Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Archive for 2007

“Ladies’ Nights” lawsuits, cont’d

ABC News files a report on a sector of litigation we’ve covered extensively over the years:

Tim Gleason, general manager of the China Club in New York, calls [attorney Roy Den] Hollander’s complaint “pathetic” and echoes other club owners who argue that the discounts actually help both sexes by balancing out the ratio between men and women….

“Ladies’ Night benefits the men as much as it benefits the ladies, the clubs and society,” said John Juliano, owner of the recently closed Copacabana Nightclub. “And the only loser here is this grouch with a warped point of view.”

GWU lawprof and inveterate publicity hound John Banzhaf, whose “suing for credit” course has generated one such suit, gets a mention too. (Brittany Bacon, “‘Ladies’ Night’ Lawsuits on the Rocks?”, Jul. 25; 239 reader comments so far). More: Lat, Jul. 30.

Filed under: ,

Jailbird, Away!

Regarding the story Walter mentioned below on a fugitive’s possible liability for a news copter crash, Dave Hughes of the media watchdog site dcrtv.com suggests a different chain of causation than the Phoenix police chief:

While I’m very sorry that the two Phoenix TV copters collided and crashed, killing four, I am very much against TV stations (and cable “news” networks) televising live police chases. There isn’t much news value there and the the very presence of TV coverage of such events encourages people – particularly the drunk and drugged – to break the law and lead the police in high-speed chases thereby endangering countless thousands of responsible drivers, their passengers, and pedestrians. …

I’m reminded of a recent “Simpsons” episode where the Channel 6 news copter follows the Jailbird (aka Snake) on a police chase, which takes an unexpected turn when the fugitive leaves his car, steals a helicopter of his own, and pulls alongside the news copter, where he turns to the camera and offers a succinct traffic report before flying off.

The High Cost of Doing Little

Last week the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division issued their annual report on the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR Act), which requires companies to pre-report mergers over a certain value to antitrust regulators so they can preemptively determine if a deal is “likely to have an anticompetitive impact.” (It’s amazing that people with such amazing economic forecasting abilities are employed as mere government lawyers.)

Despite the occasional high-profile merger challenge, like the FTC’s recent lawsuit to stop Whole Foods from acquiring Wild Oats, very few deals face antitrust roadblocks. In the fiscal year 2006, the FTC and DOJ issued second requests for information—the first step towards a formal challenge—in only 2.6% of reported mergers. This is slightly below the ten-year average of 3.01%.

Read On…

Filed under:

Fugitives responsible for risks of pursuit, cont’d

On Thursday we posted a story about a jury’s holding a Missouri fugitive responsible for the crash of a police car which was headed (at a great distance) toward his manhunt. Now similar issues might come up following a more spectacular catastrophe, yesterday’s crash of two news helicopters over central Phoenix while covering a live police pursuit, with the death of all four persons aboard. Phoenix police chief Jack Harris, per the coverage, “said he believes the man [fleeing police] will be held responsible for the deaths of the four TV station employees.” (“2 News Helicopters Collide; 4 Dead”, KPHO News 5, Jul. 27).

Filed under: ,

Fighting Collusion with Collusion

Last week a Connecticut jury acquitted Stora Enso North America Corp. of criminal “price fixing” charges. The Justice Department indicted Stoa Enso last December for allegedly selling coated magazine paper at “anticompetitive” prices. It’s rare for any company to go to trial on criminal (or even civil) antitrust charges, and an outright not-guilty verdict is even rarer: In the last ten years, the Antitrust Division’s criminal won-loss record is a robust 454-11.

The Antitrust Division’s success in convicting price fixing defendants can be attributed to the Corporate Leniency Policy, an invention of Division lawyers that allows one company in a purported “cartel” to escape all criminal prosecution in exchange for providing evidence against other firms. It’s a terrific bargain. A company can inflict maximum damage on its competitors—who face large criminal fines and treble damages in subsequent civil lawsuits—while prosecutors are generally ensured of quick plea bargains from their remaining targets.

Read On…

Filed under: ,

Yet another McDonald’s coffee style lawsuit

You will recall that defenders of the absurd McDonald’s coffee lawsuit insist that the suit was justified because only McDonald’s sold beverages capable of third-degree burns. We’ve repeatedly shown that that claim is fictional, but add one more example: a New Jersey man is suing Starbucks for selling “unsafe” hot tea that caused third degree burns on his hand when he spilled it on himself (though at least, unlike Stella Liebeck, he is claiming that the spill is the store’s fault for failing to attach the lid properly). Because Starbucks does not comment on litigation, they surrender the entire article to the plaintiffs’ attorney for Antonio Couso to use as a platform when the reporter does not bother double-checking any of the lawyer’s claims. (John Petrick, “Starbucks sued over spilled tea”, The Record, Jul. 27).

Filed under: , , ,

July 27 roundup

  • Grand jury declines to indict Dr. Anna Pou in Katrina hospital deaths, despite heavy breathing from Louisiana AG Charles Foti and TV’s Nancy Grace [Times-Picayune, more; 2005 CNN transcript; Health Care Blog, GruntDoc, Vatul.net]

  • Protection from lawsuits for “John Doe” security informants is back in anti-terror legislation moving through Congress, despite back-door effort to eliminate it earlier [Fox News, Malkin; earlier] Addendum: but it’s in altered, much-weakened form, says commenter Bob Smith;

  • U.K.: Top law firm Freshfields earns millions advising clients on employment compliance, yet “omitted to check that changes to its own pension scheme were legal” [Times Online]

  • Thinking of doing some guestblogging, for us or another site? Some good advice here [Darren Rowse via Kevin O’Keefe]

  • Even Conrad Black can have trouble affording lawyers, at least with feds freezing his accounts [PoL on Steyn]

  • Shouldn’t have let us become parents again: Florida jury awards $21 million in “wrongful birth” case [Fox News]

  • Possibility of gigantic reparations claims adds intensity to big lobbying fight in Washington over whether Turkey’s slaughter of Armenians in 1915 amounted to genocide [Crowley, New Republic]

  • Updating colorful coverage case (Jun. 22, 2005): dentist wins $750K verdict on insurer’s duty to defend him for taking gag photos of sedated employee with boar tusks in mouth [Seattle Times, more; dissent in PDF; Althouse]

  • Giuliani might use federalism to defuse culture wars [Brownstein, L.A. Times; disclaimer]

  • Virginia’s enactment of harsh traffic fines (Jul. 6) follows tryouts of the idea in Michigan and New Jersey, where effects included rise in unlicensed driving [Washington Post]

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

When is a court decision “pro-business”?

Common journalistic practice says that a court decision is pro-business when it favors a corporate defendant over a plaintiff. Conservatives are also said to be pro-business while liberals are pro-plaintiff or pro-consumer. This is how the press frames most discussions of tort and regulatory litigation.

In the last Supreme Court term, a 5-4 decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. was hailed and condemned (depending on who you ask) as a pro-business decision. The conservative majority, led by Justice Kennedy, overruled a 1911 precedent that condemned “resale price maintenance” (RPM)—contracts where a manufacturer conditions sales to distributors on setting a specific retail price—as an automatic violation of the Sherman Act. Most antitrust challenges are subject to the rule of reason, and after years of complaints from mainstream economists, the Leegin majority acquiesced in ending RPM’s special status under the “per se” rule.

Read On…

Filed under: