First.

why is this relevant?

Perhaps he should have thought about his career choices before he sued everyone and forced companies to be careful.

i guess all those toxins finally caught up to him...

So a famed member of the trial bar who made his bones off suing insurance companies and drug manufacturers cannot get an off-label drug to save his life?

Seems like that karma train has been coming for a long time.

Elie, it would probably be helpful if AT ANY POINT you mentioned that the drug maker said no and the letter is a plea to the CEO. I mean, those are sort of important contextual facts, without which it's unclear whom the letter is supposed to be addressing. If you're going to post barely-relevant things, at least have the post be internally coherent, you moron.

Hmmmm....

So he sued evil corps for misuse of things, or letting things be used that were not totally and absolutely tested, and got hella rich off of it.

Now he wants a corp to give him a thing so that he can both misuse it and use it for something it is not tested for.

Hmmm....

Tell me more about Venable Baltimore layoffs...

MysTTTal

Someone who has a prescription for this shit just give it to him. jesus. what are the police going to come and take it? some of those politicians can arrange for a pardon for him if necessary.

Poor guy. What a vindictive CEO, unwilling to help out a saint like Mr. Baron. I mean, he's a philanthropist at heart. Maybe Edwards should go sleep with Naomi, that might help. Or maybe then can go buy the drug in Mexico. I'll head down to Tijuana right now to see if I can find it...

This really angers me because it is easy to put a face on Mr. Baron, but what about all the people who want and need experimental drugs but can't get them BECAUSE OF Mr. Baron?

This is why John Edwards is a liar when he pretends to be populist. He and Mr. Baron have certainly led to deaths and stifled research. Way to go, losers.

Why is one person worth all this brouhaha? If any one of you were dying of something no one would care.

Wow. I hate to say it, but given how he made his millions, how can he be surprised that the company is afraid to give him this drug? I mean, does he take them for idiots? Can you imagine getting sued for a huge chunk by his estate after you tried to be helpful?

Maybe Obama should call. This is ridiculous. Why not just make a plea for someone with the drug to cough up (excuse the expression) some of it and loan it to Fred.

2 - because an attorney who's better than you is in need of help.

Bow down, and then return to your doc review.

Honestly, I don't give a damn whether Fred Baron made his money suing drug companies. This particular drug company was just handed a get out of jail free card by the FDA, there's absolutely no downside to saying no - and if you say yes, and it works? Then your drug just became the cure for (one kind of) cancer.

I'm pretty sure that would be a good thing for the company's bottom line.

#10-- Seriously. This whole thing has to be a publicity stunt or something, because it's unimaginable that this guy can't actually get his hands on these pills.

The fact that his suits have "forced companies to be careful" (1:16), does not justify withholding the drug. The FDA has approved its use. It is a sad day when a company can withhold a potentially lifesaving drug because it fears the possibility of future regulatory hurdles. If as 1:19 suggests, the drug company is withholding the drug because it is motivated by revenge, then its karma train will be something to behold. Speaking of karma, it is a bad idea to take pleasure in his death simply because he was very good and successful lawyer. It is very sad.

Tysabri is given by IV, so someone with a scipt for it can't just give it to him. Also worth noting, Elie, that Tysabri is back on the market for MS patients- it did cause some deadly brain infections, but they have determined that it did so when used in conjunction with Avonex, the other MS drug that Biogen produces. It's being used right now for MS patients, so it's unlikely that the company said no just because of that issue.

P.S. Tysabri is readily available, but it is not "cheap."

Seems there's something else going on here. Also seems that, since Elie has now made this blog his job, he ought to be out looking for it.

Wow, How original - way to run with a WSJ lawblog post MysTTTal!

The fact that his suits have "forced companies to be careful" (1:16), does not justify withholding the drug. The FDA has approved its use. It is a sad day when a company can withhold a potentially lifesaving drug because it fears the possibility of future regulatory hurdles. If as 1:19 suggests, the drug company is withholding the drug because it is motivated by revenge, then its karma train will be something to behold. Speaking of karma, it is a bad idea to take pleasure in his death simply because he was very good and successful lawyer. It is very sad.

It seems to me that Big Pharma could surely benefit from the good publicity of saving the life of a man who they consider to be their enemy.

Letting him die is vindictive and only supports the plaintiffs' lawyers narrative that Big Pharma has no soul.

this dood hopes all his donations to Democrat politicians (to preserve his scummy line of work) will get him special treatment...

i usually cringe at comments that bash elie simply because i have sympathy for the new kid on the block, but this time, i'm with you bashers all the way. right on, #6.

i usually cringe at comments that bash elie simply because i have sympathy for the new kid on the block, but this time, i'm with you bashers all the way. right on, #6.

Would letting this guy die help tort reform?

I think the Beatles talked about Fred Baron's predicament the best:

Instant Karma's gonna get you,
Gonna knock you right on the head,
You better get yourself together,
Pretty soon you're gonna be dead,

It would take more than a simple letter like this to absolve the company of liability. Let's see, if something goes wrong, he'll no doubt get sued by the good attorney's family. And then the shareholders's suit: it could create negative publicity that tanks the stock (even worse). As the good attorney has argued dozens of times -- and has persuaded many the jury -- some drugs are just too dangerous. Period.

right on 26

28 - brush up on your music history. That's Lennon, not the Beatles.

I've never heard of any drug reversing something that's going to cause someone to die in 24-48 hours.

In any event, I agree with most of the posts. It's because of people like Baron that these companies are having to take these actions and more people are dying every day. I'm sure Baron's family will sue the drug company regardless of whether they give it to him: they didn't act fast enough, they didn't give him enough, etc. etc. That's the trial lawyer way. Oh, and if they did give him the drugs and it worked, then the company has a class action on its hands for everyone else who died and didn't get it.

Fred Baron is the kind of man and lawyer who would turn around and sue this pharma company's pants off in a classaction (with himself as the bellweather) if it didn't work 110% or even made na eyelash fall out. I do not blame the company at all. I kow this guy and his firm from years back. They are as low as you can go.

31 is old.

First, all of you who are saying just let the man die because of his plaintiff-driven practice, this is ridiculous. Even if you've lost a big case to Mr. Baron and have vindictive feelings personally, it should not affect your humanity generally. In addition, it's people like Mr. Baron who give you your jobs in the first place. Without a plaintiff to bring suit, the need for defense lawyers is obviated. The relationships between lawyers on all sides are symbiotic and whether we can stand each other personally is irrelevant to whether we should be concerned for each other on a humanitarian level.
What would be really interesting is if Skadden, Akin Gump, S & C, and others got together and initiated an emergency pro bono action to file for injunctive relief of some sort.

A little context from Elie would have made this such a better article. Another example of how Elie is running this blog into the ground.

That letter reads like a Texas Reqest for Admissions and frankly, I don't blame the company one bit for saying "NO"

ha - karma, karma, karma.

So according to 35, the firefighter should appreciate the arsonist, the homicide detective should appreciate the murderer, and so forth. Just because someone makes my job necessary does not mean that I need to thank him for it.

And yes, karma's a bitch.

Uhh, 35, most people are not saying to 'let him die'.
That's kind of a simplistic way to look at the very real concern that if something goes wrong, the company could easily be looking at a lawsuit, FDA 'exemption' notwithstanding.

34 is stupid.

Of course this story has to do with the plaintiffs bar. These pig trial lawyers make zillions of dollars forcing drug companies to pull life saving drugs and screw over sick patients. They don't give a shit until it's their life is on the line. Are you kidding me with this? Talk about your chickens coming home to roost. Good for the drug company, I hope they don't give him the banned medicine. King of Toxic Torts indeed.

I don't think it matters what this lawyer did for a living -- he is a human being. He deserves the help that everyone else is entitled to.

The company probably does not want to be in the business of making decisions on a one-off, plea-by-plea basis. Obviously, its decision is that the floodgates stay tightly shut.

As for most of the posters, there is enough pain and misery in the world without celebrating it.

This is rich. Of course, it's too bad that this guy can't get the meds he thinks he needs, but it is not ghoulish to note the irony of a guy who made it his life's work to make pharm companies more risk averse, dying now (possibly) because of that risk aversion.

43--You mean the same help that thousands of people were deprived of because Fred Baron put lining his pockets above their interests in obtaining experimental and potentially lifesaving drugs?

43--You mean the same help that thousands of people were deprived of because Fred Baron put lining his pockets above their interests in obtaining experimental and potentially lifesaving drugs?

39,
That logic is inapplicable to other fields.

And where is there karma in letting a person die because you have that control merely because he has successfully sued you in the past. I mean, WTF? Just because you sit on the defense side doesn't mean your soul needs to advocate that position. I don't know everything about the man, but I assume the best in a person before I directly experience otherwise or hear the same from a wide enough audience, so I assume he is not a snake.
You all are saying karma is a bitch because he filed lawsuits, that were genuine, that allowed recovery for plaintiffs who suffered real injury as a result of the negligence of defendants.
If a drug company releases a drug on botched studies or because of their failure to competently fulfill their duty to the public in inspecting those drugs before releasing them, then they deserve to be sued. This is a consequence they should not dodge, and you should not be advocating seriously that a man should die because he brought upon these companies the fair consequences of their own missteps.
I don't understand how what I have just said is not a "given." People faces consequences.
I assume that getting past biglaw's staunch defenses and Rules 12 and 56 and actually convincing a jury that liability is proper is enough that we can assume that, hey, these companies actually did some wrong for which they were rightfully hauled into court.
Otherwise, the adversarial system is a load of crap that we should eliminate and go to a judicial fact-finding system.
I say all this to say, BS on wishing a man to die, regardless of your practical and perhaps deeply held ideological differences with him.

A lot of people on this post appear to have been drinking the Chamber of Commerce Kool-aid. When Big Business chooses money over safety, and the government, in the pockets of Big Business lobbyists, refuses to regulate, men like Fred Baron step in and force Big Business to behave by bringing sunlight on their behavior and changing the cost-benefit analysis.

Try not to buy into the most simplistic view of every situation.

40,
I understand your point, and I admit, I did wonder why, attached to the letter we did not find a release from liability. I mean, certainly they can see why the company would be afraid to provide the drug. So why not allay those concerns if you're really worried about your father's life?
I don't back down from initial position, but I do see yours and wanted to convey that I had a similar thought, despite our obvious differences.

35

The irony of the body of 48's comment and his ending sentence is delicious.

co-sign 50

To any of you who say you don't kow the man and will assume he is not a snake - sorry but I can't join you. He was quite a dirtbag when I knew of him.

Maybe two of the 47 posters want this man to die. The rest of us just find it amazingly coincidental that a man who likely said "they should be more careful" a billion times in his career now says "screw the studies, give me the damn drug". It's the hypocrisy, not vindictive wishes.

53,

Exactly.

39

48, except Fred Baron did not give a shit about creating balance. He was no neutral arbiter. He was a lawyer who would go after a drug on the basis of whether a suit would be successful, which, if you know anything about juries, has little to do with whether the product at issue is harmful...

8: What do you know about Venable Baltimore layoffs?

Over the years I wonder how much money Mr. Baron contributed to the named politicians now rushing to his aid? How much did he contribute to scuttle the FAIR Act? Money changes everything for people like him...except now.

33, I worked for Fred Baron and you know nothing about him. He remained a trial lawyer well after he was financially secure because, at his core, he cared about average people--probably about as much as you care about the padded bills you send to your soulless corporate clients. Moreover, if you really knew Fred, you would know that he didn't sue big pharma. He preferred toxic tortfeasors. Further, he did not personally favor class actions. They were often an instrument of collusion between large toxic tortfeasors and insurers.

42: You are a clown. Regulatory capture of the FDA, coupled with the S.Ct.'s unfortunate preemption decisions, has given big pharma free reign. All the plaintiffs' bar can do is prevent the marketing of miracle vaccines, magic beans, and other insane corporate initiatives. Safe drugs have been withheld from the market because of these actions.

For all of you who condemn Fred Baron, can you name one litigation in which he was involved that was predatory and hurt average citizens? A single case? If not, stop drinking the Kool Aid of your firm and the Chamber of Commerce.

33 & 42: you are meaningless cogs in dead end jobs that support collapsing industries. Fred, on the other hand, helped people and was free. That is what you can't stand.

Over the years I wonder how much money Mr. Baron contributed to the named politicians now rushing to his aid? How much did he contribute to scuttle the FAIR Act? Money changes everything for people like him...except now.

Over the years I wonder how much money Mr. Baron contributed to the named politicians now rushing to his aid? How much did he contribute to scuttle the FAIR Act? Money changes everything for people like him...except now.

Over the years I wonder how much money Mr. Baron contributed to the named politicians now rushing to his aid? How much did he contribute to scuttle the FAIR Act? Money changes everything for people like him...except now.

58--you mean other than all of the shareholders and employees of all the asbestos firms he bankrupted with his fraudulent and collusive litigation, among others?

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2002/03/04/319093/index.htm

Yes, 62. Firms that admitted actual knowledge that they were culling a whole generation of American workers, killing hundreds of thousands. Admittedly, the harm caused by these companies exceeded their assets and many had to declare bankruptcy. Too bad we weren't doing bailouts back then.

If I tried to get it, what would my chances be? I can't think of the last time the average Joe thought a drug might help their terminal condition... and got a FDA waiver for it. This guy is trying to escape from an overly cautious system he helped to create by dint of the fact that he knows John fucking Kerry. It is ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED that even if he gets it tomorrow, you or I would still be unable to next week or next year. I have the same sympathy for him as any other dying person but I see no reason for him to get special treatment. Fuck any system that would even consider bending the rules just because you've got juice with high ranking Democrats.

You people have no soul. I hope someday you get denied life saving treatment for arbitrary and capricious reasons.

How did everyone find out about Venable Baltimore layoffs? They were supposed to be stealthy, with only the sound of boccie balls to fill up the silence.

Seriously, Venable layoffs? Thats ... crazy talk ... right? gulp....

updating resume

A sad reality check: if you are rich and have lots of valuable connections in our society, you can get whatever you want. You can have a former president write a letter on your behalf begging a pharmaceutical company to give your some special treatment.

A sad reality check: if you are rich and have lots of valuable connections in our society, you can get whatever you want. You can have a former president write a letter on your behalf begging a pharmaceutical company to give your some special treatment.

"Fred, on the other hand, helped people and was free. That is what you can't stand."

Aw, somehow I doubt that he wore Superman's cape... He was a slip-and-fall lawyer, except that he caused much more harm than most.

Good riddance, bad rubbish

Dear 58 - were you one of those Baron & Budd lawyers who would kick your witness under the table (was it 1 for yes and 2 for no?) How about the witnesses with your pat answers written on their hands? That sure was some great lawyering there. The list goes on and on but we who were there back in the day have not forgotten all those games.

Wouldn't it be funny if people contacted those mentioned in that e-mail and encouraged them not to give Baron his precious little medicine? Keep up the good fight, Biogen!

71, but those tactics were acceptable because they were in the name of the GREATER GOOD.

oh the irony, it's so good it hurts

71, I was an appellate lawyer who had left by the time those charges were made. Ultimately, they were discredited. Why one would believe industry participants who had admitted to mass killings escapes me.

You know his wife, Lisa Blue, is already deciding how she can make some $ off this, right? Look at that letter by the son too. Reads like written discovery. Bet the copy he kept says "Exhibit A" on it.

As someone who watched his father deteriorate from his own battle with Multiple Myeloma, I have some sympathy for Baron. That said, there is no reason he should be entitled to special treatment that wouldn't otherwise be available to the rest of us.

You got it 77. No way would your dad have been given access.

65 - see 64.

You got it 77. No way would your dad have been given access.

As for you 75 - were you AT the Baron & Budd offices every day seeing the nonsense that went on? Sure doesn't sound like it... or maybe you were dipping into the beer on tap they had running there a little too often to notice?

65 - your Admin class get out early today?

Andrew Baron says on his blog that the FDA agreed not to consider his father's case in future evaluations of the drug – a claim denied by an FDA spokesman. Andrew Baron could not be reached Wednesday for clarification.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/101508dnmetbaron.1162ada84.html

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2002-09-26/news/enough-to-make-you-sick/1

"Fred Baron, a partner in Dallas' largest plaintiffs' firm, Baron & Budd, is pushing tens of thousands of "unimpaired" asbestos claims--meaning the plaintiffs aren't sick from asbestos exposure and probably never will be."

Ah. The sense of entitlement.

WTF? He sued companies for not being careful enough. He pillaged the free market claiming to have heartbreak cases that only lined his pocket. As a result, companies have teams of lawyers to make sure they are "reasonably prudent" and now he wants them to be lax in giving out this drug.

Now this sounds like justice to me.

If my father (or anyone I cared about) was dying and the cure was sitting in a pharmacy 6 floors below me, I would walk my ass down there and take it instead of writing a bunch of whining letters and calling in political favors. Grow a pair. hth

The thing is 86 -they are just getting their "evidence" ready. It's all about the lawsuit with that crowd

If my father (or anyone I cared about) was dying and the cure was sitting in a pharmacy 6 floors below me, I would walk my ass down there and take it instead of writing a bunch of whining letters and calling in political favors. Grow a pair. hth

58 - "Maybe so, but I'll still be breathing in another minute."

Boss Spearman - co-signed by soulless corporate cog

80 -

Weak, weak arguments. Are you really trying to call out potential witness misconduct by a Plaintiffs lawyer to belittle the acts of the drug industry he challenged?

It's clear you don't think that much. And I really don't mean that as an insult. I actually feel bad for you. Regardless of title, of money, of social position, you must really be programmed.

The drug industry, along with big tobacco, pioneered the defying of government regulation through deliberate malfeasance, and further disobeyed and disregarded every discovery rule that exists in federal and state litigation.

The Chamber of Commerce Kool-Aid runs strong through you.

No, I don't think that his plea for this drug is right, and if he did coach a witness, that is terrible. But you attack his credibility as if the drug companies, and toxic-tortfeasors, are innocent and just trying to make a profit.

Please, you act like a drone. You are educated and likely will have a position of power within the legal community. Your line of thinking is an insult to liberty.

Update from son's website:

posted a message on Twitter
“We got the Tysabre and it's dripping in. Very high spirits in the hospital. Update soon. Thank you. I love this world.”

http://dembot.com/

58, thanks to Fred Baron, you will not be breathing in asbestos, just the fatigue oozing from your law library's ventilation system. That next minute will last a lifetime.

91 - If dude suffers the side effect, do you think the family will sue?

Most of you people don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I worked with Fred for 10 years. He didn't sue drug companies. He sued asbestos product manufacturers for the extremely dangerous and toxic products that they were putting out into the country, with NO NOTICE OF THEIR HAZARDS

94 here and contining.... to the working men and women of the country. Without Fred there would be more dead workers and less regulations on dangerous products. He is a great man who is suffering, but you defense scumbags don't care about him because he put your clients in the spotlight and exposed how dirty they were.

@ 95, I saw something about a memo that you guys wrote for potential plaintiffs, advising them to memorize the names of the defendant companies and other pointers for comitting perjury without getting caught. Is that just part of the "by any means necessary" that we should have to get used to putting up with in order to get to your version of an enlightened society?

Wow, regardless of what kind of work this man did, he doesn't deserve such harsh comments from the peanut gallery. Have a heart people...

This kid clearly doesn't understand how the drug works nor how the drug is regulated.

I'm glad the guy got the Tysabri, but using Tysabri to treat multiple myeloma is a hail mary pass at best.

@96 - and did you read all of the court decisions that determined that nothing about that memo was unethical or improper? Even though it was used in only approximately 40 cases, it was blown so out of proportion so that all you haters have something to hang your hat on in bad-mouthing Fred and Baron & Budd and what he and they have done for the working folks of our country.

96: 95 here. And did you read all the court decisions that determined there was nothing unethical or improper about that memo? While only used in approximately 40 cases, it was blown out of context by the right wing conservatives whose pro business slant was taking a beating by the great work that Fred and Baron & Budd did.

Baron & Budd memo (given to asbestos plaintiffs b4 deposition). No big deal, right?

""Do NOT say you saw more of one brand than another, or that one brand was more commonly used than another....You NEVER want to give specific quantities or percentages of any product names....Be CONFIDENT that you saw just as much of one brand as all the others. All the manufacturers sued in your case should share the blame equally!"

""You may be asked how you are able to recall so many product names. The best answer is to say that you recall seeing the names on the containers or on the product itself. The more you thought about it, the more you remembered!"

"Keep in mind that these attorneys are very young and WERE NOT PRESENT at the jobsites you worked at. They have NO RECORDS to tell them what products were used on a particular job, even if they act like they do....The best way to respond to this kind of question is `Yes, I am SURE I saw it there!' or `I KNOW it was that brand because I saw the name on the container.' "

Baron & Budd memo, conveniently left out by 101:

"Tell the truth."

102 - that's just CYA boilerplate. Everything else clearly cuts against this...

102 - you're a moron

102 - oh, does that make up for the coaching?

94 - all the asbestos attorneys give me a break. Maybe 15 years ago there was some honor there. But the money dried up from the bad actors that you put out of business, but you keep on suing anyone you can get your hands on. Premises suits are a disgrace.

And no, I am not a defense lawyer.

102, that is ridiculous. Baron's spin was that it was a rogue paralegal. Yeah, because "rogue paralegals" draft memos all the time...

So a bunch of Texas good-ole-boys cleared Fred Baron?

OK, I'm convinced!

By the way, I hate Elie Mystal. He's a disgusting hack. Lat would introduce some politics, but he'd usually keep it somewhat neutral. And he spread the love by going after both political parties.

But Mystal is driving traffic. So Lat will of course keep him on.

We need to organize a boycott. If all of us (25% at least) of ATL readers who hate Elie Mystal would quit reading for a week, Lat would get the message.

Until then, we'll keep getting incomplete posts and outright lies.

98 - Tysabri is in clinical trials as a treatment for Multiple Myeloma right now. Not a Hail Mary at all.

This guy is scum and I hope he burns in hell. The blood of all the people who died because they couldn't get drugs as a result of his lawsuits is on his hands. Maybe he will donate his fortune to drug research to try to undo some of the harm he has done, but somehow I doubt it.

Looks like Fred's willing to do anything to avoid getting indicted for his three decades long extortion and bribery scheme.

109- it's a phase I trial (i.e. safety not efficacy), the vast majority of patients in phase I trials won't see any benefit. There is as of yet zero clinical data on blocking VLA-4 (Tysabri's mode of action) in humans though there is some data from animal models. I worked on VLA-4 & PML during my doctoral research. It's a hail mary, which is why they waited for him to be late-stage before they suggested it.

110 - feeling a little insecure because Fred is a better lawyer than you will ever be? And, read 94/95, he didn't sue drug companies. If you're gonna be a hater, have the right reason, you moron.

Tysabri is not as readily available as Mr. Baron thinks, even if you have a scrip for it. Its distribution is regulated by something called the TOUCH program, which has been developed, in part, because of the possibility of adverse effects such as PML and malignant melanoma.

You all should get your facts straight before commenting. Tysabri is not even approved for myeloma. The Phase I/II clinical trials for myeloma use only started last month. Not that Baron has anything to lose, but the company went through great pains to avoid problems in setting up their clinical trial and rejected other people who didn't qualify. This guy should not have been let into the clinical trial.

I understand that the internet makes many of you big men willing to wish ill on someone you do not personally know; I doubt you would say this stuff to Fred's face. I'm sure at least one of you will be a complete douche in response to this post.
Fred has a wife, grown children, and three young children (two less than a year old). Try to keep that in mind when determining what you believe he, and they, deserve.

I understand that the internet makes many of you big men willing to wish ill on someone you do not personally know; I doubt you would say this stuff to Fred's face. I'm sure at least one of you will be a complete douche in response to this post.
Fred has a wife, grown children, and three young children (two less than a year old). Try to keep that in mind when determining what you believe he, and they, deserve.

155 -

Fred is not in the clinical trial --> the FDA said it would exclude Fred's usage and results form the trial

118--I'm assuming you meant 115. Thanks for the info, I didn't see that in anything I'd read.

118 - you are wrong, Andrew said the FDA would exclude the results, the FDA denied saying that and in fact reiterated they HAVE to look at ALL relevant data when approving a drug. How could they not? Let's say Fred taking this drug caused some weird side effect, say, his penis falling off. How could the FDA ignore that ... wouldn't ,000s of people sue when their peckers fall off?

The guy sued asbestos manufacturers, not drug makers. Everyone dancing over the man's plight because they thought he was suing drug companies should die.