I’m discussing the controversy over at Point of Law here and here.
P.S. And more on the topic, posted Thursday afternoon.
“It’s Official: Lawyers Are Incapable Of Understanding Civility”
Dan McLaughlin on Geoffrey Fieger’s disciplinary win (Baseball Crank, Sept. 25).
Also, Links We’re Sorry We Clicked: Geoffrey Fieger art (via AJP).
Medical expert cops plea deal
Miami surgeon Dr. Alex Zakharia was indicted by a federal grand jury last year on perjury, mail fraud and wire fraud charges in connection with his testimony in a Michigan medical malpractice case (KevinMD, Dec. 2). Now Zakharia has pleaded guilty to contempt of court and admitted false statements as part of a plea deal to resolve the charges. Reports the Ann Arbor News (Sept. 18):
Authorities said he testified as an expert witness in 2002 on behalf of a plaintiff charging a doctor at the VA with medical malpractice in connection with a coronary artery bypass graft.
He admitted that during the deposition, he falsely bolstered his credibility as an expert by creating the impression that he was the lead surgeon for numerous coronary artery bypass grafts – when he never conducted such surgeries, officials said.
More: Miami Herald; Expert Witness Blog; U.S. Attorney press release (PDF).
Furor over Mikal Watts “judges owe us” letter
Looks as if the legal tactics of one politically ambitious Texas plaintiff’s lawyer may have blown up in his face:
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mikal Watts of San Antonio once tried to pressure a legal opponent into a $60 million personal injury lawsuit settlement by claiming he would have an advantage on appeal because of his firm’s “heavy” campaign financial support to an appellate court’s justices, “all of whom are good Democrats.”
A “nine-page letter Watts wrote to opposing counsel in 2001 apparently was intended to make an out-of-state corporation think the donations could sway” the 13th Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi. The letter was sent to a defense lawyer representing American Electric Power in an auto-accident case. “Politely put, south Texas venue by itself makes this a very dangerous lawsuit,” Watts wrote.
What made the letter unusual was the linking of campaign contributions to sitting justices and the potential of an appeal.
The letter then noted that if the case went to appeal, it would go to the 13th Court of Appeals.
“This court is comprised of six justices, all of whom are good Democrats,” Watts wrote. “The Chief Justice, Hon. Rogelio Valdez, was recently elected with our firm’s heavy support, and is a man who believes in the sanctity of jury verdicts.”
The letter goes on to name Justices Errlinda Castillo, Nelda Rodriguez, J. Bonner Dorsey, Federico Hinojosa and Linda Yanez, and says his firm also has financially supported them. Hinojosa, Castillo and Dorsey are no longer on the court.
“Justice Bonner Dorsey, is more conservative than the others, but has been a friend of mine and the sanctity of jury verdicts for many years,” Watts wrote.
Watts and his law firm in 1999 donated $5,000 to Valdez and $2,500 to Rodriguez; in 2000, $15,000 to Hinojosa; and in January 2001, $10,000 to Castillo. The firm donated $50,000 to Yanez in 2002.
(R. G. Ratcliffe, “Senate candidate played up contributions to justices”, Houston Chronicle, Sept. 5; “Watts’ letter shows judicial reform need” (editorial), San Antonio Express-News, Sept. 15; PrairiePundit, Sept. 7 (quoting Houston Chronicle editorial that’s now offline)).
Blog reaction among both Texans and Democrats has been overwhelmingly negative. “This is bad,” writes the eponymous Kos at Daily Kos. Similarly: Burnt Orange Report, Urban Grounds, Eye on Williamson, Doing My Part for the Left, Capitol Annex. For links to some of our coverage of Watts’s colorful courtroom exploits over the years, see Jun. 9. As a matter of fact, Ted covered Watts’ eye-opening demand letter in a Point of Law post of Nov. 2, 2005.
Taxpayers to provide additional subsidies for law-school education
The College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 [passed by Congress on Sept. 7] aims to help law students and other graduates with high debt through an income-based loan-repayment plan.
Bush has indicated he’d sign the bill.
The market currently reflects a private-public pay gap reflecting the fact that public jobs are generally considered to have better working conditions and that private-sector law firms need to offer substantially higher pay to encourage attorneys to work there. If the government is providing thousands of dollars of loan subsidies to government and non-profit attorneys, the private sector will need to raise its salaries to continue to compete, some of which will be swallowed by the partners, but most will be swallowed by the clients, who, increasingly facing bet-the-company litigation, have inelastic demand for top law firms. Too, as attorney salaries increase, and loans are subsidized by the government, law schools will be empowered to extract some of that surplus by raising tuition. Winners: most attorneys, law school employees, and some clients of non-profits. Losers: taxpayers, clients, partners at non-top-tier firms.
Update: Discussion at Above the Law.
September 2007 Class Action Watch
In the latest issue of the Federalist Society’s Class Action Watch, Mark Behrens and Christopher Appel look at recent rulings from the New Jersey and Missouri Supreme Courts that reject lead paint public nuisance claims. James Beck looks at the American Law Institute’s “Principles” projects. Brian D. Boyle and Julia A. Berman look at fact-based scrutiny in securities and antitrust actions. Jessica D. Miller and Nina Ramos look at fluid recovery. Kenneth J. Reilly and Frank Cruz-Alvarez look at an Eleventh Circuit case that may have set a new standard for federal diversity jurisdiction. Last, but not least, there is a front-page article from me analyzing an omission in the Fair Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) that might provide a substantial windfall for the plaintiffs’ bar.
September 25 roundup
- Picture of farmer with goose appears on greeting card, he wants $7.5 million [Roanoke Times; earlier]
- More class actions filed over Apple iPhone [Ars Technica on roaming and battery claims, O’Grady’s PowerPage, iPhoneWorld; earlier]
- L.A. Times quotes attorney Stephen Yagman on prison overcrowding, but forgets to mention that he was lately convicted of thirteen felonies [Patterico]
- Bad idea watch: compulsory national service [Somin @ Volokh]
- Doing well representing the little guy: Gerry Spence lists his Wyoming residence for sale at $35 million [WSJ/Chicago Daily Herald]
- “Appropriate”, not “perfect”, justice needed: “We simply have to stop killing litigants with kindness,” says chief judge of Australia’s largest state [The Australian]
- Toddler killed after wandering into heavy traffic, trucker should have been more on guard against such a thing happening [Salt Lake Tribune]
- Pennsylvania pro se litigant sues Google, says it spells his social security number upside down [Ambrogi] More: Coyote says “Up next, the owner of Social Security number 71077345 sues Shell Oil for the same reason.”
- Once billed as “King of Torts”, Miami asbestos lawyer faces fifteen years behind bars for stealing $13 million from clients [Sun-Sentinel]
- Groom sues bride, saying she took the ring and presents and never got the wedding paperwork straightened out leaving them legally unmarried [ClickOnDetroit]
- Surgical resident on the hook for $23 million in Wisconsin case; she was the only one of the docs involved not covered by damage limits [Journal Sentinel via KevinMD]
Divorce prying: beyond private detectives
Another object lesson in how your rights to privacy stop when litigation begins:
High-tech surveillance tactics are now commonplace in divorce cases, changing the nature of matrimonial law practice.
Soon-to-be-divorced spouses routinely steal each other’s BlackBerries and install snooping software on each other’s computers. This not only enables them to read each other’s e-mail but to monitor, in 15-second increments, what a perhaps-erring marital partner is doing on the Internet, reports the New York Times. What they can’t find out, their divorce lawyers perhaps can by hiring even more technologically sophisticated private detectives.
“In just about every case now, to some extent, there is some electronic evidence,” says Gaetano Ferro, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “It has completely changed our field.”
Amusingly or not, the one area where the law is ferocious in responding to adversaries’ invasions of each others’ privacy is that of clients’ communications with their lawyers — mustn’t infringe on the lawyer-client privilege, after all. (Martha Neil, “Divorce Practice Now a Surveillance War”, ABA Journal, Sept. 18).
Let them not eat cake
“Wearing signs reading: ‘They’re Carbs not Contraband,’ ‘Give Us our Just Desserts’ and ‘We’re Old Enough to Choose,’ a dozen senior citizens picketed outside [a Mahopac, N.Y. senior center] protesting a recently imposed ban on the sugared treats at Putnam County-operated nutritional sites.” For years supermarkets and bakeries have donated day-old pastries to senior centers, but last month the county called a halt to the program, saying that the treats violated federal nutritional standards for the elderly and might pose safety dangers. The AP story carried this classically sensitive and humanistic quote from Michael Jacobson of that group of untiring busybodies, the self-proclaimed Center for Science in the Public Interest: “Senior citizens can walk down to the store and buy doughnuts. Nobody’s stopping them”. [Putnam County Courier; Westchester Journal-News; Associated Press]
Virginia Postrel…
…has sang-froid (scroll to end).