From the monthly archives:

September 2007

September 25 roundup

by Walter Olson on September 25, 2007

  • Picture of farmer with goose appears on greeting card, he wants $7.5 million [Roanoke Times; earlier]

  • More class actions filed over Apple iPhone [Ars Technica on roaming and battery claims, O'Grady's PowerPage, iPhoneWorld; earlier]

  • L.A. Times quotes attorney Stephen Yagman on prison overcrowding, but forgets to mention that he was lately convicted of thirteen felonies [Patterico]

  • Bad idea watch: compulsory national service [Somin @ Volokh]

  • Doing well representing the little guy: Gerry Spence lists his Wyoming residence for sale at $35 million [WSJ/Chicago Daily Herald]

  • “Appropriate”, not “perfect”, justice needed: “We simply have to stop killing litigants with kindness,” says chief judge of Australia’s largest state [The Australian]

  • Toddler killed after wandering into heavy traffic, trucker should have been more on guard against such a thing happening [Salt Lake Tribune]

  • Pennsylvania pro se litigant sues Google, says it spells his social security number upside down [Ambrogi] More: Coyote says “Up next, the owner of Social Security number 71077345 sues Shell Oil for the same reason.”

  • Once billed as “King of Torts”, Miami asbestos lawyer faces fifteen years behind bars for stealing $13 million from clients [Sun-Sentinel]

  • Groom sues bride, saying she took the ring and presents and never got the wedding paperwork straightened out leaving them legally unmarried [ClickOnDetroit]

  • Surgical resident on the hook for $23 million in Wisconsin case; she was the only one of the docs involved not covered by damage limits [Journal Sentinel via KevinMD]

{ 9 comments }

Another object lesson in how your rights to privacy stop when litigation begins:

High-tech surveillance tactics are now commonplace in divorce cases, changing the nature of matrimonial law practice.

Soon-to-be-divorced spouses routinely steal each other’s BlackBerries and install snooping software on each other’s computers. This not only enables them to read each other’s e-mail but to monitor, in 15-second increments, what a perhaps-erring marital partner is doing on the Internet, reports the New York Times. What they can’t find out, their divorce lawyers perhaps can by hiring even more technologically sophisticated private detectives.

“In just about every case now, to some extent, there is some electronic evidence,” says Gaetano Ferro, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “It has completely changed our field.”

Amusingly or not, the one area where the law is ferocious in responding to adversaries’ invasions of each others’ privacy is that of clients’ communications with their lawyers — mustn’t infringe on the lawyer-client privilege, after all. (Martha Neil, “Divorce Practice Now a Surveillance War”, ABA Journal, Sept. 18).

Let them not eat cake

by Walter Olson on September 25, 2007

“Wearing signs reading: ‘They’re Carbs not Contraband,’ ‘Give Us our Just Desserts’ and ‘We’re Old Enough to Choose,’ a dozen senior citizens picketed outside [a Mahopac, N.Y. senior center] protesting a recently imposed ban on the sugared treats at Putnam County-operated nutritional sites.” For years supermarkets and bakeries have donated day-old pastries to senior centers, but last month the county called a halt to the program, saying that the treats violated federal nutritional standards for the elderly and might pose safety dangers. The AP story carried this classically sensitive and humanistic quote from Michael Jacobson of that group of untiring busybodies, the self-proclaimed Center for Science in the Public Interest: “Senior citizens can walk down to the store and buy doughnuts. Nobody’s stopping them”. [Putnam County Courier; Westchester Journal-News; Associated Press]

{ 1 comment }

Virginia Postrel…

by Walter Olson on September 24, 2007

has sang-froid (scroll to end).

AEI program on patent reform bill

by Ted Frank on September 24, 2007

The AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest’s patent law program tomorrow has a tremendous lineup. Jack Calfee and Claude Barfield will be discussing their new monograph, Biotechnology and the Patent System; the general counsels of Eli Lilly and of Cisco, among others, will be debating the pending patent reform bill. The event is open to the public and will be webcast, as well.

On the whiplash trail

by Walter Olson on September 24, 2007

Might become a rich source of material for this site: Attorney Jonathan G. Stein of Elk Grove, Calif. has launched a blog on “Litigating MIST Cases,” MIST in this case standing for “Minimum Injury, Soft Tissue” auto-crash cases, or, in practical terms, “Any car crash with less than $1,500 in property damage and a soft tissue type injury, i.e. neck or back pain, sometimes called ‘whiplash.’” (Claims of “soft tissue” injury, unlike those from bruises, lacerations or broken bones, typically are hard or impossible to verify to the satisfaction of all sides). One recent entry begins: “Face it, most MIST patients end up at a chiropractor. …the chiropractor always asks who the attorney is on the file.” An earlier entry promises to explain “how the chiropractor can treat the patient to help you accomplish your goal — obtain a fair and reasonable settlement for your client.”

Stein is also selling a book on the handling of these cases and promotes it as follows:

I just settled a case. Client was in an accident causing no visible damage to her vehicle. The defendant had less than $500 in damage to her car. Client had $2,200 in treatment. Settlement pre-lit: $8,500. That is almost four times the special damages. On a MIST case.

So, yes, this system works.

Per Stein’s biographical blurb, “Most of his practice consists of MIST cases.” More on chiropractors here, and more on whiplash here.

{ 4 comments }

September 23 roundup

by Walter Olson on September 23, 2007

{ 2 comments }

Dan Rather vs. CBS, cont’d

by Walter Olson on September 23, 2007

Beldar doesn’t hold back (Sept. 22) from telling us what he thinks:

Rather’s case — as incredibly, stinkingly, appallingly, cosmically bogus as it is — nevertheless has some considerable settlement value: Not because CBS is likely to lose to Rather if the truth is confirmed in court, but because individual decision-makers within CBS may have overwhelming vested interests in ensuring that the facts are not thoroughly probed in court.

Earlier: Sept. 19. More buzz: Howard Kurtz/WaPo, Eugene Volokh, New York Post “Page Six”, Bertovici/Portfolio.com.

{ 1 comment }

It’s sparking further discussion:

Hey, Davis Wright Tremaine, and your clients, the parents who sued the district: This is insane.

You argue this isn’t to enrich the firm, but to punish the district. The theory is that the fees, at $1.8 million and rising, are a lash to whip the district for its bad race-based deeds.

When I called the lawyers Tuesday, they compared it to, among other cases, their pro bono defense of a prisoner beaten by L.A. jail guards.

This makes no sense. Seattle’s policy wasn’t intended to hurt anyone, let alone beat them to a pulp.

(Danny Westneat, “The bill just keeps going up”, Seattle Times, Sept. 19; Emily Heffter, “Billing in ‘pro bono’ cases is fodder for ethics debate”, Seattle Times, Sept. 18; Above the Law, Sept. 18).

[click to continue…]

{ 8 comments }

Giuliani and guns

by Walter Olson on September 22, 2007

Don Surber welcomes Hizzoner’s conversion; Sister Toldjah remains to be convinced (disclaimer; and see quote from me here; our page on firearms litigation and regulation). More: By coincidence, the Bloomberg administration is in court at the moment trying to argue that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act doesn’t actually put the kibosh on the city’s gun suits, despite a mountain of evidence that it was intended to do just that (Mark Hamblett, “2nd Circuit Hears Arguments on Letting NYC’s Gun Suit Go to Trial, New York Law Journal, Sept. 24).

New book on golf law

by Walter Olson on September 22, 2007

San Diego lawprof John “Jack” H. Minan’s “The Little Green Book of Golf Law”, published by the ABA and hitting bookstores about now, treats of errant balls and many other legal issues that arise in the Wodehouse-beloved outdoor game. I would note that “Iowa golfer Walter Olson”, portrayed unflatteringly in one of the stories, is guaranteed a different person from and unrelated to me. (Tod Leonard, “Law doesn’t control way ball bounces”, San Diego Union-Tribune, Sept. 11).

Alex Cockburn a few years back, quoted by Jacob Sullum at Reason “Hit and Run” (Sept. 17):

A lot of the history of food regulation in this country has turned out to be a way to finish off small, quality producers by demanding they invest in whatever big ticket items the USDA happens to be in love with at the time; said love objects usually turning out to be whatever the big food processors are using. That’s the reason why it’s hard to get decent sausages or hams….The big packers and processing plants get to participate directly in the writing of the laws that set the standard practices that the inspectors march out to enforce on all the little producers not part of the Meat Syndicate.

{ 4 comments }

That’s O.J. Simpson gratitude for you, per an outburst attributed to alleged robbery victim and sports memorabilia dealer Bruce Fromong (Martha Neil, “Simpson Sidelight: Offshore Accounts??!!”, ABA Journal, Sept. 20).

{ 2 comments }

For a while now, lawyers in Minnesota, Oklahoma and elsewhere have been suing companies that make over-the-counter cold remedies containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine on the grounds that they were aware some buyers were using the drugs as raw material for illegal methamphetamine labs. Now such litigation appears to be gaining momentum in Arkansas, where many county governments have signed up to sue Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and other companies. “If successful, it could open up litigation against manufacturers of other produce used in making meth, such as drain cleaners and acetone.” (E. Alan Long, “Williams updates JPs on methamphetamine litigation”, Carroll County News, May 29; and see this, on anhydrous ammonia). As of last month, twenty-two counties had enlisted in the litigation, which seeks to recoup, among other things, money spent on the processing of criminal methamphetamine cases. “What more could we have done with a million dollars a year for our county? Would that have meant a half dozen more police officers? Would that have meant a better solid waste program? Who knows, what could your county have done with an extra million dollars,” asked Judge Bill Hicks of Independence County, a backer of the suits. (“Special Report: Meth Related Lawsuit Filed Against Pharmaceutical Companies”, KAIT, Aug. 1; Pharmalot via Childs)(& welcome Megan McArdle readers).

{ 11 comments }

How pathetic is the State Bar of Texas when it comes to protecting clients from rogue lawyers? This pathetic:

Dallas attorney Bruce Patton has a clean disciplinary record, according to the State Bar’s Web site, which provides profiles of the state’s 80,000 or more practicing attorneys. But consider this before you hire him to draft your will: Patton is in state prison after being convicted of a felony two years ago….

The Texas Legislature and Supreme Court, which share a role in establishing ethics rules for attorneys, have made it so that the public stays in the dark about thousands of lawyers accused of misconduct. Bar confidentiality rules ensure that many sanctions are private and that lawyers accused of felonies can continue practicing. The Bar doesn’t require attorneys to report their criminal record or malpractice suits.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s disturbing investigation goes into considerable detail, and mentions a couple of cases that will be familiar to readers of this site: “San Antonio attorney Ted Roberts, charged with stealing $100,000 from his wife’s lovers, was recently convicted, two years after being indicted. He faces a five-year sentence. The Bar didn’t suspend him until June and is now recommending disbarment.” And: “The firm of John O’Quinn, one of the state’s wealthiest personal-injury lawyers, was ordered by an arbitration panel this summer to pay $35 million to former clients who say he overbilled them for expenses, but no mention of that order is on the Bar’s Web site.” (Yamil Berard, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Aug. 19; “Panel seeks changes in Bar’s disciplinary system for lawyers”, Aug. 19). More: GruntDoc wonders whether doctors can expect a similar concern for confidentiality.

{ 2 comments }

Feds indict Mel Weiss

by Walter Olson on September 21, 2007

Critics long derided the federal investigation of Milberg Weiss as slow to produce results, but things are moving along at a brisk clip now, with an indictment charging the nation’s best-known class-action securities lawyer with conspiracy, racketeering, obstruction of justice and making false statements, just after his best-known former colleague at the firm, William Lerach, agreed to cop a plea deal. “In addition, Steven G. Schulman, a former senior partner at the Milberg Weiss firm, agreed to plead guilty to a racketeering conspiracy charge, prosecutors said.” (AP/Business Week; Jurist “Paper Chase”; ABA Journal first and second stories. Documents, all PDF: Milberg Weiss superseding indictment; Schulman charge, plea, press release).

The Sirota & Sirota law blog, an “unfriendly competitor” of Milberg Weiss in the class-action biz, has this post from June offering some perspective on the ongoing investigation.

{ 1 comment }

Anti-videogame Miami attorney and longtime Overlawyered favorite Jack Thompson claims that players in the forthcoming Grand Theft Auto IV are given instructions to kill a certain lawyer in his office and that the lawyer utters the line “Guns don’t kill people. Video games do,” which means it must be a parody of Thompson himself. He’s fired off a demand that the release be halted. (GamePolitics.com, Sept. 18; Geoffrey Rapp, PrawfsBlawg, Sept. 20). For Thompson’s legal threats last year against the publisher of Mortal Kombat because users can employ the game’s build-a-fighter mode to create characters that might resemble him, see Oct. 30, 2006. Plus: Thompson responds in comments.

{ 9 comments }

We previously noted the important legislation passed by Congress in 2006 to protect deep-pocket car-leasing companies against vicarious liability for the accidents of its customers. As a result, the price paid by New Yorkers for leased vehicles dropped $600. Of course, that was money out of the pocket of trial lawyers, and ATLA’s litigation-lobby litigation arm, the Center for Constitutional Litigation, intervened with repeated efforts with judges to either ignore or strike down the statute. Several Florida state judges provided a tendentious reading of the statute to ignore it precisely when it was said to apply; a federal district judge refused, but instead struck down the regulation of the interstate transaction under the Commerce Clause.

One can applaud a narrower view of the federal government’s scope under the Commerce Clause, but this judge’s interpretation is contradictory to that of the Supreme Court’s and narrower even than Justice Scalia’s view, and perhaps even the view of the Supreme Court pre-Wickard: no court ever held that the federal government cannot regulate commercial automobile transactions. We’re looking forward to hearing the paranoid Constitution-in-Exile complainers on the left speaking up about the attempt by ATLA to strip the federal government of its powers.

CCL’s argument has been that the statute doesn’t regulate automobile transactions, but intrastate litigation. This is tendentious enough in state court (does civil liability under the ADA not regulate employment, but rather the litigation over intrastate employment?), but utterly absurd in a federal court where the parties are of diverse citizenship.

The ATLA press release is excited that the decision “gives rental car companies a powerful incentive to assure that their customers are adequately insured”—by forcing customers to purchase insurance that they may not want to purchase. Of course, nothing in the Graves Amendment forbade states from setting regulations requiring such minimum insurance; it just forbade trial lawyers from doing so in state court without state legislation. The litigation is a vivid reminder that getting legislators to act to enact desperately needed reforms is only the beginning of the process of fixing a broken civil justice system: one also needs judges who will follow the rule of law. (Vanguard v. Huchon (via Turkewitz); see also Graham v. Dunkley (NY Sup. Ct.)).

{ 3 comments }