California Attorney
General (AG) Jerry Brown and Deputy Attorney
General Ed Weil contacted Proposition 65 plaintiff's attorney Cliff Chanler in
May to question the "manner in which (Chanler and his clients had) pursued
Proposition 65 matters concerning lead in the surface coatings of glassware and
ceramicware." The Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators
(SGCD) contacted AG Brown to express support for his efforts and to
ask him to carefully review how Proposition 65 warning threshold standards are
effectively established for an industry as part of private opt-in settlement
negotiations.
California Attorney General (AG) Jerry Brown, who took
office in January 2007, and Deputy Attorney General Ed Weil contacted
Proposition 65 plaintiff's attorney Cliff Chanler in May to question the
"manner in which (Chanler and his clients had) pursued Proposition 65
matters concerning lead in the surface coatings of glassware and
ceramicware." Cliff Chanler has represented plaintiffs Michael DiPirro,
Russell Brimer and Whitney Leeman against numerous manufacturers, retailers,
distributors and others who are involved in the sale and distribution of
decorated glass/ceramic ware in California.
Chanler also negotiated the "Boelter" Proposition 65 opt-in
settlement, which was joined by 205 defendants.
The Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators (SGCD)
contacted California AG Brown to express support for his efforts and to ask him
to carefully review how Proposition 65 warning threshold standards are
effectively established for an industry as part of private opt-in settlement
negotiations. The SGCD also asked Brown to examine defects in the process that
have resulted in excessive profits for attorneys involved in the opt-in process.
In the Chanler letter, AG Brown does not question the underlying
issue of alleged lead exposures from the outside surfaces of glass/ceramic
ware; however, he notes that Chanler has collected $15 million from
glass/ceramic defendants since the inception of these actions, and that $9.2
million of that amount was charged as attorney fees by Chanler's firm. Brown
also noted that the Boelter opt-in settlement has generated total payments of
over $9 million, with $5.3 million in attorney fees for Chanler and $1 million
in opt-in processing fees for defense counsel Morrison & Foerster.
After summarizing the glass/ceramic allegations and
resulting decisions and settlements in his letter to Chanler, Brown noted that
his office was concerned that the defendants had collected significant sums of
money from businesses that may have had little or no liability, and on attorney
fees that appeared excessive. Brown
noted that several retailers may have had no knowledge that lead was present in
the products in question, and that they could have avoided liability by acting
promptly to warn or remove the questioned products from their shelves. Brown also analyzed the likely amount of
legal time required to process an opt-in settlement following a template, and
indicated that the fees appear to be excessive.
Brown concluded by asking Chanler to respond to six
specific questions related to these issues.
He also noted that the Attorney General's office is considering a number
of actions to address its concerns with options that include the possibility of
an education campaign for affected entities, closer scrutiny of settlement documents and fee applications,
and taking over future actions originally filed by private plaintiffs.
SGCD had urged Ed Weil and the Attorney General's office
in several meetings in 2004 and 2005 to take a more active role in the
developing glass/ceramic Proposition 65 allegations, although the process
progressed as it did when the Attorney General declined direct involvement.
More than 400 Proposition 65 notices related to glass
and ceramic ware have been filed since the August 2005 Boelter opt-in
settlement, with some allegations remaining to be either settled or
litigated. Although there is no official
state warning threshold for non-food contact surfaces of glass and ceramic
ware, Proposition 65 warnings are an option for companies to establish a
defense against allegations that ware exposes consumers in California to
lead or cadmium.
Links
