In the Renfroe v. Rigsby case in Alabama, the Rigsby sisters have been represented by attorneys from three firms, two from Alabama and one from Washington, D.C., all paid for by Dickie Scruggs. The D.C. lawyers have now filed a motion to withdraw from the case for the following reason (I inserted the boldface to highlight the really significant part):This motion to withdraw is the result of the inability of the Rigsbys and others to pay Zuckerman Spaeder LLP's fees and expenses going forward, or to adequately satisfy existing fee and expense obligations.
"And others"? That can only be Dickie Scruggs. Is this criminal prosecution of Scruggs and his involvement in the Renfroe suit, the Rigsby False Claims Act lawsuit and other stuff tapping out even Scruggs' mighty
Read...Related Headlines
- Fifth Circuit hears arguments in Leonard v. Nationwide Katrina appealposted 235 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation: More on Fifth Circuit's decision, did the Court hint how it will go on Tuepker?posted 236 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Initial impressions on Fifth Circuit's decision in In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigationposted 236 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Reaction to Sher case
posted 200 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Louisiana Fourth Circuit finds flood exclusion ambiguousposted 220 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Louisiana Fourth Circuit finds flood exclusion ambiguous
posted 220 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Reaction to Sher cases
posted 200 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Nationwide v. Leonard: Fifth Circuit upholds anti-concurrent cause provision as unambiguousposted 232 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
U.S. Supreme Court rejects cert. for In Re Katrina Canal Breaches case
posted 207 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog