- Speaking of privacy, consider what happens when lawyers get a hold of your email. (When will we see law professors eager to create new causes of action consider the privacy-destroying implications of ediscovery?) [Fulton County Daily Report/law.com; Toronto Globe & Mail; Point of Law] Earlier: Jan. 9 and links therein.
- Speaking of privacy and reputation, Mary Roberts goes to trial, but Above the Law doesn’t mention our coverage (June 2004; Sep. 2005; Feb. 6; Mar. 19; May 17), and misses the juicy details.
- Oy: “Woman who ‘lost count after drinking 14 vodkas’ awarded £7,000 over New Year fall from bridge.” News from the compensation culture not entirely bad: damages were reasonable, and the court did hold the woman 80% responsible, the exact opposite of the McDonald’s coffee case. [Scotsman.com]
- No good deed goes unpunished: Sperm donor liable for child support, judge rules. [Newsday/Seattle Times]
- Bad attorney gets fired, sues DLA Piper for discrimination, represents herself pro se, demonstrates firsthand why she got fired: law firm wins on summary judgment. [ABA Journal; update: also New York Law Journal]
- Romney on tort reform; McCain on medmal. [Torts Prof Blog; Torts Prof Blog]
- Another day, another Borat lawsuit. I’m still waiting for the consumer fraud lawsuit from moviegoers upset that it was not actually a Kazakh documentary. [Reuters; earlier]
Filed under: Borat, child support, fishing expeditions, John McCain, Mitt Romney, personal responsibility, pro se, Roberts sextortion, Seattle
7 Comments
I’m not buying the sperm donor thing as being abusive. This seemed more like some open marriage arrangement than the typical anonymous sperm bank situation.
The other telling thing is that the guy who lived in the household with the child doesn’t seem to have the cajones to live up to his role accepted 18 years ago when he became the father in the home to the child.
nevins, I’m not sure where you get that interpretation from the news story. The man was married to someone else, donated sperm to a lesbian couple that did not want anonymous sperm, and never lived with the child.
Besides not getting everything in writing (dumb…), his mistake seemed to be not anticipating that the social/legal climate would change and that offspring over age 18 would someday be considered “children” with a “right” to have someone else pay for their education.
Re: the DLA associate: if a partner at the firm deemed her writing to be subpar, how in Heaven’s name did she get admitted to Harvard Law School?
Ahem. I’m kidding.
Wow – this fired DLA Piper associate is something else. Check out the details in law.com:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1196935479196
Was she even admitted to practice anywhere? And look at the information about her former employer — didn’t DLA check into that before hiring her? This woman is like the Jayson Blair of the legal world. But it goes to show what law firms will do to prevent accusations of “racism”.
Heather,
That’s a good point… perhaps some kind of “ex post facto” defense?
[…] Another sperm donor surprised by legal obligation to pay child support [Santa Fe, N.M. Reporter; earlier] […]