“I like Overlawyered.com.
“But then, I like public hangings.” …
How can you not keep reading after an opening like that? (Sharp Knife, May 23)
Archive for May, 2004
Son sues father for discrimination
Steven Sarenpa’s father and stepmother were critical of Steven’s separation from his wife, and of his new girlfriend. Steven claims they yelled at him and called him a sinner for his adultery. But Steven wasn’t just their son–he was also their employee, so he’s sued his parents for religious and marital status discrimination in Minnesota federal court. The theory seems to be that parents lose the legal ability to express unhappiness with children in certain ways if they’re all part of a family business sufficiently large enough to be subject to federal anti-discrimination law. The parents argue that the fact that Steven’s wife and her uncle also worked at the company created workplace tension (especially when his girlfriend would drive him to work during his wife’s shift), and say that’s why they asked Steven to take some time off. (H.J. Cummins, “Son sues father after leaving job, marriage”, Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 26) (via Romenesko).
“Panel Finds Mold in Buildings Is No Threat to Most People”
“Stepping into an issue that has alarmed homeowners and led to hundreds of lawsuits and billions of dollars in insurance payments, a government panel of experts reported yesterday that toxic mold in homes did not appear to pose a serious health threat to most people.” A panel of epidemiologists, toxicologists and pediatricians convened by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed existing scientific literature on the subject. “Though the experts said mold and indoor dampness were associated with respiratory problems and symptoms of asthma in certain susceptible people, they found no evidence of a link between mold and conditions like brain or neurological damage, reproductive problems and cancer.” (Anahad O’Connor, New York Times, May 26). For more on mold litigation, see Dec. 4 and earlier posts; “The Growing Hazard of Mold Litigation”, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy, Jul. 17, 2003 (paper in PDF format/press release). More: press release, video briefing and report links from National Academies.
Update: not the date they expected
“The six straight men who sued to prevent the broadcast of an UK reality show in which, unbeknownst to them, they competed for the affection of a preoperative Mexican transsexual quickly got over their claims of injury and public humiliation in return for a cash payment, clearing the way for the program to debut on UK television”. (see Oct. 31, Nov. 5). Various reports pegged the undisclosed settlement “at anywhere between $150,000 and $250,000 a man”. (Steve Rogers, “Lawsuit settled, ‘Crying Game’-like ‘There’s Something About Miriam’ premieres in UK”, RealityTVWorld, Feb. 23; Debi Enker, “Reality reaches new low”, Melbourne Age, May 20) (via Curmudgeonly Clerk, May 20).
Custody law’s inquisitors
Court-appointed forensic evaluators, who may be psychiatrists, psychologists or social workers, wield extraordinary influence in New York custody litigation. Judges usually go along with their recommendations, which can include the smallest minutiae of visitation; they can present the court with a bill for $40,000 or more, which the parents have no choice but to pay; and some parents and lawyers believe that cronyism plays a part in some judges’ handing out of the lucrative appointments. “And many — including some forensics — question whether there is any scientific basis to justify the evaluators’ recommendations.” (Leslie Eaton, “For Arbiters in Custody Battles, Wide Power and Little Scrutiny”, New York Times, May 23).
“Did Workers Pay for the Expansion of Products Liability Law?”
AEI is hosting a conference on that question tomorrow at 2 pm. Participants are Sasha Volokh, Martin Grace, John Lott, and Jonathan Klick. (Sasha Volokh, “The Products Liability Revolution and Labor Markets”, May 22).
Oyster update
A $1.3 billion award to oyster farmers — exceeding the value of the last century of oyster harvests — was argued before a skeptical Louisiana Supreme Court Monday. We covered the case in detail Oct. 18. (Jeffrey Meitrodt, “$1.3 billion oyster case hits La. high court”, New Orleans Times-Picayune, May 25; AP, May 25). Update Oct. 24: La. Supreme Court throws out cases.
In other oyster-related litigation news, a Korean legal immigrant is fighting a denial of his citizenship application; the federal government said that the $153 fine Kichul Lee admittedly paid for collecting a bucket of oysters at a beach proved lack of good moral character. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife officer who issued the ticket is appalled at the heavy consequences. (Chris McGann, “One mistake robs man of citizenship”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 10; Susan Paynter, “Moral flaw? Uncle Sam, look in the mirror”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 19).
Update: $1.3 billion tobacco fee reinstated
Profoundly depressing: “A Manhattan appeals court [last week] reinstated a $1.3 billion fee award for attorneys who helped to settle tobacco litigation in California, saying the arbitrators who awarded the fee did not exceed their authority and should not have been second-guessed by a state judge.” A year and a half ago Manhattan judge Nicholas Figueroa (Sept. 27-29, 2002) struck down as “irrational” the $1.25 billion fee award to the so-called Castano Group of lawyers, who had filed many different legal actions including one under a California private attorney general statute. As we commented at the time, the lawyers in question “didn’t actually represent California — the state’s own lawyers did that — and were in fact rivals, rather than allies, of the Scruggs-Moore team of lawyers who did manage to pull off the settlement. The Castano lawyers, however, repositioned themselves as somehow a catalyst for the national settlement and thus entitled to fees”. With an appellate panel’s quashing last August of Judge Charles Ramos’s inquiry into tobacco fees (see Aug. 10), the tobacconeers have now compiled a well-nigh perfect record of rolling over judicial opposition, with the notable exception of the Freedom Holdings v. Spitzer case in the Second Circuit (see Jan. 12). (Tom Perrotta, “$1.3 Billion Fee Upheld in California Tobacco Case”, New York Law Journal, May 19).
Vindicated — and violated
One day before the statute of limitations would have expired, a doctor is sued over a patient’s post-surgical complications. She is in for a shock. “Before this case, I’d never realized that we have a system of law where one person can stand up in a public forum and assassinate someone else’s character without a single piece of substantiating evidence (known in legalese as ‘closing arguments’). He faces no consequences for doing this. He isn’t even expected to apologize. We have a system of law that requires the witnesses to tell the whole truth, but then encourages attorneys to manipulate and hide that truth.
“I know that most of my friends will tell me to ‘get over it.’ They’ll tell me that I shouldn’t worry about what the jury thinks of me — I’ll never see these people again. They’ll tell me that the only important thing is that I won.” Trouble is, “I don’t feel like I won; I feel like I have been violated.” (Patricia I. Carney, “Our system lives on personal attacks”, Medical Economics, May 7).
Update: Dropping “The Hammer”
David Giacalone (May 4) has another update in the ongoing saga of Rochester, N.Y. attorney Jim (“The Hammer”) Shapiro, who advertised that “I want to get YOU the biggest, fattest cash award I can, as fast as I can, from as many defendants as I can find. Just call me! Day or night, I’ll talk to you free.” but later admitted in a deposition that he lived in Florida and had never tried a case (see Jun. 17-18, 2002 and Dec. 5, 2003). It seems a state court has now suspended Shapiro from practice in New York for a year over transgressions that include misleading commercials as well as “a solicitation letter to a comatose hospital patient”. Shapiro said he sold his Rochester law practice six months ago. (Matter of James J. Shapiro, Apr. 30; “NY Lawyer Known for Ads Suspended”, AP/New York Lawyer, May 3). More: Apr. 15, 2005.