Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Marc Dann’s “Where Are They Now?” Moment

Overlawyered readers may well recall the travails of disgraced former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann.  Dann dropped off the radar earlier this year after he was driven from office amid allegations of sexual harassment and workplace affairs within his office.  Before stepping down, Dann touched off a brief constitutional crisis in Ohio, similar to what Illinois is now experiencing thanks to Rod Blagojevich.

Now Dann is back in the news, with a less sexy scandal involving campaign finance expenditures:

Former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann used his campaign account to bankroll home repairs and family vacations, according to a newspaper review of state investigative reports.

Interestingly, beyond the expected “lies all lies!” defense, Dann responds that while he didn’t do it, if he did do it, he did it on the advice of counsel:

“The allegations that have been made in these complaints are either false or they lack a basis in law,” Dann said. “We operated the campaign committee lawfully, and all the expenditures were made with the advice of counsel and were appropriate.”

It would be nice to know which counsel advised the former attorney general that home repairs and family vacations were appropriate campaign expenditures.  Assuming that the counsel wasn’t Marc Dann.

Via Instapundit, who observes that the AP’s treatment of this story leaves the reader puzzled as to Dann’s party identity.  Perhaps Marc Dann was an independent.

Filed under: , ,

A New Category for Mark T. Sandoval?

An update to last week’s post on the case of the Texas judge’s drunk driving daughter: Mark Bennett of Defending People, who has already dug deeply into this matter, has evidently replaced his shovel with an oil drill.  He’s struck a gusher of facts about Mark T. Sandoval, the lawyer who brought this frivolous case.

Among other things, Defending People has found multiple sanctions for serious ethical violations, multiple suspensions, a jailing for lying to a judge, garnishment of fees for unpaid federal tax liens, and other lapses for which Sandoval has not (yet?) been sanctioned.

Perhaps the most bothersome aspect of this case is that Sandoval appears to earn a substantial portion of his fees from representing indigent children as a court-appointed attorney.  Is this what Texas taxpayers want for their most troubled children?

California Attorney General Weighs in on Proposition 8

Not surprisingly, given that the office is occupied by former “Governor Moonbeam” Jerry Brown, he feels that the amendment barring same sex marriage should be invalidated.  Also not surprisingly, given that it’s Governor Moonbeam, he takes a novel approach to the argument, one that libertarians may like: that same sex marriage is an inalienable right which cannot be taken away even by constitutional amendment.  (The fighting Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not appear to be cited, as it’s a matter of state law).

Kip Esquire, who is a libertarian and who strongly favors same sex marriage rights, has given Brown’s arguments a thorough review, and seems unimpressed.  Key criticism:

If I were Kenneth Starr (in the sense of, “if I were as insolent and snarky as Kenneth Starr is”), then I would simply respond with something like this: “What the Attorney General is apparently suggesting is that the California Constitution — is unconstitutional. That simply cannot be right.”

More analysis of the Brown brief may be found at Mr. Esquire’s site.

Filed under: ,

Iowa Husbands: Knock Before Opening the Bathroom Door

The Iowa Supreme Court has held that a wife can suffer an invasion of privacy in her home, even from her husband, according to this Associated Press story.  Inconsiderate husbands and wives in the Hawkeye State shouldn’t make too much of this holding, which can probably be limited to its bizarre facts.  Upholding a trial court’s award of $22,500 in damages, Iowa’s high court held that Cathy Tigges had a cause of action for invasion of privacy against her husband, Jeffrey Tigges, who placed multiple hidden cameras in the couple’s bedroom.  Necessarily, the Court held that Mrs. Tigges did have a reasonable expectation of privacy from her husband in her marital bedroom, particularly when she thought she was alone.

For the nosey among us, neither the story nor the Court’s opinion reveals Mr. Tigges’ reason for placing the cameras, but one assumes he feared he was being cuckolded.  Whether that was true or not, the Tiggses, who appear to have been a pair of amateur spymasters (each secretly recorded the other’s telephone conversations as well), have also been granted what sounds like a long overdue divorce.

Despite their concerns about privacy, the Tiggeses have succeeded in making their unhappy marriage a worldwide public spectacle, which I am doing my part to promote.  That’s the funny thing about defamation and privacy lawsuits; in a society that values open courts, one often broadcasts the injury to a far larger audience by taking it to litigation.  Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer.

Filed under: ,

California Good Samaritan ruling, cont’d

As mentioned yesterday, California’s Supreme Court has ruled 4-3 that the state’s “Good Samaritan” law providing tort immunity for rescuers applies only to medical personnel providing medical help at an emergency scene, and not to civilians. “Although the law does not distinguish between types of emergency care, the court majority said the context shows it was meant to be limited to medical care. The law was part of a package of legislation on emergency medical services, Justice Carlos Moreno said in the majority opinion.” (SF Chronicle). Unless you’ve got medical training, then, think twice about offering to help. Docbloggers have been discussing the decision since then, with GruntDoc siding with the dissent, SymTym countering on behalf of the majority, and Throckmorton reporting that even being on the right side of the law isn’t enough to provide reassurance nowadays: “Most of my colleagues are afraid to stop at the scene of an accident and render aid for fear of being sued. The Good Samaritan Law is supposed to prevent this fear of suits but no one seems to believe that it will offer any protection.”

P.S. Gleeful Gecko: “Never put out a burning Californian.”

Filed under:

Microblog 2008-12-19

  • Newest “Trial Lawyers Inc.” report is on Louisiana [Manhattan Institute, Point of Law]
  • Mel Weiss disbarred automatically w/strong language from judges [Matter of Weiss h/t @erwiest]
  • Pro se claimant: I wrote down cure for cancer and then the darn hospital stole it! [Above the Law]
  • “California Supreme Court Ruling May Deter Good Samaritans” [The Recorder; SF Chronicle with copious reader comments, GruntDoc, our coverage last year]
  • Due diligence on dodgy funds? Sometimes it seems everyone’s relying on someone else to do that [Bronte Capital] Madoff fraud may date to 1970s, maybe “recent laxity” angle has been overdone [Securities Docket] “Ponzi crawl” = pub crawl whereby new person is added at each location and has to buy a round [Re Risk]
  • Radley Balko on Julie Amero malware-prosecution story [Reason, earlier]
  • Join Paul Ehrlich in some of the world’s most famously refuted predictions, and you too may get to be Obama’s science adviser [John Tierney/NYT, John Holdren]
  • Wisconsin Minnesota pig-sitter trial set for March, claim is that defendant let star porker overfeed and gain a hundred pounds [LaCrosse Tribune h/t @kevinokeefe]
  • More on the Patent and Trademark Office “acceptable error” employment case [Venture Chronicles, Jeff Nolan; earlier]
  • Procter & Gamble “Satanism” case finally settles, soap giant got $19 million verdict against four Amway distributors who spread rumor [OnPoint News]
  • Once filing of a suit severs the channels of communication, attorneys and clients alike begin to make up “what really happened” narratives [Settle It Now]
  • Sometimes lawyers need to be formal. Don’t IM “Court denied your appeal u will b executed saturday thx” [Beck & Herrmann]
  • Bangladesh hoping to build replica of Taj Mahal despite copyright claims [Times Online h/t @mglickman]
  • Midnight regulations? “OMB Watch” vigilant (and with reason) during this R-2-D transition but sang different tune in 2000’s D-2-R [Gillespie, Reason]

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

It’s 8:00 pm, But The Sun Hasn’t Risen

Reuters:  No deluge of lawsuits – yet- in Madoff case.  Reuters is surprised that an army of plaintiffs hasn’t sprung from the ground to destroy whatever is left of Madoff Securities and anything else in its vicinity.  Reuters reports this as though it’s news.

This story is a classic example of why journalists shouldn’t report on serious legal matters without some training, perhaps to 2L, or at least long experience as a crime beat reporter.  Of course Madoff hasn’t been sued.  Most of the likely law firms that could sue it are wondering whether they’re potential defendants, or which of the potential defendants they already represent.

Madoff was a heavily capitalized hedge fund with sophisticated investors, perhaps fifty billion dollars worth of investors.  Each and every one of those sophisticated investors had, or has, heavy legal talent among the New York, Chicago, London, and Los Angeles bigfoot law firms that would be best qualified to bring a suit against Madoff, its auditors or accountants, and the brokers who steered business its way.  The investors themselves, and the auditors, accountants, and brokers, who were generally investing other people’s money, are looking at their lawyers asking, “How did I let myself do this?”  For that matter, some of the law firms are looking at themselves and asking, “Why did I let my client do this?”  Or they’re reaching out to their banking and hedge fund clients and asking, “Wouldn’t you like to know that you’re not responsible for doing this?  I can tell you why.”  Or they’re so conflicted among their various clients that they’re asking themselves, “What do we do?”

And then there are the insurers.  And the reinsurers.  And their lawyers.  Finally, don’t forget that most of these firms have a few very sharp white collar criminal defense attorneys, who are also getting calls.  The white collar crime-only boutique firms will have a field day.

The conflict checking alone among the bigfirms probably isn’t finished.  As for firms specializing in class actions and securities litigation for plaintiffs, well, some of their best, such as Dreier and Associates and what’s left of Milberg Weiss, have been having troubles of their own.

The Madoff lawsuits will come, and the schadenfreude will flow.  As a wise man once said, “Patience, grasshopper.”

Filed under: , ,

Before and After

While I don’t plan to promote my own blog here, because there’s not much to promote, this is a story that I think needs wider circulation.  Police and prosecutorial abuse is a problem that’s gotten more attention in the past year thanks to a certain District Attorney, but it hasn’t gotten enough to suit me.

Suppose we have a jailhouse lawyer, who sues the local sheriff and district attorney for alleged civil rights violations.  Suppose, just after filing that suit, the jailhouse lawyer gets into a fight with deputy sheriff jailers, and comes out on the losing end.  As in, “a trip to the hospital for broken bones” losing end.  Then suppose he’s charged as a felon for assaulting his jailers, and, in the office of the District Attorney who charged him, the same District Attorney he sued, a poster appears with photos of the inmate’s face before and after the trip to the emergency room, along the lines of a certain well known anti-drug commercial involving a frying egg.

Suppose the inmate’s attorney requests the poster as Brady material, but the poster somehow vanishes:  This Is Your Face After Inconveniencing The Stanly County District Attorney. Any Questions?

Filed under: ,

“Can I take the shot? CAN I TAKE THE SHOT?”

Before your weekend begins, though this may be old news to some, I wanted to share this shocking story of waste, fraud, and abuse committed by staff at the United States Attorney’s office for the Central District of California, all on the taxpayer’s dime: Remembering The Greatest Prosecutor Practical Joke Ever.

Fortunately no one’s life, liberty, or property was lost in the perpetration of this act.

Filed under:

Roman Catholic Diocese of Vermont Hit With 18:1 Punitives Award

A jury in Vermont has awarded a former altar boy $192,500 in compensatory damages, and $3.4 million in punitive damages, for suffering alleged molestation at the hands of a priest in 1977.  According to the Times Argus of Vermont, this is the third trial this year involving the same priest, who, amazingly, still retains his collar though he’s retired from active service.  As a result, the diocese of Vermont appears to be teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.  The diocese has announced it will appeal the verdict.

The ratio of punitive to compensatory damages appears to violate the  Supreme Court’s suggestion in Exxon Shipping v. Baker (an admiralty case decided on statutory grounds) that a punitive ratio in excess of single digits, or even 1:1, is unconstitutional.  But as Cal Punitives points out, is this the case with which to put that suggestion to the test?

Filed under: ,