Farm-bias lawyers get $90.8 million

In April, an extensive New York Times investigation by Sharon Lafreniere confirmed and extended what writers associated with the late Andrew Breitbart had been charging for more than two years: the so-called Pigford settlement, in which the U.S. Department of Agriculture agreed to make payments to persons charging racial bias in agriculture programs, is riddled with fraud. If you thought this might stand in the way of a payday for plaintiff’s lawyers in the case, you’re wrong: U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman has just approved a payout of $90.8 million to the lawyers, over objections. That represents the maximum (7.4 percent) of what was being asked for: “The deal set out a fee range between 4.1 percent and 7.4 percent.” [BLT]

On the Zimmerman acquittal: recommended reading

Seven columns/posts I recommend, without necessarily agreeing in full with their contents:

* Eric Zorn, “20 Things I Think About the George Zimmerman Case,” Chicago Tribune (pre-verdict)

* William Saletan, Slate (case “was about misjudgment and overreaction — exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.”)

* John Steele, Legal Ethics Forum, on prosecution’s post-trial interviews.

* Jonathan Adler, New York Times “Room for Debate” (don’t use federal “hate crimes” statute to give prosecutors second bite at apple).

* Jeralyn Merritt, “The Legacy of the George Zimmerman Trial” (and Merritt’s writings on the case generally), TalkLeft.

* Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic (and archive).

* Dan Markel, PrawfsBlawg (“even though over-charging is routine,” it’s “an ethical problem hiding in plain sight.”)

From FIRE, more on that Office of Civil Rights “blueprint”

At the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Greg Lukianoff offers “Four Key Points About Free Speech and the Feds’ ‘Blueprint’“. He notes that overbroad notions of harassment have been the key driver of university speech codes and disciplinary action against dissenting and unpopular speakers, that DoJ and ED lack credibility in their new claim that the rules are only meant to encourage reporting as distinct from discipline, and that the implications go far beyond sexually oriented speech or flirtation to include wide swaths of controversial speech having nothing to do with sex. More: “OCR Descends into Self-Parody in Front of Incredulous College Lawyers” [Robert Shibley, FIRE; Chronicle of Higher Education] and Sen. John McCain demands answers.

Separately, FIRE has kind words for my new Commentary article on this controversy:

In the July/August issue of Commentary, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Walter Olson puts the Departments of Education (ED) and Justice’s (DOJ’s) May 9 Title IX compliance “blueprint” in its historical context and emphasizes several of its alarming repercussions….

Olson continues, explaining that the purported distinction between reporting speech and punishing speech under OCR’s definition of harassment is negated by other troubling side effects of the blueprint:

This is a distinction without a difference. To begin with, the process itself amounts to punishment: Once people realize that a certain type of joke or gossip can get them summoned involuntarily into a grievance process of indefinite length and destination, many will get the message and shut up. Second, in defining such speech as harassment while claiming the intent is merely to record and document but not to suppress it, OCR is departing from the commonly shared meaning of the word harassment as something objectionable that should be stopped.

It’s also covered in Italian-language ThinkNews (“il magazine ‘Commentary’, uno dei più prestigiosi mensili di analisi della vita americana.”) Earlier here, etc.

Medical roundup

Banking and finance roundup

  • Employer mandate not the only impractical reg being postponed: “IRS Delays Implementation of FATCA” [Paul Caron; earlier]
  • Foreign banks whipsawed betwen U.S. terrorism-finance liability and privacy laws in home countries [Daniel Fisher]
  • “NY Fed Official: Let’s ‘Facilitate’ The Seizure Of Underwater Loans” [Kevin Funnell]
  • “If anything, the data suggest [home] ownership … inversely correlated with political stability and rule of law.” [Michael Greve]
  • Revisiting the Randy and Karen Sowers structuring case [Kathleen Hunker, Bell Towers; earlier]
  • “Can we improve payday lending?” [Andrew Sullivan]
  • When if ever should the SEC pay bounties to attorneys to snitch on their clients? [Prof. Bainbridge]