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
Related Headlines
- Fifth Circuit hears arguments in Leonard v. Nationwide Katrina appealposted 55 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 56 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Initial impressions on Fifth Circuit's decision in In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigationposted 56 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Nationwide v. Leonard: Fifth Circuit upholds anti-concurrent cause provision as unambiguousposted 52 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Landry v. Citizens Property: Louisiana Court of Appeals sows confusion, messes up causation analysis in Hurricane Rita cposted 52 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Louisiana Fourth Circuit finds flood exclusion ambiguousposted 40 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Louisiana Fourth Circuit finds flood exclusion ambiguous
posted 40 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Commentary on Fifth Circuit's decision in Tuepker v. State Farmposted 42 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Reaction to Sher case
posted 20 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog