MovieChat Forums > Erin Brockovich (2000) Discussion > Erin Brockovich Controversies

Erin Brockovich Controversies


After reading the article from The Daily Beast, my opinion of her has drastically changed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/12/the-messy-truth-about -erin-brockovich.html


The last time most of us heard about legal crusader Erin Brockovich, she was being glamorously portrayed by Julia Roberts in an Academy Award–winning film.

Thirteen years later, she’s a household name again—for drunkenly driving a boat around a Nevada lake, an act that earned her a DUI citation and a very unflattering mug shot. Brockovich was booked at the Clark County Detention Center and released after posting $1,000 bond.

“At no time was the boat away from the dock and there was no public safety risk,” Brockovich wrote in a public apology released on Sunday. “That being said, I take drunk driving very seriously, this was clearly a big mistake. I know better and I am very sorry.”

Not a good look for a woman whose reputation is built on moral rectitude. But even before the boating incident, Brockovich’s post-Brockovich life hasn’t been without controversy. In the years since the 2000 movie was released, much of her litigation—including the landmark class-action suit that inspired the film, have been the subject of intense scrutiny.

As moviegoers know, before Brockovich was an inebriated sailor, she was a twice-divorced mother of three who led a 1993 lawsuit against Pacific Gas and Electric for contaminating drinking water in the town of Hinkley, California. Brockovich and her firm alleged that residents of Hinkley were suffering higher rates of cancer due to pollutants used to fight corrosion in a natural gas pipeline built by PG&E. At $333 million, the 1996 settlement won by Brockovich and her team was the largest sum ever awarded in a U.S. class-action lawsuit.

Brockovich, who famously had no prior legal training, earned a $2 million bonus for the case and parlayed the victory into a lucrative career.

She’s got a flashy website promoting her nearly two decades as a consumer advocate, with information on everything from defective hip-implant manufacturers to Accutane’s side effects. She’s been celebrated in the PBS documentary series Makers and made The New York Times business bestseller list with her 2001 autobiography, Take It From Me: Life’s a Struggle But You Can Win.

But questions about the Hinkley case continue to dog her.

Rates of cancer in the California town are not currently and have never actually been higher than other remote desert communities, John Morgan, a professor at Loma Linda University and one of Brockovich’s main detractors, has argued (PDF). Morgan’s research, based on studies done in 1997, 2000, and 2010, has found “no cancer excess” in Hinkley. Morgan has compared Brockovich to Don Quixote and inspired articles debunking links between cancer and environmental contaminants—the very basis of Brockovich’s fame. Bolstering Morgan’s case, a 2010 study by the California Cancer Registry also found that cancer rates in Hinkley were “unremarkable” between 1988 and 2008.

For her part, Brockovich has accused Morgan of “projecting junk science onto me when he’s the one doing junk science.” And she has plenty of support in her camp—the Center for Public Integrity has published a comprehensive debunking of Morgan’s debunking. The investigation, published in Mother Jones, found that key state and federal agencies—including the Environmental Protection Agency—have found credible links between drinking hexavalent chromium, a rust inhibitor found in Hinkley, and higher rates of cancer.

It’s not just Hinkley, though.

A 2003 New Republic investigation found no evidence to support Brockovich’s claim that oil wells at Beverly Hills High School were spreading benzene, a chemical she alleged was causing cancer in students and staff. Health officials and local agencies couldn’t find any proof of a benzene-related health problem, and a subpoena of Brockovich’s testing data found that benzene readings in Beverly Hills were average.

The New Republic investigation also charged that Brockovich’s pattern of allegations without evidence went as far back as 1997, when Brockovich claimed she took a field test that showed an underground oil leak in Avila Beach, California, was poisoning local residents. Local authorities couldn’t find any evidence of contamination.

Not that any of this has slowed Brockovich down. In the 13 years since her biopic was released, she has continued to advocate on behalf of communities affected by harmful chemicals and contaminants; Brockovich is currently working with the residents of Bayou Corne, Louisiana, who have been told that their area is uninhabitable due to a growing sinkhole from underground waste storage. She’s given several commencement speeches, collected honorary degrees, and founded her own consulting firm, Brockovich Research & Consulting. She is also a consultant for two New York law firms, Girardi & Keese and Weitz & Luxenberg, and an Australian firm, Shine Lawyers.

True to form, her lawyerly instincts have come in handy as she does damage control in the wake of her DUI. In the statement released after her arrest, she was all too relatable.

“After a day in the sun and with nothing to eat it appears that a couple of drinks had a greater impact than I realized,” she wrote.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.




The more I study it, the greater the puzzle becomes.
The Golden Voyage of Sinbad


reply

Why should your opinion of her change, shes still human after all and can still make stupid mistakes. Oskar Schindler was no angel either but because he did a good deed in his life he is still appreciated for it.







Ashmi any question

reply

As soon as she received that check, the real-life Brockovich became exactly like the film's rich-dick villains, only richer and dickier, like when Shredder turned into Super Shredder.

Instead of taking PG&E to court in full view of the public, Brockovich's firm convinced the residents of Hinkley to settle through private arbitration, where everything would be secret and the lawyers were basically accountable to nobody. After settling on the $333 million, the money wasn't given to the townspeople to pay for their medical bills until six months later. That's how long Erin's firm held onto the cash, giving the lawyers just enough time to have their way with each and every $100 bill.

When Hinkley's residents contacted Erin about their concerns ("concerns" is a term that here means "money for our cancer bills"), they found that their one-time advocate was now unreachable. Once they finally received the money, they noticed that it was far less than they expected. That's because the law firm, wanting more than the agreed-upon 40 percent of the settlement ($133 million), took an extra $10 million for "expenses."

Then, in an act that would make Satan himself issue a public apology, Brockovich's firm screwed the kids with cancer by taking a third of their settlements, even though it's an extraordinarily unusual and universally frowned upon practice to take more than 25 percent. Hinkley's residents also noticed that there was no rationale behind how much money each resident received, but the rules of private arbitration prevented them from finding out the formula used to determine the settlements.


Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_19564_6-based-true-story-movies-with-unpleasant-epilogues.html#ixzz2pGx2MAIP

reply

I'm not saying that it wasn't unfair, but it's absolutely required for plaintiffs attorneys to hold onto the money in escrow before distribution. Liens, subrogation, attorneys fees must be paid before distributing the settlements to the clients. Also, contingency fee contracts specify that the attorneys are paid for their case costs as well as the agreed upon fee. No attorney is going to take on very difficult, complex, and expensive cases if they aren't going to be able to have case costs paid, otherwise there's a risk they'd simply break even and never make any profit, and private law firms are ultimately a business. All of this would be agreed upon by the clients in the contingency fee contracts that they signed.

My biggest problem with it is why they went to binding arbitration in the first place. The plaintiffs bar generally is against binding arbitration be used we don't lightly agree to waive our clients right to a jury trial. I realize what they said the rationale was but, IME, it's not going to be that long, even if you calculate in appeals. I also think if the firm was unreachable after is an ethical breach.

reply

After reading the article from The Daily Beast, my opinion of her has drastically changed.
The Daily Beast! Sounds like a quality journal you could really bank your house against, in terms of first class investigative journalism.🐭

reply

HEy id trust my mothers life with them

idiot. there were probably still plenty of paperwork and the like-so what if the had to wait 6 months for their money-the people at Love Canal and other places have waited 10 years for their money or more

reply

The Daily Beast! Sounds like a quality journal you could really bank your house against, in terms of first class investigative journalism.


As opposed to a Z-Grade Hollywood agitprop mess directed by Steve Soderbergh, right?

Go sit in the corner and think about how stupid you are.

reply

As opposed to a Z-Grade Hollywood agitprop mess directed by Steve Soderbergh, right?
Somewhere you're depriving a village of its resident idiot.🐭

reply

Erin Brockovich is a notorious and well-proven fraud.

The last time she poked her ugly head up, her case was also proven to be a complete hoax.

reply

Agree, the actual facts entire Hinkley incident are inconvenient for the purposes of this sappy, 'girl power' film. This little story could have only happened in California, where the judges are notorious libs.

I'll take Punctuality

reply

In real life, all the money the clients won, it was held from them for awhile and they were shortchanged.
The law firm kept the millions in bank deposits for many months building and keeping the interests. During those
Months they redid all the records and bills and add little think and changing amount give the law firm miliions upon millions of more money. They also took extra pay, bonuses and vacations on the victims earnings. Some of the victims needed money for bill and to live and the law firm didn't give them their own money for many months but spent it on buying them self stuff. Not only did the "heroes" rip off the victim they also help their own money away from them For many months so they could profit more off of it.
All of this proven true

reply

"Erin Brockovich" Town Shows No Cancer Cluster http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/13/erin-brockovich-town-shows-no

Pacific Gas and Electric, which released a toxic plume of hexavalent chromium 6 from a Hinkley-based natural gas pipeline station, paid a record $333 million to settle a class-action suit in 1996. But the California Cancer Registry has now completed three studies {link} that show cancer rates remained normal in from 1988 to 2008.

reply