William-Marler0036-315x228.jpgMultiple Pulitzer Prize winner Andrew Schneider and I have spoken quite a bit over the last several months as he plowed through the facts as he wrote this blog post and a three-part series for AOL News – 1, 2 an 3. Here are a few of my favorite “back and forth:”

Why should a trial lawyer kick in a half-million dollars of his own money to document the presence of an unregulated pathogen in America’s meat supply when the agency responsible for meat safety won’t?

“That’s precisely why,” William Marler told me during a long series of interviews earlier this year.


Many of his critics say Marler spent $500,000 on testing just to generate new business. Not so, he says.

“From a legal prospective, it doesn’t matter whether the pathogen is considered an adulterant or not. If the injured party is sick and we can prove the source of the pathogen, they can still sue,” Marler said. “The reality is that the easiest way for the industry to make sure that I don’t make a penny from their shortcomings is to not poison the people in the first place.”

By the way, in the picture above, I’m on the left.  In one of Mr. Schneider longer pieces, “Food-Safety Lawyer Puts His Money Where Your Mouth Is,” he had a series of unnamed sources – erstwhile competitors and lawyers who defend companies that poison people say a few words:

Some people don’t like Marler, however. AOL News contacted five other lawyers who handle food-borne illness cases and defense lawyers who say they work for large food companies. Only two would talk, even without their names being used.

“Marler is good. Many of us are much, much better. He just does a better job pimping his own successes than most of us do,” said one Midwest lawyer. He would offer no details, citing bar association edicts against talking bad about brother barristers.

Another defense lawyer, who said his firm represented two major food industry companies in cases that Marler pushed, called him ruthless, adding, “If his client is a kid, even a teenager, there is absolutely nothing, nothing at all Marler won’t do to get a juicy settlement. He doesn’t understand compromise, and sometimes I wonder how he sleeps.”

Interesting. The lawyer who claims to be better hides behind a non-existent bar rule.  Frankly, the lawyer is simply a pussy. No wonder he gets few clients; he does not have the balls to use his own name – pathetic. As for the defense lawyer calling me ruthless in pursuit of a fair result for a kid – Thanks for the complement.

  • Bill, what about this issue with beef which has gone under the radar for FAR too long and is potential life threatening: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_leukemia_virus?wasRedirected=true which is linked to various cancers! http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/3/S1/A14
    This is how the food industry regulates itself!
    You go for it, Bill!!

  • Bill, I think you ought to regret your description of the anonymous lawyer, even edit the post to something like: “If you don’t have the guts to say who you are, then you probably don’t have the stomach for this fight”. Calling an unknown critic a vulgar name isn’t something you would do at a social event, so don’t do it in social media.

  • I respect your opinion – and you are right – but I am going to leave as is.

  • The Midwest lawyer is obviously jealous of your talent and the talents of the firm.

  • Ann Quinn, consumer

    On behalf of beef consumers in this country, thank you, Mr. Marler and Mr. Schneider,
    for making the effort to call the E. coli health threat to the attention of government
    regulators at the USDA despite years of meat industry opposition to any such testing.
    Now the government and consumers can’t say they don’t know because the testing
    has been done. Whether government will do the right things to protect consumer
    health is another whole question.

  • Fair enough, Bill.