How many errors can you spot in the Jeannette Borzo/California Lawyer magazine story on legal blogging and its sentence about this weblog?
As best as most people can tell, the history of legal blogs began in July 1999 when two lawyers-a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and another attorney from New Jersey-launched Overlawyered (www.overlawyered.com).
As a judge considers whether to impose sanctions on attorney Clifford Shoemaker for hitting investigative blogger Kathleen Seidel with an intimidating subpoena, one of Shoemaker’s attorneys asks the court for more time “to gather the material I would need to show the Court the justification for the Subpoena and its scope,” which prompts Eric Turkewitz to wonder (May 6): “Why is it necessary to look for justification for the subpoena after it was issued?” And: “Other than talking to Shoemaker, who must have already had justification before the subpoena was issued, why would it be necessary to interview any other witness? It’s only Shoemaker’s rationale that matters to the sanctions motion.”
In another indication that heavy-handed pursuit of a blogger might not have worked out very well as a legal strategy, Shoemaker’s own clients, the Sykes family, have now voluntarily dropped their vaccine-autism suit against Bayer, which was the basis for the subpoena (Seidel, Orac).
Perhaps-ominous sequel: Seidel points out in a new post that Shoemaker’s legal papers accuse her of arguably tortious conduct in her comments on autism litigation, including interfering with “witnesses’ professions, professional relationships, and economic opportunities”, and that the witnesses in question in the Sykes suit, Dr. Mark Geier and David Geier, have previously pursued long and costly litigation against four scientists and the American Academy of Pediatrics over an article in Pediatrics which disputed the Geiers’ findings. The suit — which was eventually dismissed without prejudice as to the scientists, and dismissed with prejudice as to AAP — contended that damages were owing because the article in question had cut into the Geiers’ potential income as expert witnesses.
Maybe it’s better sometimes not to stand on all your legal rights? “Jeffery Ely ran over a dog and then sued its owners for the cost of repairing his vehicle. Ely claims in court filings that he suffered $1,100 in damages after Fester, a brain-damaged miniature pinscher, ran in front of his 1997 Honda Civic in January.” (USA Today, May 7).
Yesterday the Manhattan Institute released a new report by my colleague Jim Copland, “Trial Lawyers Inc. — Asbestos“. As I note at Point of Law, even as a longtime observer of asbestos litigation I found it quite an eye-opener. I’m happy to announce that Jim Copland will be joining us tomorrow for a guestblogging stint to explain some of his findings.
According to the would-be class action on behalf of Take Five ticket buyers, those supposed chances of “winning” are inflated by counting a free play as a win. “The lawsuit says merchants who sell the tickets should be held liable since they were in on the fraud.” (Thomas Zambito, “A lotto nonsense, says $5M lawsuit”, New York Daily News, May 6; Kati Cornell, “You’ve Gotta Sue To Win”, New York Post, May 6; Lottery Post).
You knew it was coming dept.: Roy Pearson wants $1 million for being deprived of his District of Columbia judgeship. (Emil Steiner blog/Washington Post, Kerr @ Volokh, Laconic Law Blog; earlier).
Via Kaus, I’m pleased to see someone making this issue crystal-clear:
Earlier on POL: Jan. 24; Jun. 21; Feb. 2, 2007.
“Three years ago, Purina sent a cease-and-desist letter to Chow, Baby!, a Baltimore area pet supply shop and Web site owned by Robin McDonald, asserting that its use of the ‘Chow, Baby!’ name was likely to cause confusion with Purina’s CHOW trademarks and would dilute the distinctive quality of those marks. … According to the dictionary, ‘chow’ is defined as food, a meaning that dates back to 1860.” (Carolyn Elefant, Legal Blog Watch, May 2). More from Ron Coleman:
But companies such as Purina are not interested in discussing the matter. Brand management isn’t a seminar. They are interesting in executing and maintaining a policy of complete domination of not only their brand equity space, but a comfortable semiotic buffer all around that space to the full extent that they can get away with it. Judges simply do not award fees or otherwise penalize brand owners for overreaching under the Lanham Act, though the Act empowers them to do so (the exceptions are notable and hence reportable). For this reason it is worth it to Purina and companies like it — it is a rational economic and corporate choice — to litigate these cases at the small risk of actually getting to a final adverse judgment regarding a trademark they have no right to anyway, as weighed against the much higher possibility that the other side will surrender $10,000, $25,000 or even $100,000 worth of fees into the process — dollars that are orders of magnitude more significant to the defendant (or declaratory judgment plaintiff) than for a corporation that probably has counsel on a retainer anyway.
An Arizona antiwar activist has been much criticized for selling a T-shirt with the slogan “Bush Lied, They Died” along with the names of the more than 4,000 U.S. servicemen killed in the war. Parents of a soldier killed in action in Iraq are suing, saying the use of their son’s name has caused them emotional distress; they want class-action status on behalf of all the parents of other soldiers killed in action, amounting to $40 billion. The suit’s Amended Complaint does little to advance the dignity of its cause with assertions like, “Most respectfully, this is a concept that even a mentally-challenged monkey could grasp.” (Howard Wasserman, Prawfsblawg, May 5; Balko, Reason “Hit and Run”, May 6; The Smoking Gun, Apr. 23).
The presumptive GOP nominee has announced a list of 45 or so names; the academic contingent encouragingly includes Profs. Volokh, Calabresi, Rotunda, McGinnis, and Kerr. (Hotline, May 6). More: the Obama campaign responds (via Kerr @ Volokh):
The Straight Talk Express took another sharp right turn today as John McCain promised his conservative base four more years of out-of-touch judges that would threaten a woman’s right to choose, gut the campaign finance reform that bears his own name, and trample the rights and interests of the American people. Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.