Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Archive for November, 2007

“Disney sued for Segway ban”

“Three disabled people have sued Walt Disney World for not allowing them to use their Segways to move around its theme parks. … Disney says it fears Segways could endanger other guests because they can go faster than 12 mph.” (AP/Centre Daily Times (Pa.), Nov. 11). More: Washington Post, MagicalMountain.net. in Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas (“Note to Disney: Don’t give up on Segway suit”, Nov. 13) writes:

If a disabled person can get around just as well in a wheelchair as on a Segway, does Disney have the right to pick the wheelchair in the interest of guest safety?

One of the people suing Disney says she did not want her children seeing her rely on a wheelchair.

But to go that route means we expand the ADA to accommodate not only people’s disabilities but also their feelings about their disabilities.

I feel for that woman, but this is a huge legal leap.

Filed under: ,

November 13 roundup

  • Ethical questions for Vioxx lawyers [WSJ law blog] And who’s going to make what? [same; more from Ted at PoL]
  • American lawyers shouldn’t get all self-congratulatory about the courage shown by their Pakistani counterparts [Giacalone; more]
  • Just another of those harmless questionnaires from school, this time about kindergartners’ at-home computer use. Or maybe there’s more to it [Nicole Black]
  • Probe of personal injury “runners” bribing Gotham hospital staff to chase business nets another conviction, this one of a lawyer who stole $148,000 from clients [NYLJ; earlier]
  • Facebook sometimes sends text messages to obsolete cellphone numbers relinquished by its users, so let’s sue it [IndyStar]
  • Series on defensive medicine at docblog White Coat Rants [first, second, third]
  • Arm broken by bully, student wins $4 million verdict against Tampa private school; bully himself not sued [St. Petersburg Times]
  • Washington, D.C. reportedly doing away with right to contest a traffic parking ticket in person [The Newspaper, on “the politics of driving”]
  • “Walking headline factory” Scruggs to be arraigned November 20 [Rossmiller]
  • More on whether government’s refusal to alter paper currency discriminates against the blind [Waldeck, ConcurOp via Bader; earlier]
  • Eric Turkewitz hosts a truly marathon Blawg Review #134 [NY Pers Inj Law Blog]

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , ,

Varieties of (medically hazardous) religious experience

In both of which cases the hospital is being targeted for blame:

About a year ago, Linda Long was attending the East London Holiness Church in London, Ky. That’s one of a handful of churches in the country that practice snake handling, which is exactly what it sounds like it is — congregation members handle venomous snakes in the belief that the faithful will not be harmed.

Long was bitten in the cheek by a rattlesnake and died — and now her family is suing the hospital where she was brought for treatment.

In a suit filed earlier this month, Long’s family alleges employees of a London, Ky. hospital ridiculed Long when she was brought there after the attack and failed to treat her in a timely manner. She later was airlifted to the University of Kentucky Medical Center, where she died.

(“Family of ‘snake handling’ victim sues hospital”, USA Today “On Deadline” blog, Nov. 9; Michelle Cottle, New Republic “The Plank”, Nov. 11).

Meanwhile, in Britain, Anthony Gough, 24, says he is considering legal action in the death of his wife, Emma, following the birth of twins at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital. The Goughs are members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect which opposes blood transfusions on religious grounds and Emma had refused such a transfusion; doctors had in vain urged Gough to override his wife’s wishes. Gough says a machine would have permitted self-transfusion of his wife’s blood but that hospital staff did not know how to use it. (Andrew Parker, “Jehovah hubby: I blame doctors”, The Sun (U.K.), Nov. 7)

Filed under: , , , ,

“US says it’s blowing whistle on lawyer’s fee”

For reporting on unlawful dumping of sludge into US waters, twelve ship workers are getting whistleblower payments of $437,500 apiece, in what one of their lawyers describes as an “amazing and unexpected windfall that the government essentially arranged for them”. Lawyers for all but two of the workers are charging them fees of $10,000 or less apiece, and one charged no fee at all. However, attorney Zachary Hawthorn of Beaumont, Texas, who represents two clients, says he’s entitled to a 33 percent contingency from their share, amounting to nearly $300,000. Federal prosecutors in Boston “suggest Hawthorn took advantage of unsophisticated ship hands who are not native English speakers and who had little familiarity with the American legal system. They also contend his work was ‘materially indistinguishable’ from that of the other lawyers, who were paid 90 percent less than his requested fee.” On the other hand, the clients have signed statements asking that the fees be approved. Prevailing law restricts lawyers from charging excessive fees and does not make client consent a defense if unreasonable fees are charged, but in practice “judges are typically reluctant to interfere with lawyer-client fee arrangements, especially when a client has not complained”. (Sacha Pfeiffer, Boston Globe, Nov. 10).

Filed under: ,

“Hello! Don’t hang up, because you may have won a valuable…” [-click-]

According to the U.S. Chamber-affiliated Madison County Record, if lawyers are successful in pursuing an Illinois class action against mortgage broker Amerifirst over the meal-interrupting telephonic intrusions, “the lawyers would have to notify each and every aggrieved member of the class with an unsolicited phone call of their own.” (“Our View: All in the Family”, Oct. 28; Ann Knef, “Class plaintiff’s attorney-husband is TCPA specialist”, Oct. 24; “Lakin files class action against mortgage lender over pre-recorded messages”, Oct. 22).

Filed under: , ,

Employment Non-Discrimination Act

The proposed law imposing liability on private employers who discriminate on the basis of employees’ sexual orientation has cleared the House for the first time. My own views haven’t changed since I wrote on the proposal in Reason a decade ago in the course of a review of Andrew Sullivan (who has switched sides since then and now favors the bill). Both sides of the debate get fully aired in the comments to this Dale Carpenter post and by various contributors to the Independent Gay Forum.

More: Possibly related, the case of Aaron Charney versus Sullivan & Cromwell has settled: David Lat, “A Big Pay Day for Big Law Gay?”, New York Observer, Nov. 6.

Filed under:

Federici v. U-Haul update: jury awards $15 million

Following up on the story Jason Barney wrote about Oct. 25: a Seattle jury has awarded $15 million to the woman gravely injured when an improperly secured entertainment center fell off a rented U-Haul trailer and through her windshield. “U-Haul was ordered to pay 67 percent of the total amount and the balance is to be paid by James Hefley, the man who rented the U-Haul trailer. Jurors did not find the company that rented the trailer to Hefley or Federici liable. … Federici’s attorneys argued that U-Haul knowingly rented a poorly designed trailer that in which loads could not be secured. They said that the trailer could have been made safer with a cargo net or higher tailgates and that U-Haul knew there had a been a number of similar incidents.” (Christine Clarridge, “Woman hit by unsecured load awarded $15 million”, Seattle Times, Nov. 9).

Filed under:

ADA bans lottery-ticket sales in smoking venues?

Make way for another creative application of the Americans with Disabilities Act: the office of Texas attorney general Greg Abbott says it could violate the ADA for the Texas Lottery Commission to permit sale of its lottery tickets in stores that allow smoking. “Lewisville resident Billy Williams complained to the commission in 2006 that he had an asthma attack after buying a ticket at a smoky store.” Abbott’s office found that the ADA requires that disabled residents be provided with “‘meaningful access’ to state services”, in this case consisting of lottery tickets, and that smoking-allowed policies at participating retailers could impair such access. (“Smoking questioned for stores that sell lottery tickets”, AP/Houston Chronicle, Nov. 9).

Filed under: , , ,

Inside one TV-ad law firm

William K. Mattar, 43, of Buffalo “has built a substantial auto-injury practice through the estimated $2 million he spends each year on ads produced by CJ Advertising in Nashville, Tenn.” Now three lawyers who worked for Mattar have quit in acrimonious circumstances, providing a look inside the firm’s workings. Joseph Bergen said Mattar had admitted never having tried a case and had never taken a client deposition in the nine years Bergen had worked with the firm. As business poured in from TV viewers, the lawyers say, Mattar stopped using his staff lawyers to screen the cases for likely merit, instead devolving that task on a call center in Tennessee. Meanwhile, the staff lawyers’ caseloads swelled to more than 200 cases apiece, along with which came “increased pressure from Mattar to settle a minimum of two to three cases a week each,” whether or not the lawyers felt the cases were in an appropriate posture to settle. The three are setting up their own personal-injury firm, and Mattar depicts them as disgruntled employees who are misleading clients in hopes of taking away business from him. (Michael Beebe, “Mattar’s 3 trial lawyers quit”, Buffalo News, Oct. 25; “Mattar says lawyers conspired to steal clients”, Nov. 1; Martha Neil, “Former PI Colleagues Now Battling in Buffalo”, ABA Journal, Nov. 1). For some reason the Buffalo-Rochester area has generated a steady stream of colorful stories about law firms with saturation TV-ad budgets, sometimes coupled with factory-line methods; see our earlier coverage of Cellino & Barnes/The Barnes Firm and the now-retired Jim (“The Hammer”) Shapiro, of “hand you their severed heads” fame, who conceded in a deposition that he had never tried a case.

Filed under: , ,