You searched for:

golf

The son of the former mayor had sued over being kicked off the university’s golf team. ["Campus Notes" News & Observer blog, WSJ Law Blog; earlier coverage]

{ 1 comment }

Following thirty years of battles, the Obama Administration signaled that it would extend federal recognition to the Shinnecock tribe. Of particular interest: “The tribe is also hoping to resolve more than $1 billion worth of land disputes in the Hamptons, including its claim to the site of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, which has played host to the U.S. Open several times.” [NYT] Backed by casino promoters, the tribe filed a massive land claim in 2005 which I wrote about at the time in the NYT; a federal judge rejected the case the next year, following a turn against Indian land claims at the Second Circuit level.

{ 2 comments }

A federal magistrate has turned a preliminary thumbs down on the argument advanced by a pro golfer against his suspension from the PGA for using synthetic testosterone to treat a low testosterone count. The use of such hormones is often associated with increased muscle mass and athletic performance. [CNN via Jon Hyman]

{ 6 comments }

Here’s something we’ve never tried at Overlawyered: a full-length, original book review by an outside contributor. Blogger David Giacalone, whose now-inactive EthicalEsq. (later f/k/a) is fondly remembered and has often been linked in this space, has kindly offered to let us publish his newly written review of BabyBarista and the Art of War, a new novel based on Tim Kevan’s popular BabyBarista column for the U.K.’s Times (a paper to which I’ve contributed as an online columnist in the past). The novel has been hailed as a “Hogarthian romp” and a “satire with edge”; David says it displays its subjects, British lawyers,

acting very much like the worst segments of the American bar: taking huge fees for little work, entering settlements at their clients’ expense (to assure a fee, or to get to a golf course or an early lunch), exploiting underlings, disrespecting a “litigant in person” (pro se) party, making it dangerous to raise sexual harassment charges, etc. It was heartening to hear BabyB warn clients about the risks of no-win-no-fee (contingency) arrangements, and enlightening to see how personal injury claims are fabricated. For the entire 266 pages, the Bar’s foibles and vices are laid bare, but with a light (if exaggerated) touch rather than a heavy hand.

The review is longer than our usual blog post, so we’ve published it on a separate page here.

By David Giacalone

[Review of Tim Kevan, BabyBarista and the Art of War (Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, published August 3; about $25 including shipping from the UK to the USA; also at Amazon.com U.S.)]

Because I’ve retired from weblog punditry, Walter has generously let me borrow the Overlawyered pulpit to tell you about Tim Kevan’s first novel Baby Barista and the Art of War, which is based on Kevan’s Times Online weblog BabyBarista. If, as I expect, you like your summer reading laced with a generous — and consistently humorous — serving of confessional lawyer bashing, I think you’ll want to end or extend the season with this enjoyable new novel.

A chorus of rave reviews, many of them gushing out of Tim’s chummy-old-chap network of British blawgers the past two months (see, e.g., Charon QC, John Bolch, GeekLawyer, and Jacquig, plus one more sober Yank, Colin Samuels), have already well described the book and its portrait of a greedy, self-serving, mendacious Bar. So I will not go into great detail about the plot or the characters. As always, I have two basic questions when reviewing a book: 1) Was my time spent reading it a good investment? and 2) Who (if anyone) is likely to benefit from (or enjoy) reading it? For this novel, I’ll add a third question: Is there a way for folks here in the former colonies to overcome our cultural differences and get more out of BBAW?

As you can guess by now, I think my time was well-used reading BBAW. I was expecting a fun story that confirmed my belief that many avaricious lawyers tend to charge too much and serve their own interests before their clients’ needs or the demands of justice, and I got it. The well-paced and planned plot has the protagonist, the newly degreed “BabyBarista,” spending an apprenticeship year in “pupillage” to a group of barristers — trying to beat out three (and eventually four) other young lawyers for a “tenancy” position in the barristers’ chambers.

Prior reviewers have correctly noted that BabyB is far from an admirable character. As the title of the book suggests, he quickly decides that pupillage is like war, and models his behavior after the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (plus tactics from the movie Wall Street, with a dash of the mischief and romance of Ferris Bueller). Despite occasional qualms of conscience, BabyB “plots, lies, and manipulates his way through the twelve months of pupillage” (Charon QC). Despite all his dirty tricks and the feeling that he just might become like the experienced barristers he holds in such low esteem, it is hard not to like and root for Tim Kevan’s BabyB.

Although the characters (except for BabyB’s best friend Claire) are all given merely descriptive names — i.e., OldRuin, TheBoss, TopFirst, BusyBody, Worrier, The Vamp, UpTights, OldSmoothie, etc. — Kevan gives the major figures enough depth to allow us to sympathize with some, loathe others (while also seeing their humanity), and recognize many of them from our own lives. Running feuds between several of the characters come alive through witty dialogue that often also advances the plot.

My own alter ego ethicalEsq was bemused but not surprised by UK lawyers acting very much like the worst segments of the American bar: taking huge fees for little work, entering settlements at their clients’ expense (to assure a fee, or to get to a golf course or an early lunch), exploiting underlings, disrespecting a “litigant in person” (pro se) party, making it dangerous to raise sexual harassment charges, etc. It was heartening to hear BabyB warn clients about the risks of no-win-no-fee (contingency) arrangements, and enlightening to see how personal injury claims are fabricated. For the entire 266 pages, the Bar’s foibles and vices are laid bare, but with a light (if exaggerated) touch rather than a heavy hand.

Charon QC got it right and says it better than I could:

[Tim Kevan] paints a wonderfully surreal picture of the Bar, stretching belief but at the same time leaving the reader wondering where the inspiration came from. . . .

I liked the way Tim used his experience of practice to parody different scenarios, different styles of work and personality, and some of the changes the legal profession is going through. His section on claim farms and their handling of accident claims is just wonderful. We have a judge who plays online bridge during hearings, an Insurance company which settles cases with a barrister by playing Battleships – the old game from childhood – and we have general mayhem and riot. . . .

BabyBarista is a Hogarthian romp, a parody, a satire with edge and I have no hesitation in finding for Tim Kevan and recommending it to you.

I agree with Colin Samuels at Blawg Review that the ending was “a bit too abrupt and convenient” — which is to say, I would happily have continued reading a longer, more-developed version. Colin is also correct to point out that the book becomes easier for some within the Bar to dismiss because of its “exclusive focus on the misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance within BabyBarista’s chambers without even passing looks at others.” Nonetheless, without detracting from the worrisome truth behind the satire, I think the author spends enough time on the good qualities of OldRuin and Claire to reassure the reader that not all lawyers are scoundrels, and that BabyB may redeem himself eventually. The focus on the dark side of the profession gives BBAW its bite and its comedic punch.

So, who should read this book? Any lawyer with a sense of humor and a desire to face the demons of our profession; and anyone thinking about entering the profession but worried about losing their soul in the race for money and status. Also, tort reformers and other policy wonks looking for reasons to trim the sails of the legal profession, but who don’t mind momentarily lightening up on the topic. And (despite a plethora of inside-the-profession jokes and references), Jack Cade, Dick the Butcher and the rest of the general public, who so often want to “kill all the lawyers.”

On the other hand, folks like former D.C. Bar President John C. Keeney Jr. — who blames pop culture for the profession’s bad reputation and who asked that fellow lawyers “all join me in refusing to laugh at lawyer jokes” (Washington Lawyer, November 2004) — should probably stay away. Ditto the “prudes, puritans, and professional sour-pusses” in the Bar who are easily offended by any suggestion that lawyers can be sexy or engage in sexual relations, or who don’t understand the use of irony and satire in the war against sexism.

Despite all of the above praise, I want to recommend a little more work for my weblog friend Tim Kevan. I think he could and should use his BabyBarista website, or Barrister Blog, to present an appendix to BBAW for Non-Brits. A lack of knowledge of the workings of the UK legal system detracted a bit from my understanding and enjoyment of the novel, and may also affect many other lawyers and non-lawyers outside of the UK. We need a brief description of the roles of barristers and solicitors, and how they interact, along with more details about the organization within chambers, and the legal education process.

We also need a UK to USA glossary (or a full-blown primer on UK-English as a Second Language) to explain all of the words, idioms and cultural references in BBAW that are quite foreign to Americans (especially Baby Boomers and our elders). Tim wrote last month about the problems of translating the book into Chinese. Much is lost in translation for those of us brought up on American English and culture, too.

Blame it on my lawyer personality, but I was compelled to look up an awful lot of words and phrases, for example:

  • twigged – to understand, usually after some initial difficulty
  • bovvered – from “bovver,” troublemaking or rowdiness by street gang youths (from the Cockney pronunciation of “bother”)
  • “quite likely” – a phrase used to annoy others when they ask you a question
  • Brummie – a resident of Birmingham, England
  • “not a patch on you” – not be nearly as good as somebody or something

. . . and many more words, phrases, geographic and social/class references, and other allusions (e.g., Robin Reliant) in BBAW. Reading the book was enjoyable and worthwhile, despite my ignorance of UK lore and life, but it might have been sublime if I didn’t have to scratch my head and head to Google so often.

Finally, in case you’re worried about the emotional and mental health of the legal profession after reading BBAW, you should know that Tim Kevan has written (with psychiatrist Michelle Tempest) an antidote to what ails the Bar and his BabyB. It’s called Why Lawyers Should Surf, and it uses the metaphor of surfing and the ocean flow to help lawyers find the tools to fight the profession’s high-dominance personality traits, and the “skepticism skills” that can make successful lawyers, but can bring great stress and distress to our personal lives. As the summer ends, or Labor Day ushers in more responsibilities and deadlines, let Tim wind you up with BabyBarista and the Art of War, and then soothe your psyche with lessons from ocean surfing.

Disclaimer. It was not until I finished reading the book and glanced at the Acknowledgements page that I discovered my name among well over a hundred people Tim thanks for their “invaluable help in making BabyBarista.” My name must be there because of the cheerleading I did as a fellow blawger for his Barrister Blog and my envious reporting of Tim’s coup landing the BabyBarista weblog at the TimesOnline. I had no hand in the novel’s content or structure.

P.S. If you’re interested in a witty first novel by another lawyer, with fully-developed characterization of the lawyer-protagonist, plus more actual lawyering, and an excellent explanation of the psychology and strategy that goes into making a personal injury negligence case and bringing it to trial, see “An Almost Life” by Kevin Mednick (The Permanent Press, December 2007; reviewed at f/k/a).

***

David Giacalone formerly blogged at EthicalEsq. and f/k/a.

{ 4 comments }

“In an opinion peppered with golf references and a quote from “Caddyshack” star Bill Murray, a federal magistrate has recommended the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Rudolph Giuliani’s son over his booting from Duke University’s varsity golf team.” [The Smoking Gun, Althouse; earlier]

At a Dix Hills, Long Island golf course, Dr. Azad Anand was injured when his golfing buddy hit the ball flying without yelling the traditional cry of “fore”. A New York appellate court, however, “said getting hit by an errant ball is an ‘inherent risk of the game of golf.’” [AP/Staten Island Advance] More: John Hochfelder discusses the concept of the “foreseeable danger zone“.

{ 5 comments }

February 18 roundup

by Walter Olson on February 18, 2009

  • Golfer’s ball bounces off yardage marker and hits him in eye, and he sues; not the Florida case we blogged last month, this one took place in New Hampshire [Manchester Union-Leader]
  • Who needs democracy, much easier just to let the Litigation Lobby run things: elected Illinois lawmakers keep enacting limits on med-mal awards, but trial-lawyer-friendly Illinois Supreme Court keeps striking them down, third round pending at the moment [Peoria Journal-Star, Alton Telegraph, Illinois Times, Reality Medicine (ISMS)]
  • “A sword-wielding, parent-killing psychopath can be such a help around the house.” [we have funny commenters]
  • Brooklyn lawyer Steven Rondos, charged with particularly horrendous looting of incapacitated clients’ estates [earlier], said to have served the New York State Bar Association “as vice president of its guardianship committee” [NYPost]
  • Updated annals of public employee tenure: Connecticut state lawyer who assumed bogus identity to write letter that got her boss fired drew a $1000 fine as well as a reprimand — and then got a raise [Jon Lender/Hartford Courant and more, earlier here and here]
  • Judge Bobby DeLaughter indicted and arraigned as new chapter of Dickie Scruggs judicial-corruption story gets under way in Mississippi; Tim Balducci and Steve Patterson, central figures in Scruggs I, each draw 2-year sentences [NMC/Folo and more, more, YallPolitics, more, earlier on Balducci, DeLaughter]
  • Disney “Tower of Terror” ride not therapeutic for all patrons: British woman sues saying she suffered heart attack and stroke after riding it several times [AP]
  • Convicted of torching his farm, Manitoba man sues his insurance company for not making good on policy [five years ago on Overlawyered]

{ 4 comments }

The golf accident in Hillsborough County, Florida resulted in a $1 million payout. Several legal bloggers discussed the case on Twitter and Nicole Black picked us up on her compilation site, LegalTweets (which is worth checking out generally).

{ 4 comments }

Back in April we had occasion to note the aggressive intellectual property stance of a company called Monster Cable, which had drawn a memorably tart riposte from the recipient of one of its nastygrams. We didn’t catch a wider aspect of the story, noted by Engadget in May, which is that Monster Cable goes around demanding that a wide range of businesses stop using the word “monster” in contexts far removed from its own line of work (audio/video cables); it reportedly has demanded cash from such businesses in exchange for calling off its lawyers. One of its targets, a miniature golf operation called Monster Mini Golf, is now trying to bring the story to public attention (TechDirt, Dec. 3).

{ 6 comments }

Microblog 2008-11-08

by Walter Olson on November 8, 2008

A year ago we reported on the indictment of Erie, Pa.-based state appellate judge Michael T. Joyce, whose $440,000 settlement after a rear-ending of his Mercedes-Benz was premised on his having suffered physically disabling injuries, but who in fact was found to have engaged in scuba diving and golf, among other pastimes, during the period in question. According to the indictment, the judge used the proceeds to buy a Harley-Davidson and a share in a Cessna, as well as for other purposes. Today his trial is set to begin. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Tribune-Review, Erie Times-News via Bashman).

September 3 roundup

by Walter Olson on September 3, 2008

{ 2 comments }

At least that was Thomas Guhl’s theory as to why the ball struck his windshield with high velocity while he was driving near the Eagle Oaks Golf and Country Club, injuring him. His $725,000 settlement is based on the theory that the golf club was negligent for not installing netting along Asbury Avenue that would have kept balls from landing on a neighboring homeowner’s lawn, and that Canfield Lawn and Landscaping was negligent because it hadn’t checked that lawn for golf balls before mowing. (”Man injured by golf ball gets $725K”, AP/Newark Star-Ledger, Jul. 31).

{ 1 comment }

July 25 roundup

by Walter Olson on July 25, 2008

{ 2 comments }

There was an auto accident in Dallas; plaintiffs sued Volkswagen in Marshall, Texas, in the notoriously plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas, which has a hugely abnormal number of product liability cases—17% of all federal automobile product liability lawsuits in the United States. Let us quote from In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 506 F.3d 376 (5th Cir.2007), earlier discussed on POL Nov. 27 and Feb. 23:

Volkswagen moved to transfer venue to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas (”Dallas Division”). Volkswagen asserted that a transfer was warranted as (1) the Volkswagen Golf was purchased in Dallas County, Texas; (2) the accident occurred on a freeway in Dallas, Texas; (3) Dallas residents witnessed the accident; (4) Dallas police and paramedics responded and took action; (5) a Dallas doctor performed the autopsy; (6) the third-party defendant lives in Dallas County, Texas; (7) none of the plaintiffs live in the Marshall Division; (8) no known party or significant non-party witness lives in the Marshall Division; and (9) none of the facts giving rise to this suit occurred in the Marshall Division.

The district court refused to transfer to the Northern District, VW sought mandamus, and got it on the second try, with the Fifth Circuit ordering transfer. (See also John Council, “5th Circuit Restricts Trial Courts’ Discretion in Venue Motions”, Texas Lawyer, Nov. 5; John Council, “5th Circuit Case Could Reduce Product Liability Caseload in Texas’ Eastern District”, Texas Lawyer, Aug. 7).

In February, however, the Fifth Circuit vacated the decision, and granted en banc rehearing. Argument is Thursday in New Orleans, and the decision will determine whether the Fifth Circuit will tolerate forum shopping in the federal courts. (Michelle Massey, “Appeals court scheduled to hear arguments over forum shopping”, SE Texas Record, May 20). The case is of special importance to the patent bar, given the fact that Marshall, Texas, has become the unlikely capital of United States patent litigation. Blog coverage: PatentlyO, Prior Art.

En banc briefs in 07-40058, In re Volkswagen AG:

Department of Strangely Shifting Academic Positions: In December 2007, law professor Georgene Vairo wrote a LexisNexis Expert Commentary on the Volkswagen case explaining its consistency with Supreme Court precedents, and writing

The Fifth Circuit is not alone in permitting the use of mandamus in limited circumstances. For example, in Lemon v. Druffel, 253 F.2d 680 (6th Cir. 1958), a case decided shortly after Congress codified § 1404(a), the Sixth Circuit ruled that mandamus was an appropriate remedy to test a district court’s discretion on a motion to transfer.

In April 2008, she signed on to a brief taking precisely the opposite position, which does not cite Lemon. Curious.

Overlawyered has more on the Eastern District of Texas, and on Judge T. John Ward.

{ 3 comments }

Trial lawyers like to repeat statistics similar to this (Bizarro-Overlawyered just did so this week) as an argument for medical malpractice being a problem of the doctors, rather than the lawyers. The problem is, as I noted three years ago, that the statistic is fallacious.

Some small X% of doctors responsible for large Y% of payouts is always going to be true simply by random chance. It’s going to be true over any time period: the problem is that if you take that time period and divide by two, the X% in the first half of the time period are going to be almost entirely different than the X% in the second half of the time period. Even if you were to fire every single one of those doctors in the tail in the first time period, all you have is X% fewer doctors; the very next year, it’s going to be a different small A% of doctors responsible for large B% of payouts, and you’ve solved nothing. With very rare exceptions medical malpractice payouts have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the doctor, and everything to do with the risk profile of their practice.

It’s worth noting Eugene Volokh’s excellent explication of the issue:

[click to continue…]

{ 3 comments }

No preferred Lies

by Peter Morin on February 25, 2008

Elaine Joyce is a highly competitive female amateur golfer who wants to play with the guys. But she was barred from playing with her father in a Men’s Member-Member tournament. This has left her “ostracized, marginalized, humiliated, embarrassed and denounced,” according to her federal lawsuit.

But wait:

Joyce said she began to feel hostility after she filed the state discrimination complaint in July. One Saturday, after a match-play club championship, she walked into the clubhouse after the first round.

“There were 20 to 25 guys in there,” she said. “And as soon I walked in the door, everything stopped. Silence. ‘There she is. That’s the woman. That’s the problem.’ Stupid stuff like that.”

Joyce compared the experience to her fight to play with the Forty Thieves. After the town acted in that case, it took 18 months for her to be admitted as a member. Joyce said some members of the group were appalled and let her know it. One said he would play only if she played naked. Others walked off the course when paired with her. Some refused to speak to her during rounds.

(NYT, Feb. 19)

I’d prefer to play with a single digit lady than a 20+ old guy. But can I still tell my off-color jokes?

{ 7 comments }