Author: TSA Press

Since beginning my own law firm earlier this year, I have taken referrals and referred cases to other lawyers much more than when I worked at larger law firms.  I used to believe that referrals only helped attorneys receiving work, since these lawyers are able to generate revenue from clients that are referred to them.  Of course, there are some ways to ethically share fees as a result of referrals, but referring attorneys can also realize a number of other benefits from referring out matters.  In addition, clients often realize a number of benefits from having their cases referred to another attorney rather than working with the first lawyer to whom they contact.

One benefit of referring matters that I did not understand until after I started my own firm is that referring a client to another attorney is a far more polite way to pass on work without impugning the merits of a case or hurting anyone’s feelings.  Oftentimes, friends and people referred to me by acquaintances might propose litigation that would either be costly or does not have a high likelihood of success.  It is difficult to turn such people down, since prospective clients are often unwilling to see the deficiencies in their cases or understand the practical issues of filing a given lawsuit.

However, it is much more polite to refer a case to someone else than to turn a matter down outright.  In addition, even if an attorney has a difficult talk about why a lawsuit might not be practical, clients usually appreciate being referred to another lawyer whom they can talk to about a given matter.

Moreover, and I hate to use this expression in this context even though it fits, one person’s trash is another person’s treasure.  Even if one lawyer does not see value in a matter, another attorney might discern the merits of a case.  For instance, I was involved with a personal injury lawsuit recently that was turned down by three respectable attorneys.  However, this case eventually settled for several hundred thousand dollars without too much hardball litigation.  The attorney that handled the case and filed the lawsuit a day before the statute of limitations expired was referred to the client by the third lawyer who turned the matter down.  In any case, referring work to other attorneys can help clear a lawyer’s desk of matters they do not wish to handle, and this can maintain relationships with clients who might appreciate being referred to another lawyer.

Another major advantage of referring cases to other lawyers is that this can increase the number of clients that are referred to the referring attorney.  Attorneys are usually more than happy to refer clients to an attorney if they themselves received a referral.  In fact, nearly all of the referrals I have made have positively impacted my practice.  For instance, many attorneys who have accepted my referrals have referred matters to me or reviewed me positively online.  Referring cases is a good way to pay it forward, and there is a solid chance that this deposit into the “favor bank” will yield dividends in the future.

Referring cases to another attorney is also usually beneficial to the client.  Oftentimes when a lawyer is on the fence about whether to accept a matter or refer it to another attorney, it is because the referring attorney does not have much experience with a given issue.  Of course, lawyers sometimes work on a matter even though they might not be totally familiar with a type of case because they want to get paid for doing the work.  However, in these situations, another lawyer who is more experienced with a given legal matter might be able to give a client better representation.  In addition, doing less-than-ideal work for a client could make a client think that a lawyer is bad at handling all matters, and this could jeopardize future work generated by an attorney.  As a result, referring cases when there is any hesitation about one’s experience with legal issues is usually beneficial for everyone involved in the matter.

In addition, there are a number of other reasons why referring out a matter might benefit a client as well as the attorneys involved.  Sometimes, attorneys wish to refer out prospective clients that are located a far distance from an attorney’s office.  This makes it much easier for the client to meet with their attorney and lets an attorney avoid the hassle of handling a matter far away.  In addition, when attorneys at bigger firms refer matters to lawyers at smaller firms (which happens all the time, how many of us have gotten an email at a bigger firm looking for an attorney to refer work to!) the attorney at a smaller firm usually charges less money.  This can save the client cash and avoids a situation in which an attorney at a bigger firm cannot properly handle a matter because they are afraid of racking up huge legal bills due to higher hourly rates.

All told, referrals are commonplace within the legal industry, as they are in other professions.  Of course, everyone probably understands that referrals are good for the attorney receiving work, and for the referring attorney if referral fees are allowed.  However, it is also important to note that there are many reasons why referrals are good for referring attorneys, lawyers receiving work, and clients themselves.

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a New Jersey and New York full-service law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jrothman@rothmanlawyer.com.

While Trump rails against Facebook for having the gall to occasionally fact-check the nonsense passed around its platform and Democratic candidates are seriously discussing breaking up Amazon, it’s becoming clear that the leeway big technology firms have had for years is going to be reined in regardless of who controls Washington. In the meantime, the FTC is ratcheting up enforcement of tech companies, having secured a pair of big wins last month over Facebook and Equifax.

But as the FTC does its job, these tech companies are lawyering up with former FTC lawyers who’ve decamped to Biglaw.

Facebook enlisted Sean Royall, an attorney with the firm Gibson Dunn, who was previously a deputy director in the FTC’s Bureau of Competition from 2001 to 2003, according to the law firm’s website. Current FTC Chairman Joseph Simons was the bureau’s director at the time.

And Edith Ramirez, a Democrat who was selected by then-President Obama in 2013 to chair the FTC, represented Equifax over privacy charges stemming from their massive 2017 data breach. Ramirez, who left the agency in February 2017 to join the law firm Hogan Lovells, has also defended Google-owned YouTube against a class action lawsuit over children’s privacy. A federal judge in South Carolina threw the case out in April.

On the one hand, this makes a lot of sense. Who could possibly know the procedures and motivations of an investigating agency better than someone who used to work there? Former agency officials offer insight and experience that’s hard to find among practitioners who’ve spent their whole life on the outside.

On the other hand, just as there are many excellent criminal defense attorneys who’ve never worked as prosecutors, it’s possible to build expertise defending antitrust actions without being on the other side. And the risk that the rapid-fire revolving door system could undermine the mission of the FTC is high:

“There’s just an enormous expectation that either you yourself will revolve if you’re at the FTC, or that in almost any important matter someone opposite you at the table is a former colleague, and maybe a former boss who gave you a promotion or a friend,” [Executive director of the Revolving Door Project Jeff] Hauser told The Hill.

“I mean, there’s a lot of ongoing social connections between current and former FTC lawyers, who are often going to be ostensibly on the opposite side of tables,” he added. “And I think it would be an act of robotic perfection for that to not influence the tenor of the conversations at those tables.”

The adversarial system breaks down when the other side of the table is approaching the matter as if they’re an alternative agency viewpoint instead of an opponent. The whole conflict changes when one side is acting like a dissenting commission member rather than an outside attorney and that influences how the sausage is made — more likely than not in ways that inure to the benefit of the company.

Still, these folks can’t stay in the government forever and they’ve made their livelihood in trade commission litigation. They wouldn’t have much to bring to the table of the firm if forced to do only slip and falls the rest of their lives. The legal academy can’t absorb a bevy of new FTC professors every year, so some of these folks have to get back into private practice. But the government can do a better job of policing conflicts of interest.

Peter Kaplan, a spokesman for the FTC, told The Hill in a statement, “The FTC strictly adheres to all federal government ethics rules and guidelines.”

Those include a lifetime ban on former officials representing any companies that they were personally involved in overseeing in cases before the federal government.

That’s a good start, but the agency should consider making employees above a certain level off-limits to practice in this area for a longer blackout period. If a line attorney wants to move to Biglaw that’s one thing, but if a commission member who actively shaped policy jumps ship they should be forced to sit out. A ban on representing a specific company doesn’t address the conflict involved when a defense attorney has real knowledge of how overarching policy is being shaped and the sort of deep personal connections with the people making the supervisory calls on cases.

There may not be an easy answer, but with tech companies increasingly being hauled in front of the FTC with their former FTC attorneys in tow, everyone should at least start thinking about what can be done.

Tech fight puts former FTC officials in high demand [The Hill]

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

In a world of “do more with less,” corporate legal operations teams are often faced with an increasing contract volume but with no additional resources. Whether you use a homegrown or an older solution that’s just not working anymore, or you have no solution at all, chances are that the growth in your contract volume and complexity are difficult to manage and resource intensive. Join us for a webinar that will focus on:

– Why you need a simple, yet scalable, solution that you can configure and maintain on your own;
– How consumer-style business tools are revolutionizing the operational experience; and
– What AI is NOT capable of, namely, the replacement for your contracting expertise.

Click here to learn from our panel of experts on Friday, September 27, at 1 p.m.  Our panel will be moderated by Jared Correia, the CEO of Red Cave Consulting, and he will be joined by Stephanie Corey, a widely respected veteran in the legal ops field and co-founder of UpLevelOps, and Matt Patel, a CLM solution expert with over 15 years of experience in CLM technology and co-founder of Malbek.

As you may or may not know (or don’t care) the State Bar of California’s Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services is currently soliciting public comments on sixteen reform options. The options presented are the result of a Legal Market Landscape Report delivered to the Board of Trustees last year.

Among other comments, the Report says that modifying ethics rules will allow the legal profession to collaborate with others in the delivery of legal services. The Board is now polling lawyers for their thoughts on restructuring some of the Rules of Professional Conduct (we have them codified in the Business and Professions Code) that may be hindering the ability to provide affordable legal services. There are two goals here: consumer protection and access to legal services.

Through early August, more than 400 comments have been received. To no lawyer’s surprise, at least not to me, comments in opposition to the various options trounce those in favor.  And who says lawyers are resistant to change? We do.

Some of the options are close to a lawyer’s heart and income: recommendations for exceptions to UPL. Option 2.0 would provide an exception to UPL. “Nonlawyers will be authorized to provide specific legal advice as an exemption to UPL with appropriate regulation.” The purpose would be to authorize nonlawyers, such as limited license technicians [which we do not have in California yet] to provide specified legal advice and services. The option “…should be considered as means for increasing access….”. 

Another UPL exception is set forth in Option 2.1, which would permit that “entities that provide legal or law-related services can be composed of lawyers, nonlawyers, or a combination of the two, however regulation would be required and may differ depending on the structure of the entity.”

Another UPL exception is set forth in Option 2.2 by adding “… an exception to the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law permitting State-certified/registered/approved entities to use technology-driver legal services delivery systems to engage in authorized practice of law activities.” This exception would require that the entity’s method of delivering legal services be powered by technology. What happens if the technology is on the fritz, outdated, or just plain wrong? Who gets slammed for UPL? Anyone? 

What about changing the ethical rule on fee sharing? Option 3.1 has two versions. The first one, consisting of two parts, would expand the existing exception for fee sharing with a nonlawyer to allow a lawyer to pay a court awarded legal fee to a nonprofit that used that lawyer in that case, and it would allow a lawyer to be a part of a firm in which a nonlawyer holds a financial interest, providing that certain regulatory compliance requirements are met.

The second version is broader and would generally eliminate the prohibition against fee sharing with a nonlawyer so long as the client has given its informed written consent to the fee sharing arrangement. We use informed written consent for conflict waivers, why not for fee sharing?

The results so far confirm the thoughts of many people, including me, that lawyers are hidebound and resistant to change. Randy Kiser discusses this reluctance in a recent post on leadership in the profession. Innovation and change management are dirty words to many lawyers. We prefer to bring up the rear. 

As a former law firm chair said seven years ago, “Never underestimate a lawyer’s resistance to change. Even more likely, never underestimate the ability of lawyers to describe virtual status quo efforts as revolutionary change.” He’s spot on. 

If, at the end of the comment period and many of the comments are opposed to the UPL and fee sharing changes, among others, what will the State Bar do, if anything, about such resistance? The State Bar gets to recommend what lawyers can do and what nonlawyers can do.  These changes can directly affect a lawyer’s ability to make a living, to pay off student loan debt, perhaps to marry, buy a home, raise a family. Some demographic information about who comments would be useful. Are they newbies? Mid-career? Dinosaurs? (I doubt if most lawyers will bother to answer.)

To that end, I think there needs to be other constituents in the mix: what about persuading malpractice insurance companies to lower rates so that legal fees could become more affordable? (Cue the hysterical laughter.) What about loan forgiveness or, if not forgiveness, at least reduction? What about looking at our antiquated state discovery laws and see how we can streamline them so that less client money is spent pre-trial and thus less lawyer fees?

Where are the clients in this discussion? We assume that we know what clients want, but do we really? Yes, I know the mantra of “better, faster, cheaper” but is that it? Is that all? What about getting it right? If you try to explain the discovery rules to a client, the eyes roll back in the head. I think that these are all questions that factor into consumer protection and access to justice. So, how do we have those discussions in the context of what is, so far, opposition to some controversial changes?

The comment period closes September 23, 2019. The profession is at a critical juncture and the State Bar needs to hear what we think, whether pro or con.

Change is coming, whether we like it or not. If we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. Sticking our heads in the sand is not going to be the solution.

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.

Steven Fabrizio is out as the General Counsel of the Motion Picture Association of America. The move comes after he was arrested on charges of second degree sexual abuse and blackmail in Washington D.C.

As reported by Variety, Fabrizio is accused of blackmailing a woman he met on a website for sugar daddies. After they’d consensually had sex once, Fabrizio allegedly coerced the victim into other sexual encounters, threatening to expose her sexual proclivities to her job, landlord and family:

According to a police affidavit, Fabrizio is accused of threatening a woman he met on a “sugar daddy” dating site. The police allege that Fabrizio and the woman had consensual sex once on Aug. 19, after which he paid her $400. After that, she did not want to see him again. According to the affidavit, Fabrizio sent numerous texts insisting on a second meeting, and threatening to expose her if she did not comply.
“I know where you live,” he allegedly wrote. “I know where you work. Don’t think — Hospital would be happy to know that it’s young nurses are having sexual for money / Same for your landlord.”

In a statement an MPAA spokesperson expressed the proper amount of outrage over the arrest, “These charges, if true, are both shocking and intolerable to the association. We had no prior knowledge of this behavior before these charges were publicly filed.”

Prior to this dip into infamy, Fabrizio had quite the prominent legal career. Before working for the MPAA, he worked at the Recording Industry Association of America and took the lead in-house counsel role in the A&M Records v. Napster case, which ended the original Napster’s bid to disrupt the music industry. He also reportedly spent a decade at Jenner & Block as a partner and founder of the content, media and entertainment practice. His other Biglaw experience includes stints at both Cravath and Proskauer Rose as an associate. He graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1988.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

The French government, led by President Emmanuel Macron, recently proposed a new law that would permit single women and women in same-sex relationships to access assisted reproductive technology procedures, including in vitro fertilization (IVF). Shocking, right? I mean, shocking that is not currently permitted. In fact, not only is it not presently a service accessible for single women and same sex couples through the state-run health care system, but it is in fact prohibited to offer any such care through any means. In other words, you can’t even go to a non-state supported medical provider for help without breaking the law.

I spoke with Paris-based French attorney Fabien Guillaume Joly about the current situation, and his hopes for the proposed law. Joly explained that currently, mademoiselles and same-sex couples are forced to travel abroad — generally to Spain, Denmark, or Belgium — to fulfill their hopes of having a family. And even then, for married same-sex female couples, the non-biologically related parent does not have any parental rights to the child without first going through an adoption process.

Two Major Shifts

Joly explained the two significant shifts for assisted reproduction in France. First, it would lift the ban prohibiting single women and same-sex couples from using assisted reproductive technologies in France, and would specifically permit them to access free services through the state health system. That would mean up to four reproductive treatments (such as IVF). That’s a huge swing to go from prohibition to covered services! Second, Joly explained that the other major change proposed by the draft law is that children of single women and same-sex female couples, conceived from donor gametes, would have the legal right upon turning 18 years old to learn the identity of their donors.

Liberté, fraternité … and now égalité

Joly, in addition to being a lawyer who specializes in assisted reproductive technology, is also the spokesperson for an LGBTQ organization in France. He explained that his organization feels that the proposed law, while good, nevertheless has some significant flaws that they hope to correct before it becomes law. Specifically, as drafted, the law would create two different systems for those who undergo conception with the help of donor gametes.

As it reads now, the proposed law would require the non-biological parent of a same-sex female couple to sign certain legal declarations of parenthood before conception, and the birth certificate of the child would reflect the declarations and that the child was conceived from donor sperm. By contrast, the non-biological parent in heterosexual couples who use donor eggs or sperm to conceive are not required to sign such a declaration, and their children’s birth certificates make no such indication of the use of a donor. Joly believes the system should be the same for all parents by donor gametes, and the birth certificates equal in treatment.

Further, Joly notes that because the proposed law only applies to single women and same-sex female couples, the proposed clause to eliminate lifelong anonymity for donors anomalously applies only to the children of single women and same-sex couples. So, if you were conceived from donor sperm, you would have a right to know the identity of your donor if you happen to be the child of a single mother or same-sex female couple. But if you were born to a heterosexual couple, you would have no right to know the identity of your donor-parent.

To be sure, there are certainly differing stances on balancing the anonymity of donors with the rights of a child to know his or her biological history. But, regardless of your position, we can likely agree that it doesn’t make sense to apply the rule based on the irrelevant factor of the sexual orientation or relationship status of the parents.

I asked Joly about the availability of sperm and egg donors in France. He noted that there are some, but it is strictly illegal in France for sperm and egg donors to be compensated for their donations. That, paired with the elimination of anonymity (which arguably is already a relic of the past thanks to home DNA kits) may make donated eggs and sperm hard to come by.

Same sex marriage in France has only been legal since 2013. But given how quickly things have moved to accept same-sex relationships in France, Joly feels certain that the law will pass. His best estimate is likely in the first quarter of 2020. The only question is, will the form of law evolve to embrace equality more fully, or instead create two tiers of parents and children born by assisted reproductive technology?

Ellen Trachman is the Managing Attorney of Trachman Law Center, LLC, a Denver-based law firm specializing in assisted reproductive technology law, and co-host of the podcast I Want To Put A Baby In You. You can reach her at babies@abovethelaw.com.

The trial of Greg Craig, former White House Counsel in the Obama administration and former Skadden attorney, is a bit pointless, because all of the important matters have been decided. It doesn’t seem pointless because there’s a lot of shadiness and Eastern European names and secret Harvard Club meetings floating around. But the thing Craig is actually being charged with is easily the most boring facet of the entire fact pattern. So… for those who haven’t been following along, let’s talk about that fact pattern first:

In 2012, Paul Manafort, then working on behalf of pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor F. Yanukovych commissioned then-Skadden attorney Greg Craig to write a report. Yanukovych had launched a corruption trial against former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who was a political rival. Tymoshenko was convicted and imprisoned. Yanukovych wanted to burnish his image in the west, so they wanted to show that the trial against Tymoshenko was something legitimate and not, you know, the other thing. Craig and Skadden accepted. Craig wrote a memo to file calling the evidence against Tymoshenko “virtually non-existent.” But when the report came out, Skadden more or less backed Yanukovych’s version of events. Craig engaged in public relations campaign to support the report, including delivering a copy of it to the home of a New York Times reporter before the report was released publicly. Manafort was thrilled, sending an email to Craig “You are ‘THE MAN.’” A contract with the Ukrainian government initially indicated that Skadden was to be paid $12,000 for its work (which, LOL, a Skadden partner wouldn’t spend six minutes punching you in the face for $12,000), but in fact Skadden was paid roughly $4.6 million for the report, largely funneled through Ukrainian oligarchs. Craig did not register as a foreign agent for his production of the report or the media work he did on Yanukovych’s behalf.

See? Isn’t that a GREAT fact pattern? You’ve got corruption, political prisoners, Manafort’s stupid emails, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and a memo-to-file somebody actually read!

Unfortunately, none of that is really at issue in this case. After these dealings were exposed through the Robert Mueller investigation, the Justice Department went after Skadden. Skadden settled for the purely coincidental amount of… $4.6 million. Then Justice turned its eyes towards Craig. But Craid wasn’t even charged with failure to register, because (pro-tip, Congress) FARA is a distressingly vague and poorly written statute. Judge Amy Berman Jackson already dismissed one charge about false statements. Manafort is in jail. Yanukovych is in exile. Tymoshenko is out of jail and hopefully living her best life. Nearly everything here has been solved.

The only lingering issue is whether Craig lied to or materially mislead the Justice Department when they were investigating whether he should have registered as a foreign agent. That’s the charge. That’s what Craig is on trial for. Did Craig get too cute with a Justice Department functionary?

Which, I’m sorry, but I hit the snooze button on that. The man is out here getting Skadden to whitewash the imprisonment of political enemies, getting Skadden paid by Russian oligarchs, and having bro-emails with someone we now know to be one of the shadiest men on the planet, and I’m supposed to get up because he maybe wasn’t fully forthcoming to a rando Justice Department official?

Whatever. The prosecution rested its case yesterday, after calling 15 witnesses, many of them Skadden or former-Sakdden attorneys, as well as Rick Gates, Manafort’s right-hand man. The prosecution closed with Heather Hunt, who was Justice’s investigator in the Craig matter. She testified that she was not made aware of the public relations strategy between Craig and Manafort. She said that had she been aware: “It would have been very relevant to my inquiry.” Whoever is writing this dialog needs to be fired before they start working on the movie.

Craig took the stand today in his own defense. Usually, that’s a terrible strategy. But Craig is an accomplished trial lawyer and, more importantly, who the f**k cares? From Politico:

Within minutes of being sworn in Wednesday, Craig denied the core allegation in the case: that he lied to and misled the head of Justice’s Foreign Agent Registration Act unit, Heather Hunt.

“I did not lie to Ms. Hunt or the FARA unit,” Craig said, under questioning from defense attorney William Taylor. “I did not lie or conceal from the FARA unit.”

Craig contends he told Hunt what was relevant, didn’t tell her things that weren’t relevant, and conducted the public relations roll out to make sure that Skadden looked good, not Yanukovych.

I mean, I don’t believe that for a second but… it’s an argument. I’ve never known Skadden to be that desperate to get positive coverage in the New York Times. The Wall Street Journal, maybe. But not the NYT.

If convicted, the charge carries a five-year maximum, but Craig won’t get that. He’d get the lightest sentence or maybe just probation, since he’d be a first time offender. And, of course, Craig could easily be acquitted because his defense only sounds stupid if you are looking at the bigger fact pattern, and that might be hard for some jurors to follow.

Jury deliberations are expected to start after Labor Day. Skadden is so much more boring than Jones Day.

Former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig takes the stand in his criminal trial [Politico]

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

On Friday, the world learned the liberal lion of the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, had undergone treatment for pancreatic cancer. Though there was reportedly no evidence of cancer anywhere else in the body, and her doctors indicated no further treatment was necessary, there was a lot of understandable panic from those that feared RBG may not live to see the end of Donald Trump’s presidency.

It may have only been a few days since we learned of this latest bout of cancer, but Justice Ginsburg’s latest appearance is here to reassure us. As the Dude might note, nothing is f*cked here.

On Monday, she received an honorary degree from the University at Buffalo, and as it’s been reported, she wasn’t going to get a little cancer get in the way of her active schedule:

“In July 2018 [the late Wayne Wisbaum] wrote to me that his health disabled him from [making] the arrangements for my visit here, but he still hoped to attend all the events,” she said. “He asked me to confirm that I would come to Buffalo in August 2019 in any event. I did so immediately, and I did not withdraw when my own health problems presented challenges.”

Justice Ginsburg also noted in her remarks that it was “beyond [her] wildest imagination” that she’s known as Notorious RBG, saying, “I am now 86 years old, yet people of all ages want to take their picture with me. Amazing.”

After her prepared remarks Ginsburg also did a Q&A with Buffalo Law dean Aviva Abramovsky.

See, everything is going to be just fine. (Knock on wood.)

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

The family that owns Purdue Pharma would give up control of the opioid maker under a settlement it has proposed to resolve thousands of lawsuits at the federal and state level, according to published reports.

Citing anonymous people familiar with the matter, several outlets reported Tuesday that the Sackler family would give up control of the Stamford, Connecticut-based company and pay $3 billion of its own money toward a settlement worth $10-12 billion. The New York Times reported that rather than being a simple payout, most of the money would come from a restructuring resulting from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. The Wall Street Journal reported that the discussions – to resolve more than 2,000 lawsuits – have been ongoing for more than a year and remain in flux. Lawyers for the company and the plaintiffs have until Friday to give an update to Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in Cleveland.

In March, Reuters reported that Purdue was exploring a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing so that it could negotiate claims with plaintiffs in the suits. It was reported at the time that the bankruptcy filing would stop the lawsuits and allow the company to negotiate with the plaintiffs, under the supervision of a bankruptcy judge.

Purdue is the maker of OxyContin, a long-acting form of the opioid painkiller oxycodone and a central culprit in the nationwide opioid crisis. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, overdose deaths in the U.S. related to prescription opioids rose from 3,442 in 1999 – four years after the Food and Drug Administration approved OxyContin – to 17,029 in 2017.

On Monday, a judge in Oklahoma ruled that Johnson & Johnson would have to pay $572 million in a case against the company for its role in the opioid epidemic. However, an investment bank analyst wrote in a report that the case has little direct read-through to a larger multi-district litigation case in October.

Photo: VladimirSorokin, Getty Images