Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

“The paid plaintiffs and their corrupt attorneys”

Judge Walter, pronouncing sentence, wasn’t buying any of the “victimless crime” spin from the Mel Weiss camp:

The wrongdoing, which included submitting false statements to courts overseeing the lawsuits, “strikes at the core — at the heart of the judicial system,” the judge said. …

Judge Walter said he was dubious of arguments that the conspiracy was a “victimless crime” because the firm, best-known simply as Milberg Weiss, vigorously represented investors in the cases that were brought. “In effect, the absent class members were at the mercy of the paid plaintiffs and their corrupt attorneys in this invidious scheme,” the judge said. The lead plaintiffs taking the secret payoffs may have been more interested in boosting Milberg’s fees than in getting the maximum recovery, the judge said.

Josh Gerstein at the Sun has more on the sentencing, including hints as to the curious role of a Denver, Colorado lawyer named Gary Lozow. (“Lawyer Weiss Gets 30-Month Sentence for Kickbacks”, Jun. 3).

Filed under:

McCain-Feingold and the Fieger acquittal

Terry Carter in the ABA Journal has more on the legal background:

The straw-donor law invoked against Fieger has been around since 1972, though Congress upped the ante and made it a felony as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as the McCain-Feingold Act. In all these years there has been but one jury verdict concerning the law, before it was a felony, and it was for acquittal. (There have been several plea agreements in recent years.)

Thus no court has crafted an opinion concerning the law itself, according to some of the few experts in this narrow slice of election law.

Spence told the jury that the government tried to use snippets of law to go after Fieger, a prominent plaintiffs lawyer and former Democratic candidate for governor in Michigan, for political purposes. The campaign finance law (2 U.S.C. § 441f) says:

“No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.”

The defense argued that the law, as worded, does not prohibit reimbursing people who make contributions.

If in fact Fieger’s acquittal will be cited in favor of the notion that the use of straw donors reimbursed after the fact is lawful after all, that might seem to blow a rather large hole in the side of the McCain-Feingold law — which makes it all the odder that the Fieger trial drew so little attention from either backers or critics of that law on the national level.

Filed under: ,

Hot coffee data point: Thomas Skaggs v. Pilot Travel Center

If you recall, the theory of defenders of the McDonald’s coffee case was that McDonald’s, and only McDonald’s, served coffee so hot as to burn, and thus merited special disapprobation.

As Overlawyered readers know, that just ain’t so. The recommended serving temperature of coffee can cause third-degree burns; coffee-drinkers prefer coffee that is that hot. Thus, lots of vendors sell coffee that causes third-degree burns when spilled.

Add to that list the Pilot Travel Center truck stop in Mount Sterling, which is the defendant in a Kentucky suit brought by Thomas Skaggs, who says he spilled coffee on his leg in December and got a third-degree burn. The skimpy press coverage on WLKY.com gives no further details other than an unimpressive photo.

Filed under: , ,

Economists’ amicus brief in Wyeth v. Levine

I’m proud to be part of the amicus brief in Wyeth v. Levine filed by leading economists John E. Calfee, Ernst R. Berndt, Robert Hahn, Tomas Philipson, Paul H. Rubin, and W. Kip Viscusi.    It provides an excellent explanation why FDA preemption is good for consumer safety and health policy, and why failure-to-warn litigation by trial lawyers hurts consumer safety.  (You may notice that none of the public-policy arguments against preemption you see in the blogosphere fairly address these economic arguments.)

For everything you could possibly want to know about the Wyeth v. Levine case, do see Beck & Herrmann’s roundup of their excellent posts on the subject, and keep an eye out for their discussion of the top-side briefs undoubtedly coming soon.

Filed under: , , , ,

“They served peanuts anyway…”

Tehmina Haque’s four-year-old son apparently did not suffer any allergic reaction, but mom got really stressed about the possibility he would so she’s suing American Airlines anyway. The airline says it never promises peanut-free flights, if only because it cannot keep other passengers from bringing their own peanut snacks on board. (Zachary R. Dowdy, “LI woman sues over in-flight peanuts”, Newsday, Jun. 2).

Filed under: , , ,

Welcome TWEN readers

We’ve noticed that we’re getting several dozen hits from one of Westlaw’s internal password-protected student forums. Might one of you leave a comment or an email letting us know why we’re being linked?

(A welcome also to Hampton Roads Daily Press sports section readers, where Dave Fairbank interviewed me about the certiorari denial of the fantasy baseball case and gives a shout-out to Overlawyered.)

Update: Trespass atop rail car, win $24 million

Updating our item of Oct. 2006: a Pennsylvania federal judge has declined to set aside a $24 million jury verdict “against two railroad companies for injuries suffered by two teenagers climbing on a train car parked near Lancaster in 2002.” U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence F. Stengel lambasted attorneys for defendants Amtrak and Norfolk Southern for having at trial “‘demeaned’ the two young men ‘for their lack of intelligence, judgment and common sense in choosing to climb to the top of the boxcar.'” Stengel upheld the jury’s assignment of all the blame for the accident to the railroads and none to the youths, who were both 17 at the time. (Janet Kelley, “$24M verdict upheld in railroad burn case”, Lancaster New Era, Apr. 2).

Filed under: , ,

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Seems it’s not considered tortious when it’s done for a good cause by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the local constabulary to a captive audience of public school students. (Balko, Reason “Hit and Run”; Pat Sherman, “El Camino teens face heavy emotions brought about by drunken-driving dramatization”, San Diego Union-Tribune, May 30). P.S. Scott Greenfield apparently has been thinking along similar lines.

Filed under: , , , ,