First the city of San Francisco decided that homeowners were responsible for pruning and otherwise maintaining the municipally planted trees on the sidewalks in from of their homes. Now it’s hitting them with big fines for doing it improperly. [San Francisco Chronicle via Amy Alkon]
We refer of course to the practice of dispensing with liability insurance [Sheila Weller, Vanity Fair]:
The Diggers broached the idea of a free clinic to two doctors, and Dr. David E. Smith, who had lived in the Haight for years, volunteered. He signed a $300-a-month lease for a suite at Haight and Ashbury, rounded up volunteers who utilized all the samples of penicillin, tranquilizers, and other supplies from the hospitals at which they interned, and started a clinic to treat patients suffering from bad acid trips or venereal disease —- all with no malpractice insurance, “which was totally insane,” says Smith today. On June 7, 1967, the Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic opened for business with “a line around the block,” according to Smith.
More on the free clinic, one of the counterculture’s more celebrated innovations at the time, here and here; more on the practice of dispensing with liability coverage here, here, here, and here.
If this account from DNALounge is to be believed, San Francisco police are highly eager for bar owners to install surveillance cameras to monitor everything customers do, and to commit to hand over the resulting footage to police without a warrant. Raise objections, and (according to the report) you might find the requirement being added as a condition to your permit. More: SFBay.ca.
Please don’t do these [in some cases alleged] things:
- Calif.: “Judge accused of stealing elderly neighbor’s $1.6M life savings resigns from bench” [ABA Journal]
- Stan Chesley joins a rogue’s gallery of disgraced litigators [Paul Barrett/Business Week, earlier here, etc.]
- San Francisco’s Alioto firm: “Attorney and law firm must pay $67K …for ‘vexatious’ suit challenging airline merger” [ABA Journal, Andrew Longstreth/Reuters (Joseph Alioto: "badge of honor"), Ted Frank/PoL (sanctions are small change compared with enormous fees obtainable through merger challenges]
- N.J.: “Lawyer takes state plea, will pay $1M to widow’s estate” [ABA Journal]
- Texas: “State Rep. Reynolds charged with 7 others in barratry scheme” [SETR]
- “Paul Bergrin, ‘The Baddest Lawyer in the History of Jersey,’ Convicted at Last” [David Lat/Above the Law, earlier]
- “Attorney’s mug shot winds up next to his law firm’s ad, in marketing effort gone awry” [Martha Neil, ABA Journal]
- Once the American legal profession reformed itself, but that was long ago [John Steele Gordon]
Lowering the Bar on the complaint in a San Francisco trip-fall case:
Sure, you could write “plaintiff tripped on the curb,” but that almost makes it sound like it might have been plaintiff’s fault. Writing instead that “the curb disrupted the motion of plaintiff’s foot” makes it clear that the curb was the bad actor here. …
The curb’s co-defendant, Gravity, settled before trial.
“The mother of a Washington state parolee who accidentally shot himself to death during a gunfight with San Francisco police last year has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city.” [Henry K. Lee, San Francisco Chronicle]
A San Francisco nonprofit named Consumer Action is in the habit of pocketing cy pres moneys — leftover funds that are supposed to go “as nearly as possible” to class relief — from class actions against credit card companies and other mass marketers. Does Consumer Action have any connections to lawyers who file class action suits, and if so, are those connections significant? [Ted Frank, Point of Law] (Bad link fixed now; text edited August 5 per discussion below.)
[A Consumer Action executive has been in touch to take issue with this post, pointing out, among other things, that the two personages mentioned in the Point of Law post are no longer married to each other, and arguing that the group's work is independent of class action lawyers. I have reworded the post to reflect these concerns.]
August 6 update: Letter from Consumer Action’s Linda Sherry follows, continued after jump:
Dear Mr. Olson,
I am writing to you to clarify certain points made in your recent blog post, “Consumer Action, chez Sturdevant” (http://overlawyered.com/2012/08/consumer-action-chez-sturdevant/) based on a post by PointofLaw.com (http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2012/07/damned-if-you-do-files-chase-bank-credit-card-class-action.php).
Patricia Sturdevant, currently the president of Consumer Action’s Board of Directors, is employed as Deputy Commissioner for Policy and Planning at California Department of Insurance. She has been divorced from attorney James Sturdevant since 1996. Mr. Sturdevant’s firm has no formal connection to Consumer Action, however we admire of Mr. Sturdevant’s track record as a consumer attorney and consider him one of many valued supporters. These supporters also include corporations, foundations, public interest groups and individuals.
[click to continue…]
It takes effect Thursday, but, as some had predicted, the hamburger chain seems to be evading its reach fairly easily just by assigning a separate price to the toy. [SF Weekly]
The San Francisco board of supervisors will consider a measure that would ban the sale of all pets in the city [L.A. Times, Outdoor Life, Telegraph (U.K.)] (& welcome Above the Law readers)
Eugene Volokh has a legal analysis of the ballot proposal, which includes no religious-belief exemption. More: Dave Hoffman.