Salto, Dianne D. Atty.

Galahad Pe
Benito

CHAPTER IV: Rule 11

Woburn case was not all about children having childhood leukemia from a suspected TCE that
contaminated Wells G and H. It was also discovered that even an adult from Woburn had acquired
leukemia. He was named Roland Gamache. He, of course, had read the newspaper about the east
Woburn leukemia cases in children. He knew nothing about the lawsuit. His neighbor knocked on
his door one evening and asked Roland if he would join the other families from filing a complaint
against the Tanneries. He was confused at that moment but, he and his wife made a decision to get
involved with this case considering their children. Roland said that he didnt want his children to
be exposed to any more toxic chemicals.
Roland was making plans to take his boys to a Bruins hockey's game. As it happened, the
Riley tannery had a pair of season tickets adjacent to his own. He made a phone call on Jack Riley.
He saw the message and remembered Gamache to be one of the plaintiffs in the Woburn case. He
asked his secretary to to tell Gamache to come over. Gamache arrived at the tannery and they
exchanged conversations and Riley asked him if he has leukemia. He immediately introduced
himself as the owner of the tannery which they are suing. When Gamache learned that he is the
owner, he left as he can leaving a statement that, I didnt realize your tannery was part of the
lawsuit. The lawyers were looking for people to join the case. All we want to do is stop the big
chemical companies from dumping.
Riley called Neil Jacobs (one of the counsel for Woburn case) to tell him that he encountered
one of the plaintiffs in the case. The guy didnt even know who hes suing, said Riley. He said
he did it because the lawyer got into him. To Jacobs, this sounded like an evidence that
Schlichtmann had actively solicited people to join the lawsuit. There was the idea of charging
Schlichtmann for barratry - encouraging of prosecution of groundless litigation. Jacobs called
Facher to suggest this idea alongwith the Rule 11 motion that was being insisted by Cheeseman.
Facher disagreed to get involved with the plans of Cheeseman. He thought it was inappropriate for
them to charge Schlichtmann barratry and Rule 11 - groundless lawsuit. What Facher suggested
was to charge Schlichtmann for violating Canons of Professional Ethics.
Cheesemans plan pursued. Judge Skinner was the assigned judge for the Woburn case.
Although he have many backlog cases, his secretary found a schedule for Cheesemans motion
hearing. Schlichtmann was notified of the details of the hearing. He told that case to Conway. He
said that he will not adhere to the courts order. He was warned. He was nervous. The trial day has
come. He had no choice but to attack the motion as improper. He told Judge Skinner barratry was
impossible because it violated the attorney-client privilege. Judge Skinner was amused because
honestly, he didnt even read about the barratry case and it was only Rule 11 that has gotten into
his attention. Although Schlichtmann constantly rebutting Judge Skinner on whether to proceed the
cross-examination by Cheeseman to Schlichtmann, the latter asked the Judge to review first the
questions of Cheeseman. While at the course of interrogation, Judge Skinner then made a decision
to deny Cheesemans motion.