Emery Dalesio’s a respected reporter with the Associated Press, and he just wrote a story about the second nuisance lawsuit against Smithfield Foods.
He reported how Smithfield Foods’ lawyers didn’t want jurors to hear about Smithfield’s finances and its profits until after the jury has decided whether neighbors were harmed and should be compensated. Fair enough. That happened.But Mr. Dalesio didn’t mention another omission: How the plaintiffs’ lawyers don’t want the jurors to hear that, five years ago, a group of lawyers went door-to-door recruiting clients by telling hog farmers’ neighbors, ‘We’ll bring the lawsuit, we’ll pay the bills, and if we win you could get part of the money.’During the first nuisance trial the lawyers suing Smithfield pictured the plaintiffs as victims struggling to end years of torment – but no one ever mentioned they also had financial motive as well. Because the plaintiffs’ lawyers didn’t want it mentioned.But isn’t the lawyer’s money and the plaintiffs’ hope of making money as much a part of the trial as Smithfield’s finances?Note: the original lawyers were replaced by the current out-of-state ones.