Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

“The most expensive bill ever written”?

This Sunday’s Boston Globe magazine had a long feature piece which addressed the burning question, “Do We Really Need A Law To Protect Fat Workers?” The “law” in question would be a law which forbid “discrimination against overweight and unusually short people.” While I resemble that remark, you won’t be surprised to find me answering the question, “No,” in contrast to the politicians and activists who think it’s a great idea. The problem they face? Too many people inconveniently think that being overweight is a choice; they need to convince these skeptics that weight and race are really the same thing.

Although some people worry that the law would lead to a flood of lawsuits, the supporters of the bill pooh-pooh that notion, based on implausible statistics about disability discrimination lawsuits. Besides, their goal (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) isn’t really lawsuits at all:

Like the race laws, then, the weight-discrimination bill has a goal that extends beyond the legal system: to change the way we think. The idea is not to clog up the courts. Instead, it’s to create a society where hundreds of lawsuits aren’t needed, because there’s not as much to sue over – a society of people who have the legal right to say hurtful things and the compassion to know better than to act on them.

But if it does clog up the courts — the ADA only applies to those so obese that they can call themselves disabled, while the proposed Massachusetts law would apply to anybody who is overweight, which seems to be most of the population — it won’t be the author of the bill who suffers, but employees and business owners.

Of course, even if Massachusetts does pass this law, it wouldn’t be the worst; California already has far wackier anti-discrimination laws with its full-employment-for-lawyers Unruh Act. Unruh, despite listing the usual categories found in anti-discrimination laws (sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, and sexual orientation) actually has been interpreted by state courts to prohibit all “arbitrary” discrimination. As Cal Biz Lit explains:

In earlier cases, the courts have held the act to prohibit business discrimination based on :
• A customer’s association with a male with long hair and “unconventional” dress; 
• Having children; and
• Status as a police officer (when the ACLU tried to kick a cop out of a meeting).

If a creative lawyer hasn’t shoehorned obesity in there already, he will soon enough.

Filed under: , ,

Updates – August 8

1. Yet another Roy Pearson update: the Washington Post, confirming a previous rumor, reports that he’s closer to losing his job. The Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges (CSTALJ?) has voted to start the process of terminating him, by sending him a letter notifying him that he may not be reappointed to his job. Of course, the procedure alone makes the story a perfect fit for Overlawyered. Pearson can’t just be fired; that would be too easy. First, his boss had to make a formal recommendation. Then, the Commission had to decide to send that letter. And now?

Pearson is not out of work yet. The letter is a key step, though, alerting him that his reappointment is in jeopardy. He has 15 days to file a rebuttal and could push for reappointment by appearing before the commission at its next meeting in September.

The wonders of public employment. And then if he’s turned down, of course, he can sue!

Apparently trying to destroy a business by using the legal system to extort millions from the owners isn’t his big sin; his big sin is being rude to his boss:

Concerns about Pearson’s temperament as an administrative law judge preceded the publicity about the lawsuit this spring. The letter from the commission focuses on those concerns, addressing the lawsuit only briefly.

In e-mails sent to his fellow judges and cited in the letter, Pearson’s contempt for Chief Administrative Law Judge Tyrone T. Butler was evident. In one of the missives, he spoke of protecting himself from any attempt by Butler “to knife” him. In another, he questioned Butler’s competence and integrity.

Incidentally, he was serving a two year term, but if he wins reappointment, it will be for a ten year term.

2. Updating a story from Mar. 25, a federal judge has banned the navy from using sonar in training exercises:

Cooper said it was never easy to balance the interests of wildlife with those of national security. But in this case, she said, environmental lawyers have made a persuasive case that the potential harm to whales and other marine life outweighs any harm to the Navy while the court case proceeds.

Because, clearly, a bunch of lawyers are in the best position to design United States naval strategy.

(Other whale-sonar lawsuit coverage: May 17, Jul. 2006)

3. Remember the Kentucky Fen-Phen scandal? The one in which the class action attorneys were accused of misplacing $60 million of their clients’ money into their own pockets? (We’ve covered it May 20 and earlier) Well, a federal judge has now ruled that they need to repay $62.1 million to their clients. So far. Still to come: a ruling on punitive damages, a criminal trial, and the suit against Cincinnati attorney Stan Chesley, who’s accused of the same wrongdoing. (AP/Forbes)

Filed under: , ,

Update: My mother, the car

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which is fairly described these days as neo-Prohibitionist, continues to promote the development of automobiles which will be mechanically inoperable in the presence of indicators of drunkenness. A new Nissan prototype includes alcohol sensors in both the driver and passenger seat. Passenger? (Classical Values, Aug. 4). Earlier: Aug. 19, 2005, May 28, 2006.

More from DUI Blog: “Imagine if even one of these gizmos malfunctions — at high speed.”

Filed under: , ,

Defensive EMS practice

From the comments to this July 30 post at KevinMD about defensive medicine:

“Spreading to paramedics?”

Doc, it’s been prevalent in EMS for years. Virtually every EMS system in this country is designed specifically to serve less than 1% of its run volume – cardiac arrest patients.

We continue to spinally immobilize (now there’s a misnomer!) trauma patients, despite the evidence that clinical exam criteria can safely clear these patients and other evidence that questions whether pre-hospital spinal immobilization is even beneficial.

We fly people on helicopters based on nothing more than mechanism of injury, despite the mounting number of fatal crashes and the fact that 95% of those patients flown to the ED were discharged home directly from the ED. That’s right – we flew them on a $10,000 flight, and they weren’t even sick enough to be admitted.

Prehospital care is a bastion of defensive medicine. Has been for some time.

Filed under: ,

New Yorker cartoon caption

In the new (Aug. 13) issue, the picture shows a dad in living room admonishing son: “We don’t want you inviting friends over to play. There are liability issues.”

More: reader James Fulford notes in comments:

This is visible online at at the New Yorker Store. You can buy a print or in some cases, the original art. In the same issue, there’s defensive medicine: “I don’t like the look of these. I better send them up to legal.” (A doctor holding x-rays and a patient sitting on the examination table.)

And the criminal defense bar:“Make eye contact with the jury, but not homicidal-maniac eye contact.” (Lawyer to client.)

Great moments in accountants’ liability

“An en banc Superior Court panel has ordered a new trial in a case in which a western Pennsylvania trial judge awarded $102.7 million in 2003 to one of the owners of a property company identified as being at the center of a mid-1980s Ponzi scheme.” Two couples, Thomas and Barbara Reilly and Edward and Karen Krall, each jointly owned half the stock in Canterbury Village Inc., a property development that was oversold in what was later described as a Ponzi scheme that bilked thousands of investors. When Canterbury Village landed in bankruptcy proceedings, an Ernst & Young predecessor was called in to organize the books, which were in great disarray. According to a judge’s footnote, “the male halves of Canterbury Village’s two couple-owners pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from the Ponzi scheme.” Mr. Reilly served about four years on fraud and tax evasion charges. The eventual reorganization plan approved by the court barred the Reillys and Kralls from any stake in the emerging business entity.

The Reillys then proceeded to sue Ernst & Young, alleging that its report had contained inaccuracies which had injured their business interests. When the Reillys filed requests for admissions in support of their allegations, Ernst first missed a deadline to respond and then, granted a do-over, omitted to include a required verification from its lawyer. The judge in response deemed Ernst to have agreed to all the requested admissions — in effect, preventing the firm from contesting the key elements of the Reillys’ case. A verdict was then entered on behalf of Barbara Reilly that “included $34 million for her ownership interest in Canterbury Village — half of the $68 million appraised value — plus an additional $50,945,222 in interest, based on a rate of 6 percent per annum beginning in 1986, for a total compensatory damage award of $84,018,989. Yeager also awarded her $18.17 million in punitive damages for a total verdict of $102,718,989.” The appeals panel has now decided, however, that loss (in effect) of its right to mount a substantive defense is too harsh a sanction for Ernst’s procedural fumblings, so a retrial is on its way. (Asher Hawkins, “Retrial Ordered in Nine-Figure Fraud Case”, Legal Intelligencer, Jul. 27; Karen Kane, “Seven Fields developer faults Ernst & Young in lawsuit”, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 25, 2002).

Filed under: , , ,

Criticizing Saudi financiers

Whether or not you reside in the U.K., the range of reading material available to you regarding the tangled banking relationships of the Middle East is being shaped and constrained by the London libel courts. (Gary Shapiro, “Libel Suit Leads to Destruction of Books”, New York Sun, Aug. 2; Mark Steyn, “The vanishing jihad exposés”, syndicated/Orange County Register, Aug. 5; earlier here and here).

Filed under: , , ,

August 6 roundup

  • Patent suit by firm called Parallel Processing demands that all Sony PlayStation 3 consoles be impounded and destroyed [ArsTechnica, Slashdot]

  • It’s not all going to Edwards: a scorecard on presidential campaigns’ law-firm fundraising [National Law Journal]

  • Link roundup on Oregon criminal charges against fanny-swatting 13-year-olds [Right Side of the Rainbow; earlier]

  • New at Point of Law: Spitzenfreude is mirth derived from ethical pratfall of NY’s moralist governor; Florida’s insurance fiasco; more on those “medical” bankruptcies; Alabama judge appoints special prosecutor in Dickie Scruggs affair after feds take a pass; and much more;

  • One hurdle for court action by survivors of slain Middle East contractors against Blackwater: the four men had signed contracts agreeing not to sue their employer [Henley; W$J]

  • Saying swim diaper should suffice, Akron mom and “fair housing” advocates sue condo that barred pre-potty-trained kids from pool [AP/FoxNews.com]

  • Not only are those punitive new Virginia traffic laws unpopular, but a judge has just declared them unconstitutional as well [Washington Post; earlier here and here]

  • Pepsi settles class actions over minute quantities of benzene that might form when soft drink ingredients combine [Reuters, Food Navigator, Journal-News]

  • U.K. considers making it easier for unmarried cohabitators to go to court when their households break up [Times Online]

  • Did a securities fraudster use protracted depositions to browbeat his victims? [Salt Lake City Tribune]

  • “Victims’ Rights Amendment” to U.S. Constitution, promoted as giving crime victims a fairer shake, is bad idea for lots of reasons [eight years ago on Overlawyered]

Filed under: , , , , , , ,

Assignment Desk: Edwards, Obama, and lobbyist money

At YearlyKos, John Edwards and Barack Obama sought to distinguish themselves from Hillary Clinton by saying they didn’t take money from registered lobbyists, and Clinton was booed for defending herself. (Also: Franke-Ruta.)

I found this curious: after all, Obama and Edwards showed up at the national convention of the lobbying group for the trial lawyers, the former Association of Trial Lawyers of America (who now call themselves the American Association of Justice). There, they gave speeches (as did Clinton, Biden, and Richardson). A look at the largest donors for Obama and especially Edwards shows a disproportionate number of active members of that lobbying group. Indeed, John Edwards’s finance chairman is Fred Baron, the former president of ATLA. If Obama and Edwards want voters to believe that Clinton is influenced by lobbyist money, what should we think about these two candidates’ debts to trial lawyers? Are we to believe that the critical difference is the lobbyist registration papers, at which point money becomes tainted and dirty? Are any reporters going to ask that hard question, or will they let the two candidates demagogue from the high ground as they take millions from the most pernicious special interest group in America?

Filed under: , , , , , ,