Posts tagged as:

Willie Gary

Well, that was quick: “A judge Wednesday dismissed ethics complaints against prominent attorney Willie Gary and his partner. Circuit Judge Brian Lambert didn’t offer a reason for throwing out the case against Gary and Madison McClellan on the second day of a three-day hearing, although he had been considering several motions for dismissal, including one arguing there was a lack of evidence.” (see Jan. 5 and Apr. 1-2, 2002). “Judge dismisses ethics case against Willie Gary”, AP/Palm Beach Post, Jan. 7). (Note: this is AP’s corrected account, replacing an earlier version which affirmatively attributed the dismissal to lack of evidence.). More on the dismissal from Law.com: Harris Meyer, “Florida Judge Dismisses Ethics Case Against Willie Gary”, Miami Daily Business Review, Jan. 8. Update Sept. 5, 2005: underlying case and related litigation settle for sum upwards of $120 million.

In related matters, Evan Schaeffer, a plaintiff’s attorney practicing in fabled Madison County, Ill., links to our coverage of Gary and also recommends (as “antidote”) a Jonathan Harr New Yorker profile (PDF) which takes a rather more favorable view than we do of the Stuart, Fla.-based lawyer’s successes. And the St. Petersburg Times analyzes Gary’s recent $18 million win against Gannett in a “false light” defamation case (see Dec. 23; Mar. 30, 2001). The interesting thing about the “false light” doctrine is that it lets a publication be held liable for defamation even if all of the individual facts it printed were correct. (Stephen Nohlgren, “State: Case’s verdict shows truth no certain shield for media”, Jan. 4).

{ 4 comments }

Following up on our Apr. 1-2, 2002 coverage: “Gary and one of his law partners, Madison McClellan, are charged with multiple ethics violations involving their representation of baseball legend Roger Maris’ family business during a 2001 trial against the world’s largest beer brewer, Anheuser-Busch.” Trial is scheduled for tomorrow in Ocala “on allegations including falsifying evidence, making false statements, using profanity, improperly appealing for the jury’s sympathy and insulting opposing attorneys.” (Pat Moore, “Ethics trial begins Tuesday for noted lawyer Willie Gary”, Palm Beach Post, Jan. 4)(via Legal Reader, who had it from How Appealing) On Gary’s flamboyance, see Dec. 23 as well as links from the Apr. 1-2, 2002 item. Updates Jan. 7: judge dismisses case against Gary and partner on second day of trial; Sept. 5, 2005: underlying case and related litigation settle for sum upwards of $120 million.

Attorney Willie Gary, frequently mentioned in this space (see Apr. 1-2, 2002 and links from there) sent out 275,000 invitations this year to his annual holiday party in Stuart, Fla., a fabulous bash that has been called South Florida’s premiere party; tens of thousands attended (Tyler Treadway, “Liberally distributed, invitations to Gary festival more elaborate each” (sic), TCPalm.com (Scripps newspapers), Dec. 11; “Thousands take part in Gary’s holiday fete”, Dec. 13). Gary had an extra reason to celebrate this year, because a jury on Dec. 12 awarded $18 million to one of his clients, a road builder who said he was defamed by an investigative-journalism piece in the Gannett chain’s Pensacola News-Journal (see Mar. 30, 2001). (“Florida jury awards $18 million to road builder”, AP/First Amendment Center, Dec. 16). (More on case: Jan. 7; appeals court reverses, Oct. 25, 2006)

In Houston, meanwhile, trial lawyer W. Mark Lanier expects 5,000 holiday attendees at his 25-acre estate for what he bills as the “best party in the world”, now in its twelfth year. Lanier, who is noted for buying asbestos items on eBay and in 1998 won a $115 million verdict for 21 plaintiffs in an asbestos case, hired Bill Cosby to entertain the crowd this year; previous years’ talent have included Barry Manilow, Crosby, Stills, and Nash, Diana Ross, and the Dixie Chicks. (Jonathan D. Glater, “Houston Holiday: Barbecue, Al Green and 5,000 Guests”, New York Times, Dec. 15)(fee archive) Incidentally, the Times also reports the following: “‘I support tort reform that gets rid of the garbage cases,’ said Mr. Lanier, who is a Republican. ‘I do not support the medical malpractice reform because I think it hurts the good cases and doesn’t do anything to restrict the garbage cases.’”

{ 4 comments }

It grinds on inexorably, for all that the medical establishment may cast aspersions on it (see also Feb. 27). In June a San Jose jury voted $38 million to a family in a case in which an earlier Caesarean section would allegedly have prevented a child’s cerebral palsy; the medical defendants strenuously denied any such causal link (Barbara Feder Ostrov, “Baby, family win $38 million verdict”, San Jose Mercury News, Jun. 18). The Palm Beach Post traces the history of a $10 million verdict which “sank one of Florida’s largest physician-run malpractice insurers … While the award pays for Kenan’s care, it also pays for legal fees that leave [mother Priscilla] Davis wondering at times whether she should have taken her chances with the state Medicaid plan.” Causation, you ask? “It remains unclear whether any doctor could have prevented Kenan’s cerebral palsy.” It was a Willie Gary case (Sanjay Bhatt, “Boy’s case illustrates malpractice crisis”, Palm Beach Post, Jun. 15). And a federal judge in East St. Louis, Ill. has awarded $19 million in a lawsuit which ascribed a child’s cerebral palsy to a doctor’s improper use of a vacuum extractor during labor. No word from the newspaper report on whether the defendants disputed this causal theory, but the choice of defendants was an interesting one: the federal Treasury. “The doctor, Charles L. Davis, was considered a federal employee because his employer, the Southern Illinois Healthcare Foundation, receives funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The government was named as a defendant, but he was not.” (William Lamb, “Botched birth nets verdict of $19 million”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jul. 31).


Madison County, Ill., 2003:To tame Madison County, pass the Class Action Fairness Act“, Jun. 12-15; “The intimidation tactics of Madison County“, Jun. 9; “‘Lawyers who won $10 bil. verdict had donated to judge’“, Apr. 30; “A bond too far“, Apr. 4-6; “Appeals bonds, again“, Apr. 2-3; “Mad County pays out again” (“light” cigarette class action), Mar. 24. 2002:Malpractice-crisis latest: let ‘em become CPAs“, Oct. 7-8; “Intel sued in notorious county“, Aug. 30-Sept. 2. 2000: Update: Publishers’ Clearing House case“, Feb. 29. 1999:  “Criticizing lawyers proves hazardous” (columnist Bill McClellan makes fun of class-action attorneys, they sue him for libel), Nov. 4 (& Nov. 30; Feb. 29, 2000)

Securities class actions, 2003:Prospering despite reform“, May 5; “‘Lawyers find gold mine in Phila. pension cases’“, Mar. 21-23; “NYC challenges class action fees; taxpayers save $200 million“, Feb. 28-Mar. 2 (& Jun. 20, 2000). 2002:Updates” (Ninth Circuit ruling), Oct. 1-2; “Second Circuit: we mean business about stopping frivolous securities suits“, Aug. 29-Sept. 2; “Financial scandals: legislate in haste“, Jul. 12-14; “‘How to stuff a wild Enron’“, Apr. 22; “Judge compares class action lawyers to ‘squeegee boys’“, Apr. 18.  2001:Short-sellers had right to a drop in stock price“, Nov. 12; “Third Circuit cuts class action fees” (Cendant, CBS/ Westinghouse), Sept. 25-26 (& on Cendant, June 20, Sept. 4, 2000); “Dotcom wreckage: sue ‘em all“, Aug. 7-8; “’2d Circuit Upholds Sanctions Against Firms for Frivolous Securities Claims’” (Schoengold & Sporn), July 23; “Razorfish, Cisco, IPO suits“, May 22; “Securities law: time for loser-pays“, Mar. 2-4; “3Com prevails in shareholder suit“, Feb. 21-22; “$1,000/hour for shareholder class lawyers” (Aetna case), Feb. 14-15; “What they did for lead-plaintiff status?“, Jan. 18 (& see Feb. 21-22). 2000:Did securities-law reform fail?“, Nov. 10-12; “Emulex fraud: gotta find a defendant“, Sept. 4; “Fortune on Lerach“, Aug. 16-17; “Lion’s share” (commodity brokerage case), May 5-7; “Fee shrinkage“, May 3; “Celera stockholders vent at Milberg Weiss“, Apr. 25-26.  1999: Piggyback suit not entitled to piggybank contents” (Second Circuit rejects fees in Texaco action), Oct. 9-10; “Effects of shareholder-suit reform“, Sept. 22.

Fee review, 2003:Vitamin class action: some questions for the lawyers“, May 28; “Sauce for the gander dept.“, May 19; “NYC challenges class action fees; taxpayers save $200 million“, Feb. 28-Mar. 2 (& Jun. 20, 2000). 2002:FTC cracks down on excessive legal fees“, Oct. 1-2; “Smog fee case: ‘unreal world of greed’“, Jul. 24.  2001:Court’s chutzpah-award nominee” (Wells Fargo), Oct. 17-18; “Third Circuit cuts class action fees” (Cendant, CBS/ Westinghouse), Sept. 25-26 (& on Cendant, June 20, Sept. 4, 2000); “Coupon settlement?  Pay the lawyers in coupons“, Mar. 16-18.  2000:Fee shrinkage“, May 3; “‘Accord tossed: Class members ‘got nothing’” (Equifax, 7th Circuit), Jan. 6. 1999:Class action fee control: it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law” (Ninth Circuit on “separately negotiated” fees), Nov. 30; “Piggyback suit not entitled to piggybank contents” (2nd Circuit, Texaco), Oct. 9-10. 

Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 2003:Prospering despite reform“, May 5; “Milberg copyrights its complaints“, Jan. 3-6.  2002:Updates” (Ninth Circuit ruling), Oct. 1-2; “Smog fee case: ‘unreal world of greed’“, Jul. 24 (& Dec. 5, 2000, Jun. 22-24, 2001); “Judge compares class action lawyers to ‘squeegee boys’“, Apr. 18; “Milberg faces second probe” (Phila. politics), Feb. 27-28; “‘Probe of Milberg Weiss has bar buzzing’“, Jan. 28-29; “‘In a class of his own’” (Melvyn Weiss profiled in The Economist), Jan. 21-22.  2001:NFL satellite ticket class action“, June 5 (& update Aug. 20-21: court disallows settlement); “Update: cookie lawsuit crumbles“, May 9; “‘Lawyers to Get $4.7 Million in Suit Against Iomega’” (zip drive defect allegations), May 8; “California electricity linkfest” (representing San Francisco), March 26; “(Another) ‘Monster Fee Award for Tobacco Fighters’” (Calif. cities and counties), March 21-22; “3Com prevails in shareholder suit“, Feb. 21-22; “$1,000/hour for shareholder class lawyers” (Aetna case), Feb. 14-15; “What they did for lead-plaintiff status?“, Jan. 18 (& see Feb. 21-22).  2000:Fortune on Lerach“, Aug. 16-17; “Fee shrinkage“, May 3; “Celera stockholders vent at Milberg Weiss“, Apr. 25-26; “Class-actioneers’ woes“, Mar. 1; “Pokemon litigation roundup“, Jan. 10 (& Oct. 1-3, Oct. 13, 1999). 

Toshiba laptop settlement: see separate page on high-tech law

Microsoft class actions:Microsoft case and AG contributions“, Apr. 3-4, 2002; “Columnist-fest” (proposed settlement), Nov. 27, 2001; “Hiring talent from the opposing camp“, Feb. 28, 2000; “In race to sue Microsoft, some trip“, Dec. 23-26; “Microsoft roundup“, Dec. 3-5; “‘Actions without class’“, Dec. 2; “Class actions vs. high-tech“, Nov. 23; “Vice President gets an earful“, Nov. 22; “Microsoft roundup“, Nov. 17; “Fins circle in water“, Nov. 13-14; “Microsoft roundup“, Nov. 11; “Microsoft ruling: guest editorials“, Nov. 8; “Why doesn’t Windows cost more?“, Oct. 27; “Are you sure you want to delete ‘Microsoft’?“, Oct. 11. 

Employment class actions: see separate page on employment law.


Overlawyered.com commentaries:

Texas’s giant legal reform“, Jun. 18-19, 2003.

To tame Madison County, pass the Class Action Fairness Act“, Jun. 12-15, 2003; “‘Reforming class action suits’” (Class Action Fairness Act), Apr. 25-27, 2003.

Judge kicks class-action lawyers off case” (H&R Block), May 15, 2003.

Class action lawyer takes $20 million from defendant’s side“, Mar. 15-16, 2003.

FBI probes Philadelphia’s hiring of class action firm“, Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 2003.

Ninth Circuit panel sniffs collusion in bias settlement fees“, Dec. 16-17, 2002.

Auctions:Third Circuit cuts class action fees“, Sept. 25-26, 2001; “Letter to the editor” (competitive bidding for class representation), Jun. 13, 2001 (& Oct. 1-2, 2002). 

7,000 missing colors, many of them crisply green“, Aug. 29, 2002. 

‘Junk-fax’ suit demands $2 trillion“, Aug. 26, 2002; “Junk-fax litigation: blood in the water“, July 24, 2001; “Junk-fax bonanza“, March 27, 2001; “Junk fax litigation, continued“, March 3-5, 2000; “In Houston, expensive menus” (unsolicited faxes), Oct. 22, 1999. 

Penthouse sued on behalf of disappointed Kournikova-oglers“, Jun. 3-4, 2002. 

The mystery of the transgenic corn“, May 14-15, 2002. 

Editorial-fest“, Mar. 11, 2002; “Washington Post on class action reform” (good editorial), Aug. 29-30, 2001; “Actions without class” (Washington Post editorial), Dec. 2, 1999. 

The thrill of it all: plaintiffs win 28 cent coupon“, Feb. 27-28, 2002. 

‘Toyota buyers’ suit yields cash — for lawyers’“, Feb. 18-19, 2002; “Golf ball class action” (Acushnet Co.), Nov. 18-19, 1999; “Class action coupon clippers” (Washington Post on settlement abuses), Nov. 15, 1999. 

‘Congress looks to change class action system’“, Feb. 11-12, 2002; “‘They’re making a federal case out of it … in state court’“, Nov. 7-8, 2001. 

Selling out the class?” (allegations of collusive settlement in H&R Block case), April 5, 2001 (& see Dec. 3). 

Swiss banks vindicated“, Nov. 1, 2001. 

Letter to the editor (lawyers’ own incremental billing disclosed?), Oct. 22, 2001 (& see Dec. 3). 

Counterterrorism bill footnote” (forum shopping), Oct. 16, 2001; “Best little forum-shopping in Texas” (class actions make their way to Texarkana), August 27, 1999. 

Employment class actions: EEOC to the rescue“, Sept. 10, 2001. 

220 percent rate of farmer participation” (USDA black farmer settlement), July 25, 2001.

The rest of Justice O’Connor’s speech“, July 6-8, 2001. 

Blockbuster Video class action“, June 11, 2001 (& see July 3-4 (Vince Carroll column)). 

Letter to the editor” (First USA credit cards), June 13, 2001; “Bank error in your favor” (credit card holders), Sept. 27-28, 2000; & letter to the editor, Sept. 3, 2001. 

Ghost blurber case“, June 12, 2001. 

NFL satellite ticket class action“, June 5, 2001 (& update Aug. 20-21: court disallows settlement). 

Insurance class settlement scuttled“, Feb. 26, 2001. 

Florida lawyers’ day jobs, cont’d” (hotbed of class action filing), Dec. 11-12, 2000; “Florida’s legal talent, before the Chad War” (Florida Marlins ticketholders), Dec. 8-10, 2000. 

Obese soldiers class action“, Nov. 10-12, 2000. 

Sweepstakes, for sure” (American Family Publishers), Oct. 20-22, 2000; “Update: Publishers’ Clearing House case“, Feb. 29, 2000. 

Courtroom crusade on drug prices?“, Oct. 19, 2000. 

Class actions: are we all litigants yet?“, Aug. 23-24, 2000. 

Coke:Class-action lawyers to Coke clients: you’re fired“, July 21-23, 2000; “‘Coke plaintiff eavesdrops on lawyers; case unravels’” (what do lawyers tell each other after they think their clients have hung up on the conference call?), July 19-20; “‘Ad deal links Coke, lawyer in suit’” (Willie Gary, suing Coke, cuts lucrative ad deal with it), May 11, 2000.

Target Detroit” (lawyers countersue DaimlerChrysler and exec personally), July 19-20, 2000; “Turning the tables” (DaimlerChrysler sues class action lawyers), Nov. 12, 1999. 

Class-action assault on eBay“, July 13, 2000. 

AOL ‘pop-up’ class action” (ads said to be unfair), June 27, 2000. 

Rise, fall, and rise of class actions” (enormous increase in filing rates in past decade), Mar. 10-12, 2000. 

Criticizing lawyers proves hazardous” (columnist Bill McClellan makes fun of class-action attorneys, they sue him for libel), Nov. 4, 1999 (update Nov. 30: he criticizes them again, though suit is still pending); “Update: Publishers’ Clearing House case” (judge approves settlement including legal fee request; agreement reached to end libel suit), Feb. 29, 2000. 

Secrets of class action defense“, Feb. 25, 2000; “Mobile Register probes class action biz” (BancBoston and other mortgage escrow cases), Feb. 7, 2000. 

AOL upgrade’s sharp elbows“, Feb. 12-13, 2000. 

Weekend reading: columnist-fest” (Laura Pulfer on suit against Ralph Lauren outlet stores; Alex Cockburn on Swiss banks), Feb. 5-6, 2000. 

From our mail sack: unclear on the concept“, Jan. 28, 2000. 

Santa came late” (suit against Toys-R-Us for missing Christmas delivery), Jan. 19, 2000. 

Pokemon litigation roundup“, Jan. 10, 2000;  “Pokemon cards update“, Oct. 13, 1999; “Pokemon-card class actions“, Oct. 1-3, 1999

Expert witnesses and their ghostwriters” (life insurance class actions), Jan. 4, 2000. 

Lawyers for famine and wilderness-busting?” (anti-biotech), Jan. 3, 1999. 

Class action toy story” (antitrust), Dec. 29-30, 1999. 

‘In race to sue Microsoft, some trip’” (lawyers inadvertently copy details of pleadings in earlier cases), Dec. 23-26, 1999. 

Rolling the dice, cont’d” (suits over online gambling), Dec. 7, 1999 (earlier report, Aug. 26). 

Beware of market crashes” (class action sought against E*Trade for alleged computer-related trading losses), Nov. 26-28, 1999. 

Are they kidding, or not-kidding?” (proposals for suits against makers of fattening foods, losing sports teams), Nov. 15, 1999. 

Public by 2-1 margin disapproves of tobacco suits” (if class actions are filed on behalf of the public, why don’t they reflect public opinion?), Nov. 5-7, 1999. 

Demolition derby for consumer budgets” (class action against State Farm over generic crash parts), Oct. 8, 1999. 

Power attracts power” (Boies joins anti-HMO effort), Sept. 30, 1999; “Impending assault on HMOs“, Sept. 30. 

$49 million lawyers’ fee okayed in case where clients got nothing” (secondhand smoke action), Sept. 28, 1999; “Personal responsibility takes a vacation in Miami” (tobacco class-action verdict), Jul. 8, 1999.

Judge throws out four WWII reparations lawsuits“, Sept. 20, 1999. 

Tainted cycle” (Milwaukee taxpayers sue themselves), Sept. 2, 1999. 

Three insurers sued for $100 million” (how the press covers class action announcements), Aug. 20, 1999.


Resources on class actions are found at many different places on Overlawyered.com.  For example, most of the massive lawsuits filed against individual industries over personal injury to classes of consumers are covered on pages specific to the subject matter of the cases, such as the pages on firearms litigation, tobacco litigation, managed-care litigation, breast implant litigation, product liability, and so forth. 

This page assembles resources on class actions as a procedural device and as an institution.  Among topics covered are the unique role in this area of an “entrepreneurial” plaintiff’s bar that decides on its own behalf who and how to sue and lines up clients as needed; the history of the device and the reasons why it is either sharply limited or virtually unknown in the courts of other industrial democracies; the distinctive ethical problems that arise because of the extreme difficulty of policing lawyers’ faithfulness to the interests of the absent class; and the operations of the class action “industry” in the areas in which it has been a familiar part of the American legal landscape for decades, namely shareholder litigation and class actions over consumer and antitrust grievances aggregating large numbers of (usually smallish) claims. 

Background — procedural history, ethical issues:

Overlawyered.com‘s editor wrote about class actions (as well as “champerty and maintenance”, the “invisible-fist theory”, and other topics) in Chapter 3 of his book The Litigation Explosion; an excerpt is online

Chapter 5 (“The New Town Meeting”) of Peter Huber’s book Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its Consequences contains a valuable discussion of the class action format, particularly as it applies to the so-called toxic tort; it is unfortunately not online. 

Lawrence Schonbrun, a Northern California attorney who has developed a specialty in filing challenges to excessive class action attorneys’ fee requests, wrote a prescient article in 1996 on “coupon deals”, “separately negotiated” fees from defendants, and other innovative ways the class action bar was finding to escape scrutiny of its remuneration.  (“Class Actions: The New Ethical Frontier“) 

Shareholder litigation:

A starting point for research on this topic is Stanford Law School’s comprehensive Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.  See also the commentaries on this site

In Felzen v. Andreas (1998), Judge Frank Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit wrote that “Many thoughtful students of the subject conclude, with empirical support, that derivative actions do little to promote sound management and often hurt the firm by diverting the managers’ time from running the business while diverting the firm’s resources to the plaintiffs’ lawyers without providing a corresponding benefit.”  He cited a long list of scholarly articles including Janet Cooper Alexander, Do the Merits Matter? A Study of Settlements in Securities Class Actions, 43 Stanford L. Rev. 497 (1991), which found that the “structural characteristics common to securities class actions . . . combine to produce outcomes that are not a function of the substantive merits of the case.” and Roberta Romano, The Shareholder Suit: Litigation without Foundation?, 7 J. L. Econ. & Organization 55 (1991), which examined 39 shareholder suits filed between the late 1960s and 1987 and concluded that “shareholder litigation is a weak, if not ineffective, instrument of corporate governance.” 

In 1995 Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which aimed to rectify some of the worst abuses in the field.  This client memo from Fried, Frank describes the wider powers institutional investors obtained under the act to influence litigation going on purportedly in the name of investors such as themselves. 

In Polar International Brokerage v. Reeve, a New York federal judge rejected a proposed class action settlement and request for $200,000 in attorneys’ fees, saying it offered shareholders “nothing of real value”.  (Deborah Pines, National Law Journal, May 24, 1999). 

Although the securities bar frequently alleges that well-known companies in Silicon Valley and elsewhere are run by crooked managements that fleece their shareholders, they ironically turn out to keep a lot of their (very substantial) stock holdings invested in the very same companies. (Paul Elias, San Francisco Recorder, June 8, 1999).  Among the reasons is that in many cases they have accepted stock as payment for dropping earlier legal actions. 

Other class action resources:

The Federalist Society publishes a Class Action Watch newsletter.  The first issue is in conventional web-page format. The second issue is a PDF document (Adobe Acrobat needed to view; get it here). 

Among the better-known law firms representing class action plaintiffs are Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Cohen Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, Krause & Kalfayan, and Barrack, Rodos & Bacine

Actuary Jack Patterson has written an account for a plaintiff’s lawyer readership of class actions against life insurance companies, one of the big practice areas of the 1990s. 

The class action bar also files many antitrust suits on behalf of large groups of consumers or business purchasers.  The Antitrust Policy web site collects many worthwhile resources on antitrust law.

U.K. roundup” (perennial litigant), Jun. 12-15, 2003.

‘Resumé spam saddles employers’“, Jun. 3, 2003.

Fair Labor Standards Act, overtime and employee classification suits, 2003:Schools roundup“, Apr. 9.  2001:Wal-Mart- as-’cult’-suit: it is about the money“, Jun. 14.  2000:Goodbye to gaming volunteers?“, Sept. 12 (& update Oct. 3); “Why rush that software project, anyway?” (California overtime law), March 29; “And so now everybody’s happy” (temps fired in wake of Microsoft decision), Feb. 17 (& see letters, Dec. 20); “Strippers in court” (challenge to independent contractor status), Jan. 28; “Microsoft temps can sue for stock options“, Jan. 11. 1999:Don’t call us professionals!“, Oct. 1-3; “Click here to sue!” (AOL volunteers who want to be recategorized as employees), Sept. 7; “Do as we say (I)” (overtime suit filed against Justice Department on behalf of its own lawyers), Aug. 30; “Click here to sue!” (Seattle law firm offers easy way to sign up for labor law class actions), Aug. 19.

It ain’t heavy to him, he’s my brother“, May 1-2, 2003; “Firehouse blues” (too-short firefighter), Feb. 20-21, 2002; “Non-pregnant rescuers, please“, Sept. 13, 2001; “Litigators vs. standardized tests, II: who needs sharp cops?“, Feb. 9-11, 2001; “Slow down, it’s just a fire” (Canadian high court strikes down firefighter speed test), Sept. 17-19, 1999; “Perps got away, but equity was served” (Lanning v. SEPTA: challenge to running test given to prospective transit cops), Sept. 15, 1999 (& Oct. 5-7, 2001, Oct. 25-27, 2002).

U.K.: ‘Killer wrongly sacked for axe attack’“, Apr. 7-8, 2003.

Maybe crime pays dept.” (annual roundup of weird employment and labor law cases), Apr. 1, 2003.

Their own petard, 2003:Wellstone campaign didn’t buy worker’s comp for its employees“, Feb. 6-9. 2002:‘Civil Rights Agency Retaliated Against Worker, EEOC Rules’“, Jun. 14-16; “‘Disability rights attorney accused of having inaccessible office’“, Apr. 25. 2001:EEOC sued for age bias“, Mar. 6.  2000:White House pastry chef harassment suit“, Sept. 18.  1999:Do as we say (I)” (overtime suit filed against Justice Department on behalf of its own lawyers), Aug. 30 (more).

Race-bias cases gone wrong“, Jan. 24-26, 2003.

Vt. high court: ALL-CAPS DISCLAIMER on front page of employee handbook not unambiguous enough“, Jan. 17-19, 2003.

Ninth Circuit panel sniffs collusion in bias settlement fees“, Dec. 16-17, 2002.

Public employee entrenchment, 2002:Munched zoo animals, gets six months severance” (Germany), Nov. 8-10; “Convicted, but still on their teaching jobs“, Jul. 10-11; “School told to rehire cocaine abuser“, Mar. 20-21.  2001:‘Poor work tolerated, employees say’“, Nov. 15.  2000:Reprimand ‘very serious’ for teacher” (had given 11-year-old girl money to buy marijuana), June 27; “‘Foreman who slept on job wins reinstatement’“, June 7; “From the labor arbitration front” (disallowed firing of Ct. town employee who pleaded no contest to larceny), March 28;  “Not to be dismissed” (unfireable workers, Canada and U.K.), Feb. 25. 1999:Better than reading a lunchtime novel” (IRS employee sues; fired for accessing taxpayers’ personal returns 476 times), Oct. 25; “Undislodgeable educators” (teacher peer review undermined by tenure legalities), Aug. 18.

‘Nannies to sue for racial bias’” (U.K.), Oct. 30-31, 2002.

Looking back on EEOC v. Sears” (sex discrimination, statistics and history), Oct. 28-29, 2002.

Appearance and authenticity, 2002:‘Demand for more ugly people on TV’” (Norway: higher “ugly quotas” sought), Oct. 21. 2001:Facial-jewelry discrimination charged“, Jul. 2; “Pregnant actress complains at being denied virgin role“, Jun. 21; “‘Fired transsexual dancers out for justice’“, Mar. 23-25.  2000:Appearance-blind hiring?“, Dec. 26-29; “Latest female Santa case“, Dec. 13-14 (and see Dec. 18-19); “Wal-Mart wins female Santa case“, Oct. 12; “Next: gender-blind stage casting?” (theme restaurant’s hiring of males as “riverboat tough” food servers), Mar. 24-26.

U.K.: ‘Dr. Botch’ sues hospital for wrongful dismissal“, Oct. 18-20, 2002; “Let them sue us!” (hospitals get sued if they withdraw privileges from questionable doctors), Mar. 23, 2000.

‘Inundations of electronic resumes pose problems for employers’“, Oct. 16-17, 2002.

Latest sacked-Santa suit“, Oct. 9-10, 2002 (& Dec. 13-14 and Oct. 12, 2000)

Right to break workplace rules and then return“, Sept. 16-17, 2002.

Personal responsibility roundup” (workers’ comp told to compensate worker for his suicide attempt), Sept. 12, 2002; “‘Court upholds workers compensation for drunk, injured worker’“, April 6-8, 2001.

National origin, language on the job, 2002:Hiring apple pickers = racketeering“, Sept. 9-10; “‘Surgeon halts operation over foreign nurses’ poor English’“, Jul. 25; “No ‘flood’ of Muslim or Arab discrimination complaints“, Jun. 17-18; “Must-know-Spanish rules defended“, May 28-29; “High court nixes back pay for illegal aliens“, Apr. 3-4.  2001:Sued if you do dept.: language in the workplace“, Dec. 19 (& Nov. 17, 1999); “Competitor can file RICO suit over hiring of illegal aliens“, Dec. 13-14; “Opponents of profiling, still in the driver’s seat“, Nov. 2-4; “Employee’s right to jubilate over Sept. 11 attack“, Oct. 9 (& letters, Oct. 22). 2000: Christian Science Monitor on accent discrimination, see Dec. 18-19; “Green cards gather moss” (immigration delays), Feb. 4; “Back pay obtained for illegal aliens“, Jan. 10 (& Oct. 28, 1999).  1999:52 green-card pickup” (rules against asking for too much documentation of citizenship in hiring), Oct. 29; “Say what?” (accent), Reason, November 1997.

Ambulance driver who broke for doughnuts entitled to sue“, Nov. 2-4, 2001 (& Jun. 28-30, 2002).

Not worth the hassle?” (Home Depot tries to avoid federal contractor status), Jun. 17-18, 2002.

Advertisement for ‘friendly’ employee deemed discriminatory“, Jun. 10, 2002.

Catharine MacKinnon, call your office“, May 16, 2002.

Soap star: ABC wrote my character out of the show” (“medical leave” for drug rehab), Apr. 10, 2002.

Will EU silence the pipes?” (occupational noise regulation), Mar. 8-10, 2002; “Britain’s delicate soldiery“, Dec. 22-25, 2000.

Retaliation:Inability to get along with co-workers” (employer’s counterclaim as retaliation), Mar. 8-10, 2002; “Latest lose-on-substance, win-on-retaliation case“, Oct. 16, 2001; “Latest lose-on-substance, win-on-retaliation employment claim“, Jan. 25, 2000; “Employment-law retaliation: real frogs from ‘totally bogus’ gardens“, Sept. 29, 1999.

Aerobics studio mustn’t favor the svelte“, Feb. 27-28, 2002 (& update May 10-12).

Jarring discord” (Audubon String Quartet), June 5, 2000 (& June 14, 2001, Nov. 13, 2001, May 10-12, 2002).

European workplace notes“, Feb. 25-26, 2002.

‘The Enron mythos’” (employee compensation, 401(k)), Feb. 15-17, 2002.

Sept. 11 and court awards” (price, payouts of employment liability insurance soar), Jan. 14-15, 2002; “‘Workers win more lawsuits, awards’“, March 29, 2001.

‘UK women can demand to know men’s salaries’“, Dec. 28, 2001-Jan. 1, 2002.

Menace of office-park geese“, Dec. 13-14, 2001.

‘Halliburton shares plunge on verdict’” (law-firm whistleblowing), Dec. 10, 2001.

An ill wind” (layoffs mean prosperity for employment lawyers), Dec. 4, 2001.

Rejecting an Apple windfall” (race discrimination suit), Nov. 30-Dec. 2, 2001.

Sued if you do dept.: co-worker’s claim of rape“, Nov. 7-8, 2001.

In the mean time, let them breathe spores” (OSHA and anthrax), Nov. 6, 2001.

Judge may revive ‘Millionaire’ ADA case” (Echabazal v. Chevron: employer’s right to turn away workers who would be injured by job), Nov. 5, 2001.

‘Attorney Ordered To Pay Fees for “Rambo” Tactics’“, Oct. 5-7, 2001; “Even the chance of loser-pays helps keep ‘em honest” (pilots’ union bid for back pay), August 12, 1999.

Employment class actions: EEOC to the rescue“, Sept. 10, 2001.

Not discriminatory to kick sleeping worker’s chair” (includes item on U.K. employee privacy), Sept. 3, 2001.

Firefighter’s demand: back pay for time facing criminal rap“, Aug. 29-30, 2001.

Negligent to lack employee spouse-abuse policy?“, Aug. 29-30, 2001.

N.J. court declares transsexuals protected class“, July 30, 2001; “‘Fired transsexual dancers out for justice’“, March 23-25, 2001; “Columnist-fest” (transgender employee sues over no-skirt order), May 31, 2000.

Age discrimination law:Research for lawyers, courtesy of their targets“, July 6-8, 2001; “EEOC sued for age bias“, March 6, 2001; “‘Toronto Torch’ age-bias suit” (stripper), May 23, 2000; “Take the settlement, sue anyway“, March 13; “‘Tenure Gridlock: When Professors Choose Not To Retire’“, March 3-5; “‘The case for age discrimination’“, Jan. 20, 2000; “Age-bias law expands” (Calif., N.J. developments), Aug. 12, 1999.

Court says tipsy topless dancer can sue club“, Jul. 3-4, 2001.

‘Hearsay harassment’ not actionable“, Jun. 12, 2001.

Dispatches from abroad” (U.K. policeman claims snoring resulted from inhalation of cannabis), May 28, 2001.

Six-hour police standoff no grounds for loss of job, says employee“, May 21, 2001.

Letter to the editor” (arbitration agreements), Apr. 16, 2001.

Comparable worth in Maine” (state enacts “pay equity”), April 20-22, 2001; “Comparable worth: it’s back“, May 17, 2000.

’2000′s Ten Wackiest Employment Lawsuits’“, Apr. 13-15, 2001.

‘Kava tea drinker alleges bias in FedEx firing’“, Mar. 19-20, 2001.

Ergonomics:Narrow escape from ergonomic regs“, March 9-11, 2001; “‘Cop’s claim: gun belt too heavy’“, Feb. 23-25, 2001; “Born to regulate“, June 28, 2000; “Go ahead and comment — if it’ll do much good” (OSHA ergonomics regulations), March 17-19, 2000; “Repetitive motion injury Hall of Fame” (phone sex operator), Nov. 22, 1999.

Forbidden paint zone” (New York City schools’ 10-foot rule), Feb. 27, 2001.

Employees not tenured in California“, Feb. 7-8, 2001.

Digital serfs?“, Jan. 26-28, 2001.

‘Firms mum on troubled workers’“, Jan. 22-23, 2001.

Police-record discrimination:Coming soon to a school near you” (applicant with police record OK’d since no convictions), Jan. 17, 2001; “‘Killer’s suit alleges job discrimination’“, Jan. 15, 2001; “You were negligent to hire me” (undisclosed rape-related conviction), May 30, 2000; “Hire that felon, or else“  (Wisc. law protects felons from job discrimination), Jan. 7, 2000 (& earlier commentary: Sept. 24, 1999).

Stressed out in New Hampshire” (stress from legitimate workplace criticism triggers workers’ comp), Jan. 4, 2000; “Stress of listening to clients’ problems” (masseuse wins benefits), June 21, 2000; “Weekend reading” (workplace psychological injury claims), July 31-August 1, 1999.

Damages, big numbers:Big numbers” (Kroger Co. hit for $55 million after workplace accident), April 16, 2001; “Property taxes triple after wrongful-termination suit“, Dec. 20, 2000; “‘Stock Options: A Gold Mine for Racial-Discrimination Suits?’“, Dec. 11-12; “How to succeed in business?” (Christian Curry case), Nov. 20; “Wonder Bread hierarchy too white, suit charges“, July 10 (updates Aug. 4: jury awards $132 M damages and Oct. 10: judge cuts award by $97 M); “Penalty for co.’s schedule inflexibility: 30 years’ front pay” (ADA), June 16-18; “Record employment verdict thrown out” (Lane v. Hughes Aircraft), March 9, 2000; “From our mail sack: memoir of a morsel” (Calif. employer’s story), Nov. 24-25, 1999; “The stuffed-grape-leaf standard” (litigator says $300K isn’t that much money), August 14-15, 1999.

Promising areas for suits” (broken interview promises, third party suits to sidestep workers’ comp limits), Dec. 7, 2000.

‘Company Is Told to Stay and Face New Union’“, Nov. 24-26, 2000; NLRB lurches left”, Oct. 11, 2000.

Obese soldiers class action“, Nov. 10-12, 2000.

New unfairness for old” (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), Oct. 26, 2000.

Prospect of injury no reason not to hire” (ADA), July 5, 2000; and see disabled-rights page.

Judge tells EEOC to pay employer’s fees“, Oct. 5, 2000.

When sued, be sure to respond” (Wal-Mart transsexual employee), Jul. 21-23, 2000 (update Sept. 6-7: judge grants retrial after default judgment).

EEOC: offbeat beliefs may be protected against workplace bias“, Sept. 5, 2000.

Losing your legislative battles?  Just sue instead” (contraception coverage by employer health plans), July 26-27, 2000.

Coke:‘Coca-Cola settles race suit’“, Nov. 17-19, 2000; “Class-action lawyers to Coke clients: you’re fired“, Jul. 21-23; “‘Coke plaintiff eavesdrops on lawyers; case unravels’“, Jul. 19-20; “‘Ad deal links Coke, lawyer in suit’” (Willie Gary, suing Coke on behalf of clients, enters into a lucrative ad deal with it), May 11, 2000.

Chutzpah is. . .” (marital-status discrimination case by boss’s ex-son-in-law), Jul. 18, 2000.

Welcome readers” (CNNfn article advising workers thinking of suing employers; cites this site), Jun. 19, 2000; “Favorite bookmark” (head of Employment Policy Foundation likes this site), May 23, 2000.

Look for the Kiwi label” (sweatshops), Jun. 9-11, 2000.

Another Mr. Civility nominee” (associate at law firm asks for bonus, is fired), June 2-4, 2000; “Smudged plumage” (Angelos’s Orioles won’t hire Cuban defectors), May 24, 2000.

Funny hats and creative drawing“, May 1, 2000.

Employer-based health coverage in retreat?“, Mar. 31-April 2, 2000.

OSHA and at-home workers:OSHA & telecommuters: the long view“, April 7-9, 2000; “Update: OSHA in full retreat on home office issue“, Jan. 29-30; “OSHA at-home worker directive“, Jan. 8-9; “OSHA backs off on home-office regulation“, Jan. 6; “Beyond parody: ‘OSHA Covers At-Home Workers’“, Jan. 5, 2000.

Feds’ mission: target Silicon Valley for race complaints“, Feb. 29, 2000.

Judgment reversed in Seinfeld case“, Feb. 26-27, 2000.

Private job bias lawsuits tripled in 1990s“, Jan. 19, 2000; “Employee lawsuits increasing” (Society for Human Resource Management survey), August 25, 1999.

Warn and be sued” (industrial psychologist found liable for warning co-workers of patient’s violent fantasies), Jan. 12, 2000; “Indications of turbulence” (pilot whose mental fitness for duty was challenged wins partial back pay), Dec. 1, 1999.

Christmas lawyer humor” (“Restructuring at the North Pole” parody), Dec. 23-26, 1999.

Truth in recruitment?” (N.J. jury verdict), Dec. 17-18, 1999.

From the quote file” (Legal Times: U.S. Supreme Court as nation’s chief human resources manager), Dec. 15, 1999.

Under surveillance at work?Hold your e-tongue” (employee emails), Nov. 9, 1999; “EEOC encourages anonymous harassment complaints“, Sept. 3; “Please — there are terminals present” (email censorship and harassment law), July 30; “‘Destroy privacy expectations: lawyer’” (advice managers are getting), July 26, 1999.

Bring a long book” (New York takes average of seven years to adjudicate discrimination complaints), Nov. 4, 1999.

Perkiness a prerequisite?” (bias suit says employer wanted workers to look like “Doris Day or the boy next door”), Nov. 2, 1999.

New Jersey court system faces employment complaint“, Oct. 21, 1999.

Blackboard jungle” (Ann Arbor, Mich. substitute teachers’ suit gets $30 million), Sept. 14, 1999.

Labor Day: ‘Overworked America?’“, Sept. 7, 1999.

Big numbers” (Kroger worker $55 million award not blocked by workers’ comp), April 16, 2001; “Block PATH to lawsuits” (claims against NY-NJ commuter line under Federal Employer’s Liability Act), Sept. 1, 1999.

Ohio high court says forget tort reform; should unionists be cheering?” (unions exempted from exposure to many injury suits), August 17, 1999.

You made me defame myself” (workplace defamation law doctrine of “self-compelled publication”), August 10, 1999.

All have lost, and all must have damages” (suit against employer by insurance agent who sold allegedly deceptive policies), August 3, 1999.


Other writings by Overlawyered.com‘s editor: The Excuse Factory: What Happened When America Unleashed the Lawsuit (Free Press, 1997); writings on disabled rights/ADA; on harassment and sex discrimination law; on other branches of discrimination law.

Bar discipline and client protection, 2003: Probate’s misplaced trust” (Washington Post series), Jun. 16-17. 2002:Crumbs from the table“, Feb. 8-10.  2001:Law firm sued over fen-phen settlement practices“, Dec. 28; “Updates” (IOLTA), Dec. 15-16 (& Jan. 31); “Holiday special” (Canadian lawyer’s misconduct), May 28; “Mills of legal discipline” (updates on Brock, Hager, Fieger cases), Mar. 3; “Dangers of complaining about lawyers” (Ga. considers easing defamation counter-complaints by lawyers), Mar. 30-Apr. 1.  2000:‘Judge Lenient With Perjurer, Cites Clinton Case’“, Oct. 16-17 (& May 16); “Disbarred, with an asterisk” (Mass. has let many attorneys resume practice), Sept. 20; “Funds that don’t protect” (client protection funds), Aug. 23-24; “Fit to practice?” (California bar disciplinary board), Aug. 21-22; “That Hager case” (American U. law professor Mark Hager, settlement of Warner-Lambert Nix lice treatment case), Feb. 23 (& update May 3, 2001: board recommends three-year suspension). 

New legal ethics weblog” (ethicalEsq.?), Jun. 6-8, 2003.

Judicial conduct, 2003:Year’s most injudicious judges“  (NLJ roundup), May 6. 2002:‘Federal authorities say judge offered illegal payoff’“, Sept. 3-4; “‘Privileged chambers’” (Albany Times-Union series), May 30; “‘Injudicious conduct’” (NLJ roundup), May 1-2; “La. officials seek oyster judge recusal“, Mar. 25-26; “So depressed he stole $300K“, Mar. 19.  2001:‘Pseudologica fantastica’ won’t fly” (judge’s resum?ibs), June 7 (& update Aug. 20-21); “‘Judges behaving badly’” (NLJ roundup), May 11-13.  2000:Year’s most injudicious judges“, Jun. 5, 2000; “Brockovich story, cont’d: the judges’ cruise“, Apr. 18; “New Hampshire high court blowup“, Apr. 5 (& updates Oct. 11: chief justice acquitted at impeachment; May 3, 2001); “The costs of disclosure” (Washington state, Grant Anderson case), Jan. 19. 

Class action lawyer takes $20 million from defendant’s side“, Mar. 15-16, 2003.

Politico’s law associate suspended over ‘runner’ use” (Louisiana), Feb. 14-16, 2003.

Civility:Law’s attraction for the bully“, Dec. 13-15, 2002; “‘Attorney Ordered To Pay Fees for “Rambo” Tactics’“, Oct. 5-7, 2001; “Mills of legal discipline” (Geoffrey Fieger tirade against judges), May 3, 2001 (& more on Fieger: Apr. 23-24, 2002, Sept. 14, 1999; “Another Mr. Civility nominee” (“dreck”, “scum”), June 2-4, 2000; “From the incivility frontier” (“gag a maggot off a meat wagon”, “proctology exam”), April 19; “Majesty of the law” (alleged threat to kill opposing counsel), March 13, 2000 (& update May 17: attorney sanctioned); “Bright future in some areas of practice” (“abusive, hostile” applicant for law license), Oct. 13, 1999 (update, Nov. 23). 

Race-bias cases gone wrong“, Jan. 24-26, 2003.

Lawyers fret about bad image” (Fla. bar plans to rate and monitor tone of journalists’ coverage), Oct. 3, 2002. 

FTC cracks down on excessive legal fees“, Oct. 1-2, 2002. 

Second Circuit: we mean business about stopping frivolous securities suits” (scope of Rule 11), Aug. 29-Sept. 2, 2002. 

Lawyer’s 44-hour workday“, Jun. 28-30, 2002; “Charged $16,000 for brief he copied from book“, May 17-19, 2002; “Lending rules trip up litigation-finance firms“, Dec. 3, 2001; Letter to the editor (incremental billing disclosed?), Oct. 22, 2001; “Law-firm bill-padding?  Say it isn’t so!“, Nov. 18, 1999. 

‘Student gets diploma after threatening lawsuit’“, Jun. 13, 2002.

Truth value, 2002:Lying’s not nice, especially when representing the bar“, Jul. 30-31; “Columbia Law School survey on public attitude toward lawyers“, Apr. 26-28; “‘Ex-student sentenced for rape lie’” (wants to become attorney), Jan. 11-13 (& see May 26-29, 2000: Stephen Glass graduates Georgetown Law).  2001: Criminal defense attorneys, doing what they do best“, Dec. 15-16; “‘Lawyers pay price for cruel hoaxes’” (phony heir claims after plane crashes), Aug. 3-5; “‘Lie-tery winners’“, April 20-22.  2000:What was the Florida court thinking?” (Boies-submitted affidavit), Dec. 11-12; “‘Judge Lenient With Perjurer, Cites Clinton Case’“, Oct. 16-17 (& May 16); “The judge wasn’t asleep” (sanctions for submission of dubious affidavits), June 14-15.  1999:If true, then all the better” (excerpt from Campos, Jurismania), Dec. 3-5; and see witness coaching, below. 

‘”Little” done for firm, Rendell says’” (law firms provide no-show jobs for politicians), May 9, 2002. 

‘Former clients sue attorney O’Quinn’” (Kennedy Heights case), Apr. 8-9, 2002 (& Aug. 4, 1999).

Gary & Co. shenanigans at Maris trial“, Apr. 1-2, 2002. 

Lawyers stage sham trial aimed at inculpating third party“, Mar. 22-24, 2002. 

Disclosure:Lending rules trip up litigation-finance firms“, Dec. 3, 2001; Letter to the editor (incremental billing disclosed?), Oct. 22, 2001; “Trial lawyers knew of tire failures, didn’t inform safety regulators“, June 25 (& June 28)(& letter to the editor, July 6); Letter to the editor (ghostwriting), June 13; “ABA’s toothless ethics proposals“, Jan. 17, 2001; “Contingency fee reform“, Nov. 1, 2000. 

Contingent fees, 2001:Lending rules trip up litigation-finance firms“, Dec. 3; “Red-light cameras“, Sept. 6, 2001; “‘The Louima millions’“, July 24; “The rest of Justice O’Connor’s speech“, July 6-8; “Evils of contingent-fee tax collection, cont’d“, May 30; “Reclaiming the tobacco loot“, March 15; “Hugh Rodham’s ‘success fee’“, Feb. 23-25; “Dangers of tax farming“, Jan. 10 (& letter to the editor, Jan. 16).  2000:Contingency fee reform“, Nov. 1; “‘Lawyer take all’” (equity stakes in clients), Oct. 27-29.  1999:Piece of the action” (contingent fees for public officials), Dec. 3-5; “Reform stirrings on public contingency fees“, Oct. 15.

Witness coaching, 2001:GAF sues asbestos lawyers“, Feb. 12-13, 2001 (& see Dec. 10).  2000:‘N.Y. lawyer charged in immigrant smuggling’“, Sept. 22-24; “Sunday’s Times on Fred Baron“, June 5 (& see “Thanks for the memories” by Walter Olson, Reason, June 1998 and subsequent letters exchange with William Hodes).  1999:State of legal ethics” (hey, what’s wrong with witness coaching?), Sept. 9. 

‘The Great Mouthpiece’” (Manhattan’s Bill Fallon, 1920s), Dec. 28, 2001. 

‘Halliburton shares plunge on verdict’” (law-firm whistleblowing), Dec. 10, 2001. 

’2d Circuit Upholds Sanctions Against Firms for Frivolous Securities Claims’“, July 23, 2001 (more on sanctions: Jul. 30-31, 2002). 

Estate law temptations“, July 6-8, 2001; “Lawyers charged with $4.7 million theft from clients“, April 10, 2000; “Lawyers stealing less, clients say“, Dec. 21, 1999. 

Lost his live client, had to substitute dead one instead“, April 11, 2001; “Turn of the screw” (lawyers alleged to have sued without client consent), Oct. 24, 2000; “Curious feature of lawyer’s retainer” (allowed him to settle case without client consent), Sept. 12, 2000. 

‘It’s time to disarm the hired guns’” (Arianna Huffington), Feb. 28-March 1, 2001; “Trustworthy professionals” (survey of public confidence), Dec. 11-12, 2000. 

Fed prosecutors chafe at state ethics rules“, Oct. 16-17, 2000. 

Lenzner: ‘I think what we do is practice law’” (private investigator in Oracle scandal), July 28-30, 2000. 

Access to something” (lawyer accused of working for Social Security Administration while helping clients sue it), July 13, 2000. 

Ready to handle your legal needs” (Stephen Glass graduates Georgetown Law), May 26-29, 2000. 

Steering the evidence” (DaimlerChrysler gets sanctions against lawyers for evidence and witness tampering), May 23, 2000 (& update June 26). 

‘Ad deal links Coke, lawyer in suit’” (Willie Gary, suing Coca-Cola on behalf of clients, enters into a lucrative ad deal with it), May 11, 2000. 

Splash of reality” (sanctions for frivolous litigation in case of claimed Jackson Pollock painting), May 4, 2000. 

Brockovich story, cont’d: the judges’ cruise“, April 18, 2000; “Brockovich story breaks wide open“, April 17, 2000 (& see Dec. 21). 

Majesty of the law” (Phila. attorney Marvin Barish could face sanctions for allegedly threatening to kill opposing counsel during trial break), March 13, 2000; “Relax, you’re being taken care of” (Barish advances injury client’s rent and expenses), Dec. 14, 1999. 

Legal ethics meet medical ethics” (lawyers advise schizophrenic murder defendant to go off his medication for trial), Feb. 26-27, 2000. 

Secrets of class action defense” (assisting cooperative opponent to draft complaint), Feb. 25, 2000. 

Watchdogs could use watching” (fee-splitting in Florida securities cases), Jan. 20, 2000. 

The costs of disclosure” (lawyer reveals misconduct by client, judge), Jan. 19, 2000; “Pack your toothbrush, son” (Ala. law-firm whistleblower), Dec. 20, 1999. 

Popular CLE course: ‘How to Hammer Allstate’” (insurer charged with unauthorized practice of law), Dec. 22, 1999 (update, April 18, 2000). 

Splitsville, N.Y.” (New York mag on divorce), Dec. 17-19, 1999. 

Victory in Florida” (plaintiffs deliberately run up gunmakers’ costs for leverage), Dec. 14, 1999. 

Weekend reading: evergreens” (St. Petersburg Times Pulitzer series on probate law), Dec. 3-5, 1999; “From the evergreen file: L.A. probate horror” (estate of art collector Fred Weisman), Nov. 20-21; “Weekend reading: evergreens” (Denver probate nightmare), Oct. 23-24, 1999. 

Class action fee control: it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law“, Nov. 30, 1999; “Class action coupon-clippers“, Nov. 15; “$49 million legal fee okayed in case where clients got nothing“, Sept. 28, 1999. 

Accommodating theft“, Nov. 11, 1999. 

Who loves trusts-and-estates lawyers?“, Nov. 8, 1999. 

Criticizing lawyers proves hazardous“, Nov. 4, 1999 (update, Nov. 30); “No spotlight on me, thanks” (Houston’s John O’Quinn), Aug. 4, 1999. 

State of legal ethics” (lawyers take out glossy ad to stir up will-contest litigation), Oct. 5-6, 1999. 

Weekend reading: evergreens” (lawyer-abetted accident fraud), Sept. 25-26, 1999; “Wages of wrongdoing” (Staten Island lawyers convicted), Sept. 8, 1999. 

Join our new Verdict Rewards program” (checks for jurors), Sept. 13, 1999 (updates, Sept. 17-19, 1999 and Aug. 4-7, 2000). 

Cook County law bills a secret“, Sept. 11-12, 1999. 

My lawyer is an impostor“, Sept. 3, 1999. 

ABA thinks it can discourage ‘pay-for-play’“, Aug. 11, 1999 (& Aug. 14-15 update). 

Like calling the Orkin man to talk about bugs” (ABA convention), Aug. 10, 1999; “Weekend reading” (ABA choice of speakers), Aug. 28-29, 1999. 

No need for speed“, Aug. 3, 1999. 

Weekend reading” (at execution sale, law firm buys up client’s right to sue it for malpractice), July 31-Aug. 1, 1999. 

Honey, you’ve got mail” (solicitations from divorce lawyers arrive before unsuspecting spouses know they’re being divorced), July 15, 1999.


Articles by Overlawyered.com editor Walter Olson:

Thanks for the memories” (coaching of witnesses), June 1998 (& subsequent letters exchange with William Hodes) 

Tobacco Analysts Meet the Plaintiff’s Lawyers” (abuse of pretrial discovery), Wall Street Journal, August 30, 1995. 

Juries on Trial“, review of The Jury by Stephen J. Adler and We the Jury by Jeffrey Abramson, Reason, February 1995. 

Sue City: The Case Against the Contingency Fee“, excerpt from The Litigation Explosion, Policy Review, Winter 1991 [in two parts] [part one] [part two

Dentists, Bartenders, and Lawyer Unpopularity“, Manhattan Institute Civil Justice Memo #37, April 1999. 

Lawyers with Stethoscopes: Clients Beware“, Manhattan Institute Civil Justice Memo #26, June 1996. 

Taming the Litigators: Why Not More Disclosure?“, Manhattan Institute Civil Justice Memo #24, February 1996.


Codes of ethics:

ABA Center for Professional Responsibility
Overview — Rules of Lawyer Conduct
U.S. Judges Code of Conduct
California Rules of Professional Conduct
D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct

Some online articles of interest:

James McCauley, “The Ethics of Making Legal Services Affordable…” (Virginia bar; discusses unauthorized practice, pro se litigation) 

Rep. Chris Cox, Testimony on tobacco settlement (1997)

Lawrence Schonbrun, “Class Actions: The New Ethical Frontier” (Manhattan Institute, 1996)


April 10 – Soap star: ABC wrote my character out of the show. “A former star of ABC’s daytime drama ‘All My Children’ has filed a lawsuit for nearly $32 million, claiming that the network lied to him and damaged him professionally and financially.

“Michael Nader, who played the dark, dashing and rich Hungarian Count Dimitri Marick on ‘All My Children’ for nearly 10 years, says in court papers that he ‘became ill’ in February 2001 and went on medical leave.

“Nader, 57, was in fact in drug treatment after a narcotics arrest in Manhattan’s East Village. The district attorney’s office said he pleaded guilty and was sentenced May 22, 2001, to three years of probation.

“Nader’s Dimitri character …was written out of the show in 1999. The character was resurrected in 2000 but was written out again in 2001 after Nader’s arrest and rehab. … Nader says [in court papers] he told ABC in March 2001 that he was ready to work but officials there told him to continue on medical leave. … [Later they] refused to release him from his [$1.7 million five-year] contract [signed in April 2000] so he could work elsewhere.” (“Former ‘All My Children’ Star Files Suit”, AP/Newsday, Apr. 3). (DURABLE LINK)

April 10 – “Peter’s Pence”. Baltimore plaintiff’s lawyer and political czar Peter Angelos, who had been demanding $1 billion in fees for representing the state of Maryland in its tobacco suit, has ended the dispute by agreeing to take a mere $150 million instead. The people over at the National Association of Manufacturers’ Human Resources Policy Department feel awfully sorry for the Orioles owner for having to settle for such a measly amount and have launched a “Peter’s Pence” campaign by which readers can collect the spare change off their dresser tops and send it to him to help make up some of the extra $850 million (“Workplace Watch”, NAM, April; Daniel LeDuc, “Md., Angelos Reach Tobacco Fee Deal”, Washington Post, Mar. 22). (DURABLE LINK)

April 10 – “Can Pain Treatment Survive Our Addiction to Law?”. After suffering the effects of a partially collapsed lung, writer Jonathan Rauch learns firsthand how much pain sufferers have to lose if our runaway litigation system takes away their access to the revolutionary pain relief medication OxyContin (National Journal/Reason Online, Apr. 6). See also Damien Cave, “No relief”, Salon, Apr. 4; Duane Freese, “In Rx, Who’s To Blame For Abuse?”, TechCentralStation.com, Feb. 14; and earlier reports on this site: Jan. 23-24, 2002, Aug. 7-8 and July 25, 2001. Updates: see May 30, Aug. 27. (DURABLE LINK)

April 8-9 – An eggshell psyche at U.Va. Law. Worst harassment suit of the year? At the University of Virginia, first-year law student Marta Sanchez on Feb. 26 filed “a claim of assault and battery in Albemarle Circuit Court, seeking $25,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages” against Prof. Kenneth Abraham, a nationally prominent scholar in tort law. To quote Wendy McElroy’s summary of the case: “During an introductory program last August, Abraham demonstrated a legal principle known as the ‘egg-shell skull rule’ from Vosburg v. Putney, a case commonly taught in torts classes [in which one child's minor battery on another unexpectedly causes major harm to the victim]. Abraham announced his intention to show the class of about twenty students how a slight contact could be actionable. Then Abraham briefly touched Sanchez on her fully clothed shoulder. …Former students confirm that the shoulder tapping is a standard part of Abraham’s lesson on Vosburg. Sanchez says the tap flooded her with memories of being terrorized, raped and molested when she was 11 years old and living in her native land of Panama.” “What some would characterize as mere touching to this victim was an extreme event,” said Sanchez’s lawyer, Steven Rosenfield. “What makes it different is that she was the victim at the hands of men in the past.” (DURABLE LINK)

SOURCES: Nick Denton, “University student sues law professor”, Cavalier Daily, Mar. 27; AP/Richmond Times-Dispatch, Mar. 26; Wendy McElroy, FoxNews.com, Apr. 2; Justin Park, “Student sues professor”, Virginia Law Weekly, Mar. 22 (PDF); blogs InstaPundit, Mar. 25 and Mar. 26 and DaveTepper.net, Mar. 25.

April 8-9 – Zero tolerance leaves ‘em gasping. School districts across the country are decreeing that “students with asthma must keep their emergency inhalers in the school office, rather than on hand.” Better time your attacks for after school, guys (Catherine Seipp, Reason, Apr.). (DURABLE LINK)

April 8-9 – “Former clients sue attorney O’Quinn”. “Twenty former clients of lawyer John O’Quinn are suing him for alleged mishandling of the Kennedy Heights and Chevron contamination settlement, in which they received $12 million instead of the $500 million that he asserted their claims were worth.” Billed at the time as a major “environmental racism” case, the Kennedy Heights litigation asserted that toxic residues had caused cancers and other ailments among the largely African-American residents of the Houston neighborhood, a charge disputed by defendant Chevron. But were the clients really unaware that it’s standard practice for lawyers in this country to talk up a far higher valuation for injury claims than those claims are actually likely to settle for? The former clients also say O’Quinn used his involvement in the Kennedy Heights case for image-buffing purposes to help beat a 1998 disciplinary rap. “A similar [pending] lawsuit was filed in 1999 by about 80 former plaintiffs who were Kennedy Heights residents claiming O’Quinn allegedly shortchanged them on a settlement.” (Jo Ann Zuniga, Houston Chronicle, Apr. 3). In 1999, when former breast implant clients filed a complaint against O’Quinn, the combative litigator struck back with a libel suit against the women’s lawyer which resulted in a quick gag order shutting down the story (see Aug. 4, 1999). (DURABLE LINK)

April 8-9 – Traffic-cams: Volokh v. Labash. UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh, in a contrarian vein, ventures to defend the red-light cameras that some cities use to generate speeding tickets, arguing that if they are operated in a non-abusive way they hold out promise of being more objective than traffic cops (“The Cameras Are Watching — And It’s a Good Thing”, Wall Street Journal, Mar. 26, reprinted at author’s site). However, Matt Labash’s new investigation for the Weekly Standard shows that the use of cameras in practice has been anything but free from error and abuse (example: cities’ propensity to shorten the duration of yellow lights to bolster revenues). There will be little reason to trust the system’s integrity so long as cities go on letting a contractor run the program in exchange for a share of ticket revenues: as we’re always emphasizing on this site, contingency fees and trustworthy law enforcement just don’t mix (see Sept. 6, 2001) (Matt Labash, “Inside’s the District’s Red Lights”, Weekly Standard, Apr. 1; “The Yellow Menace”, Apr. 2; “The Safety Myth”, Apr. 3; “Getting Rear-Ended by the Law”, Apr. 4; “Fighting the Good Fight”, Apr. 5). (Update/correction: the original post named Lockheed Martin as the contractor in charge of the program, but a reader advises us (see letter, Apr. 19) that Lockheed sold its photo traffic-enforcement division to Affiliated Computer Services Inc. of Dallas, Texas on August 24, 2001; we have corrected the text accordingly). (DURABLE LINK)

April 5-7 – Right to yell “fire”. In Denver, Claudia Huntey is suing her landlord, which she says violated disability-rights law when it evicted her. “She was cruelly thrown out of her apartment solely because she makes involuntary vocalizations due to her Tourette’s syndrome,” said her attorney, John Holland, who said the apartment managers should have made greater efforts to accommodate Huntey’s condition after repeated complaints from other residents of the complex. “What happened to Claudia Huntey is a societal wake-up call reminding us that this continuing struggle is far from over,” said Holland. For neighbors, the wake-up calls were of a different nature: Huntey suffers from more than usually intense symptoms of Tourette’s, as a result of which “[t]he intensity of the constant, involuntary sounds cause her ribs and chest muscles to ache, and she is chronically hoarse from yelling. … For reasons she does not understand, Huntey most often says or yells, ‘Fire!’”. (Sue Lindsay, “Tourette’s sufferer sues, charging unfair eviction”, Rocky Mountain News, Apr. 4). (DURABLE LINK)

April 5-7 – From the grave, instructions to sue. Brooksville, Fla.: “A woman who hanged herself in jail while waiting to face charges in her husband’s death asked in a suicide note that her lawyer sue the jail for allowing her to die. … [Laren] Sims, 36, was awaiting extradition to California to face charges of killing her attorney husband, Larry McNabney, and burying him in a vineyard. ‘My impression is she’s got a scam going even in death,’ said San Joaquin County prosecutor Lester Fleming, who was trying to extradite Sims to California. ‘It’s just an amazingly cold-blooded note.’” (“California woman accused in husband’s murder urged suit based on suicide”, AP/Boston Globe, Apr. 4). (DURABLE LINK)

April 5-7 – Avoid having a medical emergency in Mississippi. The malpractice-suit crisis in the Magnolia State just keeps getting worse: “The Mississippi Trauma Advisory Committee has suspended re-inspection of its hospitals for a year to give health officials time to address the growing problem of surgeons leaving the system.” The state legislature, in which trial lawyer-legislators occupy strategic positions (see June 15, 2001), adjourned without heeding the doctors’ plea for legal relief. (“Mississippi in trauma crisis as surgeons leave”, AP/Memphis Commercial Appeal, Mar. 19)(& see Jun. 3-4, 2002). (DURABLE LINK)

April 5-7 – Advice the whole country could use. P. J. O’Rourke, reviewing two etiquette books: “[M]uch of their advice [the "Etiquette Grrls"] is needed by the entire nation: ”It is much, much more polite simply to tell someone ‘See you in hell’ than ‘See you in court.”’ (New York Times Book Review, Mar. 24). Also: Michael Kinsley on suing as “our national sport” (scroll to near end) (“Social Hypochondria”, Washington Post, Mar. 1). And: author Philip Howard (The Death of Common Sense) is launching a new organization called the Coalition for the Common Good that will gather participants from across the political spectrum in an effort to curb legal excess (Michael Barone, “The Common Good”, U.S. News, Mar. 25; Stuart Taylor, Jr., “How More Rights Have Made Us Less Free”, National Journal/The Atlantic, Feb. 12). (DURABLE LINK)

April 3-4 – High court nixes back pay for illegal aliens. Last week, in Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote ruled that illegal aliens can’t collect damages for being fired from jobs it was never lawful for them to hold (Gina Holland, “Supreme Court Restricts Illegal Workers’ Rights in Employment Cases”, AP/Law.com, Mar. 28; see Oct. 28, 1999). Our editor has a new piece out in National Review Online today (Wed.) expressing relief that for the moment at least the country will be free of this absurdity. (Walter Olson, “A Wink Too Far”, Apr. 3). For a contrasting view, here are the editorialists at the San Francisco Chronicle (“Green light for abuse”, Apr. 2).


April 3-4 – “Addictive” computer game blamed for suicide. 21-year-old Shawn Woolley of Hudson, Wisc. played the popular online game EverQuest a whole lot. Then he committed suicide. Now his mother Elizabeth says she plans to sue Sony Online Entertainment, saying the game should have come with a warning label concerning its “addictive” nature, and she’s lined up attorney Jack Thompson, veteran of earlier litigation attacks on videogame companies (see, for example, July 22, 1999). A psychiatrist had diagnosed Shawn with depression and schizoid personality disorder which “fed right into the EverQuest playing,” claims Mrs. Woolley. “It was the perfect escape.” A specialist in “computer addiction” appears on cue in the article, as if summoned by the lawyer, to say that “The manufacturer of EverQuest purposely made it in such a way that it is more intriguing to the addict” and that it “could be created in a less addictive way, but (that) would be the difference between powdered cocaine and crack cocaine.” Moreover, “[h]aving low self-esteem or poor body image are also important factors, he said.” (Stanley A. Miller II, “Death of a game addict”, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Mar. 30) (and see letter to the editor from attorney Jack Thompson, Apr. 11). (DURABLE LINK)

April 3-4 – Microsoft case and AG contributions. Columnist Robert Novak rather rudely totes up the very considerable contributions that Microsoft’s rivals have been making to the campaigns of state attorneys general like Bill Lockyer in California and Carla Stovall in Kansas, both of whom are running for governor (Robert Novak, “Money driving Microsoft case?”, Chicago Sun-Times, Apr. 1) (& see Apr. 15). Blogger Ed Driscoll reminds us that AGs also have another constituency that wants them to keep the pressure on Redmond, namely trial lawyers who stand to gain a fortune from the private suits against the company (Mar. 31; see Jeff Taylor, “Symposium: Microsoft Endgame?”, National Review Online, Nov. 5, 2001).

April 3-4 – Ninth Circuit orders Agent Orange payments. The federal appeals court that does so much to provide this site with material has ordered that Vietnam veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and later contracted prostate cancer and diabetes be given disability payments, “setting a precedent that could cover many illnesses linked to the defoliant.” (“Some Agent Orange Veterans Win Payments”, Reuters/New York Times, Apr. 2). The problem remains that health authorities are by no means agreed that the compound had anything to do with those ailments or most of the others complained of. (Howard Feinberg, “Vetting Agent Orange”, TechCentralStation.com, Mar. 11; Reason links, Feb. 28) (see Jan. 7-8).

April 1-2 – Intel Corp. versus yoga foundation. For more than a year lawyers for giant chipmaker Intel Corp. have been menacing the Yoga Inside Foundation of Venice, Calif., claiming that the nonprofit group’s name infringes on its own “Intel Inside” trademark. “Yoga Inside has nothing to do with computers. It provides free yoga classes in schools, treatment facilities, shelters, prisons and underprivileged communities.” Founder Mark Stephens says the similarity of the slogans “never even crossed my mind” until the company complained. Because of the large sums it has spent to promote its trademark, “Intel argues, the linguistic construction ‘(Blank) Inside,’ whether concerning state-of-the-art technology or a centuries-old spiritual practice, should uniquely belong to the chipmaker.” As for the bad karma to be had in picking on a little group like this, “We’re certainly sensitive about that,” said Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy. “But our hands are tied because of the way the law is structured”. (David Lazarus, “Intel forces yoga group to fight for its name”, San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 29; Slashdot thread) (DURABLE LINK)

April 1-2 – No more ANZAC Day marches? Australia has rapidly Americanized its liability system and is now paying the price in the form of a drying up of insurance for local events such as ANZAC Day, which honors veterans. “Federal Assistant Treasurer Helen Coonan called [a Mar. 27] forum to share ideas after a series of community events had to be cancelled because of the insurance crisis. … Earlier, Senator Coonan said it was common sense to restrict the ability of those injured while drunk, drug-affected or committing a crime to sue for compensation.” (“States thrash out insurance crisis”, AAP/News.com, Mar. 27; “Quick insurance savings ruled out”, AAP, Mar. 27). With medical claims spiraling, New South Wales health minister Craig Knowles has warned that the nation’s “main medical malpractice insurer could collapse within weeks”, which could leave 60 percent of Australia’s doctors “uninsured for private practice work, and throw the health system into chaos”. (Mark Robinson, “Doctors’ insurer on brink of collapse”, Sydney Morning Herald, Mar. 22). (DURABLE LINK)

April 1-2 – Roger Parloff on 9/11 fund. “If the victims may have no viable claim in the tort system after all, because no one was really at fault for their deaths other than the terrorists, then why must a compassion-driven, taxpayer-financed fund pay what the tort system might theoretically have extracted from a totally hypothetical, deep-pocketed, unambiguously guilty defendant? … [Critiques of the Feinberg proposals as insufficiently generous] demonstrate the otherworldly sense of entitlement that the tort system now fosters.

“In setting up an alternative to the tort system, Congress made an admission that cannot be retracted. … What they said, in essence, was this: In all probability, skilled plaintiffs’ lawyers representing sympathetic victims would convince juries that the airlines were responsible for what happened. That’s because plaintiffs’ lawyers have become expert at redirecting blame from judgment-proof targets toward minimally blameworthy, solvent targets. We all know that such ‘fault’ is, to some degree, a fiction. It’s just a compassionate way to ensure that grievously injured, inadequately insured people get taken care of. The trouble is, when catastrophes get big enough, not even corporate entities are sufficiently deep-pocketed to pay without other innocent human beings suffering as a result. In blaming and bankrupting the airlines — or the private security firms, or the airports, or the municipalities that operate them, or Boeing Corporation, or any of the other usual suspects — we will obviously be scapegoating minimally blameworthy corporations for the nation’s universal unpreparedness. In so doing, we will be creating new waves of innocent victims: airline employee-shareholders who, like Enron’s, see their retirement funds vaporize; public and private employees who are thrown out of work; local residents whose public services deteriorate and whose taxes rise when their local municipal authorities in New York, New Jersey, or Boston go broke.” So now how about applying those lessons in other areas of mass tort litigation? (Roger Parloff, “Tortageddon”, The American Lawyer, Mar. 18). (DURABLE LINK)

April 1-2 – Gary & Co. shenanigans at Maris trial. Last August, after a three-month trial, a Gainesville, Fla. state court jury awarded the family of late baseball star Roger Maris $50 million against Anheuser-Busch Inc. in a dispute over the termination of a beer distributorship. The family had earlier lost an antitrust case against the beer company in federal court. They were represented at the August trial by noted Stuart, Fla. attorney Willie Gary (slavery reparations 1, 2, 3, Loewen, Disney, Coke, Gannett, Microsoft, etc.) who joined the family’s legal team two months before trial on a contingency fee basis.

Court records depict the trial, presided over by senior judge R.A. Green Jr., as a veritable carnival of lawyer misconduct. “At the beginning of this trial,” wrote Judge Green, “it became apparent to the court that counsel, primarily plaintiff’s counsel, would ‘press the limits’ of proper conduct and compliance with directives of the court.” Judge Green found two attorneys on Gary’s team, including his co-counsel and partner Madison McClellan, to be in contempt, whicle Gary himself “was ejected from the courtroom at one point and silenced by the judge on another occasion for uttering a profanity”. Moreover, “the Maris legal team sent a private investigator to conduct surveillance on the defense lawyers’ offices”, to which the defense lawyers responded with counter-surveillance. Judge Green then took the highly unusual step of appointing special master Stephen N. Bernstein to conduct a confidential investigation of lawyer misconduct at the trial. In a 35-page report, the special master concluded that the behavior of Gary and the other lawyers was “an insult to the integrity of the legal system,” and “resulted in an atmosphere that elevated tactics in pursuit of opposing counsel over the duty to pursue truth.” (Larry Keller, “Maris Trial Had Its Share of Misbehaving Lawyers”, Miami Daily Business Review, Jan. 28). Updates Jan. 5 and Jan. 7, 2004: (ethics charges against Gary thrown out by judge); Sept. 5, 2005 (case and related litigation settle for sum in excess of $120 million). (DURABLE LINK)

April 1-2 – New traffic records on Overlawyered.com. Our best month ever for number of pages served (March), best week ever (last week) and best day ever (last Wednesday). Thanks for your support!

{ 0 comments }


February 27-28 – Aerobics studio mustn’t favor the svelte. “In one of the first cases under San Francisco’s ‘fat and short’ law, a 240-pound fitness enthusiast has filed a discrimination complaint with the city against a leading exercise firm that won’t let her be a company aerobics teacher.” Jazzercise Inc. thinks Jennifer Portnick, at size 16-18, “looks too heavy to be a good role model for exercise buffs,” but Portnick’s supporters say the important thing is that she is fit enough to teach the class. (Elizabeth Hernandez, “240-pound San Francisco woman rejected as aerobics teacher alleges bias”, San Francisco Chronicle/ Minneapolis Star Tribune, Feb. 26)(see Dec. 8, 2000). Update May 10-12: Portnick wins settlement.

February 27-28 – The thrill of it all: plaintiffs win 28 cent coupon. “Food Lion customers who held an MVP [store discount] card between 1995 and 1998 have a 28-cent rebate coming their way as a result of a class-action lawsuit.” Not answered in the article is the burning question: how much more than 28 cents are the lawyers going to get? (“Food Lion MVP customers to get tiny rebate”, AP/Raleigh News & Observer, Feb. 24).

February 27-28 – Ford didn’t push pedal extenders, suit says. A lawsuit at trial in Louisville, Ky., accuses Ford Motor of not promoting and publicizing pedal extenders as a safety boon for drivers of short stature. “If the company were to tout the adjusters’ benefit in helping prevent air bag injuries, it could be open to more lawsuits if a driver is hurt or killed by an air bag while using it.” Ford offers the popular extenders as a convenience feature without stressing their safety aspect. (“Lawsuit faults Ford on safety issue”, AP/Louisville Courier-Journal, Feb. 19; AP/Auto.com, Feb. 18)(& letter to the editor, Apr. 11)

February 27-28 – Milberg faces second probe. “Already the subject of a grand jury investigation in Los Angeles, New York-based Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach is also facing scrutiny over its relationship with a high-ranking political figure in Philadelphia. Both state and federal authorities are looking into whether Philadelphia City Controller Jonathan Saidel received consulting fees from two law firms — one of which is Milberg Weiss — in exchange for helping the firms win city contracts.” (Jason Hoppin, “Milberg Weiss Faces Questions on Second Front”, The Recorder, Feb. 26).

February 27-28 – Jail for schoolyard taunts? In Hastings, Minn., prosecutor James Backstrom has announced “one of the toughest juvenile-justice policies in the nation: School bullies will go to jail.” Subject to the policy are not only kids who violently lay hands on classmates but also those who “intimidate, harass, pick a fight on the playground or the bus … Mr. Backstrom wants those who are at least 13 years old to hear a cell door click behind them. … The jail-for-bullies policy has been in effect since last spring here in Dakota County.” Local prosecutors complain, however, that some judges are undercutting the policy’s intent by taking into account such mitigating factors as whether a youngster’s misbehavior was provoked. (“New plan to put bullies behind bars”, Los Angeles Times/Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 26).

February 27-28 – Welcome Sunday Times (London) readers. We’re mentioned in Andrew Sullivan’s article on the journalistic impact of weblogs (“A Blogger Manifesto”, Sunday Times (London), Feb. 24, reprinted at AndrewSullivan.com).

February 25-26 – European workplace notes. “A French court has ruled that a ‘workplace accident’ claimed the life of an electrician who overdosed on vodka while drinking with colleagues in Russia. The unnamed 44-year-old Frenchman died of alcohol poisoning after a night of heavy drinking with Russian colleagues in Nalchik, southern Russia, three years ago.” (“Vodka death ruled ‘industrial accident’”, BBC, Feb. 18). In County Cavan, Ireland, a “piggery manager who claimed he had suffered deafness as a result of the noise of squealing pigs settled his action against the piggery owner.” (“And this little piggy …. missed his day in court”, Irish Independent, Feb. 19). And in Kent, England, “a dyslexic banker branded ‘Trebor’ by his boss — his Christian name spelled backwards — has been awarded damages of £95,000 by an employment tribunal.” (David Sapsted, “Sacked dyslexic awarded £95,000″, Daily Telegraph, Feb. 22).

February 25-26 – Fen-phen: gold standard indeed. The lead plaintiffs’ lawyers in the fen-phen diet drug litigation want a court to award them $567 million in fees for work negotiating a multibillion-dollar settlement, claiming their efforts set the “gold standard” for devising a mass tort “mega-settlement”. Besides, it’s peanuts when you consider that plaintiffs who opted out “have racked up more than $8 billion in settlements, leading to more than $2.8 billion in fees for their lawyers.” The brief also alleges that drug manufacturer American Home Products “paid its attorneys about $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion in fees and costs for defense of the diet drug cases.” (Shannon P. Duffy, “Fen-Phenomenal”, The Legal Intelligencer, Feb. 21).

February 25-26 – “Drunken Driver’s Widow Wins Court’s OK To Sue Carmaker”. New York’s highest court has ruled that the widow of a Westchester County man killed in a crash of his VW Jetta with more than twice the legal amount of alcohol in his system can nonetheless sue the German automaker. In a 10-page dissent, Justice Albert Rosenblatt wrote that the “majority’s rationale … invites people injured as a result of their own seriously unlawful acts to blame others and recover damages previously prohibited”. (Kenneth Lovett, New York Post, Feb. 20).

February 25-26 – “PETA Says It Will Sue New Jersey Over Deer/Car Accident”. Two activists with the extremist animal rights outfit were driving along the New Jersey Turnpike when a deer (lamentably heedless of their rights) darted out in front of their vehicle, and the ensuing crash caused considerable property damage. Now they have sent “a notice to the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife declaring their intent to sue the state of New Jersey for contributing to the accident through their deer management practices,” the theory being that the state is too willing to cater to the hunters who reduce the deer herd — no, it doesn’t make any sense to us either. (AnimalRights.net (Brian Carnell), Feb. 18)(& see Nov. 29, 2001).

February 22-24 –USA Today on slavery reparations. The story comes close to acknowledging that the legal basis for the impending lawsuits is so shoddy that their only real settlement value comes from the hope of inflicting bad publicity on companies and other defendants willing to pay to make it stop. So what does Gannett/USA Today, itself a likely defendant, do? It awards the lawyers another ton of publicity against named companies. Makes sense, right? Note that Willie Gary now claims the lawyers’ “work is likely to be done pro bono“, which is a very different story from what he said not too long ago (see Dec. 22, 2000) (James Cox, “Activists challenge corporations that they say are tied to slavery; Team of legal and academic stars pushes for apologies and reparations”, USA Today, Feb. 21). (DURABLE LINK)

February 22-24 – Role of the oath. We must take issue with Andrew Sullivan (“The Dish”, Feb. 21), who thinks it’s okay for President Bush to sign a substantially unconstitutional campaign finance bill on the expectation that the Supreme Court will throw out the unconstitutional parts. (Members of Congress sometimes cite a similar theory to explain why they vote for bills they are not sure are constitutional.) But as such commentators as Justice Scalia have pointed out, members of each of the three branches of government, not just the high court, take oaths pledging to uphold the Constitution. Among the functional purposes of the oath is to impress on them that the task of upholding the document is not just someone else’s, but theirs as well. To adopt what you might call the sole-goalie theory of constitutionality — which lets you kick the ball toward the goal of a Constitutional violation, relying on the Court to block — is to leave the document at best in the vulnerable state of being defended once when it deserves three-deep defense. (DURABLE LINK)

February 22-24 – “Student Grading by Peers Passes High Court Test”. The Supreme Court, interpreting federal law, unanimously decides it’s not illegal for teachers to let students rate each other’s work (see Nov. 28, 2001) (Charles Lane, Washington Post, Feb. 20).

February 22-24 – Culture war over BB guns. As suburban culture clashes with rural in Alpharetta, Ga., outside Atlanta, “a new ordinance here makes it a crime to let children under 16 use a BB gun — or its modern cousin, the paintball gun — without parental supervision.” Quotes our editor, although the sentiments attributed to us came out slightly more colorful than what we actually recall saying (Patrik Jonsson, “Town’s curb on BB guns becomes a clash of values”, Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 22).

{ 0 comments }


March 30-April 1 – Gary to Gannett: pay up for that investigative reporting. In December 1998 the Pensacola, Fla. News Journal published a investigative series alleging that a Lake City business by the name of Anderson Columbia pulled political strings to evade environmental and other rules while obtaining lucrative state road contracts. Now noted plaintiff’s lawyer Willie Gary (key cases: Loewen, Disney, Coke, reparations 1, 2) has been retained by Anderson Columbia and is demanding $1.5 billion, which far exceeds the value of the newspaper itself, in a libel suit against the News Journal and its parent Gannett. The suit, filed downstate in Fort Lauderdale, “also cites two 1990 stories reporting allegations of environmental damage and poor-quality work and an editorial that last year criticized Escambia County commissioners for their dealings with Anderson Columbia.” (Bill Kaczor, “Gary client sues newspaper, Gannet [sic] Co. for libel, seeks $1.5 billion”, Mar. 23) In other pending cases, Gary is representing bias plaintiffs against Microsoft “and is seeking a $2.5 billion breach-of-contract judgment against beer giant Anheuser-Busch on behalf of the family of former home run king Roger Maris.” The Stuart, Fla. lawyer’s choice of clients in the past has not always matched his populist image: for example, he’s represented Florida’s “fabulously rich” Fanjul family in the defense of a suit charging that its mostly black sugar cane cutters were underpaid. (Harris Meyer, “Willie Gary’s Sugar Daddies”, New Times Broward/Palm Beach, Mar. 25, 1999)

March 30-April 1 – Dangers of complaining about lawyers. “Beware: Accusing your lawyer of wrongdoing soon could be even more intimidating. It could land you in court, running up a legal bill to defend yourself against a defamation lawsuit.” A pending change in Georgia rules would open clients and others who talk to lawyer-discipline authorities to defamation suits from the lawyers they criticize — even if the charges against the lawyer are upheld, and even if the statements are made in private to only a few investigators. Critics say the prospect of being sued for defamation, win or lose, would chill legitimate complaints, while bar official David Lipscomb says it’s a difference between two philosophies: “One is you allow a few lies to encourage people to file complaints,” he says. “And the other is you should hold people to a standard of truth, and if that chills some of the complaints, then that’s a price we are willing to pay.” Hmmm … when that same philosophical dispute comes up concerning litigation itself, doesn’t our legal establishment usually favor bending over backwards to keep from chilling dubious complaints? And isn’t it only fair to ask them to live with the same culture of easy accusation that so often results? (Lucy Soto, “Complain about a lawyer at your own risk of peril”, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mar. 26).

March 30-April 1 – No cause to be frightened. An Iowa court of appeals has ruled that a man who entered a convenience store at 4:30 a.m. wearing a disguise and ordered a clerk to empty the cash register did not commit robbery for legal purposes. James Edward Heard came in to a Davenport, Ia. Coastal Mart store “wearing a paper bag over his head and athletic socks on his hands” and, according to court records, “greeted cashier Aimee Hahn by saying either ‘Happy Halloween’ or ‘Trick or treat’ and then, in a soft voice, asked her to give him ‘the money.’” (The date was May, not October). After Ms. Hahn complied, he ordered her to lie down and fled. Mr. Heard admitted the facts of the case and was convicted of second-degree robbery, but the appeals court overturned his conviction, ruling that Heard’s actions did not imply a threat of “serious injury” as defined by law. The district attorney called the ruling “terrible”. (Clark Kauffman, “Court rules no threat, no robbery”, Des Moines Register, March 15) (via Jerry Lerman’s Bonehead of the Day Award).

March 29 – Putting the “special” in special sauce. A Toronto family claims its nine-year-old daughter found a severed rat’s head in her sandwich and wants C$17.5 million (U.S. $11.2 million) from McDonald’s Canada. According to her family’s lawyer, Ayan Abdi Jama, “having been enticed by McDonald’s pervasive child-focused advertising”, ordered a Big Mac which was “served in a paper wrapper bearing the Disney ‘Tarzan’ logo”, and proceeded to “partially ingest” the bewhiskered rodent portion, suffering as a result extensive psychiatric damage. Her mom was so shocked by the event that she can no longer carry on normal daily activities or earn a living, the suit further alleges, and her sister will quite likely be similarly affected when she grows up, so they deserve lots of money too. The complaint further alleges that “customers should be warned to inspect sandwiches prior to consumption” and that McDonald’s was negligent for not issuing such a warning. (“Alleged rat’s head in Big Mac triggers lawsuit”, CBC News, Mar. 27; “McDonald’s Canada lawsuit claims rat head in burger”, Reuters/FindLaw, Mar. 28; complaint in PDF format (very long), courtesy FindLaw).

March 29 – “Workers win more lawsuits, awards”.Employees who claim they’ve been harassed or discriminated against are winning many of their cases, and the financial awards they’re receiving often far eclipse those of years past.” The new spate of layoffs is likely to push those numbers higher, and companies that have gone off chasing youthful New Economy workforces invite costly age-bias claims, according to our editor, who is quoted. (Stephanie Armour, USA Today, March 27).

March 28 – The malaria drug made him do it. Last week federal prosecutors indicted former Congressman Ed Mezvinsky on 66 counts of fraud, saying he bilked banks and investors out of more than $10 million trying to make up his losses after himself falling victim to an African advance-fee scam. Mezvinsky now says his errant conduct arose from psychiatric side effects of the anti-malaria medication Lariam, which he took while on his business trips to Africa, and he’s suing the giant drugmaker Roche, along with Philadelphia’s Presbyterian Medical Center, his physician and a pharmacy, saying they should reimburse the losses of the people who entrusted their money to him and also pay him damages. “Clearly the responsibility lies with the manufacturers,” said his lawyer, Michael F. Barrett. (“Mezvinsky files suit over drug”, AP/Philadelphia Daily News, Mar. 24; Jim Smith, “$10M classic swindle”, Philadelphia Daily News, Mar. 23)(more on advance-fee scams). (DURABLE LINK)

March 28 – Ideological pro bono. We should be grateful to lawyers for the idealistic work they do free (“pro bono“) on behalf of worthy causes, right? Well, that may depend on what causes you find worthy. A new Federalist Society survey confirms that pro bono work at the nation’s biggest law firms tilts heavily toward liberal-left causes, such as gun control and racial preferences, as opposed to conservative or libertarian ones. (Pro Bono Activity at the AmLaw 100; Peter Roff, “Pro Bono, Pro Liberal”, National Review Online, March 14).

March 27 – Junk-fax bonanza. An Augusta, Ga. jury has found that the Hooters restaurant chain unlawfully allowed an ad agency to send unsolicited ad faxes offering lunch coupons to businesses and individuals in the Augusta area. Because the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) specifies that each sending of an improper fax incurs a $500 fine, which is tripled if the offense is willful, “attorney- turned-plaintiff Sam G. Nicholson and 1,320 class members … stand to share an estimated $4 million to $12 million from a suit Nicholson filed in 1995.” Each recipient of the six unsolicited faxes will be entitled to a minimum of $3,000 for the inconvenience, and $9,000 if damages are tripled. Hooters says its local manager signed up for a fax-ad service without realizing that its services were illegal or that federal law made advertisers as well as fax-senders liable for violations. (Janet L. Conley, “Just the Fax, Ma’am: Unsolicited Ad Spree May Cost Hooters Millions”, Fulton County Daily Report, Mar. 26). For earlier stages in the junk-fax saga, see Oct. 22, 1999 and Mar. 3, 2000.

March 27 – Shot, then sued. Batavia, Ill. police officer Chris Graver won numerous awards and accolades for bravery after surviving a shootout with a gunman in which he was critically injured and the gunman killed. He’s relieved that the gunman’s survivors have now finally agreed to drop their lawsuit against him. The legal action “was kind of aggravating. You get three bullets in you, almost die, and there’s still lawyers lining up to file a lawsuit against you.”(Sean D. Hamill, “Lawsuit dropped, but officer still tormented by shooting”, (suburban Chicago) Daily Herald, Mar. 23).

March 26 – “Teacher sues parent over handshake”. “A Utah elementary school teacher is suing a parent for allegedly shaking her hand so hard during a parent-teacher conference that she has had to wear a hand brace, undergo surgery and drop out of advanced teaching classes.” The suit, by teacher Traci R. England, says that parent Glenda Smith was irate and charges Smith with “vigorously pumping [England's] arm up and down,” with the result that England “missed work, incurred medical expenses of more than $3,000 and dropped a university class, making her ineligible for a pay raise of $2,000 per year. Her attorney, Michael T. McCoy, is seeking damages for his client, including pain and suffering, in excess of $250,000.” (Dawn House, Salt Lake Tribune, Mar. 23).

Update: we received the following email in November 2005:

I am the teacher in your post. The injury occurred November 20, 2000. Five years later, I have had 7 (yes, seven) surgeries. Each surgery resulted in a loss of 3 weeks of teaching. Over the years, I have suffered from the irresponsible choice an angry parent made over her son’s grades. My students were affected as a result of multiple and lengthy absences. I continue to take medication for inflammation and pain. I have ugly scars on my forearm, wrist, and palm. Did I receive the $250,000 originally asked for in the claim? Not even 10%. How’s that for justice? My lawsuit was never superfluous, nor was it irresponsible. I resent my name and litigation information being present on your site. Please remove it. It does not belong there. You have not done your homework. — Traci England

For our reply, see letters column of Nov. 18, 2005.


March 26 – California electricity linkfest. We’ve neglected this one, what with being on the other coast and all, but here are some catch-up highlights: “California policymakers … froze the retail price of electricity and utilities lost so much money as to face bankruptcy. They barred utilities from signing long-term supply contracts and saw spot prices soar. They dragged their feet on new power-plant construction and found electricity in short supply. They ignored the need for more long-distance transmission lines and then couldn’t import enough power to meet demand. They shielded consumers from higher utility bills and gave them rolling blackouts instead.” And with each round of failure they propose to push the state further into the power business. (William Kucewicz, “California’s Dreaming”, GeoInvestor.com, Feb. 12). The “major crisis could have been averted” had the state last summer allowed utilities to enter long-term contracts with slightly higher rates, but “it’s clear that [Gov. Gray] Davis didn’t act last summer because he was afraid. He feared that long-term contracts could have been criticized if power prices dropped in the future, and that even a minor increase in rates would bring fire from consumer activists.” (Dan Walters, “Crisis also one of leadership”, Capitol Alert/Sacramento Bee, March 25) (via Kausfiles). Pennsylvania, Texas and Ohio all show promising models of genuine deregulation, as opposed to the fake version paassed off by Golden State lawmakers (“California Dreamin’” (editorial), Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 19).

As for the supply side: “In the last decade the population [of California] has climbed 14%, to 34 million”, while peak demand for electricity has climbed 19%. “The number of big power plants built since 1990: zero.” (Lynn Cook, “My Kingdom for a Building Permit,” Forbes.com, Feb. 19). “In the 1970s California’s power regulators got all excited about renewables. The state is now littered with high-cost, low-efficiency wind and solar facilities that produce limited amounts of unreliable power, for which ratepayers have overpaid by at least $25 billion in the intervening years. In 1996 the regulators were persuaded by a cabal of efficiency mavens and end-of-growth pundits that demand for electrons was leveling off and would soon decline, while supply was plentiful and would soon become a glut. They regulated accordingly.” (Peter Huber, “Insights: The Kilowatt Casino”, Forbes.com, Feb. 19)(see also Oct. 11)

And we all knew the trial lawyers would manage to get into it somehow, didn’t we? Not long ago San Francisco launched what is apparently the first “affirmative litigation” office meant to turn suing businesses into an ongoing profit center for the city in partnership with private law firms (see Oct. 5). The political leadership of that city having been a voice for the worst possible policies at each step along the way to where we are now, now City Attorney Louise Renne has sued 13 energy producers for supposedly conspiring to create the crisis. “Joining the lawsuit as co-counsel is attorney Patrick Coughlin of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach in San Francisco. Coughlin worked with the city in its successful litigation against the tobacco industry.” (Dennis Opatrny, “San Francisco City Attorney Lays Energy Crisis at Feet of Power Companies”, The Recorder, Jan. 22; Paul Pringle, “Power struggle: Finger-pointing intensifies as California woes grow”, Dallas Morning News, Jan. 29).

MORE: Victor Davis Hanson, “Paradise Lost”, Wall Street Journal/OpinionJournal.com, March 21; Gregg Easterbrook, “Brown and Out”, The New Republic, Feb. 19; Robert J. Michaels (California State Fullerton), “California’s Electrical Mess: The Deregulation That Wasn’t,” National Center for Policy Analysis Brief Analysis No. 348, Feb. 14; Paul Van Slambrouck, “How California lost its power”, Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 19 (“California actually has been a pioneer in energy conservation and is one of the most energy-efficient states in the nation, according to conservation experts like Ralph Cavanagh of the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council”; so much for that proposed cure); Reason Public Policy Institute; Cato; NCPA.

March 23-25 – Non-gun control. “Two second-graders playing cops and robbers with a paper gun were charged with making terrorist threats. The boys’ parents said the situation should have been resolved in the principal’s office, but [Irvington, N.J.] Police Chief Steven Palamara on Wednesday defended school officials and the district’s zero-tolerance policy.” (“Second-graders face charges for paper gun”, AP/CNN, Mar. 21). And earlier this year Rep. Ed Towns (N.Y.) “introduced bill H.R. 215, a measure to ban ‘toys which in size, shape or overall appearance resemble real handguns,’” part of a spate of anti-toy-gun legislation in various jurisdictions. (Lance Jonn Romanoff, “Someone call the National Toy Rifle Association”, Liberzine, Feb. 19).

Meanwhile Ross Clark of the estimable Spectator of London notes in his regular column, “Banned wagon: a list of the things which our rulers wish to prohibit”, that a Labor MP has proposed banning the carrying of bottles and glasses on the street, because they are capable of use as offensive weapons in altercations: “It was never likely that our legislators would be happy banning just items purposely designed for killing people, such as handguns and samurai swords. There are some who will not be satisfied until the human environment is constructed entirely from soft substances which cannot conceivably be used as weapons” (Feb. 10).

March 23-25 – Brockovich a heroine? Julia really can act. One of the most entertaining aspects of that entertaining movie, “Erin Brockovich“, is the pretense that its script has more than a nodding acquaintance with the real-life history of the Hinkley case (Michael Fumento, “Erin Go Away!”, National Review Online, March 21)(our take: Reason, October).

March 23-25 – Guest editorial: ABA’s judicial role. “Good riddance to the American Bar Association’s judge-vetters. Who elected them? Now they can criticize and praise judicial nominees like any other lobby or trade association.” (Mickey Kaus, “Hit Parade”, Kausfiles.com, March 22; see David Stout, “Bush Ends A.B.A.’s Quasi-official Role in Helping to Pick Judges”, New York Times, Mar. 22).

March 23-25 – “Fired Transsexual Dancers Out for Justice”. “Two transsexuals say they were given walking papers from their go-go dancing jobs at a trendy Chelsea club because the nightspot decided they wanted to hire ‘real girls.’” Amanda Lepore and Sophia LaMar, post-operative transsexuals who used to dance at Twilo, are suing the West 27th Street club for $100,000, charging wrongful firing. “This was just a case of out-and-out discrimination,” said their lawyer, Tom Shanahan. The nightclub denies that it discriminates against gals who used to be guys. (Dareh Gregorian, New York Post, March 22). In other news, a “judge has peeled away more than half of stripper Vanessa Steele Inman’s $2.5 million verdict against a Georgia nightclub, the Pink Pony, and its owner.” (Richmond Eustis, “$1.6M Punitives Award Peeled From Stripper’s Legal Victory”, Fulton County Daily Report, March 8; see July 26, 2000). Update Apr. 17, 2004: court of appeals overturns Inman’s verdict (more exotic-dancer litigation: Dec. 4, Aug. 14, May 23, Jan. 28, 2000)

March 21-22 – Hostage-taker sues victims. “Richard Gable Stevens’ hostage-taking rampage at Santa Clara’s National Shooting Club 18 months ago will cost him the next 50 years of his life behind bars in state prison,” Judge Kevin Murphy ruled earlier this month. “Stevens, 23, was convicted of kidnapping, robbery, false imprisonment, threats and assault with a deadly weapon in connection with the July 5, 1999 incident. … Murphy questioned the sincerity of Stevens’ remorse, noting that he has filed a lawsuit for monetary damages against the very people he was convicted of having wronged.” (Bill Romano, “Man gets 50 years for rampage at gun club “, San Jose Mercury News, March 10 (search fee-based archive on “Richard Gable Stevens”, retrieval $1.95) The incident ended when Stevens was shot and wounded by one of his intended victims. According to columnist Vin Suprynowicz, police found a note in which Stevens told his parents he would get revenge on them because they would be bankrupted by lawsuits from the survivors of his intended victims (Vin Suprynowicz, “No serial killings this week in Santa Clara”, Las Vegas Review-Journal, July 11, 1999). (DURABLE LINK)

March 21-22 – Reparations-fest: give us Toronto. Among the latest claimant groups to attract notice with demands for reparations: descendants of early New Mexico settlers asserting land claims that predate the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, under which Mexico ceded much of its northern territory to the U.S. (Christian Science Monitor, March 6). In Canada, the Indian Claims Commission, a federal agency, “says it is handling roughly 480 land-claims cases. There are dozens more in the courts. ” Nearly 200 years after the fact, a band of Mississaugas “are seeking retroactive compensation from Ottawa for the Toronto Purchase, a quarter-million acres covering the whole of Toronto and into the suburbs. … Last summer, the Squamish Indians settled their claim to some prime real estate in North Vancouver for nearly C$92.5 (US$58) million.” (Ruth Walker, “Indian land claims flood Ottawa”, Christian Science Monitor, March 20).

At National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg wonders whether it might not after all be worth paying trillions if it actually got the racial-spoils lobby to cool it once and for all on preferences, quotas, set-asides and the rest of the list — as if it would ever do that (“Reparations Now”, March 19). And reparations lawyers in California have neatly arranged for their targets and the state’s taxpayers to conduct a lot of their research for them: “California Gov. Gray Davis this month signed the Slaveholder Insurance Policy law, which requires all insurers whose businesses date to the 19th Century to review their archives and make public the names of insured slaves and the slaveholders through the state’s insurance commissioner. … Davis also signed the University of California Slavery Colloquium law directing college officials to assemble a team of scholars to research slavery and report how some current California businesses benefited.” (V. Dion Haynes, “California Tells Insurers: Open Slave Records”, Chicago Tribune, Oct. 20.) See also Jeffrey Ghannam, “Repairing the Past”, ABA Journal , Nov.).

March 21-22 – (Another) “Monster Fee Award for Tobacco Fighters”. “New York’s Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach and San Francisco’s Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein are among 10 firms that will share $637.5 million in fees for their role in helping California cities and counties capture their share of a $206 billion settlement agreement with the tobacco industry. The Tobacco Fee Arbitration Panel announced Tuesday that private lawyers in California should be awarded the fees for the more than 130,000 hours they [say they -- ed.] worked in helping cities and counties grab half the $25 billion awarded California in the master settlement agreement. The state takes the other half. That works out to approximately $4,904 per hour for the lawyers.” (Kirsten Andelman, The Recorder, March 9).

March 21-22 – Welcome visitors. We’ve noticed this site being mentioned or linked to lately on weblogs Pie in the Sky (Mar. 17: “As a soon-to-be-lawyer, Overlawyered.com is going on my permanent bookmark list. Don’t worry, I’m going to be a transactional attorney- I won’t be doing any litigation (like the kind in the site linked to, or any other).”) and AFireInside; on the NetCool Users Group disclaimer; and on pages including Russell Shaw’s, Univ. of Calif. Libertarians, Swanson Group, LeaveThePackBehind.org (tobacco-Canadian), PelicanPolitics.com, UtterlyStupid.com, FoldingJonah, TheRightTrack.org (“Alaska’s Conservative Digest”), and Dave and Holly’s.

{ 0 comments }


December 29, 2000-January 2, 2001 – Gambler rebuffed. Reversing a lower court, the Mississippi Supreme Court has ruled that Robert Shindler has no cause of action to sue the Grand Casino Tunica for extra winnings he said he was due “for a series of mini-baccarat games he played on August 22, 1997. Shindler claims that although he wanted to bet $20,000 per hand, casino personnel would only let him bet $5,000 at a time.” (Grand Casino Tunica v. Robert Shindler, Dec. 14).

December 29, 2000-January 2, 2001 – Makes others pay, doesn’t pay himself. Civil rights activist Al Sharpton says he is planning a class-action lawsuit against the Burger King Corporation as well as “acts of civil disobedience that will be organized at targeted Burger Kings across the country.” The vow came after federal court cleared the hamburger chain of charges that it discriminated against Detroit-based black franchisee La-Van Hawkins (May 11), who had hired high-profile litigator Willie Gary to press his case. “U.S. District Court Judge Marianne Battani in Ann Arbor, Mich., ruled that Hawkins and Burger King signed a ‘clear and unambiguous’ agreement in July 1999 barring Hawkins from suing the company for any problems that arose before then. Battani also wrote that Hawkins failed to state a claim for relief. ” (“Sharpton Plans Lawsuit Against Burger King”, FoxNews.com, Dec. 18).

However, the wherewithal for Sharpton’s hyperactive litigation posture is somewhat mysterious since he claims not to have the money on hand to pay the $65,000 a jury says he owes former prosecutor Steven Pagones for defaming him during the Tawana Brawley affair 13 years ago. During a seven-hour deposition in the ongoing Pagones case, it recently emerged that Sharpton, a leading New York power broker whose publicity machine gets him into the papers approximately daily, and whose daughters attend an expensive private school, “says he owns no suits, but has ‘access’ to a dozen or so. He says he owns no television set because the one he watches in his home was purchased by a company he runs. He says he has no checking accounts, no savings accounts, no credit cards, no debit cards … The only thing he admits to owning is a $300 wristwatch and a 20-year-old wedding ring.” (“Sharpton says he has no assets to pay slander victim”, AP/CNN, Dec. 7; Alan Feuer, “Asking How Sharpton Pays for Those Suits”, New York Times, Dec. 21; “It Depends on What You Mean by ‘Own’” (sidebar), Dec. 21). (Update June 22-24, 2001: he finally pays Pagones).

December 29, 2000-January 2, 2001 – Seats in all parts. “Tiered” stadium-style seating has been a boon to countless moviegoers who no longer fear having their view blocked by a tall person in the row in front of them. But wheelchair activists are targeting such arrangements as a violation of their right to sit in all parts of a theater, and the U.S. Justice Department is backing their complaints. “The ADA has proved a powerful tool on a similar issue — handicapped seating in sports stadiums. In 1996, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington forced builders of MCI Center to halt work in mid-construction to add spaces so that wheelchair users could see beyond standing spectators and to adequately disperse wheelchair spaces throughout the arena.” (Matthew Mosk, Ian Shapira, “Buying a Ticket to Court”, Washington Post, Dec. 8; Mark Pratt, “Theaters Sued Over Disabled Seating”, AP/FindLaw, Dec. 18). And: “Country music star Garth Brooks is being sued for allegedly limiting wheelchair seating at a concert so ‘pretty women’ could sit in the first two rows. Brooks’ attorney denied the allegation, saying people in the front rows are generally Brooks’ friends. A judge ruled Friday that the complaint can proceed to trial, but said Brooks’ liability is limited because he had no control over concert operations at Seattle’s Key Arena.” (“Brooks accused of discrimination”, AP/Washington Post, Dec. 17).

December 29, 2000-January 2, 2001 – Enviro litigator: debate belongs in Congress, not courts. We promise we didn’t make up the following quote, though we understand why it might astound readers familiar with the environmental movement’s record over the past three decades of heading for court in quest of victories it couldn’t win in Congress: “Howard Fox, a lawyer with the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund [commenting on a pending high court case which could invoke the "nondelegation" doctrine to strike down EPA-set air standards], said that industry should take its battles over national environmental policy to Congress rather than pressing the Supreme Court to overturn half a century of legal precedents that allowed Congress to delegate authority to the regulatory agencies. ‘We think EPA’s policy on this issue is a good policy,’ said Fox, who is representing the American Lung Association in the case. ‘But if someone wants to have a debate on public policy, it should be in the Congress, not the courts.’” (Margaret Kriz, “Trying to Roll Back the Regulators”, National Journal, Nov. 4, not online). See also Gregg Easterbrook, “Green values”, The New Republic, Nov. 13).

December 26-28 – That’ll teach ‘em. In the largest personal-injury verdict ever handed down against the city of Chicago, a jury has ordered the city to pay $50 million to the parents of 19-year-old Douglas Gant, who died of an asthma attack. The ambulance arrived eight and a half minutes after the mother’s 911 call, but lawyers argued that it should have come sooner and that in the mean time operators should have given the family instructions on resuscitation, all of which “constituted ‘willful and wanton misconduct,’ the standard for erasing municipal immunity.” Just the sort of development sure to attract talent into the emergency services, at least if you believe the law schools’ invisible-fist theory. (Margaret Cronin Fisk, “911 Incident Brings $50 Million Award”, National Law Journal, Dec. 13)(& letter to the editor from lawyer for Gant, May 7, 2004).

December 26-28 – Appearance-blind hiring? Green-haired Santas, take hope! A popular marketing strategy among hotels, restaurants and other hospitality businesses is to differentiate themselves by style, with some going for a hip look, others dignified, others conveying a mood of family fun, and so forth. “But when hoteliers try to control the look and feel of their personnel, they can run into big legal trouble.” They may be violating employment law if they want to hire only “lithe” or “athletic-looking” personnel, for example. However, Colonial Williamsburg, the historical re-creation in Virginia, did manage to escape being sued after it asked an employee with a wild dye job to redo the look of her hair to something more “natural-looking”. (Virginia Postrel, “When the ‘Cool’ Look Is Illegal”, Forbes, Nov. 27).

December 26-28 – Updates. Further developments in stories already covered in this space:

* The tactic that occurred to various businesses of demanding that their insurance companies pay the cost of their Y2K remediation efforts, under “sue and labor” clauses originally arising from maritime emergencies (Sept. 16, 1999), has met with a setback in the first court to rule on the issue. Justice Charles E. Ramos of State Supreme Court in Manhattan ruled that the Xerox Corp. should not have waited for three years, during which it spent $138 million on the Y2K problem, before notifying its insurer that it was hoping to pass the costs along. (Barnaby J. Feder, “Court Rules on Year 2000 Claim”, New York Times, Dec. 22 (reg)).

* Cameras in the hospital: a New Jersey appeals court has set aside Cooper Medical Center’s rule against legal photography (see Oct. 18) so as to allow a lawyer into its trauma unit to take pictures of a client (Randall J. Peach, “Court Overrides Hospital’s Ban on Photographs in Intensive Care Unit”, New Jersey Law Journal/Law.com, Dec. 4).

* In the latest sign that “baby Castano” (statewide class action) tobacco cases are not faring well, a New York court has rejected the idea of certifying a statewide class of ill smokers to sue tobacco companies (“NY court rejects smokers’ class-action certification”, Reuters/FindLaw, Nov. 30).

December 22-25 – Victory in Philadelphia. “A federal judge yesterday dismissed Philadelphia’s lawsuit against gun manufacturers, ruling that the city and several civic groups that joined the suit did not have legal standing to sue.” Even if the plaintiffs had survived the standing issue, declared federal judge Berle M. Schiller, their “novel legal theories” would have failed as a matter of law. “The city’s drive to sue gun manufacturers began three years ago, under Mayor Edward G. Rendell. However, Rendell, who has ambitions to run for governor in 2002 in a state [Pennsylvania] that is famously pro-gun rights, eventually balked at filing a suit.” His successor as mayor, John Street, did proceed to sue. Many other cities’ gun suits have also been dismissed, most recently Chicago’s. (Frederick Cusick, “Court rejects city gun lawsuit”, Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 21).

December 22-25 – Suits even ATLA admits are frivolous dept. An inmate at a Texas prison sued Penthouse magazine, saying its recent photo spread of presidential accuser Paula Jones was insufficiently pornographic. Federal judge Sam Sparks dismissed the suit and fined the prisoner $250 for frivolous litigation, adding to his opinion a 12-line poem which concluded: “Life has its disappointments. Some come out of the blue/ But that doesn’t mean a prisoner should sue.” (“Dissatisfied Customer”, Reuters/ABCNews.com, Dec. 20)

December 22-25 – Britain’s delicate soldiery. The chief of the British military staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie, has delivered a stinging attack on “what he called a culture of ‘risk aversion’, warning of the prospect of young officers being sued by their platoons for leading men into action which could lead to death or injury. … In a swipe at the ‘litigious nation’ Britain was becoming, Sir Charles expressed surprise that policemen involved in the Hillsborough football disaster were awarded compensation for the horrors they had to cope with. … He added: ‘But what really concerns me about the creeping advance of litigation is that it will breed a cautious group of leaders who may step back from courageous decisions for fear that they will be pursued through the courts if it all goes wrong. … There is a culture of risk aversion developing in society which is anathema to servicemen. We are not foolhardy but our profession requires a degree of decisiveness, flair and courage which sits badly with some of the more restrictive practices of modern employment legislation.’” In particular, Guthrie assailed the idea recently floated by figures within British officialdom (see Sept. 29, Oct. 16) that the military should be compelled to accept disabled recruits: “we need to guard against such ill-conceived ideas in future”. (Richard Norton Taylor, “Defence chief lays into culture of ‘risk aversion’”, The Guardian (UK), Dec. 20). (“Armed Forces ‘under threat from human rights legislation’” (text of speech), Daily Telegraph, Dec. 21; Michael Smith, “Guthrie attacked over ban on disabled”, Daily Telegraph, Dec. 21; “General alert” (leader/editorial), Dec. 21). And the U.K. defense ministry has announced that the noise of military brass bands, as well as that from gunfire during infantry training exercises, is in violation of occupational-safety regulations safeguarding workers from excessive noise. “‘One solution would be to provide ear protectors during training, but then soldiers couldn’t hear their sergeant major giving orders,’” said a spokesman. (“British Army Bands May Have to Pipe Down”, Reuters/Excite, Dec. 21).

December 22-25 – Not pro bono, not nohow. The roundtable discussion in the November Harper’s on slave reparations lawsuits (see Oct. 25, July 14) was going along quite merrily, and then, as American Lawyer tells the tale, “came a conversation-stopper, when one panelist had the nerve to suggest that the lawyers toil without pay:”

Alexander Pires, Jr.: So would you all work for free?

Dennis Sweet: What?

Richard Scruggs: Um.

Willie Gary: Clients sometimes try to negotiate me down to 10 percent on a case, and I say, “Why would you want me working unhappy for you? [If I'm unhappy,] I’ll get you 100,000 bucks. If you got me happy, I’ll get you 2 million.”

Pires: Maybe I’m wrong.

Jack Hitt (moderator): I guess that issue’s resolved. (Harper’s, November; quoted in American Lawyer, Dec. 2000)

December 22-25 – Welcome visitors. Among the many personal websites linking to Overlawyered.com: Ellen’s Place, Jocelyn Payne, Whoozyerdaddy (Oct. 10), Carl Riegel and Melissa Dallas, Paul Falstad, and Frank Cross (Siskiyou County (Calif.) Amateur Radio — Aug. 3).

December 21 – Errin’ Brockovich? “An arbitrator in Ventura County, Calif., ruling on a legal malpractice case involving a law firm made famous by the film ‘Erin Brockovich‘, found that Brockovich’s testimony in the arbitration proceeding ‘was hardly credible’,” notes the Wall Street Journal‘s Opinion Journal. Former client Bilal Baroody had sued the law firm of Masry and Vititoe after losing more than $400,000 in a real estate deal on which it had represented him. Arbitrator Jeffrey Krivis wrote that the Masry/Brockovich firm had been “preoccupied with other significant matters” during the episode, which occurred while the firm was litigating the Hinkley, Calif. toxic case portrayed in the Julia Roberts movie. “[Faulty representation] is evidenced not only by the poor result, but also by the firm’s overall lack of professionalism; by the firm’s putting its own interests above those of the client; and by the firm playing fast and loose with the rules of professional conduct,” wrote Krivis. Partner Ed Masry criticized the findings as mistaken and as reflecting the arbitrator’s excessive credence in Baroody’s witnesses; it is not known whether his professional liability insurer will appeal. Moreover, “a claim isn’t necessarily because you did something wrong,” Cathy Hastings, insurance manager for the State Bar of California, told a reporter. “It’s only because someone decided to sue you.” That last strikes us as a noteworthy concession from a bar association, and we just wish it would be forthcoming more often when the topic was something other than claims against lawyers themselves. (Brad Smith, “Law firm made famous by film ruled negligent in case”, Ventura County Star, Dec. 13).

December 21 – ADA requires renting to addiction facility. A jury has found that the port of Baltimore violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it declined to lease berth space to a ship housing a residential treatment program for recovering drug addicts. Officials of the Maryland Port Administration had considered a working port an unsuitable location for such a facility. The jury did turn down the drug program’s request for millions of dollars in damages, however. Drug users in treatment programs are deemed disabled under the ADA and enjoy its protection. (Kate Shatzkin, “Judge orders long-term lease for ship treating drug addicts”, Baltimore Sun, Dec. 12).

{ 0 comments }


October 31 – Foster care abuses: taxpayers to owe billions? Injury lawyers plan a major push to develop damage lawsuits against government on behalf of children harmed under foster care, the New York Times reports. Florida tobacco-fee magnate Robert Montgomery (see Apr. 12) and other movers and shakers are encouraged by “court rulings that make government agencies easier to sue and sizable jury awards in foster care cases”. A lawyer with the National Center for Youth Law, part of the network of legal services groups that philanthropic foundations, organized lawyerdom, and taxpayers have all had occasion to support generously over the years, is cited saying that “groups like his had become more open to alliances with personal injury lawyers”. Suits often allege that different placement choices or more vigorous intervention by social workers might have prevented beatings, neglect or molestation of youngsters in foster care. States fear taking the cases to trial: “They’re very difficult cases to defend in front of juries because juries often have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight,” says a lawyer for the state of Washington, where “government payouts in civil cases in general have quadrupled in six years”. “Some officials, including Kathleen A. Kearney, the secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families, say such litigation unfairly detracts from continuing efforts to improve child welfare, diverting resources that legislatures, not courts, should control.” (Nina Bernstein, “Foster-Child Advocates Gain Allies in Injury Lawyers”, New York Times, Oct. 27) (reg). See also Aug. 23-24 (billions demanded in lawsuits over Canadian residential schools).

October 31 – Tales from the tow zone. “A Dallas-area jury has ordered Chrysler Corp. and a local dealership to pay $83.5 million to a Texas couple who charged that the defendants misled them on the towing capacity of the Dodge Ram pickup truck they bought.” The couple did not suffer physical injury from the towing-force deficit, but argued that because the vehicle turned out not to be strong enough to pull horse trailers, they lost their equine transport business and the husband subsequently suffered depression. Nearly all of the award, $82.5 million, was in punitive damages; Texas’s limits on that category of damages, much deplored by trial lawyers, make it likely that the actual payout to the couple will not exceed $2.4 million, assuming they prevail in Chrysler’s planned appeal. (Margaret Cronin Fisk, “Jury Tags Chrysler for $83 Million”, National Law Journal, Oct. 5).

October 31 – Fat tax proposed in New Zealand. The proposal, floated by public health activists down under in the country’s Medical Journal, got a cool reception from the Kiwi health minister as well as from people in the farming and meat businesses. The idea was hailed as worth considering, however, by a medical adviser to the country’s Heart Foundation. It would apply a saturated-fat tax to such food items as butter, cheese, meat and milk, the “full-cream” variety in particular (Al Gore isn’t the only one campaigning against the “top one percent”). (Martin Johnston, “Fat-tax plan to reduce disease”, New Zealand Herald, Oct. 30).

October 30 – Netscape “Best of ‘What’s Cool’”. Last month Overlawyered.com was one of the picks on Netscape’s popular “Cool Sitings of the Day”, and this weekend we were featured in its “Best of ‘What’s Cool’”, with another flood of newcomers resulting.

October 30 – Ohio high court races. Buckeye State voters next week will decide on the hotly contested re-election bid of Democratic state supreme court justice Alice Robie Resnick, a key member of the court’s 4-3 liberal majority; also seeking re-election is Republican Deborah Cook, who has voted on the opposite side from Resnick in several controversial cases. Bone of contention number one is last year’s decision in which Resnick and three other justices relied on a strained reading of the state constitution to strike down the liability reforms passed by that state’s legislature (see Aug. 17 and Aug. 18, 1999), a move highly welcome to the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, which has supported Resnick’s re-election. Also at issue are a series of other Ohio Supreme Court decisions that have outraged the state’s business community, including a line of cases holding that commercial auto insurance policies by which companies cover their employees’ work-related driving can be made to pay for accidents suffered by the employees and their families in their own cars on their own time. (Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mutual (Ohio PIA); Charles T. McConville, “The Ohio Supreme Court, Your Business and Its Insurance”, Ohio Matters (Ohio Chamber of Commerce), Nov./Dec. ’99; Ohio Chamber of Commerce Court 2000 page). In some ways the hard-fought Ohio contest is the mirror image of the one in Michigan, where trial lawyers and labor unions have mounted a major effort to knock off conservative justices Clifford Taylor, Robert Young and Stephen Markman in next week’s vote (see Aug. 25-27, May 9, Jan. 31).

MORE: editorials, Cincinnati Post, Sept. 30, and Cleveland Plain Dealer, Oct. 29; Spencer Hunt, “Business, GOP work to boot Resnick”, Cincinnati Enquirer, June 25; William Glaberson, “A Spirited Campaign for Ohio Court Puts Judges on New Terrain”, New York Times, July 7 (reg); websites of Justice Alice Robie Resnick (incumbent) and challenger Terrence O’Donnell, Justice Deborah Cook (incumbent) and challenger Tim Black. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce has come under fire for supporting a group that has run hardball advertising against Resnick: Lee Leonard, “Sideswiping political ads ought to be ruled out of bounds”, Columbus Dispatch, Oct. 23; Randy Ludlow, “Resnick attack is ugly”, Cincinnati Post, Oct. 21 (DURABLE LINK).

October 30 – Cornfield maze as zoning violation. Zoning authorities in Snydersville, Pa. have sent a violation notice to father and son farmers Jake and Stuart Klingel. Their offense? Carving a maze through their cornfield and opening it to the public. (“Going in Circles?”, AP/Fox News, Oct. 6).

October 30 – $20 million for insolvency trustee? “Former Securities & Exchange Commission chairman Richard Breeden, 50, could make more than $20 million as the court-appointed trustee of Syracuse’s fraudulent, failed Bennett Funding Group. While a judge has the final say, Breeden could get a statutory 3% of what he recovers for creditors, less $642,000 in annual salary and expenses, and less a one-time $250,000 bonus. To investors facing an 82% haircut, he snaps, ‘I’m worth every penny of it.’” (Dorothy Pomerantz, “The Informer: Make That Breeden Funding”, Forbes, Sept. 4).

October 27-29 – “Lawyer take all”. Just as lawyers used to be barred from taking contingency stakes in their clients’ lawsuits lest they be tempted to push overly aggressive positions on their behalf, so they used to be discouraged from taking equity stakes in businesses they advised, lest they be tempted to assist in regulatory evasion or sharp financial practices. “In time, the dollar signs got bigger than the ethical misgivings.” Now, following major windfalls obtained by California tech lawyers who took holdings in clients’ stock, big law firms on the East Coast are rushing to emulate the practice. (Chana Schoenberger, Forbes, Oct. 16).

October 27-29 –“Yankees Must Step Up to Plate in Civil Rights Action”. A judge has ordered to trial a case filed against the New York Yankees by a black woman who says she was told she could not enter the stadium restaurant wearing only a tank top, although once inside she noticed white women dressed in that manner. “The club’s dress code, which is printed outside the entrance to the club and on the back of the admission pass, prohibits the wearing of ‘tank tops . . . thongs or any other abbreviated attire.’” Lawyers for the Yankees said the plaintiff, V. Whitney Joseph, was let into the restaurant after she went back to her car and put on a t-shirt, and said the brief inconvenience should not be enough to support a federal lawsuit, but a judge said Joseph should be allowed to reach a jury with her claim that the dress code had been inconsistently applied. (Michael A. Riccardi, New York Law Journal, Oct. 20).

October 27-29 – Judge rules against Tattered Cover. Fears about free expression notwithstanding, a Denver judge has ruled that the city’s famed Tattered Cover book store can be forced to turn over customer purchase records to narcotics police seeking to identify the owner of two books on drug manufacturing found at the scene of an illegal methamphetamine laboratory (see April 28). (Susan Greene, “Judge: Cops can seize bookstore records”, Denver Post, Oct. 21).

October 27-29 – Patients’ Bill of Wrongs. “The ground is thus set for an uneasy alliance between the physicians who staff HMOs and MCOs and health care consumer organizations. Both, for different reasons, would like to neuter the managed care organizations by removing from their management teams the power to control physician practice. Yet by so doing, they do more than remove excessive intervention. They necessarily compromise, perhaps fatally, the critical cost containment functions that these organizations must supply if they are to survive at all. . . . In the short run, physicians will love the creation of a system that promises a restoration of their autonomy and insulates them from the costs of their mistakes after they settle their case out cheaply. . . . But in truth a rather different agenda is at work here, which becomes evident from looking at the one exclusion to the proposed Patients Bill of Rights. It seems not to apply to the United States Government in its role as the provider of health care services through Medicare or Medicaid. The proposals therefore are designed to cripple the private programs which compete in the political arena with government-supplied health care.” (Richard Epstein (University of Chicago Law School), “Managed Care Liability”, Manhattan Institute Civil Justice Memo #39, Sept.)

October 26 – Lab mice paperwork. “In a couple of years, medical progress could come to a screeching halt when it slams up against new regulations to be written by the Agriculture Department. The regs will extend the Animal Welfare Act to the millions of mice, rats, and birds used in lab experiments. When that happens, researchers will have to file papers for each individual critter. By the time they get through with the paperwork they might have just enough time to turn out the lights before going home.

“This all results from a settlement the Department made with the Alternatives Research and Development Foundation (an arm of the Anti-Vivisection Society) and Kristine Gausz, a psychology student at (really) Beaver College. Ms. Gausz said in an affidavit that the sight of rats being ‘subject to deplorable living conditions’ was ‘an assault on her senses’ that left her ‘personally, aesthetically, emotionally, and profoundly disturbed.’… Perhaps the next thing medical researchers should try to find is a cure for the common lawsuit.” (“Leash lawsuit” (editorial), Richmond Times-Dispatch, Oct. 23).

October 26 – Drunk-driving standards nationalized. Dealing a blow to principles of local control as well as rural hospitality, the federal government will arm-twist all states into adopting 0.08 blood alcohol standards by 2004 under legislation just signed by President Clinton as part of a transportation bill. “The .08 percent limit is clearly only a way station on the road to making life miserable for social drinkers. MADD’s [Mothers Against Drunk Driving's] Web site now calls for lowering the BAC limit to .05 percent,” writes Providence Journal columnist Froma Harrop (“Phonies for .08 – Harassment of social drinkers”, Oct. 8; “Clinton signs bill to lower drunken driving standards”, AP/Dallas Morning News, Oct. 23).

October 26 – New unfairness for old. Don’t assume voters or politicians are anti-gay just because they harbor doubts about setting up sexual orientation as a new category in job bias law, as would happen under the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). “Why does the term ‘special rights’ have such political potency? Because by now most people have had personal experience with the way employment discrimination laws operate. Members of protected classes are not equal, they’re super-equal, enjoying extra job security and other job-related privileges not afforded the average worker.” Quotes our editor (Robyn Blumner, “Laws Aimed at Correcting Discrimination Have Created New Types of Unfairness”, Tribune Media/Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 20). See also Nigel Ashford, “Equal Rights, Not Gay Rights“, reprinted at Independent Gay Forum.

October 25 – “Power lawyers may sue for reparations”. More details about the plans of Willie Gary and other lawyers to file lawsuits demanding trillions of dollars in black reparations (see Letters, Oct. 19). Planned are “a series of suits against the U.S. government, states, corporations and individuals who continue to benefit from slavery’s aftermath.” Participants “met last month in Washington at Transafrica, a lobbying group that monitors U.S. policy in Africa and the Caribbean, and plan to continue meeting monthly until a strategy is formed.” Participants include Richard Scruggs, Johnnie Cochran, Jr., Harvard Law’s Charles Ogletree, author Randall Robinson, “Alexander Pires of Washington, who won a $1 billion settlement for black farmers in a discrimination case against the U.S. Department of Agriculture; … and Dennis Sweet of Jackson, Miss., who won a $400 million settlement in the fen-phen diet drug case last year.” Sweet “also plans to sue history book publishers that give blacks short shrift,” which suggests that he himself may give the First Amendment short shrift. “We are a nation of litigators. That’s what we do. We go to court,” said Harper’s editor Jack Hitt. (Amy Martinez, Palm Beach Post, Oct. 23).

October 25 – “Laptop lawsuit: Toshiba, feds settle”. Piling on the $1 billion-plus class action settlement, the U.S. government is now extracting money from Toshiba over its flawed laptops. Still in very short supply: evidence that the glitch caused data loss in any real-world situations (Reuters/ZDNet, Oct. 13, with reader discussion).

October 25 – South Carolina tobacco fees: how to farm money. Lawyers who represented the state of South Carolina in the Medicaid-recoupment litigation will get a whopping $82.5 million; it wasn’t easy to argue that the mostly pro-tobacco Palmetto State had been instrumental in nailing the cigarette industry, but the lawyers found a golden rationale for large fees in their having been assigned to speak up for the interests of tobacco farmers like those in South Carolina. Since lawyers representing late-to-sue North Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee (see May 2) are also reportedly making the we-represented-farmers argument in their own fee quest, the tobacco caper may go down in history as the most richly compensated instance ever of farmer “representation” — with no need for any control of the attorneys by actual farmers, of course. The secretive arbitration panel voted along its now-familiar two-to-one lines, with dissenter Charles Renfrew charging that the award was a windfall and “grossly excessive”, but as usual being outvoted by the other two panel members. (“Panel says $82.5 million lawyers’ fees are fair”, AP/CNN.com, Oct. 24).

October 24 — Turn of the screw. Revealing article in Philadelphia Inquirer magazine tells the story in detail of how lawyers whipped up mass litigation against companies that make screws used for bone-setting in spinal and other orthopedic surgery, alleging that the devices caused all manner of dreadful injuries. As so often the mass client recruiting got under way in earnest after a scary and misleading report on network TV, this time on ABC’s “20/20″, attacked the product as unsafe. Since most orthopedic surgeons continued to favor the screws’ use, lawyers turned for assistance to a Texas dermatologist who had gone to prison and lost his medical license in the 1980s for illegal distribution of prescription drugs, and who after release had set up shop as a go-between for lawyers who needed medical experts. After this physician “attended an organizational meeting with plaintiffs’ lawyers in Philadelphia, about 20 lawyers with bone screw cases enlisted his services,” and he proceeded to locate for them a Florida orthopedic surgeon who then cranked out about 550 opinions for the lawyers’ use — without actually examining the patients on whose behalf they were suing. “Invariably, [he] concluded, with scant explanation, that bone screws caused injury.” Eventually, Judge Louis Bechtle barred all 550 of the Florida doctor’s reports after one of the doctor’s employees testified that she’d been ordered to destroy tapes of telephone calls in which the Texas dermatologist/expert recruiter had dictated the language of the medical reports he expected the doctor to submit.

According to other sworn depositions, plaintiffs who rejected lawyers’ entreaties to sue were surprised to learn that cases had been filed in their names anyway; this happened, for example, to patients from California, Pennsylvania and Minnesota who did not blame the screws for their health problems. “There were no consequences for the lawyers who filed those suits.” Most of the story is told through the eyes of the best-known defendant in the cases, a company named Sofamor Danek, which chose to fight rather than pay; eventually it enjoyed outstanding success in repelling the suits, losing only one of 3,200 cases it faced, that one currently on appeal. But its vindication has come at a steep cost: $75 million in legal expenses, and who knows what unquantifiable costs. No wonder one of its competitors, AcroMed, gave up and agreed to pay $100 million to resolve 5,000 of the actions. (L. Stuart Ditzen, “The bone screw files”, Inquirer magazine (Philadelphia Inquirer), Aug. 27; David F. Fardon, M.D., “President’s Message”, North American Spine Society, Jan. 1997; “Third Circuit Denies Request for Mandamus Relief in Pedicle Screw Suits”, NASS, Jan. 1998).

MORE: The Health Research Group of Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen established a clearinghouse for plaintiff’s lawyers suing screw manufacturers, among other clearinghouses it runs for plaintiff’s lawyers, and whose goals include that of “generat[ing] media attention for the pertinent issue”. Among support groups for those who believe themselves victimized by the devices is Pedicle Screw’d. The North American Spine Society, a professional organization, was named as a defendant in many lawsuits because of its educational seminars on the use of screws, which lawyers charged were really a conspiracy to promote the devices.

October 24 – Monitor vote fraud, get sued for “intimidation”. Although ballot box irregularities, 109-percent precinct turnouts and other indicators of vote fraud continue as a very definite problem around the country, “anyone who combats vote fraud comes in for abuse. The Justice Department has become expert at raising cries of ‘voter intimidation’ at any attempt to monitor polling places. Last week Justice dispatched investigators to Fort Worth, Texas, merely because a political activist there distributed leaflets alleging Democrats were casting absentee ballots on behalf of shut-in voters. When the Miami Herald won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the fraud in that city’s mayoral election, the Pulitzer jury noted it had been subject to ‘a public campaign accusing the paper of ethnic bias and attempted intimidation.’ Local officials who’ve tried to purge voter rolls of felons and noncitizens have been hit with nuisance lawsuits alleging civil-rights abuse.” (John Fund, “Political Diary: Phantom Voters”, Opinion Journal (WSJ), Oct. 23).

October 23 – Election roundup. “If you’re a swing voter, vacillating between Bush and Gore, here’s one compelling reason to vote for the former: tort reform,” writes New York Press editor Russ Smith in his “Mugger” column. He cites the recent hot-pickle case (see Oct. 10) and says the “simple solution” is loser-pays (“Gore’s Next Move?”, Oct. 16 (see item #2). “If trial lawyers had a dashboard saint, it would be Ralph Nader“, but this time around they’re not giving him money, lest they take votes away from their favorite: despite Gore’s selection of a running mate with strong legal reform credentials, “trial lawyers are so anxious to see the vice president elected, I doubt very seriously if [Lieberman] will make one bit of difference,” says ATLA president Fred Baron. (Bob Van Voris, “The Politics of the Practical”, Corporate Counsel/Law.com, Oct. 19). Governor Bush’s proposal to protect educators against needless lawsuits wins applause from New York Post columnist Arnold Ahlert (“Dubya Stood Up To Parents, Too”, Oct. 20). If Vice President Gore in his current demagoguish attack-mode were handed a big bill for his child’s orthodontia, he might start railing against “Big Dentistry”: “In the end, Gore’s cartoonish view of big business does a disservice both to him and to the American people. He knows life is more complicated than he’s letting on,” write Steven Syre and Charles Stein of the Boston Globe (“Gore proves big on bashing big business”, Sept. 28). And in West Virginia, where asbestos trial lawyer Jim Humphreys had previously been thought a prohibitive favorite for a U.S. House seat after spending an eye-popping $5 million on his campaign, Republican candidate Shelley Moore Capito, daughter of a former governor, is putting up a surprisingly strong race and might pull off an upset in what’s shaping up as an unusually strong year for the GOP in the mountain state (Matthew Rees, “Will West Virginia Go Republican?”, Weekly Standard, Oct. 23, not online).

October 23 – Wheelchair marathon suit. After getting sued last year, the New York Road Runners Club, which organizes the New York City Marathon, agreed to establish a separate division of the race for entrants in wheelchairs, and award trophies to the winners. That wasn’t enough to keep it from being sued again, this time by six disabled entrants who complained that the club violated the Americans With Disabilities Act “by moving the marathon start time for 60 disabled people not in wheelchairs from 8 a.m. to 8:40 a.m.”, a less convenient time for some entrants since it might require them to finish after dark. The man coordinating the wheelchair side of the 26.5 mile event, which will be held November 5, called the new lawsuit “unbelievable” and “truly frivolous.” (“Lawyer Criticizes ‘Disabled’ Suit”, AP/FindLaw, Oct. 19).

October 23 – No breast cancer link. A major federal study recently helped lay to final rest fears of an association between silicone breast implants and breast cancer, yet the federal agency in charge seems to have gone out of its way not to publicize the reassuring results. (Denise Dowling, “Covering up the breast”, Salon.com, Oct. 9). See also Nov. 29; Stuart Bondurant et al, “Safety of Silicone Breast Implants”, Institute of Medicine, 1999; “Off the Lawyers’ Reservation” (profile of Kathleen Anneken), The American Enterprise, Sept./Oct. 1998).

October 20-22 – Product liability criminalized? Green presidential candidate Ralph Nader has called for criminal prosecutions in the Firestone case, where failed tires have been blamed for more than 100 highway deaths. “A Harvard-Brookings Institution study estimates that the downsizing of vehicles caused by fuel economy standards results annually in 2,200 to 3,900 deaths,” notes a Detroit News editorial. “Consumer advocates like Mr. Nader support these fuel efficiency standards and want them increased, which could kill more people. The question becomes: Should certain consumer advocates be accused of criminal neglect?” (“How Many Deaths Are Truly Criminal?”, Detroit News, Oct. 14). Cartoonist Henry Payne, of the same paper, has a similar take on the matter of federal mandating of airbags, which turned out to harm numerous children: Oct. 12 (via Junk Science).

The U.S. Congress has rushed to act before its adjournment on a new federal law criminalizing some product safety matters, but the Federalist Society Criminal Law & Procedure Group earlier this month sponsored a discussion on Capitol Hill which took a dim view of the idea. “Most criminal statutes punish only where there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a prohibited act was performed with mens rea, the guilty mind. … the proposed legislation is broad in its importation into penal law of the state of mind and knowledge standards of civil products liability law,” argued George Terwilliger (White & Case). Michael Krauss (George Mason U.) pointed out that the increased use of criminal charges in aviation accidents is now seriously hampering investigations after crashes given participants’ reluctance to cooperate and right to invoke the Fifth Amendment against having to testify in cases of criminal (as opposed to civil) jeopardy (see Sept. 6). Legislation to stiffen criminal penalties in product cases has passed both Houses this month, though its terms do not go as far as some of the earlier proposals. (“U.S. House Passes Tire Legislation”, Reuters/FindLaw, Oct. 11). See also Bob Van Voris, “Tire Deaths: Criminal Acts?”, National Law Journal, Sept. 11.

October 20-22 – CueCat’s legal claws. The CueCat is a new little gadget that works on the principle of a personal barcode scanner; its maker has sent it out free to subscribers of Forbes and Wired, Radio Shack catalogue customers, and others, for the purpose of making advertising more interactive (you scan a barcode on the ad, and a related webpage comes up in your browser). Realizing that a working personal barcode scanner would have many uses other than ad-linking, Linux programmers promptly reverse engineered the device and published code which makes the CueCat usable for other scanning tasks, such as keeping inventories. CueCat’s maker, a company called Digital Convergence, objects to the reverse engineering and has also made legal rumblings hinting that in its view ordinary consumers may not have a right to use the device for purposes other than the intended one — even though the general rule is that if someone sends you an item through the mails for free, you’re at liberty to use it as you wish. (Neil McAllister, “The Clause of the CueCat Legal Language Could Shut Down Hardware Tinkerers”, SFGate, Oct. 11).

October 20-22 – Sweepstakes, for sure. Last month class action lawyers extracted a $33 million settlement from American Family Publishers, plus $8 million in legal fees, over allegedly deceptive practices in its magazine-selling sweepstakes. “Refunds will be distributed among the more than 143,000 people who filed claims. The refunds will be allocated in proportion to the claimants’ purchases in excess of $40 per year or ‘their total purchases influenced by the belief that a purchase was either necessary to win or enhanced their chances of winning,’” though it is not explained how it will be possible to verify claimants’ self-reports of having been influenced by such beliefs. Among the plaintiff’s-side law firms expected to split the fees are the Belleville, Ill. firm of Steven Katz (see Nov. 4, 1999) and San Francisco’s Lieff, Cabraser. Time Inc., a defendant in the action and the owner of sweepstakes firm Magazine Associates, will be footing the bill; American Family Enterprises is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. (Mary P. Gallagher, “Sweepstakes Class Action Settles for $33M, and $8M in Legal Fees”, New Jersey Law Journal, Sept. 19).

October 20-22 – ABA as liberal lobby. Boston Globe columnist Jennifer Braceras says it’s past time to end the American Bar Association’s gatekeeper status in accrediting law schools: “the ABA is not a trade association dedicated to preserving the integrity of the legal profession [but] a political lobbying group that represents the interests of a small, but powerful, liberal elite.” (“Call the ABA what it is: a liberal lobbying group”, Oct. 19).

{ 0 comments }


August 18-20 – Why the bad guys can’t stand John Stossel. The ABC News correspondent is the one TV reporter who again and again has exposed and ridiculed in devastating style the abuses of litigation and misconduct of lawyers, the excesses of scare-environmentalism, and countless instances of over- and mis-government (his hourlong special “The Trouble With Lawyers” a couple of years back is just one of many highlights; Stossel’s website at ABC). You can bet he’s made a long list of enemies in the course of doing this, and now, after a flub by his staff in a report on organic foods (for which he apologized last Friday on camera) there’s a well-organized campaign under way to take his journalistic scalp. That would reduce from one to zero the number of prominent contrarian TV voices on many of these issues, leaving in place, of course, the large amount of vigorous advocacy journalism from the point of view opposite to his. A recent New York Times roundup on the controversy quotes our editor (Jim Rutenberg and Felicity Barringer, “Apology Highlights ABC Reporter’s Contrarian Image”, Aug. 14); if you wonder what sorts of grossly misleading stories the network newsmagazines have run over the years without anyone’s feeling obliged to apologize for them, check out our article “It Didn’t Start With NBC Dateline“.

Now the Competitive Enterprise Institute has launched a website project devoted to documenting and exposing the campaign to get John fired, and to collecting letters, petition signatures, and other signs of support so that ABC will know how big a fan base he has rooting for him. (SaveJohnStossel.org, temporarily hosted at counterprotest.net/stossel).

August 18-20 – “Caffeine added to sodas aims to addict — study”. Because most consumers in a small study could not tell by taste whether a soda had caffeine in it or not, some researchers at Johns Hopkins arrived at the conclusion that the substance appears in sodas for the sole purpose of “addicting” consumers. (Most of the biggest mass-market sodas offer a choice of caffeinated and non-caffeinated versions; typically the latter is considerably less popular with consumers, who are presumably helpless to choose between the products, enslaved as they are by their addiction.) “The study appeared in Archives of Family Medicine, which is published by the American Medical Association”. (“Pop made to hook drinkers”, Reuters/Detroit News, Aug. 15; “Cola makers rip study on caffeine addiction”, AP/Spokane Spokesman-Review, Aug. 15). Advocates who have participated in the demonization of the tobacco industry and other businesses have frequently denied that the food industry is next on the list. It’s certainly on some folks’ list, however. Last year Yale University researcher Kelly Brownell said: “I have called the food environment in the United States toxic … The food companies and their advertisers are, in fact, luring our children into deadly behavioral patterns … Sooner or later, the food companies will be considered in the same way we regard the tobacco industry.” (“Regulation by Litigation: The New Wave of Government-Sponsored Litigation”, sponsored by Manhattan Institute, Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., and Federalist Society, June 22, 1999, conference proceedings)

August 18-20 – Weekend reading: Macaulay’s bicentenary. Your editor being a longtime admirer of the great classical liberal Thomas Babington Macaulay, his latest Reason column is devoted to appreciating the Whig historian’s written legacy on the 200th anniversary of his birth (Walter Olson, “Confessions of a Macaulay Fan”, Reason, August/September). An outfit called Electric Book is generous enough to webpost downloadable versions of many of his essays, free for individual use (zip files of PDF documents).

August 18-20 – Snakes’ rights not always paramount. Notwithstanding endangered species law, New York environmental authorities have decided not to press charges against 72-year-old Phillip Wheaton for killing a protected rattlesnake that had bitten him. Wheaton had just stepped from his car on a rural road in Cameron, N.Y. when the timber rattler bit him on the leg. Wheaton proceeded to hit the snake with his cane, injuring it; it was taken to a veterinary hospital where it later died. “I had a fight with that snake and I won,” Wheaton said later. “I didn’t cause no fight with that rattlesnake but he caused it with me.” (“Slain serpent”, AP/Fox News, Aug. 16). Last year (Oct. 12) we reported on a court’s ruling, also in New York, that a private landowner was obliged to host rattlers on its property; it ordered the tearing down of a “snake-proof” fence that had prevented the venomous creatures from approaching an area where humans were at work.

August 16-17 –Fortune on Lerach. Don’t miss this long but grippingly reported account of the rise, prosperity and current woes of the world’s most widely feared plaintiff’s securities lawyer, Bill Lerach of the west coast office of Milberg, Weiss. Full of remarkable material new to us (Peter Elkind, “The King of Pain Is Hurting”, Fortune, Sept. 4). Earlier this summer the same magazine published a colorfully detailed account of infighting among the troop of plaintiff’s lawyers angling to bring down the HMO industry (John Helyar, “They’re Ba-a-ack!”, Fortune, June 26).

August 16-17 – Okay to make lemonade. In Eustis, Fla., the city government has backed down from an inspector’s attempt to close down the lemonade stand that nine-year-old Rachel Caine runs across the street from her home. (Stephanie Erickson, “Eustis officials back down from order to make girl, 9, close lemonade stand”, Orlando Sentinel/Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Aug. 9). And in Longmont, Colo., 11-year-old “Soda Girl” Caitlin Rezac is back in business with her fizzy-refreshment stand after a run-in with the Boulder County health department, which had busted her for operating without a hand sink and $110 license; a local business donated the sink (search Denver Post archives on “Caitlin Rezac” (excerpts free, fee for full story); letter to the editor from county official Ann Walters, Boulder Daily Camera, Aug. 12 (scroll) (via Liberzine)).

August 16-17 – Olympics website’s accessibility complaint. The United States isn’t the only place where controversy is simmering over websites that “exclude” blind and other disabled users (by not adopting design and syntax that cater to them). At a recent hearing of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in Australia, organizers of the Sydney Olympics defended themselves against charges that they hadn’t made their website usable by the vision-impaired. (Rachel Lebihan, “Olympics web site riddled with blind spots”, ZDNet, Aug. 9). America Online has reached a provisional settlement of the complaint filed against it by the National Federation of the Blind (see Nov. 5); the online service pledges to alter its software to bring it into fuller compatibility with screen reader technology and says it will train its employees to be sensitive to disabled users’ needs, in exchange for which NFB agrees to postpone suing for a year (Oscar S. Cisneros, “AOL Settles Accessibility Suit”, Wired News, July 28). Also: a clip we missed earlier on Congress’s February hearing on this topic: “Do Web Sites Violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?”, TechLawJournal, Feb. 10.

August 16-17 – “City gun suit shot down on appeal”. An appeals court has unanimously upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the city of Cincinnati’s lawsuit against the gun industry, likening that suit “to the ‘absurdity’ of suing the makers of matches because of losses from arson.” Prominent tort attorney Stanley Chesley (see June 1, March 30), representing the city, says he will appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, which, ominously for the gunmakers, is currently controlled by a majority of justices well disposed to trial-lawyer arguments (see May 8, 2000; Aug. 17 and Aug. 18, 1999). (Dan Horn, Cincinnati Enquirer, Aug. 12; “Cincinnati can’t sue gunmakers for damages, court rules”, Reuters/FindLaw; text of decision (Cincinnati v. Beretta; retrievable Word document, not website).

August 16-17 – Web-copyright update: “Dialectizer” back up, “MS-Monopoly” down. The “Dialectizer“, a website that will translate another page of your choice into a variety of stagey dialects including Redneck, Cockney, Elmer Fudd and Pig Latin, is back up and running; we reported May 18 that the site had closed itself down for fear of being sued by businesses that might view such automated translation of their websites’ contents to be an infringement on their copyright. However, the “MS-Monopoly” parody site, which adapted elements from the popular board game Monopoly to comment on the Microsoft case (see Dec. 3) has been pulled down at the behest of lawyers for toymaker Hasbro, which puts out the real game: “MS-Monopoly.com ‘Cease and Desist’ed by Hasbro Lawyers“. In Forbes, Virginia Postrel says big companies are being shortsighted when they sic lawyers on fan sites that happen to use copyrighted material; News Corp.’s Fox properties, for example, have issued rumbling letters to online enthusiasts of cult shows such as The X-Files and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (“The Shortsighted Site Busters”, Forbes/Reason Online, July 24).

August 15 – Plastic surgeons must weigh patients’ state of mind, court says. By a 3-2 margin, a New York court has allowed a claim to proceed against a cosmetic surgeon for conducting liposuction and abdominoplasty procedures on a patient while “fail[ing] to take into account that she suffered from Body Dysmorphic Disorder, or a preoccupation with a minor or imaginary physical flaw,” which meant that her consent to the procedures might not really count as informed. The patient made at least fifty visits to the doctor’s office. (Michael A. Riccardi, “Doctor Must Weigh Patient’s Mental State”, New York Law Journal, June 29; Renee Kaplan, “What Should Plastic Surgeons Do When Crazy Patients Demand Work?”, New York Observer, July 31). (Update June 11, 2001: she loses in New York’s highest court). The American Life League, an anti-abortion group, plans to take a leaf from its counterparts on the left and launch a systematic litigation campaign based on malpractice, consumer protection and other theories to shut down abortion clinics, while a conservative writer suggests approaching sympathetic state attorneys general and getting them to file a tobacco-style megasuit against abortion providers (Julia Duin, “Pro-life advocates aim to hit clinics in the pocketbook”, Washington Times, Aug. 10; Chuck Morse, “Big Tobacco and the Abortion Industry”, EtherZone, June 12). In Erie, Pennsylvania, a judge has declared a mistrial in a medical malpractice trial after a juror fainted during the trial and the defendant physicians revived him; the judge thought it necessary, lest this act of kindness be thought to have improperly prejudiced the proceedings, to restart the whole ordeal from scratch (“Doctors accused of malpractice aid juror who fainted”, AP/CNN, Aug. 11). And Overlawyered.com‘s page on law and medicine has been selected as a resource by the MedExplorer medical search site.

August 15 – The Veep that got away. It’s been widely reported that the other finalist in the process by which Al Gore picked his running mate was youthful Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who’d have been an equally noteworthy pick from litigation reformers’ perspective but for opposite reasons: after briefly representing record companies Edwards “moved to Raleigh, N.C., in 1981 and became a plaintiffs’ lawyer. That made him a millionaire. His fortune has been estimated at $20 million to $50 million.” Edwards proceeded to sink an estimated $10 million from his own pocket into his first and only political campaign, knocking off incumbent Republican Lauch Faircloth by 4 points. The Gore camp saw Edwards as telegenic, a skillful speaker and from an important state, but worried that his past could backfire among voters unhappy with trial lawyers for “doing things like suing doctors and winning big verdicts, which then drive up health care costs — and Edwards has been an incredibly successful one of that breed.’” (Michael Kramer, “Aides: Al Leaning Toward Edwards”, New York Daily News, Aug. 6).

August 15 – “Teams liable for fans’ safety”. A Colorado court of appeals has ruled that “sports teams must protect fans from known dangers — such as flying hockey pucks — unless lawmakers specifically exempt the teams from such liability.” Diane Smith, a lawyer for the now-defunct Denver DareDevils roller hockey team, said fans sit in the more hazardous area near the goal because they want the best view and “if you are going to sit where the action is, there are risks that go along with that”; appeal to the state’s high court is planned (Howard Pankratz, Denver Post, Aug. 4).

August 14 – Bush-Lieberman vs. Gore-Nader? Our editor contributes a guest column today (pinch-hitting for the vacationing Holman Jenkins) for Opinion Journal, the Wall Street Journal editorial page’s new online venture. The column discusses the strong record Sen. Joe Lieberman has compiled on litigation reform, the dilemma this poses for Vice President Gore, the wrath it calls down on his head from fellow Connecticut resident Ralph Nader, and the reasons why America is unusual in treating the pro-litigation position as “progressive” when it isn’t deemed to be such in much of the rest of the world (“Not All Liberals Love Lawsuits”, Aug. 14).

August 14 – “Disney must pay $240 million in sports park lawsuit”. A jury in Orlando “ruled Friday that the Walt Disney Co. stole the idea for a sports theme park from a former baseball umpire and his architect partner and must pay $240 million in damages,” a sum that the judge has discretion to increase because the jury found Disney acted with malice. “The notion that we had to steal the idea from the plaintiffs, an idea as old as ancient Greece, is preposterous,” said Disney general counsel Lou Meisinger, who said “the plaintiffs lawyers had tried to frame the case as ‘little people against big business’ and attempted to ‘inflame their prejudice.’ Plaintiffs’ lawyer Willie Gary”, well known for his work on the Loewen and Coke cases, “called Disney’s reaction ‘sour grapes.’ ‘We beat ‘em and quite frankly we’ll beat ‘em again if we need to,’ Gary said. ‘They’re crying like little babies.’” Another member of the team of plaintiff’s attorneys was Johnnie Cochran of O.J. Simpson case fame (CNN, Aug. 11; Beth Piskora, “Ump and architect sue Disney for $1.5 B”, New York Post, Aug. 10; “The Mouse Stole Idea”, Aug. 12; Yahoo Full Coverage).

August 14 – “Airbag chemical on trial”. Because of the airbag in her $30,000 Mercedes, Edith Krauss and her husband walked away from a 1997 crash that otherwise might have killed them. But Krauss is suing the luxury automaker anyway: she “contends that she has been plagued by throat ailments since the crash and they stem from her inhaling sodium azide, the chemical that allows for the forceful deployment of airbags.” The company says the concentration of the chemical in an airbag is too low to cause harm. Trial began last week in Elizabeth, N.J. (MaryAnn Spoto, Newark Star-Ledger, Aug. 8).

August 14 – Embarrassing Lawsuit Hall of Fame. Among recent lawsuits with details so embarrassing it’s a wonder anyone would file them: a Barberton, Ohio woman is suing an acquaintance in small claims court, saying he reneged on a promise to let her pay in sexual favors for part of the sale price for a truck (Stephanie Warsmith, “An unusual ‘contract’ is in court”, Akron Beacon Journal, Aug. 10); the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has recommended dismissal of a complaint by an employee of the town of Plymouth, who had charged that a town official inflicted a hostile working environment on her by (among other things) subjecting her to flatulence, the commission reasoning that the passing of gas is not sexual in nature (Aug. 27, 1999; not online, case referred by UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh); and an Ottawa man has sued a city hospital, saying it misdiagnosed a very intimate injury committed to his person after he got on stage at a club and allowed an exotic dancer to sit on his chest (Glen McGregor, “Man sues hospital over testicle removal”, Ottawa Citizen/National Post, Aug. 8; more exotic dancer litigation: July 26, May 23 (also from Canada), Jan. 28).

August 11-13 – Litigation reform: the Texas experience. Citizens for a Sound Economy releases a report evaluating the results of the 1995 package of litigation reforms enacted in Texas under Gov. George W. Bush (more about package, from Governor’s office). Prepared by the Perryman Group of Waco, Tex., the report estimates that the reforms contributed significantly to reducing prices, raising personal incomes and stimulating economic development in the Lone Star State, with resulting benefits to the average Texas household of $1,078 a year. (“The Impact of Judicial Reforms on Economic Activity in Texas”, Aug. 9; executive summary links to PDF document).

Earlier, Texas insurance commissioner Jose Montemayor estimated that insurance buyers in the state would save a cumulative $2.9 billion by 2000 through mandated rate reductions linked to the lawsuit reforms: “Tort reform has been a tremendous success.” (“Commissioner says tort reform saves Texans $2.9 billion”, AP/Abilene Reporter-News, Oct. 2, 1999). Trial-lawyer-allied groups soon attacked the figures (Terrence Stutz, “Tort Reform Savings on Insurance Overstated”, Dallas Morning News, Dec. 21, 1999, reprinted at Kraft Law Firm site), and have gone to considerable lengths to publicize their case since then (see Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Jim Yardley, “Bush Calls Himself Reformer; the Record Shows the Label May Be a Stretch”, New York Times, March 26, 2000, excerpted at Democratic National Committee site; now 404 Not Found, but GoogleCache has preserved a version). For a riposte from the reform side, see Tom Beaty, “Legal reform has brought benefits to business”, Houston Business Journal, Feb. 21, 2000.

And see: Constance Parten, “Texas Holds Its Own in Insurance Rates”, Insurance Journal, June 26, 2000 (reform package wasn’t expected to bring major savings in auto insurance, as opposed to commercial and medical lines, but did so anyway); Lone Star Report, Aug. 27, 1999 (scroll halfway down for item); and Texans for Lawsuit Reform. Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, Houston, has posted a variety of materials on the controversy at its website, including a summary of reforms; Jon Opelt, “$3 Billion Hardly Chump Change“; and Cora Sue Mach, “Governor Bushwhacked over Lawsuit Savings“. (DURABLE LINK)

August 11-13 – “Ohio cracks down on keggers”. Under a new Ohio law, people who want to give parties for which they’ll buy five or more kegs of beer must register the location of the party in advance, wait five days to take possession of the kegs, and “allow liquor agents and police to enter the property to enforce state liquor laws, a requirement that bothers the American Civil Liberties Union and others.” Several states have or are considering similar laws. “Maryland has required keg registration since 1994 to allow the containers to be traced to the buyer and the seller, both of whom are held accountable if minors are caught drinking the alcohol.” (Liz Sidoti, AP/St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 8).

August 11-13 – Stay away, I’ve got a court order. Last year Maryland passed a new law allowing residents to apply for a civil restraining order to keep away people who they say have frightened or harassed them, a type of protection long available in matrimonial cases. Now the law is being used more than proponents expected, and not just by unmarried paramours and other intimates but as a way to settle — or escalate — spats among schoolmates, neighbors, co-workers and virtual strangers. (Donna St. George, “Residents Seeking ‘Peace’ Invade Md. Courts”, Washington Post, Aug. 7).

August 11-13 – “Not even thinking about” fees. With appeals and other legal maneuvering expected to last quite a while after a Miami jury’s $145 billion punitive damage award against tobacco companies, Knight-Ridder asked plaintiff’s attorney Stanley Rosenblatt about fees he might reap from the action. “It’s so far down the road that we’re not even thinking about it,” he claimed. (Uh-huh.) “Generally lawyers’ fees in class-action suits are about 25 to 30 percent of the award or settlement,” the news service reports, though it speculates that trial judge Robert Kaye might approve a smaller fee award than that, perhaps a mere $1 billion. Rounded off in the overall context, that would count as almost nothing, right? (“Smokers’ lawyers could get $1B — or zilch”, Knight Ridder/Norwalk (Ct.) Hour, July 26, not online). Plus: commentary by the Cato Institute’s Robert Levy (“Litigation Lunacy in Florida”, Cato Daily, July 31).

{ 1 comment }


May 18-21 – “A Smith & Wesson FAQ”. An end run around democratic governance, an assault on gun buyers‘ Second Amendment liberties, a textbook abuse of the power to litigate: the Clinton Administration’s pact with Smith & Wesson is all this and more. When this website’s editor looked into the agreement’s details, he found them if anything worse than he’d imagined — for one thing, they could actually increase the number of people hurt because of gun malfunctions. (Walter Olson, “A Smith & Wesson FAQ”, Reason, June; see also David Kopel, “Smith & Wesson’s Faustian Bargain”, National Review Online, March 20, and “Smart Cops Saying ‘No’”, April 19).

May 18-21 – On the Hill: Clint Eastwood vs. ADA filing mills. The Hollywood actor and filmmaker got interested in the phenomenon of lawsuit mills that exploit the Americans with Disabilities Act (see our March 7, Feb. 15, Jan. 26-27 commentaries) when he was hit with a complaint that some doors and bathrooms at his historic, 32-room Mission Ranch Hotel and restaurant in Carmel, Calif. weren’t accessible enough; there followed demands from the opposing side’s lawyer that he hand over more than just a fistful of dollars — $577,000, the total came to — in fees for legal work allegedly performed on the case. “It’s a racket”, opines Eastwood. “The typical thing is to get someone who is disabled in collusion with sleazebag lawyers, and they file suits.” (Jim VandeHei, “Clint Eastwood Saddles Up for Disability-Act Showdown”, Wall Street Journal, May 9 — online subscribers only). The “Dirty Harry” star is slated to appear as the lead witness in a hearing on the bill proposed by Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to require that defendants be given a chance to fix problems before lawyers can start running the meter on fee-shift entitlements; the hearing begins at 10 a.m. Thursday, May 18 and the House provides a live audio link (follow House Judiciary schedule to live audio link, Constitution subcommittee; full witness list). The National Federation of Independent Business, Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., National Restaurant Association and International Council of Shopping Centers all like the Foley idea. Eastwood told the WSJ he isn’t quarreling with the ADA itself, and the proposed legislation would affect only future cases and not the one against him; but “I just think for the benefit of everybody, they should cut out this racket because these are morally corrupt people who are doing this.”

May 18-21 – “Dialectizer shut down”. “Another fun, interesting and innovative online resource goes the way of corporate ignorance — due to threats of legal action, the author of the dialectizer, a Web page that dynamically translates another Web page’s text into an alternate ‘dialect’ such as ‘redneck’ or ‘Swedish Chef’ and displays the result, has packed up his dialectizer and gone home”, writes poster “endisnigh” on Slashdot (May 17). (Signoff notice and subsequent reconsideration, Rinkworks.com site). Update: it’s back up now — see Aug. 16-17.

May 18-21 – Dusting ‘em off. A trend in the making? Complainants in a number of recent cases have succeeded in reviving enforcement of public-morality laws that had long gone unheeded but never actually been stricken from the books. In Utah, Candi Vessel successfully sued her cheatin’ husband’s girlfriend and got a $500,000 award against the little homewrecker (as she no doubt views her) under the old legal theory of “alienation of affection”, not much heard of these last forty or more years. (“Spouse Stealer Pays Price: Wife Wins Case Against Mistress for Breaking Up Marriage”, ABC News, April 27). Authorities in two rural Michigan counties have recently pressed criminal charges against men who used bad language in public, under an old statute which provides that “any person who shall use any indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence or hearing of any woman or child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” (“2nd man hit with anti-cussing statute”, AP/Detroit Free Press, April 27) (same article on Freedom Forum). And Richard Pitcher and Kimberly Henry of Peralta, N.M., “have been formally charged by Pitcher’s ex-wife under the state’s cohabitation law, which prohibits unwed people from living together as ‘man and wife’”. (Guillermo Contreras, “Couple charged with cohabitation”, Albuquerque Journal, March 11) (update: see May 8, 2001 for newer example).

May 18-21 – Campaign regulation vs. free speech. The state of Kentucky’s Registry of Election Finance has ruled that newspapers have a constitutional right to editorialize on behalf of candidates of their choice, rejecting a complaint that characterized such endorsements as “corporate contributions” made by the newspaper proprietors. (“Kentucky election agency: Newspaper editorials aren’t contributions”, AP/Freedom Forum, May 10). A general hail of dead cats has greeted the Congressional Democrats’ lawsuit charging House Majority Whip Tom DeLay with “racketeering” over campaign fundraising practices, with Democratic operative Paul Begala calling the suit “wrong, ethically, legally and politically.” (David Horowitz, “March of the Racketeers”, Salon, May 15; Michael Kelly, “Hammering DeLay”, Washington Post, May 10). And Mickey Kaus, on his recommended Kausfiles.com website, spells out in words of one syllable to pundit Elizabeth Drew why proposed bans on privately sponsored “issue ads” run smack into the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech (“Drew’s Cluelessness: Please don’t let her anywhere near the First Amendment!”, May 7).

May 18-21 – Gotham lawyers upset at efficient jury selection. A few years ago, led by its Chief Justice Judith Kaye, the state of New York began taking long-overdue steps to reform its notorious jury selection system, under which lawyers had often been permitted to browbeat and grill helpless juror-candidates for days at a time in search of the most favorably disposed (not to say pliable) among them. The changes, which bring the Empire State more into line with the practice around the rest of the country, have markedly reduced the time jurors and others must spend on empanelment. So who’s unhappy? The state’s bar association, naturally, which opposed reform in the first place, and now complains that “attorneys are feeling increasingly constrained by time limits and other restrictions”. A survey it conducted “suggests that many lawyers feel that new practices are cramping their style.” Yes, that was the idea (John Caher, “NYS Bar Favors More Voir Dire Leeway”, New York Law Journal, April 12).

May 17 – Not my fault, I. In 1990 Debora MacNamara of Haileybury, Ontario smothered her nine-year-old daughter Shauna as she slept. Found not guilty by reason of insanity, she spent five years in mental institutions before being released. Now she’s suing two psychiatrists and her family doctor for upwards of $20 million, saying they should have prevented her from doing it. The docs say she was “an uncooperative, recalcitrant patient who didn’t take her medication as prescribed, often cancelled appointments, wouldn’t let those treating her share critical medical information and either minimized or lied about both her symptoms and state of mind.” (Christie Blatchford, “Woman sues doctors for not stopping her from killing”, National Post, May 16, link now dead)).

May 17 – Not my fault, II. “Fourteen years after accidentally shooting himself in the hand, 19-year-old Willie K. Wilson of Pontiac is pointing the finger at his father and Smith & Wesson, suing both last week for at least $25,000 in Oakland County Circuit Court.” His lawyer explains that Willie isn’t actually angry at his pa but is just going after the homeowners’ insurance money. Hey, who could object in that case? (Joel Kurth, “Son sues father, Smith & Wesson”, Detroit News, May 16).

May 17 – Comparable worth: it’s back. This time they’re calling it “pay equity”, but a new study by economist Anita Hattiangadi and attorney Amy Habib for the Employment Policy Foundation finds no evidence that the much-discussed pay gap between the sexes owes anything to employer bias, as distinct from women’s individual choices to redirect energy toward home pursuits during childbearing years (EPF top page; “A Closer Look at Comparable Worth” (PDF)). Plus: the foundation’s comments on White House pay equity report (PDF); background on comparable worth; and writings by Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the American Enterprise Institute, “Still Hyping the Phony Pay Gap”, AEI “On the Issues”, March; Roger Clegg (“Comparable Worth: The Bad Idea That Will Not Die”, National Legal Center for the Public Interest, “Briefly…” series, August 1999 (PDF); and the Chicago Tribune‘s Steve Chapman (“Clinton’s Phony Fight for ‘Pay Equity’, Feb. 24).

May 17 – Update: judge frowns on Philly’s Mr. Civility. Following up on our March 13 commentary, federal judge Herbert J. Hutton has imposed sanctions on attorney Marvin Barish, including an as yet uncalculated fine and disqualification in the case, over an incident during a trial recess in which Barish threatened to kill the opposing lawyer with his bare hands and repeatedly called him a “fat pig”. Barish’s attorney, James Beasley (apparently the same one for whom Temple U.’s law school was renamed after a large donation), said if anyone merited sanctions it was the opposing counsel, representing Amtrak, for having engaged in legal maneuvers that provoked his client to the outburst; Barish is “one of the city’s most successful lawyers handling Federal Employers Liability Act cases”. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Judge Hits Lawyer with Fine Over Alleged Threat”, Legal Intelligencer (Philadelphia), May 2).

May 17 – Disabled vs. disabled. Strobe-light-equipped fire alarms — a great idea for helping the deaf, no? A sweeping new mandate to that effect is pending before the federal government’s Access Board, which would affect workplaces, hospitals, and motel rooms, among other places. All of which horrifies many members of another category of disabled Americans, namely those with photosensitive epilepsy and other seizure disorders: In a recent survey, 21 percent of epileptics said flashing lights set off seizures for them. “Should a seizure be caused by stroboscopic alarms during an actual fire emergency, that person would be incapacitated, leading to even more danger both from the seizure and from the emergency itself.” And then there are all the false alarms. … (Epilepsy Foundation, “Legislative Alert“, Capitol Advantage Legislative Advocacy Center; Access Board, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, relevant section (see s. 702.3)).

May 16 – Federal commerce power genuinely limited, Supreme Court rules. Big win for federalists at the high court as the Justices rule 5-4 to strike down the right-to-sue provision of the Violence Against Women Act on the grounds that the Constitution does not empower Washington to muscle into any area of police power it pleases simply by finding that crime affects interstate commerce. (Laurie Asseo, “High Court: Prosecution of Rapists Up To States”, AP/Chicago Tribune, May 15, no longer online; U.S. v. Morrison, decision (Cornell); Center for Individual Rights; Anita Blair (Independent Women’s Forum), Investors Business Daily, reprinted Feb. 4).

May 16 – Deflated. After suing automakers up one side of the street for the sin of not installing airbags earlier, trial lawyers are now suing them down the other over the injuries the bags occasionally inflict on children and small-framed adults. Last month Ford got hit with a $20 million verdict in a case where an infant was paralyzed by a Mustang’s airbag, but last week a Detroit jury declined to find liability against DaimlerChrysler in a case where an airbag detonation killed 7-year-old Alison Sanders after her father ran a red light and broadsided another vehicle. (“Jurors clear DaimlerChrysler in 1995 air-bag lawsuit case”, Detroit Free Press, May 11, link now dead; Bill Vlasic and Dina ElBoghdady, “Air bag suits unlikely to stop”, Detroit News, May 12).

Who was it that spread the original image of air bags as pillowy, child-friendly devices, the right solution for all passengers in all circumstances? Lawyers now wish to blame Detroit, but Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute quotes the remarks of longtime Ralph Nader associate Joan Claybrook, who headed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during the Carter-era rulemaking: “Air bags work beautifully,” she declared, “and they work automatically and…that gives you more freedom than being forced to wear a seat belt.” (Letting people think an airbag might relieve them of the need to buckle up is now, of course, seen as horrifically bad safety advice.) Moreover, quoth Claybrook, the devices “fit all different sizes and types of people, from little children up to…very large males.” (“Only Smart Air Bag Mandate is No Mandate at All”, CEI Update, March 2).

Even more striking, CEI’s Kazman dug up this photo of Ralph Nader, who long flayed manufacturers for their delay in embracing the devices, using an adorable moppet as an emotional prop. Sam says the photo is from a 1977 press conference; he thinks it would make a lovely display in Nader’s planned museum of product liability law in Winsted, Connecticut. [DURABLE LINK]

MORE SOURCES: Bill Vlasic and Dina ElBoghdady, “Dead girl’s dad fights air bags”, Detroit News, March 29; Janet L. Fix, “Father’s heartbreak fueled lawsuit after 1995 accident”, Detroit Free Press, April 5; “The Deployment of Car Manufacturers Into a Sea of Product Liability? Recharacterizing Preemption as a Federal Regulatory Compliance Defense in Airbag Litigation”, Note (Dana P. Babb), Washington U. Law Quarterly, Winter 1997; Scott Memmer, “Airbag Safety”, Edmunds.com, undated web feature; Michael Fumento, “Paper Scares Parents for Politics and Profit”, 1998, on Fumento.com website.

May 16 – “Clinton’s law license”. “The Arkansas Supreme Court should take away Clinton’s law license because he lied under oath,” declares the editorially middle-of-the-road Seattle Times. “It’s unlikely that Clinton will want to practice after he leaves the White House, but this has more to do with the legal community upholding its own ethics than the president’s next career. The American Bar Association’s standards for lawyer sanctions leave little doubt: ‘Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a false document, or improperly withholds material information and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party. …’ Last April, federal judge Susan Webber Wright found Clinton in contempt for ‘giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process’ while under oath in her presence. She also has filed a complaint with the Arkansas Supreme Court, but did not recommend a specific penalty. …Clinton should surrender his license or the court should take it.” (editorial, May 15). Plus: Stephen Chapman in Slate (“Disbar Bill”, May 12). [DURABLE LINK]

May 16 – The asset hider. Curious profession of a New Yorker whose specialty consists in finding ways to help wealthy men hide assets so as to escape legal obligations to their wives. The proprietor of “Special Services” of E. 28th St. also boasts of his skill in private investigation, which didn’t prevent him from falling for the cover story of a New York Post writer who posed as a divorce-bent Internet millionaire while secretly taping their lunch (Daniel Jeffreys, “The Wealthy Deadbeat’s Best Friend”, New York Post, May 15).

May 15 – Doctor cleared in Lewis cardiac case. A team of cardiologists told basketball star Reggie Lewis that his playing days were over. Then his wife helped get him transferred under cover of darkness to a new team of doctors who said he could go on playing. Then he collapsed on the court and died. And then Donna Harris-Lewis, having already collected on her husband’s $12 million Celtics contract, sued the docs for negligence. One paid $500,000 to settle, but last week Dr. Gilbert Mudge of Brigham & Women’s won vindication from a jury. (Sacha Pfeifer, “The verdict is in: no negligence”, Boston Globe, May 9; Dan Shaughnessy, “Everybody has lost in Lewis case; let’s move on”, May 9; Barry Manuel, “As usual, only lawyers won in Lewis case”, May 11, links now dead). Earlier, Harris-Lewis drew flak by comparing herself to the families of six firefighters who died in a Worcester warehouse blaze. “Lots of money is being raised for those families, and I need to be taken care of, too. Everybody has to say I’m greedy. But I do want my money back this time around. Why should I lose?” Well, ma’am, we could start a list of reasons. … (Steve Buckley, “What was Harris-Lewis thinking?”, Boston Herald, March 28).

May 15 – The four rules of sex harassment controversies. We thought we had ‘em memorized after the Anita Hill affair … then we had to unlearn all four during the late unpleasantness with President Clinton … and now they’ve all returned in coverage of the Pentagon’s Claudia Kennedy case. (David Frum, “Breakfast Table” with Danielle Crittenden Frum, Slate, May 12). In other harassment news, a jury has awarded $125,000 to a male waiter at a T.G.I. Friday’s near Tampa who said that female co-workers touched and grabbed him lewdly, that co-workers made fun of him when he complained, and that the restaurant chain proceeded to ignore his plight and retaliate against him. (Larry Dougherty, “Waiter wins suit against Friday’s”, St. Petersburg Times, May 5). And a Wisconsin appeals court has upheld a trial court’s award of $143,715, reduced from a jury’s $1 million, to a computer analyst who “said his boss spanked him with a 4-foot-long carpenter’s level during a bizarre workplace ritual” and then announced “Now, you’re one of us”. The boss testified that the spanking ceremony dated way back as an initiation at the Phillips, Getschow Co., a century-old mechanical contracting firm. (Dennis Chaptman, “Court upholds $143,715 award for spanking”, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, April 18).

May 15 – Convenient line at the time. Tobacco is special, said the state attorneys general who teamed up with trial lawyers to expropriate that lawful industry via litigation and share out the resulting plunder. It’s “the only product that, if used as intended, could be fatal.” And so they categorically dismissed critics’ fears that the tempting new ways of raising revenue without resorting to explicit taxation might soon be aimed at other industries. Who was fool enough to believe them? (Victor E. Schwartz, “Trial Lawyers Unleashed”, Washington Post, May 10).

May 15 – Gloves come off in Mich. high court race. We warned you it would get nasty (see May 9, Jan. 31), but not this soon. At a recent NAACP gathering, the Michigan Democratic Party circulated a flyer stating that incumbent Justice Robert Young opposes the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which ended racial segregation in public schools. Young, who is African-American and whose record on the court has been conservative, terms the flyer “virulent race-baiting” and untrue and has demanded an apology. State Democratic chairman Mark Brewer dares Young to sue, but declines to name a source for the flyer’s characterization of his views on Brown. (Kathy Barks Hoffman, “Race for 3 spots on top court sparks charge of ‘race-baiting’”, AP/Detroit News, May 11; George Weeks, “Election of justices needs changing” (editorial), May 11).

May 12-14 – Microsoft opinion: the big picture. However well they’re doing in Judge Jackson’s court, Janet Reno’s trustbusters are getting slammed in the court of public opinion, which continues lopsidedly opposed to breakup. While a Harris poll finds less than 40 percent of respondents believing that Bill Gates’s company has treated its competitors fairly, that’s still a better rating than Joel Klein’s Antitrust Division gets: only one in three believe the government treated Microsoft fairly. (Paul Van Slambrouck, “High-tech trust-busting a bust with public today”, Christian Science Monitor, May 5; Manny Frishberg, “Public favors MS in antitrust”, Wired News, May 4). The Independent Institute’s Alex Tabarrok calculates that the loss in capital value of Microsoft as an enterprise amounts to $768 for every person in the United States, and that most of this sum can plausibly be attributed to the legal action rather than to business setbacks. (“The Anti-entrepreneurs,” May 1). Given that the rest of the high-tech sector has also taken a thrashing, economics Nobelist Milton Friedman says Silicon Valley “must rue the day that they set this incredible episode in operation” by siccing the government on their Seattle rival (statement reprinted at National Taxpayers Union site, April 28).

Does all this augur a revival of “vigorous”, sock-’em-hard antitrust enforcement, not much seen in the last couple of decades? If so, ABC’s John Stossel has some deserving nominees for breakup far more monopolistic than Windows ever was, including the U.S. Postal Service — yes, it’s still unlawful to compete with it in first-class service (“Give Me a Break: Government Protection?” (video clip), May 5). And Michael Kinsley wonders why the U.S. government, if it really takes trustbusting principles seriously, still takes such an indulgent, price-fixers-will-be-price-fixers approach toward OPEC — a genuinely noxious cartel that inflicts great damage on the American economy, and whose member countries (among them Russia, Norway, Venezuela and the spectacularly ungrateful Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) appear to suffer nary a repercussion in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy (“Readme: Oil Crooks”, Slate, March 27).

May 12-14 – Dismounted. “A therapeutic horse-riding program for 600 mentally impaired Oakland County children and teenagers is in jeopardy this summer, a potential victim of a liability impasse among lawyers and bureaucrats.” Parents praise the Silver Saddles program, but the county is unwilling to accept liability exposure for it, which could be financially catastrophic in the event of an accident to a young rider. (Hugh McDiarmid, Jr., “Riding-therapy program faces liability hurdle”, Detroit Free Press, May 5).

May 12-14 – Steady aim. Everyone who supports democracy — as well as everyone who opposes the abuse of litigation — should favor legislative measures aimed at reserving gun regulation to elected lawmakers rather than the machinations of ambitious trial lawyers, argues Vince Carroll of Denver’s Rocky Mountain News (“Gun bill puts halt to lawsuit abuse”, April 30). And Washington, D.C.’s Sam Smith, who shows regularly that there’s still life on the Left in his remarkable online Progressive Review (which we’re pleased to see often picks up items from this space), has put up a page of reasons “why politicians, moms, and progressives should stop pressing for more gun control laws” (“Wild Shots“).

May 11 – “Ad deal links Coke, lawyer in suit”. Both the Coca-Cola Co. and plaintiff’s attorney Willie Gary are denying a linkage between Gary’s role as a lawyer in the current high-profile race bias litigation against Coke and the company’s just-announced agreement — financial terms not disclosed — to become a major advertiser on a cable channel of which Gary is part owner. Last month amid fanfare the Florida lawyer arrived in Atlanta on his private jet (“Wings of Justice”) to assume representation of several of the original plaintiffs in the much-publicized employee litigation against the beverage company. “I want a settlement that’s fair and just,” he said then. “I don’t come cheap. I think big, real big.” On Tuesday Coke announced a major five-year deal to buy ads on the fledgling Major Broadcasting Cable Network, which Gary helped launch and of which he is chairman and chief executive. Gary says his clients are aware of the deal and says, “There’s absolutely no conflict. We’re not friends. We’re business people. Coke is not giving me anything. … It’s goods in exchange for service. … No way this is a conflict.’”

A sometime fund-raiser for the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH coalition, Gary is best known in legal circles for the ruinous $500 million verdict he obtained in a Jackson, Mississippi courtroom against the Loewen Group, a Canadian-owned funeral home chain, in what had previously seemed a routine commercial dispute (see our editor’s account). Last week he announced that he was demanding nearly $2 billion from the Burger King Corporation on behalf of Detroit restaurateur La-Van Hawkins, whose UrbanCityFoods business has not fared as well as expected in its operation of franchised hamburger units. Gary’s entry last month into the Coke case came at a time of unpleasant back-and-forth charges between some of the employees who were first to sue and class-action lawyers who had worked to assemble their and others’ complaints into a suit on behalf of the company’s entire black workforce, led by Washington, D.C.’s Cyrus Mehri, of Texaco fame (our account of that one), with the Mehri camp saying the individuals were holding out for too much money for themselves personally as distinct from the class, and a PUSH coalition activist, Joseph Beasley, countering that under the settlement anticipated from the class action the “lawyers get all the money” while “the black community is left high and dry”.

SOURCES: Henry Unger, “Ad deal links Coke, lawyer in suit”, Atlanta Journal- Constitution, May 10 (fee-based archive); Constance L. Hays, “Coke to Advertise on Channel Owned by Lawyer in Bias Suit”, New York Times, May 10, no longer online; Betsy McKay, “For Coke’s Big Race Lawsuit, a New Wild Card”, Wall Street Journal, April 14 (subscription); Beth Miller, “Cable network to focus on black families”, Media Central, Dec. 13; Trisha Renaud, R. Robin McDonald, and Janet L. Conley, “Money, Trust Behind Coke Split”, Fulton County Daily Record, April 14; “Burger King Has Greater Troubles: Internationally Renowned Trial Attorney Willie Gary Asks Burger King for $1.9 Billion”, Excite/PR Newswire press release from Gary’s firm, May 3; Eric Dyrrkopp and Andrew H. Kim, “Prospecting the Last Frontier: Legal Considerations for Franchisors Expanding into Inner Cities”, Franchise Law Journal, Winter 2000, reprinted at Bell, Boyd & Lloyd site.

May 11 – Tort fortune fuels $3M primary win. In Charleston, W.V., attorney and former state senator Jim Humphries has won the Democratic nomination in the Second Congressional District after investing $3 million from the fortune he made in asbestos litigation. Humphries’s “big-budget, slickly produced campaign” overpowered his primary rivals, who included one of the state’s best-known politicians, Secretary of State and former U.S. Representative Ken Hechler, as well as state senator Martha Walker, who chairs the state senate’s health and human resources committee; between them Hechler and Walker split about half the primary vote. The campaign “shattered all state records for spending in a congressional primary election.” Humphries now faces Delegate Shelley Moore Capito, R-Kanawha, who ran unopposed in the Republican primary. (Phil Kabler, “Humphreys’ $3 million pays”, Charleston Gazette, May 10).

May 11 – Stubbornness of mules a given. A federal court in North Carolina has dismissed a lawsuit by the producers of the soon-to-be-released film “Morgan’s Creek” against animal wrangler Alicia Rudd over the refusal of her trained mule to sit down on cue or cooperate in other ways on the set. The producers said the animal’s recalcitrance had prolonged shooting by an extra day, costing upwards of $110,000, but the judge said there was no proof that Rudd breached a promise or misrepresented her ability to control the mule. (“Judge finds stubborn mule no cause for action”, AP/CNN, May 8).

{ 0 comments }