Failure of urban school-finance litigation

For two decades and more, civil rights groups have been filing lawsuits claiming that the supposed underfunding of urban schools is unconstitutional. How successful have these suits been, even on their own terms? “In one of the most notable such cases, decided in 1984, a federal judge in Missouri ordered a doubling of Kansas City’s property tax, an income tax surcharge and extra state contributions to finance $2 billion in spending on Kansas City’s schools. What followed was a decade of lavish excess — new schools boasting television and animation studios, a planetarium, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, even a zoo, a Cato Institute study found. By 1991 Kansas City was shelling out $9,412 per student, compared with $2,854 to $5,956 in the suburbs. Despite this flood of dollars, white enrollment dropped from 27% to 20%, and the test scores of black students in Kansas City didn’t improve.

“State courts have gotten into the act, too. So far, courts in 19 states have found violations of state constitutions in the way schools are funded, according to the Education Commission of the States. Some of these rulings are pretty creative. In June New York’s highest court ruled that the state is violating a constitutional requirement to provide ‘a system of free common schools’ to New York City students, despite the fact that $10,795 per student was spent in the city’s schools in 2000-01. That was slightly lower than the New York state average of $10,922, but greater than the average spent in any other state.

“Rather than wait for independent plaintiffs, school districts themselves now sometimes bring these suits as a revenue grab.” (Ira Carnahan, “Desegregation’s Broken Promises”, Forbes, Nov. 10) See Paul Ciotti, “Money And School Performance: Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment”, Cato Policy Analysis, Mar. 16, 1998.

The judges’ friend and the $225,000 swivel chair

Well-reported New York Times piece on local attorney Ravi Batra, who “for much of the past decade … has been a particularly potent force in the clubby corridors of New York City courthouses. He played a role in picking State Supreme Court judges. Lawyers seeking an edge in the unfamiliar world of Brooklyn courts hired him as their guide. Judges who controlled court appointments — where lawyers typically manage the assets and welfare of the elderly, the young or of troubled companies — gave him 150 of these, worth more than $500,000 in fees.” In one case, involving “a wealthy 94-year-old woman with Alzheimer’s disease”, Batra nicked the woman’s estate for $84,753 in fees: “The investigators noted that he charged $100 for each of 80 short phone calls and never listed their subject matter.”

Keep reading and clicking through the fourth and last page of the story to reach what may be the most piquant Batra exploit of all, his lawsuit against the hapless owners of a Brooklyn furniture store after he fell out of a swivel chair they sold him. “He said the fall had left him with herniated disks, loss of height, worn-down teeth, heart damage and frustration and anger that ‘leaks out in certain relationships,’ according to court papers.” He wanted $80 million, not only for pain and suffering “but also for a patio bar and a game room with table-tennis and air-hockey tables ‘to permit activity without injury or waste of travel time,’ the papers said.” Eventually he settled for $225,000 on the claim. But lawyers for the furniture store weren’t told at the time that Batra was friendly with Manhattan judge Diane Lebedeff, who heard the case and who issued a number of rulings in Batra’s favor: for example, she gave him several court appointments, including the lucrative case of the woman with Alzheimer’s. Both Batra and Judge Lebedeff deny improper influence (Kevin Flynn & Andy Newman, “Friend of the Court: Cozying Up to Judges, and Reaping Opportunity”, New York Times, Nov. 11). More: for Batra’s side of the story, see the comments section on Legal Reader’s Nov. 11, 2003 post. Update Nov. 15, 2004: Batra sues TV’s popular “Law and Order” saying it defamed him by portraying him as a crooked attorney in a fictionalized but recognizable episode; Apr. 15, 2005: Judge Lebedeff censured.

ADA v. stadium seating, cont’d

Whoops! It turns out the design of many modern American movie theaters may be illegal, after all. In a big victory for disabled-rights advocates, backed by the U.S. Department of Justice, a Sixth Circuit panel has ruled that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Cinemark Theaters cannot argue that it is enough to offer wheelchair-using patrons unobstructed views of the screen in its stadium-style theaters; instead they must be offered “comparable”, i.e. comparably desirable views. (opinion, Nov. 6). For our earlier coverage of this controversy, see Apr. 25-26, 2000; Sept. 5, 2002; Jan. 30, 2003. Update Aug. 1, 2004: Supreme Court declines to resolve issue.

FBI probing top Hollywood lawyers

Law enforcement officials think they know why prominent private investigator Anthony Pellicano was so good at turning up dirt about targets of his investigations: they say he used illegal wiretaps. A lot of highly placed Hollywood lawyers purchased Pellicano’s investigative services, and now the FBI is asking: how much did they know about his methods? A grand jury in Los Angeles has been hearing testimony from witnesses. “‘There are many, many nervous people in town,’ said one white-collar defense lawyer familiar with parties involved in the investigation.” Yet another example of why our legal profession is so hard to cast in the role of tribunes of the right to privacy (Henry Weinstein, Greg Krikorian and James Bates, “FBI Probe Shakes Up Hollywood’s Top Lawyers”, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 8)(via TalkLeft). Plus: New York Times has more (Bernard Weinraub, “Talk of Wiretaps Rattles Hollywood”, Nov. 11) as do the New York Post (Nov. 12) and AP (Nov. 12). Update Feb. 7, 2006: Pellicano pleads not guilty in 110-count indictment.

In Seattle, serious sanctions

“An unprecedented $400,000 fine against one of Seattle’s largest law firms is shaking the legal community, prompting some lawyers to predict that local litigation may never be the same. … In an opinion circulating throughout the city’s law offices, a King County Superior Court judge found that the Dorsey & Whitney law firm had no good reason for filing eight of the 18 claims in a wealthy client’s prolonged, high-stakes business dispute. … In her opinion, King County Superior Court Judge Suzanne Barnett wrote that lawyers sometimes need to say no to deep-pocketed clients even if it’s ‘bad for business.'” Fans of the ruling hope it will discourage shotgun litigation in which lawyers aim as many likely and unlikely claims as they can assemble in hopes something will hit the target, while critics complain that the prospect of sanctions will discourage attorneys from being appropriately “zealous” on behalf of their clients (on which argument see Jul. 17). (Kathy George, “Law firm fined for ‘piling on’ claims”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 10)

Australia: his revenge on society

In one of Australia’s most notorious mass murders, Julian Knight shot dead seven people and wounded 19 others in Hoddle Street, Melbourne in 1987. Knight was committed to prison where he developed into an inveterate filer of legal complaints which “have cost the Justice Department about [A]$250,000 in staff time and external legal expenses in the past two years alone”, having pursued over that period 28 appeals as well as numerous freedom of information requests. (Ian Munro, “Hoddle Street mass killer faces court curb”, Melbourne Age, Nov. 10).

Spare $450 for a complaint?

The city of Chicago has agreed to pay up to $450 each to about 3,000 persons who had been arrested or ticketed for panhandling. “The panhandlers’ lawyers, from three firms, will split $375,000.” Panhandling advocates had reacted with indignation to a city proposal to issue the beggars warm clothing instead of cash. For a case from San Francisco in which many of the recipients of such a cash distribution spent their handouts on something other than warm clothing, see Feb. 3, 2000. (Curtis Lawrence, “Beggars can be choosers”, Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 9).

Shoplifting fired cop sues for $40M

John Intermor was fired after being caught shoplifting in 1999. “He admitted to shoplifting $88 worth of electronic equipment, but pled guilty to a lesser charge.

“But his lawyer, Lawrence Gordon of Westbury, said village officials took advantage of his client.” (Sid Cassese, “Fired Cop Files $40 M Lawsuit”, Newsday, Nov. 10).

Business Insurance “Best of the Web”

We’re happy to report that this site has been named a “Best of the Web 2003” pick by Business Insurance, a magazine we’ve been reading for many years to keep abreast of developments in the liability world. Columnist/reporter Mark Hofmann calls us “truly a treasure trove, so be sure you?ve allotted plenty of time when you visit this site — it merits more than a quick perusal”. He lauds our “impressive cache of archival material dating back to 1999”, says we provide a “valuable public service”, and — we especially like this part — recommends throwing a few coins in our Amazon Honor System donation box (see right column of front page) (overview / our write-up, scroll to second item)

Medical privacy madness, cont’d

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has more about how HIPAA, the federal medical-privacy act, is undercutting care (see Oct. 23). For example, doctors who believe their elderly patients should not be driving anymore are less likely to pass on the word to family members. ‘We’re [also] seeing more medication errors in older patients because of this,’ says John Riesch, a vascular surgeon for the past 41 years and a former president of the Medical Society of Wisconsin. … The patients, who were used to having family members or companions help them figure out their medications, are now fending for themselves and sometimes taking the wrong dosage, Riesch says.” A federal regulator, meanwhile, expresses impatience at some doctors’ overcaution on these matters: despite “persistent” and “destructive” myths to the contrary, “spouses can pick up prescriptions for one another, doctors can send e-mails to their patients, and hospitals can release a patient’s room number and condition if the patient approves,” and so forth. Silly doctors, to be so spooked by the prospect of $10,000 fines for overstepping hundreds of pages of guidelines. (Meg Kissinger, “Fears over privacy law compromising care”, Nov. 8).