So on the eve of the Sabbath (for me), I end my week of guest-blogging offering conceptually loftier reporting of loftier, if heretical, overlawyering of a Central European kind (hat tip to a blog called Religion Clause).

Now, we all remember this popular number from law school — United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and his Staff (”Mayo“), the guy who unsuccessfully sued The Prince of Lies (instead of hiring one) in federal court. Now a court in Timisoara, Western Romania, has dismissed a lawsuit purportedly against God Himself by Mircea Pavel, 40, who is serving 20 years in prison for murder. He has some issues, only not justiciable ones, it seems. The English is Interfax’s, and their regular English-speaking guy seems to be in the Catskills this weekend, so let’s work our way through this together, with Defendant’s help:

Failing to [receive an] answer [to] his prayers, the prisoner sued the [sic] God for “fraud, betrayal of trust, corruption and influence peddling.”

Pavel brought charges against “the defendant God, who lives in the heavens and is represented in Romania by the Orthodox Church,” the Evenimentul Zilei daily reported.

According to the act [lawsuit?], during the baptismal service he “drew a conclusion with [entered into a stipulation with?] the defense” to rescue him from any disaster.

“But the contract’s terms were offended [breached], despite of [sic] my payment in different forms and numerous compellations by way of prayers,” Pavel said in his lawsuit.

Eventually the court dismissed the case, ruling that “God is not subject to law and does not have an address.”

No address?! Now that is heretical; He is, as we know, found everywhere. Well, these folks just recently got rid of Communism, so we can be charitable on the theological training.

But the subject matter jurisdiction point is well taken. There may be other problems with the alleged contract, including most of the grounds for dismissal relied on in Mayo. Also: Pavel’s capacity to enter into a contract (Orthodox baptism is done in infancy); the statute of frauds (or its Soviet-era Romanian equivalent) on several counts; and, of course, in a suit against God, there must always be recourse to the defenses in equity — the plaintiff, the murderer Pavel, comes to court with some very unclean hands.

Give Pavel credit, though, and not just for going after the deep pockets. He believes God had a role in his misfortune, even if, perhaps, he has failed to name an indispensible necessary party — namely Mircea Pavel.

–

Thanks for hosting me! It’s been a pleasure. Stay in touch at my law blog, LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®, or the entirely more wide open Likelihood of Success.

Reuters reports on a nuvo-media catfight — and just look who the cat drags in:

Google Inc. took a swipe at media conglomerate Viacom Inc., which is suing the Internet search leader and its video sharing site YouTube for $1 billion over “massive copyright infringement.”

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, speaking with reporters at a hotel bar at the 25th annual Allen & Co. moguls meeting, said litigation was the foundation of the company that owns the MTV Networks, Paramount movies studio, and video game developer Harmonix.

“Viacom is a company built from lawsuits, look at their history,” Schmidt said on early Friday.

He makes that sound like a bad thing!

Laurie Lin reports on one way to cut down on lawsuits, being mooted in Wisconsin — close down the University of Wisconsin’s law school.

It is to laugh, no? And yet, considering that it is a publicly-funded institution, the “need” for more legal education, in a situation of glut, is a reasonable factor for the legislature that does the funding to consider, isn’t it?

“Ladies’ night” at the local tavern — sometimes it’s every night; sometimes it’s during certain hours — the idea is, the more females in the establishment, the better the “atmosphere” for the guys who pay for all the drinks anyway. So there’s no cover charge for women, or free drinks, or whatever. (Okay, so some of us don’t know so much about how bars work.) The point is it’s an economic calculation that no one really complains about because, after all, the guys like a nice “atmosphere.” Of course, lots of us have wondered if it’s really legal that girl elbow-benders don’t pay and boys do, but no one really thought it was something anyone was going to kvetch a court about.

Until now:

New York attorney Roy Den Hollander, a solo practitioner for more than 15 years who deals primarily with civil litigation and corporate governance, has filed a class action against certain Manhattan nightclubs for “invidious discrimination” against men in their policies for admitting patrons….

Hollander says he attended each of these venues on nights when they held promotions offering women either free or reduced fees, shorter waiting periods, or longer windows for free or reduced admission that were not available to men.

“It’s either more money, more time or more burdensome,” said Hollander of the difficulties men face in gaining admittance to nightclubs…

Hollander also foresees an “uphill battle” in classifying the action as invidious discrimination, since he is arguing on behalf of men and not women, whom he says the U.S. Supreme Court has given “preferential treatment for past invidious, economic discrimination.”

“Whether this case succeeds or fails,” says Hollander, “it will result in a much needed victory for men.”

Mm, and how would that be, exactly? Seems from here that the exact opposite is probably the case — if it fails, well, how is that a victory except in the sense that nothing happening to you, and living another day so you can drink another Sam Adams is a victory? And if the case succeeds, probably fewer women will go to bars.

Unless, perhaps, you’re like Roy Den Hollander, and prefer drinking alone, or otherwise without having to wait for the distaff-side customers to be served sooner. Or cheaper. Or less burdensomely. Maybe Roy Den Hollander just doesn’t appreciate “atmosphere.”

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

More on the story Walter only teased us with earlier today: The Associated Press reports on the fall of a mighty class action plaintiffs’ lawyer — the managing partner and third name in the firm now known only as Milberg Weiss:

A former partner of a major New York law firm pleaded guilty to conspiracy Monday in connection with kickbacks the firm is accused of paying to plaintiffs in class action and shareholder lawsuits.

David J. Bershad, 67, of Montclair, N.J., pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of conspiracy that includes obstruction of justice and making false statements under oath.

Standing next to his attorney in a federal courtroom, Bershad agreed with the prosecution’s contention that he was involved in a scheme that would secretly pay a portion of attorneys’ fees — usually about 10 percent — to plaintiffs involved in class action and shareholder lawsuits.

Prosecutors believe the firm, now known as Milberg Weiss, received more than $200 million in fees from such lawsuits filed over the past 20 years. Bershad was responsible for overseeing the firm’s accounting department and financial affairs….

In the plea agreement reached late last week, Bershad also agreed to forfeit $7.75 million, to pay a $250,000 fine and to cooperate in the government’s ongoing investigation.

Bershad could face up to five years in federal prison when he is sentenced on June 23, 2008.

Grisly. According to the New York Law Journal, Bershad himself made — sit down for this part — $160 million as a Milberg Weiss partner over the last twenty years, so that $8 million (why so low?) should not be all that painful, financially; but this is not the style in which to go out for a Columbia Law man.

Here is the stipulated statement of facts in support of the plea agreement, from the Law Journal. If you have trouble following what he did wrong — the rules regarding class actions and fees are fairly arcane — in short, if you represent a class, you’re not allowed to secretly share attorneys’ fees with favored class members. Such payments create conflicts of interest between the paid plaintiffs and the rest of the class members the lawyers represent. As the statement says:

By entering into such secret payment arrangements, BERSHAD and the other Conspiring Partners were able to secure a reliable source of individuals who were ready, willing, and able to serve as named plaintiffs in Class Actions that Milberg Weiss wanted to bring. In addition, some of these individuals would investigate and propose to BERSHAD and other Conspiring Partners potential Class Actions for Milberg Weiss to bring. Such payment arrangements generally enabled Milberg Weiss to file more Class Actions and to file them more quickly than would be possible absent such arrangements. Filing Class Actions more quickly than other competing plaintiffs’ law firms enhanced Milberg Weiss’s ability to obtain lead counsel status in cases, before and after the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Lead counsel generally obtained a larger share of the attorneys’ fees awarded in a Class Action than other counsel.

The statement of facts goes on to lay out a Byzantine arrangement of cash flow, everything short of a hollowed-out pumpkin. It describes the sort of thing that, well, crooks do. At this point, the crooks have names in the court filings such as Partner A, Partner B, down through the alphabet — and, just like Little Cats A through Z in The Cat in the Hat, they all cleaned up.

So, how long will this 67-year-old man sit in jail? I imagine he had something more like Miami in mind. But it could get even hotter — for his partners. Bershad is surely going to spill his guts even more. As the story continues:

Legal experts believe Bershad’s plea appears to be an effort to reduce his possible prison sentence in exchange for testimony.

“He didn’t want to stand trial for this and by cooperating he believes he will be able to get a better deal,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. “The bigger issue is how much does this help the government’s case?”

Meanwhile, the good work of the firm goes on:

In its statement Monday, the firm said: “We remain confident that [Mr. Bershad's] actions will have no effect on the firm’s commitment to its clients and its ongoing work to protect public shareholders and consumers.”

A Korean report says that country’s developing economy is starting to look very familiar:

It is no exaggeration to say that Korea is the “heaven of lawsuit” as the number of criminal charges and civil suits in the country is 155 times and six times higher than that of Japan, respectively.

People tend to go to court even at a slightest provocation as they institute a suit to retrieve money even if they had not signed any written contract and file for criminal charges when the case can be resolved in a civil suit.

It sounds as if the “filing” of criminal charges is a lot easier in Korea than it is here. I do civil litigation, and clients always want to know whether the fraud, or false statements under oath, or other bad acts they are positive our adversaries have done have a criminal down side. The answer, of course, is almost always “no” — prosecutors are virtually never interested in bilateral wrongdoings. That is as it should be; dragging the threat of prosecution — unspoken or otherwise — into civil litigation only makes bad situations worse (and gives your adversary a constitutional justification not to testify). Again, by all indications something very different is going on over there:

“Although over 600,000 people are being charged each year, a significant number of cases are dropped as they cannot be considered as a crime. We cannot overlook the seriousness of the current legal situation as over-issued charges are perturbing prosecutors from inspecting more crucial cases such as bribery,” said Shin Kyeong-sik, the head of planning department at the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Perhaps the Prosecutor’s Office in South Korea should be a little more Supreme.

In today’s Journal, an article by the people behind Medical Justice:

In 2002, we launched Medical Justice, a membership-based organization designed to complement tort reform and to head off frivolous lawsuits. Medical Justice pays the bills and provides the services to file countersuits against all proponents of meritless lawsuits….

Our service has two principal components. First, we look at the quality of so-called expert-witness testimony. Behind every frivolous lawsuit there is an “expert” — usually a physician skilled in testifying before juries and often compensated to the tune of $10,000 dollars a day. Put bluntly, many of these “experts” are frauds, as this newspaper has repeatedly shown in cases regarding asbestosis and silicosis claims….

Medical Justice’s second tool is a patient-physician contract. That contract states that in a legitimate dispute, both sides will utilize only those experts who belong to such societies and who strictly follow their code of ethics. This limits the list to reputable and accountable physician experts, thus precluding the use of hired guns or medical “witnesses having other rational explanations” — better known by their acronym.

Does it work? Yes. After five years of collecting data, we know that Medical Justice plan members are sued at a rate of under just 2% a year. The average doctor is sued at a rate of 8%-12% per year. And the company is top heavy with physicians in “high-risk” specialties.

Further, when meritless cases are filed against plan members, generally they’re dropped quickly….

Finally, the system works because we back our words with deeds by taking action against proponents of frivolous suits. In a sense, Medical Justice has created a contract-based “loser-pays” paradigm. We have helped over a thousand physicians who are tired of being victimized by a system that doesn’t prevent collateral damage.

Private law saves the day? Perhaps — but how long before the plaintiffs’ bar fights back with legislation?

Hierarchical government a pain? Separation of powers getting you down? Not a problem! Not if you’d rather be in Philadelphia:

Two Philadelphia City Council members plan to file suit against the state House and Senate Wednesday for preventing the city from passing more restrictive gun laws.

Council members Donna Reed Miller and Darrell Clarke called the city’s surging homicide rate in part a “state-created danger.”

Lawmakers have tied the city’s hands by not giving it the authority to limit gun purchases to one a month and require lost or stolen guns to be reported, according to Miller.

I’m sure the city does feel bad that it can’t pass more laws to make it feel good about the fact that its residents have turned America’s first capital into a shooting gallery… mm, like its present capital. But that is the fool’s perspective; for see how the state is even described — in its role in actually arrogating to itself the right to set policies for, er, the state — not as a sort accessory to crime, or, switching to civil liablity, a but-for cause or even a proximate cause. No, homicide in Brotherlovopolis are a “state-created danger”! Only a sage who merits a seat on the Philadelphia City Council can see these murders committed by carbon-based entities in Philadelphia for what they are: The product of passive, robotic mayhem-slaves of the blood-lusting Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, doing its cynically William Penn-garbed bidding and killing! Killing! Killing!

Quaker State indeed.

They didn’t tell me guest-blogging at Overlawyered would be an autopilot proposition, but thanks to James Taranto, it is — complete with a law professor to do the work for me:

The family of a woman killed trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in 2003 asked a federal appeals court panel to reinstate its lawsuit against Caterpillar Inc., saying the company knew bulldozers it sold to the Israeli government were being used to commit human rights violations.

“Caterpillar sold this product knowing — or it should have known — it would cause exactly this harm,” one of the family’s lawyers, Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky told the three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday.

Yes, a law professor is making this argument. Okay, a law professor who blogs at Huffington Post, but still? No, he’s not a new face; but he certainly remains a brazen one. For in our bizarro world, right is a very special kind of wrong — the promotion of violence (by the likes of Rachel Corrie) is peace;the sale of construction equipment (by Caterpillar) is murder; and fallacious legal argumentation is the product of one of the “the top 20 legal thinkers in America.”

This could be one even the Ninth gets right. Meanwhile,

Corrie’s parents said after the hearing that they have been carrying on their daughter’s work since she died.

“You can’t go back to the way things were before, so you determine a path forward,” Cindy Corrie said.

I thought that’s exactly what they were suing over!

The important issues challenging our society remain at the forefront of the class action bar:

Microsoft has been targeted by a $5m (£2.5m) lawsuit over its Xbox 360 console and the infamous yet almost forgotten scratched disc saga. There have for a long time been many rumours about the Xbox 360 scratching game and movie discs.

Count on lawyers never to forget. What’s this about?

A growing number of Xbox 360 customers are reporting having problems with their disc’s getting scratched by the DVD drive when switching the unit’s position from vertical to horizontal and vise versa.. Initially we thought this was the usual fanboy vs. hater propaganda that swirls around the launch of any new console like this. It didn’t take long until the seriousness of the situation…

… which is explained at some length. Not everyone is sympathetic to the victims in this dog-eat-dog world. But most of the discussion of this burning issues seems to go back, indeed a couple of years.

On the other hand, there’s always the Old World, ever eager to distract from its own coming demographic obsolescence by beating up on that most American of companies, Microsoft. Yes, less than a month ago word got out that the EU lean was on Microsoft to address the problem — which Microsoft seems grudgingly to admit to.

One month: That’s about long enough to read the story, do some research, find a lead plaintiff, and file the lawsuit. So foes of the class action can thank the European Union for this one. Considering the “popularity” of Microsoft on either side of the pond (right up there with plaintifs’ lawyers), not much sympathy is to be expected. But this is an interesting exercise in how the once-forgotten can, in the new global economy, still be resurrected, as long as the statute hasn’t run.

You can make these things up — economists do it all the time — but it’s a lot more compelling when they really happen (link added):

An influx of doctors lured to Texas by new limits on malpractice lawsuits has overwhelmed the state board that screens candidates for medical licenses, creating a backlog that forces many applicants to wait months before they can start seeing patients.

Officials said many of the relocating physicians are filling shortages in areas such as Beaumont, where trauma patients previously had to be flown other cities because there weren’t enough surgeons to treat them.

(Italicized part added:)This sounds like great news — more doctors coming back into the system. But who knows? Chances are the plaintiffs’ bar can find a way to spin this as an ominous development — the return of the malpracticers. Now it’s entirely possible that this represents an influx of marginally competent doctors who can’t afford to practice elsewhere because their malpractice premiums are justifiably sky-high. As it is, the article in the Houston Chronicle quoted above says that a simple background check takes 41 days — hence the huge bottleneck — and that more complex histories such as those of veteran or out-of-state doctors will take correspondingly more time. So it doesn’t seem as if the Texas regulatory authorities are lowering the bar too too low.

Indeed, any supply-and-demand interplay where the market is allowed to be distorted by an industry like the insurance business, whose operations seem to defy normal ways of doing business and which is itself hopelessly regulated, is going to be hard to predict.

But in fact, one thing that happened shortly after Texas’s Proposition 12 was passed is that malpractice insurance rates started dropping almost immediately. That’s consistent with reduced financial exposure, but certainly not with an influx of incompetent physicians coming to the “market” (i.e., seeking medical malpractice insurance). The pushmepullyou of the interplay between these things is the sort of thing that makes insurance underwriters such exciting company at a weenie roast, so I won’t even try to have at it.

Again, in any event, this is a stunning example of the invisible hand at work. But surely there is a down side, and not only to med-mal plaintiffs’ lawyers? Of course: Med-mal plaintiffs themselves, who no longer can play in the Texas state court injury lottery. That doesn’t mean other personal injury plaintiffs can’t, unfortunately. But one step at a time.

God forbid anyone reading this or their loved one should be in a position to be seeking damages, economic or otherwise, for medical malpractice. But short of the argument that, well, higher non-economic damages should be available just because they should — or proof, in ten years, that there’s more malpractice in Texas than there was before because of the influx of quack doctors attracted to the free bread crumbs of “easy” med-mal limits — this quacks like a policy that works.

But first, a greeting, and a thank you to the Overlawyered boys for inviting me to guest-blog this week. I’m Ron Coleman, proprietor of the LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® blog on trademark, copyright and free speech law, and a contributor to Dean’s World and other things. In short, I love practicing law so much that I spend most of the day blogging.

So much for self-promotion (if you can call it that) — now to the promotion of animal cruelty — it’s all the rage, after all:

A new state law against fighting roosters violates a treaty that ended the Mexican-American War, a cockfighting association claims in a lawsuit.

The New Mexico Gamefowl Breeders Association and six businessmen argued that the law infringes on rights protected under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which made New Mexico a U.S. territory.

The lawsuit contends the treaty guarantees civil, political and religious rights, privileges and immunities to the people of New Mexico.

Many of the association’s 2,000 members “are devoted to rural lifestyles, of which gamefowl breeding and-or participating in gamefowl shows and fights are, in New Mexico, long-standing, culturally bound and significant activities,” the lawsuit said.

Wow, some treaty! It guarantees the right to — well, to do what, exactly? Let’s ask the Humane Society:

Cockfighting is a centuries-old blood sport in which two or more specially bred birds, known as gamecocks, are placed in an enclosure to fight, for the primary purposes of gambling and entertainment. A cockfight usually results in the death of one of the birds; sometimes it ends in the death of both. A typical cockfight can last anywhere from several minutes to more than half an hour.

The birds, even those who do not die, suffer in cockfights. The birds cannot escape from the fight, regardless of how exhausted or injured they become. Common injuries include punctured lungs, broken bones, and pierced eyes. Such severe injuries occur because the birds’ legs are usually fitted with razor-sharp steel blades or with gaffs, which resemble three-inch-long, curved ice picks. These artificial spurs are designed to puncture and mutilate.

Nice. And, best of all, tanto auténtico! What judge could resist such a rootsy appeal to heartless blood lust? Plus there’s dinero at stake, too.

Okay, so what’s the legal theory again? Oh, yeah, that’s right: This novel civil right — the right to engage in any “long-standing, culturally bound and significant activities” — is enshrined in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Well, here’s the Treaty: You see the clause guaranteeing the inalienable right to “long-standing, culturally bound and significant activities”?

No? Okay, well how about just the piece about roosters? Any specifications for ice picks?

Me neither. The only thing I remember about the unlikely juxtaposition of ice picks and Mexico is a certain unpleasantness involving some murderous Bolsheviks. Now, we saw then that “breaking a few eggs” can be unpleasant, but these poor chickens deserve better. Plaintiffs in this lawsuit, however, don’t.

UPDATE: Wow. There’s more to this civil right than I thought!