State attorney general races are often lacking in suspense — if only because incumbents seldom lose — but this year there are more genuine races [Joseph Kastner, Ballotpedia via Jack Harper, NRO]
{ 1 comment }
Posts tagged as:
politics
- Kagan to senators: please don’t confuse my views with Mark Tushnet’s or Harold Koh’s [Constitutional Law Prof]
- Too much like a Star Wars lightsaber? Lucasfilm sends a cease-and-desist to a laser pointer maker [Mystal, AtL]
- Ottawa, Canada: family files complaint “against trendy wine bar that turned away dinner party because it included 3mo baby” [Drew Halfnight, National Post]
- “House left Class Action Fairness Act alone in SPILL Act” [Wood/PoL, earlier]
- Not so indie? Filmmaker doing anti-Dole documentary on Nicaraguan banana workers says he took cash from big plaintiff’s law firm Provost Umphrey [AP/WaPo, WSJLawBlog, Erik Gardner/THREsq., new plaintiffs' charges against Dole]
- Will liability ruling result in closure of popular Connecticut recreational area? [Rick Green, Hartford Courant; earlier]
- Class action lawyer Sean Coffey, running for New York attorney general, has many generous supporters [NYDN, more, WNYC (Sen. Al Franken headlines closed fundraiser at Yale Club)]
- “Judge Reduces Damages Award by 90% in Boston Music Downloading Trial” [NLJ, earlier on Tenenbaum case]
{ 3 comments }
The Boston Globe reports that plaintiff’s securities law firms have become cash cows for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and Treasurer Timothy Cahill, who oversee the pension funds that strike representation deals with the lawyers. “Spokeswomen for Cahill and Coakley said the contributions played no part in the selection of the law firms, which were chosen in a competitive process five years ago.”
I have an op-ed about the pending Ninth Circuit nomination, which the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider tomorrow. If some of the language sounds vaguely familiar, it stems from an earlier Ted, and it especially amused me how much more appropriate Senator Kennedy’s words were for Professor Liu than for Judge Bork.
See also The Heritage Foundation’s discussion.
Update: and Ed Whelan’s NRO piece. And Ilya Shapiro and Evan Turgeon in the Daily Caller.
{ 4 comments }
- Are you a member of Tyson chicken or H&R Block Express IRA class action settlements?
- Jim Copland on Harry Reid and the trial bar. [NRO]
- Jim Copland on the Ground Zero settlement, which may pay lawyers $200 million—but the judge plans fee scrutiny. [NY Post; NY Daily News]
- Kevin LaCroix interviews the Circle of Greed authors. [D&O Diary]
- Judgeships: Rhode Island lead paint trial lawyer in despite mediocre rating, but Sri Srinivasan out because of his clients—not Al Qaeda, but, heaven forfend, eeeevil corporations like Hertz.
- There’s no evidence that workers on automotive brakes (which sometimes contain asbestos) get mesothelioma at a greater rate than the rest of the population, but auto companies still get sued over it. Ford fought one in Madison County, rather than settle, and won. [Madison County Record]
- Overview of defensive medicine at work. [AP]
- Pantsless Rielle Hunter on John Edwards: “He’s very honest and truthful.” [GQ]
{ 2 comments }
Things you’re missing if you aren’t checking out my other site:
- Iowa federal judge hits EEOC with $4.5 million attorney fee award over “sue first, ask questions later” litigation strategy;
- Jim Copland continues his weeklong blogging of Trial Lawyers Inc.: K Street with posts on the plaintiff’s bar’s Washington, D.C. presence (with discussion of CPSIA, employment litigation, qui tam, and arbitration, among other topics); state lobbying; and public relations, including legal academics, the media, and consumer groups;
- Hmm: House committee conveniently subpoenas Toyota defense documents that plaintiffs had been seeking to unseal (and more on Toyota);
- Obama administration plans crackdown to make more employers reclassify independent contractors as employees;
- Trial bar stirs pot in Florida politics;
- Feds swoop down on 2003 settlement to demand that parties reimburse Medicare as provided by retroactive law.
{ 4 comments }
Last week my colleagues at the Manhattan Institute put out a report in their Trial Lawyers Inc. series taking a look at the lobbying clout of the plaintiff’s bar in Washington and elsewhere. It’s full of interesting details and vignettes, and now Jim Copland, who presided over the compiling of the report, will be blogging it all week at Point of Law. His first installment is here.
{ 2 comments }
The Manhattan Institute report on plaintiff’s bar lobbying is now online. [cross-posted from Point of Law]
Did they pave the way for the now-disgraced lawyer’s efforts to obtain lucrative securities class-action work from the state of Florida? [Sydney Freedberg, St. Petersburg Times]
- Other motorist in fatal crash should have been detained after earlier traffic stop, says widow in suit against Kane County, Ill. sheriff’s office [Chicago Tribune]
- Now with flashing graphic: recap of Demi Moore skinny-thigh Photoshop nastygram flap [Xeni Jardin, BoingBoing, Kennerly]
- Blawg Review #245 is hosted by Charon QC;
- Expensive, unproven, and soon on your insurance bill? State lawmakers mull mandate for autism therapy coverage [KY3.com, Springfield, Missouri]
- “NBC airs segment on Ford settlement: Lawyers get $25 million, plaintiffs get a coupon” [NJLRA]
- “Drawing on emotion”: high-profile patent plaintiff’s lawyer Niro writes book on how to win trials [Legal Blog Watch]
- “Virginia Tech faces lawsuit over student’s suicide” [AP/WaPo]
- Maryland lawmaker’s Howard-Dean-style candor: “you take care of your base… It’s labor and trial lawyers that get Democrats in office” [Wood, ShopFloor]
{ 4 comments }
Florida’s Sugar Bowl blowout of Cincinnati (the game wasn’t even as close as its 51-25 final score, given the 37-3 third quarter lead) is a rebuke to efforts to regulate the BCS, though admittedly the US would be better off if Congress dropped its current agenda and spent 2010 in hearings and debates over the optimal means of determining the college football champion.
{ 6 comments }
A source on Capitol Hill who asks not to be identified writes:
The “tort reform” section of Senator Reid’s substitute amendment is not merely meaningless, but is actually a significant giveaway to the trial lawyers. It is essentially a 5-year, 50-million dollar grant program to encourage states to develop more plaintiff-friendly alternatives to the current medical liability system.
Section 10607 (p.344 of the Manager’s) establishes a 5-year grant program. The program is administered by the HHS Secretary (Sebelius), in consultation with a review panel. The review panel is structured to ensure that trial lawyers are amply represented, with seats specifically reserved for “patient advocates,” “attorneys with expertise in representing patients,” and “patient safety experts.”
Grantee states will merely be required to “develop an alternative to current tort litigation” that:
(A) allows for the resolution of disputes over injuries allegedly caused by health care providers or health care organizations; and
(B) promotes a reduction of health care errors by encouraging the collection and analysis of patient safety data related to disputes resolved under subparagraph (A) by organizations that engage in efforts to improve patient safety and the quality of health care.
Nothing about this language requires that the “alternative to litigation” decreases litigation costs. And many of the “patient safety” organizations who will collect data under subsection (B) will likely be trial lawyer ["consumer" or "patient-safety"] front groups…
The conditions tied to the grants ensure that the “alternative to litigation” established under the grants will, in practice, increase doctors’ liability and trial lawyers’ paydays. Most importantly, the grantee-State is required to “provide[] patients the ability to opt out of or voluntarily withdraw from participating in the alternative at any time and to pursue other options, including litigation, outside the alternative . . . .” If the plaintiff has a unilateral right, at any time, to pull out of the “alternative” and pursue litigation, then the “alternative” will only be used when the plaintiff’s lawyer believes that the “alternative” is more plaintiff-friendly than the litigation system.
The demonstration project also cannot “limit or curtail a patient’s existing legal rights, ability to file a claim in or access a State’s legal system, or otherwise abrogate a patient’s ability to file a medical malpractice claim.” This language means that damage caps and statute of limitations reforms would likely be off the table in any “alternative to litigation” established under the grants.
The closest that the bill comes to implying that these “reforms” reduce rather than increase litigation costs is by listing “encouraging the efficient resolution of disputes” and “improv[ing] access to liability insurance” among the goals that grantee-States are supposed to advance. But other goals include “increasing the availability” of dispute resolution, and “the disclosure of health care errors.”
In conclusion, Sen. Reid’s bill spends 50-million taxpayer dollars on a grant program run by trial lawyers for the benefit of trial lawyers. The money will be spent to establish “alternatives to litigation” that are even more lucrative for trial lawyers and costly for doctors than the current broken system.
More: Point of Law. And welcome Coyote, For What It’s Worth, Darleen Click/Protein Wisdom, TigerHawk, ShopFloor, Point of Law, Cultural Offering readers.
{ 22 comments }
The Progressive Policy Institute (!) criticizes a provision almost snuck into the health-care bill that would have been a windfall for trial lawyers at the expense of the rest of us. Earlier and earlier on Overlawyered, which was the first to publicize the provision.
