Behind the Historic Opioid Litigation with Paul Geller

In the second episode of Re-Examination, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd founding partner Paul Geller shares the inside story of how a group of plaintiffs’ lawyers, and states, counties, municipalities and even school districts banded together to secure more than $50 billion in settlements over the opioid crisis. 

Among those who have paid for what has been called “one of the greatest mistakes of modern medicine” are the thousands of communities that have been left to pick up the tab for everything from constant emergency room visits to expensive addiction treatments to the cleanup of degraded public areas like parks, sidewalks and libraries.

For the last six years, a group of plaintiffs’ lawyers and state attorneys general have sought to make pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies pay up. They have filed hundreds of lawsuits alleging they made misleading statements about the risks of opioid use and failed to execute safety protocols.

Paul Geller is one of the attorneys appointed by a federal judge to lead the case. In conversation with Infinite Global Head Writer Andrew Longstreth and M Coffey founder Murray Coffey, Paul explains how he and his colleagues approached telling the story of this national tragedy that left no defendant off the hook.

Thank you for listening. To learn more, visit Infinite Global and M Coffey.

Transcript

[00:00:00] Paul: This is a man made public health crisis. It shouldn't, it was not necessary, it shouldn't have happened. And it was introduced by Purdue and the Sacklers, but others joined in and it became out of control. In

[00:00:20] Andrew: 1996, Purdue Pharma introduced a new painkiller called OxyContin. At a company retreat that year, CEO Richard Sackler said it was the most important product launch in the company's history. As recounted by the journalist Patrick Radden Keefe in his book, Empire of Pain, Sackler said, quote, In the years to come, we will look back on this week as the beginning of a new era for our business and for ourselves.

[00:00:45] He was prophetic. It did mark a new era for Purdue, but we know now it also foreshadowed a national opioid epidemic that would take more than one million lives, ravage thousands of communities, and leave in its wake an unspeakable amount of despair and heartbreak. David Kessler, former head of the FDA, has called failure to recognize the dangers of opioids as, quote, one of the greatest mistakes of modern medicine.

[00:01:17] Among those who have paid for that mistake are the cities, counties, and states that have been left to pick up the tab for everything from constant emergency room visits To expensive addiction treatments, to the cleanup of degraded public areas, like parks, sidewalks, and libraries. For the last six years, a group of plaintiffs lawyers and state attorneys general have sought to make pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies pay up.

[00:01:42] They have filed hundreds of lawsuits, alleging the defendants made misleading statements about the risks of opioid use and failed to execute safety protocols.

[00:02:00] As they told it, the country's opioid crisis has unfolded as a three act tragedy, starting in the late 1990s with a dramatic rise in prescription opioids, which gave way to increased uses of heroin and later fentanyl. It all started, they alleged, with the aggressive marketing of prescription opioids. How aggressive?

[00:02:20] According to data they obtained from the DEA's Automation of Reports and Consolidated Order System, or ARCOS, 76 billion opioid pills were manufactured and distributed between 2006 and 2012. That's over 240 pills for every American.

[00:02:46] Paul Geller, name partner at the plaintiff's firm Robbins, Geller, Rudman Dowd, was one of the attorneys appointed by a federal judge to lead the case. Paul and his colleagues on the Opioids Plaintiff Executive Committee, whom the National Law Journal called a who's who in mass torts, had a task that was as urgent as it was complex.

[00:03:05] Their clients desperately needed money to address the devastation in their communities. But to recover the most money possible, they had to be ready to tell a story that judges and juries could understand. But unlike Hollywood writers, they couldn't point the finger at just one villain. They had to take on an entire supply chain.

[00:03:23] To date, Paul and his colleagues have recovered more than 50 billion, the second largest amount in a case over alleged corporate wrongdoing.

[00:03:39] Murray: Well, welcome back to episode two of reexamination our podcast, where we are talking to storytellers behind legal history. This is a co production of M coffee and infinite global. My name is Murray coffee. I'm the principal of of M coffee. We are a marketing business development. Consultancy, and I'm joined by my co podcast host Andrew Lonsgreth, who is the head writer for Infinite Global.

[00:04:10] Andrew? 

[00:04:11] Andrew: Thank you, Murray. It's good, good to see you. We're excited for this episode with Paul Geller, a lawyer I've known for a long time now. I got to know him as a reporter at the American Lawyer when Paul was mostly known as a securities litigation lawyer today. If you look up Paul's name, he is more than just a securities litigation lawyer.

[00:04:33] He's really involved in some of them. Some of the biggest, most high profile cases in the country. And this opioids case is sort of reflective of that, I would say Paul is now really at the pinnacle of his career and this conversation is great because he really kind of gives us an inside look into what that life is like and how he uses personal connections and his, his, his personality to make change.

[00:05:08] in rows with the defense side and with his colleagues across the plaintiff's bar. 

[00:05:14] Murray: Yeah, absolutely. And, and I I've known Paul reputationally for, for years and getting to know him through this process and doing the research that we did really, really admire him and his, his firm and what they've been doing.

[00:05:29] And I was struck as we were looking at this and reading about it, and we've. All heard about the opioid crisis, you know, kind of in the, you know, in our, in our peripheral vision, if you will but really reading the reality of what was going on and what has been going on. I was struck by my own experience as a, as an assistant public defender.

[00:05:48] For the early part of my career in Cook County, which for those of you who don't know Cook County, that's actually Chicago that kind of envelops the entire city of Chicago. So while I was a public defender, we were working through the results, if you will, of the what was called the crack epidemic at the time.

[00:06:08] And those of those of you who are old enough to remember, it ripped its way through our big cities. Chicago was not the only one. New York, L. A., San Francisco, all of them, every big city across the country was turned upside down by the crack epidemic. Yet, listening to and reading what is happening with the opioid crisis it kind of pales in comparison.

[00:06:31] The opioid crisis was, you know, benefited, I guess you could say, from from modern marketing techniques and distribution and manufacturing and the capitalization that, that, Pharmaceutical companies have and the sway that they have. And so just a, just a fascinating fascinating discussion and listening to Paul and talking how he talks through what the, what the, what the goals were with the settlement.

[00:06:58] And, and how they took extra steps to try to ameliorate what happened and hopefully stop it from happening again. Really fascinating, really interesting, and I think a great example of just how effective and high impact litigation can be to benefit the public, benefit the society at large. 

[00:07:20] Andrew: No, absolutely.

[00:07:21] Well, let's get to it. Here's our conversation with Paul Geller. Paul Geller, welcome to 

[00:07:25] Paul: the podcast. Thank you so much. I appreciate your inviting me to be on. You know, 

[00:07:31] Andrew: before we started to record, I was, I was thinking that, Paul, I've been, I've been observing your career now for probably about two decades.

[00:07:39] First, you know, as a reporter at American Lawyer and Reuters, and now here as a writer at Infant Global. I've made a couple observations, so I wanna, I wanna make a couple and get, get, get your reaction. First, you are a lawyer at one of the biggest... You know, baddest plaintiff's firms in the country, which certainly carries a certain amount of weight, but you, you personally occupy a very specific place in the plaintiff's bar, which, you know, is a very heterogeneous group of folks, right?

[00:08:07] It's not, it's not a monolith. You, you strike me as somebody who's not You know, one of the bombastic flamethrowers, you don't pound the table or demonize the other side that that strikes me as a as a conscious choice. And I just wanted to see if you sort of agree with that. And if whether that informs how you how you tell your side story.

[00:08:29] Paul: Yeah, so I think that's a fair observation. First of all, I appreciate that. Followed my career. I likewise have followed your career and I'm also impressed with the things that you've done. Yeah, I think it is. I don't know if it's a conscious conscious decision or it's just sort of authentically who I am.

[00:08:49] I I feel like those who sort of boast and pound their chest and try and show the world how tough they are really aren't the ones that are the smartest and the toughest. And I just think it's sort of, it fits my personality. I like to I'm a people person. I try and form a relationship with my opposing counsel.

[00:09:09] Sometimes that's, hard to do, but sometimes it works. And, you know, I think, of course, legal issues and being a lawyer, that's all part of it. But being a person and forming relationships and understanding the other side, I think that's really, Kind of my secret sauce. That's the key to my success. Now, I'm going to say something about my partner, Darren Robbins.

[00:09:33] You know, our firm is Robbins Geller. There's other terrific partners too, but Darren's a, you know, he's a tougher nut to crack, I guess. And so people say to me, and I think they say to him too, They say, you know, you and Paul play good cop bet or bad cop, good cop, I guess. And the reality is, we're not playing those roles.

[00:09:57] It's kind of authentically who we are, and it works for us. And I'm not saying Darren's a bad guy, but he's less. Likely to ask opposing counsel about their Children or did you go to see the game over the weekend? Where I that's part of what I enjoy, 

[00:10:12] Murray: but you know, and Paul, I'm just starting to get to know you.

[00:10:17] I mean, you reputationally, obviously. So when I heard that we were going to be able to line you up for this, I was really excited about that. And, you know, I have a strong litigation background So it's a, it's great to be able to speak to you, but you know, in, in, you know, doing my due diligence, I read your bio, I went on your website, I noodled around on, on different places, but something that I came back to a couple of times, and I'll just use this old, this old quote, right?

[00:10:46] You know, tell me your company and I'll tell you who you are. So your bio starts out with a quote that says, we, the whole thing. Paul's dedication and passion in protecting the rights of his client is truly inspiring. That's by Robert, I might mangle the name, sorry, Robert, Robert Burdish Executive Director, Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County.

[00:11:11] Now, you're a skilled, you're, you are a very skilled communicator and storyteller and You didn't accidentally use that quote. And usually lawyers who are kind of at your stature, your, your level will quote chambers or they'll quote a laudatory article that was written by them, or maybe a client.

[00:11:30] Talking about what a great job you did on a recovery, etc. But you chose to use a quote from somebody who's been representing the underserved and the indigent for 40 years. What, why, why did you do 

[00:11:41] Paul: that? Thank you for noticing that. That was intentional. And I think it goes back to what I was saying before.

[00:11:47] It's, that's what I care more about. Yeah, I could have picked quotes from legal articles or from even judges, but I think, and you did pronounce his name, right? Bob Burnish. He's inspiring to me because he's a brilliant lawyer who has dedicated his entire career. He could have, you know, he could have been a firm like mine or a defense firm.

[00:12:10] He represents those who need representation the most, whose voices aren't heard. So I have known him for my entire career. And. I think it's inspiring to represent those who need it most. When I was a kid growing up, my family, we couldn't afford to hire the best of the best lawyers. And so for lawyers to, to give back a bit, that's what I love to do.

[00:12:35] And now I make a good living, no question about it, but I enjoy representing. You know, it sounds sort of cliche, but David against Goliath kind of thing, and that's sort of what class actions are or what mass torts are. We're always going up against big and powerful companies, and we're representing people that, I think if it was just an individual lawsuit, they wouldn't be able to find a lawyer to do it, but by banding together groups of similarly situated victims or plaintiffs, we're able to take on the biggest and the best, and that's kind of what we pride ourselves on, and that's, It goes back to that sort of mentality of, of, of fighting back against bullies, which extends obviously beyond the law.

[00:13:19] And and I think that's kind of what we do, you know, at Robins Gallagher. Yeah, 

[00:13:24] Murray: that's, that's great. And as a former public defender, it warms my heart to hear you wanting to, to make sure that the underserved are getting some attention because They need it desperately. So let's dive into the outset of opioid litigation here.

[00:13:40] You went on record in law 3 60 saying that you turn away more cases than you take. Now, I'm sure part of that is just bandwidth. There's only so many hours. In a day that can be built, although I think there would be some argument from some lawyers about how many hours in a day could be built. But how do you select the worthy client?

[00:14:01] That's my terminology, not yours. And how did you do this in the opioid litigation? Because you must have had sort of a A banquet to choose from for lack of a better term. But how did you do it? What did you do? 

[00:14:14] Paul: Yeah. So we, we do, you know, we get a lot of calls from other lawyers, defense lawyers, from securities brokers.

[00:14:22] Everybody thinks they have the next big class action. And so we're very, very selective. I personally made the choice a number of years ago. I was handling like my firm handles a lot of the largest securities class actions representing investors. Now that's mom and pop investors, but also large institutional investors, public pension funds, state treasuries.

[00:14:48] And those are important cases, but they're all about money. And they're I don't want to downplay the importance of that, but I started to feel like we built this really good firm with, with really talented litigators. And there are cases that I think have more of a social impact. And I was just personally drawn to that.

[00:15:11] So examples of the Volkswagen clean diesel emissions case, which, you know, you had people who care about the environment, but they were willing to spend more money for a certain type of car because it was environmentally friendly than a normal car. They, they paid more. And it turns out those cars were the most polluting cars on the road.

[00:15:32] I thought it was outrageous I wanted to be part of that and I was the epi pen when they increased the price over 600 percent and they They in our allegations they stymied any competition And I had a son who had a nut allergy and I needed epi pens and we were We were crazy. We wanted to always have multiple EpiPens on my wife, multiple EpiPens on me, multiple EpiPens at my parents' house.

[00:15:57] 'cause if my kid ever slept over there, we wanted to make sure the school had them. We had the ability to pay these exorbitant prices for EpiPens, but most people didn't. So that was the case I felt was really important and or became one of the lead counsel in that case, opioids. I mean, I, I think every one of us has been.

[00:16:17] impacted whether friends, family, our communities, it was a man made public health crisis. And I gotta give credit, one of my partners is a woman named Ailish Baig, who is out in our San Francisco office. And She felt very, very strongly that this is something that we needed to get involved in. And you really had a who's who of plaintiff's firms that were vying for positions in the leadership structure.

[00:16:47] Terrific firms. And, you know, part of me thought, oh, it's a kind of a crowded playing field, but we had lots of relationships with With states because we've represented states in the past in security cases, we had lots of, we represent, you know, police and firefighter pension funds. And so we have contacts with city officials, mayors, and we started fielding some phone calls and talking to people and, and realized that there's a lot of individuals and families that were horribly impacted.

[00:17:19] Communities have been wrecked. And so we, you know, that sort of fit within. What I thought was the type of case that we ought to put our weight behind and Here we are five, six years later, it's the most impactful, most important case I've ever had the privilege of working on. But 

[00:17:39] Andrew: I think we should point out, this was not a slam dunk.

[00:17:44] I assume from the beginning, you knew this place was going to be massively complex, lots of defendants, different claims, lots of plaintiffs. And of course, a lot of us have read books and seen movies and documents. We know kind of the narrative of the crisis, but At the beginning you took on some risk.

[00:18:03] Paul: Yeah, I mean people look at it In hindsight, they see 52 billion dollars have been recovered, and we're still going, and they, you know, it sounds like it was an easy case. It was not. It was a challenge. You know, we have a firm, a management committee, and there was some discussion about whether we want to get involved in this.

[00:18:24] You know, is it worth the risk? Because. When you think about it, right, you have a, an FDA approved drug that is prescribed by doctors, and the prescription is filled by the pharmacy orders drugs, they're manufactured by the manufacturers, they're, they're supplied by distributors, and then the pharmacy, Walgreens, CVS, they fill them.

[00:18:48] what's presented to them as a prescription. So, you know, I think it's, it's, it's a legitimate question to say, well, you know, how is it any of their faults? And then we were going with, with a public nuisance claim. Public nuisance has historically been like, you know, the airplanes are flying too low and close to the house and we need to block the noise.

[00:19:11] This was an unusual application of public nuisance law. But the devastation was there. And at the beginning, it seemed very, very risky. And, and it was a risky case. There were several trials. Now, my firm tried with co counsel a case on behalf of San Francisco, and we were very successful, but there were some other firms that tried cases and they lost, even in West Virginia, which is one of the most impacted states in the country.

[00:19:39] So it didn't look like a slam dunk at the beginning. It wasn't a slam dunk, even in West Virginia. But it was an important case and we don't shy away from difficult cases. So I think. You know, if anything, I'm glad that we were able to roll up our sleeves and get into the discovery and really understand the case and understand the complexity of it because it was a fairly complex case.

[00:20:02] It's not, it's not as simple as it might look. 

[00:20:05] Andrew: Even at that beginning stage when you just, you know, just start getting involved in it. Are you sort of Trying to form a narrative even from the beginning. Are you looking at, you know, the damage done to these communities? Are you hearing stories and sort of trying to paint a picture?

[00:20:21] Or is it all just about, let's just collect, collect information. Let's get past, you know, motion to dismiss. I mean, what, what's going on from like that big strategic point of view? 

[00:20:32] Paul: No, I think big picture. You're trying to come up with your theme and your story and put all the pieces together. And. You know, you mentioned earlier some of the sort of Hollywood there's been documentaries, there's been books written, and, and some of them are excellent.

[00:20:48] Some are better than others. If you talk to most people on the street about the opioid epidemic, they've heard of Purdue, and they've heard of the Sackler family. And It's very easy to sort of laser focus on Purdue, which was owned by this family, the Sacklers, and they have enormous culpability and blame.

[00:21:11] And so I'm not, my next comments are not going to, not an attempt to shield them from liability, but they weren't alone, right? There were lots of manufacturers who saw, you know, Purdue introduced. this painkiller, oxycontin, that was incredibly addictive and they hid the addictive nature, and they just wanted to sell, sell, sell as much as they could, and talk doctors into prescribing, prescribing, prescribing more.

[00:21:38] But other manufacturers also joined, and lots of manufacturers, and then the distributors. Were were flooding the markets and they were getting paid enormous sums and then the pharmacies were ignoring red flags ignoring their internal controls and just Dispensing so it became a bigger picture and then you have to think like how are we going to tell this story?

[00:22:02] and some of the cases were In front of judges, what we call a bench trial, some of them are in front of juries, and the media is calling constantly. How do you weave together this complex, you've got manufacturers, generic manufacturers, branded manufacturers, the big distributors, you've got the pharmacies, you know, David Boies.

[00:22:23] Is, is one of the greatest trial lawyers that I know, great litigator, somebody I've known for a long time. He's been my co counsel. He's also been my opposing counsel, and he's excellent in both roles. And he said something. About sort of telling a true story in a case and I may get the quote a little bit wrong But it was essentially that it's easy to be accurate if you have the freedom to be complicated And it's pretty easy to be simple if you have the freedom to shade the truth, but what's difficult is to is to be Exactingly accurate but also be simple and when you tell a story whether it's to a judge or a jury You've got to boil it down Simple.

[00:23:12] I mean, you learn in law school that acronym KISS, keep it simple, stupid. You want to keep it simple. But sometimes when you've got 17 defendants and they're all pointing their fingers at each other it's, it's a bit complicated. And they have defenses that on face seem to make sense. Like all we did was fill Prescriptions that doctors wrote.

[00:23:32] So you've got to dive deeper and you've got to be incredibly accurate, right? We don't have the freedom to shave truth at all, but you can't be that complex. And so that's, that was one of the challenges. 

[00:23:45] Andrew: Yeah. You know, you mentioned some of the books and the differences between storytelling. You know, it's, it's one of those challenges that I know nonfiction writers faces, I think Patrick rating, Keith, the New Yorker writer who wrote king of pain the Sackler's mentioning is how.

[00:24:03] When writing the book, it was almost like too much too much information. I think one of you benefited from a lot of the litigation that your firm and your colleagues initiated. But I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about the evidence because you did eventually get a month. And what were the details that you were looking for?

[00:24:25] What moved you the most and and what were you looking at it through the lens of a judge, a jury, a defendant, or all of them? At the same time, 

[00:24:33] Paul: lemme start with the evidence. Always in the back of my mind, I have judge or jury. There was, there was several different pieces of evidence that really moved the needle for, for me and for my firm and for my colleagues.

[00:24:44] Number one was there's data called arcos data, which. The DEA collects data. They can track pills from manufacturer through distribution through the particular pharmacy, the store. And these defendants were obligated to provide this data to the DEA. And it's called ARCOS data. ARCOS stands for the automation of reports and consolidation order system or something along those lines.

[00:25:12] We had to fight to get that ARCOS data. And It came in like raw data form and it was almost unusable and one of our co, I mean, look, we all had a hand in it, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention a firm called Levin Papantonio and my friend Peter Mouget, who's a partner there, who was just obsessed with the data and the ARCOS data.

[00:25:36] That became a treasure trove. What we saw was just jaw dropping, the number of pills. I mean, in certain periods of time, the pills were flooded into these markets where they were literally sending the equivalent of hundreds of pills for every child and adult that lived in this community. There was no way that they were validly needed.

[00:25:59] The, the data sort of proved our case and then you had more what I call the sort of the hot documents or the, you know, emails or things that, you know, you look at and you say, this is something that if we put this in front of a jury or in front of a judge, it's going to be devastating emails about, you know, likening.

[00:26:22] These addictive pills to Doritos. You can't eat just one. There were video parodies. What I didn't realize is in the world of pharmaceutical sales, and this is going back, you know, before there was opioid litigation before we even knew how bad this crisis was. They would have these sales meetings, and some of this is portrayed in some of the shows that have been on TV, and I think there's a little fiction there, but there's a lot of truth to it, too.

[00:26:51] It was almost like going to a high school pep rally. They were so excited about about this new Even stronger painkiller and like a company called Cephalon made these parody videos where they took like a movie A few good men in the famous scene, you know You can't handle the truth and they said that but they're talking about the addictive nature of these drugs You can't handle the truth and they're encouraging their sales force to go out and push this Cephalon ended up getting purchased by a company called Teva, a large generic drug manufacturer.

[00:27:24] You know, I, I've gotten to know the folks that represent Teva. I respect them greatly. I got to know some of the in house lawyers at Teva through mediations and meetings. They didn't know about those videos. They didn't know Cephalon's level, but they bought Cephalon and now that liability falls on Teva.

[00:27:42] So there's also complex corporate relationships between Cephalon and Teva, between activists, which was owned by Allergan and then sold to Teva, and it's now Allergan and Teva are pointing fingers. There was so much beyond just plaintiff versus defendant, and I don't want to get ahead of myself here, but subdivision, you know, cities and counties and states kind of going at it.

[00:28:05] Whose claims are these? How do we allocate whatever we recover amongst us? And then defendants pointing at each other. And then, of course, we have to keep in mind our real A real target has to be the defendants, not the stated AGs or not each other. So it was a bit of a mess there for a while. 

[00:28:22] Andrew: You had so much to work with.

[00:28:24] I'm curious, you know, in the San Francisco trial, did you use a mock 

[00:28:28] Paul: jury? Sure. Yeah. Well, so San Francisco was actually a bench trial but we did use mock juries just to sort of get the messaging right. That was a very controversial. Right. We, we, we had great respect for judge Breyer. We, you know, my firm has had, I mean, we have a large California presidencies in the Northern district.

[00:28:50] My co counsel for San Francisco is Leif Cabraser. Also they're based in the Bay area and, and they know judge Breyer and. A lot of our colleagues thought this has to be a jury trial. We want to get in front of a jury. Juries are very unpredictable. I don't care what anybody tells you. Now, judges can be unpredictable too, but at least you have experience with judges.

[00:29:11] You've been before them in other cases, in other contexts. We knew that where Judge Breyer sits in the tenderloin district of San Francisco, he walks past A lot of home, you know, homelessness and, and make no mistake, homelessness in many places is directly tied to heroin addiction. And 80 percent of heroin addicts started with a prescription opioid addiction.

[00:29:39] And San Francisco's, I have a son who, who graduated from Stanford. I had to say I'm one of those parents that he lives, he lives in San Francisco and I used to love visiting San Francisco. I still love visiting my son, but I used to love San Francisco and. It's so sad what has happened and I believe a lot, a large part of that is this opioid epidemic.

[00:30:06] Now there were some Other, you know, things that go with it and maybe some political decisions that, you know, people can quibble about but it's, it's really taken a huge hit. And so we felt confident that a bench trial, particularly there, we would get a fair shake and, and we did. 

[00:30:25] Andrew: We want to talk a little bit about getting inside the negotiating room, which I think is certainly an area where I think you thrive.

[00:30:33] And I want to talk a little bit about the dynamics. Inside settlement negotiations, the psychology. Am I right? You were an undergraduate major was in psychology. Yes. Okay. Okay. So, so a little bit about the psychology and this is a podcast about storytelling. So the psychology and the storytelling behind it.

[00:30:53] You know, just as a general matter, before you go into a negotiation room, I'm just curious what you think about. What do you want to know ideally? What, what kind of knowledge do you want to have? What kind of information do you want to have? And what questions are you asking yourself? And I guess what, what do you want the other side to know and equally to 

[00:31:16] Paul: feel?

[00:31:18] That's an important question. There's a lot that, that goes into it. And I think it may be dependent on the case. In this case, we were up against the best of the best, right? So, and I can name the firms, but you know, you had Wachtell representing one of the defendants, you had Jenner and Block and the chairman of Jenner representing one of the defendants.

[00:31:38] Since you had some of the best defense lawyers in the country. And I think I benefited by the fact that I've had relationships, you know, litigation against most of the firms and many of the lawyers. And I think it's so important. I try and tell some of the young lawyers here this as well. Trust. Is so key.

[00:32:05] And so it goes both ways, right? I really want the defense lawyers, especially these, these ones who I respect so much to trust me and to understand that they can have a conversation with me. And when I say they can, they can. Count on and it goes the other way, too. I believe them when they tell me something.

[00:32:24] I'm not naive, but I feel like you have to listen. Like they have clients, they have boards they're reporting to. So number one, before I go into the room, I want to know everything, you know, everything I can about the case. And, you know, one of the benefits here is, you know, my name's in the paper after these big settlements, but there's so many lawyers at my firm that these other firms behind the scenes, they're doing such incredible work that.

[00:32:50] It makes the negotiator's job much easier. And I feel bad sometimes when, you know, you see Joe Rice or Paul Geller or Chris Seeger. We've all worked really hard, but there's so many people that have worked harder than us that have prepared us. So you want to know the evidence. You want to know the case.

[00:33:07] I also, I print out a bio of every lawyer on the other side. I read what cases they've worked on. I speak to people about them. Sometimes I know them already, but if I don't, I try. And this is where, you know, you asked about my psychology degree. I really think that stuff matters, you know, and and these were not like, you know, a two day mediation or even a week of negotiating or even a month.

[00:33:30] Like with the big three distributors and with Johnson and Johnson, those were the first four settlements. I mentioned all these great defense lawyers. I should say, you know, Daniel Savor from a Melbourne representing J and J also an excellent lawyer and somebody who I formed a friendship, maybe too strong of a word, but a relationship of trust.

[00:33:48] It really, really matters. And there were, you know, this was in the times of COVID. So there was, it was mainly zoom. There were some impartial meetings, but zooms. Not just, you know, two or three times, like seven nights a week, weekends, it was around the clock. And you're trying, you know, at that point, we were, we kind of got past the fighting about who's right.

[00:34:12] And It became about how do we solve this and we had litigation teams that were continuing to take depositions and continuing to fight over privilege logs and documents, but we were there trying to figure out a very complex way of of recovering money and also injunctive relief, changing the way that they do business and.

[00:34:35] You had lots of defendants and, and the defendants are competitors with each other. And so there's, there's like a lot of dynamics that went into it. 

[00:34:43] Murray: You know, I've got a question here that I think really ties into a few things that you were saying. And I want to talk to you about that, this, the word that keeps popping up in this part of our discussion.

[00:34:53] And that's the word trust. You've said it three, four or five times already in the last, you know, last few minutes. And, and as I was reading about you and your background, the word trust came up. As you know, we interviewed Tony Valoucas for our first podcast and that word trust came up. And, and he wanted to instill trust in, in the other side and the people who are cooperating with the other side.

[00:35:19] And he had subpoena power and, but he walked into a room full of, you know, the, the highest billing lawyers in the country and said, I've got subpoena power, but you know what, I want to talk to your clients. And I'm not going to put a pelt on the wall. That's not why I'm here. And he wanted to get to the truth and because he felt like I don't have to pitch over the head and if I can get to cooperate, I can get to the truth.

[00:35:45] How do you instill that trust? And is that trust your pursuit of the truth? Cause in the end you, you opened up some truths here that were painful for a lot of people in more ways than one. 

[00:36:01] Paul: No, I think I think they go hand in hand right so the pursuit in any case is the pursuit of truth. And I think the only way you get there, or the best way to get there is by forming a relationship of trust, you know, the defense lawyer, look, there were some.

[00:36:18] We had concerns on our side. We had some weakness is not the right word. Some vulnerabilities in our case that we had to deal with. And so defendants and they recognize that the best defense lawyers recognize the warts on their case and the best plaintiff's lawyers the same when you have Either a police lawyer or defense lawyer that just is pounding the table and their chest and saying that they're right and they're going to win.

[00:36:41] What, what's the point of sitting in a room together and negotiating? Go to trial, one of you will win, one of you won't. But we want, you know, although there were some trials here, I think trial is not the... The best way of resolving this type of case, and so it's, it's just establishing that trust and it's it's not going back on your word, and it's also empathizing and listening.

[00:37:05] For example, I'll give you a point. Some of the defendants said, look, we can pay the type of money that you're demanding, but we have to pay it over time. I've never had a case where my clients stream of recovery was going to be over 18 years. And when you first hear that. A lot of my colleagues, their initial reaction was no way.

[00:37:26] We can't agree to that. You got to pay up front. You guys are wealthy companies and almost they would have taken less money in one felt swoop than a stream of payments over years. But I listened and I spoke to these defense lawyers and I spoke to my clients and I realized that. What we're trying to do is abate this epidemic, right?

[00:37:50] So we want to make sure that this money is used for things like treatment beds prevention, education. It's going to take a long time to abate the epidemic. It's not going to happen overnight. This is a generational problem and governments are no better at spending money than people. Right. And so.

[00:38:12] What happens if you get a slug of money in year one you build these treatment centers And then in year three and four you have no money to staff it. And so I was of the mind that hey It's better for the defendants to pay it over time. It's really the only way they can pay billions and billions of dollars.

[00:38:31] And it may actually be better for our clients, these governmental entities, to get the money over time. You know, administrations change, AGs change, priorities change. Let's not let anyone spend it unwisely. It has to be enough money that it makes sense year after year. I think the fact that this money is coming in for 18 years, Is going to be extremely helpful in abating the epidemic, especially because it's got to be earmarked for these for these, you know, it's, it's a broad list, but it's abatement, which is a lesson that we learned from tobacco that the money needs to be spent to abate this epidemic and not to fill potholes.

[00:39:12] Murray: Let's, let's drop back into the, into the negotiating room and we've talked, touched a little bit on this already, but A lot of people like to think that high stakes litigation is gladiatorial combat, and I guess, you know, in some ways it is. In my view, and I think Andrew agrees with this, the most effective litigators that we've seen are really powerful advocates who understand the goal of each client.

[00:39:37] And when you look at the opioid litigation and its ultimate settlement, what can you tell us about how you protected your client's interests without having to beat your shield with your sword? Because I think, I think that's a picture that a lot of people have and the reality is, for you at least, that's not the truth.

[00:39:54] Paul: Yeah, it's not. It's not what, what we do. Look, our clients wanted, they, they needed money to help deal with this, right? Whether it's homelessness in Los Angeles, I represent the city of Los Angeles, Joe Rice represents the county, but in the city they had a huge homeless problem. They wanted money. They needed money.

[00:40:10] San Francisco is similar. So the goal was to achieve as much money as we could, even if it's over time and and have the conduct changed in the hopes that this doesn't happen again. One of the things that we really had to listen to with our city and county clients is there were state, you know, the states also brought litigation.

[00:40:31] So this was a wrinkle that was It was difficult, but it was really important. You had, for example, you know, the state of Florida sued all of these same defendants, and many counties in Florida sued them, and many cities within those counties sued them. So it was kind of like Those Russian nesting dolls, those matrika dolls or whatever they're called, where you have the big one is the state.

[00:41:02] And inside of it's the county, inside of it's the city. And you're su the same defendants for essentially the same you know, nuisance, the same public nuisance that they, that we allege that they caused. And a citizen who's addicted in Fort Lauderdale, Florida is also a citizen or a resident of.

[00:41:19] Broward County, Florida. And they're also a resident of the state of Florida. So in that negotiation room, you're not just trying to maximize the recovery from the defendants. There was a lot of negotiating with the state AGs because You know, in some states, the states, at least they allege, and I think they're right in some states, they can wipe out the claims of the subdivisions.

[00:41:43] These types of claims are to be brought, if at all, by the state. And so, you know, our subdivision clients want to maintain a good relationship with their state, AG, but they don't want to get pushed around. And so... There was a, it was almost like a simultaneous when negotiating with defendants, but we're also talking with the states and it was, I will say this, I, I worked with a lot of state AGs and their chief deputies and their staff attorneys and.

[00:42:16] If anyone is under the mistaken belief that government attorneys and government workers are nine to fivers and they just mail it in and don't give a shit, that there's nothing further from the truth. These were the hard, and they don't, they don't have a contingency fee or a common benefit fee application like we do.

[00:42:36] These were some of the hardest working, smartest, most pragmatic and strategic lawyers I've had the pleasure of dealing with. So. Overall, this was the most difficult case in many ways. It's the most impactful case in many ways, but it also opened my eyes to working with some really terrific lawyers on my side.

[00:42:55] My colleagues, my co counsel, defense lawyers, and also the AGs who were, it was a little hairy at times, but ultimately wonderful to work with. 

[00:43:07] Andrew: You all have secured over 50 billion in settlements as you, as you mentioned. So I I don't think that anybody can fault anybody on your team, you know, in the negotiating room, but just in general.

[00:43:20] What kind of mistakes do you see others in your field make in that negotiating room that, that that you try to 

[00:43:27] Paul: avoid? Well, I think, you know, some folks were We're very concerned about fees and I think that's a huge mistake. I think my philosophy I I don't worry about the fees. I don't talk about the fees I don't try and negotiate the fees until the appropriate time if you know at all at the end And I think when it's introduced too early number one, i'm not sure if it's ethical number two I think it sends the wrong message to the defense lawyers.

[00:43:55] And so I would just cringe at some, sometimes when, you know, at the most inopportune time, the word fee would come up or the word back up. And I don't want to get too into the weeds, but these cases, right, we entered into contingency fee agreements with our clients. And some of my colleagues represented hundreds of subdivisions, and they had hundreds of contingency fee agreements.

[00:44:23] And Judge Polster, as some judges do, and which I am actually in favor of, which sounds weird for a plaintiff's lawyer, he capped the contingency fees because we wanted most of this money to go towards abatement. And so some of my colleagues, and they're going to get upset with me if they ever listen to this podcast they wanted to come up with ways where the delta between their contingency contract and the cap was somehow made up for, and the only place for it to come from is the abatement money.

[00:44:51] And so I had some very heated. Arguments with other plaintiff's lawyers Because you know, there's a there's a fund of money that we call the common benefit fund And everybody's able to apply to it to explain to this panel what we did to earn a fee And I thought that was enough and I was accused of Of not holding, you know, sacrosanct, the, the sanctity of the contingency fee.

[00:45:20] So I, you know, I think, I think sometimes, you know, that was unfortunate. Other than that, I don't know that there were that many errors made. I mean, you really had A group of very, very sophisticated plaintiff's lawyers who have negotiated some of the biggest deals out there. You had, you know, Joe Rice whose, you know, reputation is, is, is deservedly, you know, he, he settles big cases, Seeger, he did the NFL concussion case, he happens to be one of my closest friends, Cabrazer Jane Conroy it really was a very good group of experience.

[00:45:53] Now we didn't always see eye to eye and there was a lot of, of fighting is too strong of a word, but disagreements that we kept to ourselves. And we didn't, we, we didn't want to air that in front of defense lawyers, but the defense lawyers know, I mean, I think, You know, if they were asked that they kind of got a sense of who we are and what our priorities are.

[00:46:11] But overall, as you said, Andrew, it's hard to argue with the results, right? This is, we're very proud of the result. I think we should be. 

[00:46:23] Murray: Paul, one of the. Things that, you know, I noticed time and again is that, you know, you have helmed some of the most significant public facing litigation, litigation that mom and pop at home might even be following maybe tangentially.

[00:46:40] And, but you do a remarkable job of adapting the message, depending on your audience. So you've got media, you've got courtroom, you've got negotiating room. You even get on LinkedIn. I've you're if, if anybody wants to, to, to find some great writing, hit a LinkedIn and look for Paul's Paul's entries on LinkedIn.

[00:46:59] They're, they're wonderfully written and make very good, clear sense of what's going on in some of these cases, but how do you keep the thread of the plot? Going through all these different channels because that's the that's the that's the tough thing, right? Because you're everything you say is going to be scrutinized And so if that thread isn't there if you if you disconnect these different these different Stories are parts of the story that you're telling that could be quite problematic 

[00:47:28] Paul: for you So first of all, thank you for what you said about the LinkedIn posts.

[00:47:31] I never know if people really read them. Every once in a while, somebody gives a, I guess they call it a like. I'm not a big social media guy, other than LinkedIn. And so that was nice to hear. I think, you know, Murray, the, the, the thread is like, Thank you. The message is the same. Now, of course, we, we, we alter it slightly.

[00:47:51] A social media post is going to be slightly different than a brief that you're going to submit in court or an interview or a podcast like with you, but the overarching thread is the same. The message is the same. And so, you know, it's like, I, you tell your kids, right? Like if you tell the truth, things are easy.

[00:48:08] You don't have to remember what lies you told. You don't have to cover your lies. Tell the truth. And so I think that's really it. It's not like we have it's not the message is all that different. Now, I've got marketing people. So if I write something for LinkedIn, you know, they'll look at it, or they'll draft something and I'll rewrite it.

[00:48:26] I'm not good at looking at other people's. There's a famous quote about like, editing other people's work. Like, I'm terrible at that. So I ended up doing too much. But, but I think that the key is that our message Remains the same and you just change it slightly depending on your audience. 

[00:48:48] Andrew: We sort of touched on on this, but I want to kind of dive a little deeper into what you've learned from, you know, the storytelling about this epidemic that you've seen in.

[00:48:59] Books in movies about and, and what you know to be true and the challenge in communicating that truth in court. It's, it's, it's still, it's still storytelling, but it's it's storytelling under certain rules and just curious what you have taken away from Yeah. The last five years on that point. 

[00:49:20] Paul: So I just watched this, this.

[00:49:23] Netflix documentary called Painkiller, and I wrote, Mari I wrote a little thing on LinkedIn about it. I'm not sure if I got it right, but like one of the differences between Hollywood storytelling and Storytelling as a lawyer is they were able to really focus on Purdue and the Sacklers and that's it.

[00:49:43] They didn't mention another manufacturer. They didn't mention distributors. They didn't mention a pharmacy. We couldn't do that because as much evidence and blame there is for Purdue and the Sacklers. If we as the plaintiff's lawyers focus everything on them, then the other defendants sort of say, did you hear what Geller just said?

[00:50:03] It was all Purdue. It was all the Sacklers. We had nothing to do with it, you know? And so you have to really thread the needle where you're saying there's enough, enough blame to go around. And one of my colleagues in the leadership of the is Mark Muneer. And for those who don't know, he's probably the finest trial attorney in the country, you know, I believe.

[00:50:30] And when we were talking before the, the, the first trial was supposed to be a trial, it didn't, but we call it CT1, case track number one, and you have multiple defendants. So what he, what he conceptualized, it sounds awfully simple, but he took a fruit bowl and he had created this image of a fruit bowl just in black and white.

[00:50:52] And as he described the manufacturers, certain pieces of fruit got colored in, and as he described the distributors, who, their defense was that they basically drive trucks from manufacturing to the stores and they just, they're just delivering, which is not true but, but certain fruit filled in. And then when you talk about the pharmacies that had an obligation to raise red, you know, to, to, to, to see these red flags and to stop prescribing drugs if, if somebody had already.

[00:51:23] Received a certain amount of and the bowl would fill it and eventually you had this this colorful fruit bowl. And the point was that everybody needs to take responsibility. There's just enough blame to go around. And that's something that you can't really do in a Hollywood story. It wouldn't be too good.

[00:51:43] And so I understand why they focus on Purdue and the Sacklers. They deserve a lot of attention. It's more complicated than that when you're trying to really tell the story 

[00:51:55] Andrew: holistically. $50 billion is the, I think, the second biggest settlement for corporate wrongdoing ever in the history of this country.

[00:52:04] What, what do you hope the legacy of this litigation will 

[00:52:08] Paul: be? So the, the $50 billion is important. That's less money than was recovered in tobacco, as you said, was second in, in, in tobacco, the money. Was not tethered at all to public health. It was used potholes, libraries, schools, whatever, all important need general fund, but, but so, so we really wanted this to be focused on things like prevention and treatment and education because we were trying to abate this epidemic and the experts tell us it's going to take.

[00:52:42] Oh, I mean, there's babies still being born addicted to opioids, but we also thought it was important to to try and change conduct. So, again, without getting too far in the weeds, historically, so we have three big distributors in this country that distribute. the, the majority of medicine. Now, there's more than three, but there's three big ones.

[00:53:04] Amerisourceburg, and let's just change its name, Cardinal Health and McKesson. Historically, they only knew what they sent to a particular community, to a particular pharmacy. And so therefore, if a, you know, if Huntington, West Virginia a pharmacy there ordered prescription drugs from McKesson, they could then the next day order.

[00:53:31] Drugs from Cardinal Health and Cardinal Health wouldn't know that they just got a shipment of the same drugs from McKesson. So this was something that was pretty hard fought the distributors They don't want to be involved in each other's business, but we thought it was really important for for each distributor to know what amount of particularly You know dangerous drugs or addictive drugs were sent to a community So one of the major changes that we made we call it injunctive relief or conduct remedy Was that they now have more vision more transparency into seeing so if they get an order And it's you know, it may not on its face look like a suspicious order But if they know that you know, a bunch of pills were just sent to that same pharmacy Then that's what one that they would flag and they wouldn't fill that order.

[00:54:25] That's a huge change Some manufacturers, like Johnson Johnson, went out of the business of manufacturing opioids. And the hope, I mean the legacy, I hope, is that is that we've learned enough that we're able to make changes that prevent this from happening again. I mean, this is a man made public health crisis.

[00:54:49] It shouldn't, it was not necessary, it shouldn't have happened. And it was introduced by Purdue and the Sacklers, but others joined in and it became out of control. And so my hope is that It doesn't happen again. I mean, look, I don't want to, you know, get into specifics about other drugs, but, you know, everybody's talking about a Zempic now and everybody's taking it for weight loss.

[00:55:14] And I don't know, I'm just speaking now based on things that I read that there's, you know, Real health concerns and my hope is that the lesson of the opiate litigation is that these types of pharmaceutical cases Nothing of this magnitude can ever happen again your corporate America should not profit off of the the disease and the sickness of American citizens and I'm probably going way beyond the question but like addiction is It's it's it's a disease.

[00:55:49] It's like diabetes. It has a negative stigma. I think it still does. Hopefully that's getting better. As you know, as I said earlier, we all have been touched by it. We all know somebody, whether it's a family or a friend. And I think what these drug companies did was they sort of capitalized. They, they profited off of The fact that they were addicts and that they caused these addictions and then they blamed the addicts and said they're just druggies.

[00:56:20] So, I hope that we've learned a lesson, I hope that they've learned a lesson, and I hope it doesn't happen again. What have 

[00:56:26] Andrew: you not done in the law that you would like to do? 

[00:56:31] Paul: What's next, Paul? Well, what's next is hopefully a vacation. I've been working harder for the past five years than I did like as a, as a first, second, third year associate.

[00:56:43] I, you know, I don't know. I want to continue doing these types of what I believe to be impactful cases. We're going to still do security cases. We've got a huge. Security's case in Ohio against a company called First Energy. I mean, you know, bribery and crimes that took place. And those are really, those are important, but there's, look, there's Social media.

[00:57:06] There's cases about, you know, the impact on teenagers and young people by these social media apps, which, you know, they really are product liability cases. They have product engineers that are designed. They want algorithms to addict. kids. It's really, really bad. So I think that's an important one. We were involved in Juul, which was a vaping case.

[00:57:29] All these school kids that vape, we represent school districts. We've established a a reputation of, of taking on cases that have impact on our country and that can improve people's lives. And I love it. It makes me feel really good. Like I, you know, I used to go to the kids schools when my kids were young and Career day and talk about what we did.

[00:57:50] And it's one thing to talk about securities cases and we recover money that was lost to corporate fraud. It's much different to talk about things like opioids and Volkswagen cars and EpiPens and You know, vaping. So I think we're going to continue down that path. There's a big MDL brewing involving decongestants that were knowingly made with ingredients that don't work.

[00:58:17] So I think we're just going to continue doing what we're doing. I'm thinking 

[00:58:21] Andrew: of a light schedule, light, light schedule. 

[00:58:26] Murray: Taking your foot off the accelerator. Well, you know, Paul, is there, is there anything that we haven't asked you that we should have here or some message you want to make sure that that gets out?

[00:58:36] This has been a great conversation. We appreciate your time. We appreciate your wisdom and appreciate what you've done for the country, quite frankly. But final 

[00:58:46] Paul: thoughts. No, I mean, I think, look, we covered, we covered all the things I was hoping to cover and I really appreciate you guys having a forum for this because I think it's great for for people to hear about this and I really enjoyed.

[00:58:59] The prior podcast that I heard that you did, and I look forward to listening to many more to come. Thank you. Thank you so much, Paul. Thanks, guys. 

[00:59:10] Andrew: All right. Well, episode two is now in the books, Murray. This one was, was really interesting. I think what we'll find as we do these interviews with storytellers that each lawyer will have their own strengths.

[00:59:27] And I, I was just struck by Paul and continue to be struck by this about him is that he's such a people person, as he said, you know, he, he not only makes those connections with his colleagues, but also the folks on the other side. And, you know, in this case, he had to not only coordinate amongst the other plaintiffs lawyers, but with the State AGs, and of course the defense, and of course you had mediators and judges, and Paul sort of thrives in, in just making those connections, and I think one of the lessons here is that to Tell a good story.

[01:00:08] You have to be a reliable narrator and he inspires that trust that I think is so important in 

[01:00:14] Paul: storytelling. 

[01:00:15] Murray: Yeah, I, I, I completely agree. And again, we, we go back to the theme of trust here. We, we heard about it in our first podcast. We heard about it in our second podcast. I expect that we're going to hear about it again as we, as we move forward.

[01:00:29] But I want to really thank, you know, Paul Geller. The lawyers at, at, at Paul's firm, all the defense lawyers, all the plaintiffs bar. I mean, they, they've done a great, a great thing for our country. And hopefully, you know, through, I think you've heard through some of the additional efforts, the injunctive relief that we heard about in there.

[01:00:48] We'll hopefully not see this again in our lifetimes or maybe ever again. So thanks, Paul. Thanks, Andrew. It was great. Everybody out there. Stay tuned. Number three is coming up. And we're always looking for your feedback, right, Andrew? 

[01:01:03] Andrew: Oh, absolutely. Your comments are so helpful, so please keep them coming.

[01:01:06] And until next time, 

[01:01:09] Murray: until the next time. Thanks, Andrew. 

[01:01:11] Paul: Thanks.