The court has granted rehearing, effectively agreeing to reconsider the issue (Malkin, Mar. 27; earlier).
Archive for 2008
Obama’s financial regulation speech
Prof. Bainbridge doesn’t like much of what he hears (Mar. 27).
Great moments in custody litigation
An Italian pornographic movie star/politician who was formerly married to wealthy American artist Jeff Koons is back in court with a child support demand, a decade after the two carried out an extraordinarily acrimonious and hard-fought custody battle over their son, now 15. In the course of losing that battle Koons spent $4 million on legal fees, “some of which he later challenged unsuccessfully. Among Koons’ complaints was his lawyers charged him for time they spent watching his ex’s porn films, one of which famously includes” a scene rather too raw for description on this blog involving a reptilian co-star. (Dareh Gregorian, “Porn Star Sues Papa To Pay Up”, New York Post, Mar. 27).
National Practitioner Data Bank
When money is paid out on a medical liability claim, the doctor’s name is automatically entered on this federal database — and that may have more serious consequences for the doctor’s career than the payout itself. (Vicki T. Brenthall, Medical Economics, Feb. 15).
Client-chasing dot-orgs
We’ve previously noted that seemingly public-spirited websites purportedly set up to offer medical information and advice on mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses are usually fronts for law firms. Roger Parloff at Fortune “Legal Pad” takes a look at a couple of such ventures operated by Beasley Allen of Alabama and Early Ludwick of Connecticut. (Mar. 27). NYU’s Stephen Gillers says the “disguised nature of [Beasley Allen’s] web site would not allow it to survive challenge under the New York rules” on attorney promotion but doesn’t have reason to think it violates the (presumably less stringent) Alabama rules. Early Ludwick’s “Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center”
uses a popular symbol of medicine as its emblem – the two serpents wrapped around a winged staff – and its “about us” blurb says: “Our organization is staffed entirely by volunteer writers and other contributors who recognize the importance of building awareness.”
but if you look hard enough you can find a hyperlink leading to an “Attorney Advertising” notice. And what’s with the law firms’ having managed to secure dot-org domains for these ventures, just as if they were nonprofit or something?
P.S. As several readers point out, those who distribute domains make no attempt to police the recommendation (originally requirement) that .org be reserved for non-profits; for one thing, it’s now routine for .com owners to obtain the .org equivalent of their name and arrange for it to redirect to their main site. I should have phrased my point more narrowly: when they select a dot org as the primary address for their site, law firm marketers make it more likely that unwary readers will mistake the site for that of a medical philanthropy.
Depress the smoking rate, increase the obesity rate
I’m quoted in this morning’s New York Sun on that correlation. (E.B. Solomont, “Post-Smoking Ban, City Gains 10 Million Lbs.”, New York Sun, Mar. 27).
Redesign issues continue
An advisory about a few continuing issues arising from our Movable Type upgrade a week ago and the site redesign that it’s triggered:
* We’re experiencing a surge in comment spam which we’re trying to fix. In the past these attacks have sometimes forced us to close comments briefly or have even brought down the whole site.
* Relatedly, we’re suffering email disruptions which are affecting email addresses @ this domain name and at my personal domain walterolson dot com. If you have sent mail to me or Ted through these sites in the past week, it may not have gotten to us. Editor – at – pointoflaw – dot – com should reach me and is unaffected by the disruptions. Using comments on posts as a substitute for messaging is best saved for a last resort. Facebook messaging is another alternative to consider.
* A couple of readers have reported disruptions to Overlawyered’s RSS feeds. If this is happening to you, too, feel free to point it out in comments to this post. I don’t use feeds and rely on readers to let me know when they malfunction.
* I’m slowly moving up the learning curve on customizing display styles on things like font size and white space. The gavel icon is back on the front page address line. Don’t assume that this design is final as I’m by no means done tweaking it — I might even go back to the pink color scheme.
P.S. Prof. Bainbridge likes the new design. But does Ron Coleman? And QuizLaw favors the distinctive pink.
UK: ire over £200,000 payout for defense office worker
“Soldiers’ families reacted angrily after it emerged the Ministry of Defence awarded £202,000 to an office employee who strained his back picking up a printer. The ‘disgraceful’ decision left the civil servant with a larger payout than almost all the servicemen injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.” (Stephen Adams, “MoD office worker gets £200,000 payout”, Telegraph, Mar. 18).
Update: T-shirts critical of Wal-Mart
Updating our Mar. 29, 2006 post: “Computer store owner Charles Smith has won a two-year legal battle with Wal-Mart, which has demanded he stop making and selling T-shirts and other items with slogans such as ‘Wal-ocaust’ and ‘Wal-Qaeda.’ U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. found that Smith’s products qualified as protected noncommercial speech because his goal was to criticize Wal-Mart, not to make a profit from his products. The judge noted that Smith had sold only 62 T-shirts, including 15 to one of Wal-Mart’s outside law firms.” (Janet L. Conley, “Parody of Wal-Mart Trumps Its Trademark”, Fulton County Daily Report, Mar. 26; Likelihood of Confusion, Mar. 22; Randazza, Mar. 23).
N.H. jury: lawyer’s demand letters amounted to extortion
Now this could crimp the business plans of quite a few attorneys:
A Manchester lawyer who threatened to sue a Concord salon for pricing haircuts differently for men and women and then took money to settle the matter was found guilty of theft by extortion.
A jury took about 1½ hours to convict Daniel Hynes, 27, on Wednesday. Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Baker said Hynes sent letters to at least 19 salons in the state.
One arrived Dec. 20, 2006, at Claudia’s, the North Main Street hair salon owned by Claudia Lambert. In the letter, Hynes said prices should be based on the time a cut takes or on the length of hair, instead of on gender. He wrote: “I demand payment in the amount of $1,000 in order to avoid litigation,” according to court documents. …
Hynes said yesterday that he plans to appeal.
“The conviction goes against the First Amendment,” he said. “People have a right to petition the courts. In my case, I wanted to address my concern with the Human Rights Commission.”
Asked why he sent letters to salons instead of contacting the commission directly, Hynes said lawyers often settle out of court.
“I believe it’s more appropriate to attempt as amicable a resolution as possible,” he said.
… In one court document, he argued that the price structure that he saw as discriminatory had caused him stress and mental anguish, despite the fact that prices for men were less than those for women. He said he was being denied an “inherent benefit in being treated equally.”
(Chelsea Conaboy, “Lawyer guilty of salon extortion”, Concord Monitor, Mar. 21; Greenfield, Mar. 23; Above the Law, Mar. 25; Pasquale, Concurring Opinions, Mar. 24).
Prof. Bainbridge (Mar. 25) cites California’s experience with the now somewhat reformed s. 17200 unfair business practices law, which empowered freelancing lawyers to send out demand letters to businesses over a wide variety of alleged infractions. He concludes that the answer is to amend underlying laws which sweep too broadly in banning business practices, authorize damage claims unrelated to actual injury, and so forth. Although I much appreciate the kind suggestions for further reading he offers in his post, I can’t say I entirely go along with the idea that the scope for possible abuse would vanish if only the underlying laws were written properly. At Concurring Opinions, incidentally, one commenter draws a connection to RIAA’s mass production of demand letters against file-sharers, while another warns that for a target to complain to the authorities of extortion, as did the New Hampshire salon owner, might itself be construed by many courts as “retaliation” against the filer of a discrimination claim and thus as grounds for penalties on its own.