Aw, that’s not fair. What would we do for material? “Thompson’s ire [at the alleged evils of videogaming] spread to several law professionals involved in the lawsuits he filed. The disbarment proceedings resulted from separate grievances filed by people claiming that Thompson made false statements and attempted to humiliate, embarrass, harass or intimidate them, according to documents in the [Florida bar disciplinary] case.” (K.C. Jones, ” Grand Theft Auto Critic Faces Misconduct Charges”, InformationWeek, Feb. 6; “Jack Thompson Faces Florida Supreme Court Disciplinary Hearing”, GamePolitics.com, Feb. 3; Billy Berghammer, “Jack Thompson Faces Florida Disciplinary Hearing”, Game Informer, Feb. 5). More: Oct. 30, Oct. 20, and many others.
Archive for February, 2007
“Cease and desist” say the psychic’s lawyers
But can Sylvia Browne divine beforehand whether her attorneys at the Hodgson Law Group will be successful in muzzling the website critical of her? Orac (Respectful Insolence) has coverage (Feb. 6).
Update: Indictments in Roberts sex/extortion case still pending
We first covered the case of Ted H. and Mary Schorlemer Roberts Jun. 13, 2004 and Sep. 3, 2005:
According to a story in the San Antonio Express-News, husband-and-wife legal partners Ted H. and Mary Schorlemer Roberts received money in a curious sequence of events. Mary, claiming to seek “no strings” discreet encounters, would seduce men over an Internet dating service. Ted would then write the men (in legal documents sometimes typed by Mary) and notify them that he planned to seek intrusive and public civil discovery to investigate whether the affair brought forward potential causes of action that were flimsy at best; the men would pay tens of thousands of dollars for a release and confidentiality agreement.
Now:
Two San Antonio, Texas, lawyers, married to each other, face a trial on theft charges based on allegations that the wife had sexual liaisons with four men whom the husband subsequently threatened with litigation unless they compensated him for his emotional distress.
You’ll never guess how the Roberts’ lawyer defends them:
[Michael] McCrum contends the state is trying to prosecute his clients for something that civil lawyers do all the time — send demand letters and present petitions they plan to file under Rule 202.
“By stretching statutory words to an unprecedented interpretation, the state seeks to criminalize as “theft the presentment and subsequent settlement of potential claims authorized under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,” Mary and Ted Roberts alleged in one of several motions to quash their indictments that Harle dismissed in October 2006. …
[Baker Botts attorney Rod] Phelan says there is “a kernel of truth” in the point that McCrum is making. “The line between extortion or blackmail and making a demand to settle a colorable claim is gray,” he says.
The prosecutor distinguishes the two by noting that Ted Roberts was acting pro se. (Mary Alice Robbins, “Married Lawyers Face Trial for Payment Demands After Wife’s Affairs”, Texas Lawyer, Feb. 6). Note that these are theft, rather than extortion charges, however; a stretch, to be sure, but the prosecutors decided that Texas law does permit extortion in these circumstances. (It does seem rather appalling under the prosecutors’ view that the only thing Roberts needed to accomplish his blackmail is to expand the conspiracy to a third person.) Unfortunately for the extortion victims, their identities were revealed by the indictment and the Texas Lawyer coverage. A job for ReputationDefender?
Giuliani’s Achilles’ Heel?
Such an appealing candidacy in most other ways — but then one remembers his stance on gun litigation as mayor and, in particular, the insults to federalism he was willing to endorse at the time. A simple “I was wrong” would work wonders (NRO “The Corner”, Feb. 2).
“Hand you their severed heads” — the video
“I cannot rip out the hearts of those who hurt you. I cannot hand you their severed heads”. But Rochester, N.Y. injury-law advertiser Jim (“The Hammer”) Shapiro could promise to “squeeze them for every dime I can”:
For more, see Apr. 15, 2005. Shapiro’s ethically-challenged and now-defunct legal practice did a notably poor job of living up to its promises; see Jun. 17-18, 2002, May 24, 2004, etc.
“Let kids sue parents”
Such a grand idea from an anti-smoking campaigner up North: “Children should be able to sue their parents for exposing them to harmful second-hand cigarette smoke, an Alberta doctor says.” Dr. Larry Bryan, who worked on a provincial commission that planned out anti-tobacco measures, “says banning puffing in cars or homes would be very difficult to enforce. But he believes the message would come across loud and clear if smokers were held legally responsible for their actions through exposure-related lawsuits. “(Michelle Mark, “Let kids sue parents”, Edmonton Sun, Feb. 4).
Meanwhile, regulation creeps forward on other fronts: “Texas will join a handful of states that prohibit foster parents from smoking in front of children in their homes and cars when a new state rule takes effect January first. Under rules passed this year, foster parents can’t smoke in their homes if they have foster children living there. They also can’t smoke while driving if children are in the car. Other states with similar smoking laws include Vermont, Washington and Maine.” Roy Block, president of the Texas Foster Family Association, says rules of this sort discourage Texas families from stepping forward to offer themselves as foster parents; most states do not exactly enjoy a surfeit of applicants well-qualified on other grounds (“Texas To Prohibit Foster Parent Smoking”, AP/WOAI, Dec. 4).
New Times column — warning labels everywhere
My new column is up at the Times Online on the problem — long familiar to readers of this site and Americans in general, somewhat less so in the U.K. — of overzealous warning labels. My jumping-off point is the new book Remove Child Before Folding, earlier mentioned here and for sale here. (Walter Olson, “Keep your children away from open flames”, Times Online, Jan. 28).
Today is also the day the Times unveiled its redesign: check out the front page, the law page, and this interview with the designers.
February 5 Roundup
- First Democratic earmark for trial lawyers. [Point of Law; Grace]
- Philip Howard on the lack of trust in the American justice system. [Common Good/NY Sun]
- Cooperman pleads guilty to Milberg Weiss kickbacks. Anonymous commenter at WSJ Law Blog: “Mr. Taylor of Zuckerman Spaeder contends that Mr. Cooperman’s statements “have never been credible.” Then why on God’s green earth did Milberg Weiss repeatedly use Mr. Cooperman as a plaintiff in the first instance for so many years if he was not credible? Is Mr. Vogel, another plaintiff whom Milberg Weiss repeatedly used for decades who also has pled guilty similarly not credible? Milberg Weiss certainly has a penchant for finding “not credible” plaintiffs for representing class interests.” [Point of Law; WSJ Law Blog]
- Bone-screw litigation and informed consent claims. [Drug and Device Law Blog]
- Dan Markel has a more theoretical look at the car-wash “forgiveness” case. [Prawfsblawg]
- Getting rich on backdating (but not the way you think) [Ribstein]
- Jury selection in San Francisco [Cal Biz Lit; see also NLJ]
- Hawaii losing doctors; gov calls for reform; 86% of Hawaii med-mal claims without merit [The Honolulu Advertiser]
- The miracle of joint and several liability: Police chase injuries put city on hook $4.5 million, because city held a 10% responsible for felon’s car accident. [The Olympian]
- Judge Harry Hanna becomes star for his slap on the wrist to Chris Andreas, but, more jaw-dropping: Ninth Circuit Judge Bea defends the double-dipping lawyer. [Point of Law; Legal Pad; WSJ Law Blog photo of Andreas t-shirt]
- The Guardian v. AEI. [Adler @ Volokh; Frum; Point of Law]
Slow typist sues law school, cont’d
The Ann Arbor News covers Adrian Zachariasewycz’s complaint against the University of Michigan Law School (see Jan. 27), and quotes me along the way:
In addition to seeking unspecified monetary damages, Zachariasewycz wants the law school to study his scores and provide a letter or make a verbal statement to prospective employers saying that his typing was a factor in his exams.
“I paid a lot of money to go to law school,” Zachariasewycz said. “I interrupted my career. I worked very hard. And I got a big zero out of it.”
Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank in New York City, is founder of overlawyered.com, which posted a comment about the case and other lawsuits Olson believes have “eyebrow-raising potential.”
“It’s hard to figure out what’s been done to him that’s unlawful,” Olson said.
Olson said he thought it first had something to do with rights of the disabled.
“But it looks like he’s just an ordinary bad typist like a lot of the rest of us.”
(Jo Collins Mathis, “U-M law school sued over grad’s poor typing skills”, Ann Arbor News, Feb. 2).