Download PDF

In litigation pending since 1996, 3,500 plaintiffs sued the Monsanto Company and two successor corporations for property damages arising out of alleged contamination by polychlorinated biphenyl’s, known commonly as “PCBs.” The Monsanto case was eventually tried to a jury, which found in favor of the Plaintiffs as to liability. During the subsequent proceedings seeking a reasonable remedy, Monsanto requested the presiding Judge R. Joel Laird, Jr. to recuse himself voluntarily under the Alabama Canon of Judicial Ethics. Monsanto’s recusal request centered on Judge Laird’s conduct during a purported settlement conference held on March 12, 2002 seeming to reveal adversarial participation in the case, and hostility towards the Defendants.

The conference began when the court ordered nine Monsanto executives to appear in person for a settlement discussions at the close of the trial on liability. Once inside the closed courtroom, Judge Laird announced that the conference could last for several days, and that no one would leave until the case was settled. Mindful of the Judge’s admonishment to pursue vigorous discussions, the Defendants proposed holding the meeting outside of the courthouse. Judge Laird refused, insisting that the parties remain at the court by explaining that “in case I find somebody is not negotiating in good faith, they will be close to my jail.”

Soon after the talks commenced, Judge Laird apparently became dissatisfied with the amount of the Defendant’s settlement offer and angrily suggested that one or more of company executives would soon be jailed for failing to demonstrate “good faith.” No similar threats were directed at the Plaintiffs or the Plaintiffs’ counsel.

Prior to the conference, the court assured the Defendants’ representatives that their attendance was required solely to facilitate, and if appropriate, authorize settlement of the litigation. Without warning, however, Judge Laird ordered John C. Hunter, Chief Executive Officer of Defendant Solutia, to take the witness stand where the Judge personally questioned Hunter on his views of an appropriate remedy. Judge Laird’s interrogation included the unusual practice of overruling the Defendant’s evidentiary objections to the Judge’s own questions. In overruling one particular objection, Judge Laird remarked that:

This Court has heard testimony since the second week of January, and it’s obvious to this Court that the same attitude that . . . Monsanto exhibited years ago still exists today, and that is a lack of concern for the environment, a lack of concern for their neighbors and the plaintiffs in this case and it’s obvious to this Court that it is simply the defendants’ strategy and plan to keep from facing the music in this case as long as they possibly can and stretch it out as long as they possibly can.

While Hunter was still on the stand, Judge Laird also sought to have representatives of the Plaintiffs and governmental agencies make settlement proposals for Hunter to accept or reject, without the assistance or guidance of counsel.

The settlement conference concluded with the court calling one of the defense lawyers to the bench, and stated that “I’m not even going to bother to hold you in contempt,” because “I don’t know that sending you to the county jail would change any actions on your part in the future whatsoever.” The Judge further concluded that counsel and his firm “have lost every bit of credibility with this Court.” Judge Laird declined, however, to detail the grounds for his dissatisfaction.

Judge Laird failed to rule on Monsanto’s motion for recusal, leading to petition the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court agreed, granting the petition in less than two hours, and ordered Judge Laird to consider and decide the recusal motion. Judge Laird elected to side-step the issue, and transferred the matter to the presiding judge for his circuit.

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].