Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Lawsuit Heaven

A Korean report says that country’s developing economy is starting to look very familiar:

It is no exaggeration to say that Korea is the “heaven of lawsuit” as the number of criminal charges and civil suits in the country is 155 times and six times higher than that of Japan, respectively.

People tend to go to court even at a slightest provocation as they institute a suit to retrieve money even if they had not signed any written contract and file for criminal charges when the case can be resolved in a civil suit.

It sounds as if the “filing” of criminal charges is a lot easier in Korea than it is here. I do civil litigation, and clients always want to know whether the fraud, or false statements under oath, or other bad acts they are positive our adversaries have done have a criminal down side. The answer, of course, is almost always “no” — prosecutors are virtually never interested in bilateral wrongdoings. That is as it should be; dragging the threat of prosecution — unspoken or otherwise — into civil litigation only makes bad situations worse (and gives your adversary a constitutional justification not to testify). Again, by all indications something very different is going on over there:

“Although over 600,000 people are being charged each year, a significant number of cases are dropped as they cannot be considered as a crime. We cannot overlook the seriousness of the current legal situation as over-issued charges are perturbing prosecutors from inspecting more crucial cases such as bribery,” said Shin Kyeong-sik, the head of planning department at the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Perhaps the Prosecutor’s Office in South Korea should be a little more Supreme.

The Wall Street Journal on “Do it Yourself Tort Reform”

In today’s Journal, an article by the people behind Medical Justice:

In 2002, we launched Medical Justice, a membership-based organization designed to complement tort reform and to head off frivolous lawsuits. ….

Our service has two principal components. First, we look at the quality of so-called expert-witness testimony. Behind every frivolous lawsuit there is an “expert” — usually a physician skilled in testifying before juries and often compensated to the tune of $10,000 dollars a day. Put bluntly, many of these “experts” are frauds, as this newspaper has repeatedly shown in cases regarding asbestosis and silicosis claims….

Medical Justice’s second tool is a patient-physician contract. That contract states that in a legitimate dispute, both sides will utilize only those experts who belong to such societies and who strictly follow their code of ethics. This limits the list to reputable and accountable physician experts, thus precluding the use of hired guns or medical “witnesses having other rational explanations” — better known by their acronym.

Does it work? Yes. After five years of collecting data, we know that Medical Justice plan members are sued at a rate of under just 2% a year. The average doctor is sued at a rate of 8%-12% per year. And the company is top heavy with physicians in “high-risk” specialties.
…

Private law saves the day? Perhaps — but how long before the plaintiffs’ bar fights back with legislation?

Filed under: , , ,

So few class-action antitrust trials

Although the New York attorney general had already extracted $3 million in penalties on the charges, a jury returned a defense verdict in a class-action suit charging that Macy’s and other department stores conspired to fix the price of high-end tableware. Plaintiffs admitted they had no direct evidence of a conspiracy and jurors in San Francisco federal court declined to infer one. Manufacturer/defendant Lenox had already paid $500,000 to be let out of the case.

What was truly unusual about the case, however, was that it went to trial at all, given the pressure to settle on defendants in such situations:

Antitrust attorneys say the verdict was remarkable if only because the case made it all the way to trial.

“In terms of a price-fixing class action going to trial, I honestly can’t think of one,” said James McGinnis, a partner at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, who briefly represented May Department Stores, one of the defendants, at an early stage in the case.

Usually, said lawyers on both sides of the bar, a combination of sky-high financial risks and the prospect of criminal prosecution is enough to encourage a settlement. Defense attorneys, for example, may not want to lay all their cards on the table in a civil case while prosecutors are watching.

(Matthew Hirsch, “Macy’s Beats Antitrust Price-Fix Rap”, The Recorder, Jul. 5).

Filed under: , ,

Next stop for boys’ team-cutting: high schools?

The quota pressures of the federal Title IX law have resulted in the axing of hundreds of men’s college sports teams, and now activists are preparing to intensify their legal campaign at the high school level, reports Jessica Gavora:

At the center of the pro-quota activists’ marching orders for Congress today is something called the “High School Sports Information Collection Act.” It’s modeled after the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA), which for a dozen years has forced colleges and universities to annually report their athletic participation and expenses — broken down by sex — to the feds. The EADA was meant to be, and is, a one-stop-shopping list for trial lawyers and activist groups looking for schools to sue for failing to meet the Title IX quota. Now, courtesy of Senators Olympia Snowe and Patty Murray, they are about to have the same litigation hit list of high schools.

In a year in which Rutgers, James Madison, Ohio University, Butler, Clarion, Slippery Rock, and Syracuse have eliminated hundreds of men’s roster spots in full or in part due to Title IX, we have yet to see — thankfully — boys’ high-school teams eliminated under the law. But we are beginning to see boys athletic opportunities be limited due to Title IX quota creep in high schools.

(Jessica Gavora, “Title IX Trickle-Down”, National Review Online/CBSNews.com, Jun. 20)(broken link now fixed).

Filed under: , , ,

Killer Quakers

Hierarchical government a pain? Separation of powers getting you down? Not a problem! Not if you’d rather be in Philadelphia:

Two Philadelphia City Council members plan to file suit against the state House and Senate Wednesday for preventing the city from passing more restrictive gun laws.

Council members Donna Reed Miller and Darrell Clarke called the city’s surging homicide rate in part a “state-created danger.”

Lawmakers have tied the city’s hands by not giving it the authority to limit gun purchases to one a month and require lost or stolen guns to be reported, according to Miller.

I’m sure the city does feel bad that it can’t pass more laws to make it feel good about the fact that its residents have turned America’s first capital into a shooting gallery… mm, like its present capital. But that is the fool’s perspective; for see how the state is even described — in its role in actually arrogating to itself the right to set policies for, er, the state — not as a sort accessory to crime, or, switching to civil liablity, a but-for cause or even a proximate cause. No, homicide in Brotherlovopolis are a “state-created danger”! Only a sage who merits a seat on the Philadelphia City Council can see these murders committed by carbon-based entities in Philadelphia for what they are: The product of passive, robotic mayhem-slaves of the blood-lusting Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, doing its cynically William Penn-garbed bidding and killing! Killing! Killing!

Quaker State indeed.

Filed under: ,

Searle Freedom Trust request for proposals

Now this is the sort of thing likely to be of interest to some of our readers: the philanthropic Searle Freedom Trust concentrates on U.S. domestic policy and “aims to foster research and encourage public policies that promote individual freedom and economic liberty”. It

seeks to pursue its mission through new media and invites interested parties to submit applications for grants of up to $250,000. All ideas are welcome and will receive consideration. …

Proposals that may hold particular interest include fellowships for bloggers who focus on government spending, tort reform, or problems in higher education; projects that encourage emerging filmmakers and video producers and help them develop their talent; and podcasting.

Proposals must be submitted by October 1 and are being handled by John J. Miller, for whose bona fides we can vouch. (cross-posted from Point of Law).

Dunkin’ Donuts unfair to Muslim franchisee?

“A discrimination lawsuit filed by a Muslim Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee who was not allowed to renew his contract with the chain because of a refusal to sell pork products can proceed, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday.” For many years the donut chain had permitted Walid Elkhatib to refrain from including bacon, sausage or pork in breakfast sandwich offerings, because of religious scruples, but in 2002 it insisted that he carry the line with meat included, and he sued on religious-discrimination grounds. According to the coverage, Circuit judge Ilana Diamond Rovner apparently found it significant that the donut chain had allowed some franchisees in the area not to carry the breakfast sandwiches, for reasons that included, e.g., limited space. It sounds, though, as if the deal that Elkhatib wished to carry forward was somewhat different: he wanted to go ahead and keep selling the sandwiches without putting meat in them, which would presumably have implications for what franchising strategists call the consistency of the customer experience. (“Muslim Dunkin’ Donuts Owner Can Sue Over Pork, Appeals Court Says”, Reuters/FoxNews.com, Jul. 10; Samuel Estreicher and Michael J. Gray, “Religion and the U.S. Workplace”, Human Rights Magazine (ABA), Summer 2006)(& welcome Michelle Malkin readers).

Bulldozer’s progress

They didn’t tell me guest-blogging at Overlawyered would be an autopilot proposition, but thanks to James Taranto, it is — complete with a law professor to do the work for me:

The family of a woman killed trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in 2003 asked a federal appeals court panel to reinstate its lawsuit against Caterpillar Inc., saying the company knew bulldozers it sold to the Israeli government were being used to commit human rights violations.

“Caterpillar sold this product knowing — or it should have known — it would cause exactly this harm,” one of the family’s lawyers, Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky told the three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday.

Yes, a law professor is making this argument. Okay, a law professor who blogs at Huffington Post, but still? No, he’s not a new face; but he certainly remains a brazen one. For in our bizarro world, right is a very special kind of wrong — the promotion of violence (by the likes of Rachel Corrie) is peace;the sale of construction equipment (by Caterpillar) is murder; and fallacious legal argumentation is the product of one of the “the top 20 legal thinkers in America.”

This could be one even the Ninth gets right. Meanwhile,

Corrie’s parents said after the hearing that they have been carrying on their daughter’s work since she died.

“You can’t go back to the way things were before, so you determine a path forward,” Cindy Corrie said.

I thought that’s exactly what they were suing over!

Filed under: