New York’s Eliot Spitzer and Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal, both subjects of longstanding coverage in this space, go back quite a way together and share a similar approach toward the duties of the state attorney general. A new story from AP’s Hartford bureau is kind enough to quote me saying some not-very-acerbic things about them. (Jan. 23: Stephen Singer, “Friendship another tie between two like-minded attorneys general”, Newsday, and Stamford Advocate).
Posts Tagged ‘Eliot Spitzer’
Finally appreciating Eliot Spitzer
It seems wayward scion Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wants to be Spitzer’s replacement (Jonathan P. Hicks, “Only in New York: Kennedys, Cuomos and Voters, Oh, My”, New York Times, Jan. 18). Well, this should be entertaining, at least.
Welcome newspaper readers
Catching up on some overdue thanks to newspaper reporters and contributors who’ve mentioned this site, quoted me, or done both in the past few months (several of them, alas, without currently active links):
* David Boaz, “New York’s Big Think”, New York Post, Dec. 5 (an excellent piece on the Manhattan Institute);
* Jon Robins, “A pair of lawyers who could change the world”, The Times (London), Nov. 2 (on John Edwards’s debate performance);
* Itai Maytal, “Too Early To Give Up on Edwards’s Star”, New York Sun, Nov. 4 (on Edwards’s prospects on departing the U.S. Senate);
* Heidi J. Shrager, “State’s law guardian system in need of overhaul”, Staten Island Advance, Sept. 28 (on the need for reform of New York’s law guardian system, under which lawyers are appointed to represent the interests of minors and others not able to look out for themselves);
* Kate Coscarelli, “Police protect, serve — and sue”, Newark Star-Ledger, Sept. 12, reprinted at Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer site (on legal doctrines allowing police officers injured in the course of their duties to sue allegedly negligent private parties (see Aug. 31);
* David Isaac, “USG Corp.: Election And Elation For Wallboard Maker”, Investor’s Business Daily, Nov. 5 (on post-election prospects for asbestos legislation);
* Ed Wallace, “Wheels: You Can Fool Some of the People…”, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Oct. 3 (on network crash-test journalism).
For other press mentions, check our “About the site” page.
Welcome New York Sun readers
I’m quoted and this site is mentioned in an article on the ever-expanding enforcement ambitions of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (William F. Hammond Jr., “Spitzer Cements His Reputation as One to Watch”, Oct. 21)(more on Spitzer from Point of Law). More: For a more benign view of Spitzer than the one I take, see Daniel Gross’s Oct. 21 profile in Slate. Yet more: Martin Grace points out that the multifaceted AG has a blog.
New at Point of Law
If you’re not reading our sister site PointOfLaw.com, you’re missing out on a lot. I’ve been doing about half my blog writing over there, on topics that include: a powerful new St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation of asbestos litigation in Madison County, Ill. (here, here and here, with more to come, and note this too); the busy borrowings of Harvard’s Larry Tribe; when “not-for-profits” organize employment suits; Erin Brockovich’s respectability; crime without intent; experts and the CBS scandal; stay open through a hurricane, go to jail; suits over failure to put warnings on sand (yes, sand); West Virginia legal reform; Merrill Lynch/Enron trial; Hayek and the common law, reconsidered; getting creative about tapping homeowners’ policies; AdBusters sues to have its ads run; plaintiff’s lawyers represent criminal defendants to put drugmakers behind the eight ball; update on the law firm that competes on price; Spitzer and investors; Ohio med-mal crisis (and more); a welcome Schwarzenegger veto; dangers of firing your lawyer; ephedra retailer litigation; churchruptcies (if banks can do it…); and hardball in nonprofit hospital litigation.
Plus Ted Frank on tort reform in Mississippi and Jim Copland on California’s Proposition 64 (which would reform the notorious s. 17200 statute); the federal tobacco trial and Boeken; gender bias at work; and Rule 11 revival.
Better bookmark PointOfLaw.com now, before you forget.
New at Point of Law
There are all sorts of new posts over at our sister website Point Of Law. Attorney Leah Lorber, who’s appeared on this site in the past, has just joined for a week’s worth of guestblogging contributions, including posts on a Mississippi Supreme Court case undoing the joinder of 264 asbestos cases and a Kentucky punitive award against Ford Motor (in a “park-to-reverse” transmission case). On medical malpractice, Ted Frank examines the benefits of the damage limits approved by Texas voters, Jim Copland discusses my WSJ op-ed on the Kerry campaign’s ideas for reform, and I link to an informative paper by Richard Anderson of the Doctor’s Company. Law professors Lester Brickman and Richard Painter, both experts on the ethics of contingency fees, have now completed their featured discussion of the issue.
Plus lots more, including posts by me on the ABA’s plans to push reform of jury trials; how contingency-fee litigation by the state of California is straining U.S. relations with France; Eliot Spitzer, the comparison-shopper’s friend; two posts (here and here) comparing the American way of litigation with that prevailing in other democracies; how liability law affects the way certain products smell; and who you can’t trust to explain the new overtime regulations.
Batch of reader letters
We’ve posted another four letters from our backed-up pipeline on our letters page. Among the topics this time: what skillful malpractice defense lawyers talk about at trial, and what they don’t; sudden acceleration litigation; what should you do with a class action settlement check, if you don’t approve of the lawsuit?; and the curiously uncontroversial powers of Eliot Spitzer.
Oft-sued Pennsylvania doctors
The litigation lobby has worked hard to advance the theme (accepted at face value in places like the New Republic) that a few bad apples in the medical profession account for most malpractice claims. On the other hand, some medical observers (see Apr. 10-13, 2003) have pointed out that if it’s true that five percent of doctors account for a majority of malpractice payouts, the most accurate description of that five percent would be not “incompetent M.D.s who should not be in practice” but rather “members of high-risk specialties in litigious localities”.
Reinforcing this latter view, a Pew Foundation project has surveyed 1,333 Pennsylvania specialists and drew responses from 824 physicians in high-risk fields including emergency medicine, general surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, obstetrics/gynecology and radiology. “Eighty-six percent of specialists had been named in a malpractice suit at least once during their careers, and 47 percent had been sued in the three years prior to the survey.” Details today at Point Of Law, which also has new posts on Eliot Spitzer and on John Kerry’s Pennsylvania fund-raising.
Update: $1.3 billion tobacco fee reinstated
Profoundly depressing: “A Manhattan appeals court [last week] reinstated a $1.3 billion fee award for attorneys who helped to settle tobacco litigation in California, saying the arbitrators who awarded the fee did not exceed their authority and should not have been second-guessed by a state judge.” A year and a half ago Manhattan judge Nicholas Figueroa (Sept. 27-29, 2002) struck down as “irrational” the $1.25 billion fee award to the so-called Castano Group of lawyers, who had filed many different legal actions including one under a California private attorney general statute. As we commented at the time, the lawyers in question “didn’t actually represent California — the state’s own lawyers did that — and were in fact rivals, rather than allies, of the Scruggs-Moore team of lawyers who did manage to pull off the settlement. The Castano lawyers, however, repositioned themselves as somehow a catalyst for the national settlement and thus entitled to fees”. With an appellate panel’s quashing last August of Judge Charles Ramos’s inquiry into tobacco fees (see Aug. 10), the tobacconeers have now compiled a well-nigh perfect record of rolling over judicial opposition, with the notable exception of the Freedom Holdings v. Spitzer case in the Second Circuit (see Jan. 12). (Tom Perrotta, “$1.3 Billion Fee Upheld in California Tobacco Case”, New York Law Journal, May 19).
New York’s Martin Act: Spitzer’s blank check
Why is New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer so feared by the state’s financial community? A major reason is a little-known piece of 1921 New York legislation called the Martin Act, aimed at financial fraud. “It empowers him to subpoena any document he wants from anyone doing business in the state; to keep an investigation totally secret or to make it totally public; and to choose between filing civil or criminal charges whenever he wants. People called in for questioning during Martin Act investigations do not have a right to counsel or a right against self-incrimination. Combined, the act’s powers exceed those given any regulator in any other state.
“Now for the scary part: To win a case, the AG doesn’t have to prove that the defendant intended to defraud anyone, that a transaction took place, or that anyone actually was defrauded. Plus, when the prosecution is over, trial lawyers can gain access to the hoards of documents that the act has churned up and use them as the basis for civil suits.” Important reading (Nicholas Thompson, “The sword of Spitzer”, Legal Affairs, May-June). Radley Balko comments (May 12), and see our Jan. 17 item. More on Spitzer’s financial enforcement: Dec. 17, 2003; Jun. 17-18 and Oct. 30-31, 2002; Mar. 31-Apr. 2, 2000.