Adler Pollock & Sheehan, P.C.
Name: John A. Tarantino
Position: President of the law firm Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.
Age: 47
Rhode Island's Market Has Changed. Developers, Builders, Investors and Sellers Must Change With It.
By Emilio DiSpirito IV License Partner | Engel & Völkers Oceanside Leader | The DiSpirito…
Learn More
Background: Joined Adler Pollock & Sheehan in 1981. He is the past
president of the Rhode Island Bar Association, and he was recently elected president
of the New England Bar Association.
Education: B.A., Dartmouth College, 1976; J.D., Boston College Law
School, 1981.
Residence: East Greenwich.
Tarantino was recently named one of the top 10 “Lawyers of the Year in 2002” by Lawyers Weekly USA. Over the course of his career, Tarantino has represented clients in a steady string of trials that have garnered statewide and national attention: He was the lead defense attorney in the landmark lawsuit that Rhode Island brought against former lead paint manufacturers. After 7 weeks of deliberation, the trial ended with a hung jury late last year. Four of the six jurors in the case agreed with the defense.
Last year, Tarantino represented Secretary of State Edward S. Inman in a lawsuit brought by Operation Clean Government. During the highly publicized Plunder Dome trial, Tarantino represented former Mayoral Chief of Staff Artin H. Coloian, who was acquitted of corruption charges.
PBN: Why do we see so many of our elected officials winding up in court
here in Rhode Island?
TARANTINO: I think there are two answers. One is, there’s a process
that allows for it, which is a good thing. Citizens here and groups here do
have the ability to file complaints against public officials. We have an Ethics
Commission – many states don’t, we do – and the Ethics Commission sort of historically
has evolved to where it actually has constitutional status. That’s one reason
why you see cases in court that originally arose out of an ethics complaint.
The second reason is I think somewhat of a misperception. I think there are, in other states, lawsuits that are filed against public officials – constitutional challenges, actions brought against legislators in their official capacity – so it’s not unique to Rhode Island. What’s unique to Rhode Island is we’re sort of a city-state, so it’s highlighted. Here … everybody in the state is going to view it as front-page news.
You talk about the way in which we can address those kinds of issues through
litigation – it’s built right into our state government – and yet one of your
main arguments in the lead paint case was that that should be addressed by the
legislature, not the courts.
In that particular case, there is a statute – it’s called the Lead Paint Poison Prevention Act – and in our view that statute has as its purpose to develop a comprehensive plan to deal with all aspects of childhood lead poisoning. That statute actually mandates the Dept. of Health to develop rules and regulations to reduce and ultimately eliminate childhood lead poisoning. What we argued is that, where you have a specific piece of legislation and it is within the realm of the legislature to deal with that topic, that is something that is an appropriate matter for the legislature to deal with.
Having made the argument that this issue belongs with the legislature and
not with the courts, would you link this court case to a kind of larger national
debate about legislation via litigation, and of course I’m thinking about the
tobacco lawsuit.
I think the issues with tobacco and the issues with lead paint are different in this respect: Lead paint hasn’t been sold for 25 years. No one makes lead paint anymore. For interior purposes, there was a voluntary ban by the industry in the 1950s, so you’re talking 50 years since it’s been used in homes. Cigarettes are sold today. There’s a product on the market, and the way it was dealt with in terms of the settlement was settlement by tax policy – you would tax the cigarettes so that it would actually fund the settlement. There’s no lead paint product to tax anymore, it hasn’t been sold for years and years. So in that respect – and there are many other respects – it’s certainly different.
What isn’t different is the worldview of, should the government, or more likely attorneys general, be involved in partnerships with plaintiffs personal injury firms to go after and target industries. In that respect, they’re similar. The global question is, is it good or is it bad for society to have attorneys general partner with private law firms to bring litigation against industry. And that’s a very complex debate, and in many respects it’s a legal debate – do the attorneys general have the power to do that, legally? The other issue is a policy issue – should he do it? And, you know, that is really something that, ahh, sort of my view as a lawyer isn’t all that relevant. My view is just like any other citizen’s view.
What’s your own view? Forget giving a legal opinion.
My own view of that is that you really have attorneys general trying to shape public policy issues, as opposed to dealing with legal issues.
For the complete interview, visit our subscription Web site, or call (401) 273-2201, ext. 227 or 234.
