Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Deus ex curium

So on the eve of the Sabbath (for me), I end my week of guest-blogging offering conceptually loftier reporting of loftier, if heretical, overlawyering of a Central European kind (hat tip to a blog called Religion Clause).

Now, we all remember this popular number from law school — United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and his Staff (“Mayo“), the guy who unsuccessfully sued The Prince of Lies (instead of hiring one) in federal court. Now a court in Timisoara, Western Romania, has dismissed a lawsuit purportedly against God Himself by Mircea Pavel, 40, who is serving 20 years in prison for murder. He has some issues, only not justiciable ones, it seems. The English is Interfax’s, and their regular English-speaking guy seems to be in the Catskills this weekend, so let’s work our way through this together, with Defendant’s help:

Failing to [receive an] answer [to] his prayers, the prisoner sued the [sic] God for “fraud, betrayal of trust, corruption and influence peddling.”

Pavel brought charges against “the defendant God, who lives in the heavens and is represented in Romania by the Orthodox Church,” the Evenimentul Zilei daily reported.

According to the act [lawsuit?], during the baptismal service he “drew a conclusion with [entered into a stipulation with?] the defense” to rescue him from any disaster.

“But the contract’s terms were offended [breached], despite of [sic] my payment in different forms and numerous compellations by way of prayers,” Pavel said in his lawsuit.

Eventually the court dismissed the case, ruling that “God is not subject to law and does not have an address.”

No address?! Now that is heretical; He is, as we know, found everywhere. Well, these folks just recently got rid of Communism, so we can be charitable on the theological training.

But the subject matter jurisdiction point is well taken. There may be other problems with the alleged contract, including most of the grounds for dismissal relied on in Mayo. Also: Pavel’s capacity to enter into a contract (Orthodox baptism is done in infancy); the statute of frauds (or its Soviet-era Romanian equivalent) on several counts; and, of course, in a suit against God, there must always be recourse to the defenses in equity — the plaintiff, the murderer Pavel, comes to court with some very unclean hands.

Give Pavel credit, though, and not just for going after the deep pockets. He believes God had a role in his misfortune, even if, perhaps, he has failed to name an indispensible necessary party — namely Mircea Pavel.

—

Thanks for hosting me! It’s been a pleasure. Stay in touch at my law blog, LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®, or the entirely more wide open Likelihood of Success.

Filed under: , , ,

Building from the bottom up

Reuters reports on a nuvo-media catfight — and just look who the cat drags in:

Google Inc. took a swipe at media conglomerate Viacom Inc., which is suing the Internet search leader and its video sharing site YouTube for $1 billion over “massive copyright infringement.”

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, speaking with reporters at a hotel bar at the 25th annual Allen & Co. moguls meeting, said litigation was the foundation of the company that owns the MTV Networks, Paramount movies studio, and video game developer Harmonix.

“Viacom is a company built from lawsuits, look at their history,” Schmidt said on early Friday.

He makes that sound like a bad thing!

Filed under: , , ,

First let’s kill all the law schools

Laurie Lin reports on one way to cut down on lawsuits, being mooted in Wisconsin — close down the University of Wisconsin’s law school.

It is to laugh, no? And yet, considering that it is a publicly-funded institution, the “need” for more legal education, in a situation of glut, is a reasonable factor for the legislature that does the funding to consider, isn’t it?

Filed under: ,

Loser’s night

“Ladies’ night” at the local tavern — sometimes it’s every night; sometimes it’s during certain hours — the idea is, the more females in the establishment, the better the “atmosphere” for the guys who pay for all the drinks anyway. So there’s no cover charge for women, or free drinks, or whatever. (Okay, so some of us don’t know so much about how bars work.) The point is it’s an economic calculation that no one really complains about because, after all, the guys like a nice “atmosphere.” Of course, lots of us have wondered if it’s really legal that girl elbow-benders don’t pay and boys do, but no one really thought it was something anyone was going to kvetch a court about.

Until now:

New York attorney Roy Den Hollander, a solo practitioner for more than 15 years who deals primarily with civil litigation and corporate governance, has filed a class action against certain Manhattan nightclubs for “invidious discrimination” against men in their policies for admitting patrons….

“Whether this case succeeds or fails,” says Hollander, “it will result in a much needed victory for men.”

Mm, and how would that be, exactly? Seems from here that the exact opposite is probably the case — if it fails, well, how is that a victory except in the sense that nothing happening to you, and living another day so you can drink another Sam Adams is a victory? And if the case succeeds, probably fewer women will go to bars.

Unless, perhaps, you’re like Roy Den Hollander, and prefer drinking alone, or otherwise without having to wait for the distaff-side customers to be served sooner. Or cheaper. Or less burdensomely. Maybe Roy Den Hollander just doesn’t appreciate “atmosphere.”

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Filed under:

Lawyer parent “turns on legal heat” after being asked to leave Little League game

The signs at the New Tampa Little League field are clear: Please practice good sportsmanship at all times.

League officials say one parent has missed the message, and they’ve asked him to leave the park more than once.

But that parent also happens to be a lawyer for one of the largest law firms in Florida. Now he’s alleging that the New Tampa Little League defamed his character in front of parents, friends and clients, and he has hinted strongly at legal action.

Fred Grady, 47, a construction lawyer for Holland & Knight in Tampa, sent league president Monica Wooden a letter on Holland & Knight stationery. The letter, dated June 11, says the league officers’ actions and accusations damaged him. Pursuant to state law, the letter gives Wooden 30 days to send him a copy of the league’s insurance policies and coverage.

That letter capped off a series of e-mail exchanges between Grady and Wooden in which Grady repeatedly asked for a letter of apology from Linda Harrell, a league director who ordered him off the field on April 28. Grady wanted the letter sent to all parents, players and coaches on his son’s team, and he wanted it in time for the end-of-the-season party so he could read it aloud, Wooden said.

“I’m all about principle,” Wooden said. “But I’m not going to patronize some guy who needs something for his self-gratification.”

When Grady didn’t get the letter, he sent Wooden the e-mails.

“If NTLL decides or has decided the Director acted outside of her scope of authority then so be it but that issue will NOT be determined by me, but rather by a judge or jury if this matter proceeds,” said one e-mail bearing Grady’s name.

Another read: “If the NTLL is not prepared to resolve the matter along these lines then I will have no other choice but to take legal action against NTLL and Ms. Harrell individually.”

Grady requested the name of the league’s lawyer: “I assume NTLL does not have LOCAL counsel? Perhaps NTLL should consider retaining a local attorney.”

The firm says the use of letterhead was appropriate because the firm had been engaged. (Dong-Phuong Nguyen, “Makings of a major-league fuss”, St. Petersburg Times, Jul. 7 (via Kirkendall)). Recent litigious parents: May 21; May 3; April 2006; Dec. 2005; Sep. 2005; Jun. 2005; Feb. 2005; Mar. 2004.

Filed under: ,

“N.J. senator proposes toy gun ban”

Water pistols would be included if they looked realistic, and, according to a critic of the bill, parents might be breaking the law, which carries prison penalties, just for giving their offspring one of the forbidden playthings as a gift. Several states have already enacted similar bans. (7Online/WABC, Jul. 11).

Filed under:

Class acting

More on the story Walter only teased us with earlier today: The Associated Press reports on the fall of a mighty class action plaintiffs’ lawyer — the managing partner and third name in the firm now known only as Milberg Weiss:

A former partner of a major New York law firm pleaded guilty to conspiracy Monday in connection with kickbacks the firm is accused of paying to plaintiffs in class action and shareholder lawsuits.

David J. Bershad, 67, of Montclair, N.J., pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of conspiracy that includes obstruction of justice and making false statements under oath.

…Prosecutors believe the firm, now known as Milberg Weiss, received more than $200 million in fees from such lawsuits filed over the past 20 years. Bershad was responsible for overseeing the firm’s accounting department and financial affairs….

Bershad could face up to five years in federal prison when he is sentenced on June 23, 2008.

Grisly. According to the New York Law Journal, Bershad himself made — sit down for this part — $160 million as a Milberg Weiss partner over the last twenty years, so that $8 million (why so low?) should not be all that painful, financially; but this is not the style in which to go out for a Columbia Law man.

Here is the stipulated statement of facts in support of the plea agreement, from the Law Journal. If you have trouble following what he did wrong — the rules regarding class actions and fees are fairly arcane — in short, if you represent a class, you’re not allowed to secretly share attorneys’ fees with favored class members. Such payments create conflicts of interest between the paid plaintiffs and the rest of the class members the lawyers represent. As the statement says:

By entering into such secret payment arrangements, BERSHAD and the other Conspiring Partners were able to secure a reliable source of individuals who were ready, willing, and able to serve as named plaintiffs in Class Actions that Milberg Weiss wanted to bring. In addition, some of these individuals would investigate and propose to BERSHAD and other Conspiring Partners potential Class Actions for Milberg Weiss to bring. Such payment arrangements generally enabled Milberg Weiss to file more Class Actions and to file them more quickly than would be possible absent such arrangements. Filing Class Actions more quickly than other competing plaintiffs’ law firms enhanced Milberg Weiss’s ability to obtain lead counsel status in cases, before and after the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Lead counsel generally obtained a larger share of the attorneys’ fees awarded in a Class Action than other counsel.

The statement of facts goes on to lay out a Byzantine arrangement of cash flow, everything short of a hollowed-out pumpkin. It describes the sort of thing that, well, crooks do. At this point, the crooks have names in the court filings such as Partner A, Partner B, down through the alphabet — and, just like Little Cats A through Z in The Cat in the Hat, they all cleaned up.

So, how long will this 67-year-old man sit in jail? I imagine he had something more like Miami in mind. But it could get even hotter — for his partners. Bershad is surely going to spill his guts even more. As the story continues:

Legal experts believe Bershad’s plea appears to be an effort to reduce his possible prison sentence in exchange for testimony.

Meanwhile, the good work of the firm goes on:

In its statement Monday, the firm said: “We remain confident that [Mr. Bershad’s] actions will have no effect on the firm’s commitment to its clients and its ongoing work to protect public shareholders and consumers.”

Filed under: ,

“Violent and profane” workplace outburst protected

Applying Washington state disability-rights law, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that an employee’s “violent and profane” outburst to supervisors may be a protected manifestation of her bipolar disorder and thus not grounds for termination. Although the court cautioned that not all disability-induced misconduct should be seen as protected, it ruled that the law protects “manifestations” of a mental or physical disability just as it protects the disability itself (Gambini v. Total Renal Care, opinion in PDF format; HR.BLR.com, Jun. 11; Workplace Law Prof, Jun. 15). For more on the Ninth Circuit and disabled-rights law, including some misconduct cases, see Oct. 7 and Oct. 14, 2003; Oct. 12 and Dec. 6, 2006, Mar. 23, 2007. For a contrasting Massachusetts case, see Jun. 28, 2006.

Filed under: , ,