Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘United Kingdom’

Self-defense in the U.K.

Mark Steyn in the Telegraph:

These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn’t been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. “I was frightened to defend myself,” said Miss Best. “I thought if I did anything I would be arrested.” There speaks the modern British crime victim….

The right to protect your family does not derive from any home secretary or chief constable.

(“An Englishman’s Home Is His Dungeon”, Dec. 7). (& letter to the editor, Mar. 15).

Filed under: , ,

U.K. mulls cameras in courts

“We don’t want our courts turned into U.S-style media circuses,” insists the Blair government’s Lord Chancellor. In that case, maybe the British would be better off emulating our federal courts, which generally (unlike state courts) disallow televising of proceedings and have mostly managed to avoid the popcorn-justice syndrome. (“Should Trials Play on the Telly?”, AP/Law.com, Nov. 16).

Filed under:

Window box menace averted

Wary of personal injury claims, a British insurer has sought to impose a ban on the window boxes and flower pots by which inner-city residents have long sought to cheer up their high-rise flats. According to the Norwich Union company, outdoor plants above ground level at the Bow Quarter habitations in East London are an “avoidable event” and must be removed unless firmly fastened down, which it may not be possible to do in a manner consistent with historic-preservation regulations. “Rather than dropping on heads with their cargo of busy lizzies or geraniums, the main threat they pose to life and limb seemed to be people standing on them for support, or banging their heads on the boxes from beneath [per a spokesman for a safety group].” (James Moore and Roger Highfield, “Insurance firm bans window box ‘peril'”, Daily Telegraph, Oct. 26).

Filed under:

Tasteful lawyer-ad Hall of Fame

In 2001 Brookman, a law firm in London, ran ads in the men’s bathrooms of pubs soliciting divorce business with a picture of a packed suitcase and the slogan “Ditch the bitch”. The Advertising Standards Agency later ruled against a complaint that the ad was offensive and encouraged divorce. Defenders of the law firm pointed out that it was evenhanded and also solicited women’s business with ads saying bad things about men. (“Dump the chump…”, Lawyers Weekly Australia, Aug. 19, 2004; account of controversy at ad agency site; Scott Norvell, “Tongue Tied”, FoxNews.com, May 21, 2001).

Filed under: , , ,

U.K.: “Medics slam ‘money for referrals'”

Following a rules change this spring which for the first time allowed solicitors to share fees with third parties, law firms across England have begun offering money to doctors for the referral of injury cases. “Lawyers Higgins and Co, from Birkenhead in Wirral, has been offering GPs ?175 for every patient they refer to their firm. … The British Medical Association said it believed doctors being offered money for compensation referrals was ‘inappropriate and gives the appearance of a conflict of interest.'” One danger, for example, is that doctors in cases of unclear diagnosis will be given an incentive to diagnose a malady for which compensation can be sought rather than one for which there is no one to blame. “But the Law Society said there was nothing wrong with this practice, as long as all parties were aware that money had been exchanged.” (BBC, Aug. 27) (& letter to the editor, Jan. 17).

Filed under: , ,

UK government not liable for soldier’s bar fight

Seven years ago Robert Moore got into a barroom brawl with British servicemen at a drinking establishment in Tacoma, Wash. He was injured and wanted to sue…. who? Why, the government of Great Britain, that’s who. He wasn’t going to win that one, not even in the Ninth Circuit, a panel of which pointed out that we have a NATO treaty intended to forestall litigation in exactly such situations. However, Moore’s attorney, J. Bryon Holcomb of Bainbridge Island, Wash., took umbrage. “The Ninth Circuit just ignored the facts,” Holcomb said. “If people in this country knew how little chance they had in our federal court system, there would be a revolution tomorrow. They would have the guillotines out storming the courthouse looking for candidates.” What is Mr. Holcomb trying to do talking that way, set himself up as the Geoffrey Fieger of the Pacific Northwest? (Justin M. Norton, “Man Involved in Bar Fight TKO’d by 9th Circuit”, The Recorder, Sept. 24). Martin Grace also comments (Oct. 2).

Filed under: ,

Franklin Mint v. Diana

In 1998, the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund charity tried to assert California “right of publicity” law against the Franklin Mint to force them to stop selling tchotchkes and gewgaws with Diana’s image, and spent over one million pounds on attorneys to fight the case. California courts were not impressed, noting that Diana was a resident of a country that did not have such laws, but the litigation continued for years before appeals were resolved.

The Franklin Mint then turned around and sued the charity for malicious prosecution of the first lawsuit; the Diana Fund defends itself by arguing that, while its lawsuit was meritless in hindsight, it was not frivolous under the law. The legal distinction, aside from showing the general difficulties in the U.S. system that a defendant winner has in recovering its expenses from a meritless lawsuit, has resulted in another couple of years of litigation, and trial is now scheduled for November.

But here’s the kicker: Franklin Mint Co., perhaps because of the bad pr involved in attempting to recover from a charity that has loudly complained about the effect of the litigation on its work, has supposedly “said it will give any damages it receives from the case to charities supported by the fund.” So if the Diana Fund wins the lawsuit, its charities get to keep getting money; if Franklin Mint wins, it will give the money to the Diana Fund’s charities. So, if the report about the Franklin Mint’s claims is true, who benefits from this lawsuit other than the lawyers? (Reuters, “Franklin Mint Wins Right to Sue Lady Di Memorial Fund”, Oct. 2; CBS/AP, “Diana Fund Feud Foils Grant-Giving”, Jul. 11, 2003; Franklin Mint press release, Jun. 20, 2002; BBC, “Diana fund loses doll battle”, Jan. 6, 2000).

Filed under:

Rare-burger disclaimers, cont’d

“An exclusive London restaurant stopped asking customers to sign a legal disclaimer if they order rare or medium-rare burgers after the practice came to the attention of the city’s legal community. The restaurant at the five-star Marriott West India Quay in London’s Docklands required diners to complete a form which said it waived the hotel chain’s responsibilities should they suffer food poisoning.” (“Rare burger? Just don’t sue us”, CNN, Sept. 29). We first covered the burger-disclaimer issue more than five years ago: see Aug. 9, 1999.

Filed under: , , ,