A group claiming to be descended from the Knights Templar, which was suppressed in the year 1307 under orders from Pope Clement V, has “filed a lawsuit against Benedict XVI calling for him to recognise the seizure of assets worth 100 billion euros (£79 billion).” (Fiona Govan, “Knights Templar heirs in legal battle with the Pope”, Telegraph, Aug. 4; NewsHoggers, Aug. 4 (noting unlikelihood that claim of descent can be adequately demonstrated)).

Problem #1: children abused by clergy decades ago are demanding recognition from the civil justice system; it’s not about the money they say, but justice.

Problem #2: simply reviving 35-year-old tort claims that are otherwise barred by the statute of limitations, aside from the basic unfairness and loss of legal certainty to others, encourages fraud on and error by the judicial system.

Solution, in Ohio S.B. 17, passed in May 2006:

Continue Reading »

I have an op-ed in today’s National Review Online:

Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the United States this week will be the first papal visit since the Roman Catholic Church abuse scandal broke in 2002. Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the Vatican’s top diplomat in the United States, expresses confidence that the pope will address the scandal while here. Trial lawyers, however, having been asking legislatures for years to address the problem in their own particular way: more lawsuits. That proposed solution, through undoing statutes of limitations and permitting new lawsuits over long-ago crimes, creates more problems than it solves, and hurts more than just the actors responsible for those crimes.

Reviver legislation is pending in six states, and has been proposed in many more.

My latest Liability Outlook examines the problems of retroactive lawmaking and litigation, especially reviver statutes, and even Obama fans will find something to like:

The controversy over whether and how to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations at the Democratic National Convention shows the danger of changing rules midstream and upsetting settled expectations. Reviver statutes not only obviate statutes of limitations, which are a critical aid to justice, by “reviving” claims that have expired or never existed, but they can also pose the danger of undoing the benefits of future prospective legislation. In evaluating laws, the issue is not merely one of retroactivity, but of the importance of promoting legal certainty. For example, the FISA Amendments Act, S. 2248, while ostensibly acting retroactively to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s antiterror surveillance program, works to protect settled expectations.

Among matters discussed: litigation against the Catholic church over child abuse by priests and the Michigan legislature’s proposed retroactive repeal of pharmaceutical tort reform in H.R. 4045. Walter has previously discussed the subject.

In Spokane, Wash., where the local Roman Catholic diocese has declared bankruptcy under the pressure of sex-abuse lawsuits, a recent ruling by a federal judge deemed individual church parishes “unincorporated associations” that could themselves potentially be sued. Now plaintiffs in the cases are talking about suing the local parishes “and might even explore the legal liability of individual churchgoers”. (John Stucke, “Abuse victims may sue parishes”, Spokane Spokesman-Review, Jul. 27). More: PoL May 5, etc.

A couple of ambitious lawyers have managed to sue the Vatican itself in pursuit of the Catholic Church’s priest-abuse scandals, but it isn’t easy:

…even if a process server could get past the Swiss guards, handing the pope a copy of a lawsuit doesn’t count as service.

Because the Vatican is a foreign country, all documents must be translated into its official language.

In this case, that means Latin. And there’s still the major obstacle to get around of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which bars most suits against foreign governments. (Ashbel S. Green, “Suit reaches new heights: the Vatican”, The Oregonian, Dec. 11). See PoL Mar. 10. More on church scandals: this site Sept. 16, 2003, Jul. 11, 2004; Point of Law Aug. 10, Sept. 29, 2004; Aug. 28, Aug. 31, Sept. 1, 2005.

Roundup of fallout from the Heikkinen $17 million verdict. Sam Heldman writes me to defend the decision and express concern that I did not adequately convey that the jury found that Morse was acting on behalf of the church; I think that’s inherent in the jury’s verdict and my use of the term respondeat superior, but now readers have that explicit statement. A follow-up newspaper article quotes: “‘The purpose of the [Legion of Mary], and no one really disputed this, was that it was to assist the clergy in the work of the clergy,’ said Don Prachthauser, Heikkinen’s attorney.” (But isn’t that common goal true for any religiously-oriented volunteer organization?) Philip Howard and the jury forewoman are also interviewed about the size of the damages award for an elderly man. And a Baptist notes that the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church makes it especially susceptible to deep-pocket searches. (Derrick Nunnally, “$17 million verdict has many concerned”, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Feb. 23). Jon Coppelman explores the ramifications for workers’ compensation; Professor Martin Grace comments. There are still post-trial motions and an appeal to be had, and settlement negotiations are likely.

Also, I’ve updated our Feb. 22 post on Drypen v. Oakland County and its $4 million settlement with a couple of more recent press accounts that have previously unreported details about the defense’s side of the story.

The Archdiocese of Milwaukee finds itself on the hook for $17 million because a volunteer member of a volunteer group that occasionally meets on church property ran a red light. The Legion of Mary visits ailing parishioners and offers transportation to mass; on March 25, 2002, member Margaret Morse, delivering a statue to a parishioner, ran a red light and struck the car of 82-year-old semiretired barber Hjalmer Heikkinen, paralyzing him and ending his career. Morse’s insurance company tried to shift the burden to the church, which ended up being held responsible on the principle of respondeat superior, the doctrine that holds a business liable for the negligence of its employees. This makes sense for a business, which chooses its employees, and can hire and fire. Is a church supposed to do the same for religious volunteer groups that occasionally meet on its property? That’s one way to ensure there will be less volunteer activity: the church will need to hire someone to supervise and screen volunteer groups in a way that isn’t done now. “‘They really do accommodate a huge amount of groups all the time,’ from religious cooperators such as the Knights of Columbus to secular groups including Alcoholics Anonymous and the Boy Scouts, archdiocese attorney Frank L. Steeves said. ‘These groups are out doing the kinds of things we don’t direct or control in any way.’” $15.5 million of the award was for non-economic damages, though post-trial motions may change the result. (Derrick Nunnally, “Church told to pay $17 million”, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Feb. 18). Update: Feb. 27; the verdict was upheld on appeal.

Sign of the times: Bankruptcy Creditors’ Service, Inc., has launched a new publication entitled Catholic Church Bankruptcy News, its mission being to keep track of legal proceedings in the case of the insolvency of the Diocese of Portland, Oregon, and whatever other dioceses or church institutions follow the same path into Chapter 11 under pressure from abuse claims. Subscribers will have to pay $45 for each issue, expected to appear approximately every 10 to 20 days, but a sample issue can be perused for free. (via Amy Welborn). One of the claimants suing the Portland diocese over abuse, whose trial had been set for Jul. 6 until stayed by the bankruptcy filing, is demanding $135 million; another wants $36.5 million. For more, see Ashbel S. Green, “Church bankruptcy and the courts”, Religion News Service/Salt Lake Tribune, Jul. 10.

“If canonization of Australia’s Mary MacKillop, who died in 1909, is taking a relatively long time, compared to that of Mother Teresa, six years dead, part of the reason is that Indians are less litigious.” Among legal fears that might slow down the process at various stages: “A doctor who treated an individual might be miffed by claims that the cure had no medical explanation. There is also privacy legislation, which might be referred to by relatives objecting to church investigators nosing into the departed one’s affairs. … According to Sister Maria Casey, who is handling the processing of Mother Mackillop, ‘it is not very easy these days because of threats of litigation’”. (Malcolm Brown, “Saint? Call the lawyers”, Melbourne Age, Oct. 27; longer version, Sydney Morning Herald) (& welcome Eugene Volokh readers; he says nice things about us)(& welcome Carnival of the Capitalists readers).

“The $85 million settlement in the Boston clergy sex abuse scandal will set a record not only as the most expensive abuse settlement in the history of the Catholic Church, but also as the largest payday for lawyers who sued on behalf of abuse victims: an estimated $30 million in legal fees, lawyers said.” (Ralph Ranelli, Boston Globe, Sept. 11). Meanwhile, Forbes investigates the ties between abuse-survivor groups and the plaintiff’s lawyers that are often their chief financial supporters. For example, the biggest national claimant group, Survivors Network Abused by Priests, which played a pivotal role in getting the California legislature to reopen old statutes of limitations so as to permit the filing of decades-old claims, lists a Stockton, Calif. plaintiff’s lawyer with a large abuse-client roster as its biggest contributor. But not all survivors’ groups feel comfortable taking money from that source: “I would hate to be seen as a lead generator for plaintiff lawyers,” says Paul Baier, founder of the Boston group Survivors First, which refuses such donations. And attorney Mitchell Garabedian, prominent for his work on the plaintiff’s side in the Boston case, declines to donate money to the victim groups “because he believes the practice violates legal ethics guidelines. ‘It’s sort of a solicitation,’ he says.” (Daniel Lyons, “Paid to Picket”, Forbes, Sept. 15)(& welcome EthicalEsq? readers).