Shook turns prisoner’s rights case proceeds into pro bono civil rights practice expansion

Shook, Hardy & Bacon is dedicating much of its fee award from a 2022 high-profile St. Louis prisoner’s rights case toward expanding the firm’s pro bono civil rights and racial justice efforts.

Under Shook Partner Charles Eblen’s leadership in Hill v Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc., the firm obtained an $8.5 million verdict for its client, the sister of a 42-year-old man who died of late-stage lung cancer, for a correctional care provider’s failure to provide care while he was incarcerated at the Phelps County Jail in 2020. He was given a compassionate release after receiving his diagnosis and spent his remaining days in his sister’s care.

The jury returned a medical negligence verdict against a doctor, nurse and Advanced Correctional Healthcare, and against the doctor and nurse for a deliberate indifference claim. The judgment was later vacated and the claims were dismissed with prejudice as a result of the parties settling privately, according to Shook.

“We made the strategic decision to do something monumental with this fee award,” said Shook

Chair Madeleine McDonough in a press release. “This decision is a commitment to the future and will harness the firm’s trial strength to help those who do not have a voice.”

Spearheading the program will be Michael Harrison, a civil rights division prosecutor in the Harris County District Attorney’s Office in Houston, TX who will join Shook as senior counsel and work closely with Eblen to transform the firm’s current civil rights work into a nationally recognized practice.

“We are excited about what the future holds and the lives we will change by doubling down on

our civil rights and racial justice efforts,” said Shook Partner and Pro Bono Director Scot Fishman in the release. “Michael is an incredibly gifted trial lawyer, and he will complement the pro bono program that we are building at Shook.”

Initially, the practice will focus primarily on prisoners’ civil rights and abuse-of-force litigation, but the firm anticipates expanding the scope.

Correction: An earlier version of this post misstated which counts applied to which parties in the original verdict. The deliberate indifference verdict was against the doctor and nurse alone. Missouri Lawyers Media regrets the error. This story has been updated to add that the parties reached a post-trial settlement.