Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Archive for 2007

Big Dig tunnel collapse

No doubt: someone was negligent in the collapse of the Big Dig tunnel in Boston that killed one. The Latin phrase res ipsa loquitur comes to mind.

But it’s hard to understand why Massachusetts officials are going after Powers Fasteners, Inc.

Powers received an order for standard-set epoxy to be used in the tunnel ceiling, and sold $1287 worth. The construction company then used a different, fast-set, epoxy that was not designed for such long-term use. As a result, ceiling panels fell, crushing a car and killing one person. But Massachusetts is indicting Powers. Given that the penalty is a $1000 fine, the only purpose of this use of taxpayer dollars is to carry water for trial lawyers—or, perhaps, to help spread blame in the eventual suit against the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority by having a criminal conviction in hand. (Pam Belluck, “Glue Maker for Big Dig Is Charged in ’06 Death”, New York Times, Aug. 9).

As Bill Childs notes, attorneys predict a “big” settlement. Press coverage already indicates typical attorney 20/20 hindsight:

For instance, documents show that Big Dig managers at Bechtel/ Parsons Brinckerhoff and designers from Gannett Fleming cut by half the number of bolts they originally planned to use to hold up the ceiling, while significantly increasing the ceiling’s weight by making it out of concrete. These moves made the ceiling cheaper, the lawyers said, but less safe.

This, of course, is the wrong question. It sounds suspiciously like the use of a single document taken out of context of a normal design-planning process. (Is strict liability plus punitive damages to be imposed every time a design firm doesn’t adopt the most stringent and expensive design it considers?) The correct question is whether the actual design, implemented correctly, would have safely stayed up. If so, the design team didn’t act negligently if the failure was because of faulty installation; it is a question of mathematics that should be resolved in one direction or the other on summary judgment, as there should be no duty to design a large margin of error against a construction crew using the wrong epoxy.

Filed under:

Chasing I-35W bridge clients

While “the divers are still in the river looking”:

Omar Jamal of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center in Minneapolis said he has received at least a dozen telephone calls from law firms, most of them local, since it became public knowledge that a pregnant Somali woman, Sadiya Sahal, and her 2-year-old daughter, Hanah Mohamed, were among those missing after the collapse.

The calls started coming about 4 p.m. Thursday, less than 24 hours after the collapse, and haven’t stopped, Jamal said. Some of the attorneys have asked for telephone numbers and other personal information about Sahal’s family, Jamal said.

“This is the worst form of ambulance-chasing,” Jamal said. “The divers are still in the river looking, and the attorneys keep calling us.”

(Chris Serres and Matt McKinney, “Question of liability rises”, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Aug. 8)(via Ambrogi who got it from Minnesota Lawyer Blog).

Filed under: ,

“The most expensive bill ever written”?

This Sunday’s Boston Globe magazine had a long feature piece which addressed the burning question, “Do We Really Need A Law To Protect Fat Workers?” The “law” in question would be a law which forbid “discrimination against overweight and unusually short people.” While I resemble that remark, you won’t be surprised to find me answering the question, “No,” in contrast to the politicians and activists who think it’s a great idea. The problem they face? Too many people inconveniently think that being overweight is a choice; they need to convince these skeptics that weight and race are really the same thing.

Although some people worry that the law would lead to a flood of lawsuits, the supporters of the bill pooh-pooh that notion, based on implausible statistics about disability discrimination lawsuits. Besides, their goal (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) isn’t really lawsuits at all:

Like the race laws, then, the weight-discrimination bill has a goal that extends beyond the legal system: to change the way we think. The idea is not to clog up the courts. Instead, it’s to create a society where hundreds of lawsuits aren’t needed, because there’s not as much to sue over – a society of people who have the legal right to say hurtful things and the compassion to know better than to act on them.

But if it does clog up the courts — the ADA only applies to those so obese that they can call themselves disabled, while the proposed Massachusetts law would apply to anybody who is overweight, which seems to be most of the population — it won’t be the author of the bill who suffers, but employees and business owners.

Of course, even if Massachusetts does pass this law, it wouldn’t be the worst; California already has far wackier anti-discrimination laws with its full-employment-for-lawyers Unruh Act. Unruh, despite listing the usual categories found in anti-discrimination laws (sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, and sexual orientation) actually has been interpreted by state courts to prohibit all “arbitrary” discrimination. As Cal Biz Lit explains:

In earlier cases, the courts have held the act to prohibit business discrimination based on :
• A customer’s association with a male with long hair and “unconventional” dress; 
• Having children; and
• Status as a police officer (when the ACLU tried to kick a cop out of a meeting).

If a creative lawyer hasn’t shoehorned obesity in there already, he will soon enough.

Filed under: , ,

Updates – August 8

1. Yet another Roy Pearson update: the Washington Post, confirming a previous rumor, reports that he’s closer to losing his job. The Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges (CSTALJ?) has voted to start the process of terminating him, by sending him a letter notifying him that he may not be reappointed to his job. Of course, the procedure alone makes the story a perfect fit for Overlawyered. Pearson can’t just be fired; that would be too easy. First, his boss had to make a formal recommendation. Then, the Commission had to decide to send that letter. And now?

Pearson is not out of work yet. The letter is a key step, though, alerting him that his reappointment is in jeopardy. He has 15 days to file a rebuttal and could push for reappointment by appearing before the commission at its next meeting in September.

The wonders of public employment. And then if he’s turned down, of course, he can sue!

Apparently trying to destroy a business by using the legal system to extort millions from the owners isn’t his big sin; his big sin is being rude to his boss:

Concerns about Pearson’s temperament as an administrative law judge preceded the publicity about the lawsuit this spring. The letter from the commission focuses on those concerns, addressing the lawsuit only briefly.

In e-mails sent to his fellow judges and cited in the letter, Pearson’s contempt for Chief Administrative Law Judge Tyrone T. Butler was evident. In one of the missives, he spoke of protecting himself from any attempt by Butler “to knife” him. In another, he questioned Butler’s competence and integrity.

Incidentally, he was serving a two year term, but if he wins reappointment, it will be for a ten year term.

2. Updating a story from Mar. 25, a federal judge has banned the navy from using sonar in training exercises:

Cooper said it was never easy to balance the interests of wildlife with those of national security. But in this case, she said, environmental lawyers have made a persuasive case that the potential harm to whales and other marine life outweighs any harm to the Navy while the court case proceeds.

Because, clearly, a bunch of lawyers are in the best position to design United States naval strategy.

(Other whale-sonar lawsuit coverage: May 17, Jul. 2006)

3. Remember the Kentucky Fen-Phen scandal? The one in which the class action attorneys were accused of misplacing $60 million of their clients’ money into their own pockets? (We’ve covered it May 20 and earlier) Well, a federal judge has now ruled that they need to repay $62.1 million to their clients. So far. Still to come: a ruling on punitive damages, a criminal trial, and the suit against Cincinnati attorney Stan Chesley, who’s accused of the same wrongdoing. (AP/Forbes)

Filed under: , ,

Update: My mother, the car

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which is fairly described these days as neo-Prohibitionist, continues to promote the development of automobiles which will be mechanically inoperable in the presence of indicators of drunkenness. A new Nissan prototype includes alcohol sensors in both the driver and passenger seat. Passenger? (Classical Values, Aug. 4). Earlier: Aug. 19, 2005, May 28, 2006.

More from DUI Blog: “Imagine if even one of these gizmos malfunctions — at high speed.”

Filed under: , ,

Defensive EMS practice

From the comments to this July 30 post at KevinMD about defensive medicine:

“Spreading to paramedics?”

Doc, it’s been prevalent in EMS for years. Virtually every EMS system in this country is designed specifically to serve less than 1% of its run volume – cardiac arrest patients.

We continue to spinally immobilize (now there’s a misnomer!) trauma patients, despite the evidence that clinical exam criteria can safely clear these patients and other evidence that questions whether pre-hospital spinal immobilization is even beneficial.

We fly people on helicopters based on nothing more than mechanism of injury, despite the mounting number of fatal crashes and the fact that 95% of those patients flown to the ED were discharged home directly from the ED. That’s right – we flew them on a $10,000 flight, and they weren’t even sick enough to be admitted.

Prehospital care is a bastion of defensive medicine. Has been for some time.

Filed under: ,

New Yorker cartoon caption

In the new (Aug. 13) issue, the picture shows a dad in living room admonishing son: “We don’t want you inviting friends over to play. There are liability issues.”

More: reader James Fulford notes in comments:

This is visible online at at the New Yorker Store. You can buy a print or in some cases, the original art. In the same issue, there’s defensive medicine: “I don’t like the look of these. I better send them up to legal.” (A doctor holding x-rays and a patient sitting on the examination table.)

And the criminal defense bar:“Make eye contact with the jury, but not homicidal-maniac eye contact.” (Lawyer to client.)

Great moments in accountants’ liability

“An en banc Superior Court panel has ordered a new trial in a case in which a western Pennsylvania trial judge awarded $102.7 million in 2003 to one of the owners of a property company identified as being at the center of a mid-1980s Ponzi scheme.” Two couples, Thomas and Barbara Reilly and Edward and Karen Krall, each jointly owned half the stock in Canterbury Village Inc., a property development that was oversold in what was later described as a Ponzi scheme that bilked thousands of investors. When Canterbury Village landed in bankruptcy proceedings, an Ernst & Young predecessor was called in to organize the books, which were in great disarray. According to a judge’s footnote, “the male halves of Canterbury Village’s two couple-owners pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from the Ponzi scheme.” Mr. Reilly served about four years on fraud and tax evasion charges. The eventual reorganization plan approved by the court barred the Reillys and Kralls from any stake in the emerging business entity.

The Reillys then proceeded to sue Ernst & Young, alleging that its report had contained inaccuracies which had injured their business interests. When the Reillys filed requests for admissions in support of their allegations, Ernst first missed a deadline to respond and then, granted a do-over, omitted to include a required verification from its lawyer. The judge in response deemed Ernst to have agreed to all the requested admissions — in effect, preventing the firm from contesting the key elements of the Reillys’ case. A verdict was then entered on behalf of Barbara Reilly that “included $34 million for her ownership interest in Canterbury Village — half of the $68 million appraised value — plus an additional $50,945,222 in interest, based on a rate of 6 percent per annum beginning in 1986, for a total compensatory damage award of $84,018,989. Yeager also awarded her $18.17 million in punitive damages for a total verdict of $102,718,989.” The appeals panel has now decided, however, that loss (in effect) of its right to mount a substantive defense is too harsh a sanction for Ernst’s procedural fumblings, so a retrial is on its way. (Asher Hawkins, “Retrial Ordered in Nine-Figure Fraud Case”, Legal Intelligencer, Jul. 27; Karen Kane, “Seven Fields developer faults Ernst & Young in lawsuit”, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 25, 2002).

Filed under: , , ,

Criticizing Saudi financiers

Whether or not you reside in the U.K., the range of reading material available to you regarding the tangled banking relationships of the Middle East is being shaped and constrained by the London libel courts. (Gary Shapiro, “Libel Suit Leads to Destruction of Books”, New York Sun, Aug. 2; Mark Steyn, “The vanishing jihad exposés”, syndicated/Orange County Register, Aug. 5; earlier here and here).

Filed under: , , ,