Ken Starr
Kenneth Starr (Robert Rogers)

Mark Lanier, one of America’s premier trial lawyers, is a man of rock-ribbed integrity. His word is his bond. I can vouch for this at a deep personal level. I’ve known Mark well since his third year in law school, over three decades ago. I’m now working with Mark on one of his high-visibility cases.


Mark Lanier, founder of the Lanier Law Firm.

Specifically, at Christmastime, I accepted Mark’s invitation to join his appellate team, which includes the renowned Arthur Miller of NYU Law School, defending a billion-dollar judgment that Mark and his trial team won in a federal district court jury trial in Dallas presided over by a highly respected judge, Ed Kinkeade. The key defendant on the pending appeal is Johnson & Johnson. The subject: one of Johnson & Johnson’s most controversial product lines, metal-on-metal hip implants, which the jury found caused enormous injury to aging patients. For the last five months, I’ve seen day in and day out that Mark displays Honest Abe-like integrity as he goes about his work. He cares about justice. He cares about truth. Full disclosure — Mark is also my personal lawyer. I consider him a close and trusted friend.



In recent days, what I consider Mark’s unimpeachable character has come under a publicity-driven assault by corporate opponents who he vanquished, fair and square, in the courtroom. Supported by the national Chamber of Commerce as amicus, Johnson & Johnson has viciously assailed Mark for allegedly concealing payments to expert witnesses in the hip implant litigation. The national Chamber, which I’ve had the privilege of previously representing in various matters, has joined Johnson & Johnson in mounting a brass knuckles attack on Mark’s integrity in the hip implant litigation.

They should be ashamed. They are way off base, but they have chosen to “try the case” in an aggressive publicity campaign, rather than in the courts of the United States.

Two key experts—Dr. Bernard Morrey and his son, Dr. Matthew Morrey—testified at trial without any pre-arrangement as to compensation. Dr. Bernard Morrey’s testimony was especially powerful. He is the highest-level orthopedic surgeon in the nation. Surgeon to President George H.W. Bush, Barbara Bush and virtually countless celebrities and sports figures, Bernard does not testify as a paid expert. Rather, he came to trial to testify as a truth seeker who was outraged at the defendants’ conduct. After the trial, Mark insisted the Morreys take a reimbursement for their time. Mark and his spouse, Becky, who support many charitable causes, made on their own initiative a contribution to the private Catholic school in Fort Worth where Bernard had gone to school years before. For his part, Dr. Matthew Morrey was paid by the defendants, not the plaintiffs, for appearing at his deposition. Once again, just as with Matthew’s father, there was no pre-arrangement to compensate him for his testimony at trial, and Matthew refused the pre-trial offer to compensate him.

Since securing his jury verdict at trial, Mark Lanier has been entirely transparent as to post-trial compensation that was provided entirely after the fact. The professional opinions of both Dr. Bernard Morrey and Dr. Matthew Morrey were formed out of their own professional experience (and father-to-son advice and guidance in the case of Dr. Matthew Morrey). This is exactly what Judge Kinkeade, a federal judge with vast experience, concluded in rejecting the defendants’ scurrilous claims. In contrast, the defendants in the hip implant litigation have showered literally millions of dollars of fees on their experts.

Lawyers live by their reputation. For decades of practice at the highest levels of excellence, Mark Lanier has built a stellar reputation of professionalism and integrity because judges and juries know they can trust him. He is a man of honor. The smear campaign mounted by the hip-implant defendants merited not only Judge Kinkeade’s well-founded and strongly-worded rebuff, but deserves the condemnation of everyone who respects our system of justice and works to safeguard its integrity.


Copyright The National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Mark Lanier, one of America’s premier trial lawyers, is a man of rock-ribbed integrity. His word is his bond. I can vouch for this at a deep personal level. I’ve known Mark well since his third year in law school, over three decades ago. I’m now working with Mark on one of his high-visibility cases.


Mark Lanier, founder of the Lanier Law Firm .

Specifically, at Christmastime, I accepted Mark’s invitation to join his appellate team, which includes the renowned Arthur Miller of NYU Law School, defending a billion-dollar judgment that Mark and his trial team won in a federal district court jury trial in Dallas presided over by a highly respected judge, Ed Kinkeade . The key defendant on the pending appeal is Johnson & Johnson . The subject: one of Johnson & Johnson ’s most controversial product lines, metal-on-metal hip implants, which the jury found caused enormous injury to aging patients. For the last five months, I’ve seen day in and day out that Mark displays Honest Abe-like integrity as he goes about his work. He cares about justice. He cares about truth. Full disclosure — Mark is also my personal lawyer. I consider him a close and trusted friend.



In recent days, what I consider Mark’s unimpeachable character has come under a publicity-driven assault by corporate opponents who he vanquished, fair and square, in the courtroom. Supported by the national Chamber of Commerce as amicus, Johnson & Johnson has viciously assailed Mark for allegedly concealing payments to expert witnesses in the hip implant litigation. The national Chamber, which I’ve had the privilege of previously representing in various matters, has joined Johnson & Johnson in mounting a brass knuckles attack on Mark’s integrity in the hip implant litigation.

They should be ashamed. They are way off base, but they have chosen to “try the case” in an aggressive publicity campaign, rather than in the courts of the United States.

Two key experts—Dr. Bernard Morrey and his son, Dr. Matthew Morrey—testified at trial without any pre-arrangement as to compensation. Dr. Bernard Morrey’s testimony was especially powerful. He is the highest-level orthopedic surgeon in the nation. Surgeon to President George H.W. Bush, Barbara Bush and virtually countless celebrities and sports figures, Bernard does not testify as a paid expert. Rather, he came to trial to testify as a truth seeker who was outraged at the defendants’ conduct. After the trial, Mark insisted the Morreys take a reimbursement for their time. Mark and his spouse, Becky, who support many charitable causes, made on their own initiative a contribution to the private Catholic school in Fort Worth where Bernard had gone to school years before. For his part, Dr. Matthew Morrey was paid by the defendants, not the plaintiffs, for appearing at his deposition. Once again, just as with Matthew’s father, there was no pre-arrangement to compensate him for his testimony at trial, and Matthew refused the pre-trial offer to compensate him.

Since securing his jury verdict at trial, Mark Lanier has been entirely transparent as to post-trial compensation that was provided entirely after the fact. The professional opinions of both Dr. Bernard Morrey and Dr. Matthew Morrey were formed out of their own professional experience (and father-to-son advice and guidance in the case of Dr. Matthew Morrey). This is exactly what Judge Kinkeade, a federal judge with vast experience, concluded in rejecting the defendants’ scurrilous claims. In contrast, the defendants in the hip implant litigation have showered literally millions of dollars of fees on their experts.

Lawyers live by their reputation. For decades of practice at the highest levels of excellence, Mark Lanier has built a stellar reputation of professionalism and integrity because judges and juries know they can trust him. He is a man of honor. The smear campaign mounted by the hip-implant defendants merited not only Judge Kinkeade’s well-founded and strongly-worded rebuff, but deserves the condemnation of everyone who respects our system of justice and works to safeguard its integrity.


Copyright The National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.