Breaking: Pearson loses pants suit

A judge has ruled in favor of the defendant Chung family in the mishandled-dry-cleaning case, and awarded them (relatively minor) court costs. Pearson is expected to appeal; the Chungs’ lawyer says the family expects to ask eventually that he also be made to pay their attorney fees, but D.C. law sets the bar for such a request relatively high, so it’s by no means something they can count on. Coverage: Washington Post and its Marc Fisher and OFF/beat blogs, more. Earlier: here and here.

More: And here’s word of a fundraiser for the Chungs’ legal defense, next month in D.C., sponsored by the Chamber and ATRA.

Guestblogger tomorrow

We’ve had a record response to our call for guestblogging volunteers, and the first in a series of guests will be dropping by tomorrow to begin a week-long stint. If you’ve been meaning to volunteer but haven’t, go ahead and drop us a line — there may still be openings later in the summer.

Cookies-for-troops menace averted

No need to worry that greeters will be foisting cookies on returning soldiers at Bangor International Airport any more: “airport officials asked the greeters to stop serving food last month because of concern about liability and food safety. ‘We just say, “We’re sorry, we can’t give out any cookies,”‘ said Bill Knight, a World War II veteran who founded the group.” (Katie Zezima, “Airport Tries to Rein In Greeters’ Generosity Toward Troops”, New York Times, Jun. 21). Other food menaces averted: Dec. 13, 1999 (homemade pies), Jan. 29, 2001 (school cookies, country fair pies and jams), Feb. 1-3, 2002, Jan. 18 and Apr. 28, 2007 (figurines in New Orleans king cake), Apr. 15, 2004 (potluck dinners), Jul. 18, 2006 (homemade baked goods in U.K. nursing home), and Apr. 28, 2007 (candy-wrapped toy).

Great moments in immigration law

Getting wide exposure on YouTube, and providing fodder for Lou Dobbs:

The video shows attorneys for Cohen & Grigsby, one of the largest law firms in Pittsburgh, explaining at a conference on immigration how to obey laws that require Americans be given top priority for jobs while still ensuring foreigners are hired.

“The goal here of course is to meet the requirements, number one, but also do so as inexpensively as possible, keeping in mind our goal. And our goal is clearly not to find a qualified and interested U.S. worker,” Lawrence Lebowitz, the firm’s vice president of marketing, told the audience in May.

(“Pa. law firm’s immigration talk hits YouTube; U.S. senator demands investigation”, AP/Arizona Star, Jun. 23; Sister Toldjah; Doug Ross). More: Kim’s Play Place says the lawyers were serving their clients’ legitimate interests and that if they can arrange compliance with the letter of an irrational law there’s no reason for them to show allegiance to its claimed spirit. Further: Gina Passarella, “Immigration Law Seminar Generates Unwanted Publicity for Firm”, Legal Intelligencer, Jun. 25 (& welcome Opinionator readers).

L.A. attorney ethics beat

A jury has convicted prominent attorney Stephen Yagman, who’s prospered greatly filing police-misconduct and civil-rights lawsuits in Los Angeles, of 19 counts of attempted tax evasion, bankruptcy fraud and money laundering. Prosecutors said Yagman led a lavish lifestyle while declaring bankruptcy, hiding assets from creditors, and failing to pay payroll tax. (“Famed SoCal civil rights attorney found guilty of tax fraud”, AP/Riverside Press-Enterprise, Jun. 22; Patterico, Jun. 22 and Jun. 23 (not sharing Duke lawprof Erwin Chemerinsky’s somber view of the verdict)). Last year (Jul. 5, 2006) Yagman sued a retired police detective who in a letter expressed “glee and profound satisfaction” over the lawyer’s indictment. For Yagman’s other appearances on this site, see Feb. 23, 2000, Mar. 18, 2005, Apr. 3, 2006, and Nov. 4, 2006.

Meanwhile, the city attorney of Los Angeles, Rocky Delgadillo, who’s figured in these columns a couple of times (grandstanding on Grand Theft Auto, Jan. 28 of last year; defending the city’s $2.7 million settlement of the firefighter dog food case, Nov. 22) seems to have landed in an ethical spot of bother himself (more).

Pizza Hut door-swing case, cont’d

The police officer sued in the now-celebrated Madison County, Ill. case (Mar. 13, May 21) submits affidavits in his defense, pointing up some interesting angles that didn’t emerge in earlier rounds of coverage:

A Troy police officer who was ordered to pay Edwardsville attorney Amanda Verett $311,700 for a shoulder injury claims he never even came into physical contact with her during an incident Feb. 12 at the Troy Pizza Hut.

Sworn affidavits and other court documents filed by Troy officials this week, including the police chief and assistant city administrator, claim the reason officer Clarence Jackson was at the Pizza Hut in the first place was because Verett and her male law partner were causing a disturbance. Jackson was responding to a 911 call.

Verett, a family attorney in Edwardsville, filed suit against Pizza Hut and Jackson alleging she was injured when walking out the door of the restaurant while holding open the door to allow herself and Jackson to exit.

Last month a judge issued a default judgment against Jackson, who now argues his actions were on behalf of the city of Troy and should be shielded by sovereign immunity. (Steve Gonzalez, “Police officer claims he never came in contact with Verett”, Madison County Record, Jun. 21).

By reader acclaim: Dutch woman loses suit over not entering lottery

You can’t win if you don’t play: “A Dutch woman who claimed she suffered emotional damages due to not winning the lottery missed the jackpot in court too. Amsterdam District Court judges Wednesday rejected the claim of Helene de Gier, who said she was traumatized by not winning the country’s National Postcode Lottery, which she didn’t enter, while her neighbors did.” DeGier said one lucky neighbor had rubbed in his good luck by showing off a new Porsche, and claimed lottery ads had engaged in “emotional blackmail” by suggesting that non-entrants like herself might be sorry afterward. (AP/IHT, Reuters).

Object to a class action settlement, face a RICO suit

Perhaps we shouldn’t rush to conclusions about this filing by plaintiffs’ counsel in Madison County, Ill., who are aiming a complaint under the federal RICO racketeering law against two lawyers and a Florida resident who had sought to block a $63.8 million class action settlement over the drug Paxil. After all, not all class action settlements are a bad deal for class members, some objections to such settlements are unmeritorious, and there are even some bad objectors out there who are more concerned with being paid to go away than with saving class members from a bad deal. Still, it may not take many treble-damage RICO suits before both types of objector, the helpful and the unhelpful alike, begin to reconsider showing up in court, will it? (Steve Gonzalez, “Plaintiffs in $63 million Paxil case claim ‘objectors’ violated RICO in new class action”, Madison County Record, Jun. 9). Update Oct. 7: suit dismissed without prejudice.

By reader acclaim: “Woman Wins $29,000 for Topless Stroll”

Women in the other forty-nine states should not count on comparably remunerative results if it happens to them, this being a New York precedent only:

A woman arrested for exposing her breasts has accepted a $29,000 settlement from [New York City], her lawyer said.

Jill Coccaro, 27, was arrested on a topless stroll two years ago, despite a 1992 state appeals court ruling that concluded women should have the same right as men to take off their shirts. …

“We hope the police learn a lesson and respect the rights of women to go topless,” [her lawyer Jeffrey] Rothman said.

(AP/ABCNews.com, Jun. 18).