It seems wayward scion Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wants to be Spitzer’s replacement (Jonathan P. Hicks, “Only in New York: Kennedys, Cuomos and Voters, Oh, My”, New York Times, Jan. 18). Well, this should be entertaining, at least.
Batch of reader letters
On our letters page, topics this time include: a high school hockey referee gets hit by a puck, and then invited to partake of a lawyer’s services; religious proselytizing; Rosa Parks’s $5 billion suit against hip-hop musicians; and what English lawyers think of their Law Society’s move to permit referral fees. As in previous months, we’ve left comments open on letters, but expect to close inactive threads within a few days given the high prevalence of comment spam.
“Public-interest lawyers cash in on classroom suits”
“Lawyers who recently won a very big public-interest lawsuit to make San Francisco schools more accessible to the disabled apparently hope that the case will produce some very big benefits for themselves as well — like $9 million in fees….
“Jose Allen, a partner at the San Francisco firm Skadden Arps, is asking for $810 an hour…. Allen is a local partner of the giant, New York-based Skadden Arps firm — whose Web site touts its commitment to pro bono law work.” City officials are protesting the fees as exorbitant, but lawyers say the city can if necessary sell off surplus property to pay the bill. (Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 17).
Common Good “Gatekeeper Awards”
Philip Howard’s Common Good organization has announced (Dec. 16) its second annual Gatekeeper Awards for judges who rule inappropriate litigation out of court. (For the first round, see May 12, 2004). Winners this year include:
* An Indianapolis judge who ruled against an attempt to sue a cell phone company over an accident that a driver got into while using a cell phone;
* A New Mexico judge who, citing the privileges arising from the constitutional separation of church and state, refused to allow a surviving family to sue a Roman Catholic priest over allegedly insensitive remarks at a funeral which they said implied that the deceased was headed for Hell;
* A New Jersey judge who refused to allow a suit for negligent parental supervision after a five-year-old boy accidentally collided with and injured an sixteen-month-old girl at a block party;
* A Connecticut Supreme Court judge who wrote an opinion rejecting the doctrine of “self-compelled publication” in employment law, under which dismissed workers sue over injury to their reputation arguing that, whether or not their former employer has said anything damaging about them to outsiders, they have been obliged to spread the defamatory allegations themselves in the course of explaining themselves to potential future employers (see Aug. 10, 1999).
U.K.: Labour backs off ban on fairground goldfish
Fearing ridicule, the Blair government has backed off a clause of an animal welfare bill “which would have outlawed the use of any animal as a competition prize”, and which was largely aimed at the popular practice of awarding a goldfish in a plastic bag as a prize at carnivals. “The scientific jury is still out on fish stress, with one study suggesting goldfish never get bored because their memories are too short to recall what it was they might have been bored about.” (Martin Wainwright, “Labour gets cold feet over ban on fairground goldfish”, The Guardian, Jan. 15).
Update: “Happy Cows” ads
California’s s. 17200, while handy in kneecapping private businesses which try to defend themselves in public controversies, can’t be used to silence speech by government: “An animal rights group’s challenge to a ‘Happy Cows’ advertising campaign by a state advisory board was rejected by a California appeals court in San Francisco today. The Court of Appeal said that a government entity can’t be sued for false advertising under the state’s Unfair Business Practices Act.” (“Animal rights group loses lawsuit against ‘Happy Cows’ commercial”, San Mateo County Times, Jan. 12; Mike McKee, “PETA Loses Suit Over California Cow Ads”, The Recorder, Jan. 13)(see Nov. 30). Update Apr. 23: California Supreme Court denies review.
Update: big-game hunter loses suit against ammo maker
“A big game hunter mauled by a lion within seconds of shooting the charging animal has no claim against a bullet manufacturer for defective design or failure to warn, a federal judge in Minnesota ruled Nov. 18 (Rohwer v. Federal Cartridge Co., D. Minn., No. 03-CV-2872, 11/18/04).” (“Big Game Hunter Fails to Bag Expert Testimony of Defect, Causation”, BNA Product Safety & Liability Reporter, Dec. 20; KeepAndBearArms.com). See Apr. 25-27, 2003.
Judge blinks at cosmetics settlement
Trouble for that no-blush, high-gloss, invisible-foundation antitrust class action (see Dec. 3 and links from there): at a two-hour hearing, federal judge Saundra Armstrong declined to approve the deal in its present form, saying “she agreed with the broad outlines of the settlement but was troubled by the details of how such a large volume of free [makeup and perfume] would be distributed”. Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun has a report (“Antitrust Suit Over Pricing of Cosmetics Hits a Snag”, Jan. 12). Update Mar. 14: judge approves settlement.
Lawyer-joke tellers hire…a lawyer
Those two Long Island men who say they were arrested for telling lawyer jokes at a Nassau County courthouse (see yesterday’s post) were soon deluged with offers by lawyers to represent them for free. Reports Newsday:
“Barbara Bernstein, executive director of the Nassau chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said she found the arrests “bewildering” and she called the men yesterday to determine whether the organization could help. “It’s just bewildering and preposterous that they should be arrested for telling lawyer jokes,” Bernstein said. “What’s the violation of law here?”
(Zachary R. Dowdy, “Lawyers offer help after pair’s anti-lawyer joke arrest”, Newsday, Jan. 13). The two men, Harvey Kash and Carl Lanzisera, have now accepted an offer of representation by radical attorney and New York radio personality Ron Kuby. (“Kuby takes jokers’ case”, Jan. 14). Further update: Jan. 30.
Marshall, Texas: Patent Central
“In the last several years, patent lawyers have flocked to Marshall, a small northeastern Texas town of 25,000, because of its speedy court process, patent-enthusiastic judges and juries considered ideal for hearing intellectual property cases. This year alone, the court has seen 59 patent cases, more than triple the total in 2003, which saw just 14 patent suits.” Intel made a $150 million payout after adverse rulings by a Marshall judge, and Cisco is currently being sued in what plaintiff’s lawyers hope will be a big-payout case.
Among those who defend the venue against critics is Charles Baker of Houston’s Porter & Hedges, who concedes “that some defense attorneys are afraid to try cases there because of its pro-plaintiff reputation, which he disagrees with. He said that the [court’s] rocket docket also turns off some defense lawyers who feel pressured to produce evidence quickly, leaving little time for preparation.” Curiouser and curiouser: “Baker said that Marshall’s large elderly population also provides a good jury pool for intellectual property cases. ‘There are a lot of old people who don’t have a problem with sitting weeks at a time and listening to complicated issues,’ Baker said.” (Tresa Baldas, “Texas IP Rocket Docket Headed for Burnout?”, National Law Journal, Dec. 28)
For a very different view of the reasons for Marshall’s popularity, check out M. Craig Tyler (Wilson Sonsini), “Patent Pirates Search for Texas Treasure”, Texas Lawyer, Sept. 20 (PDF): “Juries in East Texas, unlike those in Houston, Dallas or Austin, are much less likely to have a member with any technical training or education, which exacerbates the problem from the defense perspective, but makes East Texas federal courts an attractive venue for would-be plaintiffs, who know that the jury will, instead, gravitate toward softer or superficial issues that are difficult to predict.” The result is to facilitate the activities of what Tyler calls “patent pirates”: enterprises that exist to file patent suits rather than to manufacture products, and which benefit from asymmetrical costs of litigation (discovery in a patent case can cost the manufacturer-defendant a million dollars or more, while the plaintiff license-holder may have few or no documents worth discovering).
According to Tyler, a “simple, nonspecific complaint”, which need not identify any infringing products sold by the defendant, “has a nuisance value of a few hundred thousand dollars the minute it is filed and served.” Tyler’s outspoken article in turn drew a response: Michael C. Smith, “”Patent Pirates” Only Exist in Neverland”, Texas Lawyer, Oct. 10 (PDF).