Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

TV and radio today: Fox, NRA News

Fox News’s “DaySide” has booked me today to discuss an assortment of unusual or colorful lawsuits recently noted on this site. I’m scheduled to be on between 1 and 2 p.m. Eastern, probably around 1:20 p.m. (Update: for more on the cases discussed, follow the links: high-speed cop chase; train crash worsened his drinking; “Fear Factor“; pharmacy theft; concert noise; “beware of dog” signs.)

Also, at 4:40 p.m. Eastern, I’ll be live on the Cam Edwards show, which streams at nranews.com (National Rifle Association) and Sirius satellite radio, to discuss my NY Times piece on NYC gun law (more).

Filed under:

Update: charges dropped in lawyer-joke case

“A couple of jokers from Long Island got the last laugh yesterday after a grand jury dismissed charges they had caused a disturbance when they told lawyer jokes in front of an attorney.” (see Jan. 13, Jan. 14, Jan. 30). “It’s still legal in America to tell jokes — even about lawyers,” said their attorney, Ron Kuby. (Devin Smith, “Good ‘Gag’ Rule”, New York Post, Feb. 9).

Filed under: ,

Gibson Dunn punished for meritless lawsuit

Steve Morton, heir to the salt fortune, asked Steve Seltzer to evaluate the early 20th-century painting “Lassoing a Longhorn”, thought to be a C.M. Russell; Seltzer instead identified it as the work of a less famous artist, his own grandfather, the Russell contemporary O.C. Seltzer. This meant the painting’s value was not about $650-800 thousand, but perhaps a tenth of that. So Morton hired the big law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, and sued Seltzer in federal court for the difference plus punitive damages. Unfortunately, though Morton did have evidence the Russell signature wasn’t altered, he couldn’t find any experts who backed his theory of the painting’s provenance, while Seltzer lined up nine affidavits that supported his conclusion. Morton dropped the lawsuit, and Seltzer then sued Morton, the law firm, and the apparently-now-retired lawyer, Dennis Gladwell. A Montana state court jury found malicious prosecution, and awarded $21 million in damages, based in part on Gibson Dunn’s earnings. The damages award seems improper (it’s punishing the law firm for being large, rather than for wrongdoing); one hopes it is reduced to something in line with the actual damages to Seltzer–legal fees, any economic damages from the brief loss in reputation (though Seltzer doesn’t charge for his authentications), plus perhaps some reasonable non-economic damages for the stress of litigation.

But one would have more sympathy for the defendants if they hadn’t been the first to be using litigation to make unreasonable demands; if all Morton and his attorneys wanted, as they claimed, was to clear the painting’s title, he didn’t need to seek punitive damages against Seltzer. The defendants will appeal. (Kathleen Schultz, “Jury awards artist $21 million”, Great Falls Tribune, Feb. 8; Kathleen A. Schultz, “Seltzer jury may receive case today”, Great Falls Tribune, Feb. 4; Kathleen A. Schultz, “Art collector defends position in malicious prosecution trial”, Great Falls Tribune, Feb. 3; Kathleen A. Schultz, “Seltzer outlines personal suffering in civil suit”, Great Falls Tribune, Feb. 2; David Hewett, “Owners Sue Art Expert, Art Expert Sues Owners”, Maine Antique Digest, Oct. 2003).

Filed under: ,

Washington state: can parents monitor children?

Carmen Dixon, the mother of 14-year-old Lacey, was concerned about a phone call Lacey received from her 17-year-old boyfriend Oliver Christensen, so she listened in on another line. Oliver discussed a purse-snatching, and Carmen turned him in to police. But, last December, the Washington Supreme Court threw out Christensen’s 2000 second-degree robbery conviction, because the eavesdropping violated the children’s privacy. The legislature is just getting around to changing the law in response. (Robert L. Jamieson, “Courts should let parents do their duty — and pry”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Feb. 7; Rachel La Corte, “Parental snooping bill gets a hearing”, AP/Seattle Times, Feb. 3; Christine Clarridge, “Eavesdropping against law even for parent, court says”, Seattle Times, Dec. 13) (via Bashman).

Filed under: , ,

Cop asks for $6M for glass in burger

18-year-old Albert Garcia, Jr. of the Bronx has a “general distaste” for police officers–so, with other McDonald’s employees watching, he put glass in Officer John Florio’s Big Mac; Florio broke a tooth and cut his mouth and throat. Garcia was caught in a sting when an undercover police officer saw him spitting on another cop’s drive-through order, confessed, and is facing assault charges.

Now Florio is suing. One suspects that McDonald’s is willing to pay Florio’s medical expenses (the press doesn’t say one way or the other) as they should, but Florio, through his lawyer Richard Kenny, wants $6 million ($1 million in “compensatory” damages) from the national chain for failure to supervise Garcia properly. Because, after all, no other fast-food chain has teenage employees who adulterate food, perhaps because of the sophisticated two-key systems (much like those used for nuclear missiles) before employees are allowed to make a sandwich. (Alison Gendar, “Hurt cop sues McD’s for $6M”, NY Daily News, Feb. 8; Denise Buffa and Marsha Krane, “Glass-Burger Cop Sues”, NY Post, Feb. 8; Erin Calabrese and Dan Mangan, “Big Mac Attack vs. Cop”, NY Post, Jan. 31). The complaint suggests that McDonald’s should’ve fired Garcia sooner because of “aberrant behavior”, but, once again, firing someone risks an employment lawsuit.

Filed under:

Thank you to all

I would like to thank Walter and Ted for having me here at Overlawyered and thank everyone for reading. I return now to chronicling the intersection of sports, law and life at the Sports Law Blog. It has been a fun week, though, and I have learned a great deal. Hopefully, through efforts like this blog, people will understand that litigation is not the answer to every problem, so that the courts may focus on the rights of those that truly have no other recourse. P.S. from W.O.: Sports Law Blog can be found here.

Jury awards $1.8 billion . . . by mistake

“The jury wanted to punish Ben Waldrep for holding a house-giveaway contest it had decided was bogus, but when jurors awarded punitive damages Monday, they wound up dealing him a much harsher financial blow than intended. The jurors apparently meant to have the contest’s 1,800 entrants split $1 million. But they accidentally awarded each of them $1 million. That means, officially anyway, Waldrep has been ordered to cough up $1.8 billion.” Superior Court Judge Andria Richey is expected to lower the damage amount on motion by the defense, but she did not question the jury at all about the amount before releasing them. (Josh Grossberg, “Mistake by jury gives essay writers a $1 billion windfall,” Daily Breeze, Feb. 8).

Eastwood, lawsuits, and “Million Dollar Baby”?

(Links have spoilers, but this post doesn’t.) Activists are suggesting that Clint Eastwood’s bad experience with a lawsuit of a particular flavor has influenced the ending to Oscar nominee “Million Dollar Baby” and cite his tort reform testimony before Congress as evidence. (Michael Miner, “Dubious Conclusions”, Chicago Reader, Jan. 28; Jack Mathews, “Times is not right to spoil ‘Baby’ end”, NY Daily News, Feb. 4). Unfortunately, the stories uncritically quote activists who suggest incorrectly that Eastwood’s proposed reform would gut the law.

Filed under:

“Attorneys Feud in AmEx Card Case”

Class action watch: “A proposed legal settlement that could deliver about $64 million to American Express cardholders and up to $11 million to plaintiffs’ lawyers is under assault from rival attorneys who say the company should be paying much more. … Those challenging the pact say American Express conducted what amounts to a ‘reverse auction’ by shopping around until the company found a group of attorneys that would accept the lowest settlement offer.” There are indications that Miami federal judge Cecilia Altonaga is giving the objections more credence than is often done: she “ruled last fall that the critics could demand documents and testimony about the claims explored by lead attorneys on the case”, which usually doesn’t happen. The lawsuits allege that Amex applied fees and unfavorable exchange rates to American cardholders’ purchases in foreign currencies. (Josh Gerstein, New York Sun, Feb. 4). Update on settlement of objections: Point of Law, Aug. 22, 2007.

Filed under: