Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler recently told a Wheeling newspaper that he’s eager to require disclosure of those funding campaign ads, such as the spots an independent group sought to air in the Supreme Court primary this spring.

Maybe the chairman has an opinion about West Virginia Consumers for Justice, the personal injury lawyer front group that spent nearly $2 million on behalf of former Justice Warren McGraw without disclosing its contributors. Surely, Kessler’s less than zealous pursuit of the Consumers for Justice’s contributor names has nothing to do with the fact that a trial lawyer associated with the group - Tim Bailey - recently contributed to Kessler’s campaign.

Bailey just so happens to be a law partner of House Judiciary Chairwoman Carrie Webster, who has also pushed for new campaign finance reforms. Webster’s firm stands to possibly make as much as $1 million in legal fees as a result of one of Attorney General Darrell McGraw’s no-bid legal contracts. Could Webster’s actions be motivate by the fact that her law partner wants to prohibit election spending criticical of the Attorney General’s abusive practices?

Campaign finance laws shouldn’t be used to selectively quiet political viewpoints. Perhaps Chairwoman Webster can ask Tim Bailey to explain to the Judiciary Committee just who contributed to the Consumers for Justice.

Does Attorney General Darrell McGraw even have a clue about what happened with the controversial $10 million OxyContin settlement? His office has given several contradictory explanations for its decision to withhold settlement funds from the named plaintiff state agencies. Now, in an interview with The Shepherdstown Observer, Darrell McGraw seems to claim that the decision to distribute the OxyContin settlement proceeds was secretly made in the judge’s chambers.

Does the Attorney General have the authority to engage in “secret” settlements on behalf of the state? McGraw’s preposterous rationale suggests that the Attorney General holds himself accountable to no one. It is safe to say that state legislators will have a field day with McGraw’s comments, especially given the recently passed legislation which now requires Attorney General McGraw to provide notice to the Governor and the Legislature’s leadership prior to settling any cases.

Click here to read more of McGraw’s outlandish comments

Check out this “Potpouri” item on the editorial page of the Charleston Gazette, February 25, 2008:

“A Sunday article tallied $2 billion that Attorney General Darrell McGraw has won in consumer lawsuits and turned over to the state treasury for the Legislature to spend. Is it odd that the state Chamber of Commerce is paying hundreds of thousands for statewide TV ads denouncing McGraw because one settlement - the $10 million OxyContin verdict - required the attorney general alone to disburse the funds to public programs?”

The Gazette should deliver the truth to readers about the OxyContin settlement: that the plaintiff-state agencies McGraw himself named to the suit should be reimbursed for their damages. Any lawyer, including McGraw, is obligated to represent his or her clients and compensate them for their court awards. Nowhere did the court direct McGraw to convert the settlement dollars into what is basically his own political slush fund.

The Gazette rationale for McGraw could be extrapolated to all of us as follows: don’t pay your taxes this year. After all, when you consider how much you paid the IRS before, just forget it. Spend what you owe on whatever.

It’s time we started watching out for the public’s money.

In the wake of the OxyContin settlement, Attorney General Darrell McGraw has given various and inconsistent reasons as for why he chose to keep $10 million in state settlement funds for himself and his personal injury lawyer friends, instead of sharing the funds with the named plaintiff state agencies on whose behalf McGraw filed suit.

McGraw’s numerous stories include the following:

1. Chief Deputy Attorney General Fran Hughes has said that the settlement was
intentionally structured so as to allow West Virginia to keep as much of the money as possible. In a 2007 finance committee hearing, Hughes told legislators, “We have arranged a methodology that has prevented the federal government from coming back and seizing the money,” West Virginia Record, August 17, 2007.

2. One year later, Attorney General Darrell McGraw appeared to change his office’s tune somewhat. During a January 2008 Senate Finance Committee Hearing, McGraw told legislators that his office reached a last-minute “courthouse steps settlement” on the very day the OxyContin case was set to go to trial. McGraw went on to testify that his office basically had no choice but to take the settlement as it was being offered by the Judge and defendants in the case.

McGraw’s statement seems completely inconsistent with Fran Hughes’ previous statement to legislators that the Attorney General’s office specifically structured the settlement to avoid any payments to the Federal government.

3. In an appeal of the Federal government’s decision to withhold more than $4.1 million in state Medicaid funds as a result of McGraw’s actions in the OxyContin case, the Attorney General’s office has argued that they had “abandoned the causes of action” in which the plaintiff state agencies were entitled to participate.

This statement is also inconsistent with McGraw’s testimony that the plaintiff state agencies were never dismissed from the OxyContin lawsuit.

4. In McGraw’s latest appearance before the House Finance Committee, the Attorney General went so far as to testify that his office wasn’t representing the plaintiff state agencies at all! That statement flies in the face of court documents filed in the case, which show that Attorney General McGraw and his appointed counsel were the only lawyers representing the plaintiff state agencies.

Clearly, the Attorney General’s office is having trouble keeping its’ stories straight.

WVClosedforBusiness.com has no control over the visual advertising content of the forwarding site.

Click here to listen to Fran Hughes’ testimony before the House Finance Committee

Click here to listen to Attorney General McGraw’s testimony before the Senate Finance Committee

Click here to listen to Attorney General McGraw’s testimony before the House Finance Committe

Attorney General Darrell McGraw’s abusive spending practices have taken center stage once again. Appearing before the Senate Finance Committee last week, McGraw had to defend his office’s structuring of a recent $11.6 million lawsuit settlement. McGraw tries to claim that the suit is good for West Virginia citizens, but state Legislators claim that McGraw is usurping their power by misappropriating state funds.

Lost in the media coverage is the fact that McGraw once again appointed campaign contributors, this time Teresa Toriseva and Guy Bucci, to do his dirty work. If their retention agreements are anything like those of past “special assistant attorneys general,” expect the trial lawyers to receive a couple million in legal fees.

Check out what some local media outlets have been saying of McGraw’s latest lawsuit boondoggle.

“McGraw Snubs Legislators Again”

“Scent of an election year”

“Good angel, bad angel”