Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Archive for 2007

More Chesley follies with Judge Bamberger in Kentucky?

Prominent Cincinnati attorney Stan Chesley said he wanted to file the Diocese of Covington priest-abuse case in Boone County because “we have a real friendly judge there,” a lawyer testified this week.

“He winked at me” and said “we need to file this in Boone County,” testified Covington lawyer Barbara Bonar, who is suing Chesley in a dispute over attorneys fees in the $84.5 million case.

“He said we already have hired a trial consultant, and he is real friendly with the judge,” Bonar said, describing a conversation she claimed to have had with Chesley in January 2003. “And he winked at me again.”

Chesley denies the allegations, but the fact remains that the Boone Circuit judge, Joseph Bamberger, of Kentucky fen-phen scandal fame, made an unprecedented ruling certifying a class action over priest abuse that forced the diocese into a $84.5 million settlement given that the church could not hope to defend itself against anonymous unnamed class members.

Bonar, who was briefly co-counsel for the class in the priest-abuse case, testified that Chesley’s partner Robert Steinberg told her in August 2003 that the Chesley firm had to turn down an early $3 million settlement offer from the diocese because it already had paid $400,000 in expenses to Modlin as a fee “to get the class certified.”

The diocese had sought Bamberger’s recusal. Modlin was also hired as a $2 million “trial consultant” in the fen-phen case, and went on to buy a house in Florida with Judge Bamberger. Chesley denies paying Modlin $400,000, and Bonar has her own motivation to fib, as she’s suing for a share of the Chesley fees from the class action, and claims she left the case only because of her fear of being involved in a fraud on the court. Bonar has already earned $2 million in fees out of the $4.7 million she settled for in individual cases outside the class action. Somewhere in here, a crime has been committed, whether it be bribery or perjury, but there’s work for a grand jury to be done. (Andrew Wolfson, “Lawyers clash in dispute over fees”, Louisville Courier-Journal, May 10; see also Jeanne Houck, “Claims tangle diocese lawsuit”, Kentucky Post, Nov. 26, 2003).

Update: the Kentucky Bar Association is investigating. (Paul A. Long, “Bar: Probe attorneys’ conduct”, Cincinnati Post, May 10.)

Filed under: , , , , , , ,

“Hello. My name is John Doe. Sue me.”

The Jersey Jihad arrests, following a report to authorities by an alert Circuit City employee, have reignited talk of protecting airline passengers from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior. Michelle Malkin has the slogan on a button (May 9; see also Audrey Hudson, “Republicans lobby Pelosi to protect ‘John Does'”, Washington Times, May 2; NRO “The Corner”). Earlier: Mar. 15, Mar. 22, Mar. 29, Apr. 19. Update: Jul. 20 (Hill conferees strip John Doe protection from bill).

Filed under:

Update: Boston Herald libel award upheld

“Massachusetts’ highest court on Monday upheld a $2 million verdict against the Boston Herald won by a state Superior Court judge who said the newspaper libelously depicted him as soft on crime and insensitive to the suffering of a 14-year-old rape victim.” Better be careful what you say about Judge Ernest Murphy in future. (AP coverage; Romenesko first, second posts; Dan Kennedy, Media Nation; Childs). Earlier coverage: Dec. 8 and Dec. 23, 2005.

Filed under: , , , ,

Liveblogging a malpractice trial

We’ve pointed out doctor-bloggers who have provided first person accounts of being sued for malpractice, but the last doctor on the list, the pseudonymously-named “Flea,” is taking it one step further: he’s blogging about his own trial as it happens. Today’s post is “Flea on Trial – Day One: Jury Selection.” You can follow the whole series here.

Meanwhile, New York Personal Injury Lawyer Eric Turkewitz comments, from a trial lawyer’s perspective, on some of the dangers of a doctor blogging about a case in near-real time. Our favorite tidbit is this:

His decision to walk this high-wire without a net brings us to a third issue: If plaintiff’s counsel finds out about the blog, should it be used at trial? A lawyer’s gut reaction may be yes, in order to claim to the jury that what they are seeing is a well-rehearsed act.

But if the risk is that the insurance carrier uses it as an excuse to disclaim on a plaintiff’s verdict, it may be entirely counterproductive. In this sense, Flea shares a common goal with his nemesis: They both want the insurance company standing there in case of a plaintiff’s verdict.

Well, sure — it is about the money, after all.

Filed under: ,

Annals of chutzpah: OJ Simpson and Ruby’s Louisville

Jeff Ruby was appalled when double-murderer OJ Simpson and a party of twelve sat down at his steakhouse the eve of the Kentucky Derby when a customer expressed giddiness about seeing the infamous celebrity. So Ruby announced to Simpson that he wasn’t welcome in the restaurant, and Simpson left, and Ruby got a standing ovation from the other customers for putting principle ahead of profits. Now Simpson’s attorney, Yale Galanter, is threatening to sue Ruby for racial discrimination; the Reverend Louis Coleman of the “Justice Resource Center” is picketing Ruby’s.

Ruby’s has a plausible defense that their action wasn’t based on race: a famous black athlete who didn’t murder two people, Michael Jordan, walked in five minutes after Simpson left and got a table. (Angie Fenton, “Get Buzzed: Jeff Ruby turned away O.J. Simpson”, Louisville Courier-Journal, May 8; Angie Fenton, “O.J. went to neighboring restaurant after Ruby’s stop”, Louisville Courier-Journal, May 9; Beth Campbell, AP/WaPo, May 9).

Update: Ruby explicitly denies the racial discrimination argument. (Courier-Journal, May 10).

Filed under: ,

Turn those credit slips into gold

The Chicago law firm of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC has some wonderful news for you:

We are looking for electronically generated credit / debit card receipts which show either (a) the card expiration date or (b) any digits of the credit/ debit card number other than the last five.

In order to protect consumers against identity theft, an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act with a final effective date of December 4, 2006 requires merchants who accept credit/ debit cards and issue electronic receipts to program their machines to not show either the expiration date or more than the last 5 digits of the credit/ debit card number. The expiration date is important because a thief can use it together with the last four or five digits of the number to reconstruct the entire card number.

It is a violation to show either the expiration date or more than the last 5 digits of the card number. (We have seen some receipts where 4 or 5 other digits are shown, and that is a violation.) It is not necessary that any identity theft have actually occurred. Damages for a willful violation are $100 to $1,000 per receipt. The class representative may be able to obtain some additional compensation.

We have a number of pending cases alleging this violation and are interested in other merchants who are violating the law.

The burgeoning volume of entrepreneurial litigation over insufficiently blinded credit slips is the subject of a recent Wall Street Journal article: see Robin Sidel, “Retailers Whose Slips Show Too Much Attract Lawsuits”, Apr. 28, reprinted Cattle Network, Apr. 28. For more about name partner Daniel Edelman, see Nov. 15, 1999 (infamous BancBoston settlement), Feb. 7, 2000, and Dec. 11, 2006. The Edelman firm’s website has a long listing of notable case involvements which boasts of its role in mortgage escrow class actions, but does not mention BancBoston.

Filed under: , ,

Sellers of used CDs

New burdens are being heaped on them by state legislators who appear intent on protecting the interests of the original music providers:

In Florida, the new legislation requires all stores buying second-hand merchandise for resale to apply for a permit and file security in the form of a $10,000 bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. In addition, stores would be required to thumb-print customers selling used CDs, and acquire a copy of state-issued identity documents such as a driver’s license. Furthermore, stores could issue only store credit — not cash — in exchange for traded CDs, and would be required to hold discs for 30 days before reselling them.

(Ed Christman, “New laws create second-hand woes for CD retailers”, Reuters/Billboard, May 4; Ars Technica, May 7). According to HardOCP, used game CDs are affected by the rules as well. (May 8).

Filed under: , , ,