Word Around the Net is Christopher Taylor’s site devoted to reprinting interesting comment threads from around the blogosphere. His latest selection is the reader comments that followed our post on Allen Heckard, the Oregon man who’s tired of being mistaken for basketball star Michael Jordan and has reacted by suing Jordan and Nike’s Phil Knight.
Archive for 2006
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.
Refreshing candor: It was about the money
“I settled for as much as I could so I could move out of Staten Island and move down to North Carolina,” said the plaintiff, who settled with his employer and three other companies over a work injury. (Rob Hart, “Amputee settles lawsuit for $2.2M”, Staten Island Advance, Jul. 8). Compare: Mar. 28 and other examples of one of our favorite clichés.
Arkansas court: bus company not liable for lack of seatbelts
Pretty Persuasion
From the underrated dark comedy Pretty Persuasion (2004):
Kimberly: Randa, what’s the greatest thing about this country?
Randa: Sylvester Stallone?
Kimberly: No. It’s that anybody can sue anybody at anytime over anything.
Perhaps (or perhaps not) relatedly: the tale of driving instructor Norman Swerling, acquitted of raping one of his students. The school district paid him $250,000 to stay at home instead of returning to work. (Keith O’Brian, “Not Guilty”, Boston Globe, Jul. 9).
No benefits for alcoholic who drank ethanol
“An Iowa judge has denied unemployment benefits to a man who claimed discrimination after being fired from an ethanol plant for drinking ‘automobile fuel’ produced by the company.” Cory Neddermeyer, 42, was fired after being hospitalized with an almost fatal 0.72 blood-alcohol level after dipping into the 190-proof fuel at his employer, Amaizing Energy in Denison, Iowa. “Neddermeyer argued that his employer shared in the responsibility for the incident because the spill at the plant provided an ‘opportunity’ for him to drink. He also argued that Amaizing Energy was discriminating against him due to his ‘disease of alcoholism.'” (Clark Kauffman, “Man fired for getting gassed on spilled ethanol at work”, Des Moines Register, Jul. 9 (via Romenesko)).
“Tide turns against rape — but why?”
“The Washington Post recently reported that since the 1970s, rape has diminished in frequency by some 85 percent.” Both feminists and televangelists would seem to have some trouble accounting for this welcome trend, given that access to pornography on the one hand, and the trappings of modernism in general on the other, remain ubiquitous (Steve Chapman, syndicated/Chicago Tribune, Jun. 29)(reg).
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
We’re lucky the internet is going to be regulated by lawmakers with such a profound understanding of how it works. (Wired.com/27B Stroke 6, Jun. 29)(via Nobody’s Business who got it from Boing Boing).