Gee, I’ll go to bed tonight feeling a lot more secure that food poisoning lawyer Bill Marler is out there protecting my loved ones and me.

 

“The fact is that if a producer of a food product kills a kid or causes them to lose their kidneys, I am coming after them,” he says in a comment on my previous post. Yes, let’s hear it for truth, justice, and the American Way!

 

We all know it’s for the sake of the kids, and their kidneys. Just like on the television shows. No one asks for upfront fees. No one discusses the cost of appeals. No one negotiates whether the contingency fee should be 25%, 33%, or 40%.

 

Now, having gotten that off my chest, I’ll add that I have nothing against what he and his ilk do. If an Organic Pastures screwup led to Chris Martin, Lauren Herzog, and other children becoming ill, then in our system, the company is potentially liable for damages.

 

Several individuals on this blog, myself included, advised Mary McGonigle-Martin and Melissa Herzog a long time back to seek out legal avenues to redress their grievances with Organic Pastures Dairy Co., and it seems they have done so—or at least, Marler is looking into the situation.

 

How successful has Marler been in fighting the food poisoning fight? It’s hard to tell from what’s posted on his blog. I read through the long list of cases on his Legal Services page (not much in the way of raw milk there), and I was struck that the page leads off with a 1993 case—that’s 15 years ago—in which his firm represented a food poisoning victim that resulted in a $15.6 million settlement.

 

What’s happened since? There are dozens of cases, but only a few provide specific financial outcomes. What about the cases where no amounts are specified? Were those losses? Still ongoing cases? In appeal? Amounts so small he prefers not to divulge them? Results that can’t be disclosed because nondisclosure is part of the settlement? Other factors? 

 

It seems in the Organic Pastures situation, he hasn’t yet decided whether or not to file a case. If you read his posting carefully, you see that he is circumspect in his phrasing: “We are continuing to investigate…What we have learned…”

 

The only thing we know for sure from a legal perspective is that California’s Department of Food and Agriculture decided that Organic Pastures wasn’t at fault, and paid money to end claims by Organic Pastures against the agency.

 

As several individuals point out, what is especially irksome about Marler is that despite his claim to the contrary (“I do not care if it is ConAgra, Cargill or Organic Pastures that sickens a kid…”) all food poisoning isn’t the same to him, because raw milk is somehow worse. As he says in his Legal History of Raw Milk in the United States, “Because raw milk sales have not been outlawed altogether, outbreaks associated with raw milk continue to occur.”


Yet most of his cases seem to involve bad ground beef and restaurant illnesses. I kept looking for a statement like this: Because ground beef sales have not been outlawed altogether, outbreaks associated with ground beef continue to occur. But I didn’t see it.

 

But then, as I read his blog posting about the California situation with AB 1735 more closely, I realized that perhaps I was being too hard on him, because his commentary does contain the seeds of a solution: “…perhaps I should just stay out of the fight, let the raw milk people win and continue to provide me with work? I’ve always wanted to own land in Fresno and Paicines.”

 

That actually sounds reasonable. Get the government out of the business of restricting our rights, let consumers make their own decisions about what to consume, and leave it to the courts to settle the problems that come up when possible mistakes occur. Kind of like what happens with ground beef and restaurants.