August 15, 2002

By Collin Levey

One of the largest civil-rights settlements in history has some very strange groups going for a roll in the hay.

The case involves black farmers who sued for what they said was a long pattern of discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Back in 1999, they won a big settlement. But when all the money didn't come through, they found themselves in the awkward position of realizing [that] they'd been hog-tied.

Now they find themselves at odds with the trial lawyer who helped bring the case, the Congressional Black Caucus, which actively hindered their cause two years ago, and the USDA itself, which under Clinton-appointed Secretary Dan Glickman had donned sackcloth and ashes and made a big show of contrition (not to mention dough) to a key Democratic constituency.

The story began back in 1997, when the farmers filed a class-action suit against the USDA alleging they had been the victims of blatant and pervasive loan discrimination by the agency. According to the suit, unequal treatment caused black loan applicants to go bankrupt. The plaintiffs marshaled statistical and anecdotal evidence that they said proved white farmers were treated much more favorably.

When a settlement was announced 1999, it seemed a great victory for civil rights. The plaintiffs, a group of 19,000 farmers, were told to expect a payout of $1.2 billion. Plaintiffs who agreed to a "fast track" settlement of their individual claims would get a flat $50,000 plus forgiveness of any outstanding crop loans.

It sounded like great deal, and 98% of the farmers grabbed it.

Everybody was happy, especially the trial lawyers -- led by Alexander Pires and his firm Conlon, Frantz, Phelan Pires & Leavy -- who netted some $15 million in legal fees of the deal.

Fast forward two years.

What looked like either a legal lottery windfall looks very different today. In fact, as ugly as many discrimination class actions become, this one looks an especially sickening brew of political cynicism, legal greed and exploitation.

Since the settlement, the Department of Agriculture has paid out some $623 million in claims and forgiven another $17.2 million in loans.

But the USDA has also been challenging most of the fast-track claims that come its way. Already it has rejected half.

And under the fine print of the settlement, those farmers who filed for fast-track and were refused, forfeit their claim.

Each person who applied for fast track had to prove that he'd been discriminated against by showing that whites had gotten loans under similar circumstances. Lawyers for both sides claim these were risks spelled out in advance, but many farmers say they weren't.

"I'm ashamed my name is on this case, the way it's turned out," Timothy Pigford, the lead plaintiff in the suit now known as Pigford v. Veneman, remarked earlier in the summer as resentment among the so-called plaintiffs was building.

Recently, 300 black farmers occupied a USDA office in Brownsville, Texas for six days until Secretary Ann Veneman agreed to meet with them.

Under normal circumstances, we might applaud a story like this one. Class actions have been richly abused, and it is nice to see gold-digging claims by dubious victims rejected once in a while.

But the circumstances aren't normal here.

By all appearances, after receiving their $15 million contingency fee, Mr. Pires and his law firm rode off into the sunset and left the firm's nominal clients to fend for themselves against the USDA. It smelled like a big-time sellout.

U.S. district judge Paul Friedman fined even Mr. Pires and his firm, saying the handling of the case was skating on thin ice for legal malpractice.

Later, a the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remarked that the class-action firm had committed a "betrayal" of its clients.

But what did the slap on the wrist matter? Mr. Pires had already moved on to suing cigarette companies over tobacco imports and launching new suits against the USDA on behalf of American Indian, Hispanic and female farmers.

As cynical as the lawyers are, though, perhaps the worst has come from the Congressional Black Caucus.

Shortly after the settlement was filed, when two Republican congressmen, J.C. Watts of Oklahoma and Jay Dickey of Arkansas, sponsored a bill to help the farmers, it was the Black Caucus that shot it down.

The Washington Times reported that the caucus's members "were explicit" in saying they opposed because its sponsor was Mr. Dickey, "who they said was merely trying to protect himself in the face of a tough Democratic election challenge." (Mr. Dickey lost.)

The Democrats' move was so egregious that the black farmers came out with a statement supporting George W. Bush.

Of course, these days the Black Caucus is making lots of noise demanding that Ms. Veneman do more to promote civil rights.

But it's not likely the farmers will forget -- and the politicians may reap what they have sown.

Ms. Levey is an assistant features editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/clevey/?id=110002132