Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Failed an Exam? See You in Court

27-year old former nursing student Nicholas Perrino is suing Columbia University to overturn an “F” he received after missing an exam:

Nicholas Perrino was kicked out of the Ivy League institution’s School of Nursing for missing an exam, and now he is suing to get back in.
…

Perrino is asking a judge to remove the “F” from his transcript, reinstate him at the school and reimburse tuition costs for classes he has already taken.

Presumably, legal action against universities by disgruntled students is fairly common. However, two of Perrino’s statements deserve scrutiny.

First, he claims he “told his instructors” he would be missing the exam. That is far different than getting permission to miss the exam. Had his instructors granted his request, he likely would have said so in the court documents. The more likely scenario is that on the way out the door, he e-mailed his professor to say “sorry, I have an emergency and can’t make the exam,” or something similar.

Secondly, he complains that “it’s not like (he) killed someone.” Actually, there’s a much less compelling case against him had he actually killed someone and not missed the exam. If he ran over someone with his car and the professors flunked him as a result, he may actually have a case. But by missing an exam, he gave them every reason to fail him.

It’s difficult to envision Columbia not having some sort of written policy on unexcused absences for student exams. The fact that Perrino is representing himself may be an indication of how he feels about his chances in court.

Filed under: ,

Prisoner Rights Update: Swedish Edition

Whereas some might think prison is a place to teach inmates valuable lessons (“don’t stab people,” etc.), it appears more Swedish prisoners are learning the value of a good lawyer:

Court Upholds Prisoners’ Right to Porn

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) — Convicted sex offenders in Sweden are free to read pornography in their cells following a court ruling that has angered the prison service.

The Supreme Administrative Court in Stockholm last week ruled that the Swedish Prison and Probation Service had no right to deny a rape convict access to his porn magazines.

Prison officials had argued that reading porn would interfere with the man’s rehabilitation program. They also said the magazines posed a security problem for staff and other inmates because they could increase the risk of the man relapsing into criminal behavior.

On the bright side, he’ll be blind when he’s finally released.

Filed under: ,

Woman Deems Starburst “Dangerously Chewy”

Next time you feel like living on the edge, there’s no need to go sky diving or ski jumping. Simply bite into a Starburst fruit chew, cross your fingers, and hang on for dear life…

Michigan Woman Claims Starburst Candies Are Dangerously Chewy in Lawsuit

Starburst Fruit Chews are exactly as their name would indicate: chewy. But one Michigan woman says the candies are so chewy, they should come with a warning label.

Victoria McArthur, of Romero, Mich., is suing Starbursts’ parent company, Mars Inc., for more than $25,000 for “permanent personal injuries” she claims she sustained after biting into one of their yellow candy in 2005.
…

I think we need to take whatever steps necessary to keep this woman away from jawbreakers.

Filed under: , ,

Large Payment Awarded After 30 Years of Divorce

British businessman Dennis North’s wife Jean left him 30 years ago after she began seeing another man. Their split became official in 1981, when they signed an agreement that granted Jean their house and income from rents on their various properties.

North went on to be a wildly successful businessman, while his ex-wife never worked. However, a judge has just ordered North to pay Jean a large lump-sum payment because she has “fallen on hard times” due to a number of money-losing investments:

Mr North, 70, has been ordered by a court to hand her another £202,000.

The order follows a series of big-money divorce cases which have swung the law against husbands and resulted in huge payments to ex-wives even after short childless marriages. The North case now threatens to make husbands pay large sums even decades after a split.

…

Existing English law gives ex-spouses who are receiving maintenance payments the ability to request a lump-sum payment instead. Jean’s attorneys believe she is entitled to this money, and state their case by responding to the odd “cherry” reference:

But Deborah Bangay, QC, for Mrs North, said: “This was not a second bite at the cherry but it is what are her reasonable needs. The court was entitled to take into account the obvious wealth of the former husband.”

She said it was not Mrs North’s fault that her investments had gone wrong. The district judge’s award had been at the “bottom end of the spectrum”.

So, to recap: This woman destroys her marriage, never gets a job, lives well beyond her means, loses a ton of money in bad investments, then gets a large cash payment for her trouble? Think there’s a line of people willing to be her investment advisor?

Filed under: , ,

More twisted justifications for Pearson’s pants-suit

As I have repeatedly noted, the only reason the Chungs can be said to have been vindicated is that Judge Roy Pearson is more delusional and less sinister than the typical trial-lawyer extortionist. Had Judge Pearson accepted the $12,000 settlement the Chungs felt forced to offer between the expense of litigation and the small risk of Pearson mounting a case that successfully resulted in the giant fines imposed by DC consumer-fraud law, Pearson would have had a five-digit profit, and the Chungs would be out tens of thousands of dollars in litigation and settlement expense without any hope of recoupment. As Michael Greve demonstrates in “Harm-Less Lawsuits”, this is more than hypothetical: in consumer-fraud lawsuits alone, billions of dollars have been extracted from innocent defendants.

DMI’s Kia Franklin’s defense of her claim that the travesty of justice we have seen in Pearson shows that the system works? “Now, had Pearson collected the $12,000 settlement, we would have a whole new hypothetical and a whole new set of questions about the terms of the settlement (Would we have known the settlement amount? Would they have been able to publicize this? What were the lawyers’ strategies?) and the consequences thereof. So we can’t prematurely say that it would pay off for him.” Franklin goes on to deny that trial lawyer abuse even exists—a perhaps necessary position for her to take, given that the top of any list of abusers would include the indicted law firm Milberg Weiss, which funds her fellowship, in part from the successful extortion of billions of dollars using the same in terrorem tactics as Pearson.

As Peter Nordberg notes in the Overlawyered comments, “If [Pearson] is indeed representative, there should be thousands of cases just like it, and we may as well get to discussing those.” And indeed we should.

Filed under: , , ,

Your Prisoner Sex Change Update

A Massachusetts inmate serving life in prison for murder is in court demanding the state pay for a sex-change operation:

The case of Michelle — formerly Robert — Kosilek is being closely watched across the country by advocates for other inmates who want to undergo a sex change.

[…]

Kosilek, 58, was convicted of strangling his wife in 1990. He claimed he killed her in self-defense after she spilled boiling tea on his genitals.
…

Naturally, expert witnesses are lining up to defend Kosilek, and a law firm is representing him pro bono:

Two other doctors retained and paid for by the department’s outside health provider, the University of Massachusetts Correctional Health Program, at a cost of just under $19,000 said they believe the surgery is medically necessary for Kosilek. Two other doctors who work for the health provider agreed with that.

In addition, two psychiatrists who testified for Kosilek recommended the surgery. A Boston law firm representing Kosilek for free paid for those experts but would not disclose the cost.

Aside from the propriety of taxpayers paying for a sex change operation (which Kosilek may or may not have been able to pay for himself had he not been in prison), corrections officials are correct that having a (now) woman in a male prison could pose significant problems. It is almost a given that should the operation be performed, Kosilek would petition to be moved to a women’s prison to protect his own safety.

Also, note the interesting correction at the bottom of the story:

(This version CORRECTS `himself’ to `herself.’)

Kosilek hasn’t had the sex change yet, so technically he is still a man – apparently the newspaper thought so, too. It would be interesting to find out who compelled them to change the story to portray Kosilek as a female – and in the process perhaps avoid their own lawsuit.

As noted in the story, Wisconsin went through a similar situation in 2004 when inmate Scott (now Donna Dawn) Konitzer was denied genital gender reassignment surgery by the Department of Corrections and sued the state. Department policy had been to provide hormone therapy to those who had been receiving it for a year before their incarceration, but surgery was not provided as an option. As Kosilek now has, Konitzer claimed denial of the procedure constituted “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

As a result of Konitzer’s lawsuit, the Wisconsin Legislature actually passed into law a ban on both hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery. Naturally, that new law has been challenged in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee.

Filed under: , , ,

Trademark abuses of the month

Although trademark law certainly has plenty of intricacies, the essence of trademarks is the protection of consumers from confusion in the marketplace. When one buys goods or services, one should be able to know the manufacturer of those goods or provider of those services. Except, of course, when lawyers get involved; then trademarks are just used by large businesses to stifle competition. Infoworld reports on how some companies are abusing trademarks to shut down smaller competitors on EBay. EBay, to avoid liability for trademark infringement by its sellers, is quick to shut down any auction when a trademark holder complains. And then makes it difficult for the seller to reverse the decision:

As she began the process of getting EBay to reinstate her account – which includes having to take a condescending online tutorial on intellectual property and swearing that you’ll never be bad again – the reader also was able to contact with other EBay sellers whose Don Ed Hardy auctions had been taken down. “Some sellers who had not yet actually sold any Don Ed Hardy goods were told by the fraud department that ‘test purchases’ had proven their goods were counterfeit,” the reader wrote. “Some were told that it didn’t matter they could prove their merchandise was authentic – Don Ed Hardy would continue to take down their listings via VeRO by citing ‘violation of a trade agreement’ between the company and its distributors. And all were threatened as I was with trademark litigation that could result in treble damages, paying their legal costs, etc.”

But the threat of running up legal fees with trademark lawsuits isn’t just felt by individual EBay sellers; even large companies — like ABC television — are afraid to fight ridiculous claims of trademark infringement:

“Sam I Am” isn’t—anymore.

The planned ABC fall comedy starring Christina Applegate has changed its name to “Samantha Be Good” after receiving a “cease-and-desist” letter from lawyers representing the rights-holder to Dr. Seuss characters, an attorney said Tuesday.

[…]

“We asserted a trademark infringement claim,” in a May 17 letter to ABC, said Jonathan B. Sokol, an attorney representing San Diego-based Dr. Seuss Enterprises, LP.

“People worldwide associate those characters with Dr. Seuss books and … Dr. Seuss vigilantly protects its trademark rights,” Sokol said.

The TV show’s original title might have confused people as to whether the company was sponsoring or otherwise involved with the program, Sokol said.

This is just a guess, but it’s unlikely that someone watching a sitcom in which Christina Applegate has amnesia is going to confuse it with Green Eggs And Ham, a book in which a cartoon character tries to entice another cartoon character to eat unkosher food with classic lines like “Could you, would you, with a goat?”

Filed under: , ,

Tattoos Now a Civil Right?

29-year old Russell Parrish decided he wanted to tell his life story through his tattoos. Unfortunately for him, his life story now contains a chapter on why he couldn’t get a job because he’s covered with tattoos. Naturally, he claims this is all a result of discrimination:

His tattoos cover his right and left arms and hands. There is a spider in a web crawling up his neck.
…

Russell says in the last two months he’s applied for over 100 jobs. In almost half of them, he says he was denied because of his tattoos. He says that’s discrimination.

Having tried the EEOC and the Department of Labor, Parrish is now lobbying state lawmakers for a new law that would protect him from discrimination against tattoos. In other words, he now needs the government to step in and bail him out of the bad lifestyle decisions he’s made.

Filed under:

$21 million lawsuit for negligent prosecution

In June 2004, 21-year old Vermont resident Samantha Perreault went out drinking with a couple of friends, Norman Poulin and Justin Lawrence. After three rum and cokes each, they left; Lawrence hopped on one motorcycle, and Poulin and Perreault got on another and followed him. Although they may not have been legally drunk, they had had several drinks, it was night, and they were driving 70 mph. Lawrence lost control of his motorcycle and crashed. Poulin, attempting to avoid Lawrence, also lost control and crashed. Perreault, unfortunately, was killed.

Both Poulin and Lawrence were prosecuted for criminal negligence, but Lawrence, apparently, was not also charged with driving without a motorcycle license. Feeling that Lawrence’s punishment was insufficient, Perreault’s father has now filed a $21 million lawsuit. Did he sue Poulin? No; apparently he forgave Poulin. Did he sue Lawrence? Of course not; Lawrence doesn’t have deep pockets. No; he sued the state of Vermont.

The Plainfield resident says officials in the Department of Public Safety and Office of the Attorney General showed disregard for his daughter and for the law by failing to fully prosecute a man involved with her death.

“I don’t want anybody else to go through this,” Perrault said Friday. “I think she deserved more than this.”

[…]

“By the state not doing anything, they’re saying it’s okay for you to drive without a license,” Perreault says. “I’ve gone through all the right channels, called the state police, called (the Office of the Attorney General). All I’m getting is blown off.”

In addition to seeking monetary damages, Perreault is also demanding that Lawrence be charged and prosecuted for driving without a license.

Of course, it’s hard not to feel sympathy for someone whose daughter is killed. And the lawsuit isn’t likely to succeed, as the article notes; the state is probably immune, and “failure to prosecute” isn’t a cause of action anyway. But that doesn’t alter the fact that the lawsuit reflects an all-too common mindset that picking a random big number out of a hat and filing a lawsuit against someone with deep pockets is the right approach whenever one is annoyed. (No, the case probably won’t last as long, and cost taxpayers as much, as the Roy Pearson pants lawsuit, but it certainly won’t be free, and will contribute to congestion in the courts which slows down — and thus raises the cost of — legitimate lawsuits.)

Filed under: , ,

The significance of Roy Pearson

As we’ve covered, Roy Pearson lost his $67 million lawsuit against his dry cleaners. Predictably, Bizarro-Overlawyered is trumpeting the outcome as evidence that the system works, that the “system has effective, built-in checks against such things.” I doubt many Overlawyered readers buy into that spin, but just in case, here are a few reminders about this case that, to the extent it had any merit at all, should have been a small claims suit:

  1. The Chungs offered Pearson $12,000 to drop this suit. If he had not been so greedy, they’d have been out that much money, plus a year’s worth of legal costs. The fact that our legal system enables people to extort tens of thousands of undeserved dollars from others is not evidence that there are “effective, built-in checks” on frivolous litigation.

  2. Putting aside any money issues, this lawsuit was filed on June 7, 2005; for more than two years, this case has been hanging over the Chungs’ heads. That’s two years of legal and financial uncertainty. Two years where they couldn’t make any significant business decisions because they had the possibility of an eight figure liability hanging over their heads. The fact that someone can drag out a case almost too small to have been on Judge Judy for two years is not evidence that there are “effective, built-in checks” on frivolous litigation.

  3. The Chungs “won” the case, but Pearson used the legal system to impose what was likely $100,000 in legal costs on them. Of course, there is a motion for sanctions pending against Pearson, but there are no guarantees here. Courts are very reluctant to impose sanctions, and even when they do (as the court probably will here) they very rarely impose sanctions sufficient to make the defendants whole. Note that sanctions are not automatic; the Chungs had to pay their attorney even more money to prepare a motion for sanctions. The fact that the Chungs have to endure two years of frivolous litigation and then cross their fingers and hope the judge awards them their legal fees is not evidence that there are “effective, built-in checks” on frivolous litigation.

  4. Oh, one other problem: the Examiner reported, even before the decision, that Pearson’s chances of keeping his job were slim. I think most reasonable people agree that Pearson hasn’t quite demonstrated that he’s fit to be a judge. But if he loses his job, the chances of the Chungs ever collecting any part of those sanctions drop from slim to none. (Their chances of recouping their losses are low to begin with — is it likely Pearson has $100,000 sitting around?)

  5. And let’s not forget one other party to this case, also abused by Roy Pearson: the taxpayers of the District of Columbia, who have to pay for the legal system. And they have no chance to get reimbursed.

  6. Finally, remember that the case is not necessarily over. It would be insane for Pearson to appeal, but that hasn’t proved to be a limiting factor in his actions in the past. The worst that happens is that he gets slapped with more sanctions, which he’ll never pay.

Filed under: ,