Boston lawyers recall a very strange sexual harassment lawsuit in which the defendant’s CEO “wore a different Halloween costume to each day of his [six-day] deposition”. [Zach Lowe, AmLaw Daily]
{ 0 comments }
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
Boston lawyers recall a very strange sexual harassment lawsuit in which the defendant’s CEO “wore a different Halloween costume to each day of his [six-day] deposition”. [Zach Lowe, AmLaw Daily]
{ 0 comments }
“Phoenix Media/Communications, which owns The Boston Phoenix and other local alternative weeklies and websites, is suing popular social networking site Facebook for allegedly violating a patent related to setting up online personal profile pages.” [Boston Globe]
{ 0 comments }
Boston software maker Jenzabar has already sued the makers of a Tienanmen Square documentary on defamation theories, which a court dismissed. But it’s kept the litigation going on trademark infringement theories. [Paul Levy, Consumer Law & Policy; Ron Coleman, Likelihood of Confusion; Boston Globe June report linked earlier]
{ 6 comments }
{ 4 comments }
We haven’t weighed in on the Henry Louis Gates vs. Cambridge police affair, but it looks as if at least one really choice employment-law suit is going to come out of it. [WSJ Law Blog, Boston Globe]. The cop, Justin Barrett, is suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other harms. Elie Mystal, Above the Law: “I. Just. Love. America.“
{ 7 comments }
Our “law firm would be happy to discuss your rape case with you during a free consultation” [The Briefcase, Ohio law blog; original, posted by a Boston law firm, Jan. 2008]
While we’re at it, Above the Law spots a San Antonio lawyer whose advertising leaves something to be desired in the tastefulness department; and Patrick at Popehat enters into communication with the Twitter account @SueEasy (more on which) with lively results.
{ 3 comments }
A long-running controversy pits some elected officials and townspeople of Framingham, Mass., west of Boston, against a social service agency that has proposed the town as a site for halfway houses and other residential facilities for recovering addicts, the homeless and others. Two years ago things turned particularly unpleasant:
…[South Middlesex Opportunity Council] filed suit in federal court this week demanding damages not just from town officials, but from citizens who have dared criticize the agency and challenge its plans.
SMOC’s 99-page complaint [which alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act, federal Rehabilitation Act, Americans With Disabilities Act and Civil Rights Act -- ed.] piles up charges against selectmen and planning board members not just in their official capacity, but as individuals. It targets town employees, both named and unnamed. It calls for damages against four Framingham Town Meeting members and two citizens for comments made on a private Web site and e-mails distributed on a privately-operated mailing list.
The ACLU of Massachusetts expressed unease at the naming of private citizens as defendants over their advocacy efforts. While the lawsuit has been narrowed somewhat in the two years since then, it continues to engender much acrimony as it drags on:
Aggravating the ill will is a recent revelation that a man charged with shooting a local police officer had lived in a home run by the agency, the South Middlesex Opportunity Council, or SMOC.
{ 1 comment }
American legal concepts crossing the Atlantic yet again: “A council suing its former managing director for £1m for allegedly lying on her job application is at risk of being accused of disability discrimination, an expert has warned.” Cheltenham Borough Council claims its former executive gave false answers on a medical history to conceal a history of depression, but an employment lawyer says employers should not assume they have a right to discipline workers for lying about their medical history during the application process.
Readers of my book on employment law, The Excuse Factory, may recall the somewhat similar case with which I started off Chapter 1. Incidentally, those who are curious what became of the Boston police officer cited in that account may be interested in following this link.
TV’s biggest lawyer-advertiser is Boston’s James Sokolove, whose ad budget of $20 million/year makes him a widely recognized figure (and much parodized on YouTube). He’s reportedly offered $1,500 apiece for mesothelioma leads, seen his name in an episode of “The Sopranos”, and even advertised for patent plaintiffs. Turns out he hasn’t seen the inside of a courtroom in nearly thirty years, instead farming out his callers to others. [Boston mag via Ambrogi] “The message behind his ads, he says, is simple: Injured? Free money.”
Now his Sokolove Charitable Fund is giving him a shot at new respectability with help from no less august an institution than Stanford Law School (thank you, Prof. Deborah Rhode), It’s bankrolling something called the Roadmap to Justice Project, which will push the much-criticized-in-this-space “Civil Gideon” idea (a newly invented Constitutional entitlement to taxpayer coverage of lawyers’ fees in civil lawsuits).
{ 2 comments }
The judge, who agreed in August to leave the bench, was called up for discipline after a furor over the “fascinatingly repellent” letters he sent to the Boston Herald demanding settlement after he secured a libel judgment of more than $2 million against the paper; further embarrassments ensued. [Ambrogi, Legal Blog Watch]
{ 7 comments }
The Boston Herald editorializes (Sept. 13) on the “zapped Amtrak trespasser” case discussed here earlier and suggests that loser-pays would help.
Brian Hopkins, 25, of Astoria, Queens, New York City, “who survived an electric shock and fire two years ago when he climbed atop an empty, stopped Amtrak train after a night of bar hopping in Boston is suing the railroad – because Amtrak didn’t do enough to protect trespassers like him.” (Kathianne Boniello, New York Post, Aug. 31).
{ 9 comments }
His libel suit against the Boston Herald may have been a lucrative success, but the “fascinatingly repellent” letters he sent to the paper’s publisher drew the adverse attention of the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct. [WSJ law blog, Aug. 21]. Full saga here.
More: Globe (Murphy, “who has said he suffers from post-traumatic stress because of his legal battle with the Boston Herald and the newspaper’s stories about him, has been on a paid leave of absence since July.”). The Herald’s coverage includes side stories on Murphy’s wish for a taxpayer-provided lawyer and the question of whether his cases will need to be reopened, as well as an unsparing Howie Carr column on the ins and outs of “involuntary disability” pensions for judges (”ask yourself this: If you or I wrote ‘allegedly threatening’ letters to somebody, would we get a disability pension, or a visit from the cops?”).
{ 2 comments }
Now banned in Boston, perhaps because of the risk that they might bring too much happiness to the humans involved. (WSJ, Newsweek, FindingDulcinea, Globe, Herald).
{ 2 comments }
{ 2 comments }
{ 3 comments }