Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘libel slander and defamation’

Lott v. Levitt, Part X

As we discussed in Part IX, one of John Lott’s two claims was settled, when Steven Levitt apologized for e-mails he sent another economist. It’s questionable how much satisfaction Lott can get from this, since, as an economist, he surely realizes that, without a loser-pays rule or agreement, there is a pooling equilibrium whereby both the sincerely-apologizing Levitt and the insincerely-apologizing Levitt would take the same course of action to avoid spending tens of thousands of dollars defending a de minimis allegation of libel, regardless of the merits of the claim.

The more significant, if less meritorious, claim of libel in Freakonomics is on appeal; Lott is now claiming that the case should have been decided under the allegedly more friendly Virginia libel law than the Illinois law under which his claim fails, but that is generally an argument for (at best) a claim of legal malpractice, rather than for a do-over for an expressly waived argument in federal court. Lott has posted the briefs; David Glenn blogs about the 2-year mark in the case. Not that I think Lott has a valid legal malpractice claim, either, unless his attorneys told him he had a good shot at winning more than he would spend in legal fees.

Lott does interesting economic research, and it is unfortunate he is tarring his reputation with a lawsuit that has the potential to impinge upon academic freedom.

Filed under: , , , ,

Worst places to get sued, cont’d

William Pentland’s Forbes article (see yesterday’s post) has sparked a fair bit of coverage, including: NAM “Shop Floor”, Mark Obbie’s LawBeat, Law and More, the Baton Rouge Advocate, Philadelphia personal injury firm Pomerantz Perlberger & Lewis LLP (proud of their city’s reputation as bad news for libel defendants), and KGBT (Harlingen, Tex.).

Filed under: , ,

“The Worst Places To Get Sued in America”

Forbes compiles its list and is kind enough to quote me at some length. Scariest of the scary? Los Angeles (ADA filing mills); Miami (med-mal); Atlantic County, N.J. (pharmaceutical); Starr County, Tex. (personal injury); Cook County, Ill. (product liability; I’m quoted on the Cook premium for otherwise routine injury cases); Mississippi (class actions; more properly, group and other mass actions, given the state’s peculiar way of handling such claims); Clark County, Nev. (construction litigation); West Virginia (environmental lawsuits); Philadelphia (I’m quoted on the city’s tradition of libel suits by public officials); (William Pentland, Forbes, Apr. 7; slideshow).

Filed under: , , , ,

Update: Panel recommends penalty for Boston judge over settlement demands

“The Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended a $25,000 fine, a 30-day suspension without pay and a public censure for state court Judge Ernest B. Murphy for sending improper letters to Boston Herald publisher Patrick J. Purcell that demanded settlement of Murphy’s libel lawsuit against the newspaper.” (Sheri Qualters, “Suspension, Fine Recommended for Boston Judge Who Sent Improper Letters to Newspaper”, National Law Journal, Apr. 2). For more on Judge Murphy’s “fascinatingly repellent” letters and their “‘Surrender, Dorothy’ flavor”, see Dec. 23 and Dec. 8, 2005.

Filed under: , ,

April 2 roundup

  • Judge expresses surprise at how many law firms want in on fees in Visa/MasterCard issuer settlement [NYSun]
  • Mississippi bill would require a lawyer’s presence at real estate escrow closings; so rude to cite the profession’s self-interest as a factor [Clarion-Ledger]
  • Following Coughlin Stoia’s lead, Mark Lanier announces he’s expanding into intellectual property litigation [The Recorder]
  • Maryland legislation would require state-aided colleges and universities to report on what they’re doing to advance “cultural diversity” [Examiner via Bader/Open Market]
  • New era at UK pubs? Under new directive, “employers will risk being sued if a bar worker or waitress complains of being called ‘love’ or ‘darling’, or if staff overhear customers telling sexist jokes.” [Daily Mail]
  • ACLU just sued city of San Diego and snagged $900K in legal fees, but that’s no impediment to the city’s council’s enacting a special day of tribute to the group [House of Eratosthenes]
  • George Wallace, who’s guestblogged here, hosts twin editions of Blawg Review #153 at his blogs Declarations & Exclusions and A Fool in the Forest, on piratical and Punchinello themes;
  • Obama won’t support lowering drinking age [Newsweek]
  • Such a shame for entrepreneurial plaintiffs, post-Proposition 64 if you want to sue a California business you might actually need to have been injured [CalBizLit]
  • Time mag appeals $100 million Suharto libel ruling [IHT]
  • Hey, no fair enforcing that fine print disclaiming liability for sweepstakes misprints [three years ago on Overlawyered]

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 19 roundup

  • UK: Paramedic twists ankle on steps responding to emergency call, plans to sue elderly couple [Daily Mail]
  • Critics say litigiousness is part of the business plan for rental outfit Leasecomm, which has sued its customers more than 92,000 times [Boston Globe, Daily News Transcript]
  • Great big predators of the alternative press? Jury awards $15 million against SF Weekly to its main competitor, Bay Guardian [SF Chronicle]
  • Tacoma public schools sued after mentally ill student brings gun to school and kills classmate [KOMO]
  • How the parties traded positions with each other on trade [Gordon, Commentary]
  • Now Canada has its own “human rights” complaint against plastic surgeon who declines to undertake transgender-related surgery [Steyn, Macleans; earlier Catholic hospital case from California]
  • Florida Supreme Court hears appeal of Joe Anderson $18 million “false light” defamation verdict against Gannett’s Pensacola News-Journal [WSJ law blog; earlier]
  • Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman keeps suing bloggers and dragging websites before those Canadian hate-speech tribunals, so no criticizing him please [Levant, Five Feet of Fury (& more), Steyn]
  • Discontent continues over judges’ standardless discretion in granting alimony awards [NLJ]
  • Death of widow Alice Lawrence isn’t expected to end her litigation with law firm Graubard Miller over contingency fee [NYLJ; earlier]
  • Labor arbitrator tells Florida school to rehire employee who reported to work with cocaine in his system [six years ago on Overlawyered]

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Roundup, March 15

  • Speaking of prostitutes and politicians, Deborah Jeane Palfrey has come to recognize that Montgomery Blair Sibley (Oct. 29; May 4; etc.) may not be the best lawyer for her. [WTOP via BLT]
  • Update: Nearly two years later, trial court gets around to upholding $2 million verdict in lawn-mower death we covered Jun. 16 and Aug. 18, 2006. [Roanoke Times (quoting me); opinion at On Point]
  • In other lawn mower news, check out Jim Beck’s perceptive comment on a Third Circuit lawn-mower liability decision.
  • Update: Willie Gary wins his child-support dispute. [Gary v. Gowins (Ga.); Atl. Journal-Const.; via ABA Journal; earlier: Nov. 2]
  • Tobacco-lawyer Mike Ciresi drops out of Minnesota senate race. [WCCO]
  • Belfast court quashes libel ruling against restaurant critic. [AFP/Breitbart]
  • Trial-lawyer-blogger happy: jury returned $1.25 million med-mal verdict for death of totally disabled person suffering from end-stage renal disease, pulmonary hypertension, oxygen dependent lung disease, and obesity, after rejecting businessperson from jury “for cause” because he was head of local Chamber of Commerce. [Day]
  • Car-keying anti-military attorney Jay Grodner faced the law in January; here’s the transcript. [Blackfive]
  • Anonymous blog post not reliable evidence of factual allegations. [In re Pfizer, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2008 WL 540120 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2008) via Roberts, who also reports on fee reduction in same post]
  • Clinton’s nutty mortgage plan. [B&MI (quoting me)]
  • A supposed DC cabbie’s take on DC v. Heller. [DC Cabbie blog]

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 4 roundup

  • Judge allows lawsuit to go forward as class action claiming consumers defrauded because gasoline expands in summer heat and so there’s less in a “gallon” [KC Star, TodaysTrucking.com; earlier at PoL]

  • Online speech: when a lawprof says it silences someone not to let them sue for defamation, it’s time to check definitions [Reynolds, Bainbridge, Volokh]

  • Should a law school invite Lerach of all people to teach legal ethics? [Massey/Faculty Lounge; earlier] Plus: Congress should investigate how widespread Lerach-style abuses were at other law firms [Columbus Dispatch editorial]

  • Usually no one gets hurt when a physician dodges having to deal with a litigious patient, but then there are those emergencies [Brain Blogger]

  • A lesson for Canada: judged by results in places like Kansas, the American approach to hate speech (i.e., not banning it) seems to work pretty well [Gardner/Ottawa Citizen]

  • “Way way too egocentric”: a marketing expert’s critique of injury law firm websites [Rotbart/LFOMA via ABA Journal]

  • More students are winding up in court after parodying their teachers on the Internet [Christian Science Monitor]

  • Money in the air? It happens the quiet little Alaskan Native village suing over global warming is being represented by some lawyers involved in the great tobacco heist [NY Times]

  • Ninth Circuit panel hands Navy partial defeat in enviro whale sonar suit; ditto federal court in Hawaii [Examiner; earlier]

  • Le Canard Noir “Quackometer” flays pseudo-science, some of its targets complain to ISP which then yanks the site: “We do not wish to be in a position where we could be taken to court” [Orac; earlier]

  • Hans Bader guestblogged at Point of Law last week, on such subjects as: courts that decide punishment before damages; presumed guilty of child abuse? inconsistent straight/gay treatment in sexual harassment law; and signs that today’s Supreme Court doesn’t exactly show a pro-business bias in discrimination cases.

Filed under: , , , , , , , , ,

“38 lacrosse players sue Duke University”

Inevitably so? Maybe not. As longterm readers will recall, we were early and vocal among those calling attention to the legal travesty that was the Nifong prosecution, but it’s quite a jump from there to the proposition that the taxpayers of Durham, the university and its president Richard Brodhead personally should fork over money for emotional distress damages to, say, students never prosecuted at all and family members, who comprise the plaintiffs in this new case. (Kristen M. Daum, Newsday, Feb. 21; Bob Van Voris, “Duke Lacrosse Players to Sue School Over Rape Probe”, Bloomberg, Feb. 21; Malkin). The plaintiffs have a website here. (Corrected to fix misstatement on identity of plaintiffs. And broken link now fixed).

More: James Taranto at the WSJ quotes the Raleigh News & Observer under the heading “Yoo Hoo! Over Here! Ignore Us Please!”:

*** QUOTE ***The latest Duke lacrosse suit got off to a big start Thursday with publicists, lawyers of national renown, a media blitz at the National Press Club and a lawsuit with its own Web site.

The 38 members of the 2006 Duke lacrosse team who filed the suit in federal court say their reputations were damaged by their association to an escort service dancer’s phony gang-rape allegations.

The players chose not to appear at the news conference, said Bob Bork Jr., the group’s hired publicist, because they don’t want to attract attention.

*** END QUOTE ***

If they didn’t want to attract attention, it might have made more sense not to call a press conference. Or, if they had already called it and felt they had no choice but to go through with it, maybe they could have created a diversion by having a stripper show up or something.

The News & Observer also notes at the end of its article:

Only three members of the 2006 team have not filed suit — Matt Zash, a former captain; Matt Danowski, the current coach’s son, and Kevin Mayer.

And more: Bob Bork, Jr. writes to say he was misquoted in the News & Observer report, and says the following is a transcript of what he did say about the players’ absence:

One final comment before we start. None of the 38 players who are filing this lawsuit are here today. They considered participating, but many have jobs and some are still students and lacrosse team members at Duke. One is in Army Ranger school preparing to deploy to Iraq.

Know this — the players are united behind this lawsuit. At the same time that they are understandably concerned about retribution and slanderous media coverage. Who can blame them after what they endured for 13 months in 2006 and 2007. They are walking a fine line between trying to live normal lives in the wake of an unspeakable trauma and at the same time trying to get answers to questions that remain unanswered by their university.

Filed under: , , , ,