Produced by and

Attorney Ed Masry Discusses The Lawsuit He Won With Erin Brockovich September 20, 2000 More chat transcripts ------------ Edward Lazarus - Medical Marijuana Edward Lazarus - Bush/Supreme Court Anthony Sebok - IBM/Holocaust Julie Hilden - KKK/Freedom of Speech Charles Compton - Microsoft John Dean - Rich Pardon Kevin Grierson - Napster Marci Hamilton - Napster Robert Precht - Embassy Bombings Yonah Alexander - Lockerbie Jonathan Nelson - Embassy Bombings John Dean - Bush Transition Victor Williams - Elections/Supreme Court Edward Lazarus - Elections/Supreme Court Michael Dorf - Elections/Recount John Dean - Elections/Watergate Catherine Christophillis - Drugs/Pregnancy Jennifer Granick - Drugs/Pregnancy Kevin Grierson - Napster Trial Ed Masry - Erin Brockovich Piere Thomas - Wen Ho Lee Lauren Gelman - Internet/Speech Anthony Sebok - Firestone Tires Neal Katyal - Clinton Sanford Levinson - Election Ruti Teitel - Ousted Leaders David Thibodeau - Waco Michael Dorf - Supreme Court Byron Sage - Waco David Linder - Scopes trial Marci Hamilton - Supreme Court Thomas Jurgensen - Human Genome Jeffrey Rosen - Privacy issues Solomon Wisenberg - Death penalty Ted Conover - Sing Sing prison Matthew Glavin - Clinton disbarment Anthony Sebok - Tobacco litigation Douglas Lichtman - Music copyright David Martin - Elian case

(CNN) -- Attorney Ed Masry joined Law Chat on Wednesday, September 20, to discuss the class-action environmental lawsuit triggered by Erin Brockovich, a research assistant, whose investigative work helped Masry win a $333 million settlement against Pacific Gas & Electric, the nation's largest investor-owned utility.

Brockovich and Masry represented 650 people who blamed the company for a contaminated water supply that they say caused cancer and other illnesses in Hinkley, California.

CNN.com provided a typist for Masry. The following is an edited transcript of the chat:

CNN Host: Welcome to Law chat Ed Masry, and thank you for joining us today.

Ed Masry: Thank you very much for inviting me to participate in this chat session on a very, very important topic.

Question from Nils: How accurate was the movie portrayal?

Ed Masry: The movie was absolutely 100 percent accurate on everything that Pacific Gas & Electric did. There were absolutely no mischaracterizations of the PG&E conduct. They knew they were poisoning the drinking water. They knew the people were drinking the toxic carcinogen. They knew that it could cause cancer and severe illness and even death. And they concealed the fact from the residents and when the residents found out after 15 years of total silence, they advised the residents that drinking chromium 6 was good for them. But because too much good might be bad they started delivering bottled water to the residents in 1987, approximately 25 years after they knew about the contamination.

There were, of course, parts of the movie that were fictionalized. For example George, Erin's biker in the movie was portrayed as a real nice guy and I have a different opinion of him.

Question from JRB: Ed, given the statute of limitations discussed in the movie, would a wrongful death extend those for some individuals, or does the entire incident still fall under the same two-year limit of negligence?

Ed Masry: Every state has a different statute of limitations. California has one year from the date of "suspicion" that you've been injured. Some states have three years and I have to know which state you are referring to. But in any state where the defendant commits fraud and conceals their negligent or intentional activity, the statute is tolled, which means that it doesn't start to run until the person finds out the true facts.

In the movie, there is a courtroom scene where I am defending our complaint from 84 attacks by PG&E to dismiss the complaint. I successfully argued to the court that because PG&E had lied about the chromium, the statute did not run until my law firm became involved and we filed a lawsuit within the one-year California statute of limitations. PG&E argued that the statute had commenced running in 1967. They lost on 84 grounds. We won. The courtroom scene was very realistic and the judge in the movie, Leroy Simmons, was the same judge that actually handed down the decision in the actual case. He had retired from the bench and he came back to play his own role.

Question from Sugarpiggy: Does Erin Brockovich still work for your firm?

Ed Masry: Yes. Erin is the head of my toxic investigation and research department. She currently is on the East Coast investigating some sites. We have nine very large toxic cases throughout the United States on which she is responsible for all the investigation. Two weeks ago, Erin and I went to a small town in northern California called Willets and addressed the people there . . . regarding a major water contamination problem in that town.

Question from MarkL: How have Erin and her family handled the notoriety since the movie?

Ed Masry: Erin is the same Erin before the movie and after the movie. I don't see any change in her personality or her demeanor. She is definitely on top of our investigation department. She supervises the people in the field and she does an excellent job. At the same time she, along with me on many occasions, is giving speeches before environmental groups and bar association groups. And currently I am running for city council of Thousand Oaks, California, on an environmental platform and so we are very busy. But unless she is out of town, Erin is in the office everyday.

Question from Stevie: Are you happy with Albert Finney's portrayal of you?

Ed Masry: Well, I'm saying this of course tongue and cheek, but I understand that they had a great deal of difficulty finding someone as handsome as me, but Albert Finney is definitely a close second. I really like Albert Finney. I mean if you want to go have a beer some where, Albert Finney is the kind of guy you want to have it with. Albert Finney is one of the boys. And I thought he did a masterful job at portraying me the way the director wanted me portrayed.

Question from bax: At the end of the movie, they say that other lawsuits concerning PG&E were pending. Have their been any new developments in those cases and are you and Erin involved in those cases?

Ed Masry: On November 17, there will be a trial in Los Angeles called Kettleman1 which is a group of plaintiffs who resided on or near the PG&E plant in Avenal, California. At the same time Hinkley2 will go to trial with Kettleman and Hinkley2 is a second wave of approximately 150 plaintiffs who missed Hinkley1, which settled for $333 million.

Question from DesertPowerCooperative: There seems to be quite a bit more than just the biker that was fictionalized. Weren't facts about the epower company sensationalized as well, especially the degree of cooperation that PG&E was willing to give in the case?

Ed Masry: There was absolutely no fictionalization of any part of what PG&E did. They did not care about the lives of these people. They were only interested in their bottom line profits. In effect, PG&E did the same thing that Ford did to the Pinto They took their bottom line cost, calculated the potential lawsuits that might arise only if discovered and gambled with people's lives. PG&E knew in 1963 what they were doing and to this day we are still fighting viciously with PG&E in the trials that are coming up November 17.

Question from southpaw: What kind of education does Erin have? Did she go through any other education after the case?

Ed Masry: No. Erin had some very spotty college party-time education, but other than that, when she because involved in Hinkley it was hands-on training. She educated herself by going to the experts and listening to their advice.

CNN-Host: Do you have any final thoughts to share with our audience today?

Ed Masry: I think it is so important that the people understand the importance of contingency fee lawyers and the risks financially and emotionally we go through for our clients. If it weren't for the contingency fee lawyers, Pintos would still be blowing up, kids would still be smoking tobacco, and PG&E would still be letting people drink carcinogenic water. The contingency fee lawyer is the sword and shield of the American consumer and any attempts to destroy the relationship of the lawyer to the consumer must be rejected.