High-profile Houston attorney John M. O'Quinn's latest legal salvo on behalf of Anna Nicole Smith's mother isn't likely to be any more fruitful than his attempt to prevent the former Playmate from being buried in the Bahamas.

Representing Virgie Arthur has so far brought O'Quinn little more than notoriety –- and a defamation suit filed against him for accusing Smith "lawyer and companion" Howard K. Stern of murdering Smith, who died of an apparent drug overdose in February.

But now Arthur has ratcheted up the post-mortem rancor by bringing a slander suit against Stern in Harris County (Texas) District Court, alleging he conspired with the producers of “Entertainment Tonight” to defame her in an interview taped three months before Smith's death.

During the interview, a glazed-looking Smith -– with Stern by her side -- accused Arthur of abusing her as a child. “All the beatings and the whippin's and the rape? That's my mother. That's my mom,” she declared at one point.

Since he is being sued by Stern, O'Quinn would have an obvious conflict of interest if he was representing Arthur in her case. So attorney Neil C. McCabe -- who is with O'Quinn's firm and is defending him from Stern's suit -- has taken the assignment.

In court papers supporting a motion to dismiss Stern's suit, O'Quinn says Stern has “attempted to mercilessly manipulate the media's coverage -– and thus the public's opinion -– of the relationship between Anna Nicole and her mother.”

Arthur plays the same tune in her petition, describing Stern as “manipulative, dangerous and deceitful.” While he did not make any slanderous, on-camera statements himself to “ET,” she alleges,

[he] accompanied [Smith] to the interview, sat by her, put his arm around her, and urged and encouraged her to answer questions in a defamatory manner.

The suit also names Houston TV station KPRC as a defendant for broadcasting portions of the interview -- which could help establish Houston as the venue for the case.

Even assuming Smith's statements were defamatory, however, the case has major problems. For one thing, Arthur will have to somehow show that her daughter was little more than a ventriloquist's dummy, playing Charlie McCarthy to Stern's Edgar Bergen.

The plaintiff also claims she is “constantly treated with derision by those who do not know her” and that she is “a private person, who had no wish to be thrust into the public arena.” But any such damage may have been self-inflicted by her own very public posturing after Smith's death.

One friend of O'Quinn has said of him, “When he goes to trial he goes to war. It's a total commitment. He is consumed by it. He goes after the other side very personally.” Whatever the merits of Arthur's case, there's no doubt now that he has gone to war with Howard K. Stern.

By Matthew Heller
10/15/07