Archive for July, 2006

Ted Frank vs. Peter Nordberg on med-mal

Over at Point of Law, there’s a new Featured Discussion on medical malpractice: our own Ted Frank expands on his theory that it might be a good idea for doctors to benefit from something akin to the “business judgment rule”, by which courts refrain from second-guessing many decisions of corporate directors and officers in shareholder litigation. Ably representing the opposite point of view is Peter Nordberg, whose Daubert on the Web and Blog 702 cover scientific evidence issues in the courts with unrivaled depth.

“National Divorce Rate Reaches New Highs in Bitterness”

Comparatively few spouses blow up buildings, as police suspect a Manhattan doctor may have done, but things can still get pretty extreme:

Prominent New York divorce attorney Raoul Felder was more specific. “I had a client murdered by his wife,” Felder said. “I have seen [cases in which] a kitten [was] put in a washing machine, a puppy in the microwave — the puppy died, the kitten lived.

“I have seen art collections slashed, a guy with a vinyl record collection had it returned by his wife all smashed into bits,” Felder added. “I’ve seen clothes ripped up. One gentleman got his wife tickets to some hot play, and when she returned, her stuff was in the street. I’ve seen children taken at airports.”

(Chris Francescani and Kristen Depowski, ABCNews.com, Jul. 11; Anemona Hartocollis and Cara Buckley, “Divorce, Real Estate and Rubble: When Marriages Go Really Awry”, New York Times, Jul. 12 (note similar quotes from Felder, who’s clearly not afraid to give the same interview twice); Jane Ridley, “Divorce gets dirty”, New York Daily News, Jun. 12(et plus encore for that same kitten and puppy)). And: Rebecca Goldin at STATS.org chides ABC for sensationalism (Jul. 14).

Bonus video link: Patsy Cline, “A Church, A Courtroom, and Then Goodbye” (YouTube) (via Terry Teachout’s fabulous new listing of online video and audio resources).

UK: “Police won’t chase if thief has no helmet”

In Bath, England, a “teenager was shocked when police refused to chase joyriders who had just stolen his moped – because the thieves were not wearing helmets…. An officer told him they could not give chase in case the unprotected thieves fell off the bike and sued the police.” (“Police ruled out joyrider chase”, BBC, Jun. 30). The Association of Chief Police Officers confirmed that police on “most forces” would call off chases where a suspect fleeing on a motorbike was unhelmeted. “Sharon Ball, a Liberal Democrat councillor in Bath, said: ‘There is a terrible bike theft problem in this area, and this crazy approach means the issue will just get worse.'” (Richard Savill, “Police won’t chase if thief has no helmet”, Daily Telegraph, Jun. 30).

Lott v. Levitt, Part VI

Lott filed his response to the motion to dismiss Monday. Lott seems to have the better of this exchange as a matter of positive (if not normative) law because of the liberal pleading rules that make it nearly impossible to dismiss a case on the pleadings. That has little predictive value for what happens afterwards. (Note, however, the Northern District of Illinois’ Local Rules’ 15-page limit, which make it nearly impossible to file a motion for summary judgment without the permission of the court.)

Previous entry.

Lawrence Lessig on lawyering

It turns out the celebrity Stanford lawprof can make us sound like squishy moderates on the issue:

In a contentious debate with Random House’s Richard Sarnoff, [Prof. Lessig] argued that the publishing industry’s lawsuit over Google’s book-scanning effort threatens the very soul of the Internet, and there was little doubt who he believes is to blame. “Why unleash lawyers on this issue? We know lawyers suck value out of an economy,” he said, to cheers from the audience.

(Lattman, Jun. 2).

Naming peripheral medical defendants

In the comments section at Sebastian Holsclaw’s, following a long discussion of the recent Mello-Studdert study on medical malpractice, talk turns to the practice of naming every doctor in the vicinity as a defendant when filing a medical liability claim. A couple of trial lawyer advocates defend that unsavory practice, and Holsclaw responds (via Rovito):

The problem is that extraneous defendants are often not dropped quickly. In many complex cases you can’t possibly get through the discovery phases without plunking down huge amounts of money. Maybe I’ve just been remarkably unlucky, but when I’ve worked on the defense side the vast majority of cases involved defending people who were just tack-on defendants. In all of these cases $30-60,000 (in fees) was spent before the defendants could get out of the case. Often an additional sum (usually in the $5-10,000 range) was paid to stop the bleeding even though everyone (including/especially the plaintiff’s attorney) that the defendant would never be found liable. One plaintiff’s attorney was well known to push for largish settlements from innocent parties — if you refused he would drag you until the day of trial (throwing up just enough smoke to avoid summary judgment) and then drop you without comment on the morning of the trial (after you had incurred all the expense of expert retention, expert testing and all of the trial preparation). It is the kind of thing that gives lawyers a bad name, but it happens in every city.

(cross-posted from Point of Law).

New York courts seek to curb client-chasing

The New York state courts are proposing new rules that would significantly tighten up on lawyers’ freedom to chase potential clients, including injury cases, in the Empire State. In particular, lawyers would be forbidden to solicit disaster victims in most situations for 30 days after a disaster. As for advertising, “Significant restrictions would be imposed on the use of fictionalization, and lawyers would be banned from using nicknames or monikers — such as ‘heavy hitter’ or ‘dream team’ — that imply an ability to obtain results….lawyers would be prohibited from using current client testimonials, from portraying judges, from re-enacting courtroom or accident scenes and from using courthouses or courtrooms as props. They would also be barred from using paid endorsements, and from using the recognizable voice of a non-attorney celebrity to tout the lawyer’s skills.” Beyond that, they would have to be prepared to substantiate ad claims and keep ads on file for three years. (John Caher, “New York Courts Back Expansive Lawyer Ad Restrictions”, New York Law Journal, Jun. 15). For critical reaction, see Dennis Kennedy, Between Lawyers, Jun. 15 (“a shocking number of draconian and micro-managing rules “), and Robert Ambrogi, LegalBlogWatch, Jun. 16).

The rules are here (PDF) and the comment period lasts through Sept. 15. More: The state Academy of Trial Lawyers likes the idea.