… you may want to know more about the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s “caramel coloring” cancer scare (earlier). Pediatric Insider and Abnormal Use provide some needed perspective.
“Why bad teachers survive”
A chart from the Chicago Tribune editorial opinion section on the stages needed to remove an inadequate Chicago educator.
Meanwhile, some Andrew Sullivan readers point out that contrasts between the public and private sectors can be overdone, since it can be legally troublesome for private managers, too, to fire poorly performing workers. I wrote a whole book tackling related themes some years back.
Office productivity prizes for prosecutors
Like other variations on contingency pay for those charged with enforcing the law, they sound like a really bad idea [Greenfield]
“Should Illinois require safety guardrails be placed around all bathtubs in the state?”
It’s just satire, at The Onion, for now at least.
“Law School and Leftist Orthodoxy”
In its new March issue, Commentary runs a lengthy excerpt from my new book Schools for Misrule: Legal Academia and an Overlawyered America. It’s available for subscribers or for individual purchase here. Related: Mitch Kokai, John Locke Foundation.
“Parents Sue Lawyers Over Unhealthy Adopted Baby”
A couple says the infant they adopted from an Indiana birthmother in 2006 displays severe neurological deficits. They’re suing their lawyers for $5 million, saying more should have been done to warn them. [Gothamist, New York Post]
“Constitutional attacks on patent false-marking law gain traction”
I’m quoted in this report by Sheri Qualters in the National Law Journal:
The false-marking statute “tempts people to become roving bounty hunters filing suits which at least the targets often see as shakedowns for money,” Olson said.
Last month, in a case called Unique Product Solutions v. Hy-Grade Valve Inc., a different federal court (in the Northern District of Ohio) found the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the Constitution’s “Take Care” clause, the same argument I and the Cato Institute advance in our recent amicus brief.
March 3 roundup
- EU imposes unisex insurance rates [BBC, Wright]
- Law blog on the offense? TechnoLawyer asserts trademark claim against Lawyerist over “Small Law” [Lawyerist]
- “Pro-business Supreme Court” meme strikes out yet again as SCOTUS backs “cat’s-paw” bias suit theory by 8-0-2 margin [Josh Blackman, Schwartz, Fox; Lithwick locus classicus]
- Subprime CDO manager sues financial writer Michael Lewis over statements in his book The Big Short [AW, Salmon, Kennerly]
- Police in Surrey, England, deny advising garden shed owners not to use wire mesh against burglars [Volokh, earlier]
- Patterns of intimidation: protesters swarm Speaker Boehner’s private residence [Hollingsworth, Examiner] Unions fighting Wal-Mart in NYC plan actions at board members’ homes [Stoll] Report: GOP lawmakers in Wisconsin fear for personal safety [Nordlinger, NRO] White House pushing street protests [Welch, Nordlinger] Age of Civility short lived [Badger Blogger, Althouse, Sullivan]
- In clash with trial lawyers, Cuomo proposes pain and suffering limits in med-mal suits [NYDN, more: NYT] “Bloomberg looks to Texas for ideas on changing medical malpractice laws” [City Hall News]
- Hey, should we seize his drum set? Infuriating video on cop raids and forfeiture laws [Institute for Justice, Michigan]
Widespread shortages of hospital drugs
Recent toughening of FDA regulation, particularly over the drug manufacturing process, is said to be a factor. Should this count as surprising? [LATimes]
Schools for Misrule: some early blog reactions
Several interesting reactions to my book already from around the blogosphere:
- University of Illinois law professor Larry Ribstein (who commented at my speech there last week): “There was a good turnout and a lot of deserved buzz for this very interesting book. … The book deserves a lot of attention, particularly from law professors and their students as a source of critical perspective on trends in legal education. There is little doubt that the ideas Olson criticizes are hatched mainly in law schools rather than by practicing lawyers and judges, and have led to costly and questionable litigation.” And a response from Scott Greenfield, who says the book’s premise that law professors have great influence over the state of the law “warms the cockles of lawprofs’ hearts given that most of the legal profession considers their influence marginal at best.”
- Ted Frank: “should be required reading for law students, and deserves a place on any Federalist Society member’s bookshelf.”
- Alan Crede writes a lengthy and thoughtful review at Boston Personal Injury Lawyer Blog. He notes that on, e.g., the work of legal clinics, “the traditional taxonomy of liberal and conservative breaks down when you start to deal with many fine-grain legal issues.” And: “There are at least two law professors – Tim Wu and Elizabeth Warren (who is now in the Obama administration) – who possess rock star cachet in progressive circles” and can hardly be charged with any sort of airy unwillingness to engage with the demands of practical law reform. Crede generously concludes “whether you agree with Olson’s conclusions or not, there is a lot that you can learn from ‘Schools For Misrule.'”
- Perhaps my favorite review so far (aside from the great one in Publisher’s Weekly) is from Ira Stoll at Future of Capitalism. It begins: “Of all the possible explanations for Barack Obama, one of the most intriguing is that, like Bill Clinton before him, he was both a law school graduate and a law school professor.” Stoll summarizes many of the book’s themes, particularly as regards “public interest”, human-rights and institutional-reform litigation, and includes this takeaway: “Any donor or foundation wanting to reshape legal education would find Mr. Olson’s book a fine place to begin.”