Arrested — for telling lawyer jokes?

It happened at the First District courthouse in Long Island: Nassau County court spokesman Dan Bagnuola says Harvey Kash, 69, and Carl Lanzisera, 65, of the gadfly group Americans for Legal Reform, were charged with disorderly conduct because they were “being abusive and they were causing a disturbance,” while Kash and Lanzisera said all they were doing was telling a lawyer joke (the “his lips are moving” one) while standing in line to get into the courthouse. “The pair said that for years they have stood outside courthouses on Long Island and mocked lawyers.” An attorney reported them to the guards. (“Pair arrested for telling lawyer jokes at Long Island courthouse”, AP/Newsday, Jan. 12; L.A. Times; South Florida Sun-Sentinel). Eugene Volokh has some analysis of the First Amendment issues. More watch-what- you-say- about-lawyers stories: Dec. 23 and links from there. Updates: Jan. 14, Jan. 30.

Lottery fine print

A judge has rejected a lawsuit by 94-year-old lottery winner Louise Outing of Everett, Mass., seeking to force the Massachusetts Lottery Commission to suspend its rule that lottery jackpots get paid out in installments over 20 years; she wanted it paid as a lump sum in view of her advanced age. The lottery’s executive director pointed out that the rule is printed on the back of all bet slips. A judge also noted that there are companies that will pay lottery winners a lump sum in exchange for the right to collect the twenty-year stream of payouts. (David Weber, “Judge nixes quick cash for elder lotto winner”, Boston Herald, Dec. 31; “Lottery winner, 94, loses in court”, AP/Boston Globe, Dec. 31; “Massachusetts Judge Denies Demand for Lump-Sum Lottery Prize Payment”, Dec. 30). The maxim Brian J. Noggle derives from the woman’s unsuccessful suit, in a post at his blog: “Rules are made to be litigated”. More lottery litigation: Mar. 26, 2004, May 20-21, 2002, and, a bit farther afield, Jun. 28, 2004.

Courts slashes bankruptcy fees in retiree case

“The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s decision to slash White & Case’s legal fee in a bankruptcy-related case from $5.5 million to $1.8 million, criticizing the firm’s fees as excessive.” The prominent law firm “made the fee request in 1999 in connection with its representation of 25,000 retirees from the textile manufacturer St. Louis-based Monsanto, which later spun off into the company Solutia, also of St. Louis. Solutia subsequently filed for bankruptcy and sought to alter Monsanto retirees’ benefits.” White & Case was asking as much as $370 an hour for some of its lawyers’ time, although one of the nation’s most prominent plaintiff’s lawyers, Frederic Levin of Pensacola, Fla., was contenting himself with $250 an hour for his work in the same case. (Julie Kay, “White & Case to Get Less Than Half Its Bill for Bankruptcy Case”, Miami Daily Business Review, Jan. 10). More on bankruptcy fees: Sept. 22, 2004 and links from there.

Catfight in Philly

“Two of the most prominent personal-injury law firms in Philadelphia have gone to war with each other over a star litigator, a portfolio of clients, and tens of millions of dollars in potential fees. The law firm of the late James E. Beasley has accused a rival firm, Kline & Specter, of luring away one of its top litigators, Andrew J. Stern, and improperly soliciting clients from the Beasley Firm.” (L. Stuart Ditzen, “A battle of firms for fees, clients”, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 12). Both firms make repeated appearances in the archives of this site.

Discussion of judicial selection

Over at Point of Law, a new featured discussion has begun on the problem of state judicial selection, and what if anything to do about the problem of judicial campaigns funded (often very richly) by lawyers and litigants with interests before the courts in question. Discussing the topic are Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University, whose work (PDF, with Eric Helland) on the relation between judicial selection and tort awards has been widely talked about (he’s also a founder and principal of the excellent blog Marginal Revolution), and David Rottman, Principal Court Research Consultant the National Center for State Courts (more on panelists). It promises to be a highly illuminating week.

Overlawyered: Yemen edition

Not that you need me to tell you not to go to Yemen, but on December 26, the American Embassy in Sana’a advised US citizens of a possible threat against the Aden Hotel, located quite near where the USS Cole was bombed in 2000. Most heeded the call and left the hotel or cancelled reservations. The Aden Hotel, upset at the lost of business, responded in the American language: a lawsuit, claiming $500,000 in damages. “The warning period ended and nothing bad occurred, so this indicates that such rumors have no place of truth,” General Manager Fadhl Al-Hilali said. The Yemen Times takes a break from cartoons calling for the murder of hook-nosed cannibal Jews (paging Charles Johnson) to cover the story superficially. (Ridhwan Al-Saqqaf, “Aden Hotel files suit against US Embassy”, Yemen Times, Jan. 6-9; “UK embassy to remain closed until Tuesday”, Yemen Times, Jan. 10-12; Incessant Rant blog).

More seriously, elsewhere in Yemen, the Southeast Sana’a Court sentenced journalist Abdul-Karim Sabra to two years in prison; Sabra, the editor-in-chief of the newspaper Al-Hurriah (“Freedom”), had had the newspaper’s license revoked when he changed the logo to mark the paper’s 25th anniversary without permission. (“Police pursue publisher of banned newspaper”, Yemen Observer, Jan. 8; IFEX press release, Oct. 28). Remember that next time Bill Maher complains that he’s being censored because he’s only making a million dollars a year hosting a cable tv show.