It seems the Association of Trial Lawyers of America wants to change its name (John Harwood, WSJ “Washington Wire”, Jun. 27; via Lattman).
Posts Tagged ‘politics’
Am I a “hitman”?
I was so characterized by one Rep. Gary Ackerman (Jun. 13) because my testimony before a congressional subcommittee today about problems in securities class actions dared to mention Milberg Weiss. Decide for yourself.
Memo to campaign consultants
If you’re running someone for Congress and he wants to make an issue out of his support for litigation reform — even if, or especially if, he’s actually shown a willingness to support such reform as a state legislator — it’s probably best if his own law firm doesn’t have a full-page “We get results!” ad in the Yellow Pages inviting victims of “slip and fall injuries, medical negligence … dog-bite injuries, wrongful death [and] defective products” to “put our experience to work for you. … No fee unless you collect.” (Eric Zorn, “Candidate’s reform talk may be adding insult to injury”, Chicago Tribune, Jun. 22).
The High Cost of Petitioning
A radical pro-affirmative action group, By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), joined by Detroit’s mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, have filed a Voting Rights Act lawsuit against the sponsors of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) in federal court. MCRI is a ballot initiative would ban racial and gender set-asides and preferences in state contracting, employment, and public education. It is modeled on an earlier measure passed by California voters and upheld by the federal courts. BAMN argues that black voters who signed the petition to put MCRI on the ballot did so only because they did not realize it would restrict affirmative action, because they were confused by MCRI’s title, text, or misleading statements by MCRI signature gatherers. That, it claims, amounts to fraud.
BAMN’s lawsuit is factually groundless. Its fraud claims were considered and rejected by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which ordered MCRI placed on the ballot. MCRI’s text, which was presented to all petition signers, expressly prohibits racial preferences, eliminating any confusion about its effect on affirmative action. Moreover, the Voting Rights Act generally applies to the acts of state election officials, not private parties, and cases such as Delgado v. Smith, 861 F.2d 1489 (11th Cir. 1988), hold that the Voting Rights Act does not apply to initiative petitions.
BAMN’s lawsuit appears to be part of a pattern of intimidation. One BAMN official is accused of threatening MCRI executive director Jennifer Gratz with a knife.
BAMN’s suit is another example of how civil rights lawsuits are increasingly misused as political weapons or tools of censorship. For example, in Affordable Housing Development Corporation v. Fresno, 433 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006), a developer used the Fair Housing Act to sue citizens who publicly opposed a housing development, arguing that their petitioning of city officials resulted in the city not funding the project. That, the developer argued, had an unlawful “disparate impact” on minority groups destined to live in the development. The trial court initially accepted this argument, holding that the Fair Housing Act overrode the citizens’ right of free speech. Years later, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the lawsuit, holding that the citizens’ opposition to the project was protected by the First Amendment and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. (The Noerr-Pennington doctrine protects citizens from antitrust and civil rights claims based on their speech and petitioning activity). It ordered the developer to pay the citizens’ crippling legal bills, which had risen to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
BAMN’s lawsuit would raise First Amendment problems even if it were true that voters misunderstood MCRI’s purpose, and even if MCRI’s sponsors knew of any erroneous statements about MCRI by signature gatherers. The courts have generally held that the First Amendment bars liability for speech in ballot initiatives and other political campaigns, even if the speech is knowingly false.
Update: $9,500 fine for Edwards campaign finance violations
The Federal Election Commission has fined an Arkansas law firm for making illegal contributions to John Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign. Tab Turner solicited four $2,000 contributions from his co-workers at Little Rock law firm Turner & Associates in January 2003 and illegally reimbursed them for their contributions using a company credit card, according to the FEC. He also used a company credit card to make an illegal campaign contribution in his own name and to pay for various campaign expenses. Federal law prohibits donors from making contributions in others’ names and prohibits direct corporate contributions to a federal candidate. Edwards for President also agreed to pay a $9,500 fine, and called the commission’s announcement “old news,” reported the AP.
We covered the laundering story Apr. 28, 2003.
* * *
Clarifying note by W.O. [editor], Jan. 25, 2014: This archival post has drawn reader interest in light of more recent straw-donor enforcement controversies. It is worth noting that while the Edwards campaign paid only a $9,500 civil fine for accepting the illegal contributions, the lawyer and law firm that arranged the donations paid a larger fine of $50,000, several times the size of the original contributions, in a civil (not criminal) penalty.
On Hellholes
Madison County plaintiffs’ lawyer Evan Schaeffer writes, partially tongue in cheek:
Meanwhile, I’m working on a propaganda campaign of my own. I’m going to take ATRA’s term and turn it on its head. Rather than “judicial hellholes,” I’ll be focusing on those jurisdictions in which the playing field is tilted in favor of big business. I’m calling them “consumer hellholes.” What do you think?
Unfortunately for Evan, there will never be a proper analogue; in these hypothetical “hellholes”, even if they exist, consumers that prefer a court system unfairly biased towards plaintiffs can completely avoid the effects of reform by moving to such a jurisdiction. If tort reform really makes people worse off, then people will leave the states with reform for the states where the plaintiffs’ bar controls one of the three branches. In contrast, businesses have very little power to avoid being sued in judicial hellholes; and consumers who don’t live in the judicial hellhole have little ability to escape the detrimental effects that the hellhole has in crafting nationwide liability. The $500 “tort tax” on automobiles that covers the cost of the liability system has to be paid whereever a car is sold because the manufacturer can’t bar the buyer from taking the car into the hellhole forum.
What bothers the ATLA-ites is that consumers have shown that they prefer tort reform, and the benefits tort reform brings: judicial hellholes are consumer hellholes, because we all bear the costs of runaway litigation and its effect on the economy.
AG candidates and their lawsuits: Dustin McDaniel
First in a series.
In 1998, two boys, Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden, stole guns from a locked cabinet and engaged in a school shooting at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas, that killed five people. The boys were eventually convicted of capital murder. 2006 Democratic nominee for Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, representing the families of the victims, sued the gun manufacturers. (Kenneth Heard, “Public defenders agency to pay for Jonesboro shooters civil case”, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, July 27, 1999). A judge threw out the suit, but the defendants had to spend money to defend themselves, part of a trial attorney campaign against gun manufacturers. (Kenneth Heard, “Gun maker, grandfather dropped from school shooting suit”, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, May 10, 2000). The suit was further controversial because a judge ordered taxpayers to pick up the cost of defending the civil lawsuit against the two shooters.
(Know of other trial lawyers, Republican or Democrat, with appalling suits running for office this November? E-mail me.)
It’s only fair, the GOP had Enron
“The embattled securities class-action law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman received some political backing last week with the release of a statement signed by four Democrats from the House of Representatives condemning last month’s indictment in Los Angeles of the firm on criminal charges. … The statement was signed by three representatives from New York — Charles Rangel, Carolyn McCarthy and Gary Ackerman — and Robert Wexler from Florida. One of the founders of the law firm, Melvyn Weiss, is a high-profile fund-raiser for the Democratic Party.” (Julie Creswell, New York Times/Wilmington (N.C.) Star-News, Jun. 12).
TheLawyer.com, based in the United Kingdom, fumbles the story badly by reporting that Milberg “has picked up a powerful ally in the shape of the US Congress”. (Joanne Harris, “US Congress slams Milberg Weiss indictment”, Jun. 13, note the equally erroneous headline). In fact, the four representatives who signed the letter are hardly typical members even of the Democratic caucus in the House, let alone of the Congress as a whole (which, someone should tell TheLawyer.com, is controlled by Republicans). See, for example, Jeremy Pelofsky, “Democrats returning money to two Milberg lawyers”, Reuters, Jun. 9 (Democratic National Committee, perhaps wiser than Reps. Rangel, McCarthy et al., seek to distance themselves from firm by returning some of its donations, a step already taken by New York’s Eliot Spitzer). More: Prof. Bainbridge, Jun. 12.
Constitution Going to the Dogs
I realize that what I’m about to ask is the intellectual equivalent of taking your date to a monster-truck rally, but where oh where in the U.S. Constitution is the national government empowered to govern the treatment of pets?
The New York Times has some details.
Do Senators Stevens and Lautenberg — who introduced the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act into the U.S. Senate — and the 349 U.S. House members who’ve already voted for this bill, understand what they did when they pledged to uphold the Constitution? Did they read the document? Are they illiterate? Dead-dog stupid? Or are they simply, well, politicians?
“Nine years of litigation for 3.5 miles of fence”
David Frum expresses skepticism over the short-term efficacy of fence-building—and prints an email pointing out the impossible position employers are in if employer sanctions are enforced.
Meanwhile, Robert Novak reports that the Senate immigration bill gives guest farm workers the civil-service-style right not to be fired except for just cause and puts them under Davis-Bacon, opening up whole new possibilities in employment litigation. What precisely makes this Congress Republican? As an Instapundit reader notes, the Davis-Bacon language might be a poison-pill provision to de facto end immigration hiring, since immigrants would cease to have a wage advantage. Then again, Title VII wouldn’t be half as broad as it is today if Southerners hadn’t inserted poison-pill provisions they mistakenly thought would crater the Civil Rights Act of 1964.