Boston Globe has a big investigative package on questionable methods used by debt collectors pursuing consumers in small claims court. Among recurring problems: default judgments against debtors who never were alerted to proceedings because notice was mailed to the wrong address, or who were told by creditors that they “might not” have to attend the court date because they had volunteered a payment schedule. Also in the spotlight: a now-disbarred lawyer named Daniel Goldstone who buys up low-quality debt to collect by way of hardball methods, and who appears to be no gem; his conduct provoked liberal U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner into applying Rule 11 sanctions, something she told the Globe she had never felt compelled to do in any other case in her twelve years on the bench (“Debtors’ Hell”, series home; Francie Latour, “For bare-knuckled collector, some harsh judicial reviews”, Jul. 29).
Archive for July, 2006
“Rumpelstiltskin, LLP”
[Bumped to make it the top post Monday morning; originally posted Saturday. Also check out the comments section on this post, which includes comments from readers who’ve been on both sides of junk-fax lawsuits.] I’ve got a contribution in the “Rule of Law” section of Saturday’s Wall Street Journal (Jul. 29, sub-only) on the ongoing litigation (especially class action litigation) over junk faxes, a topic often addressed in this space. It concludes:
No doubt you can make a case that getting at the most heinous wrongdoers through bounty-hunting is preferable to never getting at them at all. But note that where crimes are indisputably serious, the rewards for informing are fixed and often modest. The typical reward for helping solve a bank robbery is $5,000. At rewardsforjustice.net, the U.S. government offers bounties for information leading to the capture of leading terrorists: Even notorious masterminds tend to be worth at most $5 million, while turning in Osama bin Laden will win you $25 million.
If Osama had sent 100,000 junk faxes, there’d be a bigger price on his head.
Click here for fees: Google ad settlement
A county judge in Texarkana, Ark., where the action happens to have been filed, has approved Google’s settlement of a nationwide lawsuit over advertisers’ losses allegedly attributable to “click fraud”, that is to say, non-bona fide clicks on their ads. “By settling claims made in the plaintiffs’ class-action lawsuit, Google will give advertising credits that are the equivalent of a $3.80 refund on every $1,000 spent in its advertising network during the past 4 1/2 years. No one will receive cash except the lawyers, who will split $30 million.” (“Judge approves $90 million settlement in Google click fraud case”, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Jul. 28). Numerous class members had objected, calling the proposed settlement unfair and inadequate “because it includes poor calculations, excessive attorney fees and e-mailed class notices that look like spam.” Similar lawsuits “still are pending against other defendants, including Yahoo Inc.; Time Warner Inc.’s America Online; and Ask Jeeves”. (Amanda Bronstad, “Google ‘Click Fraud’ Settlement Criticized”, National Law Journal, Jul. 19).
“A Tree Falls in Connecticut”
Officials in Milford, Ct. agreed to take down three healthy hickory trees along an avenue after resident Una Glennon “demanded that the trees be removed because one of her grandchildren is allergic to nuts and can’t play in the pool with the other children when the nuts are falling.” Author and Common Good president Philip K. Howard detects the distortive influence of what he calls “legal fear”. (New York Times, Jul. 30). Also: Emily Bazelon, “Trees vs. children: Are nut allergies taking over the planet?”, Slate, Jul. 27.
Calif. high court: Flatley can sue for extortion
Updating our Sept. 14, 2004 post: The California Supreme Court has ruled that Irish dancing impresario Michael Flatley (“Riverdance”, “Lord of the Dance”) can proceed with a suit against a woman who falsely accused him of rape and a lawyer who demanded money on the threat of proceeding with the accusation. “Lawyers for [Tyna Marie] Robertson and [D. Dean] Mauro argued that the lawsuit brought by Flatley should be thrown out because the letter was a settlement offer and was protected under the First Amendment. The state Supreme Court rejected the argument. ‘Mauro’s communications constituted criminal extortion as a matter of law and, as such, were unprotected by constitutional guarantees of free speech or petition,’ the six-member panel wrote.” (“Michael Flatley wins court ruling in extortion case”, AP/San Jose Mercury News, Jul. 27; “California court OKs Flatley’s extortion lawsuit”, AP/Chicago Sun-Times, Jul. 30).
Healthier potato chip? Better ask customers first
The mandatory-health movement is seeking to curb restaurants’ use of trans fats, often by way of lawsuit-filing (see Jun. 14) and legislation (e.g., “Alderman proposes trans fat ban”, AP/Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph, Jun. 30, on Chicago alderman Edward Burke). So why don’t foodmakers just do the right thing and banish the offending ingredients? Parkersburg, W. Va.-based Mister Bee, the only producer of potato chips in West Virginia, found out the hard way when it replaced its hydrogenated oils with healthier cottonseed oil in its frying formula. It soon backed off after a 6 percent drop in sales and a steady flow of angry calls from buyers. The “new chip drew immediate reactions from customers who said if they wanted healthy, they wouldn’t be eating chips. Fans of the old chips said the new chip was darker in color, greasier and left an aftertaste. Mister Bee President Alan Klein acknowledged there was a ‘noticeable difference’ in the new chip’s taste after being in the package for a couple of days. The company tried modifying its recipe by using different oils, but consumers still didn’t like the new chip.” (“Customers Pan ‘Healthy’ Potato Chips”, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Jul. 19).
Congressman sued for breaking “Contract with America”
U.S. Rep. Roger Wicker, a Republican who represents Mississippi’s First District, is being sued by Democratic opponent Ken Hurt on the grounds that he breached a promise made in connection with the “Contract with America” not to run for a seventh term. The Contract, which Republicans put forth as part of their successful campaign for control of Congress in 1994, proposed 12-year term limits for House members, and Hurt says Wicker promised to serve no more than that span. The term limit idea was never enacted into law. Wicker’s campaign manager, Kirk Sims, called the new suit “frivolous and, quite frankly, a little nutty”. (Joshua Cogswell, “Challenger sues Wicker for breaking ‘Contract with America’”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Jul. 28).
AAJ… AAJ… AAJ… who?
Gesundheit! Among other problems with the decision of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America to rename itself the “American Association for Justice” — like, that the new name is vague, defensive and presumptuous — Robert Ambrogi points out that it also has the disadvantage of being “cumbersome. ‘ATLA’ is a phonetically pleasing acronym that is easy to say and easy to remember. ‘AAJ’ sounds like the beginning of a sneeze.” (Jul. 20). Longtime ATLA antagonist Victor Schwartz said, “If a shark called itself a kitten fish I would still not put my daughter in to play with it.” (“The profession formerly known as lawyering”, UPI, Jul. 19). George Wallace weighs in with more links (Jul. 14). And Norm Pattis bids the organization farewell (Jul. 21). See Jun. 29, Jul. 14.
Rhymes for “AAJ”, incidentally, include “hodge” and “podge”, “stodge”, “lordly as the Raj”, “wealthy as a Lodge”, and “obvious dodge”.
Sponsor a surf event? Too scary for ABA
The American Bar Association, which is holding its annual meeting in Hawaii next week, has shied away from co-sponsoring the National Lawyers on Longboards Surfing Contest. “They were freaked out about the liability issue related to a surf contest, even though we had liability insurance and everything,” said Honolulu attorney Lea Hong, an organizer of the event. Instead, the Hawaii state bar and LexisNexis will be serving as sponsors. Hong says “participants have signed what she calls ‘a pretty serious liability waiver'” and the contest rules have been drafted with an eye to making them loophole-free given the nature of the contestants. The competition used to be called the Land Shark Contest, but Hong says “that seemed a little too negative”. (Stewart Yerton, “Liabilities scare lawyers’ group away from surf meet”, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Jul. 26).
Church abuse: suing the laity?
In Spokane, Wash., where the local Roman Catholic diocese has declared bankruptcy under the pressure of sex-abuse lawsuits, a recent ruling by a federal judge deemed individual church parishes “unincorporated associations” that could themselves potentially be sued. Now plaintiffs in the cases are talking about suing the local parishes “and might even explore the legal liability of individual churchgoers”. (John Stucke, “Abuse victims may sue parishes”, Spokane Spokesman-Review, Jul. 27). More: PoL May 5, etc.