Common Good, the legal reform organization founded by author Philip K. Howard, has compiled a list of activities that have become less common because of liability fears. Among those deemed “rare”: “Sell Girl Scout Cookies at the local gas station” and “Stop and assist a person at the scene of an accident.” “Endangered”: “Play on a seesaw that requires two children to cooperate” and “Lend your car to a person in need.” Deemed “extinct,” perhaps with poetic exaggeration: “Fire a poorly performing teacher or government official” and “Keep a public lake open for swimming.” (“Save these activities … before it?s too late!”, Common Good, undated, announced Jun. 3)
Archive for June, 2004
N.J. bans bars’ “Ladies’ Nights”, supposed beneficiaries glum
“Why, after all, would a bar offer discounts to women? Not because the owner harbors a deep-seated hostility toward men, perpetuating centuries of oppression. People who run such establishments understand that a lot of men patronize taverns partly to meet women, and that they will come more often and stay longer if women are abundant than if they are scarce….[I]n New Jersey, unreasonableness rules.” (Steve Chapman, “Putting the brakes on ladies’ nights”, Chicago Tribune, Jun. 6). See also Aug. 4, 2003 (Calif.)
Indiana court: cell-phone companies not responsible for auto accident
Terry Williams collided with Kellie Meagher, who was allegedly talking on a Cingular phone at the time — so Williams sued Cingular. Neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals was impressed, even after Williams submitted a Blondie comic strip in support of the cause. The court noted that it wouldn’t impose liability on a mapmaker for a driver who causes an accident while looking at a map. (Kevin Corcoran, “Court: Don’t blame cell-phone maker for crash”, Indianapolis Star, Jun. 5). However, plaintiffs have successfully sued employers in other cases where employees were using cell phones while driving. (Matt Sundeen, “Cell Phones and Highway Safety: 2003 State Legislative Update”, NCSL, Jan. 2004).
Nutritious, fattening or both?
Also via the Colorado Civil Justice League May 21 newsletter: class members will receive $240,000 and a law firm representing the class will get $350,000 in fees following the settlement of an action against Chemins Company Inc. of Colorado Springs over mislabeled powdered protein supplements. The supplements allegedly contained twice as many carbohydrates and half as much protein as specified on their label. The settlement was billed as being worth $3 million but only 117 certified claimants stepped forward instead of the projected 10,000. Hill & Robbins had originally requested $600,000 in fees but the judge said $825 an hour was too much so he cut it to $481 an hour, which still leaves the lawyers with a bigger share of the booty than their clients. (Rocky Mountain News coverage: John Accola, “Class-action morass”, May 7; “Two lead plaintiffs won’t get bonuses”, May 7; “The class-action game and how to slow it”, (editorial), May 14; letter to the editor from attorney Ronald L. Wilcox of Hill & Robbins, May 14).
Claim: motel glass too clean
The Colorado Civil Justice League, in its May 21 newsletter, reports: “The Loveland Reporter-Herald reports that a Broomfield family has sued a motel for keeping a sliding glass door too clean. The family is suing the owners of the Hobby Horse Motor Lodge after their then-8-year-old son ran through a sliding glass door at the motel because ‘the glass was so transparent and clean that (he) erroneously, but understandably, assumed that the door had remained open,’ according to the lawsuit.”
Liberal bloggers: bring back nuclear power
So say Mark Kleiman (Jun. 4), Matthew Yglesias, and Brad DeLong.
Another valedictorian suit
New website coming soon: PointOfLaw.com
For a while now I’ve been at work on a project which will be of interest to many readers of this site, and I’m happy to say I can now divulge its general outlines. A few months ago the Manhattan Institute (with which I’m associated as a senior fellow) asked me to develop, launch and edit an entirely new website under its auspices (unlike Overlawyered, which is freestanding). The site’s mission: to take a more in-depth look at our legal system and how it might best be fixed.
Parents yes, governments no
Fuhgeddaboudit, Bill Bennett: “grandstanding politicos seem intent on getting the government into the business of censorship. … It has been said that when Democrats start talking about children, it’s time to hide your wallet; when Republicans start talking about children, it’s time to TIVO the good stuff for posterity.” (Prof. Bainbridge, Jun. 4; Adam Thierer, National Review Online, Jun. 4). And another parent, this time a New Mexico resident with a 12-year-old boy, has been menaced by authorities with child abuse charges for taking his child off Ritalin, the antidepressant drug (Brian Robinson, “Pills vs. Talking: Dad Investigated for Taking Son Off Meds”, ABC News, Jun. 7). For an earlier case along the same lines, see Jul. 26-27, 2000. (via Wizbang). Sydney Smith has more (Jun. 8).
NYC’s Wilens & Baker reprimanded
New York subway riders have long been familiar with the high-volume ad campaigns of Wilens & Baker with its hotlines 1-800-DIVORCE (on which see Dec. 18-19, 2000), 1-800-IMMIGRATION and 1-800-BANKRUPT. At the moment the firm’s big campaign is aimed at recruiting patients who have received hormone replacement therapy: if they’ve taken Premarin or Prempro and later developed breast cancer, heart problems, or many other ailments, they may be entitled to compensation, the ads say. Wilens & Baker’s website declares that the law firm has “a real understanding of the emotional hardship that accompanies extremely unfortunate circumstances”.
Hmmm. It turns out the 12-lawyer firm and its partner Lawrence M. Wilens have just been censured by the New York judiciary for “engaging in a pattern of rude, neglectful and demeaning conduct toward clients” after admitting to 19 violations of the state’s Code of Professional Responsibility, according to New York Lawyer/New York Law Journal, which has numerous colorful details (Anthony Lin, “High-Visibility NY Law Firm Censured”, May 21). Although W&B’s Prempro website declares: “You deserve a firm which specializes in personal injury and mass tort litigation”, it does not mention that 80 percent of W&B’s caseload is actually in immigration law. In the disciplinary proceedings, the firm’s employees and Mr. Wilens in particular were found to have hurled insults at various immigrant clients, including those who could not afford to pay their bills. The firm said it had changed its practices and “Mr. Wilens and other senior lawyers at the firm completed anger management classes”, but the appellate panel refused a plea to keep the reprimand secret. It was also apparently unswayed by a character reference submitted by “Richard Katcher, the chairman of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, one of the city’s top corporate law firms. Mr. Katcher told the committee he was ‘buddies’ with Mr. Wilens and that they frequently dined, socialized and vacationed together. He said he had recommended Wilens and Baker on a number of occasions and Mr. Wilens was well regarded in professional and social circles.” David Giacalone, whose invaluable website has again suspended its specifically legal commentary, covers the story (May 21, & see his comments section).