Archive for 2006

Honorable mention: attorney Curtis Kennedy

Who says we shrink from giving lawyers favorable publicity? From a report earlier this month in the Rocky Mountain News:

The California law firm Lerach Coughlin sought $96 million in legal fees when it engineered a $400 million shareholder class-action settlement with Qwest Communications over alleged securities fraud.

So how much did Denver attorney Curtis Kennedy seek when he prevailed in getting those legal fees slashed to $60 million – thus providing $36 million more for the shareholders?

Only $40,500. That’s the 90 hours Kennedy spent on the case times his hourly rate of $300 times 1.5, according to a federal court filing this week. …

Other attorneys might have tried to get a percentage of the $36 million.

“I just think that would be hypocritical after asking the judge to apply moderation” to the $96 million request by Lerach Coughlin, Kennedy said.

Kennedy was representing the Association of U S West Retirees in the case. (Jeff Smith, “Lawyer asks for $40,500 in legal fees”, Rocky Mountain News, Oct. 12)(via Securities Litigation Watch).

Punitive damages and the Supreme Court

I have written a piece on the Philip Morris v. Williams case for the Business and Media Institute. For other views, see Anthony Sebok (Brooklyn Law), Alan Morrison (Public Citizen), and Adam Cohen (New York Times). Morrison argues that the federal courts have no role in reviewing state-court decisions, which makes one wonder what his position is on habeas corpus. Cohen’s op-ed misstates what happened in Andrade, which was a case of collateral (and thus limited) review, rather than a direct appeal, like Williams, where a civil defendant does not even have the option of collateral review.

Earlier on Point of Law (from which this was cross-posted): Oct. 12; May 30; Feb. 2.

Update: The American Constitution Society press briefing on Philip Morris v. Williams (in which I participated with Peter Rubin, Neil Vidmar, and Bill Schultz) is now online.

Hip-hop mag told to pay fired editor $15 million

Kimberly Ososio, canned from her job as an editor at The Source magazine, portrayed the magazine’s offices as a “raunched-out workplace where executives watched porn, smoked pot and called female employees “b——.” An attorney for the magazine admitted that coarse and profane language was common there but said it was aimed at all parties, “not a gender-specific conduct”. A jury agreed with Osorio’s claim that she was sacked for complaining about sexualized goings-on; she also complained of defamation, but lost on sexual discrimination and harassment counts. (Jose Martinez, “Hip-hop mag bagged”, New York Daily News, Oct. 24; The magazine already faces bankruptcy proceedings due to other business problems. (Leonard Greene, “Editor’s New ‘Source’ of Woe”, New York Post, Oct. 25; Peter Carlson, “Hip-Hop Editor Wins Suit Over Her Firing”, Washington Post, Oct. 25; Joshua Rhett Miller, “Ex-Source editor hopes ruling redefines rap”, Metro New York, Oct. 25).

Another flasher’s-remorse case loses

Once again, second thoughts prove unavailing after modesty is cast to the winds: “A magazine that published a photograph of a woman baring her breasts at a pig roast for motorcycle enthusiasts did not intrude on her privacy, a federal judge has ruled. Tonya Barnhart sued Paisano Publications LLC, publisher of Easyriders magazine, after it ran the picture of her in its March 2005 issue, claiming unreasonable intrusion, false light invasion of privacy and appropriation of her likeness.” But U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz of Maryland ruled against Barnhart on summary judgment. Her behavior “cannot reasonably be said to have constituted a private act,” Motz wrote. “She exposed herself at an outdoor fundraising event open to any members of the public who purchased a ticket.” (“Judge: Photo of woman baring her breasts didn’t violate privacy”, Examiner.com, Oct. 23; “Woman Can’t Sue Magazine After Flashing Breasts”, AP/WBAL, Oct. 23; link to Memorandum and Order). Similar: Jul. 4, 2006, etc.

School discipline, by the numbers

“To avoid charges of ‘racism,’ we disciplined black and white students differently.” (Edmund Janko, City Journal/OpinionJournal.com, Oct. 25). According to the byline, “Mr. Janko taught in the English department of Bayside High School in New York City from 1957 to 1990.”.

What liberal media? Part 758

One would think that Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s steering of $14 million in taxpayer money to a friend instead of using government attorneys at a fraction of the cost would be a major scandal, but The Sun Herald allows the story to be derailed into a trial-lawyer attack on lawsuit reform— and this is the “one hand/other hand” focus the reporter took:

“Some say the GOP pushes it because trial lawyers are the Democrats’ last major source of campaign funding. Others say Republicans push such changes to protect their major source of funding, big business.”

That reform demonstrated itself to be good public policy (especially in Mississippi, where its legal system was a notorious and shameful “judicial hellhole”) doesn’t seem to enter the equation. (Geoff Pender, “Battle over lawyer fees”, Oct. 25).

Update: appeals court tosses $18M Gannett verdict

Following urgings by prominent attorney and frequent Overlawyered mentionee Willie Gary, a jury in Pensacola, Fla. had awarded the sum to a road builder who said he was defamed by an investigative-journalism piece in the newspaper chain’s Pensacola News-Journal (Mar. 30-31, 2001; Dec. 23, 2003; Jan. 7, 2004). The Florida appeals court “ruled that Joe Anderson’s case should have been dismissed because he mischaracterized his lawsuit as a ‘false-light claim’ to get around a two-year statute of limitations that applies in libel cases. The court said that since its decision was based on the statute-of-limitations issue, it did not rule on several other arguments for reversal raised by the newspaper.” (Ginny Graybiel, “News Journal suit reversed”, Oct. 21).

October 24 roundup

  • I’m speaking at the National Press Club today on the Philip Morris v. Williams case. [Point of Law; Medill summary; Bashman analysis]
  • How much skin color discrimination is there? [Somin @ Volokh]
  • Latest in the Ninth Circuit follies. [Above the Law]
  • Difficulty of making causal link between lung disease and 9/11 dust. [NY Times; TortsProf]
  • Kirkendall on the Skilling sentence. [Kirkendall]
  • Quelle surprise: ATLA dishonestly attacks me. [Point of Law]
  • Ford seems to have settled, instead of fighting, the ludicrous Texas Garcia decision where they got blamed for a drunk-driving accident with unbelted passengers. [Point of Law; CFIF]
  • Scalia: “The more your courts become policy-makers, the less sense it makes to have them entirely independent.” [AP]
  • Richard Epstein on legislators v. Wal-Mart [EconTalk Podcast]
  • Environmentalists v. private property rights. [CEI blog]
  • Litigious Pennsylvania judge Joan Orie Melvin sues for a pay-cut. [Bashman]
  • Why law firm associates work so hard. [Marginal Revolution]

Vegemite ban may be urban legend

News.com.au is starting to backtrack from its original claim, noting that the foodstuff is still sold in American stores. Moreover, the US Embassy tells an Overlawyered commenter there is no ban. Here’s our contribution to the discussion: the FDA regulation on folate, which at no point limits the addition of folate to breads and grains. We vote: “urban legend” leading from overenthusiastic border official, though the story is so widespread now, it may always stay an urban legend until Snopes gets around to refuting it.