The Great Ambulance Chase

The survivors barely had time to mourn when suddenly there they were: American lawyers. Looking for business. They courted Indian legal experts over leisurely meals in New Delhi's finest hotels. They culled documents at makeshift relief offices outside the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, seeking the names of potential clients. Their motives, the U.S. lawyers insisted, were pure. As Melvin Belli, the flamboyant San Francisco attorney sometimes called the "King of Torts," put it, somewhat inelegantly, "I am here to bring justice and money to those poor little people who have suffered at the hands of those rich sons of bitches." But others saw less admirable reasons for the legal presence. Said Mont Hoyt, chairman of the American Bar Association's international law and practice section: "They're trying to get a piece of the settlement."

The lawyers, who under standard contingency-fee arrangements in the U.S. can earn 30% of the awards they win in a personal-injury case, are hoping to turn the Bhopal gas leak into the most profitable disaster ever. Mega-claims have already been brought against Union Carbide in a number of U.S. jurisdictions where the company does business. Belli is seeking $15 billion in a class action filed in Charleston, W. Va. The Santa Monica, Calif., law firm Gould & Sayre has put in a $20 billion class-action claim in New York City. Coale & Associates of Washington expects to represent thousands of Bhopal victims in a suit that will probably be filed in Connecticut.

Though some legal actions have been started in India, the focus of activity is in the U.S., where the financial rewards are potentially greater. "The price of life is worth less in India than in the U.S.," said Hoyt bluntly. In addition, riling fees for damage suits in India are almost prohibitively high, and the courts are notoriously slow. "If the suit were filed in India, the judgment would be in the next century," said Nani Palkhivala, one of India's most respected attorneys. More important, the U.S. offers more generous legal grounds on which to base a case. Lawyers can file a suit for negligence, under which a plaintiff would have to prove carelessness on the part of Union Carbide. But more appealing is the doctrine of strict liability, under which negligence need not be proved. Said Belli: "It doesn't matter that you didn't intend to bring harm. What matters is that it happened. In this Bhopal case we can damn well prove that it happened." His plan: "We'll have videotape of all those poor bastards who are sick and dying. We will have a brochure on every single person who was killed."

Before U.S. jurors and judges see such grim testaments of the tragedy, however, the question of jurisdiction must be resolved. The American lawyers representing Bhopal clients argue that suits can be brought in the U.S. because Union Carbide India is 51% owned by the Union Carbide Corp. of the U.S. and is thus an agent of the parent firm. The U.S. corporation, they further contend, is responsible for the Indian plant's design and safety program. Cautioned Hoyt, who has represented Union Carbide in other matters: "Just because you have equity in a company doesn't mean that company is your agent." The plant in India, he suggested, might have been "fairly autonomous."

Another obstacle to an American trial, according to lawyers, is a 1981 Supreme Court ruling that an American company involved in a calamity abroad may not be sued in the U.S. just because U.S. law is more favorable to the victims. But if American courts do accept jurisdiction, there is yet another dilemma: Should the case be decided according to U.S. or Indian laws? Said Columbia University Law Professor Willis Reese: "The choice of law is of considerable uncertainty."

On one matter, however, there is little doubt. The tarnished image of American attorneys could get even blacker as a result of the Bhopal gold rush. Said Illinois Lawyer Carole Bellows: "It certainly reinforces the perception that lawyers are ambulance chasers."