FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 20, 1997

The announcement on Thursday that the Liggett Group Inc. under a settlement with 22 states suing the tobacco companies, will publicly acknowledge that cigarettes are addictive and cause cancer adds an important new element to the tobacco litigation debate.

I share the view of many Ohioans that cigarettes are addictive and do cause cancer. The government estimates that 400,000 Americans die every year from smoking. My own father’s health is now threatened from his 30 years of smoking. He has emphysema. My grandfather, who smoked two packs of cigarettes a day, died from cancer.

As you may recall, I announced on Jan. 21, after months of hard work and deliberations on the part of my staff, that given the information available at that time, joining the 22 states in their litigation against the tobacco companies -- because of its high cost and high degree of difficulty -- was not in the best interests of Ohio taxpayers.

I still believe strongly that Ohio should only join in suing the tobacco companies if we have strong evidence that the millions of dollars it would cost to sue would result in millions more in benefits to Ohio’s taxpayers. Any other basis for making this important decision would be irresponsible.

The Liggett Group Inc. is the smallest tobacco company in the United States with a market share of less than 2 percent.

However, the Liggett settlement announced today represents a significant change in the legal landscape surrounding the tobacco issue.

The Liggett Group has agreed to turn over thousands of documents that could very well prove useful in any lawsuit against the tobacco industry. These documents are said to contain information spanning some thirty years. The documents are also said to contain correspondence with the other larger tobacco corporations currently involved in the litigation with other states.

As I said in January, if new information or significant changes occurred in pending tobacco litigation, we would take another look at Ohio’s possible involvement.

In light of the Liggett settlement I have ordered the tobacco working group in my office to reassemble and begin a complete reexamination of the tobacco issue and the question of whether Ohio should join the other states suing the tobacco companies.

This group is made up of experienced attorneys from various sections in my office who have spent months examining the complex issues surrounding tobacco litigation.

One of the first things we will do is to obtain the documents being released by Liggett as part of today’s settlement. I am prepared to go to court if necessary to get this information.

Despite the positive effects of the Liggett settlement, there still are a number of complicated issues to weigh when considering any possible litigation against the tobacco industry.

Twenty two state attorneys general have chosen to bring suit against tobacco companies, seeking, among other things, reimbursement for monies that their respective states have spent to provide Medicaid coverage to people with smoking-related illnesses. Each of these lawsuits is a separate action, filed in a different court, and each is based on the laws of the particular state involved. There is no national lawsuit, and for the most part, each state must act alone.

If we were to file suit, it would probably be the largest and most expensive state government legal action in Ohio history.

Many of the legal theories being used in the lawsuits are untested and unproven. And some of the laws relied upon in the other suits aren’t available in Ohio’s legal system.

If any of the states already suing tobacco companies achieves a victory, it is likely that the tobacco industry would enter into a universal settlement which provides money and industry reform in all 50 states. In that circumstance, Ohio would be able to reap the benefits of a tobacco settlement without risking millions of dollars in legal fees and state resources.

My discussions with other attorneys general gave me insight into what Ohio might expect if a suit were to be filed. For example, in addition to the resources that would be taken from the Attorney General’s Office, other state agencies could literally be overwhelmed with work. These agencies could be forced to divert a multitude of employees to respond to the blizzard of document requests that would come from the tobacco companies as they prepare to defend against our lawsuit.

As other states have learned, the only way to effectively litigate a huge case like this is to sign over authority and responsibility for litigating the matter to private attorneys who would receive a large percentage of any eventual recovery.

To take such an approach would, by necessity, allow the strategy and tactical decisions of Ohio’s largest lawsuit to be made by people potentially motivated more by profit than by public policy. In some cases, such contingency fee arrangements are quite appropriate. However, with the long odds of winning and the magnitude of the work involved, I do not believe this is an appropriate way for Ohio to litigate such a case.

Whether outside counsel are employed or not, the amount of legal work involved in this suit would steal precious resources from some of the most important legal cases in Ohio. And a review of some of these cases proves I won’t back down from a tough fight. The fight to ensure Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ohio honors its multi-million dollar responsibility to health care for the needy is just one example. In fact, by making the scrupulous enforcement of Ohio charitable law a priority, we have been able to set aside and protect more than $300 million in charitable assets aimed at helping the sick and needy in several health care conversions over the last two years.

In addition to these reasons, there is one overriding concern I have. As I’ve learned from my discussions with other litigators from other states, each attorney general involved in the tobacco litigation spends a great deal of his or her personal attention, time, and energy managing the day-to-day issues involved in the litigation. When I ran for attorney general, I promised the people of Ohio that I would use my experience as a prosecutor to re-prioritize the Attorney General’s Office to help local law enforcement fight crime, beef up consumer protection and environmental enforcement, professionally serve our state government clients, as well as protect needy people by regulating charities.

While I think that some of the practices of the tobacco industry appear to be unethical and harmful, diverting this office’s primary focus from the priorities promised to a costly and potentially unwinnable tobacco lawsuit would be tantamount to breaking the promise I made to the people of Ohio.

As I have said all along, I will not now ask Ohioans to risk the millions of tax dollars required and divert attention from the priorities of this office to take on the tobacco industry, unless there is hard evidence that such litigation would reap substantial financial benefits for the state.