Common Good has prepared a Flash calendar illustrating how fears of being sued influence people month by month over the course of the year — sports, schools, holidays, etc. What, no falling leaves?
A Million Little Plaintiffs: unsurprising update
WSJ Law Blog: “As surely as day follows night, a class-action lawsuit was filed Friday against James Frey and Random House over Frey’s alleged lies in his best-selling memoir ‘A Million Little Pieces.’” Christine Hurt comments. Overlawyered readers had the story before it happened.
Posting schedule
We apologize for the lack of postings: windstorms knocked out Walter’s broadband and electricity yesterday just as I was spending all day on a delayed flight from the Pacific time zone. But we’ll have posts later in the day.
“Texas Shark Watch”
We’ve earlier reported on the threat to the free market posed by social-conservative trial-lawyers seeking to hijack the Republican party. (See also this National Review article on the Astroturf “Center for a Just Society” that quotes me and Walter.) There’s now an organization, Texas Shark Watch (via Childs), tracking the trend in Texas, and demanding that Texas Republicans sign a pledge not to take trial-lawyer money. And they also blog. (Update: May 21).
Update: Microsoft fees in Calif.
A state appeals court has approved a $1.1 billion settlement in the California consumer class action case against Microsoft, one of many parallel consumer antitrust class actions against the tech giant filed in states across the country. Plaintiffs lawyers at Townsend and Townsend and Crew and other firms are likely to share roughly $101 million in fees for representing software buyers in the state; class members were offered vouchers good on future purchases, which is not how the lawyers are taking their pay, of course. (Marie-Anne Hogarth, “Law Firms Closer to Raking In $101M in Fees in Microsoft Case”, The Recorder, Jan. 12). Oh well, at least it doesn’t sound as bad as the Minnesota settlement.
Update: lawyers’ “pit bull” ads
The Florida Supreme Court has ruled (PDF) that the law firm of Pape & Chandler violated the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers by marketing itself with the image of a spike-collared canine and the phone number 1-800-PIT-BULL (see Aug. 23, Sept. 19, 2004). The law firm says it is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, citing precedents of First Amendment protection for lawyers’ advertising. (David L. Hudson, Jr., “Florida Muzzles Pit Bull Ads”, ABA Journal eReport, Dec. 2). Commentary: Capt. Fogg, D. McGowan, Giacalone, Schaeffer.
One QC’s view
Distinguished British lawyer Arthur Marriott QC, as quoted by Richard Ackland in the Sydney Morning Herald, and perhaps not entirely irrelevant to the situation in some other countries too:
The great ideas to assist the poor and bring about access to justice, such as the introduction of legal aid, have been met with an explosion in the number of lawyers. Other schemes such as no win-no fees encourage predatory lawyering. The payment of lawyers on a time basis does not provide an incentive for the efficient conduct of trials. And finally, efforts to reform the litigation system have systematically been sabotaged and wrecked by lawyers. As Napoleon said, the administration of justice is too important to be left to lawyers.
(“The rise and rise of the predatory lawyer”, Nov. 18).
Newspaper circulation scandal: lawyers get $40K, clients $15K
“The Minneapolis-based Star Tribune has agreed to pay $55,000 to end a lawsuit accusing it of cheating advertisers by inflating circulation numbers, according to a lawyer for two plaintiffs. The settlement agreement says that the two plaintiffs, Masterson Personnel and Alternative Staffing, will receive $15,000 in rebates from the newspaper for advertising in 2007. The bulk of the settlement, up to $40,000, goes to attorneys representing the plaintiffs.” (Tim Huber, “Star Tribune to pay $55,000 to settle circulation lawsuit”, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dec. 20)(via Romenesko).
Update: the flying shrimp of death
The trial in the $10 million wrongful-death lawsuit against Benihana over a hibachi chef’s tossed shrimp that allegedly killed a man ten months later has begun. (Hat-tip: H.G.) Newsday tells of plaintiffs’ attorney Andre Ferenzo depicting a chilling scene: “We’re talking about pieces of cooked food thrown directly at people who are eating dinner in the restaurant!” Ferenzo even understands the dramatic importance of the Rule of Three, as he describes two previous shrimp tosses before the particularly fatal one that he blames for Jerry Colaitis’s death. (Caolaitis actually died of sepsis ten months later, and five months after the neck surgery his family claims was caused by dodging shrimp.) (Ann Givens, “Benihana shrimp toss cited in death”, Jan. 11).
We first reported on the case Nov. 23, 2004.
Chat room harassment
George Gillespie of Medina County, Ohio, is suing America Online for allegedly failing to do anything about teasing, humiliation and abuse he endured in one of the online service’s chat rooms. His suit also names individual defendants who live in Oregon and Alabama; Gillespie alleges that the Alabama man actually traveled to Ohio to further his campaign of harassment. Attorney Mark Tarallo of Holland & Knight in Boston believes the plaintiff “will face a tough battle, particularly in the fight with AOL.” (Tresa Baldas, “Chat Room Chatter Draws Lawsuit”, National Law Journal, Jan. 6; Julie Wallace, “Internet, civil liberties collide in unique lawsuit”, Akron Beacon Journal, Dec. 19).