Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
From the monthly archives:
Not for the first (or fifty-first) time, the California paper acts as an uncritical stenographer of Litigation Lobby claims — then waits until paragraph 13 to advise readers that NHTSA, not exactly the friendliest witness these days, backs the automaker’s position on the question of the “black box” data. More: AP.
{ 1 comment }
Rick Woldenberg reacts to a peculiarly inutile suggestion, in a Baltimore Sun interview, from CPSC chair Inez Tenenbaum (”We think if we had a small-business ombudsman who was out there regularly educating small businesses, we could help them prevent problems in terms of compliance.”):
…The necessary implication is that we small businesses are just too stupid to understand their complicated rules – I guess she thinks only Mattel can read the English language. Of course, the pending testing frequency rule (which I believe will be implemented in the coming weeks, get ready for it) will cause our company to spend $15 million per annum on testing. This sum far exceeds our profits. Perhaps the ombudsman will help us terminate our people to pay for testing, or provide a shoulder to cry on.
{ 7 comments }
It seems the concern is “to prevent ‘heavy and wet’ clothing from falling onto people below.” An earlier letter to housing tenants complaining of the clotheslines as an “eyesore” went ignored, so there are suspicions the Croydon council is pursuing its beautification goals by other means. [Telegraph, link now dead; Croydon Today]
{ 4 comments }
A “new change to [Massachusetts] law now requires companies to notify employees about any potentially negative information added to their files. The amendment, which Gov. Deval Patrick signed into law on August 5, was tucked away in an ‘economic development’ bill laden with higher-profile items like the recent sales-tax holiday. …. this new personnel-records rule is going to lead to more employee lawsuits.” [Gruntled Employees via Susan Cartier Liebel]
{ 7 comments }
And now a parent lawsuit is seeking “unspecified damages.” [NY Post]
{ 3 comments }
On Thursday the Cato Institute will be holding its annual day-long Constitution Day symposium, which is also a celebration of the publication of the ninth volume of the annual Cato Supreme Court Review. I’ll be moderating (stepping in for Roger Pilon) on the second afternoon panel, which will cover three business-related cases recently decided by the Court: Jones v. Harris on mutual fund fees, Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB on one of the terms of the Sarbanes-Oxley law, and American Needle v. NFL on the scope of antitrust exemption. All three principal panelists are well-known bloggers: Larry Ribstein of Illinois (Jones) and Josh Wright of George Mason (American Needle) at Truth on the Market, and Hans Bader of CEI (Free Enterprise Fund) at Open Market (he’s also guestblogged on the PCAOB case right here). The event is open to the public, but reservations are required. More: Larry Ribstein, Josh Wright.
{ 4 comments }
The home-improvement company in question is defunct, but lawyers say they’ll try to collect the $1,500-per-recipient statutory fine, or part of it, from its commercial liability insurer. [Fulton County Daily Report] My take on entrepreneurial junk fax litigation is here.
{ 10 comments }
The better to sue, it seems [Marcia McCormick/Workplace Prof]:
The NFL Players Association is seeking player approval to decertify in advance of a potential lockout by owners in March when the current collective bargaining agreement expires, according to the SportsBusiness Journal. Decertifying would allow players to sue the owners under antitrust laws if the owners did lock the players out. And any effort to impose a labor agreement on the players could provide the players with treble damages.
This was the tactic the players resorted to in 1989, and it eventually gave them enough leverage to establish free agency in 1993, when the players recertified the association as their exclusive representative.
{ 3 comments }
After reading deposition exchanges “related in excruciating, repetitive detail,” Nevada U. S. Magistrate Peggy A. Leen felt called on to admonish lawyers on both sides:
If I was an elementary school teacher instead of a judge I would require both counsel to write the following clearly established legal rules on a blackboard 500 times:
I will not make speaking, coaching, suggestive objections which violate Rule 30(c)(2). I am an experienced lawyer and know that objections must be concise, non-argumentative and non-suggestive. I understand that the purpose of a deposition is to find out what the witness thinks, saw, heard or did. I know that lawyers are not supposed to coach or change the witness’s own words to form a legally convenient record. I know I am prohibited from frustrating or impeding the fair examination of a deponent during the deposition. I know that constant objections and unnecessary remarks are unwarranted and frustrate opposing counsel’s right to fair examination. I know that speaking objections such as “if you remember,” “if you know,” “don’t guess,” “you’ve answered the question,” and “do you understand the question” are designed to coach the witness and are improper. I also know that counsel’s interjection that he or she does not understand the question is not a proper objection, and that if a witness needs clarification of a question, the witness may ask for the clarification.
[Order in Mazzeo v. Gibbons et al., Trial Ad Notes via Day on Torts]
{ 5 comments }
Last night I sent off the source notes for my forthcoming book Schools for Misrule: Legal Academia and an Overlawyered America, on track for publication by Encounter Books Feb. 15. Now it’s time to lay the plans (with help from Encounter and my own Cato Institute) for me to hit the road next year to address audiences at single-author events, panels and forums. Why not add your group or city to the tour? Email at [editor] – at – [thisdomainname] – dot – com and we’ll see what we can do. If you’re active with a chapter of the Federalist Society, contact the national office and they can help coordinate.
According to Felix Salmon, the company that owns the trademark in most countries on “Ugg” for sheep-fleece footwear has used it in “extremely aggressive” fashion against competitors, most particularly against exports from Australia where the term is generic and small firms have produced boots and shoes under similar names for many years.
{ 3 comments }
Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell, who’s been running even in polls leading up to tomorrow’s primary, demanded millions in a suit charging employment discrimination against her well-known conservative employer, The Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The details are worth a close look. [John McCormack, Weekly Standard] Even before the new revelations, Prof. Bainbridge was no fan.
{ 3 comments }
{ 1 comment }
Cato has posted a video on YouTube from my appearance on the John Stossel show on ADA the other week (related syndicated column). There’s also this clip on the Cato site. And a post from the American Association of People with Disabilities encourages constituents to express discontent with us.
P.S. Note that by editing down Stossel’s words AAPD has made it appear that his harsh criticism of “parasites” was somehow aimed at disabled persons generally, rather than, as was entirely clear from the context, at opportunistic lawyers and litigants who generate complaints to obtain assembly-line cash settlements. Sure enough, I’ve been getting cc’s of furious letters to Stossel saying, “How dare you call disabled persons parasites?!” He didn’t say that, folks. The AAPD should consider carefully whether it wants to go on claiming that he did.
P.P.S. I respond at more length at Cato at Liberty.
{ 5 comments }
I’ll be a panelist this Friday on a Washington Legal Foundation webcast on the topic, joining class action specialist and blogger Andrew Trask.
He’s basically fine and so is his bike after being doored by the NYC officer, but friends advise suing anyway. Should he? New York Times ethicist Randy Cohen fields the question. [NYT Magazine]
{ 5 comments }
And guess who’s getting hit on the rebound: community groups that want to hold events in public facilities [Ted at PoL]
Eugene Volokh, Michael Cannon and Ed Morrissey react to the Secretary’s announcement that her Department of Health and Human Services will show “zero tolerance” for regulated health insurers who inflict “misinformation” on the public in the course of blaming ObamaCare for rate increases. More: Monday WSJ editorial (”Zero tolerance for expressing an opinion, or offering an explanation to policyholders? They’re more subtle than this in Caracas.”) And Michael Cannon at Cato at Liberty has a further roundup post of reactions.
{ 11 comments }
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.