Send in your Clark County retail liquor permit applications

The reality of liquor stores in Clark County, and the jobs and tax revenue they bring, is close at hand. Today’s the first day of a 60-day window when the ABC will be accepting applications for new retail liquor permits. Five permits will be issued in the county, which is keyed off the new 2010 census figure of 22,995.

June 6 is the final deadline. The application is fairly involved, so anyone who’s interested should get started early. Any deficiencies can be corrected during the 60-day window.

After June 6, the ABC will invite everyone with a completed application to Little Rock for two drawings. The first drawing will determine position for the second drawing (think of it as a qualifying race). The second drawing will determine the order in which the ABC will examine completed applications. Anyone in the top five of the second drawing has an excellent chance of getting one of the five retail liquor permits.

The application fee runs $2,000, half of which the ABC will return to applicants who do not receive a permit.

Of course, I’d love to help anyone with the application process. Feel free to give me a call anytime.

Is big pharma in trouble as patents expire?

The New York Times published an article earlier this month on the financial problems some drug companies are facing due to the expiration of the patents on blockbuster drugs. Once a patent expires, competitors can begin selling generic drugs at a fraction of the cost. These generics eat into the profits of the name-brand, patented drug.

Should we feel sorry for the drug companies? Consider three things: first, the article reports that “Americans fueled the research engine, spending much more per capita on prescriptions than in any other nation, and paying the highest prices for prescribed medicines.” Second, the pharmaceutical companies have billions in cash reserves, much of that borne on the back of regular Americans. And third, U.S. law gives pharmaceutical companies up to 5 additional years of exclusive use beyond the term all other patent owners get. Ordinary Americans have struggled through the latest recession, and few of us have $20 billion in cash lying around to get us through the rough times. I see families every day who have to choose between paying a light bill or buying much-needed prescription medications. So, pardon me if I don’t feel too sorry for the drug companies that gouge American families for hundreds or thousands of dollars a month for medication yet virtually give that same medication away to Canadian and European citizens.

With all the billions the drug companies have lying around, they have plenty to spend lobbying Congress to pay for expensive drugs. Problem is, Congress helped fund the development of many of these drugs. It seems like to me that federal deficits could be substantially reduced if we did two things. First, we could invoke the Bayh-Dole Act so the government pays less for prescription drugs for which it sponsored research. And two, we could reduce the patent terms for prescription drugs so they don’t get preferential treatment. These things will be tough given big pharma’s lobbying power, but they would help get our government out of debt and help the wallets of ordinary Americans.

Nathan teaches class on victory in recent appeal

Nathan Chaney taught a CLE hosted by the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association last Friday. The theme of the day of CLE was insurance coverage issues, and Nathan taught about his recent appeal in which he disqualified a lawyer employed by an insurance company.

The seminar followed the format of the one Nathan gave last summer to the Arkanas Bar Association. However, this seminar focused more on the fallout surrounding the disqualification of the Farmers Insurance Company lawyer (you can download the presentation here). Essentially, Farmers will have to fulfill its bargain with its policyholders by hiring independent lawyers to represent them. Furthermore, Farmers may have defaulted its policyholders on many cases in which its employee-attorneys answered lawsuits. Fortunately, Farmers alone will be the responsibility of taking this calculated risk, not the policyholders.

One question at the CLE was, “why do you care what the insurance companies do? After all, wouldn’t it be better for an plaintiff’s lawyer to have a 9-to-5 in-house lawyer on the other side, rather than a skilled lawyer in a big firm?” My answer to that question was this: all people who have a contractual right to a lawyer deserve skilled representation given with undivided loyalty. If I get sued, I want the best lawyer my insurance company can find to represent me — don’t we all feel that way?

We, as lawyers, take an oath to uphold the justice system. And at the heart of our justice system are lawyers who exercise independent, professional judgment. Here at the Chaney Law Firm, we take our oath seriously, even when it’s inconvenient. That’s why we objected to Farmers appointing its own lawyer, and that’s why I gave a CLE on the topic last week.

Update on America Invents Act of 2011

In a rare showing of bipartisanship, the Senate passed the America Invents Act last week. Since I last reported on the Act (when it had a different name), I sent a letter to my congressional team containing the analysis I shared here several weeks ago. Before the Senate’s vote last week, I was honored to receive a call from Senator Boozeman’s office requesting my input on several provisions in the Act. His office told me only two patent attorneys in the state wrote to the Senator to comment on the Act, and his staff appreciated the help in understanding the sometimes-esoteric patent laws.

Chaneys win appeal in Arkansas Supreme Court

We’ve written several times about our ongoing case involving an insurance company trying to represent its customers using employee-attorneys. We’re very pleased to announce that the Arkansas Supreme Court published its decision recently, and the Chaneys scored a complete win.

Our client was hit by a negligent driver. Farmers Insurance Company hired a well-known defense firm to represent the negligent driver. After about four months, however, Farmers tried to substitute its own in-house, employee-attorney into the case to represent the negligent driver. At that time, Nathan Chaney opposed this substitution on the grounds that it was illegal and unethical.

The Arkansas Supreme Court sided with Nathan’s argument. The Court applied an Arkansas statute that has been on the books for over 50 years. According to the statute, what Farmers was trying to do is the unauthorized practice of law. While Farmers’ lawyer challenged the constitutionality of the statute, it was upheld on appeal. Farmers also claimed that our firm could not raise this issue, but the Court summarily rejected that argument.

The Court’s decision was split 4–3 (our Supreme Court only has 7 justices). The remaining 3 justices would have held the statute unconstitutional because only the Arkansas Supreme Court can govern the practice of law in our state. However, those 3 justices also sided with our argument, since they held in a concurring opinion that “[a]n attorney may not serve two masters” because the attorney’s loyalties would be divided. A lawyer’s client has the right to undivided fidelity from the lawyer, and a corporation cannot provide the required loyalty. However, the Court reserved its strongest language for the divergent interests an insured and his insurance company have:

Further, an insurance carrier, for example, is a business and is naturally concerned with profits and retaining as much of the insurance premiums as possible, which translates in a lawsuit into a desire to pay as little in fees, costs, and judgments as possible. The insured’s interests are not the same as the insurance company’s, and those interests may vary greatly.

* * *

The relation of an attorney to his client is pre-eminently confidential. It demands on the part of the attorney undivided allegiance, a conspicuous degree of faithfulness and disinterestedness, absolute integrity and utter renunciation of every personal advantage conflicting in any way directly or indirectly with the interest of his client.

As we have said in the past, this case is just one example of the way the Chaney Law Firm fights for the rights of individual Arkansans every day. The right to competent and unbiased counsel has been reaffirmed for every Arkansan who has an auto insurance policy, and we are proud to be protecting ordinary Arkansans against the interests of corporate greed.