- Urban planning itself “has become the externality” [Randal O’Toole, Cato, quoting a New Zealand official]
- New William Fischel book Zoning Rules! [Emily Washington, Market Urbanism]
- If you didn’t catch the earlier update, Jim Epstein at Reason has a critique of the New York Times’s claim to have discovered a miscarriage cluster among nail salon workers;
- Now available: latest annual report on bounty-hunting under California’s Prop 65 [Bruce Nye/Cal Biz Lit with analysis]
- Jane Jacobs vs. Robert Moses: the opera [Jesse Walker, Reason]
- Urbanization is good for the environment [Marian Tupy, Cato]
- Regarding those reports that a major witness in the Chevron Ecuador case “recanted” [Paul Barrett, Business Week]
WSJ on court-appointed guardians
For many readers it will be behind a WSJ paywall, but try to catch up with the alarming account by Arian Campo-Flores and Ashby Jones of chronic problems in the system of legal guardians for adults, still “plagued by allegations of financial exploitation and abuse, despite waves of overhaul efforts. As a result, critics say, many elderly people with significant assets become ensnared in a system that seems mainly to succeed at generating billings.” One Florida woman had taken what might seem to be the appropriate precautions — assigning to one of her sons power of attorney and signing advance directives designating him as her guardian — but wound up with a court-appointed guardian anyway and before long was hundreds of thousands of dollars poorer.
New York Times blasts arbitration. What’s missing?
The New York Times, which can scarcely mention firearms policy without invoking the Gun Lobby, runs a big feature endorsing the claims of arbitration opponents that is curiously evasive about the role of the Litigation Lobby. Daniel Fisher, Forbes:
The writers who penned today’s New York Times Page One expose of arbitration clauses say they examined thousands of court documents and interviewed hundreds of lawyers, yet they fell for a rookie mistake: They confused class-action plaintiffs for the real thing….
The “article splayed across four pages of the Sunday Times” profiles the owner of the Italian Colors restaurant, the named plaintiff in a class action against American Express that went to the Supreme Court, as if he were typical of “plaintiffs [who] sprang up spontaneously and went out and hired lawyers to vindicate their rights?
Who were his lawyers? The Times doesn’t think you need to know. But here’s the main one: Gary B. Friedman, an attorney who specializes in suing credit-card companies. He recently suffered a bit of bad press when a federal judge in New York threw out a proposed settlement of another class action against Amex because Friedman had displayed “improper and disappointing conduct” by communicating sensitive information to a lawyer for the other side. The judge criticized Friedman for “blatant collusion” by negotiating a settlement with the defense that was “contrary to the wishes of the putative class.”
Now why couldn’t the enterprising Times reporters find room in such a large story for a mention of Friedman? Perhaps because he represents the real face of consumer class actions. These aren’t lawsuits by little guys like Carson trying to vindicate their rights against big corporations. Most are lawsuits by wealthy attorneys trying to get wealthier, by using the mechanism of the class action — originally developed to allow courts to declare classes of plaintiffs in civil-rights cases — to present companies with an offer they can’t refuse: Settle and pay us a rich fee, or risk a devastating loss in court.
Fisher summarizes: the Times “reports without skepticism the plaintiff-lawyer version of the story.” That’s a shame on a topic where even such a liberal figure as California Gov. Jerry Brown, who recently vetoed an anti-arbitration bill, acknowledges there are genuine concerns on both sides.
Our coverage of contractually agreed pre-dispute arbitration — including both the practical and the freedom-of-contract arguments for it — goes back to the early days of this site, including Coyote (“Here is how you should think about this proposed law: Attorneys are the taxi cartels, and arbitration is Uber. And the incumbents want their competitor banned.”), James Taranto on the Times as “two papers in one,” Andrew Pincus on arbitration as still pretty much the Litigation Lobby’s number one target. Much coverage also at Point of Law, including Ted Frank on a familiar-sounding law firm’s use of pre-dispute arbitration clauses.
P.S. I’ll bet he has: “Having worked extensively with Silver-Greenberg on this series over the past several months…” [Deepak Gupta, Public Citizen]
And: more thoughts at Cato at Liberty, including links to Cato work and discussion of why consumers so seldom switch from one provider to another in search of more favorable fine print on class action availability.
Supreme Court roundup
- SCOTUS takes up oral argument Monday on one of this year’s cases on uninjured plaintiff standing [Anne Friedman/DLA Piper, Richard Samp/WLF on Spokeo, Inc., v. Robins, more from Theodore Olson/Lucas Townsend, WLF on uninjured-plaintiff class actions]
- Time magazine asked law professors to pick best and worst SCOTUS rulings. Much consequentialism ensued [Orin Kerr, Ilya Somin]
- Fisher v. University of Texas, the affirmative action case, returns to the high court [Alison Somin, Federalist Society blog]
- CBIA vs San Jose case could upend some of zoning law [Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus, Cato, via @nickzaiac]
- Rebuff to DoJ: “Supreme Court denies cert in US v. Newman insider trading tipping case” [Prof. Bainbridge, more, Peter Van Doren/Cato]
- Will Court agree to revisit Alien Tort Statute in Ivory Coast-related case of Nestle v. Doe? [WLF]
- Can defendant moot a class action by fully satisfying claim of named plaintiff? [Daniel Fisher on Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez] “Gomez Is Not the Slam Dunk You Think It Is” [Andrew Trask]
“Courting disaster: 24 ridiculous lawsuits”
John Green narrates a Mental Floss video, “Courting Disaster: 24 Ridiculous Lawsuits” (more). The first case, of the woman who sued Century 21 over an 80-cents coupon issue, is one we covered here. Which ones are absent from our archives but deserved coverage?
“Suspended California lawyer has more than 1,100 pending bar complaints”
You almost have to admire the industriousness of suspended Orange County, Calif. loan modification lawyer James Mazi Parsa in building up such a big practice of deeply unhappy clients. A hearing judge has recommended disbarment. [Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal]
Massachusetts crime lab scandal
It’s even worse than you thought, and how to sort out possibly tainted convictions is anything but clear [Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, earlier]
“How much can you scare children on Halloween before you get sued?”
“For anyone planning to terrorize unsuspecting trick-or-treaters, you may want to ask yourself: Is it worth a potential lawsuit?” [Eric Mandel, KIRO/MyNorthwest.com]
“Snyder signs forfeiture reform laws”
Congratulations to my home state of Michigan, which recently enacted reforms to its civil asset forfeiture laws. “The bipartisan legislation is supported by groups as diverse as the ACLU of Michigan and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Both say the bills Snyder signed today are a significant improvement but don’t go far enough.” Elements of the reform include a move from preponderance-of-the-evidence to clear-and-convincing-evidence and greater transparency and disclosure about the uses of forfeiture. Michigan has been the scene of a number of episodes of aggressive use of forfeiture law in recent years, including a raid on a monthly party at the Museum of Contemporary Art for which the museum had failed to get a proper alcohol license; police confiscated patrons’ cars as well as ticketing them for “loitering in a place of illegal occupation.” [Detroit Free Press]
Free speech roundup
- Understanding the liberal-conservative gap on what “free expression” means [Ronald K. L. Collins]
- Foes of Yik Yak “want universities to ban the very app that gives marginalized students a voice on campus” [Amanda Hess, earlier] No-platforming: “It is an anti-Enlightenment movement.” [Claire Lehmann on Germaine Greer case] At UCLA, administrators and activists are attacking the core right to free speech [Conor Friedersdorf]
- “If you know what you’re doing, you bring in the litigators before you start running your mouth.” [Popehat on game developer’s lawsuit threats, language]
- “Climate change, Galileo, and our modern Inquisition” [Edward Dougherty, Public Discourse/MercatorNet on climate RICO] “Veteran campaigner Bill McKibben and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders demand the Obama administration launch a criminal investigation [over Exxon’s allegedly improper issue advocacy]… victory over deniers and climate criminals is always just around the corner” [Holman Jenkins, Jr., WSJ, paywall]
- In Denmark, courage of cartoon editors belatedly recognized, yet fear governs press [Jacob Mchangama, Politico Europe]
- Federal judge: First Amendment forbids Kentucky officials to shut down parenting column written by N.C. psychologist on grounds that it constitutes practice of psychology in Kentucky without a license [Caleb Trotter, Pacific Legal Foundation]
- “To Tweet or Not to Tweet: How FDA Social Media Guidelines Violate the First Amendment” [Kirby Griffis and Tamara Fishman Barago, Washington Legal Foundation]