Posts tagged as:

accolades

More background reading on the Draconian consumer product safety law:

  • Fear of losing even more high-quality German toy suppliers [Kathy + Matt Take Milwaukee]
  • Mattel will pay $13 million to 20 plaintiff’s firms TheTown2to resolve class action over toy recalls; claimed value of settlement to class (vouchers, etc.) is something like $37 million [National Law Journal, Coughlin Stoia release; earlier] Note also Rick Woldenberg’s March analysis of one recall (recall of 436,000 units premised on two cans of bad paint).
  • New law “has added several new tasks [to the CPSC], many of which most charitably can be described as marginal in the overall pursuit of product safety that will divert staff and financial resources from more important safety issues.” [attorney Michael Brown, quoted at Handmade Toy Alliance Blog]
  • Alarmist reporting on Boston’s WBZ affords a glimpse of MaryHadLamb2“the scary people behind the law” [Woldenberg]
  • Effort to help move blogger Kevin Drum up the CPSIA learning curve [Coyote]
  • “The “Resale Round-up,” launched by the CPSC, finally limits the power of these merchants of death who recklessly barter second-hand toys to unsuspecting civilians at low prices…. The only question now is how did any of us survive this long?” [David Harsanyi, Denver Post]
  • Among its other effects, the statute “will boost opportunities for mass-tort suits” [Crain's Chicago Business]
  • Law’s “continuing disaster for small business” illustrates MaryHadLamb3difference between crony capitalism and the real kind [James DeLong, The American, with kind words for a certain "indispensable" website that's covered the law]

PUBLIC DOMAIN IMAGES from Ethel Everett, illustrator, Nursery Rhymes (1900), courtesy ChildrensLibrary.org.

{ 1 comment }

Publishers sometimes send me books in hopes I’ll review or at least mention them. I occasionally attend free advance screenings of new movies (typically law-related documentaries) that filmmakers hope I’ll write about. This site has an Amazon affiliate store which has from time to time provided me with commissions after readers click links and proceed to purchase items, though it’s been almost entirely inactive for years. I get invited to attend the odd institutional banquet whose hosts sometimes give away a free book or paperweight along with the hotel meal. I’ve been sent “cause” T-shirts and law firm/support service provider promotional kits over the years, pretty much a waste of effort since I don’t much care for wearing such T-shirts and am not exactly famed for posts that sing the praises of law firms or their service providers.

Under new Federal Trade Commission guidelines in the works for some time, I could apparently get in trouble for not disclosing these and similarly exciting things. In addition, the commission’s scrutiny will extend to areas less relevant to this site, such as targeted Google advertising and results-not-typical testimonials.

Robert Ambrogi at Legal Blog Watch finds it hard to see why the blogosphere has raised such a big fuss about these rules. After all, the rules (to be precise, “guidelines” backed by government lawyers with relevant enforcement powers) make clear that nondisclosure of a single minor freebie will not in itself suffice to trigger liability but instead will be counted “among several factors to be weighed” in evaluating the continuum of behavior by individuals engaging in social media (it seems the rules also apply to Twitter, Facebook, and guest appearances on talk shows, to name a few). FTC enforcers will engage in their own fact-specific, and inevitably subjective, balancing before deciding whether to press for fines or other penalties: in other words, instead of knowing whether you’re legally vulnerable or not, you get to guess.
StackofBooks
Like most authors I know, I wind up donating most review copies I receive to local library sales or other charities. (As Ann Althouse and Cory Doctorow both hint, the accumulation of review copies for disposal quickly becomes more of a burden than otherwise, which is why I spend much more time trying politely to talk publishers out of sending me copies than trying to talk them into it.) But in an extraordinary interview that should be read in its entirety, the FTC’s point man on the rules, Richard Cleland, surreally suggests bloggers should instead return review copies to the publishers — who don’t want them back! — after taking a look.

Among interesting disclosure posts by well-known bloggers: Tyler Cowen/Marginal Revolution, Virginia Postrel/DeepGlamour, Martin Schwimmer/Trademark Blog. Other notable reactions: Jack Shafer, Slate (”The FTC’s mad power grab. … preposterous … The guidelines have to be read to be believed.” ); Patrick at Popehat (”Next on the FTC agenda: fines for hotlinking and failure to hat tip … Yes, I believe in the slippery slope.”); Jeff Jarvis, Amy Alkon, Dan Gillmor (”you get the sense of a government-gone-wild travesty…unworkable in practice”), HIPAA Blog (”unconstitutional”), Washington Examiner (editorial: “No self-respecting journalists should lend their endorsement to [the FTC's planned Dec. 1-2 workshop on journalism], and neither should any professional journalism organization.”)

Finally, for the last word, Ann Althouse:

The most absurd part of it is the way the FTC is trying to make it okay by assuring us that they will be selective in deciding which writers on the internet to pursue. That is, they’ve deliberately made a grotesquely overbroad rule, enough to sweep so many of us into technical violations, but we’re supposed to feel soothed by the knowledge that government agents will decide who among us gets fined. No, no, no. Overbreadth itself is a problem. And so is selective enforcement.

(& welcome readers from Instapundit, Ron Coleman (who points out that he was on this issue earlier than any of us), ShopFloor, Dave Zincavage, Jonathan Adler/Volokh, Megan MacArdle/The Atlantic, Darleen Click/Protein Wisdom, Declan McCullagh/CBS (with some very kind words), Mickey Kaus (scroll to P.S. “I’d link to…”)). And (10/21): Jason Kottke’s Kottke.org, K2/DaddyTypes.

[Followup posts here and here.]

{ 34 comments }

Sarasota: “A former deputy, fired because of his problems with alcohol, is suing the Sarasota sheriff because he claims the office discriminated against him because of his alcoholism disability.” The former deputy says he doesn’t remember the sexual harassment incident at an Applebee’s that preceded his termination, but that could have been because of his “propensity to blackout.” [WTSP] [& welcome readers from Reason "Hit and Run", where Damon Root generously credits a certain "great" site]

{ 2 comments }

As readers may have noticed, I’m a big booster of Lenore Skenazy’s wonderful Free-Range Kids website (subtitle: “Giving our kids the freedom we had without going nuts with worry”), and yesterday she returned the favor with some more than kind words about this site (”great, nay mindblowing”) and a discussion of our recent post about a Staten Island mother’s suit against Little League and volunteer coaches. Interesting reader discussions ensue. (Also, more on her book here.)

While on the topic of that Little League suit, Rick Reilly of ESPN Magazine has a new column that a lot of people are talking about: “A tale of two Little Leaguers

{ 2 comments }

Connecticut Post: “Attorneys representing the Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa and other firms being sued by a woman raped in their parking garage in 2006 withdrew special defenses Monday that claimed the woman was negligent and careless and that she and her children failed to ‘mitigate their damages.’” [via Christopher Fountain and followup] More: John Bratt, Baltimore Injury Law (with kind words for this site).

James Glassman at The American takes a look at the attempt to slip through a massive expansion of industrywide tort liability as part of the House health-care-reform bill a couple of weeks ago, a story that seems to have been broken for the first time in this space.

Following two posts by Jonathan Adler, readers there are discussing CPSIA’s effects on vintage kids’ books and on rhinestones and crystals. More: Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit (with link to Adler), Megan McArdle (linking to my City Journal piece). And Joseph Bottum at First Things has generous words for our coverage of the story.

Forbes is just up with a new, improved version of my piece on the amazing trial lawyer bonanza that someone quietly tucked into last week’s draft of the health care bill. An earlier version of the piece ran at Overlawyered on Friday. The Forbes version takes note of the names of the House members who were pushing for and against the idea on the Ways & Means panel. Michelle Malkin gives it a recommendation here.

P.S. Some kind words, as well as a link, from Ashby Jones at the WSJ Law Blog (calling us “the granddaddy of legal blogs”). Plus: Don Surber, Charleston (W.V.) Daily Mail, Bainbridge, Wood/ShopFloor, Riehl World View, Bader/CEI “Open Market”.

{ 2 comments }

Overlawyered turns 10

by Walter Olson on July 1, 2009

Ten years ago — July 1, 1999 — I put up the first post in this space. You can read the first fifteen days’ worth of posts here.

Thanks for the congratulations and kind words that have been coming in:

{ 27 comments }

I’ve got an opinion piece up at Forbes.com on today’s Supreme Court decision in Ricci v. DiStefano, the New Haven firefighter reverse-discrimination case. The title: “Sued If You Do, Sued If You Don’t: Through the Looking Glass on Affirmative Action” (& link thanks to Ramesh Ponnuru, NRO “Corner”, Daniel Schwartz, Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Jon Hyman, Ohio Employment Law (to whom thanks for the kind comments as well), and Scott Greenfield, Simple Justice).

{ 7 comments }

A White House press release quotes my comments on Judge Sotomayor (in which I have been critical of some of the critics). More: Boston Globe.

{ 3 comments }

May 16 roundup

by Walter Olson on May 16, 2009

  • At Reason “Hit and Run”, Damon Root deems a certain website “indispensable” [accolades file]
  • Montgomery Blair Sibley, colorful lawyer for the “D.C. Madam” and a figure much covered on this site, has new book out [Doyle/McClatchy]
  • Although Indian tribal litigators attacked it as “disparaging”, the Washington Redskins football team can keep its trademark, for now at least. “My ancestors were both Vikings and Cowboys. Do I have a course of action?” [Volokh comments]
  • “Is Patent Infringement Litigation Up or Down?” [Frankel, The American Lawyer]
  • Maryland high court dismisses autism-mercury lawsuit [Seidel, Krauss @ Point of Law]
  • Chrysler dealers are lawyering up against the prospect of being cast off [WSJ Law Blog]
  • “Should doctors who follow evidence-based guidelines be offered liability protection?” [KevinMD]
  • Obama proposes $1.25 billion to settle black farmers’ long-running bias claims against the U.S. Department of Agriculture [AP/Yahoo]

{ 1 comment }

LawLine.com (”Celebrating 10 Years of Online CLE”) has begun a new weekly series that “will recognize some of the most notable legal blogs on the web”, and is kind enough to begin it with this one. Christie LaBarca says she enjoys running across “unique” and even sometimes “outlandish” stories that other law blogs don’t pick up on. She quotes me on a couple of theories that might explain the blog’s longevity (as I’ve mentioned, it’s coming up on its tenth anniversary in just a month and a half).

Speaking of kind things people say about us, I don’t think there’s any way I’m going to live up to the headline on Brandon Martin’s generous column at Daily Uprising.

I’m reasonably sure that Katherine Mangu-Ward’s new Reason blog post on CPSIA is the only instance in which anyone has ever called me a “rock star”.

Evil HR Lady has more thoughts on the United Airlines incident, along with some kind words for this website.

{ 3 comments }

If enterprise IT departments and data managers thought the compliance burdens of Sarbanes-Oxley were tough, they’d better brace themselves for an even bigger wave of regulation to come, brought on as part of Washington’s reaction to the financial crisis. [Paul Rubens, ServerWatch] More: Jeff Nolan, Venture Chronicles, to whom thanks also for the kind words.

The high-profile Canadian free speech advocate (and target himself of the atrocious attentions of Canada’s speech tribunals) has this to say:

Overlawyered.com is a great U.S. website about the American affliction of too many lawsuits. Canada has a simple rule that America lacks, that has made us far less litigious: in Canadian civil courts, the loser has to pay a portion of the winner’s legal fees. That means nuisance suits are far less common.

Which is why human rights commissions are so bad — they remove that damper on frivolous suits, inviting the worst bullies and harassers to abuse the system….

Background:

{ 1 comment }

Venkat Balasubramani of the blog Spam Notes has a highly interesting guest column at AvvoBlog arguing that blog coverage has emerged as a new check on lawyers’ tendency to pursue their cases in an overzealous or hardball fashion. In the BlockShopper, Nordstrom/Beckons, and Kentucky domain-name seizure affairs, as well as numerous gripe-site and reputational-claim actions where the Streisand effect came into play, blogs have helped call national attention to the weakness of a litigant’s position, the danger that a disputant without major resources will be bulldozed by the cost of litigation, or both.

Balasubramani is kind enough to single out three bloggers in particular and to include me among their number:

…Walter Olson: who blogs at Overlawyered is another blogger who frequently flags unreasonable positions taken by lawyers. While he monitors litigation excess generally, absurd tort lawsuits are his specialty, and many a plaintiff’s lawyer has graced the pages of his blog in shame.

And he concludes:

Increased scrutiny of legal decisions and lawsuits by blogs and internet commentators will have undoubtedly have an overall beneficial effect. … Lawyers these days live in fear that one of their lawsuits will be highlighted on the pages of sites such as Overlawyered, the Legal Satyricon, or the Volokh Conspiracy. I know I sometimes do.

Whole thing here.

{ 5 comments }