Search Results for ‘"walter umphrey"’

NYT on California food labeling suits

The New York Times reports on some experienced plaintiffs’ lawyers who are hoping to rip big sums out of food companies alleging mislabeling; one is particularly outraged at a yogurt maker’s use of the “evaporated cane juice” euphemism for sugar. “The lawyers are looking to base damages on products’ sales…. [They] are being selective about where these suits are filed. Most have been filed in California, where consumer protection laws tend to favor plaintiffs.” The Times article, which reads somewhat like a press release for the lawyers involved, flatteringly describes them as “the lawyers who took on Big Tobacco,” though in fact a much larger group of lawyers played prominent roles in the Great Tobacco Robbery of 1998, and no evidence is presented that most of that larger group are taking any interest in the food-labeling campaign. What’s more, the many efforts by the plaintiff’s bar to identify a suitable Next Tobacco in the intervening years have been full of false starts and fizzles, including such mostly-abortive causes as mass litigation over alcohol, slavery reparations, HMOs, and dotcom failures.

The Times does draw the link to Proposition 37, the lawyer-sponsored measure I wrote about last week, which could open up a basis for rich new suits based on failure to correctly affix labeling tracking the sometimes-fine distinctions between genetically modified foodstuffs and all others. The text of Proposition 37 proposes to base minimum damages on the total sales volume of a product sold out of compliance, not on any measure of actual harm to consumers (& Thom Forbes, Marketing Daily; Ted Frank, Point of Law). Earlier on Don Barrett here and on Walter Umphrey and Provost Umphrey here and here.

Party like you’re a tobacco lawyer

To celebrate Beaumont tobacco/asbestos lawyer Walter Umphrey’s seventieth birthday, fellow Texas Tobacco Five member John Eddie Williams took over a private aircraft hangar — Umphrey’s own, in fact — “moved out the two private jets and the helicopter, added on a two-story party tent and threw a no-holds-barred tribute to Umphrey.” Music was provided by Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis and Rotel and the Hot Tomatoes, performing on two different stages, and there was some pretty decent food too. Among the 400 attendees: gubernatorial candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn. (Shelby Hodge, “Wild soiree in hangar was Western to the hilt”, Houston Chronicle, May 14). Of course it was a mere kaffeeklatsch compared with a Willie Gary or Mark Lanier party.

Now back to your previously scheduled news story about excessive CEO compensation.

July 2002 archives, part 3


July 30-31 — Tobacco fees: one brave judge. Although most of the press from the New York Times on down continues to ignore this developing story, on July 10 Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Ramos “told lawyers for six law firms that were awarded $625 million for their work in the historic 1998 tobacco settlement in no uncertain terms that he will examine whether the fee award is unethical. The April 2001 decision of the arbitration panel that issued the award set off ‘a flashing light that got my attention’ that the $625 million fee might violate the New York Code of Professional Responsibility’s proscription against illegal or excessive fees, Ramos told the throng of lawyers that filled his courtroom,” reports Daniel Wise in the New York Law Journal. Virtually the entire array of lawyers in the case was lined up against Judge Ramos: the trial lawyers themselves of course were furious, the tobacco companies were disputing his jurisdiction over the matter, and New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s office was defending the mega-fees in a brief. Outside the courtroom, meanwhile, establishment legal ethicist Stephen Gillers was scoffing that “There doesn’t seem to be any legal or ethical basis for this inquiry.” There doesn’t? The state’s Disciplinary Rule 2-106 bars lawyers from collecting “an illegal or excessive fee,” and it says nothing about excessive fees being okay so long as the other parties in the case have been dragooned into not objecting. (Daniel Wise, “New York Judge Begins Query Into Tobacco Fees”, New York Law Journal, Jul. 12)(see Jun. 21-23 and Oct. 25-27, 2002; May 11-13, 2001). Correction Jul. 31: our first report mistakenly named the scene of these proceedings as the Superior Court; it is in fact the Supreme Court (which in New York is a trial court and not the highest appellate body).

On July 25 the judge held a further hearing which even fewer press outlets seem to have covered — the only account we’ve seen ran on the Bloomberg wire (“N.Y. Judge Calls Tobacco Pact Legal Bills ‘Offensive”, Bloomberg News Service, Jul. 25, fee-based archive (search on date in litigation category, pulling up additional screens if necessary)). Judge Ramos pointed out that the $625 million fee amounted to $13,000 an hour, a figure he described as “offensive”. Although the trial lawyers who are set to collect those fees include many powerful insiders in New York politics — the sort of men who can make or break the career of an elected judge — the judge seemed admirably uncowed by them. He compared the lawyers’ overcompensation to “the problems now emerging in large corporate America”, which prompted Philip Damashek of Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek & Shoot, which was awarded $98.4 million in fees, to demand an apology for “comparing me and my colleagues to these Enron people'”. And Ramos “ordered another attorney at the firm, Harvey Weitz, removed from the courtroom when he loudly told partner Brian Shoot not to let the judge interrupt him. ‘You’re sandbagging us,’ Weitz shouted at Ramos as he was escorted out. The judge threatened to hold him in contempt.” The judge “ordered the attorneys to file a new application supporting their fee request by August 30, or submit papers challenging his jurisdiction in the matter. The attorneys declined to say after the hearing how they planned to respond.” Addendum: Daniel Wise of the New York Law Journal also covered the July 25 hearing and provides further details of an oral argument that was “unparalleled — for its vitriol, much of it aimed at the judge.” (“New York Tobacco Fee Hearing Has Lawyers Smoking”, Jul. 26).

More: in Texas, Attorney General John Cornyn’s ethics investigation is turning up the heat on the Big Five tobacco lawyers who for years now have dodged being put under oath over the terms of their hiring by Cornyn’s predecessor Dan Morales (Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, “Investigation of Texas Tobacco Litigators Still Smokin'”, Texas Lawyer, Jul. 22)(see Jul. 15 and links from there). (DURABLE LINK)

July 30-31 — Lying’s not nice, especially when representing the bar. “Oregon’s highest court has suspended for two years an insurance defense lawyer who lied, while being deposed, to conceal a strategy that allowed his client to control both sides of a claim. … The lawyer, John P. Davenport of Portland, Ore., represented the Professional Liability Fund, an insurer established by the State Bar to provide mandatory malpractice insurance.” The Fund used a shell corporation to buy up unpaid malpractice judgments at a discount from claimants, which it could then dismiss; the strategy is not in itself illegal, but the court found that Davenport had not provided forthcoming answers to a bankruptcy examiner about the shell’s dealings with a bankrupt couple who had sued their lawyer for malpractice. (Annie Hsia, “Two-year Ban for Oregon Lawyer Who Lied”, National Law Journal, Jul. 18). In other sanctions news, a federal judge has ordered French drug company Aventis “to pay $32.6 million in attorney fees for vexatious conduct in patent litigation against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Southern District of New York Judge Robert P. Patterson said last week that [the company] ‘defiled the temple of justice’ by obstructing depositions and discovery, instructing a witness not to answer questions at a deposition and advancing baseless claims.” The finding of vexatious conduct is on appeal (Tom Perrotta, “Drug Company Must Pay Fees of $32 Million”, New York Law Journal, Jul. 29). (DURABLE LINK)

July 29 — “Bush Urges Malpractice Damage Limits”. “President Bush urged Congress today to impose substantial nationwide restrictions on medical malpractice cases, arguing that million-dollar verdicts are driving up health care costs and forcing doctors out of business.” Sen. John Edwards (D-T.Law.) promptly charged that under the White House proposal, when a child is blinded or paralyzed for life, “He [Bush] proposes what they get for that is $250,000.” (Mike Allen and Amy Goldstein, Washington Post, Jul. 26). In fact, as Edwards cannot but be aware, damages to cover the costs of care, lost income and other monetizable damages, which commonly would run into the millions in the case of a paralyzed child, would remain fully collectable as before; the mooted limit would apply only to the portion of awards which covered “non-economic” elements such as pain and suffering. (Bush remarks; White House “Policy in Focus“; HHS report on effects of medical liability, PDF format). The Senate Republican Policy Committee has published a paper collecting some of the malpractice-suit-crisis “horror stories” from recent months, with links to accounts in the press (Jul. 25). See also Steve Friess, “Liability costs drive doctors from practice”, Christian Science Monitor, Jul. 17; “Soaring Liability Costs Blamed for Non-Profit Nursing Home Closures”, Dallas Morning News, Jul. 25 (reg); Corpus Christi (Tex.) Caller special section, letters. Sasha Volokh and correspondents discuss the federalism angles (Jul. 27). (DURABLE LINK)

July 29 — Law lectures needn’t be dull. We were familiar with some of the writings of Harvard law prof David Rosenberg, but we had no idea his lecture style was so … colorful, as evidenced by this best-of collection (Harvard Law Record, 1999) (via Eve Tushnet, Jul. 25, who got it from Stuart Buck, Jul. 22 and Jul. 25; and thanks to Dan Lewis for the web-archive link). (DURABLE LINK)

July 29 — New medium, new opportunities. John Steele Gordon, the history-of-business columnist for American Heritage and author of such acclaimed books as A Thread Across the Ocean and The Business of America, devotes his new column to comparing the rise of online publishing with the technological developments, such as the rotary press, that ushered in the era of the metropolitan newspaper in the years before the American Civil War. “When the young can enter a business and experiment with new technology at little risk, revolution is on the way.” Small internet news-gathering and news-assemblage sites can now “have a great impact. … [One of them] has been giving tort lawyers and activist judges fits by assembling in one much-visited site called overlawyered.com the most egregious lawsuits and decisions from around the country and beyond. It makes for reading that is often hilarious, infuriating, and sad at the same time.” (“The Man Who Invented the Newspaper”, Aug./Sept.). (More on weblog impact: John Leo, “Flogged by Bloggers”, U.S. News, Aug. 5). While on the subject of nice publicity, we won’t even try to summarize all the additional exposure this site and its editor have gotten in the past few days from the lawyers-sue-fast-food controversy, but we will note that our editor’s O’Reilly Factor appearance of last Tuesday, on educational lawsuits, is now online at FoxNews.com (“Watch out Teachers!”, Jul. 24). (DURABLE LINK)

July 26-28 — Fat suits, cont’d. George Washington University law prof John Banzhaf, who got himself so much publicity in the tobacco round, says he’s advising the plaintiff who just announced that he’s suing fast-food chains, so we know the suit must be serious (right?) (Geraldine Sealey, “Fat suits filed”, ABC News, Jul. 25; BBC, “Fat Americans sue fast food firms”, Jul. 25, and “Talking Points“). As for our editor, he’s in considerable demand on the subject, having appeared over the past day on (among others) Fox News Network, CBS radio, and the BBC. This just in: debating our editor on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Friday evening, Banzhaf announced that he is working up a possible suit against milk marketers which will charge that the “Milk Moustache” campaign should give rise to liability because it doesn’t warn consumers that skim milk is sometimes better for you than whole milk. Is he serious? He sure sounded like it (discussion on Democratic Underground). (DURABLE LINK)

July 26-28 — Third Circuit: prisoners may be entitled to watch R-rated films. “Inmates in federal prisons who challenged a ban on allowing them to watch movies rated R or NC-17 have won a new shot at making their case now that a federal appeals court has ruled that a Western District of Pennsylvania judge was too quick to rule in favor of the government. In Wolf v. Ashcroft, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that U.S. District Judge Sean J. McLaughlin of the Western District of Pennsylvania ‘did not conduct a proper, thorough analysis’ of whether the ban is ‘reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.'” The trial judge’s ruling against the prisoners, furthermore, “improperly relied on ‘common sense'”. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Prisoners’ Suit Over R-Rated Movies Worth Another Look, Says 3rd Circuit”, The Legal Intelligencer, Jul. 25). (DURABLE LINK)

July 26-28 — Skittish at Kinko’s. The clerk at the copy shop raises objections to a request to photocopy a newspaper column: “Do you have permission to duplicate this copyrighted material?” But it’s my column, the customer protests — I wrote it! “Look — my picture is on the top.” “He told me that didn’t matter, that corporate Kinko’s was overburdened with copyright lawsuits, and consequently he wasn’t about to run my copy job. Sheesh.” (“Inane Laws and Egotistical Copy Men”, Cornell Daily Sun, Mar. 4). (DURABLE LINK)

July 26-28 — Update: cost of clipboard-throwing only $8 million. A San Diego judge has reduced the damage award from $30 million to $8 million in a case against the Ralphs supermarket chain over the conduct of a manager who over the course of a decade is alleged to have verbally harassed female employees and thrown such objects as a telephone and clipboard at them. Superior Court judge Michael Anello called the damages “grossly excessive” and the result of the jury’s “passion and prejudice,” and said “the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that defendant [corporation] approved of or ratified [the manager’s] conduct.” The decision is “a slap in the face of women’s rights,” countered the plaintiffs’ co-counsel (see Apr. 19-21) (Alexei Oreskovic, “Judge Slashes Sex Harassment Damages Against Ralphs Grocery”, The Recorder, Jul. 17). (DURABLE LINK)

July 25 — “Ailing Man Sues Fast-Food Firms”. You knew it was coming: “A New York City lawyer has filed suit against the four big fast-food corporations, saying their fatty foods are responsible for his client’s obesity and related health problems. Samuel Hirsch filed his lawsuit Wednesday at a New York state court in the Bronx, alleging that McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s and KFC Corporation are irresponsible and deceptive in the posting of their nutritional information, that they need to offer healthier options on their menus, and that they create a de facto addiction in their consumers, particularly the poor and children.” Quotes our editor, who takes the dim view of the suit that you would expect (Michael Y. Park, FoxNews.com, Jul. 24). (DURABLE LINK)

July 25 — “Surgeon halts operation over foreign nurses’ poor English”. Britain: “A surgeon at a leading hospital has said he had to stop halfway through an operation because foreign nurses could not follow his instructions. As a result, he said he has been threatened with disciplinary action for racism. David Nunn, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Guy’s and St Thomas’s Hospitals, in London, told The Telegraph that he was unable to complete the operation last week without certain instruments. When he asked the nurses, all of whom were foreign, to find them, ‘I was met with a selection of bemused reactions,’ he said. ‘They were produced only when the scrub nurse de-scrubbed and went to find them herself.’ Mr Dunn, 48, said his superiors had accused him of racism and threatened him with being disciplined.” Dunn said the influx of nurses from outside Britain are “without doubt well-trained and dedicated professionals, but if medical staff cannot communicate effectively then patients’ care may be put at risk.” Careful what you say, doc… (Richard Eden, Daily Telegraph, Jul. 22). (DURABLE LINK)

July 25 — “Licensing Deadline Sneaks Up In District”. “Consultants, landlords, music teachers, nannies, massage therapists and other home-based workers in the District face fines of as much as $500 if they do not obtain a new type of city license by Aug. 31, but most are unaware of it. Self-employed individuals and District firms, including nonprofit groups, that collect more than $2,000 in annual revenue will have to obtain a master business license to legally sell their services.” More “than 60,000 businesses and individuals in the District face fines of as much as $500 if they don’t obtain a new type of city license by Aug. 31″ — and have things really reached the point where it’s going to require a license from the government to practice independent journalism from your apartment? (Avram Goldstein, Washington Post, Jul. 21; “How D.C. Creates Chaos” (editorial), Jul. 23; Eugene Volokh, Jul. 23). (DURABLE LINK)

July 24 — Smog fee case: “unreal world of greed”. A California appeals court has thrown out an arbitration panel’s $88.5 million award of attorneys’ fees, amounting to an estimated $8,800/hour, to five law firms which had prosecuted a case against the state of California arguing the unconstitutionality of its former assessment of “smog impact fees” on cars registered from out of state. “The justices called the panel’s $88.5 million fee award ‘an unconstitutional gift of public funds’ that was not authorized by the Legislature. In a scathing concurring opinion, Justice Richard Sims said the award from the arbitration panel was ‘completely in outer space.’ ‘The fact that attorneys even requested a fee award of that magnitude from the taxpayers,’ Sims wrote, ‘is a testament to the unreal world of greed in which some attorneys practice law in this day and age.'” The five law firms included Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, long a major political donor in California, as well as “New York’s Weiss & Yourman; San Diego’s Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel; La Jolla, Calif.’s Blumenthal & Markham, and Berkeley, Calif., solo practitioner Richard Pearl.” (see Dec. 5, 2000, Jun. 22, 2001)(Robert Salladay, “Court rips $8,800 an hour in attorneys’ fees”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jul. 23; Mike McKee, “California Appeals Court Rips $88M Fee Award in Smog Case”, The Recorder, Jul. 23). (DURABLE LINK)

July 24 — Update: “Harassment by kids gets ex-teacher 50G” Following up on a story from last month: the city of New York has agreed to pay $50,000 to settle a lawsuit by a former Queens teacher who says his students had harassed him by way of derogatory comments about his immigrant status (from Sri Lanka), accent and ethnicity. “Legal experts said the suit was the first of its kind in which a teacher successfully brought a civil rights action alleging that students had created a ‘hostile work environment.'” The other noteworthy feature of the dispute (see Jun. 26) is the defense the city put forth, namely that it was powerless to discipline the students, who had special education (disabled) status, for insulting the teacher “because students with that classification have already been identified as having behavioral problems, and the verbal misconduct might be considered a manifestation of their disability,” as a city lawyer put it (John Marzulli, “Harassment by kids gets teacher 50K”, New York Daily News, Jul. 22). (DURABLE LINK)

July 23 — Welcome O’Reilly Factor viewers. Our editor was a guest on the top-rated TV talk show this evening, interviewed one-on-one by host Bill O’Reilly on the subject of parents threatening to sue teachers over their kids’ bad grades. We mentioned the recent Arizona case and an earlier Ohio case that we understand has been dismissed by the court; and here’s our theme page on overlawyered schools. (DURABLE LINK)

July 22-23 — Politicos’ “stagey” outrage at balance-sheet sins. “John Walker Lindh got 20 years this week for joining a terrorist network at war with his country. Lucky for him he didn’t try something really bad, like capitalizing an expense item. … President Bush, who spent 56 years on this earth without revealing the slightest passion for corporate reform, now says life will be intolerable if he doesn’t have a bill to sign within a couple of weeks. And he has sent signals that he doesn’t give much of a hoot what is in it.” (Michael Kinsley, “Stock Option Cure-All”, Washington Post, Jul. 19). “Even now, the mob waving pitchforks and torches finds the details of accounting, compensation and corporate governance too tedious to take seriously. But ‘reforms’ that ignore the role of incentives and competition will turn out to be monsters themselves.” (Virginia Postrel, “Business ‘Reforms’ Should Not Ignore Incentives and Competition”, New York Times, Jul. 18 (reg)). (DURABLE LINK)

July 22-23 — Nightmare under the palms. You retire to a Florida condo, and imagine that the hassles of life are over — that is, until you discover that a couple of your neighbors have turned asserting their legal rights into an art form. (Joe Kollin, “Sunrise condo residents get socked with bill because neighbors won’t pay”, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Jul. 19). (DURABLE LINK)

July 22-23 — Disabled testing: hence, loathèd asterisk. In a settlement with a disabled-rights litigation group, the College Board has agreed to stop flagging the test scores of students who got extra time or other accommodations in taking its college admissions test. The effect will be to allow applicants to conceal from colleges whether they “took the test under normal conditions, or used a computer, worked in a separate quiet room, and had four and a half hours for the three-hour test. … High school guidance counselors said the elimination of flagging could set off a wave of new applications for accommodations, including some from students without real disabilities. … most of those who are accommodated have attention deficit problems or learning disabilities like dyslexia, a reading disorder.” “It’s very clear who’s been getting extended-time: the highest-income communities have the highest rates of accommodations,” said Bruce Poch, the dean of admissions at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif. “I think what’s going to have to happen now is that everyone will, in effect, get more time.” (Tamar Lewin, “Abuse Is Feared as SAT Test Changes Disability Policy”, New York Times, Jul. 15 (reg)). Among commenters: Kimberly Swygert at No. 2 Pencil (Jul. 15 and 17) and Joanne Jacobs (Jul. 15 and Jul. 17). We covered the controversy back in February 1999, May 10, 2000 and Feb. 9-11, 2001. (DURABLE LINK)

July 22-23 — Last-minute friends in Texas politics. “In 1998 [John] Sharp narrowly lost the lieutenant governor’s race to Republican Mr. Perry, who later became governor when George W. Bush became president.” Sharp drew about 15 percent of his financial backing from trial lawyers in that race, which actually probably isn’t all that high a percentage for a Lone Star Democrat. What was interesting was the timing: “A review by The News of finance reports in that matchup indicates that nearly half Mr. Sharp’s trial lawyer support came in the final eight days of the campaign and was not reported until after the race. For example, a few days before the election, Mr. Sharp collected $250,000 from Houston trial lawyer John Eddie Williams and $150,000 apiece from lawyers Walter Umphrey of Beaumont and Harold Nix of Daingerfield. And he got $15,000 from Michael Gallagher of Houston.” Reports of trial lawyer backing can damage a candidate in Texas campaigns, but when the lawyers donate at the last minute the voters may be none the wiser as they troop to the polls (Wayne Slater, “Trial lawyers’ cash at issue”, Dallas Morning News, Jul. 13). (DURABLE LINK)

July 2002 archives


July 10-11 — Convicted, but still on their teaching jobs. How hard is it to fire a bad teacher in New York City? “Daniel LaBianca, chief of outside funding for School District 14 in Brooklyn, pleaded guilty in 1999 to helping private school officials embezzle millions in federal aid for poor children. Three years later, he still holds his New York public school job — and has a $10,000 raise to boot. A Daily News review of the seven cases since 1999 in which the Board of Education filed to terminate tenured school teachers or administrators with criminal convictions found that in every case, the crooks stayed in the school system.” The state education probe requires that attempts to oust educators be sent to arbitration, where the teacher’s union has an impressive record of defending its members against ouster. (Alison Gendar and Bob Port, “Cons in Classroom: Crooked teachers, officials cling to jobs”, New York Daily News, Jun. 26) (& welcome Joanne Jacobs readers; she describes three appalling teacher-ouster cases that she covered years ago). (DURABLE LINK)

July 10-11 — Memo to bar associations: save your P.R. bucks. The new president of the Florida Bar “is asking Florida lawyers to chip in as part of a $750,000 campaign to improve the image of lawyers. He’s even hired a public-relations firm.” Back in 1993 “the American Bar Association tried this same sort of thing …. The ABA paid a consultant $170,000 to improve the image of lawyers. It didn’t do any good then, either.” The way to salvage the profession’s reputation is precisely what the bar associations are not about to do, namely to police the profession’s excesses, writes columnist Howard Troxler. (“Mere PR campaign won’t change public’s low view of lawyers”, St. Petersburg Times, Jul. 8). Read the whole thing, which is full of observations like: “People tell lawyer jokes as a defense mechanism, because a certain percentage of lawyers exist for the sole purpose of finding a new victim from whom to extract money. Every small business owner dreads the lawsuit that will destroy all their efforts.” And see fuller report, Oct. 3. (DURABLE LINK)

July 10-11 — The legal price for roommate discrimination. “Do you have the right to say whom you want for a roommate? In California, you apparently don’t”, notes Eugene Volokh. “On May 7, the California Fair Employment & Housing Commission penalized Melissa DeSantis $500 for inflicting ’emotional distress’ on a would-be roommate by allegedly telling him that ‘I don’t really like black guys. I try to be fair and all, but they scare me.’ It also required her to pay him $240 in expenses — and take ‘four hours of training on housing discrimination.'” The case is Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. DeSantis (Cal. FEHC May 7, 2002).) Volokh thinks that if the issue were litigated far enough the courts would probably wind up finding there to be a constitutional right to “intimate association” that would protect people like DeSantis from being forced to room with people they didn’t want to room with, but writes, “To my knowledge there’s no caselaw on the matter.” (Volokh brothers blog, Jul. 8). In the reasonably well-publicized “lesbian roommate” case of 1996, however, Ann Hacklander-Ready and another respondent were made to pay several hundred dollars plus thousands of dollars in plaintiff’s attorney fees after deciding that they didn’t want to be co-tenants with a lesbian applicant, in violation of the fair housing laws of Madison, Wisconsin. The case reached the state’s appellate courts (Court of Appeals, Sept. 26, 1996) and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually denied certiorari (Hacklander-Ready v. Wisconsin, 117 S.Ct. 1696 (May 12, 1997)). So it would be natural for the California authorities to assume that, no, there is no remaining individual liberty left in this country to decide with whom one wants to live in a shared tenancy (& see Volokh updates, Jul. 12 -1-, -2-). More: Aug. 10, 2005 and Feb. 9, 2006 (Craigslist) (DURABLE LINK)

July 10-11 — They thought we’d just sue. “The fifth element that made Bin Ladenism possible was the West’s, especially America’s, perceived weakness if not actual cowardice. A joke going round the militant Islamist circles until last year was that the only thing the Americans would do if attacked was to sue the attackers in court. That element no longer exists. The Americans, supported by the largest coalition in history, have shown that they are prepared to use force against their enemies even if that means a long war with no easy victory in sight.” (Amir Taheri, “Bin Laden no longer exists: Here is why”, Arab News, Jul. 9) (via Instapundit, Jul. 7). (DURABLE LINK)

July 3-9 — Now we are three. We launched Overlawyered.com on July 1, 1999, which means we’re now beginning the site’s fourth year of commentary. Tell your friends! (DURABLE LINK)

July 3-9 — Law blogs. While we’re on a week-long hiatus, check out some of these weblogs on law and law-related topics, a category that barely existed a year ago. Aside from InstaPundit and the Volokhii, which if you’re like us you already visit daily or more often, there are the pseudonymous “Max Power” and pioneering Breaching the Web; Rick Klau; Bag and Baggage; Ernie the Attorney; zem; and Held in Contempt. (All the above-mentioned also display an excellent sense of taste by linking to this site). Most have link lists that will lead you to other law blogs and sites. Two others that are deservedly popular: Howard Bashman’s How Appealing and the pseudonymous “Robert Musil“. Not surprisingly, blogs are especially well established in the world of IP law and copyright, with such entries as Yale Law’s LawMeme; Donna Wentworth‘s blog at Corante, and EFF’s wonderfully named Consensus at LawyerPoint. (DURABLE LINK)

July 3-9 — “Tampa Judge Tosses Out Class-Action Suit Against Hog Company”. “A judge dismissed a federal class-action lawsuit against the nation’s largest hog producer, ordering the plaintiffs’ attorneys, including Robert Kennedy Jr., to pay the company’s legal expenses.” (We’ve been covering this case since it was farrowed in late 2000, not excluding Kennedy’s embarrassing public forays into the controversy). Chief U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich granted Smithfield Foods’ motions to dismiss the case, “saying the plaintiffs did not succeed in establishing how the company’s actions damaged their property. The judge also said the plaintiffs’ attorneys filed ‘frivolous motions,’ and ordered the dozen or so law firms representing the plaintiffs, including Kennedy’s, to pay Smithfield’s legal costs.” Sometimes the system does work as it ought to — happy Fourth of July! (AP/Tampa Bay Online, Jul. 2). (DURABLE LINK)

July 3-9 — Drunk pilots. It’s apparently happened again, this time with an America West flight stopped before taking off at Miami. We covered the legal aftermath the last time around. (DURABLE LINK)

July 1-2 — Going to blazes. Raging wildfires are what you get if you suppress smaller burns and forbid deliberate thinning of forests through logging, but both logging and “controlled burns” out West have run into community opposition and litigation. “The uncertainty caused by [anti-logging] lawsuits has decimated the logging industry in Arizona, and that has contributed heavily to the situation we find ourselves in today,” writes Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona. “… If we want to save what remains of our forests in Arizona, we’ve got to get a handle on the frivolous lawsuits that prevent us from doing so.” (Rep. Jeff Flake, “Costly lawsuits provide kindling for forest blazes”, Arizona Republic, Jun. 25). In an article promoting the use of controlled burns, the New York Times cites prominent Westerners who seem to feel much as Flake does (“Gov. Jane Dee Hull of Arizona said it was ‘policies from the East Coast’ that kept the Forest Service from pruning overgrown forests. Gov. Judy Martz of Montana said environmental groups ‘played a great role in the fires,’ by blocking some efforts to log trees.”) while also quoting environmentalists who point to a General Accounting Office study which they say proves that they have seldom challenged fuel-reduction projects (Timothy Egan, “Idea of Fighting Fire With Fire Wins Converts”, New York Times, Jun. 30). Update: “Plans to cut fire danger by thinning trees in an Arizona forest now being destroyed by the nation’s largest active wildfire were blocked for three years by a Tucson environmental group, a Tribune investigation has found. The U.S. Forest Service approved a plan to thin trees and remove volatile debris in parts of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest on the Mogollon Rim in September 1999, according to court records. The plan was halted after the Center for Biological Diversity appealed the decision, then sued in May 2000, claiming the Forest Service had not followed regulations. The matter is still pending in federal court.” Mark Flatten and Dan Nowicki, “Green group lawsuit blocked forest thinning”, East Valley Tribune, Jul. 1). Further update Jul. 12-14: new Forest Service report indicates that fire-prevention projects have been frequently litigated, throwing doubt on the environmentalists’ case. (DURABLE LINK)

July 1-2 — Updates. The other shoe drops on various stories:

* Well, that didn’t last long: “Home Depot Changes Mind, Will Sell to Uncle Sam” reads the headline (AP/Tampa Bay Online, Jun. 28)(see Jun. 17-18).

* Former Minnesota court of appeals judge Roland Amundson has been sentenced to 69 months in prison for stealing more than $300,000 from the trust fund of a mentally retarded client (see Mar. 19) (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Jun. 8) (via Burt Hanson’s Law and Everything Else, Jun. 8; Hanson argues that the sentence is too stiff).

* Another wrongful birth case for your list: “The family of a child born with a disabling chromosomal defect that went undetected during pregnancy has settled a wrongful-birth lawsuit against the mother’s obstetrician for $1.65 million, according to court papers and attorneys.” Cynthia Fields argued that she would have had an abortion “in the blink of an eye” had she been given an amniocentesis that revealed that her daughter Jade, now 7, would be born severely disabled, requiring round the clock care (Lindy Washburn, “Family of disabled child settles for $1.65M”, NorthJersey.com, May 23). On the crisis in obstetrics law generally, see Rita Rubin, “Fed-up obstetricians look for a way out”, USA Today, Jun. 30. (DURABLE LINK)

July 1-2 — Mississippi’s other disaster. As if the collapse of locally based WorldCom weren’t bad enough, state lawmakers still haven’t done anything about the litigation climate (Tim Lemke, “Best place to sue?”, Washington Times, Jun. 30). But at least Judge Lamar Pickard says his court in Jefferson County has enough out-of-town litigants for now and has told plaintiffs with no local connection to start taking their business elsewhere. (DURABLE LINK)

July 1-2 — Moving to new host. We’re in the process of moving this site to a new host (Verio); we moved our editor’s home site there a couple of weeks ago, as a trial run. It’ll be a little more expensive, but we can afford it thanks to our generous readers whose Amazon Honor System donations (more than $1,000 in all) put the site in the black last year. We expect the new service to be more reliable, especially on email, which had been a chronic problem with our previous service (we had a miserable time trying to get email to AOL users, for example). Thanks for your support! (DURABLE LINK)


July 19-21 — Disabled lap dancing just the start. Our recent item (Jul. 16-17) on demands for accessibility in lap-dancing facilities reminded an alert Australian reader of a recent case from his country in which a disabled complainant filed charges against the proprietors of a “swinging house party”, which was found in unrelated proceedings to be operating as an unlicensed brothel, for excluding her because of her status as a wheelchair user. (Ball v Morgan & Anor [2001] FMCA 127)(adult content warning, though it’s a court opinion). (DURABLE LINK)

July 19-21 — Stolen silence? Via WSJ OpinionJournal Best of the Web Today: “The London Sun reports that Nicholas Riddle, who heads a firm that owns the copyright to the late John Cage’s composition ‘4’ 33″ ‘–which consists of four minutes, 33 seconds of silence–is suing ‘pop guru’ Mike Batt, whose new band, the Plantes, has just released an album with a track called ‘A One Minute Silence.’ Riddle alleges that Batt violated Cage’s copyright. ‘John always said the duration of his piece may be changed, so the Planets’ piece doesn’t escape by virtue of its shorter length,’ Riddle tells the paper. ‘We want our royalties.'” Oh please, let this be a Monty Python skit and not an actual lawsuit (Thomas Whitaker, “Silence is old ‘un”, The Sun (London), Jul. 18). (DURABLE LINK)

July 19-21 — Enron’s other helpers. If Arthur Andersen & Co. is going to get run out of business for approving Enron’s dubious financial deals, why is its outside law firm, Vinson & Elkins, unlikely to face similarly devastating consequences for approving and helping structure the same deals? Well, one reason is that accountants are conceived of as having broad obligations to the general public, while lawyers mostly aren’t. Rather convenient for the lawyers, don’t you think? Julie Hilden makes a valiant effort to defend the double standard as a principled one (“Scummery Judgment”, Slate, Jun. 21). (& see letter to the editor, Oct. 23) (DURABLE LINK)

July 18 — “Family of boy injured by leopard may sue”. “In April, Eric River, 11, sneaked into the Rosamond Gifford Zoo at Burnet Park with friends, tried to feed and pet a snow leopard, got 10 deep lashes to his face, arm and back, and received 500 stitches. Now, three months later, his mother, Terry Wells, is threatening to sue the zoo’s owner, Onondaga County, for failing to properly secure and police the zoo after hours.” River and three friends managed to get into the zoo by scaling one 8-foot fence, squeezing through a gap in another, and scaling a 4-foot fence before finally approaching the leopard in its cage. (Teri Weaver, Syracuse Post-Standard, Jul. 17) (see Sept. 21, 1999). (DURABLE LINK)

July 18 — “Trauma center reopens doors”. The only trauma center in southern Nevada has reopened, “ten days after a state malpractice insurance crisis forced its closure”. (Las Vegas Review-Journal, Jul. 14; Joelle Babula, “University Medical Center: Trauma center closing”, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Jul. 2; Steve Kanigher, “Trauma cases to shift to nearest hospital”, Las Vegas Sun, Jul. 2; William Booth, “Las Vegas Trauma Center Closes as Doctors Quit”, Washington Post, Jul. 4; Las Vegas Review-Journal, coverage at a glance). Crisis continues in Mississippi: Reed Branson, “Doctors shutting practices amid epidemic of lawsuits”, GoMemphis.com, Jul. 11; John Porretto, “Exodus of doctors causing crisis for moms-to-be in Mississippi”, AP, Jul. 11. Texas: Mary Ann Roser, “Doctors at a crossroads”, Austin American-Statesman, Jun. 17. (DURABLE LINK)

July 18 — “Edwards’ fund raising a strong suit”. Why are we not surprised that he’s vaulted ahead of some better-known Democrats on the money-raising front? “Reports released Monday show that two fund-raising committees controlled by Edwards raised a combined $2.6 million in the second quarter of this year and that the North Carolina Democrat now has more than $4.4 million in the bank. … A News & Observer analysis of Edwards’ PAC money showed that more than 77 percent of it came from lawyers or law firms.” (John Wagner, Raleigh News & Observer, Jul. 16). All five of the top contributors to the Edwards campaign are plaintiff’s law firms, the list topped by Girardi & Keese of Los Angeles and Baron & Budd of Dallas, both familiar to longtime readers of this site. (David Brown, “The Candidate”, The Recorder, Jun. 14). (DURABLE LINK)

July 16-17 — By reader acclaim: quadriplegic sues strip club over wheelchair access. Edward Law of Orlando, Fla., who is quadriplegic, “has sued a strip club, charging that it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act because the lap dance room does not have wheelchair access.” In addition to suing the Wildside Adult Sports Cabaret of West Palm Beach, Law has also recently sued a second strip clup, “an Orlando restaurant and a Daytona Beach Harley-Davidson motorcycle shop”; we don’t know yet whether to assign his filing activities to this category. (“Orlando quadriplegic sues strip club over wheelchair access”, AP/Palm Beach Post, Jul. 15)(for more on lap-dance handicap accommodation, see Sept. 27-28, 2000). (DURABLE LINK)

July 16-17 — Mercury in dental fillings. For well over a century dentists have used a mixture of metals including mercury in standard tooth fillings, and both the U.S. Public Health Service and Consumers Union have declared that patients have no grounds for alarm that the fillings pose a risk to health. That hasn’t convinced a small if longstanding body of dissenters who hold that exposure to even trace amounts of the heavy metal must be having toxic effects on users’ bodies. The dispute has lately turned litigious, with Van Nuys, Calif. personal injury and environmental attorney Shawn Khorrami spearheading several suits which accuse the American Dental Association and dentists of wrongly promoting the material, and the ADA striking back with a defamation suit. (Doug Bandow, “Killer teeth?”, Cato Institute Dailies, Jun. 28; Raymond J. Keating, “Lawsuits and Legislation Causing Pain for Dentists”, Small Business Survival Committee, Jun. 7; AltCorp (anti-mercury testing firm); Stephen Barrett, “The Mercury Amalgam Scam”, QuackWatch.com, last revised Apr. 23; search QuackWatch on “amalgam”; American Dental Association on ADA v. Khorrami). (DURABLE LINK)

July 16-17 — Hizzoner’s divorce, settled at last. “Anyone who’s been appalled at the depths to which the parties stooped in this Hanover/Giuliani split just hasn’t been divorced from a millionaire often enough. As big splashy divorces go, this was no uglier than most.” (Dahlia Lithwick, “Hats Off to Rudy”, Slate, Jul. 12). (DURABLE LINK)

July 16-17 — “Spanking Client Not Legitimate Trial Prep Tactic”. Just plain bizarre: U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny has ruled that an attorney’s malpractice insurer is not obliged to pay out in a case in which Derby, Ct. attorney Milo J. Altschuler allegedly took a client across his lap and spanked her before a court appearance. “The woman claimed Altschuler, before removing her panties and stockings, told her he needed to spank her so the judge didn’t think she was lying.” Judge Chatigny ruled that the spanking did not constitute the rendering of professional services, although Altschuler “acknowledged that he used [threats of spanking] in representing more than a dozen other clients to make them ‘more afraid of him than they would be of the prosecutor.'” (Scott Brede, Connecticut Law Tribune, Jul. 15). (DURABLE LINK)

July 15 — “Morales’ $1 Million Tobacco Fee Under Fire”. “Former Attorney General Dan Morales told lawyers that a $1 million contribution to his political campaign fund was a condition for joining his anti-tobacco legal team, a Houston lawyer testified in a newly released document.” In a 1999 interview that has only now been made public in court proceedings, an assistant to Texas Attorney General John Cornyn questioned Houston attorney Wayne Fisher, a former president of the State Bar and a former president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, under oath. Fisher “said Morales outlined two separate requirements during a meeting he had with the then-attorney general in 1995. Fisher said one condition of employment was to ‘front’ the legal expenses and a second was to ‘commit to contribute $1 million to (Morales’) political campaign — to (Morales’) political campaign fund, as I recall it.'” Fisher “chose not to join Morales’ legal team”; he also “recalled wondering later if the meeting was a ‘sting operation.'” Fisher’s account seems to buttress earlier recollections by noted plaintiff’s attorney Joe Jamail, who also did not join the state’s team (see Sept. 1-3, 2000, May 22, 2000, June 21, 2001, Aug. 29-30, 2001, Nov. 12, 2001).

The five law firms eventually hired by Morales are all “major contributors to Democratic candidates and causes”. Michael Tigar, attorney for the five, denies that any of their tobacco fees or expenses went to Morales but concedes that “some was paid to Austin political consultant George Shipley. Tigar said all the payments to Shipley were first reviewed by University of Texas law professor Charles Silver, who was retained by the lawyers as an ethics adviser.” (Clay Robison, Houston Chronicle, Jul. 12). (DURABLE LINK)

July 15 — Paper currency should accommodate blind, suit argues. “The American Council of the Blind, which seeks to improve conditions for the visually impaired, has sued the Treasury Department to force its way into the currency revamping process. …The group is not promoting a specific change that would help blind and sight-impaired Americans sift through their money, but hopes the government will study an array of options that would be helpful. A major step could be offering denominations in different colors or sizes with large-print features, like many other countries, [Ralph] Brunson said. Braille and textures also are possibilities, although the markings are prone to wearing off. ‘We did not specify a particular option because, primarily, at this point we’re trying to get the dialogue going,’ Brunson said.” (Mark Babineck, “Blind Group Sues U.S. over Currency”, AP/FindLaw, Jul. 1). (DURABLE LINK)

July 15 — New civil rights target: “linguistic profiling”. With assistance from a Ford Foundation grant, the National Fair Housing Alliance and Stanford education and linguistics professor Dr. John Baugh have launched a project “to study the impact of linguistic profiling on housing discrimination. This summer, Baugh will track the instances of bias that the housing markets show toward speakers of non-standard English over the telephone. Baugh says speakers who do not ‘sound white’ often are discriminated against over the telephone. ‘Even though the courts are reasonably well equipped to prosecute cases of face-to-face discrimination,’ says Dr. Baugh, ‘they have a hard time understanding and applying the law to linguistic profiling, and that’s where this research will help.'” “National Study on Linguistic Profiling in Housing Announced”, Jun. 26)(via Scott Norvell, FoxNews.com, Jul. 1). (DURABLE LINK)

July 12-14 — Welcome Salon.com readers, Bill O’Reilly listeners. We’re cited in Janelle Brown’s excellent article on parental lawsuits against teachers (“L is for Lawsuit”, Jul. 12) which mentions our subpage on overlawyered schools. And our editor is appearing today (Fri.) on Bill O’Reilly’s popular radio show to discuss the case of a New York City jury’s award to a woman who lay down on the subway tracks (see Jun. 26-27), along with other cases featured on our personal- responsibility subpage. Update: and welcome BBC-5 listeners, for whom our editor taped an interview arising from the Salon piece (DURABLE LINK)

July 12-14 — Credibility up in smoke? Environmentalist groups have strenuously denied that their use of litigation to stall road building, logging and the construction of firebreaks worsened this year’s raging wildfires out West (see Jul. 1-2). But it turns out that a recent General Accounting Office report, much cited by the enviro groups to show that they don’t sue often, actually may show nothing of the sort. “Environmental appeals delayed 48 percent of the [Forest Service]’s fire-suppression projects in fiscal 2001 and 2002, thereby stalling efforts to clear the brush and small trees that fuel the catastrophic wildfires plaguing the West, according to an internal Forest Service report obtained by The Washington Times. The report, slated for release [Thursday], found that 155 of the agency’s 326 plans to log overgrown, high-risk national forests were stymied by appeals. In Arizona and New Mexico, sites of some of this summer’s worst wildfires, that figure rose to 73 percent, and climbed to 100 percent in the Pacific Northwest”. (Valeria Richardson, “Forest Service Says Activists Played Role in Fires,” Washington Times, Jul. 11; Kimberley A. Strassel, “Truth Under Fire “, Wall Street Journal/ OpinionJournal.com, Jul. 11). (& see letter to the editor, Oct. 23) (DURABLE LINK)

July 12-14 — Read the label, then ignore it if you like. “Two carpet installers who admit they read the label of an adhesive they used, admit they understood the adhesive was flammable and should not be used inside, used it inside anyway, caused an explosion, were burned badly, sued, and won $8 million dollars.” (Phil Trexler, “2 installers get millions in blast suit”, Akron Beacon Journal, Jul. 10) (link and description via MedPundit, Jul. 10). (DURABLE LINK)

July 12-14 — Financial scandals: legislate in haste. The “chief sponsor of the House [financial-reform] legislation, Republican Michael G. Oxley of Ohio … complained that some aspects of the Sarbanes bill appeared to be turning into ‘a gravy train’ for trial lawyers.” (Richard A. Oppel Jr., “Senate Backs Tough Measures to Punish Corporate Misdeeds”, New York Times, Jul. 11). House Republicans are particularly critical of provisions which, in line with a long-term goal of the plaintiff’s bar, increase the time permitted to bring securities fraud lawsuits. The Mobile Register editorially warns that a number of ideas emanating from the Senate “would be a huge boon to voracious plaintiffs’ attorneys. And the last thing the nervous stock market needs, now or ever, is to worry about companies being ruined by ever-more creative lawsuits whose practical effect would do far more to enrich the lawyers than to protect the interests of individual investors.” (“Bush right, Shelby not, on business reform” (editorial), Mobile Register, Jul. 10). “Robert Musil” has some thoughts on the newly popular idea of requiring CEOs to certify their company’s financial filings on penalty of perjury (Jul. 7). And before assuming that it was management malfeasance alone that destroyed the market value of such companies as WorldCom and Adelphia, it would be wise to note that Europe, without benefit of major scandal, has managed to see most of the value of its telecom stocks evaporate since the sectoral bubble burst, with historic enterprises like Deutsche Telekom, France Télécom and Royal KPN of the Netherlands losing 80 or 90 percent of their value, and Britain’s BT doing not much better (Edmund L. Andrews, “Europe Shares Pain of the Fall in Phone Stocks”, New York Times, Jul. 11). And see Steve Chapman, “Real and phony fixes for corporate corruption”, Chicago Tribune, Jul. 11). (DURABLE LINK)

July 12-14 — “Court Tosses ‘Sopranos’ Suit”. Following an appellate court’s ruling against them, the Italian-American Defense Association has dropped its suit against HBO charging that “The Sopranos” offends the dignity of Italian Americans in supposed violation of the Illinois Constitution’s “individual dignity” clause. Score one for free speech (N.Y. Daily News, Jul. 2)(see Apr. 6-8, 2001). (DURABLE LINK)


July 30-31 — Tobacco fees: one brave judge. Although most of the press from the New York Times on down continues to ignore this developing story, on July 10 Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Ramos “told lawyers for six law firms that were awarded $625 million for their work in the historic 1998 tobacco settlement in no uncertain terms that he will examine whether the fee award is unethical. The April 2001 decision of the arbitration panel that issued the award set off ‘a flashing light that got my attention’ that the $625 million fee might violate the New York Code of Professional Responsibility’s proscription against illegal or excessive fees, Ramos told the throng of lawyers that filled his courtroom,” reports Daniel Wise in the New York Law Journal. Virtually the entire array of lawyers in the case was lined up against Judge Ramos: the trial lawyers themselves of course were furious, the tobacco companies were disputing his jurisdiction over the matter, and New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s office was defending the mega-fees in a brief. Outside the courtroom, meanwhile, establishment legal ethicist Stephen Gillers was scoffing that “There doesn’t seem to be any legal or ethical basis for this inquiry.” There doesn’t? The state’s Disciplinary Rule 2-106 bars lawyers from collecting “an illegal or excessive fee,” and it says nothing about excessive fees being okay so long as the other parties in the case have been dragooned into not objecting. (Daniel Wise, “New York Judge Begins Query Into Tobacco Fees”, New York Law Journal, Jul. 12)(see Jun. 21-23 and Oct. 25-27, 2002; May 11-13, 2001). Correction Jul. 31: our first report mistakenly named the scene of these proceedings as the Superior Court; it is in fact the Supreme Court (which in New York is a trial court and not the highest appellate body).

On July 25 the judge held a further hearing which even fewer press outlets seem to have covered — the only account we’ve seen ran on the Bloomberg wire (“N.Y. Judge Calls Tobacco Pact Legal Bills ‘Offensive”, Bloomberg News Service, Jul. 25, fee-based archive (search on date in litigation category, pulling up additional screens if necessary)). Judge Ramos pointed out that the $625 million fee amounted to $13,000 an hour, a figure he described as “offensive”. Although the trial lawyers who are set to collect those fees include many powerful insiders in New York politics — the sort of men who can make or break the career of an elected judge — the judge seemed admirably uncowed by them. He compared the lawyers’ overcompensation to “the problems now emerging in large corporate America”, which prompted Philip Damashek of Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek & Shoot, which was awarded $98.4 million in fees, to demand an apology for “comparing me and my colleagues to these Enron people'”. And Ramos “ordered another attorney at the firm, Harvey Weitz, removed from the courtroom when he loudly told partner Brian Shoot not to let the judge interrupt him. ‘You’re sandbagging us,’ Weitz shouted at Ramos as he was escorted out. The judge threatened to hold him in contempt.” The judge “ordered the attorneys to file a new application supporting their fee request by August 30, or submit papers challenging his jurisdiction in the matter. The attorneys declined to say after the hearing how they planned to respond.” Addendum: Daniel Wise of the New York Law Journal also covered the July 25 hearing and provides further details of an oral argument that was “unparalleled — for its vitriol, much of it aimed at the judge.” (“New York Tobacco Fee Hearing Has Lawyers Smoking”, Jul. 26).

More: in Texas, Attorney General John Cornyn’s ethics investigation is turning up the heat on the Big Five tobacco lawyers who for years now have dodged being put under oath over the terms of their hiring by Cornyn’s predecessor Dan Morales (Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, “Investigation of Texas Tobacco Litigators Still Smokin'”, Texas Lawyer, Jul. 22)(see Jul. 15 and links from there). (DURABLE LINK)

July 30-31 — Lying’s not nice, especially when representing the bar. “Oregon’s highest court has suspended for two years an insurance defense lawyer who lied, while being deposed, to conceal a strategy that allowed his client to control both sides of a claim. … The lawyer, John P. Davenport of Portland, Ore., represented the Professional Liability Fund, an insurer established by the State Bar to provide mandatory malpractice insurance.” The Fund used a shell corporation to buy up unpaid malpractice judgments at a discount from claimants, which it could then dismiss; the strategy is not in itself illegal, but the court found that Davenport had not provided forthcoming answers to a bankruptcy examiner about the shell’s dealings with a bankrupt couple who had sued their lawyer for malpractice. (Annie Hsia, “Two-year Ban for Oregon Lawyer Who Lied”, National Law Journal, Jul. 18). In other sanctions news, a federal judge has ordered French drug company Aventis “to pay $32.6 million in attorney fees for vexatious conduct in patent litigation against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Southern District of New York Judge Robert P. Patterson said last week that [the company] ‘defiled the temple of justice’ by obstructing depositions and discovery, instructing a witness not to answer questions at a deposition and advancing baseless claims.” The finding of vexatious conduct is on appeal (Tom Perrotta, “Drug Company Must Pay Fees of $32 Million”, New York Law Journal, Jul. 29). (DURABLE LINK)

July 29 — “Bush Urges Malpractice Damage Limits”. “President Bush urged Congress today to impose substantial nationwide restrictions on medical malpractice cases, arguing that million-dollar verdicts are driving up health care costs and forcing doctors out of business.” Sen. John Edwards (D-T.Law.) promptly charged that under the White House proposal, when a child is blinded or paralyzed for life, “He [Bush] proposes what they get for that is $250,000.” (Mike Allen and Amy Goldstein, Washington Post, Jul. 26). In fact, as Edwards cannot but be aware, damages to cover the costs of care, lost income and other monetizable damages, which commonly would run into the millions in the case of a paralyzed child, would remain fully collectable as before; the mooted limit would apply only to the portion of awards which covered “non-economic” elements such as pain and suffering. (Bush remarks; White House “Policy in Focus“; HHS report on effects of medical liability, PDF format). The Senate Republican Policy Committee has published a paper collecting some of the malpractice-suit-crisis “horror stories” from recent months, with links to accounts in the press (Jul. 25). See also Steve Friess, “Liability costs drive doctors from practice”, Christian Science Monitor, Jul. 17; “Soaring Liability Costs Blamed for Non-Profit Nursing Home Closures”, Dallas Morning News, Jul. 25 (reg); Corpus Christi (Tex.) Caller special section, letters. Sasha Volokh and correspondents discuss the federalism angles (Jul. 27). (DURABLE LINK)

July 29 — Law lectures needn’t be dull. We were familiar with some of the writings of Harvard law prof David Rosenberg, but we had no idea his lecture style was so … colorful, as evidenced by this best-of collection (Harvard Law Record, 1999) (via Eve Tushnet, Jul. 25, who got it from Stuart Buck, Jul. 22 and Jul. 25; and thanks to Dan Lewis for the web-archive link). (DURABLE LINK)

July 29 — New medium, new opportunities. John Steele Gordon, the history-of-business columnist for American Heritage and author of such acclaimed books as A Thread Across the Ocean and The Business of America, devotes his new column to comparing the rise of online publishing with the technological developments, such as the rotary press, that ushered in the era of the metropolitan newspaper in the years before the American Civil War. “When the young can enter a business and experiment with new technology at little risk, revolution is on the way.” Small internet news-gathering and news-assemblage sites can now “have a great impact. … [One of them] has been giving tort lawyers and activist judges fits by assembling in one much-visited site called overlawyered.com the most egregious lawsuits and decisions from around the country and beyond. It makes for reading that is often hilarious, infuriating, and sad at the same time.” (“The Man Who Invented the Newspaper”, Aug./Sept.). (More on weblog impact: John Leo, “Flogged by Bloggers”, U.S. News, Aug. 5). While on the subject of nice publicity, we won’t even try to summarize all the additional exposure this site and its editor have gotten in the past few days from the lawyers-sue-fast-food controversy, but we will note that our editor’s O’Reilly Factor appearance of last Tuesday, on educational lawsuits, is now online at FoxNews.com (“Watch out Teachers!”, Jul. 24). (DURABLE LINK)

July 26-28 — Fat suits, cont’d. George Washington University law prof John Banzhaf, who got himself so much publicity in the tobacco round, says he’s advising the plaintiff who just announced that he’s suing fast-food chains, so we know the suit must be serious (right?) (Geraldine Sealey, “Fat suits filed”, ABC News, Jul. 25; BBC, “Fat Americans sue fast food firms”, Jul. 25, and “Talking Points“). As for our editor, he’s in considerable demand on the subject, having appeared over the past day on (among others) Fox News Network, CBS radio, and the BBC. This just in: debating our editor on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Friday evening, Banzhaf announced that he is working up a possible suit against milk marketers which will charge that the “Milk Moustache” campaign should give rise to liability because it doesn’t warn consumers that skim milk is sometimes better for you than whole milk. Is he serious? He sure sounded like it (discussion on Democratic Underground). (DURABLE LINK)

July 26-28 — Third Circuit: prisoners may be entitled to watch R-rated films. “Inmates in federal prisons who challenged a ban on allowing them to watch movies rated R or NC-17 have won a new shot at making their case now that a federal appeals court has ruled that a Western District of Pennsylvania judge was too quick to rule in favor of the government. In Wolf v. Ashcroft, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that U.S. District Judge Sean J. McLaughlin of the Western District of Pennsylvania ‘did not conduct a proper, thorough analysis’ of whether the ban is ‘reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.'” The trial judge’s ruling against the prisoners, furthermore, “improperly relied on ‘common sense'”. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Prisoners’ Suit Over R-Rated Movies Worth Another Look, Says 3rd Circuit”, The Legal Intelligencer, Jul. 25). (DURABLE LINK)

July 26-28 — Skittish at Kinko’s. The clerk at the copy shop raises objections to a request to photocopy a newspaper column: “Do you have permission to duplicate this copyrighted material?” But it’s my column, the customer protests — I wrote it! “Look — my picture is on the top.” “He told me that didn’t matter, that corporate Kinko’s was overburdened with copyright lawsuits, and consequently he wasn’t about to run my copy job. Sheesh.” (“Inane Laws and Egotistical Copy Men”, Cornell Daily Sun, Mar. 4). (DURABLE LINK)

July 26-28 — Update: cost of clipboard-throwing only $8 million. A San Diego judge has reduced the damage award from $30 million to $8 million in a case against the Ralphs supermarket chain over the conduct of a manager who over the course of a decade is alleged to have verbally harassed female employees and thrown such objects as a telephone and clipboard at them. Superior Court judge Michael Anello called the damages “grossly excessive” and the result of the jury’s “passion and prejudice,” and said “the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that defendant [corporation] approved of or ratified [the manager’s] conduct.” The decision is “a slap in the face of women’s rights,” countered the plaintiffs’ co-counsel (see Apr. 19-21) (Alexei Oreskovic, “Judge Slashes Sex Harassment Damages Against Ralphs Grocery”, The Recorder, Jul. 17). (DURABLE LINK)

July 25 — “Ailing Man Sues Fast-Food Firms”. You knew it was coming: “A New York City lawyer has filed suit against the four big fast-food corporations, saying their fatty foods are responsible for his client’s obesity and related health problems. Samuel Hirsch filed his lawsuit Wednesday at a New York state court in the Bronx, alleging that McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s and KFC Corporation are irresponsible and deceptive in the posting of their nutritional information, that they need to offer healthier options on their menus, and that they create a de facto addiction in their consumers, particularly the poor and children.” Quotes our editor, who takes the dim view of the suit that you would expect (Michael Y. Park, FoxNews.com, Jul. 24). (DURABLE LINK)

July 25 — “Surgeon halts operation over foreign nurses’ poor English”. Britain: “A surgeon at a leading hospital has said he had to stop halfway through an operation because foreign nurses could not follow his instructions. As a result, he said he has been threatened with disciplinary action for racism. David Nunn, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Guy’s and St Thomas’s Hospitals, in London, told The Telegraph that he was unable to complete the operation last week without certain instruments. When he asked the nurses, all of whom were foreign, to find them, ‘I was met with a selection of bemused reactions,’ he said. ‘They were produced only when the scrub nurse de-scrubbed and went to find them herself.’ Mr Dunn, 48, said his superiors had accused him of racism and threatened him with being disciplined.” Dunn said the influx of nurses from outside Britain are “without doubt well-trained and dedicated professionals, but if medical staff cannot communicate effectively then patients’ care may be put at risk.” Careful what you say, doc… (Richard Eden, Daily Telegraph, Jul. 22). (DURABLE LINK)

July 25 — “Licensing Deadline Sneaks Up In District”. “Consultants, landlords, music teachers, nannies, massage therapists and other home-based workers in the District face fines of as much as $500 if they do not obtain a new type of city license by Aug. 31, but most are unaware of it. Self-employed individuals and District firms, including nonprofit groups, that collect more than $2,000 in annual revenue will have to obtain a master business license to legally sell their services.” More “than 60,000 businesses and individuals in the District face fines of as much as $500 if they don’t obtain a new type of city license by Aug. 31″ — and have things really reached the point where it’s going to require a license from the government to practice independent journalism from your apartment? (Avram Goldstein, Washington Post, Jul. 21; “How D.C. Creates Chaos” (editorial), Jul. 23; Eugene Volokh, Jul. 23). (DURABLE LINK)

July 24 — Smog fee case: “unreal world of greed”. A California appeals court has thrown out an arbitration panel’s $88.5 million award of attorneys’ fees, amounting to an estimated $8,800/hour, to five law firms which had prosecuted a case against the state of California arguing the unconstitutionality of its former assessment of “smog impact fees” on cars registered from out of state. “The justices called the panel’s $88.5 million fee award ‘an unconstitutional gift of public funds’ that was not authorized by the Legislature. In a scathing concurring opinion, Justice Richard Sims said the award from the arbitration panel was ‘completely in outer space.’ ‘The fact that attorneys even requested a fee award of that magnitude from the taxpayers,’ Sims wrote, ‘is a testament to the unreal world of greed in which some attorneys practice law in this day and age.'” The five law firms included Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, long a major political donor in California, as well as “New York’s Weiss & Yourman; San Diego’s Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel; La Jolla, Calif.’s Blumenthal & Markham, and Berkeley, Calif., solo practitioner Richard Pearl.” (see Dec. 5, 2000, Jun. 22, 2001)(Robert Salladay, “Court rips $8,800 an hour in attorneys’ fees”, San Francisco Chronicle, Jul. 23; Mike McKee, “California Appeals Court Rips $88M Fee Award in Smog Case”, The Recorder, Jul. 23). (DURABLE LINK)

July 24 — Update: “Harassment by kids gets ex-teacher 50G” Following up on a story from last month: the city of New York has agreed to pay $50,000 to settle a lawsuit by a former Queens teacher who says his students had harassed him by way of derogatory comments about his immigrant status (from Sri Lanka), accent and ethnicity. “Legal experts said the suit was the first of its kind in which a teacher successfully brought a civil rights action alleging that students had created a ‘hostile work environment.'” The other noteworthy feature of the dispute (see Jun. 26) is the defense the city put forth, namely that it was powerless to discipline the students, who had special education (disabled) status, for insulting the teacher “because students with that classification have already been identified as having behavioral problems, and the verbal misconduct might be considered a manifestation of their disability,” as a city lawyer put it (John Marzulli, “Harassment by kids gets teacher 50K”, New York Daily News, Jul. 22). (DURABLE LINK)

July 23 — Welcome O’Reilly Factor viewers. Our editor was a guest on the top-rated TV talk show this evening, interviewed one-on-one by host Bill O’Reilly on the subject of parents threatening to sue teachers over their kids’ bad grades. We mentioned the recent Arizona case and an earlier Ohio case that we understand has been dismissed by the court; and here’s our theme page on overlawyered schools. (DURABLE LINK)

July 22-23 — Politicos’ “stagey” outrage at balance-sheet sins. “John Walker Lindh got 20 years this week for joining a terrorist network at war with his country. Lucky for him he didn’t try something really bad, like capitalizing an expense item. … President Bush, who spent 56 years on this earth without revealing the slightest passion for corporate reform, now says life will be intolerable if he doesn’t have a bill to sign within a couple of weeks. And he has sent signals that he doesn’t give much of a hoot what is in it.” (Michael Kinsley, “Stock Option Cure-All”, Washington Post, Jul. 19). “Even now, the mob waving pitchforks and torches finds the details of accounting, compensation and corporate governance too tedious to take seriously. But ‘reforms’ that ignore the role of incentives and competition will turn out to be monsters themselves.” (Virginia Postrel, “Business ‘Reforms’ Should Not Ignore Incentives and Competition”, New York Times, Jul. 18 (reg)). (DURABLE LINK)

July 22-23 — Nightmare under the palms. You retire to a Florida condo, and imagine that the hassles of life are over — that is, until you discover that a couple of your neighbors have turned asserting their legal rights into an art form. (Joe Kollin, “Sunrise condo residents get socked with bill because neighbors won’t pay”, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Jul. 19). (DURABLE LINK)

July 22-23 — Disabled testing: hence, loathèd asterisk. In a settlement with a disabled-rights litigation group, the College Board has agreed to stop flagging the test scores of students who got extra time or other accommodations in taking its college admissions test. The effect will be to allow applicants to conceal from colleges whether they “took the test under normal conditions, or used a computer, worked in a separate quiet room, and had four and a half hours for the three-hour test. … High school guidance counselors said the elimination of flagging could set off a wave of new applications for accommodations, including some from students without real disabilities. … most of those who are accommodated have attention deficit problems or learning disabilities like dyslexia, a reading disorder.” “It’s very clear who’s been getting extended-time: the highest-income communities have the highest rates of accommodations,” said Bruce Poch, the dean of admissions at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif. “I think what’s going to have to happen now is that everyone will, in effect, get more time.” (Tamar Lewin, “Abuse Is Feared as SAT Test Changes Disability Policy”, New York Times, Jul. 15 (reg)). Among commenters: Kimberly Swygert at No. 2 Pencil (Jul. 15 and 17) and Joanne Jacobs (Jul. 15 and Jul. 17). We covered the controversy back in February 1999, May 10, 2000 and Feb. 9-11, 2001. (DURABLE LINK)

July 22-23 — Last-minute friends in Texas politics. “In 1998 [John] Sharp narrowly lost the lieutenant governor’s race to Republican Mr. Perry, who later became governor when George W. Bush became president.” Sharp drew about 15 percent of his financial backing from trial lawyers in that race, which actually probably isn’t all that high a percentage for a Lone Star Democrat. What was interesting was the timing: “A review by The News of finance reports in that matchup indicates that nearly half Mr. Sharp’s trial lawyer support came in the final eight days of the campaign and was not reported until after the race. For example, a few days before the election, Mr. Sharp collected $250,000 from Houston trial lawyer John Eddie Williams and $150,000 apiece from lawyers Walter Umphrey of Beaumont and Harold Nix of Daingerfield. And he got $15,000 from Michael Gallagher of Houston.” Reports of trial lawyer backing can damage a candidate in Texas campaigns, but when the lawyers donate at the last minute the voters may be none the wiser as they troop to the polls (Wayne Slater, “Trial lawyers’ cash at issue”, Dallas Morning News, Jul. 13). (DURABLE LINK)

September 2000 archives, part 2


September 20 — Victory in Chicago. A judge last week threw out the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the gun industry. “In granting the industry’s motion to dismiss, Judge Stephen A. Schiller of Cook County Circuit Court suggested that the city had not shown wrongdoing by the individual defendants. He said that the city’s arguments would be better handled in a legislature than in a courtroom.” However, a West Coast judge denied a defense motion to dismiss a group of cases filed by San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles city and county, and other plaintiffs. Pending appeal, judges have now dismissed the suits filed by Chicago, Cincinnati, Bridgeport, and Miami, while declining to dismiss suits filed by Detroit, Atlanta, Boston, New Orleans, Cleveland, and the California cities. (Pam Belluck, “Chicago Gun Suit Fails, but California’s Proceeds”, New York Times, Sept. 16 (reg); “Judge dismisses Chicago suit against gun industry”, Reuters/CNN, Sept. 15; reaction from Illinois State Rifle Association). Plus: John Derbyshire gets radicalized on the tort reform issue when he goes out trying to buy ammunition on Long Island, and discovers that the courtroom assault on the industry is choking the local firearms dealers into oblivion with no legislation needed, simply by causing their liability insurance to dry up. (“First thing we do…”, National Review Online, Sept. 12).

September 20 — Disbarred, with an asterisk. Most clients probably assume that a lawyer thrown out of the profession is gone for good, but the Boston Globe finds that for years bar authorities have been quietly readmitting practitioners, including some whose original offenses were grave. Some of this leniency has been misplaced, since a number of the readmitted lawyers have gone on to commit new offenses against clients. (David Armstrong, “Special Report: Disbarred Mass. lawyers skirt discipline system”, Sept. 17, and sidebars: “Reinstatement process favors lawyers“, “Victims often missing from equation“.

September 20 — “Regulating Privacy: At What Cost?” Free-marketeers finally start organizing to resist the steamroller movement toward online-privacy laws, reports Declan McCullagh. Among new initiatives are a symposium held yesterday on Capitol Hill by George Mason U.’s Mercatus Center, a book entitled The Future of Financial Privacy forthcoming from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and a privacy-issues website called Privacilla.org. (Wired.com, Sept. 19). And Reason Express a while back alerted us to a website by Jacob Palme in Sweden which recounts some of the less pleasant consequences of that nation’s pioneering (1973) law preventing the electronic gathering or dissemination of information about individuals without their consent. Palme says the law mostly went unenforced as regards web publishing, which is a good thing since if enforced literally it could have rendered unlawful much of the web in Sweden. The few instances that led to enforcement action, as related by Palme, suggest that unpopular and dissident opinions were among the most likely to draw complaints under the law. One man put up a webpage critical of a large Swedish bank, naming individual directors whom he believed had behaved in ethically irresponsible ways; he was prosecuted and fined for violating their privacy. In another case, an animal rights group was subject to legal action for posting a list of fur producers. In a third, a church volunteer was prosecuted for stating on a web page that one named church member had broken a leg and another was a member of the Social Democratic Party; health status and political affiliations are considered especially sensitive under the law. In a fourth case, dissident dog lovers got in privacy-law trouble for criticizing leading members of a dog society by name. The privacy laws were revised in 1998 and again in 1999, following much criticism, and as of June 2000, when Palme’s page was last revised, the highest Swedish court had not yet given its interpretation of the law (“Freedom of Speech, The EU Data Protection Directive and the Swedish Personal Data Act“; “The Swedish Personal Register Law“; “Swedish Attempts to Regulate the Internet“; official Data Inspection Board). (DURABLE LINK)

September 19 — Hollywood under fire: nose of the Camel? In what may take the prize for worst idea of the month, South Carolina Attorney General Charles Condon has proposed filing coordinated state lawsuits to make Hollywood the next tobacco. “Clearly we have here a virtual replay of what the tobacco industry did to our children. Instead of Joe Camel, Hollywood uses Eminem, South Park, Doom and Steven Segal [sic] to seduce children,” Condon wrote in a letter to the National Association of Attorneys General (Condon press release, Sept. 13; David Shuster, “South Carolina AG Threatens Suit Against Entertainment Industry”, Fox News, Sept. 15). It’s time the entertainment business cleaned up its act, writes Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, but that doesn’t mean Sens. McCain and Lieberman are right to “justify [an] end run around the 1st Amendment with a public-health argument like that which justifies the regulation of tobacco or liquor.” (“A World Apart: Eminem and Me”, Sept. 17). Owens Corning and Met Life use cartoon characters (the Pink Panther and Snoopy respectively) as advertising mascots, and you might jump to the conclusion that they were committing that dire sin, “marketing to children”, if you didn’t know that fiberglass insulation and insurance are products bought by adults, observes Illinois law prof Ronald Rotunda (“The FTC Report on Hollywood Entertainment“, Federalist Society, Free Speech and Election Law Working Group; FTC report; “Lieberman: Entertainment must police itself”, AP/Miami Herald, Sept. 13). Filmmaker John Waters doesn’t think much of the crusade: “The future CEOs of America are all sneaking into R-rated movies” (Rick Lyman, “Writers, Directors Fear Censorship, Tell Anger Over Violence Hearings”, New York Times Service/Chicago Tribune, Sept. 18). And plaintiff’s lawyers suing entertainment companies over school shootings, who’ve already gotten plenty of favorable ink in the conservative press (see July 22, 1999), are hoping the new report will invigorate their legal cause (Frank Murray, “FTC adds ammo to lawsuits for deaths”, Washington Times, Sept. 13).

September 19 —WSJ‘s Bartley on decline of American law. The establishment of the rule of law, replacing the whim of powerful rulers, was perhaps the supreme achievement of the West in the millennium just past, but the United States has grown careless about its legal inheritance, with systematic injustices mounting in both criminal and civil courtrooms. Last week’s call-sheet scandal illustrates the way “audacious and powerful interests” who have found ways to use the legal system to make their fortunes “have allied themselves with government and politicians.” (Robert Bartley, “The Law and Civilization’s Future”, Opinion Journal (Wall Street Journal), Sept. 18). “Justice Department investigators and prosecutors want to know if there were, in fact, any quid pro quos for the trial lawyers’ extraordinary generosity,” editorializes the San Diego Union-Tribune about the scandal. “With trial lawyers contributing almost 10 percent of all funds raised by the Gore-Lieberman campaign, that remains an urgent question. Voters have a right to some answers before Nov. 7.” (“Veto for sale?”, Sept. 16).

September 19 — Punitive damages for hatemongering? Washington Post‘s editorial page “is gutsy enough to have qualms about Morris Dees’ strategy of bankrupting hate groups with punitive tort damages,” observes Mickey Kaus at Kausfiles (“The Aryan Nations Verdict” (editorial), Washington Post, Sept. 16). “Many advocacy groups that engage in direct actions potentially expose themselves to tort liability…. That danger is compounded by the abusive system of punitive damages, which gives juries wide discretion to ruin people or companies financially in a fashion untethered to the scope of the harm they have done in the specific case at issue,” the Post comments. “That could not have happened to a more deserving bunch than Mr. [Richard] Butler and the Aryan Nations. But it’s worth pausing for a moment to wonder who’s next.”

September 18 — Scruggs v. Ritalin. Latest target for zillionaire tobacco lawyer and recent Time profilee Richard Scruggs: Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp., makers of the drug Ritalin, and the American Psychiatric Association. Scruggs’s firm accuses the two of conspiring to promote an overly broad diagnosis of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), with the result that the drug is given to too many youngsters. “Novartis and the APA deny the allegations. In a statement, Novartis says the charges are ‘unfounded and preposterous.'” Some lawyers from the Castano consortium, which pursued tobacco litigation separate from Scruggs’s, are also joining him in the action. (“Lawsuits Accuse Ritalin Makers, APA”, AP/Yahoo, Sept. 15; Excite/Dow Jones; Toni Locy, “Fight over Ritalin is heading to court”, USA Today, Sept. 15) (see also Sept. 22-24 and April 13, 2001).

September 18 — White House pastry chef harassment suit. White House assistant pastry chef Franette McCulloch, 53, is suing her boss Roland Mesnier, claiming he “became hostile and rude when she spurned his advances, ‘screaming’ at her for refusing to have sex, excluding her from designing desserts and once assigning her to peel eight crates of kiwi.” Her suit also alleges that Bill Clinton, as the head of the White House, failed to establish a proper method for employees to bring harassment complaints, and demands $1 million each from Mesnier and Clinton. (AP/CNN, Sept. 13; Ellen Nakashima, “White House Chef Accuses Boss of Sexual Harassment”, Washington Post, Sept. 14). In 1997, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled against a discriminatory-firing claim by an employee of the White House chef’s office, but said he had been improperly retaliated against for filing his complaint. A former executive chef testified in a sworn deposition that year that the Clintons had paid him $37,000 to quit his post “because of my accent and the fact that I’m overweight.” (more).

September 18 — The teetery inkbottle. “Whenever the law and the facts were against him, Mr. Homans was not one to pound on the table. Instead, he would resort to what he called his ‘trial pen’, a big, old-fashioned device that he would pull out at a critical moment in a trial. On the stand would be the state’s star witness testifying that he had seen with his own eyes as Mr. Homans’s client pulled out a gun and pointed it directly at the bank teller’s head. But the jurors’ eyes would be on Mr. Homans, who, with trembling hand, would be filling the pen from a bottle of India ink perched so precariously, half over the edge of the defense table, that the jury would be caught up in the suspense of when it would fall.” — from an obituary, “William Homans, 75, Dies; Boston Civil Rights Lawyer”, by the late Robert McG. Thomas, Jr., New York Times, February 13, 1997 (fee-based archives, search on “William Homans”).

September 18 — That’ll be $2 trillion, please. A former resident has filed three lawsuits against the town of Rocky River, Ohio, “claiming everything from false arrest to injury of reputation,” and demanding $2 trillion. The town isn’t amused and is countersuing her, saying it’s had to expend money to defend itself. (Sarah Treffinger, “Rocky River sues woman who sued for trillions”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept. 13).

September 15-17 — Day Two of Vetogate. George W. Bush in a California speech says the new call-sheet revelations are evidence that Gore “may have crossed a serious line … The appearance is really disturbing”, Janet Reno refuses to talk about the status of the investigation, the New York Times Washington bureau frets about being (just barely) webscooped by Time.com on the story, and Gore campaign spokesman Chris Lehane curiously describes the sensational disclosures as “recycled”, though no one in the press remembers seeing them before now (CNN; Drudge special; Yahoo/Reuters; Wash. Times).

September 15-17 — Who caught the tire problem? “Who provided the information that instigated the current recall? Who acted to protect the consumer? None other than ‘greedy’, profit-seeking State Farm Insurance Company. Eager to earn ever higher profits by reducing injury claims and lawsuits, State Farm’s statistical bureau noticed an increase in claims related to Firestone tires and passed the information along to the NHTSA which had been asleep at the switch. [See Devon Spurgeon, “State Farm researcher’s sleuthing helped prompt Firestone recall’, Wall Street Journal , Sept. 1]. The profit seeking of a big, bad, private insurance company may help save hundreds of lives.” (James Ostrowski, “The Tire Fiasco”, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Sept. 8).

In the New York Times Sept. 11, Keith Bradsher reports that by the end of 1998 trial lawyers “had already sued Firestone, and sometimes Ford as well, in cases involving 22 deaths and 69 serious injuries”. However, few of these cases had come to the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; until recently NHTSA had received very few complaints, and none of fatalities. In fact, Bradsher reports, trial lawyers were pursuing a conscious policy of not reporting tire incidents to the agency, apparently because of tactical concerns — if the agency learned about such cases too early and in too small a number, it might do a perfunctory investigation and miss the pattern of defectiveness, and then the lawyers would have more trouble winning their cases. This strikes us as a fairly damning indictment to be leveling against the trial lawyers — they flout the public interest in learning crucial safety information, just in order to angle for monetary advantage? Isn’t that what Firestone is accused of doing? — but Bradsher quotes Ralph Hoar, a well-known plaintiff’s-side consultant in auto-design cases who provided the numerical tabulation cited at the beginning of this paragraph, as cheerily portraying the lawyers as just doin’ their job, saying they have to concern themselves with their clients’ best interests, not anyone else’s.

Meanwhile, Ford Motor had been named in a few suits but “paid little attention, because automakers routinely face thousands of lawsuits after crashes.” In other words, the background level of litigation against a company of that size is so high that it’s hard to notice patterns that do turn out to be meaningful (Keith Bradsher, “Documents Portray Tire Debacle as a Story of Lost Opportunities”, New York Times, Sept. 11 (reg)). (DURABLE LINK)

September 15-17 — Ciresi bested in Senate bid. Michael Ciresi, the trial lawyer who sought to parlay his representation of the state of Minnesota in the tobacco litigation into a seat in the U.S. Senate, has lost the Democratic nomination to department store heir Mark Dayton by a margin of 41 to 23 percent, with other candidates dividing the rest. (Dan Bernard, “Dayton Grabs DFL Nomination”, WCCO/Channel 4000, Sept. 13; St. Paul Pioneer Press; Minneapolis Star-Tribune).

September 15-17 — Cash return sought by murder-for-hire convict. “A criminal defense attorney who paid an undercover agent $11,000 in a failed murder-for-hire plot is asking the government to return the money. Frederick Ford, 48, who is serving an eight-year prison term for planning to kill two former clients he thought could implicate him in a kidnap plot, is seeking the return of the money he admitted he gave to a U.S. Department of Labor agent last year.” (“Convicted attorney seeks return of murder-for-hire retainer”, AP/CNN, Sept. 13; Shelley Murphy, “Hit man hirer wants money back”, Boston Globe, Sept. 13).

September 14 — “I know [you] will give $100K when the president vetoes tort reform, but we really need it now.” The New York Times reports in today’s editions that Justice Department campaign finance investigators have launched a preliminary probe into documents that have surfaced from the Clinton/Gore 1996 fundraising operation, including a “call sheet” prepared for Vice President Gore regarding Beaumont, Texas lawyer Walter Umphrey, a major Democratic benefactor who shared in Texas’s $3.3 billion tobacco contingency fee and is well known to readers of this space. The sheet describes Umphrey as “closely following tort reform” and suggests asking him for $100,000 to finance Democratic Party TV commercials. The White House claims that Gore did not make the call, but two weeks later a staffer for then-Democratic National Committee chairman Donald Fowler prepared a call sheet reading as follows: “Sorry you missed the vice president. I know [sic] will give $100K whn [sic] the president vetos [sic] tort reform, but we really need it now. Please send ASAP if possible.” DNC officials propose that the “missed” might have referred to the two men not connecting at an in-person event; Fowler disclaims any memory of talking with Umphrey about campaign donations and says he would never have used the language on the call sheet. According to the Times, “Trevor Potter, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, called the call sheet’s language ‘extraordinarily ill-advised,’ saying prosecutors would probably be investigating whether the solicitation violated either a bribery statute or a law prohibiting ‘illegal gratuities,’ a ‘gift’ given after an elected official takes a public action.”

The Washington Post reports that Umphrey says he doesn’t recall “any of that” and otherwise declines comment, while Payne was talking to the Times only through her lawyer. And attorney Michael Tigar, who represents Umphrey and the rest of the Big Five Texas tobacco lawyers, issued this small gem of legalistically worded denial: “Tying campaign contributions to legislative or executive action has never been illegal in the United States unless there is proof that the public official extorts the money by threatening to give or withhold action based on the contributions,” he said; moreover, his clients, including Mr. Umphrey, “have repeatedly been asked in many forums whether they have ever given money to a candidate or officials as a quid-pro-quo for official action, and they have repeatedly said under oath that they have never done so.” The Times account adds considerable background on the epic pace of Clinton/Gore fundraising among Texas plaintiff’s lawyers of late, including a little-reported fundraiser thrown for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Senate campaign by Big Five stalwart John Eddie Williams of Houston. (Don Van Natta Jr. with Richard A. Oppel Jr., “Memo Linking Political Donation and Veto Spurs Federal Inquiry”, New York Times, Sept. 14 (reg); Susan Schmidt, “1995 Documents Appear To Link Lawyer’s Contribution To Veto”, Washington Post, Sept. 14; more on Umphrey and the Big Five: Sept. 1, May 22; more on trial lawyers’ political clout). More breaking coverage (via Drudge): Time, Fox News, AP. (DURABLE LINK)

September 13-14 — “Violent media is good for kids”. Good kids, as well as bad ones, are naturally fascinated with violence, catastrophe and retribution, and letting them explore these matters in the relatively safe territory of the printed page and popular entertainment is part of the process by which they learn how to fit themselves into a frightening world, argues cartoonist Gerard Jones, in an excerpt from a book due out next year from Basic with co-author Melanie Moore (“Reality Check”, Mother Jones, June 28; Reason magazine, “The Kids Are All Right“, “Breaking Issues”; Christopher Stern, “Violent Material Marketed To Youth”, Washington Post, Aug. 27; Mike Allen and Ellen Nakashima, “Clinton, Gore Hit Hollywood Marketing”, Washington Post, Sept. 12).

September 13-14 — Gregoire’s home front. Washington state attorney general Christine Gregoire gained a high national profile jetting around the country to take a leading role in the tobacco-Medicaid affair and other big-case AG litigation, and followed up by assuming the presidency of the National Association of Attorneys General (see July 17). Now it may be time to wonder whether she was keeping enough of an eye back home on the unglamorous routine of the AG’s office, which plays a vital role in protecting the state’s legal interests. In March a Pierce County jury awarded the largest verdict ever against the state, $17.8 million, on behalf of three developmentally disabled men whose families said they were abused in a state-supported home. Gregoire’s office announced plans to appeal but, embarrassingly, proceeded to lose the state’s right to do so by missing a filing deadline. With interest, the total bill has now mounted to $18.7 million. (Eric Nalder and Mike Carter, “State won’t give up bid to appeal $17.8 million verdict”, Seattle Times, Sept. 12; Eric Nalder, “No excuse for missed appeal, court says”, Seattle Times, Aug. 22; see also update Nov. 30). The Capital Research Center has issued a new report critical of recent attorney general activism, by Ron Nehring of Americans for Tax Reform (“National Association of Attorneys General: Opening the Door to a New Era of Regulation Through Litigation”, Organization Trends (CRC), Sept.)

September 13-14 — Prescription: 24-7 monitoring. Adding to Evergreen State taxpayers’ legal woes, a Pierce County, Wash. jury Sept. 1 ordered the state government to pay $22 million to survivors of a driver killed in an auto accident by a man who was at the time serving the community-supervision portion of a sentence for third-degree assault. The verdict broke an earlier $17.8 million record for lawsuits against the state, set in March by the same plaintiff’s attorney, Jack Connelly (see above item). Gov. Gary Locke vowed to appeal the verdict, saying if upheld it could make the entire enterprise of community supervision unworkable. “This man was convicted of … third-degree assault connected with a domestic dispute,” he said. “Imposing liability for his involvement in an auto accident extends public liability too far.” A Locke aide questioned whether the state could monitor the 55,000 persons on community supervision adequately to prevent any of them from being a menace on the highway. One of the alternatives to risking failure-to-supervise liability — keeping the 55,000 locked up — would apparently be okay with lawyer Connelly, who said, “If you’re not even going to try to do your job, then don’t put these guys on community supervision. Put them in jail.” (Eli Sanders, “Family awarded $22.4 million in wrongful death lawsuit against state”, Seattle Times, Sept. 2). See also Chris Solomon, “Cities leery of new probation rules”, Seattle Times, July 11 (local governments fear being financially wiped out by Washington Supreme Court ruling allowing negligence lawsuits against municipalities over crimes committed by probationers).

September 13-14 — More bank spying? Despite strongly negative public reaction to withdrawn “Know Your Customer” regulations that would have accelerated banks’ sharing of customer “profiles” with law enforcement, legislators like Rep. James Leach (R-Iowa) are back with proposals that raise similar civil liberties concerns (Scott C. Rayder, “The Counter-Money Laundering Act: An Attack on Privacy and Civil Liberties”, Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum, Aug. 31; our take on the last round).

September 13-14 — Judges’ words, copyrighted. Officials in the California judiciary would like to revamp the instructions that judges give juries before trial deliberations, in hopes of making them clearer and more understandable, but have run into an unexpected problem. The Los Angeles County courts turn out to hold copyright in the most widely used current instructions and collect royalties when other California courts use them, which have generated $2.5 million for the county’s use over the past decade. “‘When we first began this effort three years ago, all of us just assumed that we would take [Los Angeles instructions] and improve on them,’ said Associate Justice James D. Ward of the state Court of Appeal in Riverside, vice chairman of the task force. ‘Then they announced to us that they owned them.'” The L.A. courts have held back from cooperating in the statewide revision efforts, which if successful would result in a set of instructions that courts could use for free. (Caitlin Liu, “Say What, Your Honor?”, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 7).

September 12 — Goodbye to gaming volunteers? Online multiplayer gaming has grown to be a big Internet institution in no small part because large numbers of unpaid enthusiasts join in on a volunteer basis to suggest and beta-test new features, run discussion boards and perform countless other services. “But maybe not for long. On Monday, August 28 … Origin Systems Inc. (OSI) [makers of Ultima Online, one of the leading fantasy role-playing games], announced the termination of free game account privileges for hundreds of community volunteers…. While company representatives have not said so outright, it appears the move to eliminate what amounted to a $10 a month gratuity for volunteers is related to a recent New York class action lawsuit, brought by former volunteers at America Online (AOL)” (see Sept. 7, 1999). The class action lawyers in that case are charging that because AOL benefits from the content devised by its volunteers, and has given them at least nominal compensation in the form of free services and the like, it is therefore obliged to keep track of how much time they put into volunteering and pay them at least the minimum wage. If the lawyers succeed in their efforts, online community providers could find themselves facing large retroactive wage bills. “Origin is just the first game company to move to protect itself legally by removing any perks that could be seen as differentiating its volunteers from all the other players. The major subscription-based role-playing services may soon follow suit. While the short-term effects may be limited (some volunteers may quit, but could be replaced), the long-term future of volunteer work on online releases seems doubtful all of a sudden.” (Bruce Rolston, “The End of the Smurfs?”, Adrenaline Vault, Sept. 1).

September 12 — Curious feature of lawyer’s retainer. Texas trial lawyers are in a flutter over a Waco case in which an appeals court ruled that a client family in an industrial accident case was within its rights to withdraw from a contingent-fee legal contract it had signed. The agreement the lawyer had gotten the family to sign included a curious feature: a provision entitling him to settle the case without their consent. Such a provision, the court ruled, “clearly violates” the Texas professional code for lawyers, making the entire contract voidable. The lawyer, J.W. Stringer, plans motions for rehearing and appeal. (Jenny Burg, “Opinion Has Lawyers Reviewing Contingent-Fee Contracts”, Texas Lawyer, Aug. 21).

September 12 — This little piggy got taken to court. More pig farmers are facing legal action as outlying towns change “from rural, mind-your- own-business farm communities to residential, what’s-that-smell, suburban neighborhoods,” according to a Cleveland Plain Dealer report. Five residents of Medina County, Ohio, including a truck driver and two auto mechanics, have been sent to jail this summer for refusing to clean up pig living arrangements on their properties (Stephen Hudak, “Proud Pig Man’s smelly pork farm lands him in poke”, Sept. 7) (via Romenesko’s Obscure Store) And a Marlin County, Florida pig farmer sued by an adjoining golf course has put up a website which solicits moral support and legal defense contributions, as well as purchases of the squiggle-tailed offenders (Pigfarmer.com) (more on pig litigation: Oct. 4, 1999).

September 11 — “Feeding Frenzy Over Firestone”. “Lawyers all over the country see opportunity in the escalating legal, commercial and public relations disaster for Ford and Firestone.” (Bob Van Voris and Matt Fleischer, National Law Journal, Sept. 5; Yahoo Full Coverage).

September 11 — Harassment law roundup. At an Alcoa plant in North Carolina, one of the black complainants in a race discrimination suit went out to the parking lot, made a list of all the workers’ vehicles with Confederate flag stickers on them, and filed this as evidence of “hostile racial environment” in the case. The company promptly banned employees from having such stickers on their cars, a ban it insists had absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit (Steve Chapman, “Trouble in Mind: Is the First Amendment Void in the Workplace?” Chicago Tribune, Aug. 24). In an excerpt from his book The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America, New Republic legal correspondent Jeff Rosen urges courts to reconsider the “hostile environment” analysis that has become an accepted part of harassment law: “A jurisprudence originally designed to protect privacy and dignity is inadvertently invading privacy and dignity” (“Fall of Private Man”,New Republic, June 12; more on book). Clarence Thomas, alone among the nine Justices of the Supreme Court, wanted to tackle the “troubling First Amendment issues” raised by a court’s injunction against workers’ use of racial epithets on the job at an Avis Rent-a-Car franchise; a California court had ordered the drawing up of a list of words that employees were to be forbidden to use in conversation with each other, whether anyone present found the words objectionable or not (Tony Mauro, Freedom Forum, May 23). And early this year it was reported that an “affirmative action officer in Falmouth, Massachusetts — whose job it was to enforce the town’s sexual harassment policy — has been fired for sexually harassing a town employee. The official, Jayme Dias, was in charge of promoting and enforcing fairness in hiring and employment practices.” (Monster.com, “Week in Work”, Jan. 31).

September 11 — “Mother sues over lack of ice time for goalie son”. In Rimouski, Quebec, “Hélène Canuel is seeking $1,000 in damages from the Rimouski Minor Hockey Association because her son, David, was denied the right to play in a critical game during a hockey tournament last December.” David is 14 years old. (Arpon Basu, Montreal Gazette/National Post, Aug. 24).

September 2000 archives


September 8-10 — Netscape “Cool Sitings” of the day. Overlawyered.com was one of the picks on Thursday’s edition of Netscape’s much-surfed “Cool Sitings” feature. Their write-up: “Legal Shenanigans. If the joke: ‘What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start’ rings true for you, check out this site” (Sept. 7). And we’re also today’s (Friday’s) web pick of the day at the Memphis Commercial Appeal‘s “C.A. Eye“.

September 8-10 — …Than never to have been born at all. By a 4-3 margin, the Ohio Supreme Court has declined to let a 7-year-old with spina bifida sue her parents’ doctors on a claim of “wrongful life”. The little girl’s argument — at least, the argument put forth on her behalf in court — is that had the doctors told her parents about the availability of a prenatal test that would have disclosed her abnormality, they would have had an abortion, and that she suffered injury because they failed to do so. “Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, writing for the majority, said courts do not have the authority to decide if a person should or should not have been born.” Justices Paul Pfeifer, Andrew Douglas and Alice Robie Resnick dissented. (Spencer Hunt, “Girl has no right to sue”, Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 7; “Ohio Court Rules Against Parents”, AP/FindLaw, Sept. 7; decision, Hester v. Dwivedi) (see also May 9).

September 8-10 — “NZ kids get ‘license’ to play with toy guns”. “Children as young as four in New Zealand are being required to apply for ‘licenses’ for toy guns.” They must explain why they want one, and playing cops and robbers is not a good enough reason. (Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 6). Also: an Australian radio talk show host, convicted of improperly soliciting information about the deliberations of a jury, was “given a 15-month suspended sentence … because the judge believed he was too wealthy to fine and too famous to jail.” (Stephen Gibbs, “Laws too famous to jail, says judge”, Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 6).

September 8-10 — “A perverse use of antitrust law”. “The Justice Department could hardly have come up with a more harmful set of demands than those it now makes [on Microsoft],” writes Charles Munger, vice chairman of famed investor Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. “If it wins, our country will end up hobbling its best-performing high-tech businesses. And this will be done in an attempt to get public benefits that no one can rationally predict.” (Charles Munger, Washington Post, Sept. 1). More: “Did Microsoft Harm Consumers? Two Opposing Views”, by David S. Evans, Franklin M. Fisher, Daniel L. Rubinfield, and Richard L. Schmalensee, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies (abstract, full text (PDF format), order form); David Boaz, “The theft of Microsoft”, Cato Daily, July 27; Jonathan Rauch, “The Microsoft Case: Fair, Necessary, and Totally Random”, National Journal, June 10.

September 8-10 — “State errors unfairly cast some dads as deadbeats”. A federal law has mandated toughening of state child support collection systems. Unfortunately, reports Marilyn Gardner of the Christian Science Monitor, the resulting overhauls have increased the rate of billing errors in some of the systems and led to parents mistakenly being labeled deadbeats (August 9).

September 8-10 — $1.5 million estate bill included 900 hours spent on fees. An Indiana appeals court has rebuked a law firm which billed heirs $1.5 million for handling an inheritance case, including 900 hours it says it spent calculating its fees. The Indianapolis law firm of Henderson, Daily, Withrow & DeVoe had worked on the estate of former Conseco Inc. executive Lawrence W. Inlow, who died without a will at age 46 in a helicopter accident leaving an estate of $185 million. “Requiring a client to pay an additional amount for being told what he owes in the first instance is neither good business nor good law,” wrote Judge Sanford M. Brook for the appeals court. (“Court Rejects Attorneys’ Charge”, AP/FindLaw, Sept. 7) (court opinion, Inlow children v. Estate of Inlow).

September 6-7 — Prosecution fears slow crash probes. Aviation accidents almost never used to result in the filing of criminal charges, but in recent years they’ve been the subject of several highly publicized prosecutions. A House Transportation Committee hearing in late July looked into evidence that fear of incarceration or fines is now discouraging witnesses from cooperating with crash investigators. “For decades, we had relied on individuals to tell us what happened in an accident — and they usually, sometimes reluctantly, do so,” said Daniel Campbell, managing director of the official National Transportation Safety Board. But “what has been reluctance to cooperate may become refusal to cooperate.” Campbell said prosecution fears had also made it hard to investigate a recent nonaviation accident, a fatal pipeline explosion in Bellingham, Wash., last year. As a result, “more than a year later, we still have not been able to talk to most of the key individuals who were operating the pipeline when it ruptured and may not be able to in the foreseeable future.” A federal grand jury subpoena also “resulted in a significant delay in the investigation,” Campbell said. “In our view, too much lawyering went on before we were able to test the physical evidence of that tragedy.”

“The recent trend towards the criminalization of aircraft accidents is extremely alarming in that it has the potential to cripple industry’s ability to learn from incidents and accidents, essentially guaranteeing that we will repeat them,” said Capt. Paul McCarthy of the Air Line Pilots Association. He cited the 1996 ValuJet crash in Florida, the USAir 1989 crash at LaGuardia, and the recent Alaska Air crash off the California coast as examples of cases where safety investigations had been slowed. (House Transportation Committee, Aviation Subcommittee, hearing summary, Campbell, McCarthy statements; thread on Professional Pilots bulletin board)

September 6-7 — Update: second chance for Wal-Mart. The giant retailer has won a rematch in the case of former employee Ricky Bourdouvales, who sued alleging discrimination based on transsexualism (male-to-female). Judge Douglas Hague issued a default judgment of $2.1 million when Wal-Mart failed to show up in his New Jersey court (see July 21), but has now agreed to grant a retrial. (“Judge Tosses Trans Bias Award”, PlanetOut, Aug. 28).

September 6-7 — Australian roundup. A now-retired New South Wales judge has come under criticism from the losing plaintiffs in a large case, who complain in their appeal that more than 200 pages of his 247-page opinion consist of material cut and pasted from the submissions made by the two sides. The judge had called the case, over the Copper-7 contraceptive IUD, the longest and most complex product liability case in Australian history. (“Judge ‘cut and paste’ in making his decision on IUDs”, AAP/The Age (Melbourne), Aug. 29). Five partners of a Sydney law firm that handles a large volume of immigration work are suing Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock for defamation, “claiming he implied they were unethical and overcharged clients.” (“Ruddock sued for defamation by lawyers”, AAP/The Age (Melbourne), Aug. 29). And a 1998 finding by a federal justice that a prominent Brisbane law firm engaged in abuse of legal process ignited a debate about the condition of the law in Australia; a national TV show explored widespread discontent over the gamelike aspects of adversary process, interviewing both leading insiders of bench and bar and two outspoken critics, former defense lawyer and prosecutor Brett Dawson and journalist Evan Whitton (“The justice system goes on trial”, Ross Coulthart, reporter, Sunday/NineMSN, Transcript #252, undated). One passage among many that caught our eye:

REPORTER: Do you think there’s a case to argue that some of the ethical rules that lawyers have actually almost encourage dishonesty among lawyers?

JUSTICE [GEOFFREY] DAVIES: Yes I do. One of the examples is that a lawyer can ethically deny an allegation in the opponent’s pleading knowing it to be true.

REPORTER: You’re kidding – so you can basically lie?

JUSTICE DAVIES: Well, what lawyers would say is that you are putting the other side to proof.

REPORTER: It’s a lie though isn’t it?

JUSTICE DAVIES: It is.

September 6-7 — Bill for pizza delivery: $1.25 million? A Cocoa Beach, Fla. jury voted, but a federal judge almost immediately threw out, an award of one and a quarter million dollars to a black family that ordered home delivery from Pizza Hut and found a racial slur included as part of the computer-generated receipt. Judge Patricia Fawsett ruled that responsibility lay with the unauthorized actions of a rogue employee and could not fairly be charged to the company. (“Judge throws out $1.25M verdict against Pizza Hut”, Orlando Sentinel, Sept. 1).

September 5 — EEOC: offbeat beliefs may be protected against workplace bias. “Belief in radically unconventional scientific notions, such as ‘cold fusion’ or cryptic messages from extraterrestrials, may merit the same workplace protections as freedom of religion, according to a ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a job-discrimination case.” The case arose from the April 1999 firing by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of patent examiner and astronomer Paul A. LaViolette, who claims the action was taken because he holds unconventional beliefs, including a belief in the highly controversial theory of energy generation through “cold fusion”. In the words of the Washington Post, LaViolette’s website, www.etheric.com, “details his ‘proof’ of the existence of alien radio communication, his theory that the zodiac is a ‘time capsule message’ warning of emanations from the galactic center and his views on the Sphinx, the Tarot and Atlantis, along with his considerable accomplishments in mainstream science.” (Curt Suplee, “EEOC Backs ‘Cold Fusion’ Devotee”, Washington Post, Aug. 23).

September 5 — Tax software verdict: pick a number. A Hinds County, Mississippi jury “awarded the state of Mississippi $474.5 million in its suit against a company that failed to deliver on a new tax processing system that was supposed to modernize the state’s collection efforts.” The verdict against Fairfax, Va.-based American Management Systems Inc. included $299.5 million in actual damages and $175 million in punitive damages. A few days later, the company settled the suit by agreeing to pay the state $185 million. The company has contracts with seven other states to operate similar computerized tax systems; no other lawsuits are pending. (“Company loses tax software suit”, AP/USA Today, Aug. 24; “Settlement cuts tax software verdict”, Aug. 29).

September 5 — Juries and cost-benefit analysis. W. Kip Viscusi, professor at Harvard Law, says businesses today get conflicting signals on the use of cost-benefit analysis in safety matters: a large academic literature encourages them to engage in such analysis as part of their responsibility to the public, but juries get furious when they think that sort of “cold-blooded calculation” has gone on. Moreover, there’s evidence to support the paradoxical finding that the higher a valuation of life and limb a company employs in such an analysis, the more stringently it will be punished by subsequent juries. (“The Trouble With Lawsuits”, TechCentralStation, May 29; Manhattan Institute, luncheon transcript).

September 4 — Emulex fraud: gotta find a defendant. “With the manhunt for the perpetrator of the Emulex fraud [false news report torpedoed company’s stock] apparently over, investors burned by the company’s $2 billion post-fraud swing are now hunting for someone, anyone, to sue for legal damages. Two lawsuits have already been filed, one against Internet Wire, which originally distributed the bogus press release, and one against both Internet Wire and Bloomberg, the financial news service that sent out a story based on the press release.” (Craig Bicknell, “Emulex Victims: Who Can We Sue?”, Wired News, Sept. 1).

September 4 — Record-breaking securities class action fee: $262 million. A federal judge in New Jersey last month approved a fee of $262 million for plaintiffs’ lawyers in the securities fraud case stemming from the collapse in the stock price of Cendant Corporation (see June 20). Judge William Walls upheld the record-breaking fee against objections from New York City, a member of the investor class, reasoning that the two lead law firms, New York’s Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman and Philadelphia’s Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, had taken part in a fairly run auction to determine who would get to represent the investors. (Daniel Wise, “Cendant Lawyers Get Record $262 Million in Securities Fraud Case”, New York Law Journal, Aug. 22).

September 4– “Just put the candy in the bag, lady.” “I’ve been watching the lawsuits over Columbine with interest bordering on disgust. It seems the argument is that someone (preferably a government agent not affiliated with the Postal Service, or failing that, any random person with deep pockets) should have foreseen the future and intervened,” writes Paul Kelly, a former vice chair of the Boulder, Colo. Democratic Party. “…If this new ‘everybody’s negligent all the time’ social philosophy seems silly to you, it’s probably because you’re not a lawyer. To a lawyer this is like Halloween to a 10-year-old. ‘Just put the candy in the bag, lady. And hurry. There are still five families on this block I haven’t sued yet.'” (“Doing nothing may be best option”, Denver Post, Aug. 13).

September 1-3 — Texas tobacco fees: Cornyn’s battle. In December 1998 an arbitration panel awarded a stupendous $3.3 billion in legal fees to five law firms selected by former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales to represent the state in the tobacco-Medicaid litigation, which had ended in a $17 billion settlement. The Big Five firms, all high rollers in Lone Star State personal-injury litigation and all major Democratic Party donors, include Beaumont, Texas’s Provost & Umphrey (Walter Umphrey), Houston’s Williams & Bailey (John Eddie Williams), Harold Nix’s law firm in Daingerfield; Beaumont’s Reaud, Morgan & Quinn (Wayne Reaud); and John O’Quinn’s firm in Houston.

Mr. Morales’s Republican successor as Texas Attorney General, former Texas Supreme Court Justice John Cornyn, ran for office in part on a pledge to investigate the circumstances surrounding the fees, and his probe soon led to some eye-opening revelations (see May 22). A Houston lawyer named Marc Murr, who’d earlier worked at the same law firm with Morales, had stepped forward after the settlement to claim a $520 million (later $260 million) share of the proceeds, a mystifying claim since participants could not remember Murr doing work on the case or being considered part of the state’s team. Murr pointed to a hitherto unsuspected contract with Morales entitling him to a piece of the action, but Cornyn hired forensic experts who concluded that the contract had been doctored and backdated. Rather than be put under oath about the matter, Murr withdrew his claim to the fees; a U.S. attorney’s office has the matter under investigation.

As for the circumstances by which the Big Five came by their fees, Cornyn’s investigation has met with a stone wall of resistance and non-cooperation from Umphrey, Williams, Nix, Reaud and O’Quinn. In particular, he would like to investigate what the Houston Chronicle describes as “longtime allegations that [Morales] solicited large sums of money from lawyers he considered hiring” for the suit. Two years ago famed Houston attorney Joe Jamail, who wasn’t among those picked to represent the state, “said Morales solicited $1 million from each of several lawyers he considered hiring”, in addition to the $2 million that each of the five agreed to front to finance the case. “The money, according to memos prepared by Jamail, purportedly was for a fund to help Morales defend himself against political or public relations attacks from cigarette companies during the litigation.” Last year in sworn testimony Dawn Nelson, ex-wife of Big Five lawyer John Eddie Williams, said “Williams had told her that Morales wanted $1 million from one or more of the lawyers that were hired for the tobacco case,” the Chronicle reported.

In an interview last November cited in the same Chronicle reportage, Morales said that the purpose of the money might have been misunderstood and that he didn’t intend it to be used for his personal or political benefit. In May, the Five filed statements in court saying they had not paid any consideration for the chance to participate in the litigation. But they’ve consistently refused to go under oath to answer Cornyn’s questions, and skillful legal maneuvering on their behalf has kept at bay that alarming prospect — first by their successful removal of his legal action away from state court and into the hands of the same federal judge in Texarkana whom they initially selected to hear the Medicaid-recoupment case (see “Best little forum-shopping in Texas”, Aug. 27, 1999), and now with their obtaining of a ruling by that judge last month that Cornyn has no independent right to question the lawyers except under such terms as he, the judge, may see fit to approve in future (Cornyn plans an appeal of that ruling to the Fifth Circuit). The Five have also sought a gag order to prevent the press or anyone else from getting a look at documents generated by the investigation, notwithstanding the usual publicly proclaimed stand of organized trial lawyers that “protective orders” of that sort are an affront to the public’s right to know and serve only to shroud wrongdoing in secrecy. And, like other lawyers who have represented the states in the tobacco recoupment litigation, they have argued that the fees are not an appropriate subject for review by representatives of the taxpayers because they are formally structured so as to be paid directly by the cigarette companies, rather than be routed through the state as part of its payment as is customary.

The Big Five also claimed $40 million in reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses (as distinct from legal fees) but at the end of May they returned $6.9 million of this money, saying the earlier sum had been overstated. “Their misrepresentation of expenses just raises more questions and strongly reinforces the need to determine what happened in the tobacco case,” Cornyn said. “After 18 months of assuring the people of Texas that their expenses were justified in every way … [they] are now returning millions of dollars with no satisfactory explanation as to why.” Michael Tigar, attorney for the Five, said the earlier sum had been a good-faith estimate and that deviations from such estimates are common. (DURABLE LINK)

SOURCES: Kelley Shannon, “Cornyn, rebuffed in federal court, vows to appeal”, AP state and local wire, Aug. 16, not online, available on NEXIS; “Five attorneys say Morales not paid for contract in anti-tobacco lawsuit”, AP state and local wire, May 12, not online, available on NEXIS; Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, “As Tobacco Lawyers Return Money, Questions Return”, Texas Lawyer, June 9; “Tobacco trial lawyers admit misrepresentation”, Cornyn press release, June 1; Susan Borreson, “Tobacco Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Won’t Enforce Contract With State”, Texas Lawyer, December 2, 1999; Robert Bryce, “Nicotine Fit”, Texas Observer, November 26, 1999; Janet Elliott, “‘Tobacco Five’ Want Confidentiality Order”, Texas Lawyer, Sept. 9, 1999.; Clay Robison, “Cornyn moves in on anti-tobacco lawyers”, Houston Chronicle, April 27. Murr case: Miriam Rozen, “Smoke-filled room”, Dallas Observer, Sept. 17, 1998; “Pay up?”, April 22, 1999; Patrick Williams, “Buzz”, Dec. 17, 1998, May 20, 1999; Jim Brickman, “What Would I Ask Former Attorney General Dan Morales In the Grand Jury Investigation?“, Citizens for Lawsuit Abuse Houston; John R. Butler, Jr., “Dan Morales and Marc Murr Have Some Explaining To Do To All Texans“, CALA Houston.

September 1-3 — “Olympic trials”. At least ten athletes, after falling short in efforts to make the U.S. Olympic team in their sports, have insisted on going to arbitration or in one case to federal court, according to columnist Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal‘s online Opinion Journal (Aug. 31; see also Mark R. Madler, “Judges Wrestle With Epic Case of Olympic Athlete” (wrestlers), American Lawyer Media, Aug. 31.

September 1-3 — “Don’t talk to the humans”. Some years back the federal government issued regulations on universities’ use of human experimental subjects. How strictly are these rules being enforced? So strictly that a scholar can get in big trouble by not asking an official committee’s permission before visiting a retirement home and chatting with one of the elderly residents about his life. (Christopher Shea, Lingua Franca, Sept.) (via Arts & Letters Daily).


September 20 — Victory in Chicago. A judge last week threw out the city of Chicago’s lawsuit against the gun industry. “In granting the industry’s motion to dismiss, Judge Stephen A. Schiller of Cook County Circuit Court suggested that the city had not shown wrongdoing by the individual defendants. He said that the city’s arguments would be better handled in a legislature than in a courtroom.” However, a West Coast judge denied a defense motion to dismiss a group of cases filed by San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles city and county, and other plaintiffs. Pending appeal, judges have now dismissed the suits filed by Chicago, Cincinnati, Bridgeport, and Miami, while declining to dismiss suits filed by Detroit, Atlanta, Boston, New Orleans, Cleveland, and the California cities. (Pam Belluck, “Chicago Gun Suit Fails, but California’s Proceeds”, New York Times, Sept. 16 (reg); “Judge dismisses Chicago suit against gun industry”, Reuters/CNN, Sept. 15; reaction from Illinois State Rifle Association). Plus: John Derbyshire gets radicalized on the tort reform issue when he goes out trying to buy ammunition on Long Island, and discovers that the courtroom assault on the industry is choking the local firearms dealers into oblivion with no legislation needed, simply by causing their liability insurance to dry up. (“First thing we do…”, National Review Online, Sept. 12).

September 20 — Disbarred, with an asterisk. Most clients probably assume that a lawyer thrown out of the profession is gone for good, but the Boston Globe finds that for years bar authorities have been quietly readmitting practitioners, including some whose original offenses were grave. Some of this leniency has been misplaced, since a number of the readmitted lawyers have gone on to commit new offenses against clients. (David Armstrong, “Special Report: Disbarred Mass. lawyers skirt discipline system”, Sept. 17, and sidebars: “Reinstatement process favors lawyers“, “Victims often missing from equation“.

September 20 — “Regulating Privacy: At What Cost?” Free-marketeers finally start organizing to resist the steamroller movement toward online-privacy laws, reports Declan McCullagh. Among new initiatives are a symposium held yesterday on Capitol Hill by George Mason U.’s Mercatus Center, a book entitled The Future of Financial Privacy forthcoming from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and a privacy-issues website called Privacilla.org. (Wired.com, Sept. 19). And Reason Express a while back alerted us to a website by Jacob Palme in Sweden which recounts some of the less pleasant consequences of that nation’s pioneering (1973) law preventing the electronic gathering or dissemination of information about individuals without their consent. Palme says the law mostly went unenforced as regards web publishing, which is a good thing since if enforced literally it could have rendered unlawful much of the web in Sweden. The few instances that led to enforcement action, as related by Palme, suggest that unpopular and dissident opinions were among the most likely to draw complaints under the law. One man put up a webpage critical of a large Swedish bank, naming individual directors whom he believed had behaved in ethically irresponsible ways; he was prosecuted and fined for violating their privacy. In another case, an animal rights group was subject to legal action for posting a list of fur producers. In a third, a church volunteer was prosecuted for stating on a web page that one named church member had broken a leg and another was a member of the Social Democratic Party; health status and political affiliations are considered especially sensitive under the law. In a fourth case, dissident dog lovers got in privacy-law trouble for criticizing leading members of a dog society by name. The privacy laws were revised in 1998 and again in 1999, following much criticism, and as of June 2000, when Palme’s page was last revised, the highest Swedish court had not yet given its interpretation of the law (“Freedom of Speech, The EU Data Protection Directive and the Swedish Personal Data Act“; “The Swedish Personal Register Law“; “Swedish Attempts to Regulate the Internet“; official Data Inspection Board). (DURABLE LINK)

September 19 — Hollywood under fire: nose of the Camel? In what may take the prize for worst idea of the month, South Carolina Attorney General Charles Condon has proposed filing coordinated state lawsuits to make Hollywood the next tobacco. “Clearly we have here a virtual replay of what the tobacco industry did to our children. Instead of Joe Camel, Hollywood uses Eminem, South Park, Doom and Steven Segal [sic] to seduce children,” Condon wrote in a letter to the National Association of Attorneys General (Condon press release, Sept. 13; David Shuster, “South Carolina AG Threatens Suit Against Entertainment Industry”, Fox News, Sept. 15). It’s time the entertainment business cleaned up its act, writes Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, but that doesn’t mean Sens. McCain and Lieberman are right to “justify [an] end run around the 1st Amendment with a public-health argument like that which justifies the regulation of tobacco or liquor.” (“A World Apart: Eminem and Me”, Sept. 17). Owens Corning and Met Life use cartoon characters (the Pink Panther and Snoopy respectively) as advertising mascots, and you might jump to the conclusion that they were committing that dire sin, “marketing to children”, if you didn’t know that fiberglass insulation and insurance are products bought by adults, observes Illinois law prof Ronald Rotunda (“The FTC Report on Hollywood Entertainment“, Federalist Society, Free Speech and Election Law Working Group; FTC report; “Lieberman: Entertainment must police itself”, AP/Miami Herald, Sept. 13). Filmmaker John Waters doesn’t think much of the crusade: “The future CEOs of America are all sneaking into R-rated movies” (Rick Lyman, “Writers, Directors Fear Censorship, Tell Anger Over Violence Hearings”, New York Times Service/Chicago Tribune, Sept. 18). And plaintiff’s lawyers suing entertainment companies over school shootings, who’ve already gotten plenty of favorable ink in the conservative press (see July 22, 1999), are hoping the new report will invigorate their legal cause (Frank Murray, “FTC adds ammo to lawsuits for deaths”, Washington Times, Sept. 13).

September 19 —WSJ‘s Bartley on decline of American law. The establishment of the rule of law, replacing the whim of powerful rulers, was perhaps the supreme achievement of the West in the millennium just past, but the United States has grown careless about its legal inheritance, with systematic injustices mounting in both criminal and civil courtrooms. Last week’s call-sheet scandal illustrates the way “audacious and powerful interests” who have found ways to use the legal system to make their fortunes “have allied themselves with government and politicians.” (Robert Bartley, “The Law and Civilization’s Future”, Opinion Journal (Wall Street Journal), Sept. 18). “Justice Department investigators and prosecutors want to know if there were, in fact, any quid pro quos for the trial lawyers’ extraordinary generosity,” editorializes the San Diego Union-Tribune about the scandal. “With trial lawyers contributing almost 10 percent of all funds raised by the Gore-Lieberman campaign, that remains an urgent question. Voters have a right to some answers before Nov. 7.” (“Veto for sale?”, Sept. 16).

September 19 — Punitive damages for hatemongering? Washington Post‘s editorial page “is gutsy enough to have qualms about Morris Dees’ strategy of bankrupting hate groups with punitive tort damages,” observes Mickey Kaus at Kausfiles (“The Aryan Nations Verdict” (editorial), Washington Post, Sept. 16). “Many advocacy groups that engage in direct actions potentially expose themselves to tort liability…. That danger is compounded by the abusive system of punitive damages, which gives juries wide discretion to ruin people or companies financially in a fashion untethered to the scope of the harm they have done in the specific case at issue,” the Post comments. “That could not have happened to a more deserving bunch than Mr. [Richard] Butler and the Aryan Nations. But it’s worth pausing for a moment to wonder who’s next.”

September 18 — Scruggs v. Ritalin. Latest target for zillionaire tobacco lawyer and recent Time profilee Richard Scruggs: Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp., makers of the drug Ritalin, and the American Psychiatric Association. Scruggs’s firm accuses the two of conspiring to promote an overly broad diagnosis of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), with the result that the drug is given to too many youngsters. “Novartis and the APA deny the allegations. In a statement, Novartis says the charges are ‘unfounded and preposterous.'” Some lawyers from the Castano consortium, which pursued tobacco litigation separate from Scruggs’s, are also joining him in the action. (“Lawsuits Accuse Ritalin Makers, APA”, AP/Yahoo, Sept. 15; Excite/Dow Jones; Toni Locy, “Fight over Ritalin is heading to court”, USA Today, Sept. 15) (see also Sept. 22-24 and April 13, 2001).

September 18 — White House pastry chef harassment suit. White House assistant pastry chef Franette McCulloch, 53, is suing her boss Roland Mesnier, claiming he “became hostile and rude when she spurned his advances, ‘screaming’ at her for refusing to have sex, excluding her from designing desserts and once assigning her to peel eight crates of kiwi.” Her suit also alleges that Bill Clinton, as the head of the White House, failed to establish a proper method for employees to bring harassment complaints, and demands $1 million each from Mesnier and Clinton. (AP/CNN, Sept. 13; Ellen Nakashima, “White House Chef Accuses Boss of Sexual Harassment”, Washington Post, Sept. 14). In 1997, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled against a discriminatory-firing claim by an employee of the White House chef’s office, but said he had been improperly retaliated against for filing his complaint. A former executive chef testified in a sworn deposition that year that the Clintons had paid him $37,000 to quit his post “because of my accent and the fact that I’m overweight.” (more).

September 18 — The teetery inkbottle. “Whenever the law and the facts were against him, Mr. Homans was not one to pound on the table. Instead, he would resort to what he called his ‘trial pen’, a big, old-fashioned device that he would pull out at a critical moment in a trial. On the stand would be the state’s star witness testifying that he had seen with his own eyes as Mr. Homans’s client pulled out a gun and pointed it directly at the bank teller’s head. But the jurors’ eyes would be on Mr. Homans, who, with trembling hand, would be filling the pen from a bottle of India ink perched so precariously, half over the edge of the defense table, that the jury would be caught up in the suspense of when it would fall.” — from an obituary, “William Homans, 75, Dies; Boston Civil Rights Lawyer”, by the late Robert McG. Thomas, Jr., New York Times, February 13, 1997 (fee-based archives, search on “William Homans”).

September 18 — That’ll be $2 trillion, please. A former resident has filed three lawsuits against the town of Rocky River, Ohio, “claiming everything from false arrest to injury of reputation,” and demanding $2 trillion. The town isn’t amused and is countersuing her, saying it’s had to expend money to defend itself. (Sarah Treffinger, “Rocky River sues woman who sued for trillions”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept. 13).

September 15-17 — Day Two of Vetogate. George W. Bush in a California speech says the new call-sheet revelations are evidence that Gore “may have crossed a serious line … The appearance is really disturbing”, Janet Reno refuses to talk about the status of the investigation, the New York Times Washington bureau frets about being (just barely) webscooped by Time.com on the story, and Gore campaign spokesman Chris Lehane curiously describes the sensational disclosures as “recycled”, though no one in the press remembers seeing them before now (CNN; Drudge special; Yahoo/Reuters; Wash. Times).

September 15-17 — Who caught the tire problem? “Who provided the information that instigated the current recall? Who acted to protect the consumer? None other than ‘greedy’, profit-seeking State Farm Insurance Company. Eager to earn ever higher profits by reducing injury claims and lawsuits, State Farm’s statistical bureau noticed an increase in claims related to Firestone tires and passed the information along to the NHTSA which had been asleep at the switch. [See Devon Spurgeon, “State Farm researcher’s sleuthing helped prompt Firestone recall’, Wall Street Journal , Sept. 1]. The profit seeking of a big, bad, private insurance company may help save hundreds of lives.” (James Ostrowski, “The Tire Fiasco”, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Sept. 8).

In the New York Times Sept. 11, Keith Bradsher reports that by the end of 1998 trial lawyers “had already sued Firestone, and sometimes Ford as well, in cases involving 22 deaths and 69 serious injuries”. However, few of these cases had come to the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; until recently NHTSA had received very few complaints, and none of fatalities. In fact, Bradsher reports, trial lawyers were pursuing a conscious policy of not reporting tire incidents to the agency, apparently because of tactical concerns — if the agency learned about such cases too early and in too small a number, it might do a perfunctory investigation and miss the pattern of defectiveness, and then the lawyers would have more trouble winning their cases. This strikes us as a fairly damning indictment to be leveling against the trial lawyers — they flout the public interest in learning crucial safety information, just in order to angle for monetary advantage? Isn’t that what Firestone is accused of doing? — but Bradsher quotes Ralph Hoar, a well-known plaintiff’s-side consultant in auto-design cases who provided the numerical tabulation cited at the beginning of this paragraph, as cheerily portraying the lawyers as just doin’ their job, saying they have to concern themselves with their clients’ best interests, not anyone else’s.

Meanwhile, Ford Motor had been named in a few suits but “paid little attention, because automakers routinely face thousands of lawsuits after crashes.” In other words, the background level of litigation against a company of that size is so high that it’s hard to notice patterns that do turn out to be meaningful (Keith Bradsher, “Documents Portray Tire Debacle as a Story of Lost Opportunities”, New York Times, Sept. 11 (reg)). (DURABLE LINK)

September 15-17 — Ciresi bested in Senate bid. Michael Ciresi, the trial lawyer who sought to parlay his representation of the state of Minnesota in the tobacco litigation into a seat in the U.S. Senate, has lost the Democratic nomination to department store heir Mark Dayton by a margin of 41 to 23 percent, with other candidates dividing the rest. (Dan Bernard, “Dayton Grabs DFL Nomination”, WCCO/Channel 4000, Sept. 13; St. Paul Pioneer Press; Minneapolis Star-Tribune).

September 15-17 — Cash return sought by murder-for-hire convict. “A criminal defense attorney who paid an undercover agent $11,000 in a failed murder-for-hire plot is asking the government to return the money. Frederick Ford, 48, who is serving an eight-year prison term for planning to kill two former clients he thought could implicate him in a kidnap plot, is seeking the return of the money he admitted he gave to a U.S. Department of Labor agent last year.” (“Convicted attorney seeks return of murder-for-hire retainer”, AP/CNN, Sept. 13; Shelley Murphy, “Hit man hirer wants money back”, Boston Globe, Sept. 13).

September 14 — “I know [you] will give $100K when the president vetoes tort reform, but we really need it now.” The New York Times reports in today’s editions that Justice Department campaign finance investigators have launched a preliminary probe into documents that have surfaced from the Clinton/Gore 1996 fundraising operation, including a “call sheet” prepared for Vice President Gore regarding Beaumont, Texas lawyer Walter Umphrey, a major Democratic benefactor who shared in Texas’s $3.3 billion tobacco contingency fee and is well known to readers of this space. The sheet describes Umphrey as “closely following tort reform” and suggests asking him for $100,000 to finance Democratic Party TV commercials. The White House claims that Gore did not make the call, but two weeks later a staffer for then-Democratic National Committee chairman Donald Fowler prepared a call sheet reading as follows: “Sorry you missed the vice president. I know [sic] will give $100K whn [sic] the president vetos [sic] tort reform, but we really need it now. Please send ASAP if possible.” DNC officials propose that the “missed” might have referred to the two men not connecting at an in-person event; Fowler disclaims any memory of talking with Umphrey about campaign donations and says he would never have used the language on the call sheet. According to the Times, “Trevor Potter, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, called the call sheet’s language ‘extraordinarily ill-advised,’ saying prosecutors would probably be investigating whether the solicitation violated either a bribery statute or a law prohibiting ‘illegal gratuities,’ a ‘gift’ given after an elected official takes a public action.”

The Washington Post reports that Umphrey says he doesn’t recall “any of that” and otherwise declines comment, while Payne was talking to the Times only through her lawyer. And attorney Michael Tigar, who represents Umphrey and the rest of the Big Five Texas tobacco lawyers, issued this small gem of legalistically worded denial: “Tying campaign contributions to legislative or executive action has never been illegal in the United States unless there is proof that the public official extorts the money by threatening to give or withhold action based on the contributions,” he said; moreover, his clients, including Mr. Umphrey, “have repeatedly been asked in many forums whether they have ever given money to a candidate or officials as a quid-pro-quo for official action, and they have repeatedly said under oath that they have never done so.” The Times account adds considerable background on the epic pace of Clinton/Gore fundraising among Texas plaintiff’s lawyers of late, including a little-reported fundraiser thrown for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Senate campaign by Big Five stalwart John Eddie Williams of Houston. (Don Van Natta Jr. with Richard A. Oppel Jr., “Memo Linking Political Donation and Veto Spurs Federal Inquiry”, New York Times, Sept. 14 (reg); Susan Schmidt, “1995 Documents Appear To Link Lawyer’s Contribution To Veto”, Washington Post, Sept. 14; more on Umphrey and the Big Five: Sept. 1, May 22; more on trial lawyers’ political clout). More breaking coverage (via Drudge): Time, Fox News, AP. (DURABLE LINK)

September 13-14 — “Violent media is good for kids”. Good kids, as well as bad ones, are naturally fascinated with violence, catastrophe and retribution, and letting them explore these matters in the relatively safe territory of the printed page and popular entertainment is part of the process by which they learn how to fit themselves into a frightening world, argues cartoonist Gerard Jones, in an excerpt from a book due out next year from Basic with co-author Melanie Moore (“Reality Check”, Mother Jones, June 28; Reason magazine, “The Kids Are All Right“, “Breaking Issues”; Christopher Stern, “Violent Material Marketed To Youth”, Washington Post, Aug. 27; Mike Allen and Ellen Nakashima, “Clinton, Gore Hit Hollywood Marketing”, Washington Post, Sept. 12).

September 13-14 — Gregoire’s home front. Washington state attorney general Christine Gregoire gained a high national profile jetting around the country to take a leading role in the tobacco-Medicaid affair and other big-case AG litigation, and followed up by assuming the presidency of the National Association of Attorneys General (see July 17). Now it may be time to wonder whether she was keeping enough of an eye back home on the unglamorous routine of the AG’s office, which plays a vital role in protecting the state’s legal interests. In March a Pierce County jury awarded the largest verdict ever against the state, $17.8 million, on behalf of three developmentally disabled men whose families said they were abused in a state-supported home. Gregoire’s office announced plans to appeal but, embarrassingly, proceeded to lose the state’s right to do so by missing a filing deadline. With interest, the total bill has now mounted to $18.7 million. (Eric Nalder and Mike Carter, “State won’t give up bid to appeal $17.8 million verdict”, Seattle Times, Sept. 12; Eric Nalder, “No excuse for missed appeal, court says”, Seattle Times, Aug. 22; see also update Nov. 30). The Capital Research Center has issued a new report critical of recent attorney general activism, by Ron Nehring of Americans for Tax Reform (“National Association of Attorneys General: Opening the Door to a New Era of Regulation Through Litigation”, Organization Trends (CRC), Sept.)

September 13-14 — Prescription: 24-7 monitoring. Adding to Evergreen State taxpayers’ legal woes, a Pierce County, Wash. jury Sept. 1 ordered the state government to pay $22 million to survivors of a driver killed in an auto accident by a man who was at the time serving the community-supervision portion of a sentence for third-degree assault. The verdict broke an earlier $17.8 million record for lawsuits against the state, set in March by the same plaintiff’s attorney, Jack Connelly (see above item). Gov. Gary Locke vowed to appeal the verdict, saying if upheld it could make the entire enterprise of community supervision unworkable. “This man was convicted of … third-degree assault connected with a domestic dispute,” he said. “Imposing liability for his involvement in an auto accident extends public liability too far.” A Locke aide questioned whether the state could monitor the 55,000 persons on community supervision adequately to prevent any of them from being a menace on the highway. One of the alternatives to risking failure-to-supervise liability — keeping the 55,000 locked up — would apparently be okay with lawyer Connelly, who said, “If you’re not even going to try to do your job, then don’t put these guys on community supervision. Put them in jail.” (Eli Sanders, “Family awarded $22.4 million in wrongful death lawsuit against state”, Seattle Times, Sept. 2). See also Chris Solomon, “Cities leery of new probation rules”, Seattle Times, July 11 (local governments fear being financially wiped out by Washington Supreme Court ruling allowing negligence lawsuits against municipalities over crimes committed by probationers).

September 13-14 — More bank spying? Despite strongly negative public reaction to withdrawn “Know Your Customer” regulations that would have accelerated banks’ sharing of customer “profiles” with law enforcement, legislators like Rep. James Leach (R-Iowa) are back with proposals that raise similar civil liberties concerns (Scott C. Rayder, “The Counter-Money Laundering Act: An Attack on Privacy and Civil Liberties”, Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum, Aug. 31; our take on the last round).

September 13-14 — Judges’ words, copyrighted. Officials in the California judiciary would like to revamp the instructions that judges give juries before trial deliberations, in hopes of making them clearer and more understandable, but have run into an unexpected problem. The Los Angeles County courts turn out to hold copyright in the most widely used current instructions and collect royalties when other California courts use them, which have generated $2.5 million for the county’s use over the past decade. “‘When we first began this effort three years ago, all of us just assumed that we would take [Los Angeles instructions] and improve on them,’ said Associate Justice James D. Ward of the state Court of Appeal in Riverside, vice chairman of the task force. ‘Then they announced to us that they owned them.'” The L.A. courts have held back from cooperating in the statewide revision efforts, which if successful would result in a set of instructions that courts could use for free. (Caitlin Liu, “Say What, Your Honor?”, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 7).

September 12 — Goodbye to gaming volunteers? Online multiplayer gaming has grown to be a big Internet institution in no small part because large numbers of unpaid enthusiasts join in on a volunteer basis to suggest and beta-test new features, run discussion boards and perform countless other services. “But maybe not for long. On Monday, August 28 … Origin Systems Inc. (OSI) [makers of Ultima Online, one of the leading fantasy role-playing games], announced the termination of free game account privileges for hundreds of community volunteers…. While company representatives have not said so outright, it appears the move to eliminate what amounted to a $10 a month gratuity for volunteers is related to a recent New York class action lawsuit, brought by former volunteers at America Online (AOL)” (see Sept. 7, 1999). The class action lawyers in that case are charging that because AOL benefits from the content devised by its volunteers, and has given them at least nominal compensation in the form of free services and the like, it is therefore obliged to keep track of how much time they put into volunteering and pay them at least the minimum wage. If the lawyers succeed in their efforts, online community providers could find themselves facing large retroactive wage bills. “Origin is just the first game company to move to protect itself legally by removing any perks that could be seen as differentiating its volunteers from all the other players. The major subscription-based role-playing services may soon follow suit. While the short-term effects may be limited (some volunteers may quit, but could be replaced), the long-term future of volunteer work on online releases seems doubtful all of a sudden.” (Bruce Rolston, “The End of the Smurfs?”, Adrenaline Vault, Sept. 1).

September 12 — Curious feature of lawyer’s retainer. Texas trial lawyers are in a flutter over a Waco case in which an appeals court ruled that a client family in an industrial accident case was within its rights to withdraw from a contingent-fee legal contract it had signed. The agreement the lawyer had gotten the family to sign included a curious feature: a provision entitling him to settle the case without their consent. Such a provision, the court ruled, “clearly violates” the Texas professional code for lawyers, making the entire contract voidable. The lawyer, J.W. Stringer, plans motions for rehearing and appeal. (Jenny Burg, “Opinion Has Lawyers Reviewing Contingent-Fee Contracts”, Texas Lawyer, Aug. 21).

September 12 — This little piggy got taken to court. More pig farmers are facing legal action as outlying towns change “from rural, mind-your- own-business farm communities to residential, what’s-that-smell, suburban neighborhoods,” according to a Cleveland Plain Dealer report. Five residents of Medina County, Ohio, including a truck driver and two auto mechanics, have been sent to jail this summer for refusing to clean up pig living arrangements on their properties (Stephen Hudak, “Proud Pig Man’s smelly pork farm lands him in poke”, Sept. 7) (via Romenesko’s Obscure Store) And a Marlin County, Florida pig farmer sued by an adjoining golf course has put up a website which solicits moral support and legal defense contributions, as well as purchases of the squiggle-tailed offenders (Pigfarmer.com) (more on pig litigation: Oct. 4, 1999).

September 11 — “Feeding Frenzy Over Firestone”. “Lawyers all over the country see opportunity in the escalating legal, commercial and public relations disaster for Ford and Firestone.” (Bob Van Voris and Matt Fleischer, National Law Journal, Sept. 5; Yahoo Full Coverage).

September 11 — Harassment law roundup. At an Alcoa plant in North Carolina, one of the black complainants in a race discrimination suit went out to the parking lot, made a list of all the workers’ vehicles with Confederate flag stickers on them, and filed this as evidence of “hostile racial environment” in the case. The company promptly banned employees from having such stickers on their cars, a ban it insists had absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit (Steve Chapman, “Trouble in Mind: Is the First Amendment Void in the Workplace?” Chicago Tribune, Aug. 24). In an excerpt from his book The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America, New Republic legal correspondent Jeff Rosen urges courts to reconsider the “hostile environment” analysis that has become an accepted part of harassment law: “A jurisprudence originally designed to protect privacy and dignity is inadvertently invading privacy and dignity” (“Fall of Private Man”,New Republic, June 12; more on book). Clarence Thomas, alone among the nine Justices of the Supreme Court, wanted to tackle the “troubling First Amendment issues” raised by a court’s injunction against workers’ use of racial epithets on the job at an Avis Rent-a-Car franchise; a California court had ordered the drawing up of a list of words that employees were to be forbidden to use in conversation with each other, whether anyone present found the words objectionable or not (Tony Mauro, Freedom Forum, May 23). And early this year it was reported that an “affirmative action officer in Falmouth, Massachusetts — whose job it was to enforce the town’s sexual harassment policy — has been fired for sexually harassing a town employee. The official, Jayme Dias, was in charge of promoting and enforcing fairness in hiring and employment practices.” (Monster.com, “Week in Work”, Jan. 31).

September 11 — “Mother sues over lack of ice time for goalie son”. In Rimouski, Quebec, “Hélène Canuel is seeking $1,000 in damages from the Rimouski Minor Hockey Association because her son, David, was denied the right to play in a critical game during a hockey tournament last December.” David is 14 years old. (Arpon Basu, Montreal Gazette/National Post, Aug. 24).


September 29-October 1 — Disabled rights roundup. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the PGA golf tour must bend its rules to allow disabled golfer Casey Martin to ride in a golf cart (“U.S. High Court To Decide Case of Disabled Golfer”, Reuters/FindLaw, Sept. 26; see April 10, our May 1998 take). The government of Great Britain is considering legislation that would compel its armed forces to accept disabled recruits, and pressures are rising to accept handicapped military personnel in front-line as well as auxiliary positions, given the principle of nondiscrimination (Michael Smith, “Disabled want frontline jobs in ‘pc’ Services”, Daily Telegraph (London), Sept. 26; “Forces may have to admit disabled”, Aug. 21; UK Disability Discrimination Act). And a trend that has been well established under U.S. disabled rights law for some time — doctors’ having to hire sign-language translators at their own expense when a deaf patient wishes to call on them for a consultation — is exemplified by a consent decree negotiated by the office of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, requiring an upstate doctors’ group to provide interpreters-on-demand for “all significant medical encounters” (“Spitzer Announces Agreement With Upstate Physician’s Practice To Provide Sign Language Interpreters for Deaf Patients”, press release, June 21; see also May 31).

September 29-October 1 — Annals of zero tolerance: Tweety bird chain. In suburban Atlanta, the Garrett Middle School has suspended 11-year-old Ashley Smith from sixth grade for two weeks on charges of breaking its zero-tolerance weapons policy by bringing a chain to school. It’s a 10-inch novelty chain that dangles from her Tweety bird wallet. “It’s only a little chain, and I don’t think it can really hurt anyone,” said Ashley, a “Tweety fan who publishes her own Web site devoted to the cartoon character.” Earlier, the ACLU successfully represented an Atlanta public school student who was charged with criminal weapons possession after she brought African tribal knives to school for a project (“Girl suspended for Tweety chain”, AP/Salon, Sept. 28; UPI/Virtual New York) (Ashley Smith’s guestbook) (update Oct. 4: school’s explanation).

September 29-October 1 — French crash, German victims, American payout levels? Air France has sued Continental Air Lines to recoup its costs from the July Concorde disaster in Paris that killed 113 people, charging that a strip of metal that fell off a Continental DC-10 caused the incident. The French airline has already offered to compensate survivor families, who are mostly German, but “German lawyers are pushing for a settlement in the United States, where courts order higher payouts.” (“Airline files Concorde suit”, Reuters/CNNfn, Sept. 27).

September 29-October 1 — “Denny’s fights back against false suits”. The restaurant chain, dogged by past charges of racial discrimination, releases more details on how it uses videotapes and other techniques to disprove dubious copycat claims (see Aug. 29-30). In Oakland, Calif., the lawyer son of John S. Harrison Sr. sued Denny’s claiming that a white couple had been served before his father though they had arrived later. “Mr. Harrison conceded he had been a customer for 20 years and ate at that Denny’s counter twice a day for 10 to 12 years with no problems in a store whose clientele was 50 percent black.” He had been happy with the meal and had left a tip. A federal magistrate threw out the suit and gave Denny’s legal fees. (Frank Murray, Washington Times, Sept. 25).

September 29-October 1 — “Supersize small claims”. Prairielaw columnist David A. Giacalone argues for reviving the nearly moribund institution of small claims court by boosting the threshold value of claims handled by such courts to $20,000, a change also endorsed by the HALT legal reform group. Thresholds around $3,000 are now common. Such a shift might relieve some of the docket pressure on regular courts while allowing ordinary citizens to vindicate more claims without lawyers’ assistance, a feature that may help explain why the bar shows little enthusiasm for the idea (undated, but appeared Aug.) (see also Oct. 3).

September 27-28 — Welcome UserFriendly.org readers. We’re picked as the link of the day by the website for the cartoon strip User Friendly, by Illiad.

September 27-28 — “Blind customers want to touch club lapdancers”. In East Sussex, England, the Brighton and Hove municipal council says it will consider a request by the Pussycats Club that its blind patrons be permitted to touch the exotic dancers as a form of handicap accommodation. The club says its vision-impaired customers appreciate the proximity of the lapdancers and their perfume but would get a better idea of what they looked like if they were allowed a hands-on experience, which is currently forbidden by the club’s license. (David Sapsted, Daily Telegraph (London), Sept. 26).

September 27-28 — Welcome Toronto Star readers. “One of my favourite Web sites is overlawyered.com, a collection of the most asinine stories from the admittedly ordinarily twisted universe of American law,” writes columnist Jason Brooks. He interviews our editor about a current proposal for Ontario to enact its own law emulating the Americans with Disabilities Act. No one seems to have any very clear idea what such a law would cost, but the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee says “the idea of a total cost figure misses the point.” Uh-oh…. (Jason Brooks, “Will new act go too far for the disabled?”, Toronto Star, Sept. 25).

September 27-28 — “Controversial drug makes a comeback”. A small Canadian firm, Duchesnay Inc., wants to reintroduce to the U.S. market Bendectin, the pregnancy-nausea drug driven off the market by mass litigation claiming that it caused birth defects. “Bendectin was the archetypical case of junk science scuttling a perfectly safe product,” Dr. Michael Greene, director of maternal-fetal medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, tells New York Times science correspondent Gina Kolata. “It was a sad episode in American jurisprudence.” Although ultimately the manufacturer never paid damages, it spent $100 million in defense costs, says Prof. David Bernstein of George Mason University (Sept. 26)(reg).

September 27-28 — Stuart Taylor, Jr. on Gore and Vetogate. Another scathing, must-read column on trial lawyers and politics by the National Journal columnist, written before Janet Reno’s announcement last week that the Justice Department would not pursue an investigation of the Umphrey call sheet affair. Did you know that lawyers as a group have donated nearly ten times as much to the Democrats during this election cycle as the tobacco industry has given Republicans? (“Gore’s Shameless About Posing As A Populist”, National Journal/Atlantic Unbound, Sept. 26) .

September 27-28 — Microsoft wins one. The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down a Justice Department request that it hear the Microsoft case immediately, instead allowing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the case, which is what the company preferred; past D.C. Circuit rulings suggest that it may be more sympathetic to Microsoft’s position than was the trial judge. (“High Court Defers to Microsoft”, AP/Wired News, Sept. 26; Declan McCullagh, “Microsoft gets what it wants”, Wired News, Sept. 26). And a number of courts have thrown out statewide consumer class actions against Microsoft based on the sale of Windows, although this doesn’t really come as much of a surprise in the case of states that bar indirect (end-user) antitrust claims, since cases filed in those courts were always long shots (Jonathan Groner, “The Cases Microsoft Is Winning”, Legal Times (Washington), Sept. 18).

September 27-28 — Bank error in your favor. Latest coins- found- under- the- sofa- cushions class action settlement: Wilmington, Del.-based credit card giant MBNA Corp. agrees to pay $3.57 each to current and former customers to settle claims that its ads were misleading in the early 1990s when they promoted a low interest rate for balances transferred from another card, but did not warn that the low rate did not apply to newly incurred charges. Lawyers for the plaintiff class, meanwhile, are set to pocket $1.3 million. Major credit card companies are frequent targets of class action litigation; Chase Manhattan and Providian Financial have recently settled such actions, and Citibank and Bank One/First USA face pending claims (Joseph N. DiStefano, “MBNA settles suit over card ads”, Philadelphia Inquirer, Sept. 26).

September 27-28 — Final innings for Kennewick Man. Score stands at archaeologists 0, multiculturalists 1, as Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt announces that the 9,000-year-old skeleton found along the Columbia River four years ago will be given to local Indian tribes, who intend to bury the remains without allowing a complete examination. “If Babbitt’s ruling stands, the loss to science is beyond comprehension,” writes National Review Online‘s John Miller (“Kennewick Man’s last stand”, Sept. 26; see also Oct. 11, 1999).

September 25-26 — New data on state campaign contributions. Triallawyermoney.org, the project of the American Tort Reform Foundation that tracks plaintiff lawyers’ political contributions, has just expanded its coverage to include local elections in seven key states as well as federal elections. The states include Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Texas; there is also a link to similar data collected by the Civil Justice Association of California (launched Sept. 19 — “State Races“).

September 25-26 — “Skier to be tried for manslaughter in Colorado in fatal collision”. Although two county courts ruled that a reasonable person would not have expected skiing too fast to result in another person’s death, prosecutors in Denver have insisted on pressing a manslaughter rap against Chico, Calif. college student Nathan Hall, who in 1997, at the age of 18, headed down Vail Mountain and collided with 33-year-old Denverite Alan Cobb on the slope, killing him almost instantly. (AP/CNN, Sept. 11). Update Nov. 21: Hall convicted of criminally negligent homicide.

September 25-26 — Wal-Mart’s tobacco exposure. Through a little-known subsidiary named McLane Co., the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer is the largest distributor of cigarettes to convenience stores, which makes it the biggest handler of that commodity aside from the tobacco companies themselves. Despite Wal-Mart’s deep pockets, plaintiff’s attorneys seem not to have noticed it yet. (Kelly Barron, “Smoking gun”, Forbes, Aug. 21) (see also July 7).

September 25-26 — A job offer for the judge. Following protests from defendants, Judge Edward Angeletti of Baltimore, Maryland Circuit Court removed himself from a series of asbestos-injury cases over which he was presiding and declared a mistrial after it was revealed that he had received a job offer from plaintiff’s attorney and political kingmaker Peter Angelos (see Oct. 19 and Dec. 9, 1999, March 15, 2000). According to AP/CNN, “Angelos has said that he made a ‘very substantial’ offer for Angeletti to head his office’s pursuit of lawsuits against lead paint manufacturers.” Angelos, who has become immensely wealthy through his handling of asbestos litigation, controls about three of every four asbestos cases in the Baltimore court. (“Job offer from lawyer leads judge to step down from asbestos trial”, AP/CNN, Aug. 1; “Judge removes himself from absbestos [sic] trials”, AP/Prince George’s County [Md.] Journal, Aug. 2)

September 25-26 — Kopel on zero-tolerance policies. Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant, & Joanne D. Eisen of the Independence Institute comment on the school zero-tolerance policies under which possession of an obvious toy gun — or sometimes just making a thumb-and-first-finger “gun” gesture — is considered grounds for punishment. (“Gunning for the Kiddies”, National Review Online, Sept. 22).

September 25-26 — Treaties rule. A federal judge in San Francisco has thrown out a lawsuit against Japanese defendants over World War II atrocities. In 1951 we signed a peace agreement with Japan which prohibited exactly these sorts of claims. Now we have to live up to our end of the treaty — period. (Louis Sahagun, “Suit on WWII Slave Labor in Japan Voided”, L.A. Times, Sept. 22; Reuters/FindLaw; see Sept. 20, 1999).

September 22-24 — “N.Y. Lawyer Charged in Immigrant Smuggling”. In a 44-count indictment, federal prosecutors on Wednesday charged the Manhattan lawyer who runs the country’s largest political asylum practice, Harvard Law-educated Robert Porges, with a wide range of offenses including concocting thousands of fictitious stories of persecution by which detained aliens could avoid deportation, advising smugglers how best to avoid detection by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and “helping smugglers detain illegal immigrants until debts were paid.” According to prosecutors, paralegals wrote out longhand accounts of persecution, claiming of women clients, for example, that they had suffered forced abortions under China’s “one-child” policy, and then coached the immigrants on how to carry off the story convincingly. Porges is said to have “collected as much as $13 million in fees for helping to transport as many as 7,000 illegal immigrants from mainland China to the United States”. (Hanna Rosin and Christine Haughney, Washington Post, Sept. 21). Update Sept. 21, 2003: Porges and wife sentenced in 2002 to about eight years.

September 22-24 — RN’s illusions. Ralph Nader campaigns on the theme that anti-business advocates like himself are somehow kept from circulating their message or swaying policy. Is he really so disconnected from reality as to think that? (Sebastian Mallaby, “Victim of His Success”, Washington Post, Sept. 17). Before you get too enthusiastic about the Greens, suggests James Lileks, take a look at their platform: “They want your money, your job, your freedom and your car.” (“A look at Nader and his merry Greens”, San Francisco Examiner, July 14). And since some Nader groups have proposed the setting aside of a new .sucks domain to express discontent with powerful institutions (ibm.sucks, mcdonalds.sucks, etc.) some Seattle libertarians have turned the tables by founding the rudely named but inevitable Nadersucks.org, which bills itself as the largest collection of critical links about him online, outpacing the “Nader Skeleton Closet” feature at Realchange.org.

Other links of note from a Nader-watcher’s scrapbook: Doug Henwood, “1.75 cheers for Ralph”, Left Business Observer, Oct. 1996; discussion on LBO mailing list re RN finances, Sept. 9, 1998; RN denounces tort reform in campaign press release, VoteNader.org, Aug. 11; Robert Bryce, “Naturally Nader”, Austin Chronicle, April 7; Mike Allen, “Nader: The Little Guy’s Multimillionaire” (worth $3.8 million, heavily invested in tech stocks, still refuses to reveal income tax records), Washington Post, June 18; Paul West, “Corporate gadfly turns out to be rich”, Baltimore Sun, June 17; Michael Lewis, “Campaign Journal: The Normal Person of Tomorrow”, The New Republic, May 20, 1996.

September 22-24 — From our mail sack: hyperactive lawyers. Reader Scott Replogle, M.D., writes from Colorado: “I see (Sept. 18) that trial lawyer Richard Scruggs is suing psychiatrists and the makers of the drug Ritalin, alleging they conspired to ‘create’ a disease, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, and then overdiagnose it for monetary gain. Which raises the question: when can we sue the people who not too long ago ‘created’ the previously unknown disorders of ‘silicone disease’ and ‘human adjuvant disease’ during the breast-implant controversy, and conspired to overdiagnose those diseases for monetary gain? And does it matter that many of those people were trial lawyers?” (see also April 13, 2001)

September 21 — Missouri tobacco fees. Lawyers stand to make $100 million or more for representing the state of Missouri in the Medicaid-tobacco litigation and the state’s largest newspaper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, says that sum “is out of proportion to the work performed and the risk involved … troubling … grossly overpays the lawyers involved … creates an unholy alliance between the state and tobacco interests” It’s also “a political gravy train” since “the five law firms involved in the case donated a total of more than $500,000 in campaign contributions over the past eight years, mostly to Democrats”; a prominent Republican former judge and Democratic former mayor of St. Louis were also cut in. “An important issue of public policy — the lawyers’ fees — will be determined outside the public forum” given that a secret arbitration proceeding will be employed to set the fees. “…It is private money in the public trough. But that doesn’t make the sight of the lawyers lining up to feed any prettier.” (“All aboard the gravy train” (editorial), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 17).

Brent Evans, a state senate candidate in Missouri, has posted extensive documentation on the circumstances surrounding state attorney general Jay Nixon’s hiring of outside lawyers to prosecute the suit. According to Evans, the lawyers’ campaign contributions of $561,000 included $139,000 for Nixon himself and $113,000 for Democratic Gov. Mel Carnahan (“The Tobacco Papers“; the lawyers; their generosity; the work they might have done to justify the fees; “Attorneys mum about how much they’re seeking” (fee request “confidential”), Jefferson City News-Tribune, April 26, 1999; Jack Cashill, “Warning: Tobacco Settlements May Endanger The Integrity of Your Elected Officials” (also discusses Kansas fees), Cashill.com, undated 1999; “Appeals court sides with Nixon on legal fees in tobacco settlement”, Jefferson City News-Tribune, May 31, 2000; James Baughn, The Cape Rock webzine (Cape Girardeau, Mo.), June).

Last year Missouri Digital News reported that Paul Wilson, lead attorney on the matter with AG Nixon’s office, “urged lawmakers to pass legislation that will protect the major tobacco companies from a market-share loss once the impact of the tobacco settlement sets in. Off-brand cigarette companies, those not participating in the settlement, could otherwise undercut the prices of the major tobacco companies. Missouri will keep getting its billions so long as the market share of the signatories does not dip below 95 percent. If it were to do so and Missouri had no off-brand tobacco law, explained Wilson, the terms of the settlement let the major tobacco companies stop paying.” (Anna Brutzman, “Legislators Bewildered By Settlement”, April 4, 1999). Update Oct. 5, 2003: Missouri Supreme Court refuses to entertain challenge to tobacco fees.

September 21 — Dangerous divorce opponents. It’s tough enough going through a divorce in any case, but you’d really better watch out if your spouse is a successful lawyer, according to the New York Post. Advice: try for a change of venue. (Laura Williams, “Attorneys’ Wives Court Disaster”, Sept. 20).

September 21 — Eastwood trial begins. Jurors will hear an Americans with Disabilities Act complaint against the actor’s Mission Ranch hotel in Carmel. For our coverage of the Eastwood case and related Congressional hearings, see May 18, March 7, Feb. 15 and Jan. 26. (“Eastwood to Jurors: ‘Make My Day'”, AP/Fox News, Sept. 20; Shannon Lafferty, “Eastwood in the Line of Fire,” The Recorder/CalLaw, Sept. 21).

May 2000 archives, part 3


May 31 — From our mail sack: ADA enforcement vignettes. Reader Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity tells us that every month or so he visits the Department of Justice to pore over the new batch of publicly released enforcement letters from the department’s Civil Rights Division. Although the letters are made available by the Department in such a way that parties in the disputes are not individually identifiable, they do provide insight into current enforcement priorities and trends. A few highlights that Roger passes on from letters issued by DoJ regarding the enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act:

“The Civil Rights Division’s Disability Rights Section has in the last month or so sent a lot of letters to doctors’ offices on behalf of hearing-impaired patients complaining that the doctors don’t have interpreters (a couple of the offices didn’t understand why the doctor and patient couldn’t just write notes to each other) [see also Sept. 29-Oct. 1].

* “A dance studio got a DOJ letter when it refused to continue giving lessons to a student who was prompting complaints from other students’ parents because accommodating her took up so much class time.

“Other interesting issues prompting DOJ letters:

* “A cruise ship that refused to let a blind person on board for a trip unless he had a medical note stating he could safely travel alone;

* “An HIV-positive student who demanded an air-conditioned classroom;

* “A blind person who wasn’t allowed into a doctor’s office because in the past other patients had had an allergic reaction to his guide dog; and

* “A truly tragic case — a man with a ‘manual disability’ who could not pull the trigger on a gun.”

May 31 — Jumped ahead, by court order. A Delaware court has found that Christiana Care Health Services breached its contract with Ahmad Bali, MD, when it demoted him from third-year to second-year resident. Rather than simply allot monetary damages to Dr. Bali for the trouble and expense of having been held back needlessly at the second-year stage, the court took the more unusual step of ordering the hospital to accord him fourth-year residency status as if he’d completed the third-year program. The result is to put him in the same place he’d be if not for the hospital’s earlier breach, which is certainly one kind of fairness for which the law sometimes strives. But what if third-year residency isn’t simply a re-run of second-year, but involves the acquisition of distinctive skills? (Miles J. Zaremski, “Delaware court reinstates terminated resident”, American Medical News, March 20).

May 31 — Columnist-fest. More opinions worth considering:

* Paul Campos weighs in on the “pink-skirt” case, in which a transgendered employee of a Boulder, Colo. bagel shop is suing because its owner wouldn’t let him wear that girlish item of apparel on the job (“The strange land of identity politics”, Rocky Mountain News, May 16; Matt Sebastian, “Bagel shop wouldn’t let him wear pink dress [sic], so he sues”, Scripps Howard News Service, May 11).

* Big American companies whose German operations were seized by the Nazi regime and run with forced labor are now coming under legal pressure to pay “reparations”. “If we Jews care about justice and retribution, we should not take this money,” argues Sam Schulman of Jewish World Review. “It is tainted — tainted with innocence. And taking money from the innocent blurs the line between innocence and guilt.” (“Some Reparations Money is Better Left on the Table”, Jewish World Review, May 18). An earlier Schulman column examines the drift of the campaigns against the Swiss and the Austrians away from the aim of individualized justice for expropriated families and toward the expiation of inherited national guilt by way of large transfer payments. (“David Irving’s Mirror for the Jews”, May 2).

* Rachelle Cohen of the Boston Herald can’t help wondering: does Massachusetts really need to spend tax money setting up a state-sponsored law school? (“Must taxpayers pay to create more lawyers?”, May 24).

May 30 — You were negligent to hire me. “A former Escondido school district administrator who resigned two years ago after revelations of a 1963 rape-related conviction won a $255,000 jury verdict yesterday against Superintendent Nicolas Retana and the district.” Thirty-four years previously, at age 17, William Zamora had been convicted in New Mexico of assault with intent to rape, serving two years in prison and later being pardoned by the governor. When he applied for an $88,000/year administrative job in 1997 with the district near San Diego, he failed to disclose his long-ago conviction on his employment application, later saying he thought the pardon had wiped his record clean. But an FBI fingerprint check turned it up, and Zamora resigned at once: a California law passed the previous year forbade school districts to hire persons with felony sex convictions. He then proceeded to sue the district and supervisor, contending that if they “had done their jobs properly… they would have waited until the crime check came back before hiring him,” and charging that his privacy had been invaded when Retana conversed with an Albuquerque school board member about the conviction. Last week a jury awarded him $15,000 on the negligent hiring claim and $240,000 on the invasion of privacy claim. “Superior Court Judge Lisa Guy-Schall kept jurors from hearing the details of Zamora’s conviction, in which he pleaded guilty. She said she didn’t want to preside over a mini-trial of events that happened 37 years ago.” (Onell R. Soto, “Ex-administrator wins $255,000 verdict against Escondido schools chief, district”, San Diego Union-Tribune, May 24; and earlier Union-Tribune coverage, May 17, May 21, 1999; May 20, 1999).

May 30 — Illegal to talk about drugs? The so-called Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, which has been moving rapidly through Congress with relatively little public outcry, would make it a felony punishable by ten years in prison “to teach or demonstrate to any person the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance,” knowing or intending that a recipient will use the information in violation of the law. The aim is to shut down the publishing of books, magazines and websites that furnish information on drug manufacture or use, such as High Times magazine and Lycaeum.org. The prohibition on “distribut[ing]” such information “to any person, by any means” could make it unlawful even to post a weblink to offshore sites of this nature. Another provision of the bill would make it a crime to “directly or indirectly advertise for sale” drugs or drug paraphernalia — and whatever the peculiar phrase “indirectly advertise” may mean in practice, it’s probably not good news for the First Amendment. A Washington Post editorial calls the provisions “overly broad” and “so vague as to threaten legitimate speech”: “The mere dissemination of information, especially without specific intent to further crime, seems within the bounds of free speech protections.”

SOURCES: “The Anti-Meth Bill” (editorial), Washington Post, May 26; Amy Worden, “House Bill Would Ban Drug Instructions”, APBNews, May 10; Declan McCullagh, “Bill criminalizes drug links”, Wired News, May 9; Jake Halpern, “Intentional Foul”, The New Republic, April 10; “Senate panel considers ban on Internet drug recipes”, AP/Freedom Forum, July 29, 1999; Debbi Gardiner and Declan McCullagh, “Reefer Madness Hits Congress”, Wired News, Aug. 6, 1999; J. T. Tuccille, “Shall make no law”, About.com Civil Liberties, Aug. 15, 1999; Phillip Taylor, “Marijuana activists denounce proposed ban of drug recipes”, Freedom Forum, Jan. 6.

May 30 — Won’t pay for set repairs. Orkin, the pest control company, is declining to compensate two consumers who’ve requested that it pay for fixing their TV sets after they attacked unusually convincing simulations of cockroaches that ran across the screen in its ads. The company says a Tampa, Fla., woman tried to kill the insect by throwing a motorcycle helmet at her set, while another man damaged his set by throwing a shoe at it. (“‘I felt really stupid': Orkin cockroach commmercial has some viewers fooled “, AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 6).

May 30 — Welcome San Jose Mercury News visitors. At Silicon Valley’s hometown paper, columnist John Murrell (“Minister of Information”) proposes this among sites “for your weekend Web wandering pleasure … your darkest visions of out-of-control litigiousness will be confirmed”. (May 26 entry). The weblog at uJoda.com (“From My Desktop”), where you can pick up Macintosh icons and graphics, reports that its author “found a great site called overlawyered.com, though not eye candy, it is rich in content” (May 6 entry). The pro-Second Amendment Fulton Armory featured us as their site of the week a couple of weeks ago, and we’ve also been linked recently by the Australian Public Law page maintained by the law faculty at the Northern Territory University, down under (“Not much to do with public law but we couldn’t help ourselves,” they explain re including us); by the Smith Center for Private Enterprise, a free-market think tank at Cal State, Hayward; by ClaimsPages.com, which offers a vast array of insurance-oriented links; and by the website of attorney Jule R. Herbert, Jr. of Alabama’s Gulf Coast, among many others.

May 26-29 — “Dame Edna’s Gladioli Toss Lands in Court”. “Dame Edna Everage”, the character created by Australian comedian Barry Humphries (website, B’way show), makes a custom of ending her show by flinging gladioli to the crowd, but now a man has hired a Melbourne law firm to undertake legal action, saying a stem of one of the large flowers struck him in the eye. 49-year-old singing teacher Gary May is “seeking unspecified damages for pain and suffering, loss of income and medical expenses.” (Reuters/Excite, May 25, lnk now dead). Last year (see Dec. 7) NBC’s “Tonight Show with Jay Leno” was sued by an audience member who says he was injured by one of the free t-shirts propelled into the crowd.

May 26-29 — “Skydivers don’t sue”. Lively Usenet discussion last month and this among skydiving enthusiasts (rec.skydiving) over recent lawsuits in the sport. In one, Canadian skydiving acrobat Gerry Dyck is suing teammate Robert Laidlaw over a 1991 accident during an eight-man stunt jump near Calgary in which Dyck was knocked unconscious and severely hurt on landing. (Jeffrey Jones, “Canadian skydiver sues teammate for mid-air crash”, San Jose Mercury News, April 24, no longer online). The other followed the death of James E. Martin, Jr., a Hemet, Calif. dentist and veteran of more than 5,000 jumps who perished when a line snagged on his parachute, his fifth time out on that gear. Now his widow’s suing the gear maker, Fliteline Systems of Lake Elsinore, Calif.; vice president Mick Cottle of Fliteline, the first defendant named in the suit, says Martin was a “close friend”. “Few lawsuits over sky diving deaths ever reach judgment,” reports the Riverside Press-Enterprise. And “most makers of sky-diving gear do not carry liability insurance, which reduces the likelihood of plaintiffs gaining a settlement.” About 32 sky-diving deaths occur annually in the U.S., of which about five lead to lawsuits, according to one frequent expert witness in the field; he estimates that plaintiffs have won only 1 or 2 percent of cases he’s seen, though it’s unclear whether he’s including settlements in that estimate. (Guy McCarthy, “Lawsuit blames gear in sky diver’s death”, Riverside Press-Enterprise, May 8, link now dead; Remarq saved thread; Deja.com archive, recent search on “lawsuit” — hundreds of posts in all)

May 26-29 — Insurers fret over online privacy suits. The wave of lawsuits against Yahoo!, DoubleClick and others for privacy sins has insurance companies “concerned they will have to pay for potentially massive torts they didn’t anticipate” in liability policies they’ve written for the dot-com sector. “‘If it’s not the next really big issue, it’s one of the next big issues where we can expect a lot of litigation,’ said Thomas R. Cornwell, VP of the technology insurance group” for insurer Chubb. “Plaintiff’s attorneys are honing their skills and preparing for a boom in such lawsuits,” reports the magazine Business Insurance in its May 22 lead story. “‘Just as the Internet itself is a growth area, Internet law is being recognized as a growth area within the legal profession,’ said David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. The nonprofit organization supports plaintiff lawsuits on Internet privacy.” “My guess is that now that the blood is in the water there will be a lot of plaintiffs’ attorneys sniffing it up,” said one lawyer who’s sued Yahoo. (Roberto Ceniceros, “Internet privacy liability growing”, Business Insurance, May 22, fee-based archives). Expect the cost of securing liability insurance for an Internet launch to rise accordingly.

May 26-29 — Suits by household pets? “Somewhere out there — maybe in a Boston zoo or a Fresno research lab — a Bonzo or Fido is biding his time, deceptively peeling a banana or playing dead, quietly getting ready to sue his master,” writes Claire Cooper of the Sacramento Bee. As animal-rights courses proliferate at law schools, activists are quietly looking for test cases in which to assert the singular new notion of standing for nonhuman creatures — with themselves as the designated legal representatives, needless to say. (“Pets suing their masters? Stay tuned, advocates say”, May 13). In March the Seattle Times profiled the Great Apes Legal Project, which views the non-human primate kingdom as plausible rights-bearing clients. This provoked a letter from reader David Storm of Everett, who said the article was “very interesting, but the goal doesn’t go far enough. In addition, we should declare the apes to be lawyers, which would simultaneously improve our legal system.” (Alex Tizon, “Cadre of lawyers working to win rights for apes”, Seattle Times, March 19; letters, March 21). See also Roger Bryant Banks, “Animal Dogma”, SpinTech (online), May 12, on the question: if Chimp v. Zoo is a good case, why not also Chimp v. Chimp, following incidents of violence or harassment?

May 26-29 — EPA’s high courtroom loss rate. Most federal agencies win most of the time when their regulatory decisionmaking is challenged in federal court, but the Environmental Protection Agency in recent years has been a glaring exception, losing a large share of the cases it has defended, including high-profile battles over electric car mandates, gasoline reformulation, and Clean Water Act permit-granting, among many others. Why does it fare so badly? Jonathan Adler of the Competitive Enterprise Institute thinks one reason is that agency policymakers adopt extreme legal positions, partly due to unclear authorizing statutes, partly due to zealousness among political appointees at the top. “Environmental Performance at the Bench: The EPA’s Record in Federal Court”, Reason Public Policy Institute, Policy Study #269; “EPA in Need of Adult Supervision”, CEI Update, March 1; Adler’s home page. Ben Lieberman, also of CEI, calls attention to one of the more unusual confrontations the EPA has gotten into of late: its crackdown on coal-burning utilities has led it into a showdown with the government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority, which means it’s the feds versus the feds. (“EPA’s tug at TVA’s power”, May 19, no longer online).

May 26-29 — Ready to handle your legal needs. Stephen Glass, who resigned in disgrace from The New Republic just over two years ago after being caught making up stories, is graduating this month from Georgetown Law School. The Pop View has posted this summary of the episode for anyone who’s forgotten (via Romenesko’s Media News).

May 25 — Conference on excessive legal fees. In Washington today from 10 to 4 Eastern, the Manhattan Institute, Federalist Society, Hudson Institute and Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. team up to host a conference on ideas for “protecting unsophisticated consumers, class action members, and taxpayers/citizens” from overreaching legal fees (schedule and confirmed speakers at Federalist Society site; live broadcast at U.S. Chamber site requires RealPlayer).

May 25 — Thomas the Tank Engine, derailed. “Children’s online privacy”: the sort of sweetness-and-light notion practically no one’s willing to criticize in principle. Yet regulation is regulation, and seldom lacking in real-world bite. Declan McCullagh at Wired News reports that the popular children’s TV show Thomas the Tank Engine has had to discontinue sending regular email bulletins to legions of young fans because obtaining parental consent individually would be too cumbersome. The show’s website cites the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which took effect last month. Other online publishers are also unilaterally cutting off subscribers under the age of 12, to their distress. (“COPPA Lets Steam Out of Thomas”, May 13; Lynn Burke, “Kid’s Privacy an Act, or Action?”, April 20).

May 25 — “Taking cash into custody”. Local law enforcement agencies systematically dodge the constraints of state forfeiture law to help themselves to proceeds after seizing cash and property in traffic stops and drug busts, according to this Kansas City Star investigation. And though Congress’s enactment of federal-level forfeiture law reform was much trumpeted earlier this year (see April 13, Jan. 31), it’s likely to leave many of the abuses unchecked. (Karen Dillon, Kansas City Star, series May 19-20).

May 25 — What the French think of American harassment law. Pretty much what you’d expect: “Fifteen years after the first harassment trials, puritanism in the office is total,” marvels the New York correspondent of a French paper named Liaisons Sociales. “A suggestive calendar in a man’s locker? Prohibited. Below-the-belt jokes? Totally excluded. Comments about physique? Illegal. The result is that behavior in the workplace has been profoundly changed. The doors of offices are always open. The secretaries are always present during tete-a-tete meetings, in case they need to be witnesses in litigation.” A few feminist French lawyers would like to emulate the American way of doing things but lament that in their country litigation is frowned on, damages are set at a token level, and, as one complains, “current French law makes no mention of things like improper jokes”. (Vivienne Walt, “Curbing Workplace Sexism Evolving Slowly in France,” New York Times, May 24 (reg)). Plus: chief exec of leading British fashion chain canned after inappropriate conduct (Fraser Nelson and Tim Fraser, “Pat on the bottom costs boss £1m job” Sunday Times (London), May 10).

May 25 — His wayward clients. In March, in 275 pages of court filings, Allstate, Geico and other insurers filed a lawsuit charging what they called “the most extensive fraud upon the New York no-fault system that has ever been uncovered,” suing 47 doctors, chiropractors and businessmen all told. But the complaint did not name as a defendant a lawyer who’s given legal advice or assistance to just about every one of those 47 defendants; he’s a former chairman of the State Bar Association’s health committee who rents office space in a politically connected law firm. Among his specialties is to assist chiropractors and others in getting around a New York rule that no one can own a medical practice other than a licensed doctor. The complaint says a Milford, Conn. physician who holds a license to practice medicine in New York had served as the front guy for no fewer than 29 medical practices in the state. (Glenn Thrush, “Black Belt Lawyer Robert B orsody Evades $57 Million Fraud Lawsuit”, New York Observer, March 20).

May 24 — Musical chairs disapproved. “The traditional children’s party game of musical chairs has been accused of breeding violence,” reports the BBC. A booklet produced under the auspices of the British education ministry by a group called the Forum on Children and Violence argues that the diversion rewards the “strongest and fastest” children and suggests that nursery schools consider an alternative game such as “musical statues”. The education spokeswoman for the opposition Tories, Theresa May, called the advice “political correctness gone mad”. (“Musical chairs ‘too violent'”, BBC News, May 23).

May 24 — After the great power-line panic. Eleven years ago reporter Paul Brodeur penned a series of articles for The New Yorker charging that electric power-line fields were causing childhood cancers and other ailments, later published as a book entitled Currents of Death. Trial lawyers promptly went on the warpath, and the resulting binge of scare publicity terrified countless parents. Hundreds of millions in litigation costs later, the suits have mostly fizzled. But have any lessons been learned? Forbes reprints an excerpt from Robert L. Park’s much-discussed new book, “Voodoo Science” (Oxford U. Press). (“Voodoo Science and the Power-Line Panic”, May 15). Among groups that stoked the panic were Trial Lawyers for Public Justice: see, e.g., “Names in the News: Kilovolt Cancer”, Multinational Monitor, March 1992 (second item, quoting TLPJ’s Michael Koskoff).

May 24 — Smudged plumage. The Baltimore Orioles, owned by trial lawyer zillionaire/political kingmaker Peter Angelos, say that in order not to threaten the “goodwill” arising from their exhibition performance against the Cuban national team last year (see Dec. 9, Oct. 19 commentaries), they’ll refuse to hire any baseball player who defects from Cuba. Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity calls this stand “morally indefensible — telling those fleeing a totalitarian regime that they are unwelcome and unemployable” — and wonders how well it accords with the federal laws banning employment discrimination on the basis of national origin and lawful-immigrant status. Maybe the team could beat such charges by arguing that it has nothing against Cuban émigrés based on their national origin as such — it might hire them, after all, if they were loyal Castroites playing with Fidel’s approval. (“Peter Angelos in foul territory”, National Review Online, May 18; “Orioles Avoid Cuban Players Who Have Defected”, Reuters/Yahoo, May 17, link now dead).

May 24 — ADA & the web: sounding the alarm. “It’s simply a matter of (Internet) time before pitched battles over accommodations in the virtual world rival their physical counterparts,” writes MIT’s Michael Schrage (“Brave New Work: E-Commodating the Disabled in the Workplace”, Fortune, May 15; quotes our editor). The National Federation of the Blind’s recent lawsuit against AOL is “a 500-pound gorilla that party-goers can’t ignore,” according to a metaphor-happy lawyer with Morrison & Foerster. “…If the court rules that AOL is a public accommodation, it could require anyone engaging in e-commerce to make their Web site …accessible to people with disabilities.” (Ritchenya A. Shepherd, “Net Rights for the Disabled?”, National Law Journal, Nov. 15, 1999). “In a few years, if regulatory history is repeated, any Web site that doesn’t provide government-sanctioned equal access for the handicapped could be declared illegal,” warns an Internet Week columnist (Bill Frezza, “The ADA Stalks The Internet: Is Your Web Page Illegal?”, Feb. 28). Coming soon, we hope: a few highlights from the mail we’ve been inundated with on this topic, much of which we haven’t even had a chance to answer yet (thanks for your patience, correspondents!).

May 24 — Bargain price on The Excuse Factory. Usually we urge you to buy books through our online bookstore, but right now Laissez Faire Books is offering an unbeatable discount on our editor’s book about law and what it’s doing to the American workplace, The Excuse Factory, just $12.25 while they last (hardcover, too). And it makes a good occasion to check out the rest of the LFB catalogue. (Order direct from them.)

May 23 — Steering the evidence. The FBI is probing charges of evidence- and witness-tampering in a liability case that led a San Antonio judge last week to impose sanctions on plaintiff’s attorneys Robert Kugle, Andrew Toscano and Robert “Trey” Wilson. Bridgett and Juan Fabila had sued DaimlerChrysler, demanding $2 billion, over a 1996 accident in Mexico which killed several family members in their Dodge Neon. Their lawyers alleged that the car’s steering column decoupler was defective. But someone anonymously sent DaimlerChrysler evidence of misconduct by its adversaries, and eventually the carmaker succeeded in laying before 224th District Judge David Peeples evidence of the following:

* The steering decoupler was broken by the time the carmaker was allowed to see it, but photographs taken shortly after the accident showed it intact. The plaintiff’s lawyers denied for two years having any knowledge of such photos, and then, when they came to light, moved unilaterally to drop the suit, then argued (unsuccessfully) that the judge had no authority to impose sanctions on them because his jurisdiction ended with the suit. Close inspection of the steering decoupler revealed the minute scrapings of wrench marks and other signs of deliberate tampering.

* One of the attorneys’ investigators “tried to bribe two Mexican highway patrol officers in an attempt to change their testimony and threatened the family of a Red Cross official who said Fabila told him the accident had occurred because her husband fell asleep behind the wheel.”

* The “investigator who took the first set of photographs claim[ed] Wilson told him in March that his firm was ‘running a bluff, but we had our hand called.'” The lawyers said later that their real demand was for $75 million, of which they would get 40 percent as their share, according to the San Antonio paper’s Rick Casey.

Senior partner Robert Kugle of the Kugle Law Firm counter-accused the car company of itself bribing witnesses and tampering with evidence, while Wilson and investigator Stephen Garza “both asserted their Fifth Amendment right not to testify”. After an inquiry, Judge Peeples dismissed the Fabila family’s suit with prejudice, ordered attorneys Kugle, Toscano and Wilson to pay $920,000 in legal expenses that DaimlerChrysler had incurred — it’s not quite impossible for a defendant to recover its legal costs in an American courtroom — and said he planned to report his findings to the state bar and to county prosecutors for possible action. The FBI has seized the vehicle pursuant to further investigation, according to Casey. Kugle continues to declare his innocence of wrongdoing and says he intends to appeal; the other two attorneys were not available to reporters for comment. Ken Glucksman, associate general counsel of DaimlerChrysler, said the case was “the most flagrant example of misconduct I’ve seen in more than 20 years as a lawyer” and said he hoped the attorneys were disbarred. Update: final ruling by judge sets stage for appeal (June 26). Further update (Mar. 17, 2003).

SOURCES: Adolfo Pesquera, “Sanctions issued in tampering case”, San Antonio Express-News, May 18; San Antonio Express-News coverage by Rick Casey, various dates; “Judge Dismisses $2 Bln Suit vs. Daimler”, Reuters/FindLaw, May 18; “DaimlerChrysler wins $920,489 in fines against three Texas attorneys”, AP/Detroit Free Press, May 18; Dina ElBoghdady, “DaimlerChrysler fights baseless suits”, Detroit News, May 19; “Lawyers who sued DC fined”, Detroit Free Press, May 19, link now dead.

May 23 — “Toronto Torch” age-bias suit. Shirley Zegil, 52, has filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, saying she was improperly discharged by a Brantford strip club because of her age. “They told me I was too old and fat,” said Zegil, who has been disrobing for audiences for more than two decades and performs under the nicknames “The Contessa” and “Toronto Torch”. But she still has plenty of loyal fans among older clubgoers: “A girl is never too old to strip,” she says. (Dale Brazao, “Stripper, 52, a winner in my court of appeal”, Toronto Star, May 22, no longer online).

May 23 — Favorite bookmark. Edward E. Potter is president of the Employment Policy Foundation, which plays a prominent role in debates on workplace issues in the nation’s capital. Yesterday the Cincinnati Enquirer asked him to list his favorite bookmarks, and this site made it onto the short list. Thanks! (“Weighing future of work force” (interview), May 22).

May 23 — “Lawyers’ tobacco-suit fees invite revolt”. Arbitrators’ award of $265 million to Ohio tobacco lawyers was the final straw for editors of USA Today, which came out editorially yesterday in favor of limiting attorneys’ tobacco swag. Fee hauls have mounted to $10.4 billion, including $3.4 billion for lawyers representing Florida, $3.3 billion (Texas), $1.4 billion (Mississippi), and $575 million (Louisiana), the latter of which works out, according to a dissenting arbitrator, to $6,700 an hour. The paper calls the “mega-paydays” a “sorry legacy” of the tobacco deal and notes that lawyers “who represented many states are being paid repeatedly for piggyback efforts.” (May 22).

May 23 — “Harvard reenacts Jesus trial”. Among dramatis personae in simulated trial of founder of Christianity: divinity prof Harvey Cox as Pontius Pilate and, as defense lawyer for the man of Galilee, none other than Alan Dershowitz, who “said the role fulfilled a lifelong dream. ‘Jesus is the one client I’ve always wished I could have represented,’ said the law professor whose clients have included O.J. Simpson, Claus von Bulow and Leona Helmsley”. Arguing that crucifixion was too severe a penalty for defying Roman authorities, Dershowitz “came up with a novel substitute punishment. ‘I think it would be appropriate to tie him in litigation and appeals for years,” he said. ‘That way he would spend his life with lawyers, whom he hated.'” (Richard Higgins, Boston Globe/Omaha World Herald, May 13).

May 22 — Texas tobacco fees. “Every three months, like clockwork, another $25 million arrives for the five Texas tobacco lawyers.” The five are fighting tooth and nail to avoid being put under oath by Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, a Republican, about how they came by that money, specifically, “longtime allegations that his predecessor, Dan Morales, solicited large sums of money from lawyers he considered hiring” for the state’s tobacco case. (Wayne Slater, “Trial lawyers give heavily to Democrats”, Dallas Morning News, May 14; Clay Robison, “Cornyn moves in on anti-tobacco lawyers”, Houston Chronicle, April 27; Susan Borreson, “Motions Flying Again Over Tobacco Lawyers’ Fees”, Texas Lawyer, July 26, 1999; “Lawyers Challenge AG’s Subpoenas”, Nov. 17, 1999).

So far, according to the Dallas Morning News report, the five have taken in more than $400 million of the billions they expect eventually from the tobacco settlement, and have recycled a goodly chunk of that change into political donations — more than $2.2 million in unrestricted soft money to the Democrats already in this election cycle, with further sums expected. Walter Umphrey, along with members of his Beaumont firm, “has put at least $350,000 into Democratic coffers. ‘The only hope of the Democratic Party is that the trial lawyers nationwide dig down deep and the labor unions do the same thing,’ he said. In addition to Mr. Umphrey and his firm, John Eddie Williams and members of his Houston firm have given $720,000; Harold Nix of Daingerfield, $420,000; Wayne Reaud of Beaumont, $250,000; and John O’Quinn of Houston, $100,000.”

May 22 — Not child’s father, must pay anyway. “Told by his girlfriend that she was pregnant, Bill Neal of Glasgow Village presumed he was the father and agreed to pay child support.” Eight years and $8,000 in payments later, Neal was curious why the child didn’t take after his looks, arranged for a DNA test to be done, and discovered the boy was someone else’s. So far the courts have ruled that he has to keep paying anyway because he didn’t contest the matter earlier. The legal system is big on finality on the matter of paternity, as men have learned to their misfortune in similar cases lately in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. (Tim Bryant, “Man must pay support even though he is not boy’s father”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 17, no longer online). Plus: John Tierney on “throwaway dads” (“An Imbalance in the Battle Over Custody”, New York Times, April 29 (requires registration)).

May 22 — “Jury Awards Apparent Record $220,000 for Broken Finger”. It happened in Atlanta after 41-year-old dental hygienist Linda K. Powers took a spin on the dance floor with Mike D. Lastufka but came to grief when Lastufka “tried a shag-style spin move”; her thumb wound up broken and she sued him. The previously reported Georgia record for a broken finger or thumb was $20,000 to a tennis instructor hurt in an auto accident. (Trisha Renaud, Fulton County Daily Report, Jan. 28).

May 22 — Annals of zero tolerance. In Canton, Ohio, a six-year-old boy has been suspended from school for sexual harassment after he jumped from the tub where he was being given a bath and waved out the window to a school bus that was picking up his sister (Lori Monsewicz, “Boy, 6, jumps from tub into sex harassment trouble”, Canton Repository, May 11). In the latest “finger-gun” incident, the principal of a Boston elementary school visited a class of second-graders to admonish several of them for making the thumb-as-trigger gesture during a supervised play-acting session; the youngsters were not subjected to discipline, however. (Ed Hayward, “School gives hands-on lesson after kids pull ‘finger guns'”, Boston Herald, March 28). And the American Bar Association Journal — who says its views don’t coincide with ours occasionally? — points out that “a child is three times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed violently at school” and recounts many noteworthy cases: “A second-grader who accidentally grabbed her mother’s lunch bag containing a steak knife was disciplined despite turning the bag over to her teacher as soon as she realized her mistake. A middle-schooler who shared her asthma inhaler on the school bus with a classmate experiencing a wheezing attack was suspended for drug trafficking.” “Kids are not going to respect teachers and administrators who cannot appreciate the difference between a plastic knife and a switchblade,” says Virginia lawyer Diane Fener. (Margaret Graham Tebo, “Zero tolerance, zero sense”, ABA Journal, April).

May 2000 archives


May 10 — Another billion, snuffed. You don’t have to be a Microsoft shareholder to wonder whether antitrust law has become a destabilizing influence on the business world. In late March a Paducah, Ky. federal jury ordered U.S. Tobacco, the number one maker of snuff and chewing tobacco, to pay a staggering $1.05 billion to its smaller competitor Conwood in an antitrust dispute. UST, whose annual sales are $1.5 billion — meaning that the verdict equals the entire gross revenue it takes in over eight months of a year — makes such brands as Skoal and Copenhagen, while Conwood manufactures the Kodiak brand. The finding of $350 million in damages will be automatically trebled under antitrust law if not overturned. “Both companies accused each other of removing display racks from stores, making under-the-table cash rebates to win retailers and holding strategy sessions to plot out how to eliminate the other from the lucrative retail-checkout market.” (No! Not strategy sessions!) In addition, “Conwood attorneys accused U.S. Tobacco of spreading rumors that Conwood’s snuff contained stems and was stale.” (“U.S. Tobacco Co. Faces $1.05B Payout”, AP/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 29; Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, “US tobacco group faces possible $1bn payout”, Financial Times, March 30)

May 10 — Court okays suit against “flagging” of test conditions. In San Francisco, federal judge William Orrick Jr. has rejected a motion to dismiss a case in which Oakland-based Disability Rights Advocates is suing the Educational Testing Service, charging that it’s discriminatory for ETS to “flag” test scores taken under special conditions. “Accommodations” such as extra or unlimited time, the right to have questions explained, and the right to use calculators have become common in recent years following the aggressive use of disabled-rights law by test-takers; in a majority of cases the operative diagnosis is not a traditional disability such as blindness or paraplegia, but one such as learning disability or attention deficit disorder. If the lawsuit succeeds in banishing the loathed asterisk, test-takers will win the right to conceal from downstream institutions, such as medical schools and employers, the fact that a particular result was achieved with extra time or other assistance. (Michael Breen, “ETS Discrimination Case Goes Forward”, The Recorder/CalLaw, April 14).

DRA director of litigation Sid Wolinsky is also representing parents in a challenge to the state of Oregon’s refusal to allow test-takers to use automatic spell-check on statewide exams. “I see an enormous amount of potential litigation” ahead on such issues, he says. In Woburn, Mass., some special-needs students are given the whole day to complete a writing exam normally administered in ninety minutes, another indication that “two national movements [are] on a collision course: disability rights and educational standards.” (Daniel Golden, “Meet Edith, 16; She Plans to Spell-Check Her State Writing Test”, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 21 (fee-based archive)).

May 10 — This side of parodies. Infant wins one-billionth-litigant prize as America adopts as new motto “It’s not my fault” (Paul Campos, “Everyone suits up for latest litigation”, Rocky Mountain News, May 2). Grim news you always feared about “gateway sodas”: (“Mountain Dew Users May Go On To Use Harder Beverages”, The Onion, April 26). And the colorless, odorless, tasteless industrial solvent and prominent component in acid rain that kills thousands of people each year, most through inhalation but also from withdrawal symptoms given its evident addictiveness. Contamination is reaching epidemic levels — the horror must be stopped! (“Ban dihydrogen monoxide!”, Donald Simanek site, undatedstored Google search).

May 9 — Mother’s Day special: Arizona unwanted-birth trial. At a trial under way in Phoenix, Ruth Ann Burns is suing her family physician and obstetrician for failing to diagnose her pregnancy as early as they should have. She says she’d have aborted her two-year-old toddler Nicholas had she known in time that he was on the way, though he is perfectly healthy and she claims to dote on him now. The doctors say Burns herself didn’t think she was pregnant when she first sought medical attention and say when the pregnancy was discovered she still had time to pursue an abortion, but chose not to. (Senta Scarborough, “Doctors sued for unwanted pregnancy”, Arizona Republic, May 4). A columnist for the Arizona Republic wonders what the boy will think when he grows up and learns that his mother swore out oaths as to his unwanted, impositional nature (E.J. Montini, “Unwanted boy blooms in the future”, May 7).

May 9 — Not with our lives you don’t. More evidence that rank-and-file police aren’t happy about Clintonites’ scheme to skew city gun procurement to punish manufacturers that don’t capitulate to lawsuits (see April 14-16). Many cities presently allow officers a choice of which gun to carry, and Smith & Wesson hasn’t been a popular choice in recent years. “Local officials acknowledge they are reluctant to risk hurting morale by ending officers’ ability to choose their weapon,” the news-side Wall Street Journal reports — “morale” being a bit of a dodge here, since the risks at issue go beyond the merely psychological. In Flint, Mich., the mayor has asked the police department to buy S&Ws, “but the chief’s firearm experts have rated the Sig Sauer as more durable and accurate, and the police rank-and-file prefer the better-known and easier-to-shoot Glock.” Miami-Dade is “considering offering a $100 rebate for selecting a Smith & Wesson”, in effect establishing the kind of experiment of which cost-benefit analysts are so fond, measuring people’s willingness to accept cash payment in exchange for giving up a degree of perceived personal safety. A second obstacle to the scheme is that most jurisdictions have open-bidding laws aimed precisely at keeping politicos from pitching public business to favored contractors on a basis other than price and quality, but Sen. Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York) helpfully plans to introduce legislation to allow bypass of such laws. (Vanessa O’Connell, “Plan to Pressure Gun Makers Hits Some Snags”, Wall Street Journal, April 11, subscription site).

Plus: The gun lawsuits have become an issue in the presidential contest, with Vice President Al Gore, one of their ardent supporters, assailing Texas Governor George W. Bush for not pledging to veto legislation that would curtail them (“Bush, Gore camp trade questions on guns, credibility”, AP/FindLaw, May 5). And: this weekend’s pro-gun-control “Million Mom March” in Washington, D.C. has picked up endorsements ranging from President Bill Clinton to plaintiff’s class-action firm Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann LLP and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America — if that’s much of a range, politically speaking (March sponsors list, link now dead; ATLA endorsement; Terence Hunt, “Clinton Endorses Million Mom March”, AP/Yahoo, May 8, no longer online).

May 9 — In Michigan, important judicial races. Eyes of knowledgeable litigation reformers this fall will be on Michigan where three Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican Gov. John Engler — Clifford Taylor, Robert Young and Stephen Markman — are up for election (see Jan. 31). The trio enjoy a growing reputation as thoughtful jurists who share a skepticism toward expansive new liability doctrines; the state’s trial bar is expected to pour almost limitless funds into its attempt to defeat them. “The head of the Michigan Trial Lawyers’ Association has said privately that individual law firms have pledged as much as $500,000 each for the effort”. (Abigail Thernstrom, “Rule of Law: Trial Lawyers Target Three Michigan Judges Up for Election”, Wall Street Journal, May 8, reprinted at MI site).

May 8 — No more Fenway peanut-throwing? For nineteen years Rob Barry has worked in the stands at Boston’s Fenway Park, tossing bags of peanuts to hungry Red Sox fans. Grown-ups gasp and children cheer at his sure aim in lobbing the bags across intervening rows of spectators, but now he’s in trouble with management: “Aramark, the company that provides remarkably mediocre hot dogs and $4.50 cups of beer, has a rule, and that rule prohibits vendors from throwing food in the stadium.” Although admittedly “there are no recorded cases of catastrophic injury caused by a bag of peanuts,” you can never be too safe: before long some other food vendor might follow his example, “and soon you’ll have a cotton candy spear sticking through some young fan’s eye and a cash settlement that could cost the Red Sox Nomar Garciaparra.” Barry says he’s thinking of just retiring if he can no longer practice the peanut-tosser’s art: his father worked at Fenway for 45 years, while two beer-serving sisters have put in a combined 44 years. (Brian McCrory, “Vendor tossed from the game”, Boston Globe, May 5, link now dead).

May 8 — “Lilly’s legal strategy disarmed Prozac lawyers”. Little-noted story of how drugmaker Eli Lilly & Co. has managed so far to fight off a wave of lawsuits over its antidepressant Prozac, quietly settling some stronger cases while maneuvering aggressively to win a favorable jury ruling in the relatively weak one arising from the Wesbecker (Standard Gravure) shooting-spree in Louisville. (Jeff Swiatek, Indianapolis Star, April 22).

May 8 — Trial lawyers’ political clout. “Invited Speaker: President William Jefferson Clinton” — highlight of the brochure in last week’s mail promoting the Association of Trial Lawyers of America’s 2000 annual convention in Chicago. (Does not currently appear in online version (PDF)). Among other scheduled speakers: Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) and Max Cleland (D-Georgia). “Who will be the most influential political player making independent expenditures in this year’s presidential election?” asks Wall Street Journal editorialist John Fund. The AFL-CIO, the religious right, the NRA? More likely lawyers flush with new tobacco fees: “a comprehensive study by Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse found that trial lawyers gave 78 percent of all contributions to the Texas Democratic Party in the 1998 election cycle, when Bush was running for re-election.” (“Invasion of the Party Snatchers”, MSNBC, May 2). Last year by a 4-3 majority, the Ohio Supreme Court tossed out a 3-year-old tort reform package. Per Ohio Citizens against Lawsuit Abuse, “since 1992 the four justices in the majority received $1,528,054 from personal injury attorneys”, compared with $70,704 for the three dissenting justices. Doug Bandow, “Buying Justice: Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Reap Huge Dividends by Investing in Judges and Politicians”, syndicated column, Dec. 16, 1999, reprinted in Cato Daily Commentary, Dec. 28, 1999.

May 8 — Atlantic City mulls bond issuance to finance lawsuit payouts. The New Jersey resort city is so frequently sued, especially in employment and police cases, that it’s considering issuing special bonds to cover a possible $12.3 million exposure from 23 lawsuits. (Henry Gottlieb, “Suit City, Here We Come”, New Jersey Law Journal, April 4).

May 5-7 — Pro malo publico. Elite law firms endlessly congratulate themselves on the pro bono publico work they perform, seeing it as the “penance they pay for serving a capitalist system”, in Judge Laurence Silberman’s words. Too bad so much supposedly public-interest litigation is in reality actively harmful to the public interest as well as to the persons and institutions on its receiving end, argues Heather Mac Donald. Despite its reputation for being done gratis, pro bono work often brings in very rich court-ordered fee awards from opposing parties, and it also helps shape the legal profession’s continuing impulse to use the courtrooms for feats of social engineering. Homeless advocate Robert Hayes, who has fought for a new right of shelter-on-demand for the homeless, was asked why he litigated rather than taking his case to the legislature. “Personally, I don’t like politics,” he replied. “It’s really hard.” (Heather Mac Donald, “What Good Is Pro Bono?”, City Journal, Spring).

May 5-7 — Lion’s share. Tangled class action litigation against commodities brokerage, now the subject of a petition for review before the Supreme Court, in which plaintiffs’ lawyers were accorded $13 million in fees, twice the $6.5 million that their clients wound up getting. “The system stinks,” says Paul Dodyk of Cravath Swaine and Moore. “The class gets screwed.” Also mentions this website (Bernard Condon, “Conspiracy of Silence”, Forbes, May 1).

May 5-7 — Comment of the day. Accepting an award for general excellence at the National Magazine Awards on Wednesday, William L. Allen, editor in chief of National Geographic, said: “I would hug my staff, but our legal department has advised me not to.” (Alex Kuczynski, “Levity Prevails as Awards Are Handed to Magazines”, New York Times, May 4, no longer online).

May 5-7 — Liked your car so much we kept it. Last year New York City seized Pavel Grinberg’s 1988 Acura, Joe Bonilla’s brand-new Ford Expedition, and Robert Morris’s 1989 Grand Prix, on suspicion of their owners’ drunken driving. However, all three men were cleared of the charges in a court of law. So of course the city gave them their cars back, right? Don’t be naive…. (Gersh Kuntzman, “Rudy Driven To Excess in His DWI Crackdown”, New York Post, Feb. 7).

May 4 — Sports lawsuits proliferate. “More and more, the sports section looks like the rest of the newspaper. First commerce swallowed chunks and now the law has come along to take a bite. In the last few days, we’ve read stories about coaches suing players, fans suing players and now another player preparing to sue his league.” Toronto coach Butch Carter has now dropped his suit against Knick forward Marcus Camby (see April 25-26), but it’s still “getting tougher by the minute for pro sports leagues to call their own shots…. The chain of command in sports is being yanked at every opportunity, from all sides, often with the aid of the court system.” (Jim Litke, AP/Excite, April 27; “Raptors’ coach doesn’t get apology”, AP/ESPN, undated).

May 4 — Splash of reality. A judge has imposed sanctions of $10,000 each against New Rochelle, N.Y. attorney Gordon Locke and client Kenneth Lariviere “for bringing a frivolous breach-of-contract action against members of a board that refused to authenticate a work the two men claimed was painted by Jackson Pollock. Justice Emily Jane Goodman dismissed the action as a ‘laughable and clumsy attempt at fraud, by an individual who, like everyone familiar with the artist’s work, wishes he owned a Jackson Pollock painting.'” Cerisse Anderson, “Lawyer Fined for Frivolous Suit Over Artwork”, New York Law Journal, April 12).

May 4 — Harassment-law roundup. “The Internet start-up community is going to be a major target for sexual harassment litigation,” says management-side attorney Gregory I. Rasin of Jackson Lewis Schnitzler & Krupman, though the progress of such legal action is for the moment impeded by a job market so robust that would-be plaintiffs are “getting six job offers on the way to their lawyers’ offices,” as his colleague Garry Mathiason puts it. (Melinda Ligos, “Harassment Suits Hit the Dot-Coms”, New York Times, April 12). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been filing enforcement actions to back up its position that employers violate the law if they fail to move quickly enough in cleaning up sexually and racially offensive graffiti in employee restrooms and preventing recurrence (“Chicago EEOC Makes Second Move Against On-the-Job Racist Graffiti”, Employment Law Weekly, Jan. 20). The case of Boston bar owner Tom English, subject to charges of “hostile public accommodations environment” by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination for putting up allegedly insensitive seasonal bar decorations, calls attention to a troubling collision between bias law and free speech, writes UCLA First Amendment specialist Eugene Volokh (“Watch What You Say, Or Be Ready to Pay”, Jewish World Review, April 13; Federalist Society Free Speech and Election Law Newsletter, sixth March item). And a jury has awarded Staten Island cop Susan Techky $50,000 after she “testified that male officers wouldn’t talk to her, left pornographic magazines in the co-ed bathroom and watched sex videos in her presence in their quarters,” as well as keeping nude pin-ups in their locker area, which she had to walk through to get to hers. “Island cop wins discrimination suit”, Staten Island Advance, April 21).

May 3 — Ministry of love-discouragement. Complete bans on dating among office-mates are “unrealistic and difficult to enforce,” according to an attorney’s advice column on how lawyers representing management can ward off possible harassment-law liability for their firms. “More practical is to prohibit dating between management and nonmanagement personnel and to discourage, but not completely prohibit, romantic relationships between co-workers. This may require co-workers to disclose immediately any relationship to their immediate supervisor.” To reduce the likelihood of later invasion-of-privacy claims against the employer, such policies “should put employees on notice that the company reserves the right to inquire into employees’ personal lives if necessary to determine whether a relationship exists…. [A]n employer may want to include in its nonfraternization policy a statement indicating that in the event of an office relationship, the company may request that employees execute an agreement attesting to the voluntary nature of their relationship” — this to forestall the pattern now becoming familiar in which “an employee may decide, after an unpleasant breakup, that the relationship was not consensual after all.” (Nicole C. Rivas, “Employment law: ‘love contracts'”, National Law Journal, Feb. 7, not online).

May 3 — eBay yanks e-meter auctions. “E-meters” are electrical devices employed by practitioners of the Church of Scientology in counseling church adherents. Although previously used devices have been resold by private owners for years and were apparently not the subject of licensing agreements that would limit resale, the Church now asserts a copyright interest in the objects that would allow it to legally restrict their distribution, and eBay has recently begun pulling auctions of e-meters to avoid a legal run-in with the church, known in the past for frequent court clashes with its opponents. Critics say it’s another example of how the Digital Millennium Copyright Act encourages online providers to err on the side of timidity when presented with copyright assertions. (“eBay E-Meter Auctions Yanked”, Slashdot, April 28).

May 3 — Fee shrinkage. The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld a federal court’s ruling that two class-action firms representing plaintiffs burned in the Drexel Burnham Lambert fiasco of the 1980s should receive $2.1 million in fees, less than 20 percent of the $13.5 million they sought. The two law firms — Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach and Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri — had argued that it was appropriate to apply a “multiplier” of six to the otherwise going rate for legal fees because a fee recovery of 25 percent was a “benchmark” in the practice of class action law (the recovery for the class was $54 million). However, the appeals panel upheld Judge Shirley Wohl Kram’s reasoning that the case was a promising one with almost certain prospects of a large recovery, so that enhancing rates “would likely result in [counsel’s] overcompensation.” (Mark Hamblett, “Cut in Drexel Case Attorneys’ Fees OK’d”, New York Law Journal, March 31).

May 3 — Little League lawsuits. No, they’re not just figments of tort reformers’ imaginations. In Waynesboro, N.C., Nicolas and Alina Rothenberg are suing the national and local Little League, along with local game officials, over an incident where their son was hit in the mouth with a ball, losing two teeth and experiencing “extreme pain and suffering” and emotional distress. “It was an accident,” said Tammy Meissner, the wife of defendant Michael Meissner. “My husband was hitting the ball just like he’s been hitting the ball for years and years and years.” (“Accident prompts Little League lawsuit”, AP/Winston-Salem Journal, April 23, no longer online). Another clip from mid-1998, datelined Naugatuck, Ct., describes how two teammates, both 8 years old at the time of the incident, wound up in court after Michael Albert swung his bat in the dugout and hit Brittany Gauvin in the head. (“Little League lawsuit pits 10-year-olds against each other”, AP/Danbury News-Times, June 8, 1998).

May 2 — “Access excess”. Our editor’s May Reason column explores the dangers posed by the Americans with Disabilities Act to the freedom of the Net: countless private websites are currently considered “inaccessible” and will apparently be obliged to undergo systematic redesign, an expensive and cumbersome process that will go far to stifle creative freedom in HTML design (see earlier commentaries). This column has already drawn one of the biggest reader reactions of anything we’ve published in a long time — in future updates we’ll try to share highlights from some of the many thoughtful letters that have come in. (Walter Olson, “Access Excess”, Reason, May; also reprinted at Jim Glassman’s Tech Central Station).

May 2 — North Carolina (& Kentucky & Tennessee) tobacco fees. The three leaf-growing states were among the last of the fifty to sign onto the Medicaid reimbursement lawsuits against cigarette companies, and by necessity did little of the heavy lifting in developing the case. North Carolina attorney general Mike Easley picked private lawyer John McArthur to handle the state’s grower-advocacy role in the tobacco negotiations, a task McArthur also performed for the other two states; conveniently, he happened at the time to be coming off a stint as counsel to Easley himself. Now he’s rumored to be in line for $1.5 million in fees, concededly far lower than the take of lawyers who represented other states. Why aren’t more precise figures public? McArthur says it’s because of lawyer-client confidentiality. Easley is favored for the state’s gubernatorial nomination in today’s Democratic primary, and a spokesman for his primary rival, Lt. Gov. Dennis Wicker, has called for more light to be shed on the fee details: “Certainly the people have a right to know if the attorney general’s office is North Carolina’s version of ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire'”. Reporter David Rice of the Winston-Salem Journal writes that “Easley has repeatedly talked about his role in the tobacco settlement, but reporters and others always got the impression that the state hired no outside lawyers in the case”; now Easley says his earlier statements indicating that no outside lawyers had been hired were mischaracterized. (David Rice, “Wicker aide calls for the disclosure of attorney’s fee”, Winston-Salem Journal, April 25; Ben White, “Primary Season Resumes in N.C., Ind.”, Washington Post, May 1, links now dead).

May 2 — IRS drops penny-collection efforts. “The Internal Revenue Service has stopped collection procedures against a Roswell[, N.M.] businessman who inadvertently came up 1 penny short on his tax return. Ernest Spence, owner of Valley Glass Co., had been required to pay $286.50 in penalties and interest for the mistake.” Mr. Spence says the error was unintended and resulted from not carrying the fractional penny while doing the arithmetic on the return. (“IRS backs off man’s penalty for 1-cent mistake”, AP/Dallas Morning News, April 30).

May 2 — Columnist-fest. More to catch up on:

* “It’s not about money, most of the plaintiffs or their lawyers will say, it’s about the healing process. Baloney.” Anne Roiphe on the prospect of Columbine litigation (“Feeling Tired? Blue? Cranky? Just Sue!”, New York Observer, May 1, link now dead).

* George Will invokes the many sound arguments against the Victim’s Rights Amendment to the Constitution (“Tinkering Again”, Washington Post, April 23). Will has been on a roll recently with columns on death row innocents, campaign regulation and the First Amendment, the Boy Scouts case, and campaign regulation again.

* Jacob Sullum on S&W’s hapless attempt at a “clarification” of its HUD-brokered settlement: “Perhaps it is dawning on Smith & Wesson’s executives that it can be dangerous to show weakness in the face of statist demands. Too bad they didn’t pay closer attention to the fate of the tobacco companies, whose efforts at appeasement have only whetted their opponents’ appetites.” (syndicated column, April 19).

May 1 — Tort city, USA. Other cities face a handful of slip-fall cases each year, but New York City gets 3,500, paying out $57 million plus large legal defense costs. When all types of injury litigation are included, the total reaches a staggering $420 million plus defense costs. What makes the political climate in New York so hostile to the city’s interest as a lawsuit defendant? One reason is the number of powerful Gotham politicians with ties to tort practice, such as Bronx Republican state senator Guy Velella, whose law firm’s successful cases against New York City include two separate injury suits on behalf of his parents. Or Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who rents office space from well-connected tort firm Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek & Shoot. Or Brooklyn Democrat Helene Weinstein, who chairs the state assembly’s Judiciary committee and “is of counsel to her father’s personal-injury firm … It’s rather like having a Microsoft lawyer in charge of the Congressional committee overseeing antitrust policy.” A jury recently took just an hour to reject a $10 million suit against the city by assemblyman John Brian Murtaugh, who had slipped on ice in a city park while walking his dog and broke his wrist. (John Tierney, “In Tort City, Falling Down Can Pay Off”, New York Times, April 15).

May 1 — “Jury flipped coin to convict man of murder”. You think this sort of thing doesn’t really happen, but it did happen last week in Louisville: “A jury unable to decide on a verdict tossed a coin last week to convict a man of murder, prompting a judge to declare a mistrial … The Jefferson County Circuit Court jury of five men and seven women deliberated about nine hours over two days last week before finding Phillip J. Givens II guilty of murder for killing his girlfriend, Monica Briggs, 29, last May.” Givens faced life in prison on the murder rap, but Judge Kenneth Conliffe declared a mistrial after word reached him of the method the jury had used to break its deadlock: one of the jurors told someone, who told a court employee, who told the judge. (Kim Wessel, Louisville Courier-Journal, April 25).

May 1 — Funny hats and creative drawing. As part of a discrimination settlement, employees of Detroit Edison now have been given an in-house “Learning Zone” where they can “map out their careers, create personal Web sites and even work on their resumes.” A reporter notes that the room “looks like a preschool for adults,” with “puzzles, funny hats, puppets and wall-mounted drawing boards.” One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who has now been installed as “facilitator” of the zone, says that it makes “people feel safe, warm and creative … It’s about the employees.” (Brenda Rios, “Building Careers”, Detroit Free Press, April 27).

May 1 — In praise of bugs. “[Computers] should just work, all the time”, opines one popular tech columnist, and many others (including advocates of more stringent bug liability) likewise promote the view that “defects are a moral failing, and a complete absence of defects must be assured, whatever achieving this goal does to the cost and the schedule. But is achieving bug-free software always in the customer’s best interest?” (Gene Callahan, “Those Damned Bugs!”, Dr. Dobb’s Journal, Dec. 3, 1999, adapted as “In Praise of Bugs”, Mises Institute, March 27).


May 18-21 — “A Smith & Wesson FAQ”. An end run around democratic governance, an assault on gun buyers‘ Second Amendment liberties, a textbook abuse of the power to litigate: the Clinton Administration’s pact with Smith & Wesson is all this and more. When this website’s editor looked into the agreement’s details, he found them if anything worse than he’d imagined — for one thing, they could actually increase the number of people hurt because of gun malfunctions. (Walter Olson, “A Smith & Wesson FAQ”, Reason, June; see also David Kopel, “Smith & Wesson’s Faustian Bargain”, National Review Online, March 20, and “Smart Cops Saying ‘No'”, April 19).

May 18-21 — On the Hill: Clint Eastwood vs. ADA filing mills. The Hollywood actor and filmmaker got interested in the phenomenon of lawsuit mills that exploit the Americans with Disabilities Act (see our March 7, Feb. 15, Jan. 26-27 commentaries) when he was hit with a complaint that some doors and bathrooms at his historic, 32-room Mission Ranch Hotel and restaurant in Carmel, Calif. weren’t accessible enough; there followed demands from the opposing side’s lawyer that he hand over more than just a fistful of dollars — $577,000, the total came to — in fees for legal work allegedly performed on the case. “It’s a racket”, opines Eastwood. “The typical thing is to get someone who is disabled in collusion with sleazebag lawyers, and they file suits.” (Jim VandeHei, “Clint Eastwood Saddles Up for Disability-Act Showdown”, Wall Street Journal, May 9 — online subscribers only). The “Dirty Harry” star is slated to appear as the lead witness in a hearing on the bill proposed by Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to require that defendants be given a chance to fix problems before lawyers can start running the meter on fee-shift entitlements; the hearing begins at 10 a.m. Thursday, May 18 and the House provides a live audio link (follow House Judiciary schedule to live audio link, Constitution subcommittee; full witness list). The National Federation of Independent Business, Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., National Restaurant Association and International Council of Shopping Centers all like the Foley idea. Eastwood told the WSJ he isn’t quarreling with the ADA itself, and the proposed legislation would affect only future cases and not the one against him; but “I just think for the benefit of everybody, they should cut out this racket because these are morally corrupt people who are doing this.”

May 18-21 — “Dialectizer shut down”. “Another fun, interesting and innovative online resource goes the way of corporate ignorance — due to threats of legal action, the author of the dialectizer, a Web page that dynamically translates another Web page’s text into an alternate ‘dialect’ such as ‘redneck’ or ‘Swedish Chef’ and displays the result, has packed up his dialectizer and gone home”, writes poster “endisnigh” on Slashdot (May 17). (Signoff notice and subsequent reconsideration, Rinkworks.com site). Update: it’s back up now — see Aug. 16-17.

May 18-21 — Dusting ’em off. A trend in the making? Complainants in a number of recent cases have succeeded in reviving enforcement of public-morality laws that had long gone unheeded but never actually been stricken from the books. In Utah, Candi Vessel successfully sued her cheatin’ husband’s girlfriend and got a $500,000 award against the little homewrecker (as she no doubt views her) under the old legal theory of “alienation of affection”, not much heard of these last forty or more years. (“Spouse Stealer Pays Price: Wife Wins Case Against Mistress for Breaking Up Marriage”, ABC News, April 27). Authorities in two rural Michigan counties have recently pressed criminal charges against men who used bad language in public, under an old statute which provides that “any person who shall use any indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence or hearing of any woman or child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” (“2nd man hit with anti-cussing statute”, AP/Detroit Free Press, April 27) (same article on Freedom Forum). And Richard Pitcher and Kimberly Henry of Peralta, N.M., “have been formally charged by Pitcher’s ex-wife under the state’s cohabitation law, which prohibits unwed people from living together as ‘man and wife'”. (Guillermo Contreras, “Couple charged with cohabitation”, Albuquerque Journal, March 11) (update: see May 8, 2001 for newer example).

May 18-21 — Campaign regulation vs. free speech. The state of Kentucky’s Registry of Election Finance has ruled that newspapers have a constitutional right to editorialize on behalf of candidates of their choice, rejecting a complaint that characterized such endorsements as “corporate contributions” made by the newspaper proprietors. (“Kentucky election agency: Newspaper editorials aren’t contributions”, AP/Freedom Forum, May 10). A general hail of dead cats has greeted the Congressional Democrats’ lawsuit charging House Majority Whip Tom DeLay with “racketeering” over campaign fundraising practices, with Democratic operative Paul Begala calling the suit “wrong, ethically, legally and politically.” (David Horowitz, “March of the Racketeers”, Salon, May 15; Michael Kelly, “Hammering DeLay”, Washington Post, May 10). And Mickey Kaus, on his recommended Kausfiles.com website, spells out in words of one syllable to pundit Elizabeth Drew why proposed bans on privately sponsored “issue ads” run smack into the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech (“Drew’s Cluelessness: Please don’t let her anywhere near the First Amendment!”, May 7).

May 18-21 — Gotham lawyers upset at efficient jury selection. A few years ago, led by its Chief Justice Judith Kaye, the state of New York began taking long-overdue steps to reform its notorious jury selection system, under which lawyers had often been permitted to browbeat and grill helpless juror-candidates for days at a time in search of the most favorably disposed (not to say pliable) among them. The changes, which bring the Empire State more into line with the practice around the rest of the country, have markedly reduced the time jurors and others must spend on empanelment. So who’s unhappy? The state’s bar association, naturally, which opposed reform in the first place, and now complains that “attorneys are feeling increasingly constrained by time limits and other restrictions”. A survey it conducted “suggests that many lawyers feel that new practices are cramping their style.” Yes, that was the idea (John Caher, “NYS Bar Favors More Voir Dire Leeway”, New York Law Journal, April 12).

May 17 — Not my fault, I. In 1990 Debora MacNamara of Haileybury, Ontario smothered her nine-year-old daughter Shauna as she slept. Found not guilty by reason of insanity, she spent five years in mental institutions before being released. Now she’s suing two psychiatrists and her family doctor for upwards of $20 million, saying they should have prevented her from doing it. The docs say she was “an uncooperative, recalcitrant patient who didn’t take her medication as prescribed, often cancelled appointments, wouldn’t let those treating her share critical medical information and either minimized or lied about both her symptoms and state of mind.” (Christie Blatchford, “Woman sues doctors for not stopping her from killing”, National Post, May 16, link now dead)).

May 17 — Not my fault, II. “Fourteen years after accidentally shooting himself in the hand, 19-year-old Willie K. Wilson of Pontiac is pointing the finger at his father and Smith & Wesson, suing both last week for at least $25,000 in Oakland County Circuit Court.” His lawyer explains that Willie isn’t actually angry at his pa but is just going after the homeowners’ insurance money. Hey, who could object in that case? (Joel Kurth, “Son sues father, Smith & Wesson”, Detroit News, May 16).

May 17 — Comparable worth: it’s back. This time they’re calling it “pay equity”, but a new study by economist Anita Hattiangadi and attorney Amy Habib for the Employment Policy Foundation finds no evidence that the much-discussed pay gap between the sexes owes anything to employer bias, as distinct from women’s individual choices to redirect energy toward home pursuits during childbearing years (EPF top page; “A Closer Look at Comparable Worth” (PDF)). Plus: the foundation’s comments on White House pay equity report (PDF); background on comparable worth; and writings by Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the American Enterprise Institute, “Still Hyping the Phony Pay Gap”, AEI “On the Issues”, March; Roger Clegg (“Comparable Worth: The Bad Idea That Will Not Die”, National Legal Center for the Public Interest, “Briefly…” series, August 1999 (PDF); and the Chicago Tribune‘s Steve Chapman (“Clinton’s Phony Fight for ‘Pay Equity’, Feb. 24).

May 17 — Update: judge frowns on Philly’s Mr. Civility. Following up on our March 13 commentary, federal judge Herbert J. Hutton has imposed sanctions on attorney Marvin Barish, including an as yet uncalculated fine and disqualification in the case, over an incident during a trial recess in which Barish threatened to kill the opposing lawyer with his bare hands and repeatedly called him a “fat pig”. Barish’s attorney, James Beasley (apparently the same one for whom Temple U.’s law school was renamed after a large donation), said if anyone merited sanctions it was the opposing counsel, representing Amtrak, for having engaged in legal maneuvers that provoked his client to the outburst; Barish is “one of the city’s most successful lawyers handling Federal Employers Liability Act cases”. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Judge Hits Lawyer with Fine Over Alleged Threat”, Legal Intelligencer (Philadelphia), May 2).

May 17 — Disabled vs. disabled. Strobe-light-equipped fire alarms — a great idea for helping the deaf, no? A sweeping new mandate to that effect is pending before the federal government’s Access Board, which would affect workplaces, hospitals, and motel rooms, among other places. All of which horrifies many members of another category of disabled Americans, namely those with photosensitive epilepsy and other seizure disorders: In a recent survey, 21 percent of epileptics said flashing lights set off seizures for them. “Should a seizure be caused by stroboscopic alarms during an actual fire emergency, that person would be incapacitated, leading to even more danger both from the seizure and from the emergency itself.” And then there are all the false alarms. … (Epilepsy Foundation, “Legislative Alert“, Capitol Advantage Legislative Advocacy Center; Access Board, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, relevant section (see s. 702.3)).

May 16 — Federal commerce power genuinely limited, Supreme Court rules. Big win for federalists at the high court as the Justices rule 5-4 to strike down the right-to-sue provision of the Violence Against Women Act on the grounds that the Constitution does not empower Washington to muscle into any area of police power it pleases simply by finding that crime affects interstate commerce. (Laurie Asseo, “High Court: Prosecution of Rapists Up To States”, AP/Chicago Tribune, May 15, no longer online; U.S. v. Morrison, decision (Cornell); Center for Individual Rights; Anita Blair (Independent Women’s Forum), Investors Business Daily, reprinted Feb. 4).

May 16 — Deflated. After suing automakers up one side of the street for the sin of not installing airbags earlier, trial lawyers are now suing them down the other over the injuries the bags occasionally inflict on children and small-framed adults. Last month Ford got hit with a $20 million verdict in a case where an infant was paralyzed by a Mustang’s airbag, but last week a Detroit jury declined to find liability against DaimlerChrysler in a case where an airbag detonation killed 7-year-old Alison Sanders after her father ran a red light and broadsided another vehicle. (“Jurors clear DaimlerChrysler in 1995 air-bag lawsuit case”, Detroit Free Press, May 11, link now dead; Bill Vlasic and Dina ElBoghdady, “Air bag suits unlikely to stop”, Detroit News, May 12).

Who was it that spread the original image of air bags as pillowy, child-friendly devices, the right solution for all passengers in all circumstances? Lawyers now wish to blame Detroit, but Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute quotes the remarks of longtime Ralph Nader associate Joan Claybrook, who headed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during the Carter-era rulemaking: “Air bags work beautifully,” she declared, “and they work automatically and…that gives you more freedom than being forced to wear a seat belt.” (Letting people think an airbag might relieve them of the need to buckle up is now, of course, seen as horrifically bad safety advice.) Moreover, quoth Claybrook, the devices “fit all different sizes and types of people, from little children up to…very large males.” (“Only Smart Air Bag Mandate is No Mandate at All”, CEI Update, March 2).

Even more striking, CEI’s Kazman dug up this photo of Ralph Nader, who long flayed manufacturers for their delay in embracing the devices, using an adorable moppet as an emotional prop. Sam says the photo is from a 1977 press conference; he thinks it would make a lovely display in Nader’s planned museum of product liability law in Winsted, Connecticut. [DURABLE LINK]

MORE SOURCES: Bill Vlasic and Dina ElBoghdady, “Dead girl’s dad fights air bags”, Detroit News, March 29; Janet L. Fix, “Father’s heartbreak fueled lawsuit after 1995 accident”, Detroit Free Press, April 5; “The Deployment of Car Manufacturers Into a Sea of Product Liability? Recharacterizing Preemption as a Federal Regulatory Compliance Defense in Airbag Litigation”, Note (Dana P. Babb), Washington U. Law Quarterly, Winter 1997; Scott Memmer, “Airbag Safety”, Edmunds.com, undated web feature; Michael Fumento, “Paper Scares Parents for Politics and Profit”, 1998, on Fumento.com website.

May 16 — “Clinton’s law license”. “The Arkansas Supreme Court should take away Clinton’s law license because he lied under oath,” declares the editorially middle-of-the-road Seattle Times. “It’s unlikely that Clinton will want to practice after he leaves the White House, but this has more to do with the legal community upholding its own ethics than the president’s next career. The American Bar Association’s standards for lawyer sanctions leave little doubt: ‘Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a false document, or improperly withholds material information and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party. …’ Last April, federal judge Susan Webber Wright found Clinton in contempt for ‘giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process’ while under oath in her presence. She also has filed a complaint with the Arkansas Supreme Court, but did not recommend a specific penalty. …Clinton should surrender his license or the court should take it.” (editorial, May 15). Plus: Stephen Chapman in Slate (“Disbar Bill”, May 12). [DURABLE LINK]

May 16 — The asset hider. Curious profession of a New Yorker whose specialty consists in finding ways to help wealthy men hide assets so as to escape legal obligations to their wives. The proprietor of “Special Services” of E. 28th St. also boasts of his skill in private investigation, which didn’t prevent him from falling for the cover story of a New York Post writer who posed as a divorce-bent Internet millionaire while secretly taping their lunch (Daniel Jeffreys, “The Wealthy Deadbeat’s Best Friend”, New York Post, May 15).

May 15 — Doctor cleared in Lewis cardiac case. A team of cardiologists told basketball star Reggie Lewis that his playing days were over. Then his wife helped get him transferred under cover of darkness to a new team of doctors who said he could go on playing. Then he collapsed on the court and died. And then Donna Harris-Lewis, having already collected on her husband’s $12 million Celtics contract, sued the docs for negligence. One paid $500,000 to settle, but last week Dr. Gilbert Mudge of Brigham & Women’s won vindication from a jury. (Sacha Pfeifer, “The verdict is in: no negligence”, Boston Globe, May 9; Dan Shaughnessy, “Everybody has lost in Lewis case; let’s move on”, May 9; Barry Manuel, “As usual, only lawyers won in Lewis case”, May 11, links now dead). Earlier, Harris-Lewis drew flak by comparing herself to the families of six firefighters who died in a Worcester warehouse blaze. “Lots of money is being raised for those families, and I need to be taken care of, too. Everybody has to say I’m greedy. But I do want my money back this time around. Why should I lose?” Well, ma’am, we could start a list of reasons. … (Steve Buckley, “What was Harris-Lewis thinking?”, Boston Herald, March 28).

May 15 — The four rules of sex harassment controversies. We thought we had ’em memorized after the Anita Hill affair … then we had to unlearn all four during the late unpleasantness with President Clinton … and now they’ve all returned in coverage of the Pentagon’s Claudia Kennedy case. (David Frum, “Breakfast Table” with Danielle Crittenden Frum, Slate, May 12). In other harassment news, a jury has awarded $125,000 to a male waiter at a T.G.I. Friday’s near Tampa who said that female co-workers touched and grabbed him lewdly, that co-workers made fun of him when he complained, and that the restaurant chain proceeded to ignore his plight and retaliate against him. (Larry Dougherty, “Waiter wins suit against Friday’s”, St. Petersburg Times, May 5). And a Wisconsin appeals court has upheld a trial court’s award of $143,715, reduced from a jury’s $1 million, to a computer analyst who “said his boss spanked him with a 4-foot-long carpenter’s level during a bizarre workplace ritual” and then announced “Now, you’re one of us”. The boss testified that the spanking ceremony dated way back as an initiation at the Phillips, Getschow Co., a century-old mechanical contracting firm. (Dennis Chaptman, “Court upholds $143,715 award for spanking”, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, April 18).

May 15 — Convenient line at the time. Tobacco is special, said the state attorneys general who teamed up with trial lawyers to expropriate that lawful industry via litigation and share out the resulting plunder. It’s “the only product that, if used as intended, could be fatal.” And so they categorically dismissed critics’ fears that the tempting new ways of raising revenue without resorting to explicit taxation might soon be aimed at other industries. Who was fool enough to believe them? (Victor E. Schwartz, “Trial Lawyers Unleashed”, Washington Post, May 10).

May 15 — Gloves come off in Mich. high court race. We warned you it would get nasty (see May 9, Jan. 31), but not this soon. At a recent NAACP gathering, the Michigan Democratic Party circulated a flyer stating that incumbent Justice Robert Young opposes the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which ended racial segregation in public schools. Young, who is African-American and whose record on the court has been conservative, terms the flyer “virulent race-baiting” and untrue and has demanded an apology. State Democratic chairman Mark Brewer dares Young to sue, but declines to name a source for the flyer’s characterization of his views on Brown. (Kathy Barks Hoffman, “Race for 3 spots on top court sparks charge of ‘race-baiting'”, AP/Detroit News, May 11; George Weeks, “Election of justices needs changing” (editorial), May 11).

May 12-14 — Microsoft opinion: the big picture. However well they’re doing in Judge Jackson’s court, Janet Reno’s trustbusters are getting slammed in the court of public opinion, which continues lopsidedly opposed to breakup. While a Harris poll finds less than 40 percent of respondents believing that Bill Gates’s company has treated its competitors fairly, that’s still a better rating than Joel Klein’s Antitrust Division gets: only one in three believe the government treated Microsoft fairly. (Paul Van Slambrouck, “High-tech trust-busting a bust with public today”, Christian Science Monitor, May 5; Manny Frishberg, “Public favors MS in antitrust”, Wired News, May 4). The Independent Institute’s Alex Tabarrok calculates that the loss in capital value of Microsoft as an enterprise amounts to $768 for every person in the United States, and that most of this sum can plausibly be attributed to the legal action rather than to business setbacks. (“The Anti-entrepreneurs,” May 1). Given that the rest of the high-tech sector has also taken a thrashing, economics Nobelist Milton Friedman says Silicon Valley “must rue the day that they set this incredible episode in operation” by siccing the government on their Seattle rival (statement reprinted at National Taxpayers Union site, April 28).

Does all this augur a revival of “vigorous”, sock-’em-hard antitrust enforcement, not much seen in the last couple of decades? If so, ABC’s John Stossel has some deserving nominees for breakup far more monopolistic than Windows ever was, including the U.S. Postal Service — yes, it’s still unlawful to compete with it in first-class service (“Give Me a Break: Government Protection?” (video clip), May 5). And Michael Kinsley wonders why the U.S. government, if it really takes trustbusting principles seriously, still takes such an indulgent, price-fixers-will-be-price-fixers approach toward OPEC — a genuinely noxious cartel that inflicts great damage on the American economy, and whose member countries (among them Russia, Norway, Venezuela and the spectacularly ungrateful Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) appear to suffer nary a repercussion in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy (“Readme: Oil Crooks”, Slate, March 27).

May 12-14 — Dismounted. “A therapeutic horse-riding program for 600 mentally impaired Oakland County children and teenagers is in jeopardy this summer, a potential victim of a liability impasse among lawyers and bureaucrats.” Parents praise the Silver Saddles program, but the county is unwilling to accept liability exposure for it, which could be financially catastrophic in the event of an accident to a young rider. (Hugh McDiarmid, Jr., “Riding-therapy program faces liability hurdle”, Detroit Free Press, May 5).

May 12-14 — Steady aim. Everyone who supports democracy — as well as everyone who opposes the abuse of litigation — should favor legislative measures aimed at reserving gun regulation to elected lawmakers rather than the machinations of ambitious trial lawyers, argues Vince Carroll of Denver’s Rocky Mountain News (“Gun bill puts halt to lawsuit abuse”, April 30). And Washington, D.C.’s Sam Smith, who shows regularly that there’s still life on the Left in his remarkable online Progressive Review (which we’re pleased to see often picks up items from this space), has put up a page of reasons “why politicians, moms, and progressives should stop pressing for more gun control laws” (“Wild Shots“).

May 11 — “Ad deal links Coke, lawyer in suit”. Both the Coca-Cola Co. and plaintiff’s attorney Willie Gary are denying a linkage between Gary’s role as a lawyer in the current high-profile race bias litigation against Coke and the company’s just-announced agreement — financial terms not disclosed — to become a major advertiser on a cable channel of which Gary is part owner. Last month amid fanfare the Florida lawyer arrived in Atlanta on his private jet (“Wings of Justice”) to assume representation of several of the original plaintiffs in the much-publicized employee litigation against the beverage company. “I want a settlement that’s fair and just,” he said then. “I don’t come cheap. I think big, real big.” On Tuesday Coke announced a major five-year deal to buy ads on the fledgling Major Broadcasting Cable Network, which Gary helped launch and of which he is chairman and chief executive. Gary says his clients are aware of the deal and says, “There’s absolutely no conflict. We’re not friends. We’re business people. Coke is not giving me anything. … It’s goods in exchange for service. … No way this is a conflict.'”

A sometime fund-raiser for the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH coalition, Gary is best known in legal circles for the ruinous $500 million verdict he obtained in a Jackson, Mississippi courtroom against the Loewen Group, a Canadian-owned funeral home chain, in what had previously seemed a routine commercial dispute (see our editor’s account). Last week he announced that he was demanding nearly $2 billion from the Burger King Corporation on behalf of Detroit restaurateur La-Van Hawkins, whose UrbanCityFoods business has not fared as well as expected in its operation of franchised hamburger units. Gary’s entry last month into the Coke case came at a time of unpleasant back-and-forth charges between some of the employees who were first to sue and class-action lawyers who had worked to assemble their and others’ complaints into a suit on behalf of the company’s entire black workforce, led by Washington, D.C.’s Cyrus Mehri, of Texaco fame (our account of that one), with the Mehri camp saying the individuals were holding out for too much money for themselves personally as distinct from the class, and a PUSH coalition activist, Joseph Beasley, countering that under the settlement anticipated from the class action the “lawyers get all the money” while “the black community is left high and dry”.

SOURCES: Henry Unger, “Ad deal links Coke, lawyer in suit”, Atlanta Journal- Constitution, May 10 (fee-based archive); Constance L. Hays, “Coke to Advertise on Channel Owned by Lawyer in Bias Suit”, New York Times, May 10, no longer online; Betsy McKay, “For Coke’s Big Race Lawsuit, a New Wild Card”, Wall Street Journal, April 14 (subscription); Beth Miller, “Cable network to focus on black families”, Media Central, Dec. 13; Trisha Renaud, R. Robin McDonald, and Janet L. Conley, “Money, Trust Behind Coke Split”, Fulton County Daily Record, April 14; “Burger King Has Greater Troubles: Internationally Renowned Trial Attorney Willie Gary Asks Burger King for $1.9 Billion”, Excite/PR Newswire press release from Gary’s firm, May 3; Eric Dyrrkopp and Andrew H. Kim, “Prospecting the Last Frontier: Legal Considerations for Franchisors Expanding into Inner Cities”, Franchise Law Journal, Winter 2000, reprinted at Bell, Boyd & Lloyd site.

May 11 — Tort fortune fuels $3M primary win. In Charleston, W.V., attorney and former state senator Jim Humphries has won the Democratic nomination in the Second Congressional District after investing $3 million from the fortune he made in asbestos litigation. Humphries’s “big-budget, slickly produced campaign” overpowered his primary rivals, who included one of the state’s best-known politicians, Secretary of State and former U.S. Representative Ken Hechler, as well as state senator Martha Walker, who chairs the state senate’s health and human resources committee; between them Hechler and Walker split about half the primary vote. The campaign “shattered all state records for spending in a congressional primary election.” Humphries now faces Delegate Shelley Moore Capito, R-Kanawha, who ran unopposed in the Republican primary. (Phil Kabler, “Humphreys’ $3 million pays”, Charleston Gazette, May 10).

May 11 — Stubbornness of mules a given. A federal court in North Carolina has dismissed a lawsuit by the producers of the soon-to-be-released film “Morgan’s Creek” against animal wrangler Alicia Rudd over the refusal of her trained mule to sit down on cue or cooperate in other ways on the set. The producers said the animal’s recalcitrance had prolonged shooting by an extra day, costing upwards of $110,000, but the judge said there was no proof that Rudd breached a promise or misrepresented her ability to control the mule. (“Judge finds stubborn mule no cause for action”, AP/CNN, May 8).


May 31 — From our mail sack: ADA enforcement vignettes. Reader Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity tells us that every month or so he visits the Department of Justice to pore over the new batch of publicly released enforcement letters from the department’s Civil Rights Division. Although the letters are made available by the Department in such a way that parties in the disputes are not individually identifiable, they do provide insight into current enforcement priorities and trends. A few highlights that Roger passes on from letters issued by DoJ regarding the enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act:

“The Civil Rights Division’s Disability Rights Section has in the last month or so sent a lot of letters to doctors’ offices on behalf of hearing-impaired patients complaining that the doctors don’t have interpreters (a couple of the offices didn’t understand why the doctor and patient couldn’t just write notes to each other) [see also Sept. 29-Oct. 1].

* “A dance studio got a DOJ letter when it refused to continue giving lessons to a student who was prompting complaints from other students’ parents because accommodating her took up so much class time.

“Other interesting issues prompting DOJ letters:

* “A cruise ship that refused to let a blind person on board for a trip unless he had a medical note stating he could safely travel alone;

* “An HIV-positive student who demanded an air-conditioned classroom;

* “A blind person who wasn’t allowed into a doctor’s office because in the past other patients had had an allergic reaction to his guide dog; and

* “A truly tragic case — a man with a ‘manual disability’ who could not pull the trigger on a gun.”

May 31 — Jumped ahead, by court order. A Delaware court has found that Christiana Care Health Services breached its contract with Ahmad Bali, MD, when it demoted him from third-year to second-year resident. Rather than simply allot monetary damages to Dr. Bali for the trouble and expense of having been held back needlessly at the second-year stage, the court took the more unusual step of ordering the hospital to accord him fourth-year residency status as if he’d completed the third-year program. The result is to put him in the same place he’d be if not for the hospital’s earlier breach, which is certainly one kind of fairness for which the law sometimes strives. But what if third-year residency isn’t simply a re-run of second-year, but involves the acquisition of distinctive skills? (Miles J. Zaremski, “Delaware court reinstates terminated resident”, American Medical News, March 20).

May 31 — Columnist-fest. More opinions worth considering:

* Paul Campos weighs in on the “pink-skirt” case, in which a transgendered employee of a Boulder, Colo. bagel shop is suing because its owner wouldn’t let him wear that girlish item of apparel on the job (“The strange land of identity politics”, Rocky Mountain News, May 16; Matt Sebastian, “Bagel shop wouldn’t let him wear pink dress [sic], so he sues”, Scripps Howard News Service, May 11).

* Big American companies whose German operations were seized by the Nazi regime and run with forced labor are now coming under legal pressure to pay “reparations”. “If we Jews care about justice and retribution, we should not take this money,” argues Sam Schulman of Jewish World Review. “It is tainted — tainted with innocence. And taking money from the innocent blurs the line between innocence and guilt.” (“Some Reparations Money is Better Left on the Table”, Jewish World Review, May 18). An earlier Schulman column examines the drift of the campaigns against the Swiss and the Austrians away from the aim of individualized justice for expropriated families and toward the expiation of inherited national guilt by way of large transfer payments. (“David Irving’s Mirror for the Jews”, May 2).

* Rachelle Cohen of the Boston Herald can’t help wondering: does Massachusetts really need to spend tax money setting up a state-sponsored law school? (“Must taxpayers pay to create more lawyers?”, May 24).

May 30 — You were negligent to hire me. “A former Escondido school district administrator who resigned two years ago after revelations of a 1963 rape-related conviction won a $255,000 jury verdict yesterday against Superintendent Nicolas Retana and the district.” Thirty-four years previously, at age 17, William Zamora had been convicted in New Mexico of assault with intent to rape, serving two years in prison and later being pardoned by the governor. When he applied for an $88,000/year administrative job in 1997 with the district near San Diego, he failed to disclose his long-ago conviction on his employment application, later saying he thought the pardon had wiped his record clean. But an FBI fingerprint check turned it up, and Zamora resigned at once: a California law passed the previous year forbade school districts to hire persons with felony sex convictions. He then proceeded to sue the district and supervisor, contending that if they “had done their jobs properly… they would have waited until the crime check came back before hiring him,” and charging that his privacy had been invaded when Retana conversed with an Albuquerque school board member about the conviction. Last week a jury awarded him $15,000 on the negligent hiring claim and $240,000 on the invasion of privacy claim. “Superior Court Judge Lisa Guy-Schall kept jurors from hearing the details of Zamora’s conviction, in which he pleaded guilty. She said she didn’t want to preside over a mini-trial of events that happened 37 years ago.” (Onell R. Soto, “Ex-administrator wins $255,000 verdict against Escondido schools chief, district”, San Diego Union-Tribune, May 24; and earlier Union-Tribune coverage, May 17, May 21, 1999; May 20, 1999).

May 30 — Illegal to talk about drugs? The so-called Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, which has been moving rapidly through Congress with relatively little public outcry, would make it a felony punishable by ten years in prison “to teach or demonstrate to any person the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance,” knowing or intending that a recipient will use the information in violation of the law. The aim is to shut down the publishing of books, magazines and websites that furnish information on drug manufacture or use, such as High Times magazine and Lycaeum.org. The prohibition on “distribut[ing]” such information “to any person, by any means” could make it unlawful even to post a weblink to offshore sites of this nature. Another provision of the bill would make it a crime to “directly or indirectly advertise for sale” drugs or drug paraphernalia — and whatever the peculiar phrase “indirectly advertise” may mean in practice, it’s probably not good news for the First Amendment. A Washington Post editorial calls the provisions “overly broad” and “so vague as to threaten legitimate speech”: “The mere dissemination of information, especially without specific intent to further crime, seems within the bounds of free speech protections.”

SOURCES: “The Anti-Meth Bill” (editorial), Washington Post, May 26; Amy Worden, “House Bill Would Ban Drug Instructions”, APBNews, May 10; Declan McCullagh, “Bill criminalizes drug links”, Wired News, May 9; Jake Halpern, “Intentional Foul”, The New Republic, April 10; “Senate panel considers ban on Internet drug recipes”, AP/Freedom Forum, July 29, 1999; Debbi Gardiner and Declan McCullagh, “Reefer Madness Hits Congress”, Wired News, Aug. 6, 1999; J. T. Tuccille, “Shall make no law”, About.com Civil Liberties, Aug. 15, 1999; Phillip Taylor, “Marijuana activists denounce proposed ban of drug recipes”, Freedom Forum, Jan. 6.

May 30 — Won’t pay for set repairs. Orkin, the pest control company, is declining to compensate two consumers who’ve requested that it pay for fixing their TV sets after they attacked unusually convincing simulations of cockroaches that ran across the screen in its ads. The company says a Tampa, Fla., woman tried to kill the insect by throwing a motorcycle helmet at her set, while another man damaged his set by throwing a shoe at it. (“‘I felt really stupid': Orkin cockroach commmercial has some viewers fooled “, AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 6).

May 30 — Welcome San Jose Mercury News visitors. At Silicon Valley’s hometown paper, columnist John Murrell (“Minister of Information”) proposes this among sites “for your weekend Web wandering pleasure … your darkest visions of out-of-control litigiousness will be confirmed”. (May 26 entry). The weblog at uJoda.com (“From My Desktop”), where you can pick up Macintosh icons and graphics, reports that its author “found a great site called overlawyered.com, though not eye candy, it is rich in content” (May 6 entry). The pro-Second Amendment Fulton Armory featured us as their site of the week a couple of weeks ago, and we’ve also been linked recently by the Australian Public Law page maintained by the law faculty at the Northern Territory University, down under (“Not much to do with public law but we couldn’t help ourselves,” they explain re including us); by the Smith Center for Private Enterprise, a free-market think tank at Cal State, Hayward; by ClaimsPages.com, which offers a vast array of insurance-oriented links; and by the website of attorney Jule R. Herbert, Jr. of Alabama’s Gulf Coast, among many others.

May 26-29 — “Dame Edna’s Gladioli Toss Lands in Court”. “Dame Edna Everage”, the character created by Australian comedian Barry Humphries (website, B’way show), makes a custom of ending her show by flinging gladioli to the crowd, but now a man has hired a Melbourne law firm to undertake legal action, saying a stem of one of the large flowers struck him in the eye. 49-year-old singing teacher Gary May is “seeking unspecified damages for pain and suffering, loss of income and medical expenses.” (Reuters/Excite, May 25, lnk now dead). Last year (see Dec. 7) NBC’s “Tonight Show with Jay Leno” was sued by an audience member who says he was injured by one of the free t-shirts propelled into the crowd.

May 26-29 — “Skydivers don’t sue”. Lively Usenet discussion last month and this among skydiving enthusiasts (rec.skydiving) over recent lawsuits in the sport. In one, Canadian skydiving acrobat Gerry Dyck is suing teammate Robert Laidlaw over a 1991 accident during an eight-man stunt jump near Calgary in which Dyck was knocked unconscious and severely hurt on landing. (Jeffrey Jones, “Canadian skydiver sues teammate for mid-air crash”, San Jose Mercury News, April 24, no longer online). The other followed the death of James E. Martin, Jr., a Hemet, Calif. dentist and veteran of more than 5,000 jumps who perished when a line snagged on his parachute, his fifth time out on that gear. Now his widow’s suing the gear maker, Fliteline Systems of Lake Elsinore, Calif.; vice president Mick Cottle of Fliteline, the first defendant named in the suit, says Martin was a “close friend”. “Few lawsuits over sky diving deaths ever reach judgment,” reports the Riverside Press-Enterprise. And “most makers of sky-diving gear do not carry liability insurance, which reduces the likelihood of plaintiffs gaining a settlement.” About 32 sky-diving deaths occur annually in the U.S., of which about five lead to lawsuits, according to one frequent expert witness in the field; he estimates that plaintiffs have won only 1 or 2 percent of cases he’s seen, though it’s unclear whether he’s including settlements in that estimate. (Guy McCarthy, “Lawsuit blames gear in sky diver’s death”, Riverside Press-Enterprise, May 8, link now dead; Remarq saved thread; Deja.com archive, recent search on “lawsuit” — hundreds of posts in all)

May 26-29 — Insurers fret over online privacy suits. The wave of lawsuits against Yahoo!, DoubleClick and others for privacy sins has insurance companies “concerned they will have to pay for potentially massive torts they didn’t anticipate” in liability policies they’ve written for the dot-com sector. “‘If it’s not the next really big issue, it’s one of the next big issues where we can expect a lot of litigation,’ said Thomas R. Cornwell, VP of the technology insurance group” for insurer Chubb. “Plaintiff’s attorneys are honing their skills and preparing for a boom in such lawsuits,” reports the magazine Business Insurance in its May 22 lead story. “‘Just as the Internet itself is a growth area, Internet law is being recognized as a growth area within the legal profession,’ said David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. The nonprofit organization supports plaintiff lawsuits on Internet privacy.” “My guess is that now that the blood is in the water there will be a lot of plaintiffs’ attorneys sniffing it up,” said one lawyer who’s sued Yahoo. (Roberto Ceniceros, “Internet privacy liability growing”, Business Insurance, May 22, fee-based archives). Expect the cost of securing liability insurance for an Internet launch to rise accordingly.

May 26-29 — Suits by household pets? “Somewhere out there — maybe in a Boston zoo or a Fresno research lab — a Bonzo or Fido is biding his time, deceptively peeling a banana or playing dead, quietly getting ready to sue his master,” writes Claire Cooper of the Sacramento Bee. As animal-rights courses proliferate at law schools, activists are quietly looking for test cases in which to assert the singular new notion of standing for nonhuman creatures — with themselves as the designated legal representatives, needless to say. (“Pets suing their masters? Stay tuned, advocates say”, May 13). In March the Seattle Times profiled the Great Apes Legal Project, which views the non-human primate kingdom as plausible rights-bearing clients. This provoked a letter from reader David Storm of Everett, who said the article was “very interesting, but the goal doesn’t go far enough. In addition, we should declare the apes to be lawyers, which would simultaneously improve our legal system.” (Alex Tizon, “Cadre of lawyers working to win rights for apes”, Seattle Times, March 19; letters, March 21). See also Roger Bryant Banks, “Animal Dogma”, SpinTech (online), May 12, on the question: if Chimp v. Zoo is a good case, why not also Chimp v. Chimp, following incidents of violence or harassment?

May 26-29 — EPA’s high courtroom loss rate. Most federal agencies win most of the time when their regulatory decisionmaking is challenged in federal court, but the Environmental Protection Agency in recent years has been a glaring exception, losing a large share of the cases it has defended, including high-profile battles over electric car mandates, gasoline reformulation, and Clean Water Act permit-granting, among many others. Why does it fare so badly? Jonathan Adler of the Competitive Enterprise Institute thinks one reason is that agency policymakers adopt extreme legal positions, partly due to unclear authorizing statutes, partly due to zealousness among political appointees at the top. “Environmental Performance at the Bench: The EPA’s Record in Federal Court”, Reason Public Policy Institute, Policy Study #269; “EPA in Need of Adult Supervision”, CEI Update, March 1; Adler’s home page. Ben Lieberman, also of CEI, calls attention to one of the more unusual confrontations the EPA has gotten into of late: its crackdown on coal-burning utilities has led it into a showdown with the government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority, which means it’s the feds versus the feds. (“EPA’s tug at TVA’s power”, May 19, no longer online).

May 26-29 — Ready to handle your legal needs. Stephen Glass, who resigned in disgrace from The New Republic just over two years ago after being caught making up stories, is graduating this month from Georgetown Law School. The Pop View has posted this summary of the episode for anyone who’s forgotten (via Romenesko’s Media News).

May 25 — Conference on excessive legal fees. In Washington today from 10 to 4 Eastern, the Manhattan Institute, Federalist Society, Hudson Institute and Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. team up to host a conference on ideas for “protecting unsophisticated consumers, class action members, and taxpayers/citizens” from overreaching legal fees (schedule and confirmed speakers at Federalist Society site; live broadcast at U.S. Chamber site requires RealPlayer).

May 25 — Thomas the Tank Engine, derailed. “Children’s online privacy”: the sort of sweetness-and-light notion practically no one’s willing to criticize in principle. Yet regulation is regulation, and seldom lacking in real-world bite. Declan McCullagh at Wired News reports that the popular children’s TV show Thomas the Tank Engine has had to discontinue sending regular email bulletins to legions of young fans because obtaining parental consent individually would be too cumbersome. The show’s website cites the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which took effect last month. Other online publishers are also unilaterally cutting off subscribers under the age of 12, to their distress. (“COPPA Lets Steam Out of Thomas”, May 13; Lynn Burke, “Kid’s Privacy an Act, or Action?”, April 20).

May 25 — “Taking cash into custody”. Local law enforcement agencies systematically dodge the constraints of state forfeiture law to help themselves to proceeds after seizing cash and property in traffic stops and drug busts, according to this Kansas City Star investigation. And though Congress’s enactment of federal-level forfeiture law reform was much trumpeted earlier this year (see April 13, Jan. 31), it’s likely to leave many of the abuses unchecked. (Karen Dillon, Kansas City Star, series May 19-20).

May 25 — What the French think of American harassment law. Pretty much what you’d expect: “Fifteen years after the first harassment trials, puritanism in the office is total,” marvels the New York correspondent of a French paper named Liaisons Sociales. “A suggestive calendar in a man’s locker? Prohibited. Below-the-belt jokes? Totally excluded. Comments about physique? Illegal. The result is that behavior in the workplace has been profoundly changed. The doors of offices are always open. The secretaries are always present during tete-a-tete meetings, in case they need to be witnesses in litigation.” A few feminist French lawyers would like to emulate the American way of doing things but lament that in their country litigation is frowned on, damages are set at a token level, and, as one complains, “current French law makes no mention of things like improper jokes”. (Vivienne Walt, “Curbing Workplace Sexism Evolving Slowly in France,” New York Times, May 24 (reg)). Plus: chief exec of leading British fashion chain canned after inappropriate conduct (Fraser Nelson and Tim Fraser, “Pat on the bottom costs boss £1m job” Sunday Times (London), May 10).

May 25 — His wayward clients. In March, in 275 pages of court filings, Allstate, Geico and other insurers filed a lawsuit charging what they called “the most extensive fraud upon the New York no-fault system that has ever been uncovered,” suing 47 doctors, chiropractors and businessmen all told. But the complaint did not name as a defendant a lawyer who’s given legal advice or assistance to just about every one of those 47 defendants; he’s a former chairman of the State Bar Association’s health committee who rents office space in a politically connected law firm. Among his specialties is to assist chiropractors and others in getting around a New York rule that no one can own a medical practice other than a licensed doctor. The complaint says a Milford, Conn. physician who holds a license to practice medicine in New York had served as the front guy for no fewer than 29 medical practices in the state. (Glenn Thrush, “Black Belt Lawyer Robert B orsody Evades $57 Million Fraud Lawsuit”, New York Observer, March 20).

May 24 — Musical chairs disapproved. “The traditional children’s party game of musical chairs has been accused of breeding violence,” reports the BBC. A booklet produced under the auspices of the British education ministry by a group called the Forum on Children and Violence argues that the diversion rewards the “strongest and fastest” children and suggests that nursery schools consider an alternative game such as “musical statues”. The education spokeswoman for the opposition Tories, Theresa May, called the advice “political correctness gone mad”. (“Musical chairs ‘too violent'”, BBC News, May 23).

May 24 — After the great power-line panic. Eleven years ago reporter Paul Brodeur penned a series of articles for The New Yorker charging that electric power-line fields were causing childhood cancers and other ailments, later published as a book entitled Currents of Death. Trial lawyers promptly went on the warpath, and the resulting binge of scare publicity terrified countless parents. Hundreds of millions in litigation costs later, the suits have mostly fizzled. But have any lessons been learned? Forbes reprints an excerpt from Robert L. Park’s much-discussed new book, “Voodoo Science” (Oxford U. Press). (“Voodoo Science and the Power-Line Panic”, May 15). Among groups that stoked the panic were Trial Lawyers for Public Justice: see, e.g., “Names in the News: Kilovolt Cancer”, Multinational Monitor, March 1992 (second item, quoting TLPJ’s Michael Koskoff).

May 24 — Smudged plumage. The Baltimore Orioles, owned by trial lawyer zillionaire/political kingmaker Peter Angelos, say that in order not to threaten the “goodwill” arising from their exhibition performance against the Cuban national team last year (see Dec. 9, Oct. 19 commentaries), they’ll refuse to hire any baseball player who defects from Cuba. Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity calls this stand “morally indefensible — telling those fleeing a totalitarian regime that they are unwelcome and unemployable” — and wonders how well it accords with the federal laws banning employment discrimination on the basis of national origin and lawful-immigrant status. Maybe the team could beat such charges by arguing that it has nothing against Cuban émigrés based on their national origin as such — it might hire them, after all, if they were loyal Castroites playing with Fidel’s approval. (“Peter Angelos in foul territory”, National Review Online, May 18; “Orioles Avoid Cuban Players Who Have Defected”, Reuters/Yahoo, May 17, link now dead).

May 24 — ADA & the web: sounding the alarm. “It’s simply a matter of (Internet) time before pitched battles over accommodations in the virtual world rival their physical counterparts,” writes MIT’s Michael Schrage (“Brave New Work: E-Commodating the Disabled in the Workplace”, Fortune, May 15; quotes our editor). The National Federation of the Blind’s recent lawsuit against AOL is “a 500-pound gorilla that party-goers can’t ignore,” according to a metaphor-happy lawyer with Morrison & Foerster. “…If the court rules that AOL is a public accommodation, it could require anyone engaging in e-commerce to make their Web site …accessible to people with disabilities.” (Ritchenya A. Shepherd, “Net Rights for the Disabled?”, National Law Journal, Nov. 15, 1999). “In a few years, if regulatory history is repeated, any Web site that doesn’t provide government-sanctioned equal access for the handicapped could be declared illegal,” warns an Internet Week columnist (Bill Frezza, “The ADA Stalks The Internet: Is Your Web Page Illegal?”, Feb. 28). Coming soon, we hope: a few highlights from the mail we’ve been inundated with on this topic, much of which we haven’t even had a chance to answer yet (thanks for your patience, correspondents!).

May 24 — Bargain price on The Excuse Factory. Usually we urge you to buy books through our online bookstore, but right now Laissez Faire Books is offering an unbeatable discount on our editor’s book about law and what it’s doing to the American workplace, The Excuse Factory, just $12.25 while they last (hardcover, too). And it makes a good occasion to check out the rest of the LFB catalogue. (Order direct from them.)

May 23 — Steering the evidence. The FBI is probing charges of evidence- and witness-tampering in a liability case that led a San Antonio judge last week to impose sanctions on plaintiff’s attorneys Robert Kugle, Andrew Toscano and Robert “Trey” Wilson. Bridgett and Juan Fabila had sued DaimlerChrysler, demanding $2 billion, over a 1996 accident in Mexico which killed several family members in their Dodge Neon. Their lawyers alleged that the car’s steering column decoupler was defective. But someone anonymously sent DaimlerChrysler evidence of misconduct by its adversaries, and eventually the carmaker succeeded in laying before 224th District Judge David Peeples evidence of the following:

* The steering decoupler was broken by the time the carmaker was allowed to see it, but photographs taken shortly after the accident showed it intact. The plaintiff’s lawyers denied for two years having any knowledge of such photos, and then, when they came to light, moved unilaterally to drop the suit, then argued (unsuccessfully) that the judge had no authority to impose sanctions on them because his jurisdiction ended with the suit. Close inspection of the steering decoupler revealed the minute scrapings of wrench marks and other signs of deliberate tampering.

* One of the attorneys’ investigators “tried to bribe two Mexican highway patrol officers in an attempt to change their testimony and threatened the family of a Red Cross official who said Fabila told him the accident had occurred because her husband fell asleep behind the wheel.”

* The “investigator who took the first set of photographs claim[ed] Wilson told him in March that his firm was ‘running a bluff, but we had our hand called.'” The lawyers said later that their real demand was for $75 million, of which they would get 40 percent as their share, according to the San Antonio paper’s Rick Casey.

Senior partner Robert Kugle of the Kugle Law Firm counter-accused the car company of itself bribing witnesses and tampering with evidence, while Wilson and investigator Stephen Garza “both asserted their Fifth Amendment right not to testify”. After an inquiry, Judge Peeples dismissed the Fabila family’s suit with prejudice, ordered attorneys Kugle, Toscano and Wilson to pay $920,000 in legal expenses that DaimlerChrysler had incurred — it’s not quite impossible for a defendant to recover its legal costs in an American courtroom — and said he planned to report his findings to the state bar and to county prosecutors for possible action. The FBI has seized the vehicle pursuant to further investigation, according to Casey. Kugle continues to declare his innocence of wrongdoing and says he intends to appeal; the other two attorneys were not available to reporters for comment. Ken Glucksman, associate general counsel of DaimlerChrysler, said the case was “the most flagrant example of misconduct I’ve seen in more than 20 years as a lawyer” and said he hoped the attorneys were disbarred. Update: final ruling by judge sets stage for appeal (June 26). Further update (Mar. 17, 2003).

SOURCES: Adolfo Pesquera, “Sanctions issued in tampering case”, San Antonio Express-News, May 18; San Antonio Express-News coverage by Rick Casey, various dates; “Judge Dismisses $2 Bln Suit vs. Daimler”, Reuters/FindLaw, May 18; “DaimlerChrysler wins $920,489 in fines against three Texas attorneys”, AP/Detroit Free Press, May 18; Dina ElBoghdady, “DaimlerChrysler fights baseless suits”, Detroit News, May 19; “Lawyers who sued DC fined”, Detroit Free Press, May 19, link now dead.

May 23 — “Toronto Torch” age-bias suit. Shirley Zegil, 52, has filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, saying she was improperly discharged by a Brantford strip club because of her age. “They told me I was too old and fat,” said Zegil, who has been disrobing for audiences for more than two decades and performs under the nicknames “The Contessa” and “Toronto Torch”. But she still has plenty of loyal fans among older clubgoers: “A girl is never too old to strip,” she says. (Dale Brazao, “Stripper, 52, a winner in my court of appeal”, Toronto Star, May 22, no longer online).

May 23 — Favorite bookmark. Edward E. Potter is president of the Employment Policy Foundation, which plays a prominent role in debates on workplace issues in the nation’s capital. Yesterday the Cincinnati Enquirer asked him to list his favorite bookmarks, and this site made it onto the short list. Thanks! (“Weighing future of work force” (interview), May 22).

May 23 — “Lawyers’ tobacco-suit fees invite revolt”. Arbitrators’ award of $265 million to Ohio tobacco lawyers was the final straw for editors of USA Today, which came out editorially yesterday in favor of limiting attorneys’ tobacco swag. Fee hauls have mounted to $10.4 billion, including $3.4 billion for lawyers representing Florida, $3.3 billion (Texas), $1.4 billion (Mississippi), and $575 million (Louisiana), the latter of which works out, according to a dissenting arbitrator, to $6,700 an hour. The paper calls the “mega-paydays” a “sorry legacy” of the tobacco deal and notes that lawyers “who represented many states are being paid repeatedly for piggyback efforts.” (May 22).

May 23 — “Harvard reenacts Jesus trial”. Among dramatis personae in simulated trial of founder of Christianity: divinity prof Harvey Cox as Pontius Pilate and, as defense lawyer for the man of Galilee, none other than Alan Dershowitz, who “said the role fulfilled a lifelong dream. ‘Jesus is the one client I’ve always wished I could have represented,’ said the law professor whose clients have included O.J. Simpson, Claus von Bulow and Leona Helmsley”. Arguing that crucifixion was too severe a penalty for defying Roman authorities, Dershowitz “came up with a novel substitute punishment. ‘I think it would be appropriate to tie him in litigation and appeals for years,” he said. ‘That way he would spend his life with lawyers, whom he hated.'” (Richard Higgins, Boston Globe/Omaha World Herald, May 13).

May 22 — Texas tobacco fees. “Every three months, like clockwork, another $25 million arrives for the five Texas tobacco lawyers.” The five are fighting tooth and nail to avoid being put under oath by Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, a Republican, about how they came by that money, specifically, “longtime allegations that his predecessor, Dan Morales, solicited large sums of money from lawyers he considered hiring” for the state’s tobacco case. (Wayne Slater, “Trial lawyers give heavily to Democrats”, Dallas Morning News, May 14; Clay Robison, “Cornyn moves in on anti-tobacco lawyers”, Houston Chronicle, April 27; Susan Borreson, “Motions Flying Again Over Tobacco Lawyers’ Fees”, Texas Lawyer, July 26, 1999; “Lawyers Challenge AG’s Subpoenas”, Nov. 17, 1999).

So far, according to the Dallas Morning News report, the five have taken in more than $400 million of the billions they expect eventually from the tobacco settlement, and have recycled a goodly chunk of that change into political donations — more than $2.2 million in unrestricted soft money to the Democrats already in this election cycle, with further sums expected. Walter Umphrey, along with members of his Beaumont firm, “has put at least $350,000 into Democratic coffers. ‘The only hope of the Democratic Party is that the trial lawyers nationwide dig down deep and the labor unions do the same thing,’ he said. In addition to Mr. Umphrey and his firm, John Eddie Williams and members of his Houston firm have given $720,000; Harold Nix of Daingerfield, $420,000; Wayne Reaud of Beaumont, $250,000; and John O’Quinn of Houston, $100,000.”

May 22 — Not child’s father, must pay anyway. “Told by his girlfriend that she was pregnant, Bill Neal of Glasgow Village presumed he was the father and agreed to pay child support.” Eight years and $8,000 in payments later, Neal was curious why the child didn’t take after his looks, arranged for a DNA test to be done, and discovered the boy was someone else’s. So far the courts have ruled that he has to keep paying anyway because he didn’t contest the matter earlier. The legal system is big on finality on the matter of paternity, as men have learned to their misfortune in similar cases lately in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. (Tim Bryant, “Man must pay support even though he is not boy’s father”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 17, no longer online). Plus: John Tierney on “throwaway dads” (“An Imbalance in the Battle Over Custody”, New York Times, April 29 (requires registration)).

May 22 — “Jury Awards Apparent Record $220,000 for Broken Finger”. It happened in Atlanta after 41-year-old dental hygienist Linda K. Powers took a spin on the dance floor with Mike D. Lastufka but came to grief when Lastufka “tried a shag-style spin move”; her thumb wound up broken and she sued him. The previously reported Georgia record for a broken finger or thumb was $20,000 to a tennis instructor hurt in an auto accident. (Trisha Renaud, Fulton County Daily Report, Jan. 28).

May 22 — Annals of zero tolerance. In Canton, Ohio, a six-year-old boy has been suspended from school for sexual harassment after he jumped from the tub where he was being given a bath and waved out the window to a school bus that was picking up his sister (Lori Monsewicz, “Boy, 6, jumps from tub into sex harassment trouble”, Canton Repository, May 11). In the latest “finger-gun” incident, the principal of a Boston elementary school visited a class of second-graders to admonish several of them for making the thumb-as-trigger gesture during a supervised play-acting session; the youngsters were not subjected to discipline, however. (Ed Hayward, “School gives hands-on lesson after kids pull ‘finger guns'”, Boston Herald, March 28). And the American Bar Association Journal — who says its views don’t coincide with ours occasionally? — points out that “a child is three times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed violently at school” and recounts many noteworthy cases: “A second-grader who accidentally grabbed her mother’s lunch bag containing a steak knife was disciplined despite turning the bag over to her teacher as soon as she realized her mistake. A middle-schooler who shared her asthma inhaler on the school bus with a classmate experiencing a wheezing attack was suspended for drug trafficking.” “Kids are not going to respect teachers and administrators who cannot appreciate the difference between a plastic knife and a switchblade,” says Virginia lawyer Diane Fener. (Margaret Graham Tebo, “Zero tolerance, zero sense”, ABA Journal, April).