Nearly every trial lawyer in the state of Kentucky has heard about, read about, or subscribed to Shannon Ragland's "Kentucky Trial Court Review" which publishes monthly digests of ALL civil jury trials in the state (Kentucky and Federal) followed by a detailed analysis of those verdicts annually in its "Year in Review." Shannon is kind enough to allow Kentucky Law Blog (KLB) to do short summaries of the parties, players, numbers, etc. of the largest verdict each month with a listing of the lawyers who obtained jury verdicts that month. These summaries are in no way comparable to the value in content and entertainment of reading the actual publication where life sometimes imitates television. He also publishes civil jury verdicts for Indiana and Alabama and the Federal Courts (Nationwide) and a few other states.
Shannon Ragland was kind enough to allow us to post some sample issues. The links are as follows. Remember these publications are copyrighted and you are not free to reprint or copy them. Please respect the time, work, and expense taken in preparing these publications.
- Kentucky Trial Court Review - Dec. 2005
- Indiana Jury Verdict Reporter - Dec. 2005
- National Federal Jury Verdict Reporter - Initial Issue 2005
Now many non-lawyers know not only about his publication where he personally digests all the decisions with his staff of five, but also that he is a disbarred lawyer and felon (serving seven months after stealing clients funds) who still makes his living off the law as practiced by others. In fact, I would assume non-lawyers might find the Kentucky Trial Court Review worthy of a subscription. Click here if you do.
However, Ragland's experience and background make him an excellent foil for the lawyers and the judges while maintaining absolute independence. The Year in Review takes the data and makes sense of the trends.
What the Courier's story did miss that the KTCR is not just limited to jury verdicts, but provides a bigger picture and broader perspective with "Verdicts Revisited" (jury trials that went up the appellate chain and then back to be retried again); News Commentaries ("The Case for the Ages Goes National" - the McDonald's Hoax); Appellate Tort Opinions; and "Notable Out-of-State Verdicts" for a view of what is happening elsewhere. The biting commentary and wit may have entertainment value and occasionally distracts from the scholarly aspects of the publication, but there can be little dispute that the verdicts are reviewed not just on the facts, but also on the law with trial tactics, strategies, and behind the scenes input (eg., post trial motions status at time of publication and whether or not judgment had been entered).
Here is a link our Northern Neighbor's comments on this story in the Indiana Law Blog.
Here is a link to the full story in today's Courier-Journal with extracted portions posted on line.
Ex-lawyer on the case with biting court report
Disbarred Ragland puts unique twist on trialsHe [Shannon Ragland] has charged that Kentucky Court of Appeals Judge Sara Combs permits "emotion rather than law to guide her decisions."
He has written that Justice William Cooper is a "mad genius" given to such vitriolic outbursts that his dissents must be rated like earthquakes on the "Cooper Dissent Fury Scale," from a "CDFS 1" -- a polite disagreement with "a little name-calling" -- to a "CDFS 5" -- "a catastrophic literary event, the mangled and twisted corpse of the majority left rotting in the wake of Cooper's linguistic fury." [ . . . ]
Starting in Jefferson County with 75 subscribers, he launched his verdict report and eventually took it statewide. A yearly subscription is $175, and he now publishes similar newsletters in three other states and one on the federal courts, grossing about $150,000 a year in Kentucky alone.
He employs a staff of five, including a licensed lawyer he pays to write squibs about verdicts in Indiana and Alabama [ . . . . ]
He said his unique status has given him the freedom to zing judges and lawyers without fear of being sanctioned. "What are they going to do," he asks, "disbar me?" [ . . . ]
Lawyers who both bring damage lawsuits and defend them say Ragland's review provides a valuable service by showing the real-world value of every conceivable injury -- from a catastrophic brain injury to a broken toe.
The Kentucky Trial Court Review also shows that most plaintiffs usually lose, especially in medical malpractice cases, and lawyers say that makes it an important tool to show clients who are convinced that their case is priceless.
"It sobers them up and gives them a sense of reality," said Louisville trial lawyer William McMurry.
Ragland researches every case himself rather than relying on winning lawyers to submit summaries of their triumphs, as some in other states do.
"Everybody in the industry feels Shannon's publication is the best because he does it himself," said Erik Albrektson, a Crestwood lawyer whose Verdict Research Group publishes trial-verdict reports in 10 states and Washington, D.C.
But some lawyers and judges -- especially those who have been hooked by Ragland's barbs -- are less impressed.
Combs, for example, calls him "abrasive" and "mean-spirited."
Cooper complained that Ragland "committed what every attorney would consider a lawyer's second-greatest crime" -- stealing from his firm -- yet is now making a living off the "lawyers he ripped off."
Heather Clark Reynolds, a young Louisville lawyer whom Ragland criticized in his September issue for failing to aggressively cross-examine the opposing medical expert in a car-wreck case, said: "I think it's wrong that somebody who is a disbarred attorney can go around and play lawyer and tear others apart. He is just rude."
Ragland says he doesn't try to gratuitously embarrass anyone. "I'm sure there are lawyers who don't like our spin on cases," he said. "Usually they are on the side that lost."
He's never been sued, although several lawyers and doctors have threatened litigation.
Some, such as Louisville defense lawyer Jack Ballantine, say that Ragland, who practiced for three years, doesn't always get his facts straight but that his pithy accounts of cases are often hilarious.
In a case listed under the heading "Practical Joke Negligence," he recounted how a Louisville man who climbed up a ladder at his boss's house to douse a co-worker with water slipped and broke his heel, and then sued his boss for "encouraging him to participate in such tomfoolery." The jury gave him nothing.
The review includes serious legal analysis and describes some awful injuries, such as those of a Louisville man left with a "grotesque and permanent injury" after doctors allegedly missed signs of flesh-eating bacteria in his buttocks.
A jury found for the doctors, who claimed it wouldn't have mattered if the infection had been discovered earlier. [ . . . ]
Ragland saves his harshest criticism for appellate judges -- "they are elected and fair game" -- and medical experts, the hired guns paid "huge fees to destroy the other side's case," he said.
He wrote that one state Supreme Court opinion was "so confusing a playbook is needed"; that Justices Cooper and William Graves are in "Wal-Mart's back pocket"; and that Justice Martin Johnstone is Cooper's "intellectual inferior" and "minion."
Graves and Johnstone say Ragland is entitled to his opinions, which Johnstone said "can be pretty funny if your ox isn't being gored." [ . . . ]
Comments