A year ago the city of Chicago announced a change in its litigation posture in claims against police: it would refuse to settle claims it did not consider strong and would prepare for trial instead. “In the past, the city often settled ‘defensible’ cases because the city’s legal expenses could far exceed the cost of a settlement.” Now the city law department is claiming “astonishing” success for the policy, citing a 50 percent project drop in claims against police. Plaintiff’s lawyers say their clients are handicapped before juries because they often have police records and that “the door has been slammed shut.” [Frank Main, Chicago Sun-Times]
“Lawyer Sues for Humiliation and Lost Business Due to Misspelled Yellowbook Ad” [ABA Journal, South Dakota]
Argument today in important Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion: will courts respect freedom of contract in consumer arbitration context, or yield Litigation Lobby the monopoly it seeks over dispute resolution? [Ted at PoL]
No search warrant needed: armed deputies in Orlando storm unlicensed barbershops, handcuff barbers [Balko, Reason "Hit and Run"]
After Colorado hit-run, banker allowed to plead down to misdemeanors lest his job be at risk [Greenfield]
FDA to decide whether to ban menthol in cigarettes [CEI]
“Councils have ripped up or paved over acres of traditional cobblestones from streets across Britain, amid fears of compensation claims from people who trip over on them.” [Telegraph]
While such an approach is sometimes used in commercial litigation, this is a first for consumer cases, said Lester Brickman, a professor at Cardozo Law School in New York.
“For a lawyer to supplement or replace the banks as a long-term mortgage creditor of homeowners leaves me a little queasy,” said Mr. Brickman, an expert on contingency fees. “It’s an invitation for the public to say, ‘There go the lawyers again.’ ”
When are they commentary sincerely reacting to posts? When are they mere spam? And how should one draw the line? Dan Filler wonders at Faculty Lounge.
P.S. From UK lawyer-blogger Charon, Q.C. a while back: “Fed up with law firms putting ads in comment section of my blog. I am now editing and re-directing all such to dodgy websites.”
For more than three years a Sikh religious leader, styled by some “Third Holy Saint,” has been suing lone journalist Hardeep Singh under United Kingdom libel law over a critical article printed in the Sikh Times, drawing an outcry from some libel-law reformers there [Jack of Kent, Index on Censorship]
“A Manhattan woman has failed to persuade a U.S. appeals court that Starbucks Corp should be held liable for severe burns she suffered after spilling tea served in a double cup.” [NY Daily News]
After appearing on a television program with him a couple of months ago, I received an invitation to Mark Lanier’s Christmasparty (special guestSting):
The non-transferable invitation consists of a booklet with a password; and, most strikingly, a metal wind-up toy Ferris wheel, about seven inches in diameter. (I have not investigated whether the Ferris wheel is CPSIA-compliant.)
Should I go? I’m charmed by the hospitality, but I don’t have a date, and, moreover, it’s kind of blood Christmas cheer. (On the other hand, in the words of a former CCAF attorney, “Think of it as a modest tort tax refund.”)
This foundational regulation that affects all of government is completely and totally broken. One need only look at CIO-Of-The-Federal-Government Vivek Kundra’s desk for the evidence. Last time I was in there, he had a 17″ all in one Gateway computer sitting on it because regulations prohibit him from buying a reasonable machine. He’s the CIO!
“Federal Government Acknowledges Constitutional Limits on Housing Discrimination Law” [Eugene Volokh on HUD dismissal of "Christian-roommate" complaint, earlier]
“Brave and brilliant decision” from Judge Posner points way to provide relief from class action plaintiffs who won’t accept defeat [McConnell and Beck, Trask]
“Referring to Former Boss as Slimebag Does Not Constitute Disparagement, At Least in Ohio” [Robert Fitzpatrick]
“Couldn’t get elected dogcatcher” — actually, dogcatching’s harder than being a Senator [Christopher Beam, Slate]
It’s remarkable how many lawyers’ websites use exactly the same phrasing in promoting their services. Mark Bennett finds out why, and identifies some ethical problems in boilerplate assurances that lawyers participating in the marketing campaign (including fledgling law grads) each have a “stellar record.”
A nonprofit in suburban Chicago each year encourages its woodworker members “to craft and donate wooden Christmas toys to less fortunate children.” After donating upwards of 700 toys a year in the past, it will have to discontinue the program in future since it can’t afford the third-party testing required under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, sponsored by area members of Congress Bobby Rush and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). “Woodworking hobby magazines have pegged prices for third-party testing as high as $30,000 for 80 items.” Testing is particularly impractical for items made from donated/recycled wood, since each donated wood source needs to be put through separate testing. Another triumph for CPSIA! [Jenette Sturges, Sun-Times/Beacon-News]
PUBLIC DOMAIN IMAGE from John Bate’s 1635 book, The Mysteryes of Nature and Art, Wikimedia Commons.
“Three lawyers say they were just engaging in legitimate speech about the 1-800-Ask-Gary [lawyer-referral] hot line. Not amused, the people behind Ask Gary sued.” [Tampa Tribune] Separately, the hotline’s founder, Sarasota chiropractor Gary Kompothecras, has drawn press attention for the active role he’s taken in the autism-vaccine wars. [Miami New Times and followups here and here]
Emerging theories of “associational discrimination” under the Americans with Disabilities Act may put the law on your side. [Philip Miles via Ohio Employer's]
A customer unfamiliar with the vegetable ordered the grilled artichoke special at a North Miami Beach restaurant, and says the server should have warned that you’re not supposed to eat the fibrous, indigestible upper mass of the leaves, just the heart and pulpy bottom portion. He’s suing. [Matthew Heller, OnPoint News] More: Above the 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.
A nonprofit in suburban Chicago each year encourages its woodworker members “to craft and donate wooden Christmas toys to less fortunate children.” After donating upwards of 700 toys a year in the past, it will have to discontinue the program in future since it can’t afford the third-party testing required under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, sponsored by area members of Congress Bobby Rush and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). “Woodworking hobby magazines have pegged prices for third-party testing as high as $30,000 for 80 items.” Testing is particularly impractical for items made from donated/recycled wood, since each donated wood source needs to be put through separate testing. Another triumph for CPSIA! [
Blog comments by law firms
by Walter Olson on November 9, 2010
When are they commentary sincerely reacting to posts? When are they mere spam? And how should one draw the line? Dan Filler wonders at Faculty Lounge.
P.S. From UK lawyer-blogger Charon, Q.C. a while back: “Fed up with law firms putting ads in comment section of my blog. I am now editing and re-directing all such to dodgy websites.”
Tagged as: blog mechanics, legal blogs, open threads and commenter posts
{ 7 comments }