‘King of Torts’ at 80 : Melvin Belli: Is the Image Tarnishing?

Melvin Belli lost his dog.

So Belli, one of the best known personal injury attorneys in the country, placed an ad in a San Francisco newspaper offering the finder three hours of free legal advice or $1,000. The day the ad ran, a columnist at the paper advised whoever found the dog to eschew the legal advice.

Take the money, the columnist urged. In cash.

In other areas of the country, Belli is still “The King of Torts”--still regarded as one of the few lawyer-celebrities who immediately give clout to their client’s case.

Malpractice Suits

But in San Francisco, where he has practiced law for 53 years, Belli’s reputation is slipping dramatically. Many in the legal community here are familiar with the numerous malpractice suits accusing him and his associates of such things as incompetence and inadequate preparation for trials, and complaining of extensive disarray in his office. Belli, at 80, many lawyers here say, is simply tarnishing an illustrious career.

His biggest cases now often are far from the city where he invented trial tactics that now are commonplace, where he pioneered the use of graphic and gory “demonstrative evidence” in civil trials, where he won precedent-setting cases and changed the face of personal injury representation.

“He’s much more popular outside of the Bay Area, much more likely to get hired by people who don’t consult the local legal community,” said William Maas, a former managing attorney in Belli’s office. “People here are familiar with the problems of his firm; they know about the people who’ve sued him and collected. People here are critical of Belli.”

Belli’s recent problems include:

--His firm has been sued for legal malpractice 15 times since 1980, according to disclosures Belli himself has provided in response to one of the suits. Many of the cases are pending.

$5.8-Million Judgment

--One such case resulted in a $5.8-million legal malpractice judgment against Belli and the firm two years ago, one of the largest compensatory judgments ever against a law firm in California. (The firm’s liability in the case was later reduced to $3.8 million.) “The mistakes they made were fundamental,” said attorney James Bostwick, who filed the suit against Belli. “All very basic things. . . . His reputation in the profession now is extremely poor.”

--Belli has been involved in a separate wave of lawsuits with lawyers he has worked with in the past, including his former partner, his former managing attorney and seven other former associates. Many of the suits involve squabbles over clients, after the attorneys left the firm.

--Many lawyers who have worked for Belli characterize the atmosphere in his office as “chaotic,” with turnover sometimes causing cases to be handled by numerous attorneys. Attorney Robert Kiernan, who left the firm in 1985, recalls a case in which he was the 14th attorney in the office to represent the client. “It was this wonderful couple on a real estate fraud case and they were so exhausted from telling their story to a different attorney,” Kiernan said.

Belli said the reports that his legal skills have deteriorated are untrue. But he acknowledged as “valid criticism” the complaints about disorganization and turnover in his office. Many of his problems, he said, were simply the result of poor administration. The lawyers who handled the case that resulted in the $3.8-million legal malpractice judgment are no longer with the firm. Also gone from the firm, he said, are the attorneys responsible for many of the other malpractice claims.

And, Belli said, he has restructured the office, given more responsibility to a new managing attorney, slowed the “revolving door” and eliminated many of the problems. (However, a comparison of letterheads indicates that seven of the 10 attorneys at the San Francisco office a year ago--not counting Belli and his son, Caesar--have since left the firm.)

‘Too Many Cases’

“I was . . . not spending enough time organizing the office,” he said. “I’d be into every case that was brought in here--small claims cases and everything. The only time I’d have to prepare for trial was on weekends and maybe the 4th of July. And there were too many cases. I’d be finishing one on Thursday night and picking a jury on Friday.

“People knew I had administrative weaknesses, but they suffered my foibles because they knew there isn’t a lawyer in the U.S. who cares as much for his clients or would do as much for his clients as I would. And because of the big verdicts and settlements I got.”

Belli can still be very effective in a courtroom because of his charisma and “presence,” said Barrie Jean Roberts, who left the firm in 1985. She recalls a recent case where he was “still sharp and clever with the judge,” and “had a great rapport with the jury.”

“He has good instincts, but sometimes that’s not enough,” Roberts said. “The practice of law is changing, but he’s not changing with it. Belli made his reputation by thinking on his feet, doing a lot of seat-of-the-pants stuff in trial. But because of new laws on discovery (disclosure of evidence before trial), a lot of that sting of surprise has been taken away from lawyers. Now all the groundwork, preparation and investigation a lawyer has to do today before trial to bring a good suit . . . I don’t think Belli is doing.”

Reasons for Problems

Former Belli attorney David Rosenberg said he believes that Belli’s firm has been beset by problems because Belli tends to hire inexperienced lawyers, overburden them with work and not allow them to spend the money to properly prepare cases.

“Many nights I woke up in a sweat because I was afraid of a malpractice suit,” said Rosenberg, who is involved in a legal dispute with Belli over clients. “You had so many cases you couldn’t give them the attention they needed. Anytime we spent money we had to get authorization from Belli. And he simply wouldn’t spend the money most of the time. You couldn’t get the funds to spend on investigations, depositions . . . everything you need to work up the case properly.

“At one time, other attorneys were intimidated by the Belli name,” he said. “Now they know that as the case approaches trial, Belli’s attorneys won’t have the case worked up.” As a result, Rosenberg believes, Belli and his associates will often “settle for less than full value.”

Belli said he has had problems, not because he overworked his attorneys or refused to spend money on cases, but because he made some mistakes in his hiring of lawyers, which he said have been corrected. And, he acknowledged, he no longer makes the day-to-day financial decisions in his office, and has delegated more authority to his managing attorney.

Preparation Questioned

But during the last decade, former associates said, Belli’s own work--even in trial, previously his strong suit--also has been inconsistent. Attorneys who have opposed him and those who have tried cases with him say he often shows up at the last minute, seemingly unprepared and more concerned about publicity than the case at hand.

“We tried a case together in Las Vegas and he flew in the night before,” Belli’s former associate, Kiernan, recalled. “He didn’t have a clue what the case was about. We were in the judge’s chambers the next day in a last-minute settlement conference and we all hear a snoring. I looked over and I see Belli sleeping.

“The judge was very polite and said: ‘Mr. Belli, I think you’d be more comfortable in another chair.’ Belli woke up, looked at me and said, ‘Why don’t you call this TV station, tell them I’m in town and see if they want to interview me.’ ”

The case--a malpractice suit against an optometrist in Las Vegas who failed to refer a patient with glaucoma to specialists--”was an easy one that should have been won,” Kiernan said. But Belli and Kiernan’s client lost. Contributing to the loss, Kiernan believes, was Belli’s lack of preparation. Kiernan said he thought Belli botched the cross-examination of the defendant and gave a “totally confusing” closing argument.

Denies He Was Unprepared

When asked about the case, Belli was unable to recall it specifically, but insisted that he never goes to trial unprepared.

Inadequate preparation, however, was a central issue in another dispute involving Belli. In this case, the accusation came from a client--and it led to a malpractice suit against Belli.

According to former client Sandra Baumgartner and arbitrators in San Jose who heard her medical malpractice case, Belli was poorly prepared and failed to present adequate expert witnesses. Baumgartner sued him for legal malpractice and settled last year out of court. The agreement prohibited discussion of the settlement terms, but a source close to the case said the amount was about $75,000.

Baumgartner had suffered from complications after thyroid surgery and Belli filed suit against the surgeon and the hospital where the operation was performed. He claimed that the surgery was unnecessary and that the surgeon incompetently performed the operation.

The original medical malpractice case was scheduled for arbitration--which is similar to a trial--on a Monday. On the Wednesday before the hearing, Baumgartner said, she still had not discussed the case with Belli in detail. She called his office and they told her to come in on Friday. While she was in Belli’s office, the opposing attorney called. Baumgartner recalled that he told the attorney, “I haven’t even picked up the case to look at yet.”

‘Get Me a Surgeon’

Then Belli asked his paralegal assistant the name of the surgeon who was scheduled to testify for Baumgartner. The paralegal told Belli that no surgeon had been contacted. Belli began shouting, Baumgartner said, “I can’t try a surgery case without a surgeon. Get me a surgeon.”

On Monday morning at the arbitration hearing, Belli brought a doctor who was a thyroid expert, but not a surgeon.

“As I was walking in to testify before the arbitrators,” Baumgartner recalled, “I heard Belli say: ‘Again, gentlemen, let me apologize for coming so unprepared to this arbitration.’ He didn’t know anything about my medical records and mixed up some things. He even had to ask me how much in damages we were asking for. It was a complete disaster. And I felt very unprepared too. He never went over with me what I should say, or what questions he would ask me or the other attorneys would ask me.”

The arbitrators ruled 2 to 1 against Belli. All three arbitrators agreed in interviews that Belli did a poor job.

“The general feeling among the arbitrators was that he just picked up the file and winged it,” said arbitrator George Barnett, a retired Santa Clara County Superior Court judge. “I don’t think he even read the other doctors’ depositions or really researched the case.”

Carries Far More Weight

Arbitrator Vince Bruno said Belli’s witness, the thyroid expert, was “OK as a backup.” But if an attorney is trying to show that surgery was improperly done, Bruno said, a surgeon’s testimony carries far more weight.

“There’s no question in my mind that if properly prepared the case could have been won and should have been won,” Bruno said. “When (Belli) walked into the arbitration, he said he had just come back from a big case and the first thing his office did was shove this case in front of him. So he said he wasn’t prepared. That was a foolish thing to say in front of everyone.”

Bruno, a retired Santa Clara County Superior Court judge, said Belli tried a few cases before him in the 1960s.

“There’s no comparison between the Belli then and the Belli now,” he said. “He was much sharper, much more alert. When I first saw him, I remember, he had an excellent memory and seemed to have instant recall. He didn’t need many notes. And his final arguments were excellent, very well coordinated and dramatic. He knew how to turn a phrase. He really made an impact on a jury.”

Asked about the Baumgartner case, Belli said he was confident before the hearing and “felt afterwards that I proved my case.” But he was at a disadvantage, he said, because two of the arbitrators had worked as defense attorneys in the past, so they sympathized with the doctor and the hospital. And Belli decided that he did not need a surgeon because the thyroid expert he used as a witness “went into the operating rooms with the surgeons and determined whether to take it (the thyroid) out or not take it out. So she was better than someone who did the actual operation.”

Reiterates Position

Belli reiterated that he never goes into court unprepared.

“I may fly in the night before a trial, but I can do it,” he said. “For the last 40 years I’ve been prepared to go to trial on almost any case. I can pick a jury from experience; I can do an opening statement from experience. I’m like a doctor who has done hundreds of tonsillectomies. I may have to call a guy Mr. Witness instead of Mr. Brown, but I know how to handle him and I can tell whether he’s lying.

“I’ve come in on a case with one day’s preparation and gone against defense men who’ve prepared for weeks and weeks, but I’ve still been able to handle them. Don’t forget all the stuff I’ve written--62 books. They’re all in court with me. They’re still in my head.”

Despite his recent problems, the Belli name still attracts big cases. One attorney in the office does nothing but answer calls all day from prospective clients from throughout the country. Last year, Belli settled a suit for $18 million on behalf of 16 families whose relatives were killed when a chartered jetliner crashed on takeoff in Gander, Canada. The plane carried 250 American soldiers en route home from the Middle East for Christmas. And he earned a $15-million settlement three years ago for 142 families in Arizona whose homes were damaged in floods.

Belli estimates that during his career he has earned more than $350 million in verdicts and settlements for clients. And clients who have won big settlements describe Belli in glowing terms.

Wife of Crash Victim

Belli represented Malinda Parris, whose husband was killed in the crash in Canada last year, and she earned a settlement of more than $1 million.

“My husband always believed in big guns; he believed in No. 1 people,” she said. “So when I realized I needed a lawyer, Melvin Belli was the only one I considered. And I was very impressed with him. He was very well informed about the case and I felt secure knowing my case was in his hands. I have nothing but good things to say about the way it was handled.”

Richard Brown, who has been with Belli six years, longer than any other lawyer in the firm, said he has seen no diminution of Belli’s skills. He still picks a jury and argues a case “like no other lawyer I’ve ever seen.” And in some ways, Brown said, Belli is a better attorney now than in the past. Because of “his life experience,” Brown said, Belli can “draw analogies and paint a picture before a jury that a younger lawyer can’t do.”

But Russell Kussman, an attorney-physician who worked in Belli’s Los Angeles office in the early 1980s, characterized the kind of representation Belli offers as “hit-or-miss.”

Claims Misapprehension

“A lot of clients who come in think, ‘Melvin Belli’s my personal attorney,’ ” said Kussman, who ended up in litigation with Belli over clients and his separation from the firm, and eventually settled out of court.

“He may get involved when it goes to trial, but obviously he’s too busy to handle the day-to-day business of the case. So if a good lawyer’s handling the case and is well prepared and Belli steps in and assists right before it goes to trial, you could get good representation. But if you get somebody handling the case who doesn’t know what they’re doing, you’re not going to get good representation.”

Belli still can be extremely cagey in court and use his age to his advantage. Lawyers who have tried cases with him say he sometimes pretends not to hear an answer--particularly when the answer makes a strong point and he wants it repeated. During a trial in Chicago, recalled Maas, the firm’s former managing attorney, Belli was questioning his client’s doctor. The client, who became a paraplegic after an accident, developed a skin condition.

“What could happen if the sores spread?” Belli asked.

“It could lead to death,” the doctor replied.

“I’m sorry, I didn’t hear what you said,” Belli said.

“It could lead to death.”

“I’m sorry, I still didn’t hear your answer.”

A juror finally leaned out of the jury box and said, “It could lead to death, Mr. Belli.”

Angry Confrontations

Belli tried the same tactic to emphasize a point at a trial two years ago in Santa Barbara before Superior Court Judge Bruce Dodds. The case involved the family of a man who smoked for more than 50 years and brought a wrongful death suit against the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., maker of the cigarettes the man had smoked. But Dodds chastised Belli in court for the tactic, one of a series of angry confrontations between the two during the trial.

In a recent interview, Dodds said Belli rushed the case to trial in order to obtain more publicity. A similar case was about to go to trial in another state and Belli knew if he was the first, Dodds said, he would receive more attention.

“He put his own interest in publicity before the interests of his client--I saw it over and over again,” Dodds said. “He was more interested in making his pitch outside in front of the cameras than he was in preparing a good case in the courtroom. His co-counsel defended all the motions. . . . Belli clearly had no idea what was going on.

“His (Belli’s) closing argument was one of the worst I’ve ever seen. It was totally disorganized. He just rambled. It made no sense. He had no idea of where he was going or what he was going to say. . . . He’s an embarrassment to the legal profession.”

Thomas Workman, an attorney who represented Reynolds, originally had planned a closing argument that was critical of Belli.

Changes Argument

“But after Belli’s closing, I went back to the office during the noon recess and made some drastic changes in my argument,” Workman recalled. “I felt that the jury, who had just watched him fumble, might be unhappy with me if I was too critical of this fumbling old man.”

Belli denied rushing the case to trial for publicity purposes, and added that throughout the trial, he was hamstrung by a succession of rulings against him by Dodds.

Belli could still be an asset to the firm if he would realize his limitations, lawyers who have worked for him said. At times, Kiernan said, he still has “a great sense of the law, an uncanny ability to take a set of facts and apply it to legal concepts.” Belli would be more valuable, former associates at his firm say, as a semi-retired senior partner who consults on cases. But he still tries a number of the big cases and refuses to relinquish many duties.

In addition to his San Francisco firm, Belli is a partner in offices in seven other California cities. His caseload, former associates said, is simply too much for an 80-year-old man. But Belli, they said, has a tremendous ego and does not want to leave center stage.

Belli is a master at self-promotion. He has a full-time public relations representative who is in charge of handling his numerous press calls and making sure that his name stays in the papers. Belli never is too busy to talk to the press and clients said that frequently, during conferences, Belli breaks away to take calls from reporters and discuss newsworthy cases.

‘Loves Telling Life Story’

“He loves the sound of his own name,” said Maas, who had a legal dispute with Belli after he left the firm involving fees and clients. “He loves telling his life story from childhood to the present, over and over and over again. He loves seeing his name in print. He has a statewide clipping service that saves any article with his name in it. You can often see him at his desk sifting through the articles.”

Belli’s name is in the news so much that he often is the first attorney who comes to mind when someone has a big personal injury case.

And some clients said that Belli’s ability to attract publicity has helped their cases. Lyle Sudrow, who was involved in a patent dispute with Lockheed Corp. over an invention, said Belli’s presence gave “immediate clout” to his case.

“Lockheed had been able to keep a lid on all the publicity, but when Belli walked into the courtroom, he brought with him the reporters, all the major networks . . . the only thing missing was the brass band,” Sudrow said. “I think that really worked in my favor. The publicity shook Lockheed up and they softened their position. That was instrumental in helping me salvage my patents.”

There are a number of trial attorneys who have won many more $1-million-plus verdicts in the last decade than Belli, said Federico Sayre, a former partner in Belli’s Los Angeles office. There are a number of trial attorneys who are better respected among their peers, said Sayre, who also had a legal dispute with Belli over clients after he left the firm.

‘Still Considered No. 1’

“But to the the man on the street, Belli is still considered No. 1,” Sayre said. “Why? He’s a genius at self-aggrandizement.

“In his day he was a damn good lawyer. He’s done some landmark things. Hell, he’s the father of personal injury attorneys. That’s the image the public still sees. And the public usually buys the image.”

Belli relishes the publicity and celebrity partly because he knows it will eventually bring him business, Sayre said. But he also simply enjoys the attention. Belli, Sayre said, has “an ego as big as all outdoors.”

Each year Belli throws himself a lavish birthday party and revels in the daylong celebration. Last July, on his 80th birthday, he closed off the street in front of his office and hired a Dixieland band; 4,000 people showed up. In an anomalous juxtaposition of events, a woman in a bikini crawled out of a gorilla suit and hugged Belli, and later his clients Jim and Tammy Bakker, who were visiting San Francisco at the time, presented him with an autographed gilt-edged Bible, while the band played “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

“I thought Belli hooking up with Jim and Tammy Bakker was the greatest combination I’ve ever seen,” said Kussman, the former associate in Belli’s Los Angeles office. “You’ve got one guy who thinks he talks to God being represented by a guy who thinks he is God.”

Discuss Contracts

On a recent afternoon, the Bakkers’ book agent called Belli to discuss some contracts he recently sent Belli.

“You’ve been an inspiration to them,” the agent told Belli. “They think you were sent from heaven.”

Other clients, however, who are not as famous as the Bakkers, have a less celestial view of the representation they have received. After Arlene Booker’s home was burglarized, she disputed the amount she was reimbursed by the Prudential Insurance Co. She met with Belli in his office and he told her that his firm would handle her case.

But twice attorneys in Belli’s office neglected to file on time the necessary paper work to the court. As a result, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Belli’s firm appealed the decision, but the appellate court rejected the appeal in 1985, because Belli’s attorneys again failed to file the necessary paper work on time.

Booker called the firm repeatedly over the course of several years and inquired why it was taking so long to settle her case. No one told her about the firm’s errors until the case was dismissed.

“They just kept saying they hadn’t received a court date yet,” Booker recalled. “I never found out they forgot to file on time until the very end. All that time, they kept reassuring me, and I thought they were on top of the case.”

8 Lawyers Handled Case

Eight different lawyers handled the case, Booker said. Each time the case was “shuffled to another lawyer,” she said, she had to “start all over and explain the case from the beginning.”

Belli also is frequently criticized for “ambulance chasing.” Legal associations have condemned Belli for appearing at the scene of airline crashes and other disasters and filing suit. He was the first attorney in the United States to sue Union Carbide Corp. after a poison gas leak in Bhopal, India, killed 1,700 people in 1984. And he represents the survivors of 14 people who were killed last August in the Northwest Airlines crash near Detroit, where 156 people died.

“Belli sends investigators to the scene of the accidents to sign up people,” a former associate acknowledged, but emphasized that Belli is “not alone. . . . A lot of the big P.I. (personal injury) lawyers have people out there.”

The associate recalled an instance in which Belli’s firm was interested in representing an accident victim who had been taken to a hospital. “Someone from the office was sent to the person’s room. But on the clip that held the intravenous bottle was another lawyer’s card. He had gotten there first.”

Belli, however, denies that he solicits clients. After the Northwest crash, he said, “we didn’t move out of the office.” The survivors’ families, he said, called him because of his reputation. After the gas leak in Bhopal, Belli had quipped: “I’m not an ambulance chaser; I always get there before the ambulance arrives.” But Belli said he was joking and he did not solicit any clients. A number of Indian attorneys contacted him, he said, and asked if he would file suit in the United States for their clients.

‘A Very High Profile’

“I don’t have to chase cases--we get dozens of calls a day from prospective clients,” Belli said. “I have a very high profile--people have seen me on TV and have read my books. If you want the best heart surgeon you’re going to call (Dr. Michael) DeBakey. If you want the best lawyer you’re going to call me.”

But James Bostwick, who won the $3.8-million legal malpractice judgment against Belli in 1985, disagreed. The suit involved Ted Giesick, who suffered a broken neck in a motorcycle accident in 1972 near San Diego. He was still able to move his arms and legs when he arrived at the hospital. Then Giesick was moved by nurses who were changing his bed sheet, which caused the fractured bones to sever his spinal cord, leaving him a quadriplegic.

Giesick’s family hired Belli’s law firm, who reached an out-of-court settlement with the driver’s insurance company for $250,000, but failed to recognize the medical malpractice case in time to effectively prosecute it. The statute of limitations on malpractice cases had expired by the time the firm recognized the hospital’s negligence. Giesick’s family then hired Bostwick.

In the legal malpractice trial, Bostwick introduced as evidence a letter signed by Belli in which Belli promised to personally handle the pretrial discovery on the medical malpractice case and, if necessary, the trial itself. But Belli apparently failed to understand the magnitude of the case, Bostwick believes, and evidently lost interest in the suit.

“The only thing I could find in the entire file that he did on the case,” Bostwick said, “was what he wrote on the deposition (of the driver who caused the accident): ‘Piss-poor deposition. Waste of time and money.’ I’ll never forget it.”