Purdue Exec: Please Don’t Take My Law License!
16 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // November 7th, 2007 // 10:07 am
File this one under knowing how to give someone a hard time. You may recall that we wrote about Marianne Skolek not long ago in connection with the sad saga known as OxyContin. Skolek spends her time hunting execs from Purdue Pharma, which sells the addictive painkiller also known as Hillbilly Heroin. Why? She won’t rest until Purdue execs, who she believes are responsible for her daughter’s death, are punished. In 2002, her 29-year-old daughter was prescribed the painkiller for a herniated disk and wound up dying of heart failure, leaving behind a 6-year-old son.
True to her word, Skolek is hunting them down. Her quarry this month is Howard Udell, Purdue’s executive vp and chief counsel, who paid an $8 million fine as part of a deal with the federal government, which brought criminal charges against the drugmaker and three current and former execs, including Udell, for misleading regulators, doctors and consumers about the addictive risks of Oxycontin. All totalled, Purdue, its parent and the execs agreed to pay $634 million in fines.
However, as part of the deal, none of the individuals are serving any jail time. And so the unflappable Skolek is seeking other forms of punishment. She recently filed a grievance against Udell with the state of Connecticut, where Purdue is based, in hopes that his license to practice law will be revoked. In fact, there are 19 individual disciplinary complaints filed against Udell, according to his reply to the state’s Attorney General Grievance Panel.
In his defense, Udell writes*: “The guilty plea arose from my employment…But neither the nature of this plea nor the facts underlying it support disciplinary action, because my guilty plea involved no wrongful acts on my part, but was based solely on my position at Purdue at a time when certain Purdue sales and marketing personnel engaged in misconduct of which I was unaware.” To back up his claim, he notes US District Court Judge James Jones wrote in his order last July that there was an “absence of government proof of knowledge by the individual defendants of the wrongdoing.”
That’s not good enough for Skolek. “Then he shouldn’t have pled guilty. All he’s doing is twisting words. If he didn’t do anything wrong, he wouldn’t be doing 400 hours of community service at a drug rehab or be on probation. He’s a criminal, and he shouldn’t be able to practice law. His actions killed and caused addiction among innocent people all across the nation.” What do you think?
Should Garino have disclosed the payments to the patient?
- Yes (91%, 102 Votes)
- No (10%, 11 Votes)
Total Voters: 112
Loading ...* We have the documents, but are unable at this time to provide links. However, we hope to be able to do so later today or tomorrow. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Pharma Giles
Hats off to Ms. Skolek. Time amd time major pharmaceutical companies are fined hundreds of millions of dollars for corporate wrong-doing. Their senior executives are paid multi-million dollar “compensation packages” to be held accountable for their companies activities, yet in practice they are never. Udell’s $4m fine is peanuts.
Sic em, Marianne…
Jane
If he wasn’t guilty, he shouldn’t have plead guilty. The truth would have come out (at least I hope) had he plead not guilty and there had been a trail. He should lose his license!
Kelly
To think that he should “just not plead guilty” and the truth would come out is a naive view of the US justice system. At times, organizations (and people) view a guilty to lesser charges/lesser punishment preferable to a not guilty leading to a more publicized trial. Even if he did not know the activities of those under him, he had to take *some* responsibility. The question is, does what *he* did warrant losing his license to practice law? I don’t know the specifics of the case, and so cannot say.
James
Kelly, you make a good point. However, he, as a lawyer, should have been aware of the potential risks of his plea. He should not be surprised that this crusader is now going after his license. For him to play the victim now, after having pled guilty, is disingenuous.
Of course, he may have known that this was going to happen, and knew that his best response would be to act like the victim, and to be disingenuous. If so, he should absolutely retain his law license, as such disiengenuosity proves that he is a true lawyer in every sense of the word :)
Bob
A guilty plea alone cannot form the basis for taking a law license. Udell’s crime was not a crime of moral turpitude, and there is no evidence that he had knowledge of the wrongdoing. There is no “should have known” standard in legal ethics unless one’s lack of knowledge constitutes a sort of willful blindness. Skolek appears to have no such evidence to proffer in this case. This is just one more episode in her self-righteous crusade to take revenge on the maker of the drug that her daughter abused.
Marianne Skolek
Bob — your choice of words leads me to believe you are in the legal profession and possibly employed by Purdue Pharma. Also, “the drug that her daughter abused” could be construed as libel. Jill can’t defend herself or her name, and you know that, but I can defend her name, and will. You should be ashamed of yourself for taking such a cheap shot at Jill.
Lisa Van S
Marianne,
Bob, is just a cheerleader for the He man, Woman haters club,and takes great pride in taking pot shots at women and unfortunately, even those who have lost their lives.
And if a woman fights back, he considers them Psychos or Sexually deprived. Save your breath, this Joker isnt worth it….
tde
Taking pot shots at someone who lost a daughter.
You truly are a class act.
Felicia
Marianne,
I may not agree that with all that you are doing and that is my right as an individual. Yes the top officials of a company should know what is going on but most don’t. Pleading guilty is a cop out and it should be taken that way. As for the drug that Purdue produces it is a dangerous drug and should be removed from the market. My husband had a an accident when racing a boat six years ago and at the hospital they had him on morphine for the pain that he had. When he told them the morphine was making him sick they gave him Oxicontin. When he was released from the hospital a week later he was in bed at home and woke me up asking me to kill the spiders on the ceiling. When I told him there were none on the ceiling he told me I was crazy. That moment I took those pills and flushed them down the toliet. The next morning I told him what had happened and he told me not to give them to him anymore. I told him that they were already gone. He could take Advil for the pain and he would just deal with it. This drug is dangerous and addictive. The thing that aggravates me is that you don’t know you are addicted until it is to late. You go through withdraw just like any narcotic. I am sure your daughter didn’t misuse it, but unconciously it could be misused by someone. I was fortunate my husband had no lasting effects from the drug. I would like to see someone take the drug on and get it stopped from being used in any way, shape or form. Losing licenses doesn’t get rid of the real threat, the drug. Suing big pharma doesn’t stop the production of a drug. Someone needs to look to the FDA for approving this drug without really reviewing the clinical trials. Did anyone report to the FDA the side effects of this drug honestly? My thoughts are no when my own husband had halluciations. I admire what you are doing but suing the officials doesn’t stop the drug. I don’t have the means to stop the drug but if someone does that is where the attack needs to directed. Purdue will pay the fines and move on producing this drug. If I missed the fact that you are tryingt to stop the drug in this article, I apologize but I didn’t see that.
Janet
Felicia -
What are you recommending for pain control for cancer patients and other patients who need more than Advil? These products have risks and benefits. It is when risks are downplayed or ignored that many of these problems occur. Taking an effective drug off the market is not the answer.
Felicia
Janet:
You have a valid point as cancer patients suffer with pain from the illness and other side effects of the disease. I also understand the chances that are taken with any drug that is on the market narcotic or not. Advil has severe side effects if taken for long periods of time and I was warned about the side effects of taking them for too long when I had sciatic nerve pain. You are right Oxycontin may be an effective drug in those cases but are the severe side effects (possible death) worth the use of the drug? I guess with the experience My husband had along with the other reports that I have read it makes me think that it is the a drug worth pulling. The question that comes to me is how can suing the pharma or the execs make the issue of death from their drug better if we don’t do something about the drug?
Felicia
Janet:
You have a valid point as cancer patients suffer with pain from the illness and other side effects of the disease. I also understand the chances that are taken with any drug that is on the market narcotic or not. Advil has severe side effects if taken for long periods of time and I was warned about the side effects of taking them for too long when I had sciatic nerve pain. You are right Oxycontin may be an effective drug in those cases but are the side effects (possible death) worth the use of the drug? I guess with the experience My husband had along with the other reports that I have read it makes me think that it is the a drug worth pulling. The question that comes to me is how can suing the pharma or the execs make the issue of death from their drug better if we don’t do something about the drug?
Janet
From first hand experience, I would say that the benefits of oxycontin in the case of cancer patients are worth the risk. However, I also have friends whose kids are addicted to it, and their lives are hell. One received the drug for a injury and ended up getting hooked. I don’t know what the answer is, but taking away an effective pain control option from cancer and other patients who experience severe pain doesn’t seem like an optimal solution to me. [One step in the right direction is holding pharma excutives accountable when the risks of these drugs are downplayed by the company.]
Jill
I have to chime in here with some comments on the use of Oxycontin. My husband has been on it for about 10 years due to severe chronic back pain that all but stops him in his tracks. Oxycontin keeps him going. Is he addicted? Undoubtedly. Would he be able to get out of bed each morning without it? No way. Is there anything else he could take instead? No, not that we’ve ever been able to legally get a hold of! Morphine makes HIM see spiders on the ceiling; Oxycontin doesn’t. Every drug has risks and benefits. For some people, the risks outweigh the benefits. For others, the benefits outweigh the risks. The drug companies have the responsibility to let patients and health care practitioners know ALL of the risks so they can make informed decisions.
Lynn Locascio
You go Marianne!! I sat behind you at the trial and was very pleased to hear you speak! My son Bobby was with me and he also spoke. Nobody could understand this world unless they have been here. I am blessed, my 23 yr old son beat his oxy addicition, he has been clean for 21 months now. All the opiads he was taking were prescribed for him by doctors! I am also one of the “19″ that has filed a grievance!! This is a modern day plague!! Society needs to get it together and figure this out before we loose anymore people to oxy……….
Marianne Skolek
Lynn — I remember Bobby and would have liked to have told him how proud I am of him. Please tell him for me that I send my best to him. You are truly blessed. Best, Marianne