EDITORIAL TOOK CHEAP SHOT AT LAWYER'S FIRM
Jan 1, 2001
Mobile Register
The Register's Dec. 21 editorial was misleading relative to certain
key facts concerning the jury verdict against Exxon in Montgomery County
Circuit and comments directed to the attorneys at Cunningham, Bounds,
Yance, Crowder and Brown.
The editorial ignored the fact, as presented to the jury, that over the
life of the field in question, Exxon's scheme to underpay royalties
would allow it to save $1 billion and thus shortchange the state-and all
of us as taxpayers the same amount. Thus the ratio of punitive to compensatory
damages in the case is 3 to 1 and not the wild ratio suggested in the
editorial.
I am even more disturbed by the editorial's suggestion that if the
lawyers do not turn over the bulk of any fee they may earn to charity,
they should be viewed as "rapacious profiteers." Their fee will
be paid by the wrongdoer in the case, as it should be. The editorial writer
obviously gave no thought as to what adjective he would have used if,
after spending an enormous amount of time and their own money to pursue
this case for the state, these attorneys had not prevailed.
So it is clear: I was formerly a partner at the Cunningham Bounds firm,
and know far better than the Register's editorial board that these
lawyers give back to the community and others less fortunate every day
of their lives without seeking any public recognition, as is true of most
every lawyer I know.
I have no interest in the outcome of this verdict. I left the firm in
June of this year to become a high school basketball coach. This makes
me neither rapacious nor a profiteer. Thus, I am comfortable in writing
that the editorial board should collectively be ashamed of itself for
the disservice that has been done to the reputations of these lawyers
and to the citizens of this state.
Reggie Copeland Jr.