13 Cardozo L. Rev. 1919 (1991 - 1992)
Critical Analysis of the Brickman Administrative Proposal: Who Declared Ware on Asbestos Victims' Rights

handle is hein.journals/cdozo13 and id is 1941 raw text is: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BRICKMAN
Ronald L. Motley** and Susan Nial***
The proposal authored by Professor Lester Brickman,1 which is
the focus of this article, reads like an asbestos industry manifesto. It
is a proposal that springs from a premise so riddled with fallacy and
ignorance that, if it was not being debated in a forum supported by
the federal government and by the American people's tax dollars, it
would not be deserving of more than casual comment. One comes
away with the overall impression that the asbestos litigation problem
was caused by the perpetual motion of something called the contin-
gent fee engine. This euphemism, coined apparently by Professor
Brickman, conjures up a vision of a huge machine producing asbestos
lawsuits out of thin air, run no doubt by a corps of plaintiffs' lawyers
whose goal in life is to ruin law abiding and socially conscious
Professor Brickman's personal ignorance, or personal bias with
regard to the asbestos crisis is clearly showing.2 In Professor Brick-
man's world, peopled with defenseless asbestos corporations brought
* This paper is based on comments delivered at the Administrative Conference of the
United States, October 31, 1991 Colloquy: An Administrative Alternative to Tort Litigation
to Resolve Asbestos Claims.
** Senior Litigation Partner, Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, a Charleston,
South Carolina law firm, specializing in the resolution and litigation of asbestos disease vic-
tims' claims. J.D., 1971; B.A., 1966, University of South Carolina.
*** Associate, Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole. J.D., 1986; B.E.S., 1983, Uni-
versity of Bridgeport.
I Lester Brickman, The Asbestos Claims Management Act of 1991: A Proposal to the
United States Congress, 13 CARDOZO L. REV. 1891 (1992).
2 Professor Brickman's credibility must be severely questioned when during his testimony
he failed to reveal that the only source of support for his outrageous statement that in excess of
half of the pending asbestos claims are those of unimpaired claimants is none other than a
position paper written by the Special Counsel to the euphemistically named Center for Claims
Resolution. The Center is a coalition of defendants who have pooled their resources to mount
a combined defense to all claims brought by asbestos victims. It is hardly an unbiased source
of information relating to the meritorious nature of asbestos claims. Perhaps that is the very
reason that Professor Brickman failed to credit them as his source. On the other hand, per-
haps it is his employment as a paid asbestos defense expert which causes him to be less than
candid about his sources.


What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?