Dateline 11/5/2009 - Download the Medicaid fraud press packet

Beasley Allen founding shareholder Jere L. Beasley speaks out on recent Alabama Supreme Court decision in state Medicaid Fraud lawsuits; asks Court to grant oral argument.

MONTGOMERY, ALA. (November 5, 2009) - The State of Alabama has filed an application for rehearing in the State's three Medicaid fraud lawsuits that were reversed by the Alabama Supreme Court. All of the State's lawyers were shocked when the Alabama Supreme Court, in reaching their decision, ignored the trial record in the cases. In fact, it appears from their decision that the majority of the Court failed to even read the record or for some reason saw fit to totally ignore what had actually taken place at the three separate trials. We have asked the Court to grant oral argument on our application to rehear each of the cases.

I would encourage all members of the news media who are interested in finding out what the Court did on the appeals to attend the hearing. That is - in the event we are allowed to present the State's case in person before the Justices in open court. Most folks are shocked to learn that the Supreme Court refused oral argument in this extremely important litigation.

I also find it most unusual that the defendants' bad conduct was barely even mentioned by the court in their opinion. To say that the decision reached by the Court is most difficult to understand is a gross understatement. There are several things I would like to point out concerning this litigation:

• You may recall at the outset of this litigation, the trial judge consolidated a number of the cases to be tried in a single trial. The Alabama Supreme Court, on a Writ of Mandamus, said the cases could not be consolidated since each was to be considered on its own merits. Now on appeal, without notice to the State of Alabama, the same Supreme Court consolidated the three cases into one case.
• You will find in the Supreme Court's opinion at least 25 separate instances where 6 of the Justices either ignored or misstated the actual record from the trial of the AstraZeneca case or failed to follow established Alabama law.
• After an intensive investigation by the federal government, it was reported in 2003 that the drug manufacturers had been committing massive frauds relating to reporting of prices for reimbursement in the Medicaid program. The Office of Inspector General issued guidelines designed to eliminate the fraudulent conduct. If the federal government hadn't known about the fraudulent activity before 2003, how could individual state Medicaid agencies, which were both underfunded and understaffed, be expected to know that the drug manufacturers were reporting false prices?
• Committing fraud against the Medicaid program hurts the elderly, the disabled, the young, and the poor as well as every Alabama taxpayer.
• AstraZeneca - one of the companies on appeal - entered a guilty plea to a charge of criminal fraud in federal court involving state Medicaid reimbursement fraud.
• AstraZeneca paid a criminal fine of $570 million relating to that criminal guilty plea.
• AstraZeneca then settled state Medicaid fraud cases involving reimbursement for $355 million.
• A top official at AstraZeneca prepared an internal pricing document which was a virtual roadmap for how to cheat state Medicaid agencies.
• AstraZeneca, as a part of the settlements mentioned above, agreed to submit true prices to state Medicaid agencies.
• AARP - a national group with 500,000 Alabama members - has fully supported Alabama in its lawsuit against the drug companies and in the appeal.
• 13 state Attorneys General have also supported Alabama's position and each filed a brief on Alabama's behalf.
• Since the Alabama case was tried - and after the AstraZeneca case was appealed in July 2008 to the Alabama Supreme Court - a Federal Appeals Court heard a separate appeal in a case where AstraZeneca was found guilty in Federal Court of fraudulent conduct in a Medicaid reimbursement case. In a strong opinion, just before the Alabama Supreme Court's opinion came out, the federal appeals court affirmed the trial court finding AstraZeneca guilty of fraud.
• The Federal Appeals Court in that case found that AstraZeneca was guilty of extremely bad conduct.
• A Kentucky jury, after hearing the same evidence we had developed and presented in our Alabama cases, returned a verdict against AstraZeneca in the amount of $14.72 million. This verdict came just one day before Alabama's cases were reversed.
• On behalf of the State of Alabama - we have settled lawsuits with several drug manufacturers in Alabama - under the very same law - and with the very same facts involved in these 3 cases - for $138 million.

Taking all of the above into consideration, and knowing firsthand the facts of this case, it is impossible to see how the Alabama Supreme court could side with the drug companies and against those citizens of Alabama who are in the Medicaid program and also against all Alabamians who pay taxes that support the program. All Alabamians are the losers and politically powerful drug companies have been declared winners by the Alabama Supreme Court. This is a sad day for the Alabama Medicaid Program and all Alabama taxpayers. It's also a sad day for justice in Alabama.

We are asking the Supreme Court to reconsider what they have done and we have again asked for oral argument. We want an opportunity to appear before the Court and argue the State's case in person.

Hopefully, the Court will grant oral argument so that the people of Alabama can find out exactly what has happened to them and how it happened. But more importantly, it will give the Justices an opportunity to read the record and them to correct an injustice.

More Information

Download the Complete Press Packet from today's press conference

Site: Beasley Allen

• Committing fraud against the Medicaid program hurts the elderly, the disabled, the young, and the poor as well as every Alabama taxpayer;
• AstraZeneca - one of the companies - entered a guilty plea to a charge of criminal fraud in federal court involving state Medicaid reimbursement;
• AstraZeneca paid a criminal fine of $570 Million relating to that criminal guilty plea;
• AstraZeneca settled state Medicaid fraud cases involving reimbursement for $355 Million;
• A top official at AstraZeneca prepared an internal pricing document containing a virtual roadmap for cheating state Medicaid agencies;
• AstraZeneca as a part of the settlements mentioned above - agreed to submit true prices to state Medicaid agencies;
• AARP - a national group with 500,000 Alabama members - has fully supported Alabama in its lawsuit against the drug companies and in the appeal;
• 13 state Attorneys General have supported Alabama's position and each filed a brief on Alabama's behalf;
• Since the Alabama case was tried - and after the case was appealed in July 2008 to the Alabama Supreme Court - a Federal Appeals Court heard a separate appeal in a case where AstraZeneca was found guilty in Federal Court of fraudulent conduct in a Medicaid reimbursement case - in a strong opinion and affirmed the trial court;
• The Federal Appeals Court found that AstraZeneca was guilty of extremely bad conduct;
• Yesterday, a Kentucky jury, after hearing the same evidence Alabama lawyers developed and presented in the Alabama case, delivered a verdict against the drug manufacturer in the amount of $14.72 million; and

Taking all of the above into consideration, and knowing the facts of this case, it is extremely difficult to see how the Alabama Supreme Court could side with the drug companies and against the citizens of Alabama who are in the Medicaid program and against all Alabamians who pay taxes that support the Medicaid program. These folks are the losers today and politically powerful drug companies declared winners by the Alabama Supreme Court. This is a sad day for the Alabama Medicaid Program and all Alabama taxpayers.

We will ask the Court to reconsider what they have done. We will also again request an opportunity to appear before the Court and argue the State's case. Hopefully, the Court will grant oral argument to the State so that the people of Alabama can find out exactly what has happened to them.

Site: Beasley Allen

Toyota formally notified the NHTSA of the recall in a letter on October 5. Owners of the recalled vehicles, which include eight Toyota models manufactured in the last six years, are being notified by first-class mail in a mailing that was sent out on Friday, October 30th.

This first mailing will alert owners to the potential dangers posed by the floor mats but will not announce a fix. When Toyota decides on a solution, it will contact owners about the availability of a free remedy in a second mailing.

Some early reports indicated that rather than focusing on the floor mats, Toyota was researching on-vehicle countermeasures such as a "smart pedal" that would tell the vehicle to ignore the gas pedal if the brakes were applied simultaneously. Such a measure, which is standard in most German-made vehicles and Chryslers, would enable drivers to regain control of their vehicles easily and instantly despite the cause of unintended acceleration.

However, retrofitting 3.8 million vehicles with smart pedal technology would be extremely costly.  A modification to the pedal in the affected vehicles would cost as much as $440 million, according to a Tokyo Shimbun report cited by Reuters.

A recall involving redesigned floor mats, on the other hand, would cost about $100 million. New reports say that the latest Toyota recall will indeed be a floor mat fix of some kind.

Toyota's largest recall comes during its toughest financial time. The company expects to lose $4.7 billion for the year ending March 31 -- its second consecutive annual loss. The economic downturn and a poor exchange rate are obvious culprits, but according to Toyota President Akio Toyoda, the troubles run even deeper.

"Toyota has become too big and distant from its customers," President Akio Toyoda, he told journalists in Tokyo last month. "We are grasping for salvation," he added, after apologizing for an accident that occurred in San Diego last August, which investigators say was caused when a floor mat jammed the accelerator pedal in a Lexus ES 350. The horrific accident claimed the lives of a California Highway Patrol officer and three of his family members, finally prompting the massive recall.

Until Toyota develops a fix, owners of the recalled vehicles should remove their driver's side floor mats immediately. "This is an urgent matter," transportation secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement last month. "For everyone's sake, we strongly urge owners of these vehicles to remove mats or other obstacles that could lead to unintended acceleration." 

The recall encompasses the following Toyota and Lexus models: 2007 - 2010 Camry; 2005 - 2010 Avalon; 2004 - 2009 Prius; 2005 - 2010 Tacoma; 2007 - 2010 Tundra; 2007 - 2010 Lexus ES 350; and 2006 - 2010 Lexus IS 250 and 2006 - 2010 Lexus IS 350. 

Site: Beasley Allen

In seven starts in 2009, in his own no. 83 BeasleyAllen.com sponsored Ford Fusion, Enfinger checked off four top-five finishes among a couple of near wins at Kentucky and Chicagoland, where he finished second. Third place finishes at Talladega and Kansas, and a seventh at Rockingham served notice that this guy's the real deal.

"I'm fairly satisfied," said Enfinger. "Our performance probably exceeded the expectations of the guys who helped us at Beasley Allen. We're still searching for a little more. I'm disappointed with didn't pull off the win, but overall, I'm satisfied."

Enfinger first got the attention of the troops at Talladega where he steered the BeasleyAllen.com Ford to third in final running order behind '09 champ Justin Lofton and '99 champ Bill Baird. Not too shabby.

Then Enfinger proved he was no one-race wonder when he led 35 laps at Kentucky, giving up the lead only in the final corner of the final lap to Parker Kligerman. Up to that point, Enfinger and Kligerman wowed the live SPEED TV audience with an ongoing bumper-to-bumper, door-to-door dual over the last 30 laps. Even National Speed Sport News publisher emeritus Chris Economaki commented in his weekly column that it was the best stock car race he had witnessed all year. It was, indeed, that good. 

"We are a very low budget team, just stringing parts and pieces of this car together to try and make it work, and a finish like this really means a lot," said Enfinger right after the race at Kentucky.

Even though the car belongs to Enfinger, many of the pieces and parts that ultimately make it go are rented and/or borrowed.

"We rented some shocks; actually a couple of team let us borrow them. Rick Crawford from Circle Bar Racing let us borrow some gears. Other guys let us use their sway bars and springs. Everything we borrowed, we had to give back."

Enfinger also gets a lot of good advice from his good buddy David Ragan, both fellow Alabamians.

"David (Ragan) comes to the shop all the time. I've always leaned on him for advice about tracks I've never been to, and the business side of things. Rick Crawford's from Mobile; we've known each other for ever, so I lean on him for advice all the time too."

Enfinger, who sets up shop these days in the Mooresville, North Carolina area, has been back home this week in Alabama working on a late model.

"I'm gonna run in the Snowball Derby (December 6), so I'm getting the car ready. Josh and George Braggs field the car for me so I'm down here getting things ready.

"Other than that, I've been working on the Daytona car getting ready for the ARCA test (December 18, 19, 20). We're prepping for the test but everything's kind of up in the air right now.

"I've got some options. Some guys approached us, but nothing solid that's for sure. My goal would be to run the full season in ARCA with my own team, but nothing's far enough along to say that. I'm not sure I'm ready to be anywhere else. I really like the ARCA series, and I think it's where I need to focus right now."

In just over a half-dozen starts this year, Enfinger taught himself a lot.

"I definitely learned a lot. I don't think there's a better series out there that can prepare drivers for the next level. This was the first year I could actually race. The biggest thing I learned was that, as a driver, I have a lot more to gain. And as a team, there's a lot more to be learned, and this is the place to do it. This was my first year on bigger tracks, and I need to do a lot more of that before we try and step up."

From a team standpoint, Enfinger never really had the luxury of working with the same people from race to race.

"We didn't ever have the same pit crew, didn't have the same spotter either. That said, I didn't really expect to come here and contend for wins. But it probably didn't surprise me as much as it did Beasley Allen, which they are the reason we ever got this opportunity to begin with. They knew what we were up against here. I'm sure they were expecting some possible top-10s on a good weekend, but didn't expect to contend for wins."

And with all the borrowed pieces, parts and people, that's exactly what Enfinger did every time he sat the in the car.

"I'm going to Talladega this weekend. Gunna shake as many hands as I can - try and get some direction for next year."

Site: Beasley Allen

Dr. Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, made these remarks during an address at the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2-4. Although her talk was intended to promote the vaccine, participants said they came away convinced the vaccine should not be received.

"I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn't help but question why we need the vaccine at all," said Joan Robinson, Assistant Editor at the Population Research Institute.

Dr. Harper began her remarks by explaining that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment within a year. Within two years, the number climbs to 90 percent. Of the remaining 10 percent of HPV infections, only half will develop into cervical cancer, which leaves little need for the vaccine.

She went on to surprise the audience by stating that the incidence of cervical cancer in the U.S. is already so low that "even if we get the vaccine and continue PAP screening, we will not lower the rate of cervical cancer in the US."

There will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70 percent of the population is vaccinated, and even then, the decrease will be minimal.

Apparently, conventional treatment and preventative measures are already cutting the cervical cancer rate by four percent a year. At this rate, in 60 years, there will be a 91.4 percent decline just with current treatment. Even if 70 percent of women get the shot and required boosters over the same time period, which is highly unlikely, Harper says Gardasil still could not claim to do as much as traditional care is already doing.

Dr. Harper, who also serves as a consultant to the World Health Organization, further undercut the case for mass vaccination by saying that "four out of five women with cervical cancer are in developing countries."

Ms. Robinson said she could not help but wonder, "If this is the case, then why vaccinate at all? But from the murmurs of the doctors in the audience, it was apparent that the same thought was occurring to them."

However, at this point, Dr. Harper dropped an even bigger bombshell on the audience when she announced that, "There have been no efficacy trials in girls under 15 years."

Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, studied only a small group of girls under 16 who had been vaccinated, but did not follow them long enough to conclude sufficient presence of effective HPV antibodies.

This is not the first time Dr. Harper revealed the fact that Merck never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls. During a 2007 interview with KPC News.com, she said giving the vaccine to girls as young as 11 years-old "is a great big public health experiment."

At the time, which was at the height of Merck's controversial drive to have the vaccine mandated in schools, Dr. Harper remained steadfastly opposed to the idea and said she had been trying for months to convince major television and print media about her concerns, "but no one will print it."

"It is silly to mandate vaccination of 11 to 12 year old girls," she said at the time. "There also is not enough evidence gathered on side effects to know that safety is not an issue."

When asked why she was speaking out, she said: "I want to be able to sleep with myself when I go to bed at night."

Since the drug's introduction in 2006, the public has been learning many of these facts the hard way. To date, 15,037 girls have officially reported adverse side effects from Gardasil to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). These adverse reactions include Guilliane Barre, lupus, seizures, paralysis, blood clots, brain inflammation and many others. The CDC acknowledges that there have been 44 reported deaths.

Dr. Harper also participated in the research on Glaxo-Smith-Kline's version of the drug, Cervarix, currently in use in the UK but not yet approved here. Since the government began administering the vaccine to school-aged girls last year, more than 2,000 patients reported some kind of adverse reaction including nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, convulsions, seizures and hyperventilation. Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total. The most tragic case involved a 14 year-old girl who dropped dead in the corridor of her school an hour after receiving the vaccination.

The outspoken researcher also weighed in last month on a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that raised questions about the safety of the vaccine, saying bluntly: "The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer."

Ms. Robinson said she respects Dr. Harper's candor. "I think she's a scientist, a researcher, and she's genuine enough a scientist to be open about the risks. I respect that in her."

However, she failed to make the case for Gardasil. "For me, it was hard to resist the conclusion that Gardasil does almost nothing for the health of American women."

Site: Beasley Allen

By refusing to allow oral argument, the Court did not allow the members of the news media who had not attended the actual trials that began in 2008 to hear first hand about the bad conduct of these companies. The AstraZeneca case had been pending for so long that even the few members of the news media who attended that trial may have forgotten how strong the State's case against that defendant really was.

I also find it most unusual that absolutely nothing relating to the defendants' bad conduct was even mentioned by the court in their opinion. The decision reached by the Alabama Supreme Court is most difficult to understand when you consider that:

• The federal government did an investigation in 2002 and reported in 2003 that the drug manufacturers had been committing massive frauds in the Medicaid program and issued guidelines designed to eliminate the fraudulent conduct. If the federal government hadn't known about the fraudulent activity how could individual state Medicaid agencies be expected to know, especially since most have been underfunded and understaffed?
• Committing fraud against the Medicaid program hurts the elderly, the disabled, the young, and the poor as well as every Alabama taxpayer.
• The federal government had conducted an investigation and found massive frauds by drug manufacturers in the state Medicaid programs.
• AstraZeneca - one of the companies - entered a guilty plea to a charge of criminal fraud in federal court involving state Medicaid reimbursement.
• AstraZeneca paid a criminal fine of $570 million relating to that criminal guilty plea.
• AstraZeneca settled state Medicaid fraud cases involving reimbursement for $355 million.
• A top official at AstraZeneca prepared an internal pricing document containing a virtual roadmap for cheating state Medicaid agencies.
• AstraZeneca as a part of the settlements mentioned above agreed to submit true prices to state Medicaid agencies.
• AARP - a national group with 500,000 Alabama members - has fully supported Alabama in its lawsuit against the drug companies and in the appeal.
• 13 state Attorneys General have supported Alabama's position and each filed a brief on Alabama's behalf.
• Since the Alabama case was tried - and after the case was appealed in July 2008 to the Alabama Supreme Court - a Federal Appeals Court heard a separate appeal in a case where AstraZeneca was found guilty in Federal Court of fraudulent conduct in a Medicaid reimbursement case - in a strong opinion and affirmed the trial court.
• Federal Appeals Court in that case found that AstraZeneca was guilty of extremely bad conduct.
• A Kentucky jury, after hearing the same evidence we had developed and presented in the Alabama case, delivered a verdict against the drug manufacturer in the amount of $14.72 million. This verdict came one day before Alabama's cases were reversed.
• We had settled with several drug manufacturers in Alabama - with the very same law and the very same facts involved - for $138 million.

Taking all of the above into consideration, and knowing the facts of this case, it is extremely difficult to see how the Alabama Supreme court could side with the drug companies and against the citizens of Alabama who are in the Medicaid program and against all Alabamians who pay taxes that support the program. All Alabamians are the losers and politically powerful drug companies declared winners by the Alabama Supreme Court. This is a sad day for the Alabama Medicaid Program and all Alabama taxpayers.

We have asked the Supreme Court to reconsider what they have done. We again requested an opportunity to appear before the Court and argue in person the State's case. Hopefully, the Court will grant oral argument so that the people of Alabama can find out exactly what has happened to them.

Site: Beasley Allen

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which releases a Halloween Safety Alert each year, always emphasizes the safety of costumes. Customers should look for a tag or label that designates costumes, masks, wigs, and other accessories as "Flame Resistant." Jack-o-lanterns are typically lit with candles and placed on stair cases, porches, and other places around entryways, posing a fire hazard to children who aren't mindful of the flames.

Customers should know that a costume labeled as flame-resistant can still catch fire. The label means that the item will resist burning when removed from the flame or other ignition source and should extinguish quickly if it does catch on fire. The CPSC recommends that consumers avoid donning baggy or billowing costumes and costumes that are made of delicate materials. Doing so will minimize the risk of burn injuries.

Costumes should be visible, especially to motorists. Vampires and witches watch out -- the CPSC says that costume colors should be "light and bright." All costumes, regardless of color, should be decorated or trimmed with reflective tape that will glow in a car's headlight beams. Hardware, sporting goods, and bicycle stores normally sell reflective tape.

Because loose hats and scarves can slip over the face and obstruct a child's vision, they should be tied or safely secured. The CPSC recommends wearing facial makeup rather than masks, but says that if masks are used, they should be secure and not obstruct vision. Accessories such as knives and swords should be made of soft and flexible materials only. To minimize the risk of fall injuries, costumes should be trimmed short enough to prevent kids from tripping. Children should not wear loose or ill-fitting shoes such as high heels when walking from house to house.

As an extra precaution, all children should carry flashlights, which will help them to walk safely in the dark while making them even more visible to cars. (Please note there is a recall on a type of Halloween flashlight sold exclusively at Target stores.)

When trick or treating, adults or older children should always accompany young children.  Because kids can sometimes be excited and anxious to get to the next house, the CPSC stresses that children should not run but WALK from house to house. Supervisors should remind children to walk on the sidewalk if there is one, not to run out from between parked cars, and not to run across yards. Both the darkness and costumes can impair vision, making it easy for children to run into lawn ornaments, furniture, clotheslines, and other dangers.

Children should avoid darkened homes or homes where the residents are not known. Homes that celebrate Halloween typically leave an outside light on as a sign of welcome and display Halloween decorations. Children should never enter a home unless they are accompanied by an adult.

People who remain at home to welcome trick-or-treaters should remove obstacles from the lawn, steps and porches. Any candle-lit jack o'lanterns should be kept clear of landings, doorsteps, and balusters where they may come in contact with costumes and create a fire. They should also be kept away from decorations, curtains, furniture, and other objects that can catch fire.

When the trick or treating is over, it is important that adults carefully inspect the candy that the children have collected, discarding any open, unsealed, and suspicious looking packages.

Be mindful of your pets' safety too! Be sure to keep cats indoors where they are safe from monsters. Keep dogs in a safe place, too, where they won't be upset by strangers or people wearing costumes. While the evening may be light and festive, it can turn deadly for a pet that consumes alcohol, chocolate, and other substances toxic to animals.

For more tips on how to keep Halloween safe and fun, visit the CPSC's website or Halloween-Safety.com.

Site: Beasley Allen

Nutro Products recalled several lots of dog foods with a best-by date of Sept. 10 after finding pieces of a worker's plastic hat in the production line. The company determined that the final products probably did not contain any plastic.

The recall applies to Nutro Ultra Puppy food in 4.5-pound packages, bar code 79105 51313, and Nutro Natural Choice: Chicken Meal, Rice and Oatmeal Formula Small Bites Puppy food in 5-pound packages, bar code 79105 23050, from PetSmart stores in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.

The recall also affects Nutro Ultra Puppy food in 30-pound packages, bar code 79105 51315, from Petco stores in California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Utah. For more information on the Nutro Products recall click here.

Site: Beasley Allen

Site: Beasley Allen

Pictured are, from left, Montgomery Mayor Todd Strange, State Bar President Thomas J. Methvin of Montgomery (Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.); Patrick L.W. "Pat" Sefton, president of the Montgomery County Bar Association (Sasser, Sefton, Tipton and Davis, P.C.); and Royal Dumas, chairman of the MCBA Pro Bono Committee (Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, P.C.).

Today Montgomery Mayor Todd Strange presented a Proclamation officially declaring Pro Bono Week in the City of Montgomery, October 25-31, 2009. The resolution was presented to State Bar President Thomas J. Methvin of Montgomery (Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.); Patrick L.W. "Pat" Sefton, president of the Montgomery County Bar Association (Sasser, Sefton, Tipton and Davis, P.C.); and Royal Dumas, chairman of the MCBA Pro Bono Committee (Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, P.C.).

"Providing access to justice for those who cannot afford it levels the playing field. When we improve access to the state's courts we are actually helping Alabama families help themselves," Methvin said.

The situation is particularly acute now as the recession has caused many financial problems to morph into legal problems and increasing numbers of the poor and disadvantaged are turning to legal aid programs because they have nowhere else to go. The right to counsel in civil cases is necessary to make equal justice under law a reality. But last year, for more than half a million poor persons in Alabama, the only reality was a pressing legal problem that went unresolved.

Methvin said that the types of unresolved civil legal problems include: women who are seeking protection from abuse, mothers trying to obtain child support or custody of their children, families who are facing unlawful eviction or foreclosure that could leave them homeless, and individuals who have lost their job and need unemployment benefits.

During Pro Bono Week, lawyers in each of the state's 42 judicial circuits will participate in events such as: conducting free legal clinics offering advice and counsel in areas such as elder and family law; discussing with community and civic groups the critical need for the Legislature to provide a continuous stream of funding for legal services, and recruiting additional lawyers to volunteer to provide pro bono service.

Additionally, the Montgomery County Bar Association has plans for continuing pro bono outreach in Montgomery County. The MCBA will debut a monthly free legal services clinic, which will operate on the first Tuesday of each month, beginning on Tuesday, Nov. 3. Clinics will be held from 3-6 p.m. at 1100 Adams Avenue, in downtown Montgomery at the Head Start Educational Building. The clinics are sponsored by MCBA and the Montgomery Community Action Agency.

Currently, Alabama ranks 51st in the U.S. and its territories in the amount of funding provided for civil legal aid. On average, the state spends $10 annually for every low-income citizen and this rank places us behind every state and Puerto Rico.

"We are grateful to our elected representatives for including in the state budget funds for legal aid but it's still a shameful situation. Given the tough economic times we are facing, we have to do more," Methvin said. He has dedicated his term in office to improving access to justice.

According a nationwide survey conducted by the American Bar Association earlier this year, 73 per cent of lawyers reported that they had provided free legal work to people of limited means.

The 16,000-member Alabama State Bar is dedicated improving the administration of justice and increasing public understanding and respect for the law. 

Site: Beasley Allen