As a Valentine’s Day promotion, Charleston, W.V. radio station WKLC-FM is offering a drawing for a free divorce. “Charleston attorney Rusty Webb will handle the actual filing” and says winners should not expect anything complicated in the line of contested proceedings. (Charleston Gazette, USA Today).
The war on arbitration: Jamie Leigh Jones, Tracy Barker, & “Halliburton” V
A commenter complains about our most recent post, and I respond:
February 14 roundup
- Examiner newspaper begins series on how Milberg Weiss used nonprofit foundation to project its clout among judges, academics, influentials [Institute for Law & Economic Policy, three-parter]
- Judge Canute, or just reporter’s awkward wording? Australian jurist with great eyeglasses bans screening of TV drama in state of Victoria; “Under the order, all internet material relating to the series is also banned.” [Herald Sun] (More explanation on the court order: The Australian).
- Times Square’s Naked Cowboy sues over M & M candy ad playing off his image [NY Post]
- Bite mark testimony makes another chapter in catalogue of dubious prosecutorial forensics [Folo’s NMC on two Mississippi Innocence Project cases]
- Update: Pennsylvania court upholds disputed fees in Kia-brake class action [Legal Intelligencer; earlier]
- Best not take McCain too literally when he says he’d demand that judicial nominees have a proven record on Constitutional interpretation [Beldar]
- Expert witness coaching …. by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? [Nordberg; earlier]
- For some reason many Boston residents feel menaced by city’s plan for police to go door to door asking “voluntary,” “friendly” permission to search premises for guns [Globe]
- Lots and lots of publications print Mohammed cartoon in solidarity with
Danish cartoonist and assassination-plot target Kurt Westergaard [CNN; Malkin] - Calgary Muslim leader withdraws official complaint against Ezra Levant over his publication of Mohammed cartoons [National Post; earlier]
- Steyn, relatedly: critics dragging my book before Canadian tribunals wish not to “start a debate”, but to cut one off [National Post]
Scruggs: I’m the real victim here
The beleaguered tort tycoon is now seeking to have the federal indictment dismissed on grounds of “outrageous government misconduct”. Roger Parloff at Fortune Legal Pad explains how Scruggs’s attorneys are evoking the atmospherics of an entrapment defense without actually going quite so far as to assert that defense, which would mean (among other things) opening the door for prosecutors to introduce evidence of other similar but uncharged bad acts by Scruggs (Feb. 12). See also White Collar Crime Prof and NMC at Folo. And the Scruggs camp’s motions to suppress wiretap evidence has resulted in the release of a slew of transcripts of taped conversations among the principals, often sliced and excerpted in nonobvious ways, highlights of which appear at Folo here (“you need it pretty soon?”), here (Tim Balducci: “you always gotta have a slush fund” and “This ain’t my first rodeo with Scruggs”), here (P.L. Blake told by Patterson of “pretty good problem that I had solved”; see also Yall) and here (appearing to omit Balducci’s famous “bodies buried” line). For those sorting out Balducci’s colorful figures of speech relating to food, by the way, his reference to “bushels of sweet potatoes” that he needs to get “where I can get em . . . uh . . . over to him” is explained at the WSJ law blog here, while his expressed wish to “lay the corn on the ground” for Judge Lackey is here at Folo. More: Alan Lange, YallPolitics.
Jamie Leigh Jones, Tracy Barker, & “Halliburton” IV
Bizarro-Overlawyered, the Huffington Post, Alternet, and others on the Left continue to bang this drum with completely false accounts of the law and facts in their campaign to deprive consumers of the choice of mandatory arbitration: “The notion that sexual assault cannot be tried as a criminal matter but has to be arbitrated in secret arbitration and treated as a labor dispute is simply beyond belief.”
Beyond belief indeed. Let’s count the lies of commission and omission:
- Whether a private civil claim against Halliburton or KBR is required to be arbitrated has nothing to do with whether the Department of Justice decides to criminally prosecute for sexual assault. The DOJ can try this as a criminal matter, but have chosen not to. That may be a scandal on its own, but not one having to do with arbitration clauses.
- The arbitration clause does not prohibit Barker from bringing civil suit against her alleged rapist (and, indeed, her case continues in the proper federal district court venue).
- The arbitration clause does not require the arbitration to be “secret.” (By the way, in December, I wrote to Jamie Leigh Jones’s attorney, Todd Kelly, and offered to publicize his arbitration briefs documenting Jones’s original summary judgment claims before he tried a second bite at the apple in court. Still no response over six weeks later.) The arbitration is only as secret as the participants want it to be.
- And, oh, by the way, for all the claims that one can’t get justice in arbitration? Today the New York Times reports that two women who claimed sexual assault, Mary Beth Kineston and Pamela Jones, won their arbitration cases against KBR. If they’d brought civil suits, they’d still be litigating. Yet somehow, not once in all the months of controversy on the issue did any news reporter mention this non-trivial fact as the slurs against arbitration were repeated over and over.
Let’s not confuse issues. Sexual assault and rape are criminal acts, and should be prosecuted criminally. To the extent KBR was responsible for the very plausible allegations of creating an environment of sexual harassment by its employees and failing to respond to hostile environment claims, they should be civilly liable in the forum contractually agreed to. But either of these issues has nothing to do with the third issue, the availability of mandatory arbitration as an option in contracts.
Earlier: Jamie Leigh Jones (Dec. 12-16), Jamie Leigh Jones (Dec. 20), Jamie Leigh Jones (Dec. 21); see also Overlawyered’s arbitration section.
Coaching medical witnesses
An instruction sheet for doctors providing defense-side “independent” medical exams in injury cases reads in part as follows:
# Point out whatever findings or claims are not related [to the sued-over incident]. Otherwise be silent on causal relationship.
# If prognosis appears good, then state that – otherwise be silent
# If you can state that plaintiff can participate in all normal activities, do so. If not, be silent
Eric Turkewitz, who brings this story to public attention (Feb. 12), wonders what ethical questions might be posed for both lawyers and doctors when expert witnesses are coached in this way to give partial and incomplete (to say no more) testimony. I don’t know what New York legal and medical authorities would do, but in the mother of all witness-coaching scandals in recent years — the inadvertent release of Baron & Budd’s “Preparing for Your Deposition” memo in asbestos litigation in Texas — nothing at all wound up being done by established authorities to discipline or punish the plaintiff’s lawyers involved. In fact, even more incredible, Baron & Budd succeeded in hiring more than one well-known academic ethics specialist to sign affidavits attesting that the coaching practices were in no way objectionable — details here and here (see pp. 161 et seq. of Brickman’s Pepperdine article). So if Integrated Risk Services, Inc., of Long Island, New York, which bills itself suggestively as a firm providing “Attorney Managed Independent Medical Consultation Services”, finds itself in hot water, perhaps it should give Prof. Silver in Austin a ring.
P.S. Jane Genova at Law and More doubts it works well before juries — though of course persuasiveness to a jury might not be the only objective for those who engage in coaching.
“Lawyers as Presidential Candidates”
Are the Democrats inclined toward them? Is the GOP averse to them? Or is it that the apparent contrast between the parties is overstated? (Laura Appleman, Faculty Lounge, Feb. 8).
Lost laptop = $54 million?
Bob Sullivan, MSNBC “Red Tape”, Feb. 12:
How much compensation does a consumer deserve for the loss of a laptop computer loaded with personal information? Raelyn Campbell figures it’s $54 million — if you throw in a little extra for lost time and frustration.
Six months after bringing a damaged laptop computer into a Best Buy electronics store for repairs, and three months after the firm admitted losing it, Campbell filed the whopper of a lawsuit recently in Washington, D.C., Superior Court….
Scruggs: blogs deny me fair local trial
In a motion to change venue, the famed tort lawyer’s defense attorneys complain about Mississippi-focused “web logs (blogs) that report, in excruciating detail, every event in the prosecution and defense of the Scruggs criminal case” and related proceedings (Folo, Feb. 12). Does this mean we nationally-focused blogs don’t count as excruciating?
P.S. Commenter “OBQuiet” adds, “Odd that his own frequent comments and leaks to the press didn’t deny his opponents a fair trial. How could that be?”
Hiring strippers at Duke
The lacrosse players’ problem was that they just didn’t do it the right way (Stuart Taylor, Jr., “The University Has No Clothes”, National Journal, Feb. 11)(will rotate off free site).