17 February—The survivors of five of the pupils and four of the faculty of Sandy Hook Elementary School massacred by a crazy kid in 2012 have just accepted a precedent-setting—groundbreaking, as Christopher Murphy called it—settlement of $73 million from the four insurers of bankrupt Remington Firearms because of Remington’s effectively aggressive advertising. Last summer, when a settlement less than half that size was mooted, I commented on it in one of The Monitor’s earliest posts. Here’s what I wrote on 30 July 2021 in an essay titled “Juridical perversion gone wild”:

“Soto vs Bushmaster exemplifies the miscarriage of American justice—or, rather, the perversion of the American juridical system, since justice certainly doesn’t come into it. Soto vs. Bushmaster is the very short title of the civil litigation brought by the estates—survivors—of many of the Sandy Hook school massacre victims against Remington Firearms, the company that manufactured and marketed the firearm used to murder the children and faculty.

I won’t go on about the unspeakable mass murder or the unhinged murderer. But the very idea of holding the manufacturer of a product responsible for the way the product was used is as crazy as the Lanza kid. It just doesn’t make sense in reason or in law. But when has that ever stopped a clever lawyer?

You’ll recall that the Connecticut trial judge threw out the plaintiffs’ original case because it was contrary to federal law. So the plaintiffs’ attorney—one of the state’s top medical malpractice lawyers—came up with the novel expedient of blaming it all on the manufacturer’s targeted advertising. That’s like holding Ford responsible when a young thug steals a Mustang because he saw it advertised as a fast car and kills a pedestrian while doing a hundred.

It won’t be long before desperate ambulance chasers who have no other way of plundering deep pockets will be preying en masse on perfectly innocent manufacturers who advertise their products effectively, simply because that’s what capitalism is all about. For manufacturers and lawyers.

And it’s disturbing that the allegedly apolitical Connecticut Supreme Court let the plaintiffs get away with the feel-good predation on innocent industry. Except that the industry involves firearms and Connecticut is renowned for excessive and questionable firearm suppression. But it’s not at all surprising when you consider that six of the seven justices had been appointed by Dastardly Dannel Malloy.

What’s equally disturbing and totally surprising is that SCOTUS denied review of this hot-button juridical perversion, thus encouraging a whole new specialty of ambulance chasing. The Supremes probably dodged a possible ruling of first impression only for PR reasons . . .”

That takes us to the present. The plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Joshua Koskoff, is a partner in Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, probably the top medical malpractice litigators in Connecticut. If I ever need a malpractice or personal injury lawyer, I know where to go.

The Koskoff firm’s homepage boasts “12 of the top 20 verdicts in Connecticut history” and touts, in order of descending bucks, the fabulous monetary settlements its lawyers have won for obviously deserving clients, starting with $58.6 million, going to $41.7, then to $36.5 million, all the way down to paltry $1.5 million.

There must be tons of lower awards, too, along with losses, but they’re not worth putting on the website. And not all the bucks are for medical malpractice. While the firm’s website hasn’t been updated in other information, however, the homepage does have a prominent link to the $73 million story and the unmentioned roughly $8 million to each plaintiff.

Anyway, Josh Koskoff, who with his team devised an absolutely brilliant strategy to make Remington pay actual bucks even though early on he had insisted it wasn’t all about the money—and I’m sure it wasn’t all about the money—just the other day said, “It was also important that the insurance carriers pay all available coverage toward settlement to ensure the case’s message to the insurance industry was clear.”

Money certainly talks. Money shouts through a megaphone.

The statement on the Koskoff website refers to “extraordinary pro bono support from the greater legal community at various stages of the litigation.” So I wondered, since Josh was getting pro bono help in his groundbreaking crusade, were he and his firm also doing it pro bono? You may think that’s a silly question, given all the nasty publicity lawyers get, but Josh is obviously a nice, charitable kid and Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder must have the capacity to do pro bono jobs.

So I emailed Josh this question through the Koskoff website: “Congratulations on your Remington settlement. I may have missed something in the early days of the litigation, but in all the publicity, I haven’t found any reference to whether you’re representing the Newtown parents pro bono; or if not, what the fee would be. Could you comment?”

I’m still waiting for Josh’s answer . . .