Laurie Lin reports on one way to cut down on lawsuits, being mooted in Wisconsin — close down the University of Wisconsin’s law school.
It is to laugh, no? And yet, considering that it is a publicly-funded institution, the “need” for more legal education, in a situation of glut, is a reasonable factor for the legislature that does the funding to consider, isn’t it?
The controversy over bathroom-graffiti postings at the law student site Autoadmit/xoxohth.com (May 3, May 20) has now developed into litigation:
two [unnamed] female Yale Law School students have sued Anthony Ciolli, the Web site’s former “chief educational director,” and more than two dozen others who allegedly used pseudonyms and posted the students’ photos as well as defamatory and threatening remarks about them on the online law-school discussion forum.
(Amir Efrati, WSJ Law Blog, Jun. 12). Lawprofs David N. Rosen (Yale) and Mark A. Lemley (Stanford) are assisting the plaintiffs, and Rosen told the WSJ Law Blog in an interview that the case was about “bringing the right to protect yourself against offensive words and images into the 21st century,” calling the postings “the scummiest kind of sexually offensive tripe.” Discussion: Eugene Volokh, Ann Althouse , Glenn Reynolds, David Lat, Patterico.
Peter Lattman reported on Gary Farmer, a Florida judge who decided to try his hand at humorous legal writing in the course of deciding a lawsuit. Discussion of the opinion around the internet (see, e.g., Orin Kerr) focused on the propriety of a judge turning his job into a forum for self-promotion. Regardless of whether judges are allowed to have fun with their work, in my opinion, it wasn’t very funny at all. But perhaps I had lost my sense of humor after reading the ridiculous nature of the lawsuit.
The case was brought by the owners of the championship racehorse Funny Cide against the publishers of the Miami Herald, for a newspaper report that the horse’s jockey had used an illegal device to help him win the Kentucky Derby. The report was false, and the paper ran a correction. But that wasn’t good enough for the owners of Funny Cide; they sued in May 2005.
Their complaint? Although Funny Cide won the Preakness, the false report caused the horse to lose the Belmont Stakes, and hence miss out on the Triple Crown, which would have been worth large sums of money.
Their theory? Funny Cide’s jockey was so motivated to disprove the false report that he worked the horse too hard in the Preakness, which tired the horse out so it couldn’t win the Belmont three weeks later.
As you can imagine, this theory is (to use the technical legal term) loony. Even if they had a snowball’s chance of proving causation — as if there were no other possible reason a horse might lose a race? — they would also have to show that it was foreseeable by the Herald that their report would cause this to happen. This they obviously could not do, and so the court granted summary judgment to the newspaper. What makes this case especially egregious, though, is that the humorous opinion being discussed above wasn’t written by the trial court; Gary Farmer is an appellate judge. That’s correct: the horse’s owners appealed the dismissal of their frivolous lawsuit.
In case you were wondering, Bruce Rogow was listed as one of the attorneys for the horse’s owners.
Mr. Rogow has taught Civil Procedure, Federal Jurisdiction, Constitutional Law, Appellate Practice, Criminal Law and Legal Ethics.
We’ll agree: the posters at the AutoAdmit/Xoxohth board—like commenters on DailyKos, Google and Yahoo! boards, Legal Underground, The Volokh Conspiracy, and even Overlawyered—can be distasteful or obnoxious, and all the more so because in Xoxohth’s case because the board is largely unmoderated. Posters have engaged in racial slurs and misogynist remarks; they are notorious for threads where posters evaluate the looks of female attorneys and law students. (Even my girlfriend was the subject of a brief thread.) The site has recently had negative publicity from a Yale Law student who blames a thread there for an inability to find a job and from a Boalt Law student who is facing expulsion because he briefly posted to AutoAdmit and quickly withdrew a poor-taste-joking threat of a Virginia-Tech-copycat at Hastings that resulted in the latter school being shut down for a day.
A Penn Law student who was an administrator on the site resigned in response to some of the shenanigans on the board in March. The WSJ Law Blog is reporting today that that was not enough for his future employer, Boston law firm Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, which withdrew its job offer to Anthony Ciolli, who (to my knowledge) is not accused of making any objectionable remarks himself. Now, an employer can reasonably decide that it does not wish to associate with a controversial employee (though the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act imposes on private employment relationships in some circumstances what are in most other states thought of as constitutional speech and freedom-of-association protections applicable only to governmental relationships, which may mean that Ciolli has a cause of action against the firm).
But the decision of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge to find Ciolli’s association with the AutoAdmit board disqualifying is curious if only because one of the attorneys at the same office of the law firm has been indicted for felony homicide for allegedly killing a man in an auto accident while driving under the influence of sleeping pills. (Three and a half pills were missing from a three-hour-old Ambien prescription, and the attorney allegedly admits “tasting” them.) Now, that attorney is entitled to a presumption of innocence in his criminal trial (he pled not guilty in the summer of 2006, a motion to dismiss was denied later that year, and I cannot find any reference to the current status of his case). But if you ever wanted to know how damning it is in the modern legal community to be associated with a controversial website accused of misogyny, you now have an answer: it’s worse than being accused of killing someone.
More blogosphere commentary: Concurring Opinions; Above the Law.
“…unless you want to be a lawyer.”
reason: That would thin the herd pretty quickly, wouldn’t it?
Rauch: Yeah, it sure would.
— Jonathan Rauch, interviewed by Nick Gillespie in the new Reason (“The Radical Incrementalist”, Apr. 20).
K.C. Johnson has assembled the details (Feb. 19) on the CNN/Court TV commentator’s scurrilous handling of the lacrosse rape allegations. For more on Grace, see Mar. 1, 2006, as well as Legal Blog Watch, May 4, 2005, and Suz at Large, Mar. 2, 2006 (quoting Prof. Bainbridge’s pungent assessment).
The legal professoriate does not escape unscathed from Johnson’s attention, either. He is a particular critic (e.g., Jan. 21) of the televised pronouncements on the case of New England School of Law professor Wendy Murphy. And recent assertions by South Texas College of Law professor Kathleen A. Bergin on the Feminist Law Professors blog (Jan. 29, declaring the players “far from ‘innocent'” whether or not a rape is proven in court) fail to stand up to critical scrutiny, Johnson says (Feb. 18). (More: Cernovich).
P.S. And here’s the Saturday Night Live parody. Plus: Ambrogi, Bainbridge.
Turns out there was a law professor behind the idea (Jan. 22):
As for what sparked [Assemblywoman Sally] Lieber’s decision to introduce a bill about spanking, it wasn’t a rash of emergency room visits from 3-year-olds with sore bottoms. The San Jose Mercury News, which first reported the no-spanking story, wrote that Lieber “conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal expert in children’s issues worldwide.” That friend was University of San Francisco Law School professor Thomas Nazario, who fiercely opposes corporal punishment. “It was my idea and I was primarily responsible for coming up with the final draft,” he explains. (Which makes Lieber sound more like Nazario’s pawn than a legislative leader, but I digress.)
(Eilene Zimmerman, “Spanking mad”, Salon, Feb. 5). WryMouth (Jan. 29) has an account of Prof. Nazario’s appearance on the popular Los Angeles radio show “John & Ken” to discuss the idea. Orange County Register columnist Steven Greenhut writes: “I don’t advocate spanking as a rule, but it seems rather harsh to rip a child out of a happy home and put him in some nightmare foster-care scenario and put a parent in jail for doing something that has been widely practiced through the history of parenting.” (“Lawmaker deserves a spanking”, Jan. 28).
The Ann Arbor News covers Adrian Zachariasewycz’s complaint against the University of Michigan Law School (see Jan. 27), and quotes me along the way:
In addition to seeking unspecified monetary damages, Zachariasewycz wants the law school to study his scores and provide a letter or make a verbal statement to prospective employers saying that his typing was a factor in his exams.
“I paid a lot of money to go to law school,” Zachariasewycz said. “I interrupted my career. I worked very hard. And I got a big zero out of it.”
Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank in New York City, is founder of overlawyered.com, which posted a comment about the case and other lawsuits Olson believes have “eyebrow-raising potential.”
“It’s hard to figure out what’s been done to him that’s unlawful,” Olson said.
Olson said he thought it first had something to do with rights of the disabled.
“But it looks like he’s just an ordinary bad typist like a lot of the rest of us.”
(Jo Collins Mathis, “U-M law school sued over grad’s poor typing skills”, Ann Arbor News, Feb. 2).
According to Adrian Zachariasewycz, a/k/a Adrian Zack, of Woodlyn, Pa., some exams given at the University of Michigan Law School reward fast typists with a chance at higher scores. So he’ll see school administrators in court, in a pro se lawsuit that also names as a defendant the Wilmington, Del. law firm of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, where his associate’s gig didn’t work out. He’s suing two of the law school’s career counselors individually for alleged bad advice, too. (WSJ law blog, Jan. 26; complaint in PDF format). More: Feb. 5.
Truly bad ideas from legal academia, part 2038 of a series: GWU lawprof Jonathan Turley wants to get rid of the common-law rule that you can’t sue someone for injuring the reputation of a dead person. (“Give the Dead Their Due”, Washington Post, Sept. 17). At Volokh Conspiracy, commenter elChato writes,
I for one look forward to the descendants of the original Hatfields and McCoys settling in court who was responsible for starting and perpetuating their long-ago feud. The OK Corral battle can live again. Any descendants of Boss Tweed should be able to sue bookwriters who claim he stole $200 million (where’s the proof?), Huey Long’s descendants should be able to sue anyone who said he engaged in bribery and corruption (he was never convicted- where’s the proof?), and on and on and on.
Yes indeed, a great use for the time and energies of the court system which is otherwise sitting idle because there simply are not enough disputes among the living to keep judges busy.