I’ve got an op-ed in this morning’s Wall Street Journal (Aug. 23)(reprinted at Manhattan Institute site) examining what I term the “surprisingly conciliatory” line the Kerry/Edwards campaign has taken in recent weeks on litigation reform, and analyzing (insofar as that’s possible, given the thus-far-sketchy details) the five-point plan the two offer for addressing the malpractice-suit crisis. For more, see my Aug. 9 post and links from there. Also check out this site’s omnibus pages on politics, which includes many recent posts on Kerry and Edwards, and on medical liability. (Yet more: Point of Law).
Common Cause: car-dealer ads may run afoul of McCain-Feingold
The first election without the First Amendment, as Paul Jacob has called it, is getting pretty surreal: the role of money in politics hasn’t diminished, but many more of us are at risk of being exposed to harsh legal penalties for expressing our opinions. (George Will, “Campaign Cops and Car Ads”, Washington Post, Aug. 22; Paul Jacob, “With the Boss, but without the First Amendment”, syndicated/TownHall, Aug. 8; “Campaign finance” (editorial), Houston Chronicle, Aug. 16; George Will, “Speech crime in Wisconsin”, Newsweek, Aug. 16). More: Robert Samuelson, Juan Non-Volokh.
1-800-PIT-BULL: no urban legend
At a June 30 debate on lawyers’ advertising sponsored by the Orlando Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society, plaintiff’s lawyer John Morgan challenged Republican Rep. David Simmons for repeatedly referring to a law firm’s having used the phone number 1-800-PIT- BULL. “He offered to bet Simmons $1,000, with the loser contributing to the winner?s favorite charity, if Simmons could find a lawyer ad using the PIT BULL number,” according to an account in Florida Bar Online.
“Hope Morgan?s checkbook was handy,” the account continues, because, as is easily verified, 1-800-PIT-BULL is indeed the proudly advertised call line of the Fort Lauderdale law firm of Pape and Chandler, which specializes in representing injured motorcyclists. (“1-800-PITBULL is for real”, Florida Bar News Online, Aug. 1; Gary Blankenship, “Orlando Federalists debate lawyer advertising”, Florida Bar News Online, Aug. 1). The firm has been profiled in the Florida press: a 2002 account in the Miami Herald says its “pit bull” commercial, which has run during Jerry Springer’s talk show among other programs, “brings in as many as 60 phone calls a day”. (Cindy Krischer Goodman, “Pit bull ad pays off for Miami lawyers”, Sept. 16, 2002 (reg)). The Florida Bar has also sought to discipline the firm for its ads: Julie Kay, “Crackdown on Lawyer Ads”, Miami Daily Business Review, Jul. 12. See also Matthew Haggman, “Fla. Lawmakers May Vote Today to Curb Lawyer Advertising”, Miami Daily Business Review, Mar. 23. For more, see David Giacalone, May 10. (Update Sept. 19, 2004: Florida Bar disciplinary attempt ruled unconstitutional; Jan. 15, 2006: Florida Supreme Court rules against firm.)
According to Kevin O’Keefe of Real Lawyers Have Blogs (Dec. 5, 2003), “Morgan of the Orlando law firm Morgan, Colling & Gilbert (MGC), his wife and Johnnie Cochran, along with Pensacola trial lawyers J. Michael Papantonio and Fred Levin, own a consulting firm called Practice Made Perfect, which handles marketing and advertising for law firms around the country.” For yet more on Morgan, see the last sentence in our Jul. 27 entry.
Regulated recess
No games that involve chasing each other, kids. And whatever you do, don’t push each other on the swing, whether you’re just trying to be friendly or not. (Sandy Louey, “Recess gets regulated”, Sacramento Bee, Aug. 22). More on forbidden fun: Jul. 6, Apr. 15, 2004; Dec. 30, Dec. 26, Oct. 3, 2003; earlier items.
Prescod: We get mail
Update: Indian sovereignty advances
“In an extraordinarily broad declaration of Indian land rights, a Northern District judge has held that the Cayuga Nation can buy up property in its former Central New York homeland, declare it ‘Indian country’ and operate a gambling hall immune from local building, zoning and tax laws.” “John Caher, “Indian Tribe Wins Broad Right to Add, Control Land”, New York Law Journal, Apr. 29). In related news, New York State “has broken off negotiations to settle the Cayuga Indian land claim and will let the courts decide the 24-year-old lawsuit, officials on both sides of the dispute said”. (Scott Rapp, “State stops settlement talks with Cayugas”, Syracuse Post-Standard, Aug. 4). For more on Indian land claim litigation in upstate New York and elsewhere, see my City Journal Autumn 2002 piece; Nov. 3-5, 2001 and links from there; Jun. 24-25, 2002; Jun. 4, Apr. 16, Feb. 9, 2004 and links from there. See also Jan Golab, “The Festering Problem of Indian ‘Sovereignty'”, The American Enterprise, Sept.. Update 2005: U.S. Supreme Court, in City of Sherrill v. Oneida, disallows “creeping expansion” of tribal sovereignty through piecemeal land purchases.
Update: smog fee lawyers snag $23.7 million
Latest development in the affair that brought unwelcome scrutiny to former Calif. governor Gray Davis and his ties to the Litigation Lobby (see Dec. 5, 2000 and Jun. 22-24, 2001): “Court-ordered arbitration secretly delivered a $23.7 million payday to attorneys who successfully battled the state over smog fees wrongfully charged to 1.7 million motorists. The award,” down from an original $88.5 million, “represents as much as arbiters could give the team of attorneys led by a high-powered San Diego law firm, under limits imposed by a Court of Appeal ruling in 2002.” State officials had unsuccessfully sought to keep the earlier award under wraps, and attorney General Bill Lockyer was not exactly at pains to publicize this one: “The California Attorney General’s office, after rebuffing repeated inquiries into the status of the arbitration, this week confirmed that a ruling had been issued but refused to release any more information, citing attorney-client privilege.” The Schwarzenegger administration, however, responded promptly to an open-records request. (Michael Gardner, “Lawyers get $23.7 million in smog-fee fight”, San Diego Union-Tribune, Aug. 20).
Birthday spanking remedies limited
“It had been a long-standing tradition at Loram Maintenance of Way Inc. for employees to be wrestled to the ground and spanked on their birthday. But a 2001 spanking with a two-by-four sent Jeremy Meintsma to the emergency room with cuts, abrasions and muscle spasms.” On Jul. 29 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Meintsma’s legal remedies were confined to the combination of workers’ compensation and personal suits directed against his co-workers; his employer had no intent to injure him even if it was aware of the horseplay. (National Law Journal “Court Decisions”, Aug. 9, not online; opinion in PDF form courtesy Cousineau McGuire Anderson).
Tangled Vines
Prominent Alabama trial lawyer Lanny Vines, last seen in these columns (Jan. 7-8, 2003) having apparently used a straw purchaser to buy then-Gov. Don Siegelman’s Montgomery home for twice its appraised value, is now having a bit of trouble with the Internal Revenue Service. Vines “temporarily quit his law practice to become a day trader” but ran into trouble when the tech bubble burst. Vines sued his former accountant, J. Wray Pearce, the straw buyer in the Siegelman case, over allegedly bad tax advice on the stock trading, and reached a confidential settlement. An attorney for Vines says the $13.1 million IRS matter is “highly technical” in nature and in no way a reflection on his client: “If you don’t like Lanny Vines, you don’t like ice cream.” (Jerry Moskal, “Vines files petition to overturn tax bill”, Birmingham News, Aug. 18). Update: May 27, 2006.
After Hurricane Charley
Watch for litigation filed by insurers against builders, trying to recoup losses in subrogation by arguing that structures were defectively built. Another likely target of litigation, possibly including personal injury claims, will be mobile home manufacturers: who knew their product wouldn’t stand up to 145 mph winds? (Steve Ellman, “Builders, Insurers Brace for Hurricane Charley’s Legal Impact”, Miami Daily Business Review, Aug. 17). More: Brian Noggle is organizing a betting pool on who gets sued.