Welcome Daily Beast readers: Newsweek reporter Mike Giglio quotes me on the class action lawsuits filed over Greg Mortenson’s book Three Cups of Tea. Earlier coverage here.
Archive for June, 2011
“The phenomenon of lower extremity impacts into furniture is not unusual”
Thanks to Ben S., discussing the CPSC product-safety database, for the week’s drollest comment.
Margaret Little reviews Lester Brickman
In the new issue of the Federalist Society’s Engage, Margaret Little reviews Lester Brickman’s Lawyer Barons: What Their Contingency Fees Really Cost America, one of the most important new books on tort law in years (review, PDF). Excerpt:
No scholar has studied the role of the contingency fee in America more comprehensively than Professor Lester Brickman. He has now published a definitive book that examines the historic, economic, and political legacy of this American means of financing the always elusive quest for justice. …
Litigation, while public in name, takes place out of the public eye. … the defense bar is up to its elbows in preserving these arrangements because of the mirror image benefits they derive from the expansion and complexity of tort liability.
June 10 roundup
- The appalling reign of California’s prison guards union [Tim Kowal, League of Ordinary Gentlemen via Tim Cavanaugh; Steven Malanga, City Journal; earlier]
- Defense side, including dozens of sued bloggers, begins to respond in “Rakofsky v. Internet” case [Turkewitz, Popehat, earlier]
- Point/counterpoint on class action arbitration clauses [Karlsgodt]
- Group plans to Twitter-fy the novel Ulysses via crowdsourcing in time for Bloomsday, but let’s hope nobody tells litigation-prone Joyce heir [Ulysses Meets Twitter 2011 via BoingBoing]
- Battle over reform of joint and several liability continues in Pennsylvania legislature [Wajert]
- From Miami, latest dramatic tale of cops vs. citizen video-taking [David Rittgers, Cato at Liberty] New Jersey bill would criminalize taking photos of kids in many circumstances [Nicole Ciandella, CEI, see also]
- Australia: “Man Gets Workers’ Comp for Injury Sustained When Punching Customer” [Lowering the Bar]
Baltimore’s “Injury LawMobile”
The Maryland Daily Record (sub) has a Google-accessible pic of this lawyerly venture into street advertising (via Miller). Compare this 2004 NYC story, where the van actually contained a mobile law office, and its followup.
Worst New Jersey lawyer ever?
If prosecutors are to be believed, Paul Bergrin not only defrauded lenders on a grand scale but “set up witnesses to be murdered before they could testify against his clients”. “I can’t have some [expletive] lawyer in suspenders and I’m supposed say thanks because he got my sentence down to twenty years,” said one murder-rap defendant client. “I’m paying top dollar, and I demand legal brilliance. Someone who will consider all the options.” [New York magazine]
Breaching online anonymity
Some online-speech defenders are alarmed at the readiness with which a Colorado judge agreed to expose the anonymity of Wikipedia contributors in a defamation case brought by the fashion company Façonnable. [Paul Alan Levy via TechDirt; Citizen Media Law]
“Sex accommodation” tale from Brazil
It’s a much–circulated story. But is it true?
June 8 roundup
- Law firm settles with employee who said required high heels led to back injury [ABA Journal]
- Stock listings fleeing U.S. for overseas, legal environment a factor [Ribstein, TotM]
- Partial solution to above? Ted Frank places a stock bet on the Wal-Mart case [PoL, more]
- Wider press coverage of hospital drug shortage [AP, Reuters, my March post]
- Trial judge up north supports certifying as class action unusual suit blaming Newfoundland for moose collisions [Canadian Press via Karlsgodt, earlier here and here]
- Academic revolt against copyright overreach [Chron of Higher Ed]
- Sues deceased grandmother over trampoline injury [Madison County Record]
New frontiers in international human rights
Even for nonpayment of cable bills? “The United Nations has declared Internet access a human right, and disconnecting people from it is against international law.” [Stan Schroeder, Mashable]
More: According to some commenters, what’s going on here is an assertion only of liberty rights (authorities should not block access) and not of affirmative welfare rights to internet access. Accepting this view for the basis of argument, there still arises the question of whether commonly encountered terms of service will now be at risk of being declared contrary to international law; per news coverage, some advocates hope the new initiative will bar closing the accounts of distributors of pirated music etc., and one can readily imagine parallel claims by email spammers, launchers of DDOS attacks and other controversial classes of users.