Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
From the monthly archives:
So says Richard W. Fields, chief of Juridica Capital Management, which is earning over 20%/year on their portfolio of investments in litigation. (Jonathan D. Glater, “Investing in Lawsuits, for a Share of the Awards”, New York Times, Jun. 3).
Walter is critical at Point of Law; Larry Ribstein warns against overregulation at Ideoblog.
{ 3 comments }
Who would have dreamed that a protege of Bill Lerach would wind up later copping to a felony rap resulting from ethical infractions? (Wait, don’t answer.)
At a barbershop in 1994, [Cauley] says, he picked up Forbes magazine and saw a profile of Lerach; it was the famous article, where the attorney was quoted as saying, “I have the greatest practice . . . I have no clients.”
Cauley approached Lerach and was soon launched in a thriving class action practice (”His usual way to deal with things was to yell and bang things and threaten,” said a fellow plaintiffs lawyer, Glen DeValerio of Boston.) It came crashing down under revelations that the Little Rock, Ark.-based lawyer took $9 million from clients’ settlements to spend on firm overhead and unrelated investments. [Koppel/WSJ, ABA Journal, interview-based WSJ Law Blog story first, second]
White Coat’s trial is in fact concluded, so he’s not liveblogging it, but recounting it after the fact; posting while the trial was in progress was what got Boston pediatrician “Flea” into so much trouble a couple of years ago after the posts came to the attention of opposing lawyers. [first, second posts] Some reactions: Eric Turkewitz, MedicineThink.
{ 2 comments }
A judge has tossed a California woman’s would-be class action lawsuit, however, finding that a reasonable consumer would not expect the brightly colored balls to be or contain actual berries or fruit. Per Kevin Underhill, Lowering the Bar: “Plaintiff did not explain why she could not reasonably have figured this out at any point during the four years she alleged she bought Cap’n Crunch with Crunchberries in reliance on defendant’s fraud.” More: California Civil Justice (same law firm sued over Froot Loops); update from Lowering the Bar.
And: Hal Hewell of Hewell Law Firm, which filed the suit, writes in comments that neither the plaintiff
nor her first amended complaint stated that she believed “crunchberries” was a real fruit (check it out on Pacer, along with our motion for reconsideration to get the full story). Your contention that she did is simply false and has exposed her to widespread (and unwarranted) ridicule.
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story…. You owe her an apology.
My response: Okay, let’s try to phrase things in a way highly favorable to Hewell and his client. The suit sought recovery against the cereal maker on the grounds a reasonable consumer would understand “Crunchberries” to contain actual fruit, whereas they apparently in fact contain only a little strawberry juice concentrate. (I’ve slightly expanded the first sentence above accordingly). In reaching his conclusion that the only course consistent with “personal responsibility and common sense” was to dismiss the case, the judge found it significant that it is common knowledge that no fruit known as a “crunchberry” grows wild or occurs naturally in any part of the world. Any reasonable consumer would therefore understand that the brightly colored balls must be a composite of ingredients not including that fictional berry, and (the judge found) could not reasonably claim to have been deceived by the monicker “CrunchBerries” into expecting something with more actual fruit content. Perhaps Mr. Hewell’s motion for reconsideration (PDF) will persuade the judge otherwise, and if so, I look forward to reporting that. (Update Jun. 15: judge denies reconsideration).
{ 27 comments }
For those who imagine that Ted and I are always in accord on each and every topic of the day, he’s got a post at NRO “Bench Memos” correcting that impression. And the nomination-blogging continues at Point of Law with links to Jim Copland and John Hasnas columns, and an Ilya Somin podcast; and Jim reacts to the widely discussed Thomas Goldstein analysis of the judge’s rulings (about 100 of them) in race cases.
{ 2 comments }
I’m scheduled to be on the John Gambling show on WOR-710AM at, er, 7:10 AM on Wednesday the 3rd, discussing my recent Congressional testimony on the costs of the litigation system.
Update: a podcast of the segment is available under “June 3″ on the WOR website.
At PoL, Michael Krauss comments on the latest stage in the appeal of Christoff v. Nestle USA, the $15.6 million award over using a model’s photo on a coffee label without ensuring the proper permissions were in place. Earlier here and here. More: Lowering the Bar.
{ 1 comment }
Be careful using it, lest you hear from zealous Olympics lawyers [Chalkie, Apr. 28]
Wear appropriate protective clothing, “do not let this chemical enter the environment”, and if you come in contact with it, “immediately flush skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes while removing contaminated clothing and shoes”. It’s ocean sand! MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheets) are by and for lawyers: “Very few chemists, in my experience, spend much time with these forms at all, preferring to get their information from almost any other source.” [Derek Lowe via Virginia Postrel]
More: Interesting comments, including one on ionized water (if exposed, “flush the contaminated area with water”) and this from reader John: “Good news: if the sand is intended for use by children under 12, as of August 14 the sand itself will have to be permanently labeled with a batch number so it can be easily recalled.”
{ 12 comments }
Administrations of both political parties shamelessly exploited the unlamented “Fairness Doctrine” to harass their critics in the broadcast world, and there’s every reason to believe that proposed “local content” mandates would be open to the same abuse. [John Samples, "Broadcast Localism and the Lessons of the Fairness Doctrine", Cato Institute Policy Analysis #639, May 27 (PDF)]
{ 1 comment }
We’ve been following Buell-Wilson v. Ford for some time, including the U.S. Supreme Court remand. Curt Cutting’s blog has the latest in two April posts here and here. Cal Biz Lit also has good commentary.
While our legal system is not much inclined to accord sanctions to the victims of meritless litigation, it does happen from time to time. [Vesselin Mitev, NYLJ; sanctions awarded against client John H. Libaire and Northport, L.I. attorney Mitchell A. Stein, who figured in 1990's "Lion Sleeps Tonight" case]
So argued former State Department legal adviser John Bellinger III in the WSJ last week, with special reference to the overreaching, extraterritorial Alien Tort Statute. But it’s not as if the efforts to turn the U.S. into the courtroom for the world are slackening at all:
(cross-posted from Point of Law)
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.