- Divorcing Brooklyn couple has put up sheetrock wall dividing house into his and hers [L.A. Times, AP/Newsday]
- Boston Herald appeals $2 million libel award to Judge Ernest Murphy, whom the paper had portrayed as soft on criminals (earlier: Dec. 8 and Dec. 23, 2005) [Globe via Romenesko]
- Updating Jul. 8 story: Georgia man admits he put poison in his kids’ soup in hopes of getting money from Campbell Soup Co. [AP/AccessNorthGeorgia]
- Witness talks back to lawyer at deposition [YouTube via Bainbridge, %&*#)!* language]
- Prominent UK business figure says overprotective schools producing generation of “cotton wool kids” [Telegraph]
- State agents swoop down on Montana antique store and seize roulette wheel from 1880s among other “unlicensed gambling equipment” [AP/The Missoulian]
- “You, gentlemen, are no barristers. You are just two litigators. On Long Island.” [Lat and commenter]
- Some Dutch municipalities exclude dads from town-sponsored kids’ playgroups, so as not to offend devout Muslim moms [Crooked Timber]
- As mayor, Rudy Giuliani didn’t hesitate to stand up to the greens when he thought they were wrong [Berlau @ CEI]
- Australia: funeral homes, fearing back injury claims, now discouraging the tradition of family members and friends being pallbearers [Sydney Morning Herald]
- Asserting 200-year-old defect in title, Philly’s Cozen & O’Connor represents Indian tribe in failed lawsuit laying claim to land under Binney & Smith Crayola factory [three years ago on Overlawyered]
Posts Tagged ‘chasing clients’
“Hand you their severed heads” — the video
“I cannot rip out the hearts of those who hurt you. I cannot hand you their severed heads”. But Rochester, N.Y. injury-law advertiser Jim (“The Hammer”) Shapiro could promise to “squeeze them for every dime I can”:
For more, see Apr. 15, 2005. Shapiro’s ethically-challenged and now-defunct legal practice did a notably poor job of living up to its promises; see Jun. 17-18, 2002, May 24, 2004, etc.
Lowering fees — and infuriating colleagues?
“I recently ran a television advertisement offering to represent car accident victims in exchange for a 15 percent contingency fee, which is more than 50 percent less than the traditional 33 percent contingent fee. …One of the goals of my advertising campaign is to reform the tort system in the marketplace, without the need for legislation. … Making a lower contingency fee the centerpiece of an ad campaign, albeit just for car accident victims, educates consumers about the standard fee and how a lower contingency fee can benefit them, by putting more of the net recovery in their pocket.” New Haven, Ct. attorney Joshua A. Winnick sure isn’t angling for popularity among his peers (“Putting a Price on Plaintiffs Work”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Dec. 28). More: David Giacalone.
Privacy and trial lawyers
You often hear about the plaintiffs’ bar and their solicitous concern for the privacy of citizens, and how they’ll be happy to bring class actions to protect that privacy. Of course, as we have repeatedly noted (e.g., Jun. 20, 2005 and Feb. 9), that concern for privacy extends only as far as it doesn’t interfere with trial lawyers’ desire for a payday. The California Supreme Court has ruled that consumers who contact a vendor are subject to having their names given to plaintiffs’ attorneys (in this case, the super-ethical firm of Milberg Weiss) in California-state-court discovery unless such consumers explicitly take the trouble to opt out to each and every opportunity for such notification, reversing an appellate court’s ruling that names should only be given out if consumers opt in to such notification. Bruce Nye has more details about Pioneer Electronics v. Superior Court. The opinion doesn’t appear to create any limits on the ability of plaintiffs’ attorneys to use that information. We look forward to the usual suspects commenting on the need for protective legislation to prevent such privacy breaches. Right?
“Our easy lawsuit funding process!”
An outfit called Oasis Legal Finance wants your business.
Come to Brooklyn, the suing’s fine
Here’s the top elected official in Brooklyn promoting one of his borough’s few truly prosperous industries:
“If you like white-shoe law firms, stay in Manhattan,” said Brooklyn’s borough president Marty Markowitz, who attended the bank’s grand opening. “But if you’re looking for the biggest settlement, come to Brooklyn.”
“The bank” in this case is Esquire Bank, which as Peter Lattman of the WSJ law blog explains (Oct. 10):
[claims] to be the first bank in the country to specialize in serving trial lawyers. It’s located on Court Street in Brooklyn’s judicial epicenter. To some folks in these parts, a “Court Street lawyer” has the pejorative connotation of an ambulance-chasing, personal injury attorney.
Another highlight of Lattman’s account: a quote from an attorney who operates the website moneyforpain.com.
Lawyer-ad Hall of Fame: DivorceEZ.com
Florida divorce lawyer Steve Miller wants your business if “you and your spouse hate each other like poison”. Just a few easy steps, and “you’re on the way to getting rid of that vermin you call a spouse.” His YouTube video is discussed by Carolyn Elefant (Aug. 30), Greedy Trial Lawyer (Sept. 2), and Jacobson Attorneys in South Africa (Aug. 31) which contributes a Flickr photo documenting a marketing effort by divorce attorneys in that country (“Cheating Bastard!”). Miller’s site is here.
Call a chiropractor’s 1-800 accident hotline…
…and it’s a law firm that returns your call, according to a rival trial lawyer, J. Steele Olmstead of Tampa. Olmstead has asked the Florida Bar to look into whether any money has changed hands in the relationship between Orlando law firm Morgan & Morgan and chiropractor Gary Kompothecras, which might constitute unlawful “patient brokering”. Morgan & Morgan, which denies wrongdoing, has been in the news lately as the home base of Republican lieutenant governor candidate and state Rep. Jeff Kottkamp, who is not named in the Bar complaint. (Mary Ellen Klas and Beth Reinhard, “Fundraiser host being investigated”, Miami Herald, Sept. 22)(via Lattman).
U.K.: “Hair salons offered a cut of solicitors’ fees”
In Salisbury, England, a “firm of solicitors is offering hairdressers cash to refer customers who reveal that they have marital problems. But one hairdresser has criticised the idea as unethical and refuses to help.” The law firm of Trethowans says there is nothing in violation of Law Society rules in its offer of £75 to salon stylists who steer distraught spouses its way, the fee “payable when the courts grant a decree nisi or upon the agreement of a separation deed.” The law firm’s director describes the payments as “just a different sort of advertising” and says he has heard of firms in other geographic areas doing the same thing. (The Times (U.K.), Sept. 1). Alex Wade comments (“‘Short back and sides? How’s your marriage, by the way?'”, The Times (U.K.), Sept. 15).
Think different—think litigious
Apple—usually the victim of plaintiffs’ attorneys (e.g., May 23; Feb. 2; Oct. 27; Aug. 9, 2005, etc.)—has decided to glorify one, Mark Lanier, with a three-page puff piece co-advertising Lanier and Mac computers. The story falsely portrays the multi-millionaire as a “David” going up against a Goliath, falsely claims he won two Vioxx cases (one of his “wins” was for fifteen dollars), and falsely claims he received a $250 million “judgment” in a Vioxx case (not so). For more on how Lanier really operates, see today’s Point of Law post and Point of Law’s Vioxx litigation coverage. (h/t W.F.)