ABA Journal: “After stealing more than $1.6 million from at least 46 clients over a six-year period, then-personal injury attorney Steven Bearman reportedly kept working as a Houston lawyer while awaiting trial after his 2006 arrest.” Among other defalcations, “Bearman settled clients’ cases without telling them”, exactly the sort of misconduct that payee notification (having insurers give notice directly to claimants of the timing and amount of settlements) is meant to stop. Texas unfortunately is not one of the dozen states that have enacted the reform (per an ABA compilation, they are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island).

The flight attendant sought a whopping $405K for the alleged assault.  This demand seemed unreasonable based on the description of the injuries, even if they occurred as alleged (“Jury says no assault, agrees with Osteen’s wife”, MSNBC, Aug. 14, earlier).

We express no opinion as to exactly how badly Victoria Osteen, wife of a celebrated evangelical minister, may have behaved on that Continental Airlines flight in 2005; “The Federal Aviation Administration fined [her] $3,000 for interfering with a crew member.” Readers keep writing in, however, to call our attention to the financial demands that flight attendant Sharon Brown is making in her lawsuit, which just went to trial. It seems Brown wants compensation not only for such things as hemorrhoids and damage to her religious faith but also, by way of punishment, “10 percent of Victoria Osteen’s net worth”. Wouldn’t we all! (”Joel Osteen’s Wife on Trial in Flight Attendant Assault”, AP/FoxNews.com, Aug. 7).

I was a guest on the Houston radio station this morning discussing personal responsibility and our propensity to litigate. A few recent cases possibly on point: “Inmate Sues Jail, Blames It for His Escapes“; five of her friends as well as the inevitable bar sued after college student’s fatal alcohol binge; and lawyer gambles away client money at the tables, then sues casinos for not stopping her. (Corrected original post title which got the call letters wrong).

Kwitcher snitchin’, and your confessin’ too: The Southwest Juvenile Defender Center runs a visit-the-schools program called “Why a Lawyer” which is “one of several such programs taught in schools and detention facilities throughout the country by groups worried that children don’t know their basic rights — including the right to remain silent.” At the private Shlenker School in Houston, fourth graders were asked to answer questions from a “police officer” (played by a University of Houston law student) about a prank call to a neighbor’s house. The student who said least was then singled out for praise for not “spill[ing] her guts”. When questioned by cops who are responding to reports of mischief, it seems, the recommended approach for preteens is “Give your name, your age and then ask for an attorney and ask for your parent.” Malikah Marrus, a researcher for the U-of-H-based Defender Center, complains that it’s an uphill battle getting kids to clam up when questioned by the authorities: “Their impulsive behavior gets them to spill their guts right away.” (Sarah Viren, “Programs teach legal rights to elementary school pupils”, Houston Chronicle, Feb. 14).

• Client’s suit against Houston tort lawyer George Fleming alleges that cost of echocardiograms done on other prospective clients was deducted as expenses from her fen-phen settlement [Texas Lawyer]
• Preparing to administer bar exam, New York Board of Law Examiners isn’t taking any chances, will require hopefuls to sign liability waivers [ABA Journal]
• Thanks to Steven Erickson for guestblogging last week, check out his blogging elsewhere [Crime & Consequences, e.g.]
• “Freedom of speech” regarded as Yankee concept at Canadian tribunal? [Steyn @ NRO Corner; reactions]
• Court rules Dan Rather suit against CBS can go to discovery [NYMag; earlier here, here]
• Served seventeen years in prison on conviction for murdering his parents, till doubts on his guilt grew too loud to ignore [Martin Tankleff case]
• Orin Kerr and commenters discuss Gomez v. Pueblo County, the recent case where inmate sued jail for (among other things) making it too easy for him to escape [Volokh]
• New at Point of Law: Cleveland’s suit against subprime lending is even worse than Baltimore’s; Massachusetts takes our advice and adopts payee notification; law firm websites often promote medical misinformation; lawyer for skier suing 8-year-old boy wants court to stop family from talking to the press; Ted rounds up developments in Vioxx litigation once and then again; guess where you’ll find a handsome statue of Adam Smith; and much more;
• Good news for “resourceful cuckolds” as courts let stand $750,000 alienation of affection award to wronged Mississippi husband [The Line Is Here; ABCNews.com]
• Kimball County, Nebraska cops don’t know whether that $69,040 in cash they seized from a car is going to be traceable to drug traffickers, but plan to keep it in any case [Omaha World-Herald via The Line Is Here]
• Hunter falls out of tree, and Geoffrey Fieger finds someone for him to sue [seven years ago on Overlawyered]

The ABA Journal’s contest for best general legal weblog ends momentarily (Wed., Jan. 2) and as of this writing we’re still lagging a mere 50 or so votes behind the front-runner, not an impossible margin you’d think to overtake in a last-minute surge. Unfortunately, we’ve more or less run out of winning tactics that wouldn’t mire us in an embarrassing degree of groveling, nagging, cheating, conniving, etc.

Quite a few folks associated with the American Bar Association have been open-minded and even friendly toward Overlawyered over the years, but we have reason to believe that some others high up in that organization regard us as the web equivalent of hot buttered death. Who can deny that it would be amusing to tick off that second group by having Overlawyered win the ABA’s own contest? Perhaps readers in comments can suggest vote-winning techniques we haven’t thought of. (Beg Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds to send their readers to cast ballots for us?). Okay, here’s one: recommend that your readers vote for us, and we’ll give you a grateful shout-out (within reason) in this column.

P.S. Thanks to Caleb Brown, who does the Cato Institute’s podcast series, for filling in over the holidays. Check out his site Catallaxy.net. And stay tuned for another guestblogger we expect to be joining us in the not too distant future.

[Bumped Wednesday morning for continued prominence. First we pulled to within a dozen votes of QuizLaw, it seems, and now (around midnight EST) they're back ahead by 40.]

And: a most grateful thanks for the boost to:

• Larry Ribstein (Ideoblog);
• Sam Munson (Commentary mag’s Contentions);
• Carter Wood (NAM Shop Floor);
• Ron Coleman guesting at Dean Esmay’s and also at his own site, Likelihood of Confusion;
• Hans Bader (Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Open Market);
• Eugene Volokh (Volokh Conspiracy);
• Alan Lange (Mississippi’s Y’All Politics);
• David Rossmiller (Insurance Coverage Blog);
• Dave Zincavage (Never Yet Melted);
• Tom Kirkendall (Houston’s Clear Thinkers);
• Not endorsements, exactly, but we won’t quibble: Angela Gunn (USA Today “TechSpace”), Robert Ambrogi (LawSites), and David Lat (Above the Law);
• Sean Higgins (JeremyLott.net);
• Point of Law (wait a minute, that’s me).

• This tale of a class-action settlement over male, uh, enhancement products sure looks like a parody, and yet…. Please let it be a parody [Magill/DirectMag, Levine/CircleID, LEMSettlement.com]
• Big law firm partners say million a year really isn’t enough to keep up social status in Manhattan or Silicon Valley [ABA Journal]
• Clerical error results in Disney characters’ getting subpoenaed in Italian criminal case [USA Today]
• We’ve slipped to second place in this Blawg 100 contest thing, don’t you like us? [vote here]
• Update on Miami’s fire-fee scandal (Sept. 19): law firm of Adorno & Yoss, which once sought $2 million fee, will now pay taxpayers $1.6 million; bar probe continues [Miami Herald, Florida Masochist]
• Wife had begged him not to go kite-surfing in Long Island Sound in winter, but still sues town over its failure to warn against taking such risks [Conn. Post]
• “I don’t do any medmal,” lawyer hastens to make known as he’s being stitched up in ER [GruntDoc]
• Very expensive speech: “beyond cruel” shock-jock comments ridiculing Albany, N.Y. burn victim end in $1 million settlement, spoliation also raised as issue [ABA Journal]
• Hassle of dealing with regs in charming Old Town Alexandria is one that only chain outlets may be up to shouldering [Balko, Reason]
• Turkish lawyer sues Italian soccer team, deems its “Crusader-style” red crosses “offensive to Muslim sensibilities” [Times Online, UK]
• Plaintiff’s lawyers tend to throw the most opulent holiday parties in Texas, but our readers knew that already [Houston Chronicle via Lat]
• Two men shot in suspected drug deal win $1.7 million in negligent-security suit against hotel [eight years ago on Overlawyered]

(Update, December 16: And welcome, Consumerist readers. For more on the anti-consumer campaign against arbitration, see the Overlawyered arbitration section. Consumerist’s headline “Mandatory Binding Arbitration Means Alleged Halliburton Rapists Could Go Free” is entirely false. Aside from the fact that it does not appear the alleged rapists worked for Halliburton, the issue of whether Jones is contractually obligated to arbitrate her employment dispute with her employer is entirely unrelated to whether the government underinvestigated a criminal complaint against rapists. They are two entirely separate issues. It’s not the first time that Consumerist has reprinted misleading arguments against arbitration—a shame, because mandatory binding arbitration helps consumers, and Consumerist should care more about consumers than the trial lawyers who are lobbying for an anti-consumer law.)

In February 2006, Jamie Leigh Jones filed an arbitration complaint, complaining that, for her administrative assistant job with KBR in the Iraq Green Zone, she was placed in an all-male dorm for living arrangements, and a co-worker sexually assaulted her. (KBR says the co-worker claimed the sex was consensual, though Jones claims physical injuries, such as burst breast implants and torn pectoral muscles, that are plainly not consistent with consensual sex. The EEOC’s Letter of Determination credited the allegation of sexual assault.)

Fifteen months later, after extensive discovery in the arbitration, Jones, who lives in Houston, and whose lawyer is based in Houston, and who worked for KBR in Houston, sued KBR and a bunch of other entities (including Halliburton, for whom she never worked, and the United States), in federal court in Beaumont, Texas. The claims were suddenly of much more outrageous conduct: the original allegation of a single he-said/she-said sexual assault was now an allegation of gang rape by several unknown John Doe rapists who worked as firemen (though she did make a claim of multiple rape to the EEOC, though it is unclear when that claim was made); she claims that after she reported the rape, “Halliburton locked her in a container” (the EEOC found that KBR provided immediate medical treatment and safety and shipped her home immediately) and she threw in an allegation that a “sexual favor” she provided a supervisor in Houston was the result of improper “influence.” (But she no longer makes the implausible claim that she was living in an all-male dorm in Iraq.)

The US got the claim dismissed quickly (Jones hasn’t yet followed the appropriate administrative claims procedure); the case was transferred back to Houston where it belonged (the trial lawyer’s ludicrous brief in opposition didn’t help). But the fact that the defendants are pointing out that the lawsuit over a pending arbitration violates 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and are asking for the court to mandate only one single proceeding in arbitration rather than a multiplicity of parallel proceedings, is now being treated as a cause célèbre by the left-wing blogosphere in its campaign against the contractual freedom to arbitrate. (Note that two elements explicitly designed to arouse the ire and inflame the passions of the left—Halliburton and gang-rape—only came about after Jones switched attorneys.)

The Public Citizen blog complains that “the allegations of corporate and governmental misconduct will never see the light of day” in arbitration. Which is absurd:

1) For crying out loud, her case is on 20/20, which, as is its ken, happily unquestioningly gives the plaintiffs’ opening statement in handy manipulative video newsertainment form without mentioning any of the counterevidence. That sort of widespread publicity is hardly the lack of “light of day.” (Update, Dec. 15: the KBR arbitration procedure provides a transcript without confidentiality restrictions, permitting exactly the same publicity as an open court proceeding.)
2) If the government fails to offer Jones an adequate settlement for their alleged bungling of the criminal investigation, she has recourse under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the federal government—though she likely will not have any more recourse against them than any other criminal victim does when the government fails to protect them against crime or prosecute the criminal.
3) If the court system is about having recourse for injuries, she has that recourse. The judicial system is not for public storytelling; if you want to send a message, use Western Union (or ABC News, as the case may be).

20/20 repeats the meaningless claim that “In recent testimony before Congress, employment lawyer Cathy Ventrell-Monsees said that Halliburton won more than 80 percent of arbitration proceedings brought against it”—meaningless because (1) it doesn’t include the cases that settle before arbitration with a favorable result to the employee and (2) there’s no comparison with how well such employees would do in the far more expensive forum of litigation (where the vast majority of employees lose at trial as well). (Update, Dec. 16: KBR (which is not Halliburton) says that 96% of employee claims settle before they get to an arbitrator.)

20/20 also adds the claim (absent in the arbitration and in the otherwise-lurid civil complaint) that Jones was threatened that she would be fired if she sought medical treatment.

Continue Reading »

Make way for another creative application of the Americans with Disabilities Act: the office of Texas attorney general Greg Abbott says it could violate the ADA for the Texas Lottery Commission to permit sale of its lottery tickets in stores that allow smoking. “Lewisville resident Billy Williams complained to the commission in 2006 that he had an asthma attack after buying a ticket at a smoky store.” Abbott’s office found that the ADA requires that disabled residents be provided with “‘meaningful access’ to state services”, in this case consisting of lottery tickets, and that smoking-allowed policies at participating retailers could impair such access. (”Smoking questioned for stores that sell lottery tickets”, AP/Houston Chronicle, Nov. 9).

The San Antonio trial lawyer and Democratic donor says he’s realized he’d like to spend more time with his family. Surely it couldn’t have had anything to do with controversies like the ones covered here or here or here. (Peggy Fikac, “Watts ends bid for Democratic Senate nomination”, Houston Chronicle, Oct. 23).

Looks as if the legal tactics of one politically ambitious Texas plaintiff’s lawyer may have blown up in his face:

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mikal Watts of San Antonio once tried to pressure a legal opponent into a $60 million personal injury lawsuit settlement by claiming he would have an advantage on appeal because of his firm’s “heavy” campaign financial support to an appellate court’s justices, “all of whom are good Democrats.”

A “nine-page letter Watts wrote to opposing counsel in 2001 apparently was intended to make an out-of-state corporation think the donations could sway” the 13th Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi. The letter was sent to a defense lawyer representing American Electric Power in an auto-accident case. “Politely put, south Texas venue by itself makes this a very dangerous lawsuit,” Watts wrote.

What made the letter unusual was the linking of campaign contributions to sitting justices and the potential of an appeal.

The letter then noted that if the case went to appeal, it would go to the 13th Court of Appeals.

“This court is comprised of six justices, all of whom are good Democrats,” Watts wrote. “The Chief Justice, Hon. Rogelio Valdez, was recently elected with our firm’s heavy support, and is a man who believes in the sanctity of jury verdicts.”

The letter goes on to name Justices Errlinda Castillo, Nelda Rodriguez, J. Bonner Dorsey, Federico Hinojosa and Linda Yanez, and says his firm also has financially supported them. Hinojosa, Castillo and Dorsey are no longer on the court.

“Justice Bonner Dorsey, is more conservative than the others, but has been a friend of mine and the sanctity of jury verdicts for many years,” Watts wrote.

Watts and his law firm in 1999 donated $5,000 to Valdez and $2,500 to Rodriguez; in 2000, $15,000 to Hinojosa; and in January 2001, $10,000 to Castillo. The firm donated $50,000 to Yanez in 2002.

(R. G. Ratcliffe, “Senate candidate played up contributions to justices”, Houston Chronicle, Sept. 5; “Watts’ letter shows judicial reform need” (editorial), San Antonio Express-News, Sept. 15; PrairiePundit, Sept. 7 (quoting Houston Chronicle editorial that’s now offline)).

Blog reaction among both Texans and Democrats has been overwhelmingly negative. “This is bad,” writes the eponymous Kos at Daily Kos. Similarly: Burnt Orange Report, Urban Grounds, Eye on Williamson, Doing My Part for the Left, Capitol Annex. For links to some of our coverage of Watts’s colorful courtroom exploits over the years, see Jun. 9. As a matter of fact, Ted covered Watts’ eye-opening demand letter in a Point of Law post of Nov. 2, 2005.

• Lawyers in Iowa suit against Microsoft bag $75 million [ComputerWorld, ABA Journal; earlier antics in case here, here, here, and here]


• Not a parody: Santa Cruz, Calif. says smoking in the park’s OK so long as its pot, not tobacco [Mercury-News via Bader]


• L.A.’s big payout in Tennie Pierce case (firehouse dog food prank) deemed “completely outrageous”, “‘best possible’ outcome” (or both?) [Patterico, more, John and Ken, LoneWacko, Holy Coast; earlier]


• Suit by Paris, Tex. hospital seeks to uncover name of anonymous blogger [Houston Chronicle](& Coyote)


• Global-warming litigation roundups [Associated Press, Daily Report, NJLJ/PoL, Horner @ NRO]


• Sues American Cancer Society after slipping on step at charity fund-raiser [Madison County Record, more]


• Have Islamic Society of Boston lawsuits chilled local media? [Boston Phoenix via Romenesko]


• Four guilty pleas so far in case of West Orange, N.J.’s Seligsohn, Goldberger & Shinrod, which paid runners to bring in staged and non-existent auto accidents [NJLJ first, second reports]


• New at Point of Law: war on terror “lawyered to death“?; Florida insurance craziness; subprime lending crusade; France’s “model” health care system would offer few chances to attorneys like John Edwards; Mississippi AG Hood says “the system is working” on outside contracts; Sen. Ted Kennedy’s new “Equal Remedies Act of 2007” would boost payouts in workplace suits; and much more;


• Browser add-ons that help squelch ads may be headed for litigation [Broache & McCullagh, CNet]


• Lottery winner’s curse? Among other woes since winning nearly $315 million in Powerball, Jack Whittaker says he’s been involved in 460 legal actions [Chicago Tribune]

• Resolving dispute over author Pearl Buck’s lost manuscript was easier once we locked the lawyers out of the negotiating room, heirs say [Phila. Inquirer]


• After U.K.’s Channel 4 ran explosive show documenting pro-beheading, anti-Western rants at some leading mosques, government mulled race-incitement prosecution against… the network [Guardian via Reason "Hit and Run"]


• Breach-of-contract claim: 1-800-FLOWERS told his wife about the flowers he bought for his mistress, after promising not to [Lat, Houston Chronicle]


• “What are you going to do about lawyer jokes?” bar association demands of press-agent hopeful [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]


• You can buy fake doctor’s excuses on the web these days, not that anyone would ever abuse the Family and Medical Leave Act of course [Associated Press]


• Federal judge flays Qualcomm for “gross litigation misconduct” in defending patent suit, orders it to pay opponent’s fees [WSJ Law Blog]


• Jersey regulators keen to shutter eatery whose cook was dealing cocaine without owner’s knowledge, reminding Ralph Reiland of the fate of a restaurant whose manager “should have known” of sex harassment [Press of Atlantic City; Pittsburgh Tribune-Review]


• Dropped out of Congressional race after domestic-violence arrest, now suing former father-in-law for lost salary she’d have earned on Capitol Hill if elected [Dayton Daily News]


• New at Point of Law: Atul Gawande says our malpractice system’s a “disaster”; Katrina canal-breach sense restored; Ohio Supreme Court rules against governor on product-liability veto; Paul Minor sentencing hearing (see also); and much more;


• Sacramento law firm that boasted of women’s advancement was itself a den of sleazy male behavior, complainants say [The Recorder]


• Craigslist roommate classifieds tripped up by “fair housing” law [two years ago on Overlawyered]

Among the nightmare scenarios of global warming, there’s one only now coming into view – and it’s definitely manmade: As predictable as the rising seas, we can expect a flood of class-action lawsuits trying to cash in on the issue.

Climate change promises to be “a lucrative new field” for the tort bar reports the Newark Star-Ledger. A Rutgers law professor predicts that global warming will make for “one of the biggest legal practices in the next 20 years.” (The Star-Ledger, 7/8/07)

The opinion is shared by the president of the World Resources Institute: “Companies that generate significant carbon emissions,” he warns, “face the threat of lawsuits similar to those common in the tobacco, pharmaceutical and asbestos industries.” (The Toronto Star, 4/29/07)

And if you thought asbestos and tobacco litigation were profitable, try to imagine all the “mass tort” cases that global warming will inspire. Energy companies, coal mines, any firm at all that generates carbon dioxide – these industries and many more can expect to find themselves accused of causing climate change.

Some law firms already have “climate-change groups” studying the possibilities. Another hint of things to come was a class action suit was filed on behalf of Mississippi residents against oil and coal companies after Hurricane Katrina – arguing that company emissions caused the climate change that caused the hurricane. (Star-Ledger, 7/8/07).

In Alaska, the Inuits claim that their island is sinking because of global warming. The aggrieved islanders haven’t decided who to sue yet – but they’ve got a Houston trial lawyer working on it. (Star-Ledger, 7/8/07)

All of which proves nothing at all about the actual causes or dangers of global warming. It’s just more evidence of a climate of greed and opportunism in the trial bar. And that’s one climate that never changes.

Steve Hantler

Houston plaintiff lawyer John O’Quinn has been ordered to refund at least $35.7 million to more than 3,000 former breast implant litigation clients, according to an arbitration panel decision released today.

With interest and attorneys’ fees, O’Quinn could owe almost $60 million.

O’Quinn required his former clients to agree to mandatory arbitration (a money-saving option the plaintiffs’ bar wishes to preclude other businesses from using). “[I]mproper general expense deductions included professional association dues, flowers, fundraising, other lawyer’s fees, and overhead, the arbitrators said.” A dissenting arbitrator suggested that O’Quinn should also be liable for using money to fund a public relations campaign on his work. (Mary Flood, Houston Chronicle, Jul. 19).

Overlawyered broke this story Apr. 15, and had a followup post June 9.

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.

• How to handle illegal alien’s slip-fall suit against supermarket? With some delicacy: jury told only that plaintiff “couldn’t legally work in this country” [Oroville, Calif., Mercury-Register]


• Sorry, docs: “I hate doctors” beats out “I hate lawyers” as a Google search result [Bioethics Discussion Blog via KevinMD]


• Virginia adopts harrowingly punitive schedule of traffic fines. Its sponsor: lawmaker whose day job is defending motorists [Washington Post; NRO "The Corner"; Ribstein; our earlier report]


• A businessman in London is suing Google for “publishing” (by indexing) allegedly defamatory material, and, boy, will the Internet ever be a different place if he wins [Independent (U.K.), Volokh]


• Federal indictment charges Houston injury lawyer secretly paid $3 million to two Hartford Insurance claims adjusters in connection with $34 million in silicosis settlements [PoL]


• Mississippi high court rules invalid former AG Mike Moore’s slush-fund diversion of $20 million/year in tobacco settlement money to evade legislative oversight [Sun-Herald, Bader; also this PoL roundup]


• More RIAA-suit horrors, this time from Washington state [Seattle P-I] Prospects for a counterattack? [Pasquale, Concurring Opinions]


• California Assembly votes to require pet owners to sterilize mixed-breed dogs and cats, while UK animal rights authority mulls rights for invertebrates [Mangu-Ward and Bailey, Reason]


• Here come the tainted-Chinese-export suits, with many American defendants on the hook [Parloff, Fortune] Plus: car with the “E COLI” license plate may be driving lawyer to work [WSJ Law Blog]


• Gimme those antiquities: Peru vs. Yale on Machu Picchu relics [Zincavage]


• Dick Schaap med-mal case evokes shifting theories from celebrated lawyer Tom Moore [two years ago at Overlawyered]