The debate sparked by David N.’s post of last week on the Don Imus defamation suit has drawn 62 reader comments so far, a veritably Althousian volume. As I’ve noted before, it seems the best way for me to enliven the site is to go off on vacation.
P.S. More at Beldar’s.
Greetings! Thanks to Walter Olson for allowing me the opportunity to guest blog this week at Overlawyered. I am Jason Barney and have worked for self-insured corporations as a claims investigator, a mid-sized northwest-based insurer investigating casualty and property claims, and now a large, self-insured northwest municipality as a tort claims investigator. All told, I have nearly ten years of claims and litigation management experience.
First things first: I have significant and genuine respect for attorneys and other legal professionals. I don’t take this blog as an opportunity to bash lawyers, but to “[Chronicle] the high cost of our legal system.” And, as it turns out there is a lot of that to be had.
One story that recently caught my eye and has been covered in these pages of late is a Washington Supreme Court ruling that reversed an appeals court ruling in favor of a dentist’s insurer for refusing to defend him for a practical joke gone wrong. The court’s ruling was recently criticized by The Seattle Times here and the insured’s counsel responded via letter to the editor here (scroll down to fifth letter – “The justices get it”.)
PZ Myers wrote two posts tearing to shreds Stuart Pivar’s book, LifeCode: The Theory of Biological Self Organization as factually inaccurate. Now he reports on Boing-Boing that Pivar is suing him. (Boing Boing says that Pivar is suing for assault, but this isn’t true: for whatever reason, the district court groups “assault, libel, and slander” in the same category when classifying complaints, and the complaint is just for libel.)
The complaint focuses on Myers’s language calling Pivar “a classic crackpot.” And we all know that the way to prove that one is not a classic crackpot is to sue a blogger for $15 million over a bad book review in a complaint that misspells “its” and the defendant’s name and brags about the plaintiff’s affiliation with Andy Warhol and Prince Charles. Pivar’s attorney is Michael J. Little of New York.
Here is the complaint for your perusal.
Update: Jim Lippard comments, and also has a copy of the complaint. Also: Scientific American notes that Pivar has been a plaintiff 25 times in New York state court; Wired Science also comments.
We covered this case back in June 2005, and updated it July 27. Now, via Volokh, read Adam Scales on how a dentist assaulted a patient and won a million dollars, Part I and Part II. (Update: And further comment from our guest blogger, Jason Barney.)
Update: and excellent and lengthy analysis from David Rossmiller.
Kai Falkenberg’s September 3 story in Forbes quotes me (though I promise I told the fact-checker that the Chung’s legal bills were only $83,000) and Overlawyered guest-blogger Steve Hantler. The sidebar to the article lists a number of cases Overlawyered readers might be familiar with.
Before David Giacalone jumps down my throat, let me say that I had a lengthy interview with Falkenberg, detailing my views on pro se litigation, but only the throw-away anecdote about Roy Pearson’s pants suit made it in. (Interestingly, the Supreme Court’s decision this spring in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly helps resolve the problem I complained about in that December post.)
Update: Falkenberg writes to let me know that “Regarding the Chungs, the $100,000 references not just the $83,000 in legal fees but other costs associated with Pearson’s claim and was confirmed with their lawyer, Chris Manning.” Fair enough (though I think Manning is including lost sales from Pearson’s picketing the Chungs’ shop, which one might argue does not really reflect legal costs). Let me clarify that I thought that Falkenberg wrote an excellent piece, especially given the limitations of space. Quote of note:
In a study of pro se suits brought between 1995 and 1999 in the federal district court in Manhattan, attorney Jonathan Rosenbloom found that a “disturbing” number of pro se cases were dismissed for asserting claims that were “delusional” or “wholly incredible.” … Rosenbloom also found a lot of frequent filers: Nearly half of the study’s 765 pro se litigants filed at least one previous suit in that court, including one who filed 57 complaints in one year.
The Supreme Court issued the following order today:
The motion of Former SEC Commissioners for leave to file a brief as amici curiae out of time is granted. The motion of John Conyers, Jr. and Barney Frank for leave to file a brief as amici curiae out of time is granted. The Chief Justice and Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions.
Respondents had objected to the out-of-time filing by the Former SEC Commissioners. Separately, Tony Mauro speculates in the Legal Times whether Roberts or Breyer will “unrecuse” themselves. (Mauro quotes me and Professor Bainbridge (who gets all the good lines); the “anti-investor opinion” language is Mauro’s, however, and not mine: as I wrote in the Wall Street Journal and expressed to Mauro, the lower-court decision was decidedly pro-investor, if anti-trial lawyer.) As the order suggests, however, if Roberts and Breyer are going to divest themselves of Cisco stock so they can participate in the case, they have not done so yet. Earlier: Aug. 15; POL May 20.
Full disclosure: As an unnamed class member, I am a plaintiff in Stoneridge, and would be entitled to some small amount of class recovery. Also, I hate hate hate respondent Scientific-Atlanta with a deep burning passion, not least because Scientific-Atlanta attorneys subjected me to a harassing subpoena. Nevertheless, a victory for petitioners would be disastrous.
The Federalist Society has posted a podcast of their recent panel:
Recently there has been growing discussion concerning the appropriate role of state Attorneys General. Some argue that state AGs have overstepped their boundary by prosecuting cases and negotiating settlements that have had extraterritorial effects, and sometimes even national effects. Others argue that state AGs are simply filling a vacuum left by the failure of others (for example, federal agencies) to attend to these issues. In light of this debate, the Federalist Society hosted a panel in Washington, D.C. featuring several state Attorneys General who discussed the proper role of state AGs.
Panelists included:
* Hon. Bob McDonnell, Attorney General of Virginia
* Hon. Donald Stenberg, former Attorney General of Nebraska; Erickson & Sederstrom
* Hon. John Suthers, Attorney General of Colorado
* Hon. J. B. Van Hollen, Attorney General of Wisconsin
* Ms. Peggy Little, Little & Little; Director, Federalist Society Pro Bono Center, Moderator
Two groups claiming to be American Indian tribes are offering membership for $50. The AP report (via Hit & Run) suggests that the memberships are being sold for purposes of evading immigration laws, but no one explores the affirmative action possibilities, though Dr. Seuss anticipated such a scheme in 1961. Alas, the two groups are not federally recognized Indian tribes, so the deal is just a scam.
Via Rossmiller, more on Judge Murphy’s libel suit:
Though [Judge] Murphy won his case against the Herald, he has not emerged unscathed. The Commission on Judicial Conduct filed charges last month with the Supreme Judicial Court alleging that Murphy sent letters to the Herald that constitute “willful misconduct which brings the judicial office into disrepute.”
Murphy sent the letters to Purcell after the verdict, requesting a private meeting to discuss getting more money from the tabloid, according to the commission.
“You will bring to that meeting a cashiers check, payable to me, in the sum of $3,260,000,” wrote Murphy in a handwritten letter on Superior Court stationery. “No check no meeting. You will give me that check and I shall put it in my pocket.”
In another letter, Murphy wrote, “It would be a mistake, Pat, to show this letter to anyone other than the gentleman whose authorized signature will be affixed to the check in question. In fact, a BIG mistake.” A date has not yet been set for Murphy’s hearing on the misconduct charges.
Earlier this month, Governor Deval Patrick rejected an appeal by Murphy to retire early with a lucrative disability pension based on his contention that he has post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the defamation case.
Murphy, not satisfied with his $3.41 million collection from the Boston Herald, has sued the Herald’s insurance carrier for $6.8 million for alleged bad faith. (Shelley Murphy, “Judge seeks $6.8m from Herald’s insurer”, Boston Globe, Aug. 18). Earlier: Jul. 15, May 11, Dec. 23, 2005, etc.