that ignited the firestorm was purchased from a neighbor who had complained about the club's noise. By purchasing the insulation at from the neighbor they were able to placate the neighbor with a sale and mitigate the noise problem.
I have to wonder what would have happened if someone had really pushed these bullies back? Would an employee reporting them to the Department of Labor and Training and the resulting sanction have helped them re-evaluate their fast and loose business practices? Ditto if the prospective buyers had called the police or Attorney General's office. If the neighbor hadn't been happy to make a foam sale and persisted in decreasing the noise at the Station would the club have been shut down or faced more scrutiny?
Twerps like these guys need brush back pitches.
3. I'm very glad that this book was written. A tragedy like this needs a thorough account of the events memorialized before time robs of us of the opportunity. I'm also glad that it was told with a viewpoint. It would have been very easy for a local reporter to put together an oral history.* My only wish is that the book had been written by a neutral and not a straight partisan.
4. Barylick is an excellent lawyer. The theories of liability** that the plaintiffs group were able to articulate is a testament to their skill, mental agility, and perseverance.
5. One section I didn't appreciate was Risky Business. In that chapter, Barylick lays out the rationale for why plaintiffs attorneys in the matter, or rather the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, deserved their fee.
My first issue is that Barylick paints with a very broad brush with regards to attorneys who advertise.*** At one point, he states that "many advertising 'personal injury attorneys' are either referral networks or settlement mills." He also goes on to state, without naming names, that several of these advertising attorneys screwed up victims' claims or free loaded on their group. Rhode Island has a small bar, that is allegedly a collegial. I guess not here. Also, why not name names? He has no problems meticulously outlining the mistakes of individuals involved with the catastrophe. Why not the same with bungling attorneys?****
Secondly, he also goes on to state that advertising attorneys have tarnished the reputation of the bar. Some have. Could one also say, however unfair or lacking nuance, that trying to hang liability on Anheuser-Busch, who was just selling beer, in one of the biggest tragedies in our state's history may have done equal harm? As someone who has sat on victims' couches and at kitchen tables, I did not appreciate the dig.
Finally, there were a couple of kicks at defense counsel for dragging in their heels, delaying justice, and running up big bills. Their duty to their clients were no less than Barylick's to his own. Painting defense counsel as money hungry to the detriment of their clients is unfair.
* Oral histories are the worst. Absolutely horrible. Even worse, they're taking over. Grantland did one on Cheers. There was even one on Bridesmaids. The movie.
** As I tell my clients, you need to have two things that are linked together to have a case: somebody has to do something wrong and injury. A rear end car accident often results in temporary (read: less valuable) injuries, but are easy since the party in the wrong is obviously wrong. With other accidents or slip and falls or products cases, it is tougher to prove the wrongdoing. It's almost like puzzle solving. The more severe (read: valuable) the injury the harder that your average plaintiff attorney will work to find a solution to the puzzle.
*** Before going solo, I worked for a firm that advertised moderately, but not with a serious tone. My firm did not represent any of the Station victims at any point and I was not admitted to practice until 2007.
**** Barylick alludes to two firms that are well known. He does not specifically tie them to early on bungles, but does give the impression that they were involved. The confusion was not appreciated by this reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment