Steamed oysterers

Sort of like being paid for not planting corn? “[A]n oysterman here in the nation’s top oyster-producing state can make as much, if not more, collecting damage settlements from oil companies as from harvesting the bivalves themselves, according to a recent study by two Louisiana State University economists.”

“On average,” they wrote, “oyster leases generate a majority of their net income from non-oyster-producing activities.” Money “appears to flow to leases irrespective of their ability to produce marketable oysters.”

So lucrative is the potential payoff from the oil companies that there is almost certainly a lively trade among oystermen in the “speculative” leasing of otherwise unproductive water bottoms, Dr. Keithly and Dr. Kazmierczak [Walter R. Keithly Jr. and Richard F. Kazmierczak] concluded.

Indeed, speaking on condition of anonymity, one of the major “landmen” — middlemen who negotiate between oystermen and oil companies — agreed that some fishermen deliberately leased bottoms in harm’s way, in order to collect from the companies.

The New York Times says the “oyster community” in the Pelican State is infuriated at the report and calls it false. (Adam Nossiter, New York Times, Aug. 15).

Our earlier coverage of one bizarre excursion by the Louisiana courts into oyster-lease compensation is here, here, here, and here. The broadside The Oyster Girl, widely distributed in the English singing tradition, underscores the importance of watching one’s pockets when oysters are being traded.

“Granholm’s picks cheer trial lawyers”

“A trio of judicial appointments announced this week underline [Mich. Gov. Jennifer] Granholm’s determination to temper [former Gov. John] Engler’s judicial revolution — and reward Michigan’s plaintiff’s bar, which has been among her most important sources of financial support.” Of three trial lawyers Granholm is naming to judgeships, two have served as board members of the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association. (Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press, Aug. 22).

Excessive fines

Too bad the courts have decided to leave the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause on the shelf, it might otherwise be helpful to everyone from Virginia motorists to sexual harassment defendants (Ralph Reiland, “The ignored amendment”, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Aug. 27). More resources here, here, and here (noting Supreme Court’s ruling in Browning-Ferris that the clause restrains excessive fines only when payable to the government, not private parties).

Why they call it discovery

“A lot of plaintiff lawyers simply use the litigation process to find out whether it’s a good case as opposed to trying to find that out before they sign it up,” Mr. Johnston says.

— from a profile of Randy Johnston, a Dallas lawyer who specializes in plaintiff’s legal malpractice work. (Cheryl Hall, “Randy Johnston is a lawyer who sues other lawyers”, Dallas Morning News, Aug. 20).

McDonald’s “hold the cheese” suit, cont’d

The U.S. Chamber-affiliated West Virginia Record has some further details on, as well as a selection of media reaction to, the $10 million lawsuit by Jeromy Jackson of Morgantown charging that the burger chain put cheese on his Quarter Pounder despite his requests, thus triggering an allergic reaction. (Cara Bailey, “‘Hold the cheese’ suit draws worldwide attention”, Aug. 17). Earlier: Aug. 10.

Kentucky Fen-Phen update: judgment entered

We’ve provided extensive coverage of the Kentucky fen-phen scandal, in which the lawyers who represented fen-phen plaintiffs were found in a civil suit to have misappropriated more than $64 million of their clients’ money. The judge who heard the suit has now entered final judgment against the lawyers, which will allow the plaintiffs to start collection proceedings in 30 days, barring appeal by the lawyers. (The good news: to appeal, they would need to put up an appeals bond, which would make it easier for the plaintiffs to collect. It’s not clear whether they’re going to appeal; they may be too busy defending themselves against the criminal charges which have been filed against them.)

The lawyers’ lawyer calls it a “travesty of justice,” and offers an unusual defense to charges of defrauding clients:

“No one, including the judge, has acknowledged that the attorneys’ fees were ordered by a judge or the fact that each and every client in the case received multiples, and I repeat multiples, of any amount that they would have received if they had not been represented by my clients — Bill and Shirley.”

Since the lawyers did a good job in achieving the initial settlement, it’s okay for them to defraud their clients of some of the money? Pretty sure it doesn’t work that way. (And of course, in claiming that the fees were “ordered by a judge,” she somehow neglects to mention the fact that the judge was paid off by the lawyers, and that as a result he quit just before he was going to be kicked off the bench.)

Canadian tattoo studio

The owner of the Longhorn Custom Bodyart Studio in Oshawa says the shop’s sterilizer had a screw misaligned and as a result reached only 128 degrees C instead of the required 132. The regional health department urged patrons to get checkups, which have proved reassuring, with no indication that anyone caught anything. Oshawa resident Kaleb Beaulieu has nonetheless filed an intended class action demanding $C10 million, saying that tests take a while to prove conclusively negative and that in the mean time he lives in fear. (Carola Vyhnak, “Tattoo studio faces $10M lawsuit”, Toronto Star, Aug. 22; Rosalyn Solomon, “More tattoo clients sue”, Toronto Sun, Aug. 23).

Leisurely mills of legal discipline

This from Mike Frisch of Georgetown at Legal Profession Blog (Aug. 6):

The D. C. Court of Appeals disbarred [NB: should be “suspended for three years”, as commenter Richard Harrison points out] an attorney last week. The case involved acts of dishonesty including forgery and would be unremarkable but for the amount of time it took to resolve the matter. The firm that had reported the misconduct did so in 1997. Disciplinary charges — which were essentially uncontested — were filed in February 1999. It took 8 1/2 years for the D.C. bar disciplinary system to work its magic — and the lawyer was free to practice throughout that time. Most of the time was taken by the hearing committee (3 1/2 years) and the court (over three years from argument to disposition).

Bainbridge on foie gras and dog-fighting

Professor Stephen Bainbridge springboards off of our August 24 post to take a cut in the Examiner at a principled distinction between banning dogfighting and foie gras.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m quite happy with a state of the world where dogfighting is banned but foie gras isn’t. But I’m not persuaded that the good professor has made the case for a principled distinction. Discussion of this (and of the almost entirely unrelated Larry Craig case) after the jump:

Read On…