From the monthly archives:

February 2011

An arbitrator has reinstated 75 teachers dismissed by the Washington, D.C. school system during their 2-year probationary period — not after achieving tenure — for such infractions as perennial absence or tardiness, “rude and aggressive” behavior and “sketchy or nonexistent lesson plans.” “[Arbitrator Charles] Feigenbaum said that the teachers had been denied due process because they were not given reasons for their terminations. It’s a mind-boggling decision that essentially affords probationary teachers some of the rights that protect tenured teachers.” [Washington Post editorial] For another indication of the legal constraints on employee selection faced by the D.C. schools, see this 2001 post.

{ 3 comments }

Law schools roundup

by Walter Olson on February 14, 2011

  • The first hard copies of Schools for Misrule have arrived from the printer and they look fantastic. You can order here (and benefit me Amazon-commission-wise as well as through royalties) at very favorable pre-publication prices;
  • “Can NY Support Any More Law Schools? Doubts Stall Plans for Three New Campuses” [ABA Journal]
  • Professional rigor without Tiers: how Canada’s law school scene differs from ours [Above the Law]
  • Villanova “knowingly” fiddled scores to improve law school rating [Paul Caron roundup] By creative use of such measures as library seatage, Michigan’s Cooley contrived to name itself nation’s number 2 law school [AtL] Malcolm Gladwell notes that US News rankings “reward Yale-ness” [New Yorker, Ribstein/TotM] A “good way to distinguish yourself from other law schools is to tell the truth to prospective students” and Washington & Lee has shocked competitors with a significant gesture in that direction [AtL] “Applying SOX (or something like it) to law schools” [Tung Yin, PrawfsBlawg] Morriss/Henderson: “law schools have a special moral obligation to tell the truth about themselves.” [Pope Center]
  • Mark Tushnet on academic fads and “mere” doctrinal scholarship [via Boyden, PrawfsBlawg]
  • Some law reviews admit their circulation has plunged, others don’t admit it [Ross Davies, Green Bag via Caron] “Girls under trees” deprecated as element in law school web design [Lowering the Bar]
  • On lawprof interest disclosures [Gerding/Conglomerate, Salmon, Weiser/SALT]
  • Legal academy during World War II mostly silent on government overreach [Sarah Ludington, SSRN via Orin Kerr]

{ 1 comment }

Dennis Laurion took to the web to criticize a doctor he said had behaved in a rude and insensitive manner toward his family during the treatment of his elderly father. The doctor sued for defamation, and a judge in considering whether to allow the suit to proceed. [Duluth News Tribune and more]

{ 3 comments }

By reader acclaim: the family of a Pennsylvania woman who attended — but did not participate in — a New Jersey “Polar Bear Plunge” charity event has sued the event sponsors and many others. Tracy Hottenstein was last seen alive around 2:15 a.m. on the night of drinking after the festivities, and was later discovered in the bay having, per Cape May County authorities, “died accidentally from hypothermia and acute intoxication.” In addition to the event sponsors, the suit names “the owners of two bars she was at on the night she died and the couple who invited her to dinner at their home that evening. Also named is the hospital where she died and the doctor who pronounced her dead, as well as the Sea Isle City Police Department and individual officers who — the suit claims — did not allow rescue workers to perform lifesaving treatment for hypothermia after they discovered Hottenstein had no pulse.” [AP/NJ.com]

{ 5 comments }

February 13 roundup

by Walter Olson on February 13, 2011

Via John Steele at Legal Ethics Forum, Abraham Lincoln’s famous Notes for a Law Lecture:

I am not an accomplished lawyer. I find quite as much material for a lecture in those points wherein I have failed, as in those wherein I have been moderately successful. The leading rule for the lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is diligence. Leave nothing for to-morrow which can be done to-day. Never let your correspondence fall behind. Whatever piece of business you have in hand, before stopping, do all the labor pertaining to it which can then be done. When you bring a common-law suit, if you have the facts for doing so, write the declaration at once. If a law point be involved, examine the books, and note the authority you rely on upon the declaration itself, where you are sure to find it when wanted. The same of defenses and pleas. In business not likely to be litigated, — ordinary collection cases, foreclosures, partitions, and the like, — make all examinations of titles, and note them, and even draft orders and decrees in advance. This course has a triple advantage; it avoids omissions and neglect, saves your labor when once done, performs the labor out of court when you have leisure, rather than in court when you have not. Extemporaneous speaking should be practised and cultivated. It is the lawyer’s avenue to the public. However able and faithful he may be in other respects, people are slow to bring him business if he cannot make a speech. And yet there is not a more fatal error to young lawyers than relying too much on speech-making. If any one, upon his rare powers of speaking, shall claim an exemption from the drudgery of the law, his case is a failure in advance.

Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser — in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.

Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it.

The matter of fees is important, far beyond the mere question of bread and butter involved. Properly attended to, fuller justice is done to both lawyer and client. An exorbitant fee should never be claimed. As a general rule never take your whole fee in advance, nor any more than a small retainer. When fully paid beforehand, you are more than a common mortal if you can feel the same interest in the case, as if something was still in prospect for you, as well as for your client. And when you lack interest in the case the job will very likely lack skill and diligence in the performance. Settle the amount of fee and take a note in advance. Then you will feel that you are working for something, and you are sure to do your work faithfully and well. Never sell a fee note — at least not before the consideration service is performed. It leads to negligence and dishonesty — negligence by losing interest in the case, and dishonesty in refusing to refund when you have allowed the consideration to fail.

There is a vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. I say vague, because when we consider to what extent confidence and honors are reposed in and conferred upon lawyers by the people, it appears improbable that their impression of dishonesty is very distinct and vivid. Yet the impression is common, almost universal. Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief — resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which you do, in advance, consent to be a knave.

(see also post of four years ago, when we quoted excerpts)

{ 1 comment }

“[District of Columbia Ward 4 ANC Commissioner Brenda] Speaks said young people would get criminal records when they couldn’t resist the temptation to steal.” [Robert McCartney, Washington Post via Michael Cannon, Cato at Liberty]

{ 5 comments }

Kent and Surrey, England: “Police have told residents to stop putting wire mesh on their garden shed windows – because they could be sued if a burglar is injured.” [Telegraph]

{ 9 comments }

A quadriplegic man says Disney took 40 minutes to evacuate him from a stalled ride at its California theme park, prompting dangerous high blood pressure, and that had it followed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards it would have gotten his wheelchair out more quickly. The pain and suffering were exacerbated, the plaintiff says, by “the continuous, ’small world’ music in the background.” [Orange County Register]

{ 3 comments }

Ed Wallace at Bloomberg Business Week tells why the Toyota sudden-acceleration debacle merely replays a long and sad history:

I don’t mean to single out CBS for criticism. Plenty of other media outlets share the blame. For 30 years they have treated us to Jeep, Suzuki, and Isuzu Trooper rollovers, Audi unintended acceleration, side-saddle gas tanks exploding, police cars catching on fire, Firestone tires blowing out, and then the Toyota case. And each time the media took the word of those with a vested financial interest in the outcome—and every time they got burned for doing so.

I wrote about this in my article “It Didn’t Start With Dateline NBC” and in the chapter “Trial Lawyer TV” of my book The Rule of Lawyers.

Plus: For comic relief, here’s a New York Times editorial claiming the findings “did nothing to dispel concerns” about safety. And welcome listeners of Ray Dunaway’s morning show on WTIC (Hartford).

{ 6 comments }

The Washington Post thinks a new Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study favorable to the cause of traffic cameras should end debate about whether the cameras are a good thing. Radley Balko isn’t ready to buy it.

{ 1 comment }

It includes a provision in which the class lawyers agree not to disparage the student lender. John Frith of the Civil Justice Association of California says that in exchange for the chance to split $4.875 million in fees, he’d probably agree to keep quiet too.

According to London Mayor Boris Johnson, writing in the Telegraph, the recent case of a man who is charging a 68-year-old female colleague with unconsented rump-slapping shows that Britain’s employment tribunal system leaves much to be desired:

This could turn out to be a ground-breaking case in the advancement of workers’ rights against the unfeeling boss class. But I sincerely doubt it. It sounds to me like a perfect indication of the levels of barminess now being attained by our system of employment tribunals. The hearing continues, it says at the bottom of the reports, and my first thought is how mad, how incredible it is that this poor man’s grievance – whatever it really is – has come to court.

The hearing continues, while across the country thousands of similar hearings drag their weary length before the matchstick-eyelid tribunals of Britain. Millions of man-hours are wasted, as business people are obliged to give evidence rather than getting on with their jobs. Huge fees are racked up by lawyers and “expert witnesses”, who are called on to pronounce on the exact meaning of an insult, and on all the unverifiable aches and pains and stresses that may constitute a disability.

The total cost of the system has been put at £1 billion for British business, and it is rising the whole time. …

Last month Prime Minister David Cameron proposed relaxing — though only slightly — the tribunals’ grip over firing, hiring, claims of harassment and other workplace matters.

{ 2 comments }

A recent anime (Japanese cartoon) portrays America as a land where pretty much any misadventure can be turned into grounds for a lawsuit. Siouxsie Law has the (funny? horrifying?) video clip, the plot line of which involves the catastrophic misuse of a microwave oven and its fictional legal consequences.

{ 5 comments }

Justice Samuel Alito’s Wriston Lecture before the Manhattan Institute last fall is now online.

“The Department of Agriculture said on Friday that American farmers could resume growing genetically engineered sugar beets that had been barred by a federal judge.” The ban had led to fears of sugar shortages and steep price hikes. [New York Times, earlier]

{ 5 comments }

When you go too far even for the editorialists at the Times, you know you’ve really gone overboard.

{ 1 comment }

At The Atlantic, civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer catches Washington Post columnist Katrina Vanden Heuvel misrepresenting the role of campaign spending in the defeat of Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, and the New York Times — in a more appalling lapse of journalistic standards — digging in to defend gross misstatements about the high court’s opinion.