Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Archive for April, 2006

Constitutional Right to be a Jackass

One of our profession’s enfants terribles, Geoffrey Fieger, is back in court, this time defending his right to call Michigan appellate judges who ruled against him “jackasses” and “nazis.”

Fieger faces a reprimand from the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission for insulting three state appellate judges on a radio talk show in 1999 after the judges overturned a $15 million verdict he won in a medical malpractice case.

Fieger’s lawyer, Michael Alan Schwartz, maintaining that Fieger’s comments outside the courtroom are protected by the First Amendment.

Summing up Fieger’s modus operandi nicely, Schwartz offers this:

“There’s no law that says you’ve got to be dignified.”

He also offers Standing Committee on Discipline v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 and Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367 (1947) to support his client’s right to criticize the judges.

UPDATE: Sorry folks, I neglected to include a link to the story. It is the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission seeking to reprimand him. The Commission is “the investigative and prosecutorial arm of the Michigan Supreme Court for allegations of attorney misconduct.”

Filed under: ,

Filial Overreaching Run Amok

Manhattan trusts and estates lawyer Edward F. Campbell Jr., counsel in the New York office of Chicago’s Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, acted as “mediator, attorney and financial advisor” to his elderly parents in the 1996 sale of their home to….him.

Campbell “purchased” the 7 bedroom, 2 acre home in Lloyd Harbor, Long Island from his failing parents for no down payment and $1,000 a month, reserving to the parents a life estate, which isn’t turning out to be much of a consolation to the elder couple. A Suffolk County Supreme Court judge is skeptical.

No word on how Campbell’s eight siblings are taking the news.

Filed under: ,

Pellicano fallout, cont’d

“While top entertainment lawyer Terry Christensen is the only attorney indicted so far in connection with [indicted private investigator Anthony] Pellicano, several others face litigation that could cripple their practices — and possibly break up their firms.

“The big problem, said Timothy Halloran, an expert in law firm liability at Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney in San Francisco, is that illegal activity such as wiretapping won’t be covered by malpractice insurance.” (Justin Scheck and Kellie Schmitt, “Will Law Firms Be Able to Weather Wiretap-Related Suits?”, The Recorder/Law.com, Mar. 28). More: Mar. 2, Feb. 18, etc.

Filed under:

GAO Whistleblower on SDI

A senior Congressional investigator has accused his agency of covering up a scientific fraud among builders of a $26 billion system meant to shield the nation from nuclear attack. The disputed weapon is the centerpiece of the Bush administration’s antimissile plan, which is expected to cost more than $250 billion over the next two decades.The dispute is unusual. Rarely in the 85-year history of the G.A.O., an investigative arm of Congress with a reputation for nonpartisan accuracy, has a dissenter emerged publicly from its ranks.(NYT Apr. 2)

Filed under:

An Avoidable Toy Recall

A child’s toy called Magnetix has caused a number of accidental deaths, resulting in a recall by the Consumer Products Safety Commission and at least one law suit.

Product liability lawyer Sim Osborn, an attorney for three families who are filing civil suits against the makers of Magnetix, makes the expected public pronouncement: “We want to make these companies think twice the next time they are tempted to put profits before the lives of innocent children.”

Magnetix is a construction activity based on a combination of steel balls and magnetic rods, similar to Connex.

The magnetix website’s customer message board contains this exchange from March of 2005:

Karizma: “I am just wondering what materials are in the balls? Should I be worried about anything? It went down her throat, so the choking hazzard is not there…but I need to know if there are anything to the balls that could be hazzard as to her system? ”

Dr. MagnX: “The Balls are Non Toxic. They are made out of Solid Steal and are coated with Zinc.”

Karizma: “Thank you so much! I sure hope she passes it on her own! “

It appears that adequate warning was ignored.

Tending the Garden While the Owner Is Away

Greetings from Boston, Overlawyered readers. Walter has invited me to guest this week as he attends to business, and suggested that I make a brief introduction. I have practiced law in the Boston area for twenty-five years now, in both private and public sectors, beginning as a fledgling zoning lawyer on Cape Cod in the 1980’s. I served three terms in the legislature during the 1980’s and was also General Counsel to a large independent authority for a few years in the early 1990’s. I am now a “wizzened” zoning lawyer in Boston. My specialty is permitting cell towers, so you know that all of the hats I own are black. I thank Walter for this oportunity and shall do my best to make the most of it. Feel free to visit me at Wave Maker any time.

The irrationality of non-economic damages

Unlawfully detained for fourteen years because of a crime you didn’t commit? $14.5 million in damages.

Unlawfully detained for fourteen minutes because of a crime you didn’t commit? $1.2 million in damages, plus potential punitives.

If the fairness of a justice system can be evaluated by whether it treats like cases alike, the status quo fails. (“Jury returns $14.5 million verdict against city”, AP, Mar. 30; Mark Rice, “Jury awards woman $1.2M”, Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, Apr. 1).

If defective, return in original envelope

“A judge considering a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against a popular DVD rental service, Netflix, retreated yesterday [Thursday] from his threat to sharply cut the fees awarded to lawyers in the case.” Netflix had increased its estimate of the number of customers it expects to take advantage of the settlement. (Josh Gerstein, “Netflix Judge Changes Mind On Lawyer Fees”, New York Sun, Mar. 31). Earlier: Mar. 23, etc.

Filed under:

April Fools in a litigious age

In case you were excited about Google Romance, “[you fell] for our April Fool’s joke, in which case ha ha, wasn’t that amusing and harmless and mostly in good taste and not all psychologically damaging under various and sundry aspects of contemporary tort law, please don’t sue us.”

I leave to others the question of whether a publicly traded company can issue a deadpan April Fool’s press release without risking securities-law liability.

Filed under: