August 2004 Archives

We've previously covered the exploits of Geoffrey Fieger (Jul. 24; May 31, 2001). Fieger is nationally known for defending Dr. Kevorkian, but he's also had over $100 million in jury verdicts thrown out because of his outrageous behavior in court. Fieger's strategy is to inflame the jury, get a huge verdict, and then hope it stands up in response to the inevitable defense motion for new trial and appeal. Most recently, in a cerebral palsy case Fieger sought to blame on a Dr. Ronald Jordan, he delivered the following in a closing argument:

"Please, please, nurses," Fieger said in his closing arguments, "I'm a little baby, I want to play baseball, I want to hug my mother, I want to tell her that I love her. Help me. Please help me to be born."

The traditional "firefighter's rule" holds "that firefighters, police and rescue personnel accept an inherent risk of injury or even death in their jobs and generally cannot sue those they're hired to protect. Their recourse is worker's compensation claims, according to the rule. But lobbying by powerful unions and court decisions have led some states to limit the rule's scope or rescind it altogether." I'm quoted in the article criticizing recent moves away from the rule. "New Jersey is one of 11 states that allow police officers, firefighters and rescue personnel to file civil lawsuits when they're injured through the negligence of individuals or entities." (Tim Zatzariny Jr., "Police officers sue over injuries on job", Camden (N.J.) Courier-Post, Aug. 30). For more, see Sept. 30, 2003; Apr. 1 and Jul. 16, 2004.

Reports David Giacalone (ethicalEsq):

Elderly Schenectady (NY) lawyer Romolo Versaci has filed a $100,000 defamation suit against Diane C. Richie, an unemployed social worker and widow with two children. Versaci claims -- and Richie admits -- that she called him a "so-called attorney" on a SchenectadyNY.info message board. ...

Versaci says the comment has "greatly injured" his reputation, and adds that "She's got to stop these cutesy messages and think a little bit." He has been replaced with another lawyer in the controversy that spawned this lawsuit. Richie says, "I haven't got $100, let alone $100,000. I couldn't even imagine a judge looking at this. It's so stupid."

Adds ethicalEsq: "Most days, I'd consider being called a 'so-called attorney' a compliment." Evan Schaeffer has strong words concerning the action and his comments section should also be checked out. More watch-what-you-say-about-lawyers cases: Nov. 30, 2003, Sept. 16-17, 2002, more. Updates Jan. 19: David Giacalone reports on a further development; Mar. 20: judge throws out case.

In three separate cases in 1997, nurses at Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas's cardiac catherterization lab expressed concerns about Dr. Lawrence R. Poliner's care of patients. When the director of the lab, Dr. John Levin, alleged to the hospital's chief of cardiology, Dr. John Harper, that Poliner had also recently performed an emergency angioplasty on the wrong artery, the chair of department of internal medicine, Dr. James Knochel, confronted Poliner, and told him to voluntarily stop performing cardiac catheterizations while his privileges were reviewed or face termination. A six-doctor peer review committee met the next month, decided that Dr. Poliner had given substandard care in 29 out of 44 cases, and voted unanimously to suspend Dr. Poliner's privileges at the lab.

So far, so good, right? After all, we're told by the plaintiffs' bar that the medical malpractice crisis would go away magically if the medical profession would just police its own, and that's exactly what happened here. Can you imagine what a trial lawyer would do with the peer review committee's conclusions if the hospital did nothing and had been sued for Poliner's work afterwards?

Dr. Poliner eventually got his privileges reinstated a few months later in a hearing held before a different peer review committee of doctors after a number of prominent cardiologists spoke on his behalf; another appellate committee at the hospital found no wrongdoing by the initial peer review committee, who Poliner accused of seeking to eliminate him as "competition." Not satisfied with exoneration, Poliner sought retribution. He, with the help of medical malpractice attorney Charla Aldous, sued the hospital, Knochel, Harper, Levin, and the six doctors on the peer review committee for supposed antitrust and "consumer fraud" violations, breach of contract, defamation, interference with contractual relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The antitrust and consumer fraud claims were thrown out (BNA, "Antitrust Claims Are Eliminated From Physician Suspension Case", Antitrust & Trade Reg. Rep., Nov. 7). So were the claims against the six peer review committee doctors, who had immunity under Texas Peer Review Immunity Statutes, which the state trial lawyers' association had fought hard against in the legislature.

But the case against the other three doctors and the hospital proceeded. A jury found in favor of Dr. Poliner's conspiracy theory that competitive malice motivated the entire affair. The jury's proposed payday for six months' missed work by the 60-year-old? $366 million: "$141 million to be paid by Dr. Knochel, $32 million each from Dr. Harper and Dr. Levin and $161 million from Presbyterian." The hospital announced that it would appeal: "From time to time, hospitals and members of the medical staff leadership must make decisions relating to patient care and safety, and these decisions sometimes affect an individual doctor's privileges at that hospital." (Terry Maxon, "Dallas doctor awarded $366 million in damages", Dallas Morning News, Aug. 28).

State legislation is often reactive, suffering from the belief that no problem can possibly be made worse by creating a "remedy" for it in the judicial system. A few years back, a number of grandparents anecdotally and adversely affected by a child's divorce mounted an effective publicity campaign calling for new laws, destined to pass because of the absence of an organized counter-lobby of citizens wishing to preserve their future parenting decisions from judicial micromanagement (Oct. 21, 2002). Thus, California Family Code §§ 3103-3104 permit grandparents to litigate visitation rights if a child's parents divorce, even on the objections of both parents. It also permits the litigation of collateral issues arising from the existence of grandparents' visitation rights, including using such rights as a "factor" to order a change of residence of the child (§ 3103(f)) or providing for the resolution of additional child support issues relating to the grandparents' visits (§ 3103(g)). The possibility of such litigation is not an insubstantial bargaining chip, given that other California family law permits the court to order one spouse to pay the litigation expenses of both spouses. The law is in the news because one such litigation made it to the California Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutionality of the law in a 4-3 decision in In re Marriage of Harris, distinguishing it from a broader Washington state law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 in Troxel v. Granville. (Maura Dolan, "Court Backs Rights of Grandparents", L.A. Times, Aug. 24; Bob Egelko, "Custody ruling backs grandparents' rights", San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 24; David Watson, "Statutes on Grandparent Visitation Pass Constitutional Muster", Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Aug. 24) (via Bashman).

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.

Pittsburgh:

That Rolls Royce Phantom in the Grant Street Lawyers Building parking lot never fails to stop passers-by in their tracks.

The first 2004 Rolls to roll out in North America belongs to local personal injury attorney Martin Lazzaro. Its retail value is about $325,000.

The license on the front spells his name, and the one on the back says I-800-I GOT HIT.

-- Celeste Whiteford, "Personal injury lawyer Rolls along", Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Jul. 18; "Clever, aggressive lawyers joining the rush for customers", Aug. 22.

A New Age psychotherapeutic outfit based in Kittery, Maine, and nearby New Hampshire, the Gentle Wind Project "is a 24-year-old non-profit corporation that describes itself as being 'dedicated to education and research aimed at alleviating human suffering and trauma.' ... The organization holds seminars across the country, selling "healing instrument" products for donations ranging from $450 to upwards of $10,000, asserting they have exclusive healing technology that is channeled telepathically from the 'spirit world' and has healing powers." On a less serene note, the organization recently filed a lawsuit claiming that a husband and wife from Blue Hill, Me., Judy Garvey and James F. Bergin, and various other individuals defamed Gentle Wind by publishing a website criticizing the organization's leadership and cautioning newcomers against excessive involvement. Garvey and Bergin were themselves formerly involved with Gentle Wind. (James Baker, "New age therapy group sues over Web site", Foster's Sunday Citizen (N.H.), Aug. 8)(more). The Gentle Wind Project's side of the story may be found here and here. Update Jan. 19, 2006: federal judge dismisses suit.

Here's an arresting statistic: "Of the $695,400 in [individual] donations to the Democratic Party of Illinois this year, all but $6,900 has come from lawyers or law firms." (Brian Brueggemann, "Law firms give big to Illinois Democrats", Belleville (Ill.) News-Democrat, Jul. 27; Trisha Howard, "Lawyers dominate in donations to Democrats", St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jul. 26). Five big plaintiff's firms contributed $100,000 each, and there is reason to believe that the donations were intended at least in part to assist the campaign for Gordon Maag, the Democratic candidate for Illinois Supreme Court in a district that includes famed litigation hotspot Madison County. (Maag is turning down direct donations of more than $2,000). A report last month for the Illinois Civil Justice League and Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch has details ("Justice for Sale II", Jul. 26 -- PDF). Maag is facing Republican candidate Lloyd Karmeier, who's being backed by business groups, in what is shaping up as a hard-fought campaign (see Mar. 20).

Contrary to some expectations, Philadelphia juries have not been proving a soft touch for "opt-out" plaintiffs who've journeyed there from around the country to sue drugmakers over alleged side effects from the diet-drug compound. One recent jury awarded a mere $4,000 to five women from Utah after a three-week trial, and another returned an outright defense verdict in a case brought by four Philadelphia women. Most of the plaintiffs exhibit heart murmurs and other subtle heart irregularities which they contend were brought on by the use of Pondimin and Redux, but a plaintiff's lawyer says their case is weakened because most display no symptoms and are not under a doctor's care for the claimed irregularities. "They don't have treating doctors who will back up their stories," agrees a lawyer for Wyeth. "The juries aren't buying it." (L. Stuart Ditzen, "Diet-drug lawsuits netting slim payoffs", Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 16). For more on fen-phen, see Jan. 25, Jan. 6 and links from there; Apr. 28 ($1 billion verdict in Texas for fatality claimed to be linked to drug).

The "Bad Medicine" heading, which archives posts relating to medical liability, has grown so large as to be unwieldy for readers, so we're opening up a "Bad Medicine II" heading for posts from here on. The old category is here, and the new one is here.

And ABC News aired the results. Illuminating for those of us who study the process, for sure; but will the juries arrive at the same outcomes they would have arrived at in the absence of a national spotlight? (Lindsay Fortado, National Law Journal, Aug. 10) (& letter to the editor, Sept. 10).

"A German waiter who was sacked for drinking up to 100 bottles of beer every day has won a case for unfair dismissal. The 50-year-old, who had worked at the Unter Taschenmacher pub in Cologne for eight years, admitted that his managers had repeatedly warned him not to drink at work." The unnamed man conceded drinking the beer but said he had been traumatized by losing his "dream" job. The tribunal agreed and awarded him three months' salary plus €3,000. ("German pub owner left crying into his beer by tribunal ruling", Personnel Today (UK), Aug. 24).

A Philadelphia jury has awarded $4 million to 17-year-old Anastasia Roberts in her lawsuit against Grand King Buffet, a Chinese restaurant, over an incident in which Roberts chewed on and then spat out a foreign object in a sweet potato ball which proved to be a used bandage. According to her suit "Grand King threw the bandage away, destroying evidence", and the offending object had blood and pus on it. Roberts, who per the allegations in the suit suffered mightily from post-traumatic stress over the affair, plans to become a nurse. (Dan Gross, "A 'bloody' $4M award for teen", Philadelphia Daily News, Aug. 3; "A fuss over pus", City Paper, Jan. 22-28).

I was a guest on the Dolans' CNN Financial show this morning to discuss medical malpractice reform and the presidential race.

We previously covered the surprising side effect of legal reforms to protect tenants against landlords: homeowners in Florida discovering that a friend or relative invited as a guest gets to leave only when they want to leave without expensive litigation to evict them (Feb. 19). This had tragic results in Montgomery County, Maryland last week. 71-year-old Joyce Hadl charitably allowed a homeless woman, Susan L. Sachs, to stay with her rent-free in exchange for work around the house. According to a friend of Hadl's, when Sachs started exhibiting signs of mental illness, "walking around the house and calling Hadl insulting names", Hadl became alarmed and tried to get her to leave, but police called to the home concluded that they could not legally remove her. Hadl has since disappeared, and Sachs is now under policy custody, having been charged with her first-degree murder. (David Snyder and Amit R. Paley, "New Arrests in Disappearance", Washington Post, Aug. 26).

Vancouver: "Nadia Hama, who dropped her infant daughter from the Capilano Suspension Bridge nearly five years ago, is pressing ahead with a suit against the operators of the privately owned tourist attraction. ... Hama's daughter Kaya, then 17 months old, miraculously survived the plunge after tree branches broke her 150-foot fall into the rocky canyon." ("Woman who dropped baby from bridge sues bridge owner for stress", Canadian Press/ AZCentral.com, Aug. 24). We last covered the case Oct. 8, 2001.

On malpractice exposure, and reimbursement rates: "Why am I worth so little when I do my job right, and worth so much when I make a mistake?" (courtesy Cut to Cure, Aug. 25).

Prof. Elizabeth Loftus, the psychologist whose writings and expert testimony have been highly influential in casting doubt on the reliability of buried and then putatively recovered memories of abuse (see Mar. 22 and links from there), is the defendant in a lawsuit filed by a "Jane Doe" abuse complainant whose allegations Loftus critically examined in a 2002 article for Skeptical Inquirer (the valuable magazine of CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims for the Paranormal). Trial is expected soon: "If she loses, not only will academic freedom have arguably suffered a grievous blow, but on a personal level, Loftus herself could face bankruptcy." "Jane Doe" also "filed an ethics complaint against Loftus with the University of Washington. Though the university eventually cleared Loftus of breaking research protocols -- after seizing all of her files on the case and preventing her from publishing her work for almost two years -- its support was so lukewarm, and its unwillingness to stand by its controversial psychologist during the current lawsuit so clear, that Loftus was only too happy to accept an offer from Irvine." (Sasha Abramsky, "Memory and Manipulation", L.A. Weekly, Aug. 20-26) (via Brian Doherty, Reason "Hit and Run", Aug. 24). Update: see Jun. 26, 2005 (L.A. Times covers case).

Perry J. Bruce purchased ten guns between 1994 and 1997 from Jon K. Sauers of Sauers Trading in South Williamsport, Pennsylvania, and dozens from other gun shops in the area. The guns were sold to Bruce legally--he had no record--but Bruce would then go on to illegally resell the guns on the street for a profit, eventually leading to his conviction for gun trafficking in 1998. On April 19, 1999, one of those guns was found by a child under a parked car; that child proceeded to shoot and kill 7-year-old Nafis Jefferson. So, given that someone illegally sold a gun to someone who eventually negligently left on the ground where it was found by someone who then negligently (or worse) killed someone, the mother, with the help of the Brady Center and co-counsel Mark LeWinter, sued... Sauers, who legally sold the gun, and Rossi, who manufactured the gun, and Taurus, which bought Rossi. (Taurus was sued because they failed to "recall and retrofit" the gun with safety devices--as if a Philadelphia thug who leaves his gun under a parked car was going to turn in his illegally possessed gun to be outfitted with a childproof lock.)

As the Philadelphia Inquirer reports,

Sauers testified in a deposition in the Jefferson case that he complied with state and federal law, properly filling out all forms in each sale to Bruce.

But he never asked Bruce why he was buying all the guns.

Asked why he never questioned Bruce, Sauers replied in the deposition: "I don't know what my reason would be to ask him. I didn't think it was any of my business."

Evan Schaeffer, who's poked fun before at the way plaintiff's lawyers from elsewhere in the country endeavor to solicit business in his own Madison County, has some thoughts (Aug. 23) prompted by a Minnesota lawyer's advertisement which includes a LOT OF CAPITAL LETTERING and which lays out a "Chinese menu" of potential complaints which might entitle the prospective client to money damages. Touchingly, the ad in the Alton, Ill. Telegraph addresses the danger that some local residents might be so unfortunate as not to be exposed to its message: "CLIP AND SAVE. Please take this notice and post it in your nursing home, church, community center or anywhere that it may reach people who are suffering and need help."

FindLaw has a convenient listing of the most prominent cases handled by John Edwards when he was in private practice, along with a selection of links to opinion pieces taking both positive and negative views of the senator. For more on Sen. Edwards, check our politics page. Yet more: Legal Times, Aug. 4.

Tying down the military Gulliver with writs: "The mother of a Scottish soldier killed in Iraq plans to sue the Ministry of Defence over her son's death. Rose Gentle believes the MoD was negligent and breached its duty of care" by not equipping the patrol on which her 19-year-old son Gordon was serving with an electronic signal jamming device that might have prevented a roadside bombing in Basra in June in which the younger Gordon lost his life. ("Soldier's mother plans to sue MoD", BBC, Aug. 27). (& letter to the editor, Oct. 31). In the U.S., meanwhile, attorneys with the far-left National Lawyers Guild (see Apr. 27, 2000) "plan to open another front against the war in Iraq ...with a federal lawsuit targeting Pentagon orders forcing military reservists to remain on active duty. The so-called 'stop-loss' orders have kept people in the military beyond the end-dates of their enlistments since the 9/11 terrorist attacks." (Jeff Chorney, "Challenge to Be Filed to Military's 'Stop-Loss' Orders", The Recorder, Aug. 17).

"A man jailed for brutally murdering a teenage girl has been awarded [NZ]$1200 compensation for hurt feelings and humiliation while in prison." (Bridget Carter, New Zealand Herald, Aug. 23). "In a decision that prompted political anger, the Human Rights Review Tribunal said inmate Andrew MacMillan had suffered "injury to his feelings, loss of dignity and humiliation" when he was denied access to [a letter written about him]. MacMillan was jailed in 1988 for raping and killing Jayne McLellan, 17." ("Convicted NZ murderer compensated for hurt feelings", ABC News Online, Aug. 23; "Rapist-killer wins cash award for hurt feelings", Sydney Morning Herald, Aug. 23).

Restaurateur Phil Romano earlier this month "slapped Dallas Morning News restaurant critic Dotty Griffith and the Belo Corp., the newspaper's parent, with a suit alleging fraud, malice, defamation and an 'attempt to cripple the business of one of Dallas' finest new restaurants' via an April 16 restaurant review. That finest new restaurant is Il Mulino New York, the Romano-shepherded Dallas extension of the much heralded Greenwich Village venue founded in 1981 by Fernando and Gino Masci." (Mark Stuertz, "Eat My Briefs", Dallas Observer, Aug. 12; Sean Mehegan, "The Porcini Was Praiseworthy, but a Lawsuit Was Served Next", New York Times, Aug. 23). Update Jan. 3, 2006: parties settle with paper agreeing to run second review.

Attorneys' fees for the Compact Disc Antitrust Litigation Settlement were based in part on the idea that there would be $75.7 million in "non-cash consideration"--charitable donations of 5.5 million CDs, valued at 20% below "suggested retail price." The CDs have started to arrive at local libraries, and SiliconValley.com, compiling local news reports, is finding that the $75.7 million figure is generous, given the nature of the CDs being distributed, which include such titles as "Martha Stewart Living: Spooky Scary Sounds for Halloween", "Music from the HBO Original Movie BoyCott", and "John Lithgow Singin' In The Bathtub." North Carolina libraries got 1,300 copies of country-rocker Clay Davidson's "Unconditional"; a Washington state school district reportedly got a similar number of Whitney Houston singles of "The Star Spangled Banner." Michigan finds that the only Elvis available is not Presley or Costello, but Crespo. "There's nothing here you would want to buy even for $1.99," a Virginia librarian complained. (John Paczkowski, Aug. 4 (sixth item) (via Postrel); Tonya Shipley, "Library looks to positive side of free CDs", Zanesville Times Recorder, Aug. 3; Sam Hodges, "Libraries: CD deal more headache than hit", Charlotte Observer, Jul. 30; Robert Snell, "Martha? Yanni?", Flint Journal, Aug. 22; AP, Aug. 2; Fred Carroll, "Lots of CDs, but who'll listen?", Hampton Roads Daily Press, Aug. 19; dozens of other local articles). The only reason for this fiction was to rationalize a multi-million-dollar payment to the plaintiffs' lawyers, a payment that may well exceed the actual (as opposed to settlement-named) value of the free CDs.

In 1955, there was a gasoline pipeline leak at the Sunburst Works Refinery that caused minor contamination of a 19-acre underground site. Texaco cleaned the spill at the time, and did further millions of dollars of cleanup starting in 1993. State regulators determined that there was no health effects, and that benzene levels in Sunburst, Montana were no different than in areas unaffected by the spill. The state Department of Environmental Quality ruled that nothing more needed to be done beyond additional monitoring, not least because the groundwater at issue isn't used for anything--even livestock find it "naturally too briny" to drink.

Not good enough, say some residents and their lawyers, who blame the half-century-old spill for a variety of illnesses from arthritis to mononucleosis. They sued to require additional multi-million dollar cleanup. The plaintiffs originally sought damages for decreased property values, though townpeople who refused to join the lawsuit say that the main cause of the decreased property values is bad publicity from the 2001 lawsuit. (There are only 82 plaintiffs in a town of about 400.) Texaco acknowledges responsibility for the spill, but disputed the need to spend millions more on a clean-up methodology of little efficacy. The judge refused to allow Texaco to introduce evidence that they did exactly what the Montana regulators asked them to do, and a jury awarded a $41 million verdict, including $25 million in punitive damages. Texaco will appeal. The case is important because the verdict could encourage other "double-whammy" lawsuits on companies who have already been spending millions to comply with the extensive state and federal environmental regulations. (Kathleen A. Schultz, "Texaco to appeal Sunburst ruling", Great Falls Tribune, Aug. 20; "Jury Rules Against ChevronTexaco In Cleanup Suit", Wall Street Journal, Aug. 20 (sub - $); Reuters, Aug. 20; Kathleen A. Schultz, "Texaco must pay Sunburst $41M", Aug. 19; Kathleen A. Schultz, "Texaco-Sunburst trial gets under way", Jul. 26).

I've got an op-ed in this morning's Wall Street Journal (Aug. 23)(reprinted at Manhattan Institute site) examining what I term the "surprisingly conciliatory" line the Kerry/Edwards campaign has taken in recent weeks on litigation reform, and analyzing (insofar as that's possible, given the thus-far-sketchy details) the five-point plan the two offer for addressing the malpractice-suit crisis. For more, see my Aug. 9 post and links from there. Also check out this site's omnibus pages on politics, which includes many recent posts on Kerry and Edwards, and on medical liability. (Yet more: Point of Law).

The first election without the First Amendment, as Paul Jacob has called it, is getting pretty surreal: the role of money in politics hasn't diminished, but many more of us are at risk of being exposed to harsh legal penalties for expressing our opinions. (George Will, "Campaign Cops and Car Ads", Washington Post, Aug. 22; Paul Jacob, "With the Boss, but without the First Amendment", syndicated/TownHall, Aug. 8; "Campaign finance" (editorial), Houston Chronicle, Aug. 16; George Will, "Speech crime in Wisconsin", Newsweek, Aug. 16). More: Robert Samuelson, Juan Non-Volokh.

At a June 30 debate on lawyers' advertising sponsored by the Orlando Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society, plaintiff's lawyer John Morgan challenged Republican Rep. David Simmons for repeatedly referring to a law firm's having used the phone number 1-800-PIT- BULL. "He offered to bet Simmons $1,000, with the loser contributing to the winner?s favorite charity, if Simmons could find a lawyer ad using the PIT BULL number," according to an account in Florida Bar Online.

"Hope Morgan?s checkbook was handy," the account continues, because, as is easily verified, 1-800-PIT-BULL is indeed the proudly advertised call line of the Fort Lauderdale law firm of Pape and Chandler, which specializes in representing injured motorcyclists. ("1-800-PITBULL is for real", Florida Bar News Online, Aug. 1; Gary Blankenship, "Orlando Federalists debate lawyer advertising", Florida Bar News Online, Aug. 1). The firm has been profiled in the Florida press: a 2002 account in the Miami Herald says its "pit bull" commercial, which has run during Jerry Springer's talk show among other programs, "brings in as many as 60 phone calls a day". (Cindy Krischer Goodman, "Pit bull ad pays off for Miami lawyers", Sept. 16, 2002 (reg)). The Florida Bar has also sought to discipline the firm for its ads: Julie Kay, "Crackdown on Lawyer Ads", Miami Daily Business Review, Jul. 12. See also Matthew Haggman, "Fla. Lawmakers May Vote Today to Curb Lawyer Advertising", Miami Daily Business Review, Mar. 23. For more, see David Giacalone, May 10. (Update Sept. 19, 2004: Florida Bar disciplinary attempt ruled unconstitutional; Jan. 15, 2006: Florida Supreme Court rules against firm.)

According to Kevin O'Keefe of Real Lawyers Have Blogs (Dec. 5, 2003), "Morgan of the Orlando law firm Morgan, Colling & Gilbert (MGC), his wife and Johnnie Cochran, along with Pensacola trial lawyers J. Michael Papantonio and Fred Levin, own a consulting firm called Practice Made Perfect, which handles marketing and advertising for law firms around the country." For yet more on Morgan, see the last sentence in our Jul. 27 entry.

No games that involve chasing each other, kids. And whatever you do, don't push each other on the swing, whether you're just trying to be friendly or not. (Sandy Louey, "Recess gets regulated", Sacramento Bee, Aug. 22). More on forbidden fun: Jul. 6, Apr. 15, 2004; Dec. 30, Dec. 26, Oct. 3, 2003; earlier items.

The plaintiffs' attorney in the Prescod v. AA case (Aug. 19) sends us a letter defending the suit.

"In an extraordinarily broad declaration of Indian land rights, a Northern District judge has held that the Cayuga Nation can buy up property in its former Central New York homeland, declare it 'Indian country' and operate a gambling hall immune from local building, zoning and tax laws." "John Caher, "Indian Tribe Wins Broad Right to Add, Control Land", New York Law Journal, Apr. 29). In related news, New York State "has broken off negotiations to settle the Cayuga Indian land claim and will let the courts decide the 24-year-old lawsuit, officials on both sides of the dispute said". (Scott Rapp, "State stops settlement talks with Cayugas", Syracuse Post-Standard, Aug. 4). For more on Indian land claim litigation in upstate New York and elsewhere, see my City Journal Autumn 2002 piece; Nov. 3-5, 2001 and links from there; Jun. 24-25, 2002; Jun. 4, Apr. 16, Feb. 9, 2004 and links from there. See also Jan Golab, "The Festering Problem of Indian 'Sovereignty'", The American Enterprise, Sept.. Update 2005: U.S. Supreme Court, in City of Sherrill v. Oneida, disallows "creeping expansion" of tribal sovereignty through piecemeal land purchases.

Latest development in the affair that brought unwelcome scrutiny to former Calif. governor Gray Davis and his ties to the Litigation Lobby (see Dec. 5, 2000 and Jun. 22-24, 2001): "Court-ordered arbitration secretly delivered a $23.7 million payday to attorneys who successfully battled the state over smog fees wrongfully charged to 1.7 million motorists. The award," down from an original $88.5 million, "represents as much as arbiters could give the team of attorneys led by a high-powered San Diego law firm, under limits imposed by a Court of Appeal ruling in 2002." State officials had unsuccessfully sought to keep the earlier award under wraps, and attorney General Bill Lockyer was not exactly at pains to publicize this one: "The California Attorney General's office, after rebuffing repeated inquiries into the status of the arbitration, this week confirmed that a ruling had been issued but refused to release any more information, citing attorney-client privilege." The Schwarzenegger administration, however, responded promptly to an open-records request. (Michael Gardner, "Lawyers get $23.7 million in smog-fee fight", San Diego Union-Tribune, Aug. 20).

"It had been a long-standing tradition at Loram Maintenance of Way Inc. for employees to be wrestled to the ground and spanked on their birthday. But a 2001 spanking with a two-by-four sent Jeremy Meintsma to the emergency room with cuts, abrasions and muscle spasms." On Jul. 29 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Meintsma's legal remedies were confined to the combination of workers' compensation and personal suits directed against his co-workers; his employer had no intent to injure him even if it was aware of the horseplay. (National Law Journal "Court Decisions", Aug. 9, not online; opinion in PDF form courtesy Cousineau McGuire Anderson).

Prominent Alabama trial lawyer Lanny Vines, last seen in these columns (Jan. 7-8, 2003) having apparently used a straw purchaser to buy then-Gov. Don Siegelman's Montgomery home for twice its appraised value, is now having a bit of trouble with the Internal Revenue Service. Vines "temporarily quit his law practice to become a day trader" but ran into trouble when the tech bubble burst. Vines sued his former accountant, J. Wray Pearce, the straw buyer in the Siegelman case, over allegedly bad tax advice on the stock trading, and reached a confidential settlement. An attorney for Vines says the $13.1 million IRS matter is "highly technical" in nature and in no way a reflection on his client: "If you don't like Lanny Vines, you don't like ice cream." (Jerry Moskal, "Vines files petition to overturn tax bill", Birmingham News, Aug. 18). Update: May 27, 2006.

Watch for litigation filed by insurers against builders, trying to recoup losses in subrogation by arguing that structures were defectively built. Another likely target of litigation, possibly including personal injury claims, will be mobile home manufacturers: who knew their product wouldn't stand up to 145 mph winds? (Steve Ellman, "Builders, Insurers Brace for Hurricane Charley's Legal Impact", Miami Daily Business Review, Aug. 17). More: Brian Noggle is organizing a betting pool on who gets sued.

What do you think of when you hear someone has been killed in an airplane accident? Earlier this year, in Olympic Airways v. Husain, the Supreme Court (in a Justice Thomas opinion over a Justice Scalia dissent) expanded the definition of "accident" in the Warsaw Convention (which allows damages recovery for international air travelers) to include an "event" where a flight attendant refused to reseat someone having an allergic reaction to cigarette smoke (though permitting the person to move himself). Olympic Airways is perhaps best understood as the epitome of the cliche "hard cases make bad law." It is already bearing fruit for plaintiffs with even more remote claims.

On December 14, 1997, 75-year-old Caroline Neischer, a trained nurse and former smoker with chronic respiratory problems (including, claims the defense and some medical reports, emphysema), flew from Los Angeles to Guyana. At her connecting flight, she permitted an airline employee to check her carry-on suitcase, which contained a nebulizer and medication. When the flight arrived on December 15, the suitcase (along with four other checked bags) didn't; they didn't arrive until 6 a.m. on December 17. Though medicine and a substitute nebulizer was available in Guyana (apparently for $2), Neischer and her family waited for the luggage to arrive, and didn't take Neischer to a doctor. On December 18, Neischer went to the hospital with breathing problems, and died on December 23, with the plaintiffs claiming she made a deathbed declaration blaming her death on the airline. Though the Guyana hospital lost some of the medical records, the plaintiffs won the battle of the experts, even though their theory had to account for the fact that it was inconsistent with the cause of death listed on Neischer's death certificate. (Interestingly, though this was a federal case involving an international treaty, the Ninth Circuit referred to state law standards of "competent medical testimony" in dismissing the defense's challenge to the expert.)

This, according to the plaintiffs, district court, and Ninth Circuit, qualifies as "wilful misconduct" by the airline. Under the Warsaw Convention, the airline cannot defend itself by pointing to the substandard care provided by the Guyanese hospital. The district court simply awarded damages; the Ninth Circuit asked the lower court to consider what degree Neischer was responsible for her own death for not spending $2 on another nebulizer. ("Court Finds Airline at Fault in Woman's Death", Reuters, Aug. 19; Prescod v. AMR, Inc.).

I was a guest on Mark Carbonaro's a.m. show this morning on KION-AM in Salinas, Calif. to discuss The Rule of Lawyers. To book a broadcast interview on the book, email me directly or contact Jamie Stockton at the St. Martin's/Griffin publicity department: 212-674-5151, ext. 502.

Some other recently noted publicity on The Rule of Lawyers: reviewer Art Taylor of Metro Magazine in North Carolina's Research Triangle named it as one of the top ten nonfiction books of 2003 (Jan.). Writing in Salt Lake City's Deseret News, Hal Heaton of the Brigham Young University Center for Entrepreneurship devoted much of a column to discussing the book's contents ("Litigation hinders new ideas, growth", Jul. 11, not online). And Maurice Neligan, a distinguished cardiac surgeon in Ireland, recommends the book as "most revealing" in a piece published in Irish Times ("Common sense, fat chance", May 11, not online).

The Department of Justice "states that 2,078,570 people were incarcerated 'in Federal or State prisons or in local jails' as of June 30, 2003." How many of them were fathers behind on their child support payments? It seems impossible to get a firm answer to that question, or even a decent estimate. Some such fathers are genuinely able to pay but are expressing contumely toward the court; others, however, appear to have landed in a latter-day equivalent of debtor's prison. "Their employment prospects sink with each imprisonment, even as their child support debt rises." (Wendy McElroy, "In Defense of 'Deadbeat' Dads", FoxNews, Aug. 4).

And, of course, parents wind up in jail for nonfinancial offenses too. A "Virginia mother was sentenced [Aug. 12] to 10 days in jail for defying a court order not to smoke in front of her children." After spending four hours behind bars Tamara Silvius was released on bond for purposes of appealing the order. (Sue Anne Pressley, "Mother Who Smoked Near Family Gets Jail", Washington Post, Aug. 13).

The recent (Aug. 4) fund-raising visit of Sen. Tom Daschle to Oxford, Mississippi took place "under the political radar ... Not even the local daily newspaper in Oxford received advance notice of the event and there was zero news coverage of the event." Why would the Senate Minority Leader go out of his way to raise money far from South Dakota in one of the nation's poorest states? Well, Mississippi has some of the nation's wealthiest trial lawyers, many of whom were in attendance, starting with Oxford's own Dickie Scruggs, who hosted the event. "The fund-raiser sought checks made payable to 'A Lot of People Supporting Tom Daschle' -- Daschle's campaign committee in Washington. Daschle is in an unexpectedly tight race with Republican challenger John Thune. Thune accused Daschle of 'ducking a debate' to attend the Oxford fund-raising event. Trial lawyers represent Daschle's largest group of individual contributors at $1.5 million and his second largest overall sector of givers at $1.7 million during the current cycle." (Sid Salter, "Daschle luncheon was quiet gathering", Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Aug. 15)(& welcome readers from Jon Lauck's Daschle v. Thune blog and from Jason Van Beek at South Dakota Politics, who points to a similar under-the-radar Daschle fundraiser in Jacksonville, Fla. in December hosted by attorney Wayne Hogan). More: the Daschle v. Thune blog reports that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has run an ad in South Dakota assailing the Senator for blocking liability reform, drawing a testy reaction from his camp (Aug. 20, first and second posts). The first of the two posts quotes Crain's Insider, Apr. 28:

Daschle will accept an award from the NY Trial Lawyers Assn. at a 4/29 dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria. "He is being honored for his work in opposing tort reform. Political strategist James Carville will serve as the keynote speaker".

Over at our sister website Point of Law there are new posts galore, including Jim Copland on "light" tobacco suits and Ted Frank on second-guessing of the FDA by liability actions; links to MedPundit on asbestos, Robert Samuelson on the AGs' global warming lawsuit, David Bernstein on the "Friends" harassment suit, and a not notably favorable review of the new documentary "The Corporation"; and employment law topics ranging from Wal-Mart litigation to Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowing to the Griggs disparate-impact standard. And, of course, the centerpiece is the featured discussion now underway between Profs. Lester Brickman and Richard Painter on contingency fee reform.

"For the first time in Canada, a court has ordered a man to give his ex-wife monthly support payments for their dog. Kenneth Duncan, a truck driver in Edmonton, was told to pay $200 a month in alimony towards the upkeep of Crunchy, a St. Bernard. ...Had Crunchy been a child, the monthly payment would have been $691." ("Albertan ordered to pay ex-wife $200 a month for pet support", CBC News, Aug. 10). More on pets in divorce: Feb. 17, 2003; May 14-15, 2002.

After less than a day of deliberations, jurors rejected a lawsuit claiming that General Motors was responsible for the death of former Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Derrick Thomas, who was speeding on ice without a seat belt at the time of his fatal crash four years ago (see Nov. 28, 2000). The ruling was a setback to attorney Michael Piuze (Jun. 19, 2001, Sept. 24, 2001, Oct. 4-6, 2002), who argued the case for the plaintiffs. ("GM Wins In Derrick Thomas Wrongful Death Trial", KansasCityChannel.com, Aug. 17).

The family, as we noted in our earlier item on the case, had also sued local ambulance service Emergency Providers Inc. and Liberty Hospital, both of which tried to save Thomas after the accident. The ambulance company settled, as did a Chevrolet dealership. "There was no dispute that the Suburban's roof was far stronger than federal standards, but the family contended that those standards were insufficient and needed to be changed. ... Almost whispering to the jury, [Piuze] asked them for from $75 million to more than $100 million in damages, saying he did not want to put an upper limit on it." We'll bet he didn't (Joe Lambe, San Jose Mercury News, Aug. 17).

Two of the nation's most prominent experts on the ethics of contingency fees, Prof. Lester Brickman of Cardozo School of Law and Prof. Richard Painter of the University of Illinois College of Law, are the guests in the second monthly "Featured Discussion" at Point Of Law, which gets started later today. Jim Copland sets the stage here and David Giacalone, whose site is another key resource for those interested in the ethics of fees, explains why you should care. Update: discussion has started.

Acacia Research Corporation, "an obscure but well-financed company in Newport Beach, Calif.," has assembled a portfolio of broadly worded patents that it claims entitle it to licensing fees from many if not all entities that provide streaming audio and video over the Web. It has sent out demand letters to a wide variety of recipients including news organizations and colleges both large and small. "Johns Hopkins University received a letter last year from Acacia, which asked for what would amount to 2 percent of the university's revenues." In June it sued nine cable and satellite companies.

Critics say Acacia has no interest in manufacturing things, just in asserting legal claims. "Acacia appears to be the first publicly traded company whose sole business is the licensing of patents. 'They are not a technology company; they are just a company full of lawyers,' said Dan Rayburn, executive vice president of StreamingMedia.com, a Web site and industry association. 'They acquire patents and then sue.'" Defenders, including some not employed by Acacia, say its patents appear solid and that it legitimately purchased enforcement rights from original inventors. "Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, the nation's highest patent court, upheld a ruling that [television manufacturers Sony, Sharp and Toshiba] do not infringe the V-chip patent and thus owe Acacia no royalties. The companies that have already paid Acacia $26 million in V-chip royalties, however, will receive no refund." (Teresa Riordan, "Internet Patent Claims Stir Concern", New York Times, Aug. 16; Daniel Terdiman, "EFF Publishes Patent Hit List", Wired News, Jun. 30). Update: Feb. 18, 2007 (Acacia has prospered through licensing deals, though it hasn't yet faced its toughest courtroom challenges).

On June 26, 2002, Reno policeman Mike Scofield was heading to the scene of an accident at a high rate of speed, but didn't turn on his motorcycle siren. Anna Marie Jackson was pulling out of an office park driveway to make a left turn, and paused in the middle of the street in Scofield's path; Scofield, driving in the left lane, hit her SUV, and was killed instantly. Jackson was eventually convicted of a felony for causing a fatal crash while driving with marijuana in her system.

So the widow, already receiving $1.3 million in workers compensation, sued... the office park, claiming that untrimmed trees caused the accident, though a photo of the view showed no obstruction. Her lawyer even asked for punitive damages. A jury didn't buy it, voting 7-1 against the widow. (Jaclyn O'Malley, "Officer’s widow loses lawsuit", Reno Gazette-Journal, Aug. 13; Martha Bellisle, "Scofield trial nearing end", Reno Gazette-Journal, Aug. 12; Martha Bellisle, "Civil trial begins in Scofield case", Reno Gazette-Journal, Jul. 21; Reno press release, Sep. 26, 2002). Anna Marie Jackson is appealing her conviction; sentencing is set for September 10, where she faces two to twenty years. (Jaclyn O'Malley, "Jackson given OK to marry before sentencing in cop's death", Reno Gazette-Journal, Apr. 30).

Another driver in a drunken driving death fared better. Robert Curry, who had three previous drunken driving convictions, had had four vodkas and a blood-alcohol level of at least .217 when he drove his jeep over a center line and struck Robert Strehlow's motorcycle, killing him. But Curry claimed he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder from his service in Vietnam that caused him to drink. Curry singled out an event in 1971 where he claimed his plane had been shot down, but the commander of his company testified the incident never happened. Moreover, for the year while he was in jail following the accident before he made bail, he didn't seek counseling. Nevertheless, a Wisconsin jury found him not guilty of homicide by reason of mental disorder. Curry will now undergo a psychiatric evaluation and will be released to outpatient treatment if he is not a "threat to the public." (Tom Daykin, "Jury acquits veteran haunted by memories", Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Aug. 12; Terri Pederson, "Curry: Post traumatic stress disorder led to deadly drunken driving collision", Daily Citizen, Aug. 6; Tom Daykin, "Man's stories of Vietnam stress questioned", Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Mar. 14; Tom Daykin, "With company on upswing, fatal collision brings man's world crashing down", Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Oct. 25).

The Washington Times does some reporting on John Edwards's trial practice in North Carolina. ("Edwards' malpractice suits leave bitter taste", Aug. 16). Reporter Charles Hurt talks to local doctors about Edwards' cerebral palsy cases and also relates the following story about the role of jury selection in one of the future senator's prominent cases:

"In 1991 [in Wake County], he won $2.2 million for the estate of a woman who hanged herself in a hospital after being removed from suicide watch. ... During jury selection, Mr. Edwards asked potential jurors whether they could hold a doctor responsible for the suicide of their patients.

"I got a lot of speeches from potential jurors who said they did not understand how that doctor could be responsible," Mr. Edwards recalled in an interview shortly after the trial. Those persons were excluded from the jury.

A little-remarked section of the 2004 National Defense Authorization Act amended the Endangered Species Act to require federal agencies to consider impact on national security before designating land as a "critical habitat." Thus, the Fish & Wildlife Services' new critical habitat designation for the fairy shrimp--inch-long crustaceans that live in "vernal pools" (i.e., mud puddles)--no longer includes over 3000 acres of Camp Pendleton, which had suffered tortuous restrictions on military training under the old version of the law. ("Habitat plan includes land in county", San Diego Union-Tribune, Apr. 29; Mark Mahoney, "Environmental Update", Spring 2004; Darren Mortenson, "Pendleton and the environment - Marines seek sweeping exemptions from laws", North County Times, Oct. 16, 2003; Joseph A. D'Agostino, "Endangered Species Envelop Marines in California", Human Events Online, Feb. 24, 2003; Bill Horn press release, Jun. 24, 2002; Suzanne Struglinski, Greenwire, "Marine Corps claims species impede training at Calif. base", undated).

Not so lucky Los Angeles International Airport, where 108 acres have been designated a critical habitat--even though the only shrimp found there have been non-hatched eggs, and even though letting standing water on the airport grounds creates an ecosystem that attracts birds, which in turn endanger airplanes. (Jennifer Oldham, "Shrimp Pose Big Problem for LAX", LA Times, Aug. 15; Professor Bainbridge blog, Aug. 15). The LA Times uncritically quotes FWS officials as saying they had "no choice" because of a federal court order, but in fact the order (Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation v. Norton, 231 F. Supp. 100 (D.D.C. 2002)) merely required the agency to create a critical habitat. Indeed, the order was issued because a previous FWS designation failed to adequately evaluate the economic impact, as the law required. More litigation is likely.

The latest installment of our free periodic newsletter went out this afternoon to its c. 2300 subscribers, covering the last couple of weeks' worth of postings in telegraphic, even punchy style. It's a great way to keep up with items you may have missed; when you're through, pass on the email to a friend or three to let them know about the site. Sign up today, right here.

"[Attorney Allen] Lowy said that he was not fazed by the suggestion that [New Jersey Gov. James] McGreevey might resign. He said he and Mr. [Golan] Cipel were not seeking a financial settlement, 'We weren't concerned with the money,' Mr. Lowy said." (David Kocieniewski, "A Governor's Downfall, in 20 Wrenching Days", New York Times, Aug. 15). "Sources in McGreevey's administration said Saturday that Cipel originally demanded $50 million [to not press a harassment complaint] but the figure dropped to $5 million as negotiations progressed." ("Man in N.J. Gov. Case Says He Is Straight", AP/ABCNews.com, Aug. 15). More: New Jersey Law Journal, Sept. 8.

Four more entries from our correspondence stack on our letters page. Topics include: why autopsies don't figure more prominently in malpractice cases, whether the legal climate deserves all the blame for the shrinkage in Philadelphia obstetrics, what happens when you tell your homeowners' insurance company that you run a controversial website, and another lawsuit challenging the 1998 tobacco settlement.

Is there something about the name Sam that does it? U.S. District Judge Sam Kent in Texas has long been famed for his colorful excoriations of lawyers in his court whose practice does not come up to his standards (see May 14, Sept. 6, 2001 and links from there). Now, per Curmudgeonly Clerk (Aug. 11) who got it from Begging to Differ, Judge Sam Sparks, another federal district court judge in Texas, has just penned an opinion complaining that his duties in supervising the lawyers in a commercial dispute now resemble those of "a person who supervised kindergarten. ... The Court simply wants to scream to these lawyers, 'Get a life'". (Klein-Becker v. Stanley, PDF)

More developments regarding Virginia's antigay law, much criticized in this space (see May 31 and links from there): the state's Attorney General, Jerry Kilgore, has put forth an opinion (which of course does not bind the courts) construing the statute narrowly so as not to restrict persons of the same sex from entering private contractual arrangements that convey any "rights or privileges not exclusive to the institution of marriage". ("The law", Style Weekly (Richmond magazine), Jun. 30; Lisa Provence, "Not gay: Marriage affirmation sparks protests", The Hook (Charlottesville), Jul. 17; Adrian Brune, "ACLU to challenge Va. union ban", Washington Blade, Jul. 16). The law is already being cited by some attorneys as reasons why persons in Virginia should be considered free to disregard not merely civil unions, but even court orders arising out of such unions, originating in other states. Attorneys for Lisa Miller-Jenkins, who recently moved to Virginia from Vermont after the breakup of a civil union in the latter state, are citing the Virginia law to justify their client's reported refusal to comply with a two-month-old Vermont court order awarding her former partner, Janet Miller-Jenkins, rights to visit the daughter born to Lisa during their time together. "State law forbids Virginia courts from handling legal custody and parental rights disputes if proceedings are already under way in another state." (Calvin R. Trice, "It's Virginia vs. Vermont in custody case", Richmond Times-Dispatch, Aug. 14; Justin Bergman, "Judge delays ruling on jurisdiction in lesbian custody battle", Newport News Daily Press, Aug. 13; Jonathan Finer, "Custody Case Puts Lesbian Civil Union On Trial", Washington Post/National Constitution Center, Aug. 7)(via Tim Hulsey). And some gay residents of the Dominion have reacted to the law by deciding to move away. Update Aug. 25: Va. judge takes jurisdiction of custody case notwithstanding court order (Washington Post). More background on case: Washington Blade, Aug. 20. Further updates Dec. 16 (I challenge conservative commentator David Frum's description of the case); Aug. 26, 2006 (Vermont Supreme Court rules against Miller); Nov. 29, 2006 (Virginia appeals panel, reversing lower court, rules against Miller).

Following the spectacular $2 billion class action settlement in Beaumont, Texas against Toshiba for a reported data glitch in its laptop computers (see Nov. 3, 1999 and later coverage) class action lawyers descended with copycat suits against Compaq and other rival laptop makers. A federal class action was however rejected (see May 11-13, 2001) and now the Texas Supreme Court has rejected a national class action filed in Texas state courts. However, "attorneys for the class aren't throwing in the towel and say a statewide class action still is possible". Besides proffering other defenses, a lawyer for the company "contends that a buffer in Compaq's computers prevents problems with the FDC [floppy disk controller]." (Mary Alice Robbins, "Court Boots Nationwide Class Action Against Compaq", Texas Lawyer, May 18).

According to what the court described as "overwhelming and credible evidence," Derrick Williams refused to acknowledge that he was the father of Lisa Farmer's unborn child, or have any contact with Farmer. Then he learned that she'd been awarded $150,000 after being in a car accident that claimed the life of the fetus. Then he decided that he really was a deeply devoted sort of dad after all and claimed half the money. Eventually the Mississippi Supreme Court told him to get lost. ("Mississippi gets it right" (editorial), Chicago Tribune, Aug. 10).

Attorney Edward Fagan, much publicized for his role in Holocaust and other reparations controversies, "is facing a $3.2 million legal malpractice judgment for suing the wrong party in a personal injury case and failing to oppose its dismissal." Former client Allen C. Tavel sued Fagan, saying he had neglected a product liability case against Honda Motor Corp. and the manufacturer of a seat belt that allegedly failed over an accident in which Tavel was seriously injured. "Fagan did not contest Tavel's malpractice suit, which resulted in a default judgment. In May, Justice Shirley Kornreich of Manhattan Supreme Court awarded Tavel $1.2 million for his economic losses and $2 million for pain and suffering." (Anthony Lin, "Personal Injury Client Wins Malpractice Award Against Holocaust Victims' Lawyer", New York Law Journal, Aug. 12). Fagan has been the subject of extensive coverage on this site, including Jun. 24-25, 2002; Apr. 2 of this year and links from there. More: Feb. 5, 2005.

The Washington Post profiles various local residents who saw their lives turned upside down, sometimes losing their marriage or livelihood, after being arrested under driving-under-the-influence laws which mandate automatic license suspension for first-time offenders. One woman had attended a birthday party after which she drove with a slightly elevated blood-alcohol level (0.09) which would not have constituted a legal offense at all until lawmakers ratcheted down permissible blood levels. (Lena H. Sun and Carol Morello, "For DUI, Personal Costs Are High", Washington Post, Jul. 25). Soon the Post was fielding vehement letters to the editor accusing the paper's reporters of excessive sympathy for these criminals. The TrueBeliever.org site, run by a California defense lawyer, has more, including a pointer to an organization called Responsibility in DUI Laws, Inc.. Radley Balko also offers a few opinions, with a big comments section, while KipEsquire dissents.

According to Tim Sandefur (Aug. 6), musician John Fogerty, best known for his work with Creedence Clearwater Revival, in April of last year "prevailed in a lawsuit brought by an audience member who alleged that Fogerty’s music was so loud as to harm his hearing at the concert. ...The opinion [by Judge Martin Schoenfeld], studded with quotations from Fogerty’s songs, held that

there is no standard of care by which a jury could determine on the evidence presented that defendants had breached a duty owed to plaintiff. Without knowing what is “too loud,” and without knowing how loud the concert actually was, a jury would have to engage in double speculation to conclude that defendants’ music was “unreasonably loud.” Second, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk bars the instant action.

Finding no relevant cases in which concertgoers had been allowed to sue over excessive volume, the court also noted:

Surely this dramatic absence of litigation, in what is perceived to be such a litigious nation, speaks volumes to the fact that the principle applicable to the social compact governing the volume at Rock & Roll concerts is caveat emptor.... Litigation by an “eggshell ear” plaintiff is not an appropriate means to impose an unlegislated noise code upon performers...and their legions of screaming fans....

"For the first time in its history, the American College of Radiology has expelled a member for giving inaccurate expert testimony. Dr. E. James Tourje, a neuroradiologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, was expelled [last month] for violating the ACR code of ethics, which states that expert testimony should be nonpartisan, scientifically correct, and clinically accurate." Dr. Tourje had testified on behalf of the plaintiff in two malpractice cases, both of which resulted in defense verdicts. ("'Expert' witness gets booted from ACR", Diagnostic Imaging Online, Jul. 8; Arati Murti, "Stat Read: Election-Year Politics Push Medical Liability Skirmishes to Trenches", Imaging Economics, Aug.).

In a case several years ago, Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit gave impetus to the then-nascent trend toward professional self-regulation of expert testimony, writing in an opinion that "this kind of professional self-regulation furthers rather than impedes the cause of justice. More policing of expert testimony is required, not less." (Russell M. Pelton, "Professing Professional Conduct: AANS Raises the Bar for Expert Testimony", AANS Bulletin, Spring 2002. In the latest ABA Journal, Terry Carter discusses the controversy and in particular the formation of the Coalition and Center for Ethical Medical Testimony to promote efforts by associations to act against what Peter Huber has called malpractice by mouth. ("M.D. With a Mission", ABA Journal, Aug., reprinted at CCEMT site)(PDF). The organized plaintiff's bar is completely apoplectic about the trend: for its views, see Stephanie Mencimer, "The White Wall", Legal Affairs, Mar-Apr.; Steve Ellman, "Code of Silence", Miami Daily Business Review, Jun. 25, 2003.

New York: "The family of a teen who was shot and killed by an undercover cop last year -- after the youth put a BB gun to the head of the officer's partner -- filed a $5 million wrongful-death suit against the city yesterday." Police say Allen Newsome, 17, had robbed several restaurant deliverymen in Harlem when he got caught in a January 2003 sting operation in which an undercover cop posed as a delivery worker. As the teen held a gun to the officer's head, "a second officer -- the cop's partner -- shot Newsome three times." Now his mother is suing, saying cops took too long to summon medical help. (Carl Campanile, "Kin of Slain 'Thief' Sue City", New York Post, Aug. 10)(via NY Civic "Quotidian").

This time it's the Hospital Casualty Co. of Oklahoma, a subsidiary of the Oklahoma Hospital Association founded in 1977 by 12 local hospitals, capsized by nursing-home suits and by the general Sooner-get-sued atmosphere in its home state. Must have been mismanaged, our friends in the plaintiff's bar will say. Earlier this year, the Physicians Liability Insurance Co., owned by the Oklahoma Medical Association and the state's largest med-mal insurer, "was placed under formal supervision of the Insurance Department because the company didn't have money to pay anticipated claims." Another mismanaged outfit, no doubt. More details at Point of Law, where I also discuss the anguish felt by California insurance regulators over the relative lack of interest among low-income drivers in taking advantage of a scheme to rob Peter in Pacific Palisades to pay Paul in Pico-Union.

Ten years ago, in one of the few significant liability reforms to emerge from Washington, D.C. in modern times, Congress provided litigation relief to small-aircraft makers, most notably by cutting off lawsuits filed more than 18 years after an aircraft was sold. As was widely reported, general aviation thereafter enjoyed a substantial recovery from its previous slump, with significant numbers of planes again being manufactured and sold. But trial lawyers, casting around for parties to sue after crashes, simply began naming everyone else in sight: flight instructors, "mechanics, manufacturers of replacement parts, fuel suppliers and airports. Aviation is again in decline." Frasca Field in the college community of Champaign-Urbana, Ill. has "shut down its flight training, recurrent training and mechanics' services a year ago because of skyrocketing insurance costs brought on by a lawsuit in which the field itself was found not guilty.

"The case stemmed from the 1996 death of a man who was a passenger in a Piper J-3 Cub that crashed in a cornfield near Thomasboro. Federal Aviation Administrators inspectors found no mechanical problems. The National Transportation Safety Board said the accident was caused by pilot error. Frasca Air Services Owner Rudy Frasca said the final legal defense price tag was about $600,000. 'We won the case, but we lost the field,' said Tom Frasca." Much more here (J. Philip Bloomer, "Liability costs ground Frasca", Champaign (Ill.) News-Gazette, Jun. 20).

"A year after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Justice Department obtained video surveillance tapes suggesting terrorists were targeting Las Vegas casinos, but authorities never alerted the public as they discussed whether a warning might hurt tourism or increase the casinos' legal liability, internal memos show. ...Another memo states the casinos didn't want to see the footage for fear it would make them more likely to be held liable in civil court if an attack occurred." Most local law enforcement authorities also declined an opportunity to view the tape. (John Solomon, "U.S. Didn't Warn Las Vegas of Threats", AP/Washington Post, Aug. 9). On the other hand, MGM Mirage spokeswoman Yvette Monet said her company did see the tapes and cooperated with authorities. An anonymous casino executive also tells the Las Vegas paper that the casinos kept their distance from a Detroit terrorism trial in which surveillance tapes were a factor because they feared having to reveal their security plans in sworn testimony, to the advantage of future terrorism attempts. ("Terrorism threats: city accused of inaction", Las Vegas Review-Journal (with AP coverage), Aug. 10). More: Eugene Volokh comments as does Radley Balko.

Defensive medicine? Medblogger KevinMD winds up providing it against his better judgment when menaced by a litigious patient (Jul. 7). An anonymous post in his comments section discusses how doctors may lawfully extricate themselves from entanglement with clients who bully them with legal threats.

In "acquaintance rape" cases, especially, these laws unjustly deny defendants access to potentially exculpatory evidence. Yet they haven't succeeded in protecting rape accusers' reputations or right to privacy either, especially in runaway media events like the Kobe Bryant trial in Colorado: "high-profile rape trials allow the media to do far more damage than rape shield laws ever tried to mitigate". (Dahlia Lithwick (acting this month as guest columnist), New York Times, Aug. 8).

Dr. David Merenstein's Journal of the American Medical Association article ("Winners and Losers", JAMA. 2004;291:15-16, reprinted here), first noted here Jan. 14, continues to be the source of discussion in the medical community.

For at least several weeks Sen. Kerry has been publicly floating the theme that he and running mate John Edwards can achieve medical malpractice reform in the same way that Republican Richard Nixon could achieve rapprochement with China, presumably because their ticket would have the sort of credibility with the litigation lobby that the late GOP president had with dedicated anti-communists. The trope appeared in a Cape Canaveral, Fla. speech in late July (see National Public Radio audio coverage, Jul. 26) and more recently in response to a question in Grand Rapids, Mich. (Unofficial Kerry for President blog, Aug. 2; similarly (and by same writer), Doctors and Nurses for John Kerry site; Robert S. Greenburger, "Doctors Diagnose Kerry as High Risk", Wall Street Journal, Aug. 5 (sub); see also Joel B. Finkelstein, "Edwards' trial lawyer past raises red flags for doctors", American Medical News (AMA), Jul. 2).

We reported on the controversy last week (Aug. 5). Martin Grace has several follow-up comments (Aug. 6) on the breeziness of the Kerry proposals toward federalism, as well as on the apparently incurable Democratic tendency to blame the whole problem on insurance providers, even though "the largest med mal providers in a given state tend to be owned by the docs" who have no very obvious incentives to self-gouge (more, more). And George Wallace at Decs & Excs (Aug. 5) has more about Edwards' enthusiasm for curtailing the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which leaves insurance regulation to the states. (Update: David Giacalone, Martin Grace and Wallace have much more on this, follow the links).

A reader on Capitol Hill writes to say that from the appearance of things, the Kerry proposals appear to differ little if at all from proposals repeatedly put forth by congressional Democrats as alternatives to GOP-sponsored medical malpractice reform. Those proposals (the correspondent adds) have been at best weak as a way of curtailing litigation, and in some instances would actually encourage it. For example, the Democratic alternative Rep. Conyers offered to H.R. 4280 can be examined in the Congressional Record dated May 12, 2004. It includes a (toothless) mandate for nonbinding mediation of state court malpractice cases, and takes care to specify that this mandate will pre-empt and invalidate all otherwise prescribed forms of alternative dispute resolution -- including those currently required in some states which do much more to curb litigation -- as well as all contractual barriers to suit. Having looked through this Conyers amendment, however, I should probably retract my hasty assumption (voiced last week) that the Democrats on the Hill had been big defenders of federalism on this issue -- their bill seems just as willing as the Republicans' to dictate to state courts, it just wants to dictate different things.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the eight-year-old legal battle over scientists' attempts to study the 9,300-year-old bones (Feb. 14) is probably not over, even though Indian tribes and the Department of Justice decided not to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court. Before, Clinton administration objections under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act prevented study. Now, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has custody of the bones, is objecting under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 to anthropologists' plans to study the skeleton. And the tribes have filed papers expressing their intent to continue litigating. In the words of the Houston Chronicle's headline-writers in reprinting the LA Times article, "Curse of lawyers surrounds ancient skeleton." (Tomas Alex Tizon, "Skeleton Case's New Bone of Contention", Los Angeles Times, Aug. 2 (via Bashman); Eli Sanders, "An 8-Year Fight Ends Over a 9,200-Year-Old Man", New York Times, Jul. 20; Tim Sandefur, Panda's Thumb blog, Mar. 25; Bonnischen v. United States; Friends of America's Past website and Aug. 4 press release).

"Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins ...filed a class action against Yahoo Inc., Google Inc. and 10 other Internet search engines that claims they have been promoting illegal gambling on their Web sites and requests that they fork over the ad revenue. The complaint, filed Tuesday in San Francisco Superior Court, requests that the search engines put revenue from advertising Internet gambling into a fund that would provide restitution to California Indian Tribes or other licensed gambling businesses in California. The complaint says money in the fund would also go to the spouses of gamblers who have had community property taken away as a result of illegal gambling and to the state treasury." (Brenda Sandburg, "Casino Come-Ons Return Bad Result for Search Sites", The Recorder, Aug. 5; David Legard, "Gambling lawsuit filed against top Web content sites", IDG/Computerworld, Aug. 4). For questions about the legality of accepting advertising from offshore casinos, see Apr. 21. Earlier lawsuits have gone after credit card companies for facilitating offshore gambling transactions (see Dec. 7, 1999), but a Lerach attorney said this was the first suit against search engines.

"Although [filmmaker Morgan Spurlock in Super-Size Me] generally presents critics of McDonald's as public-spirited activists, he can't resist taking a shot at Samuel Hirsch [Jul. 25 and Sept. 12, 2002; Jan. 23, Mar. 25-30 and Jun. 20, 2003], the lawyer who filed the first two obesity lawsuits against fast food restaurants. When Hirsch is asked his motive for getting involved in such litigation, he looks puzzled. 'You mean, motive besides monetary compensation?' he says. 'You want to hear a noble cause?' That's his only appearance in the film." (Jacob Sullum, "Big Mac Attack", Reason, Jul.). Update Mar. 23, 2005: Hirsch sues Spurlock and film distributor.

Want to spend a bit of your summer holiday helping out around the office of a venerable British periodical? Before you can start filing or photocopying, you'd better prepare for a government-mandated mini-seminar in workplace hazards. "The fact remains that the only job her week at The Spectator prepared Lucy for was that of a health and safety officer, or a serial bringer of law suits against employers with loose telephones and no barrier creams." (Mary Wakefield, "Work experience is all about health and safety", Daily Telegraph, Jul. 26).

"A Brooklyn, N.Y., judge [last month] dismissed a $112 million medical malpractice verdict -- the third-largest in the state's history -- saying a local hospital could not be blamed for an aneurysm that left a man a quadriplegic. Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Melvin S. Barasch said that although the case was 'one of the saddest' he had heard, the jury had no rational basis for its verdict." David Fellin's lawyer had played the jury a "day-in-the-life" video of his disabled client "in a nursing home, where he needs constant care. He also told the jury about Fellin's mother, whose life, according to Barasch, now revolves around visiting and caring for her son. The judge said the film 'brought tears to everyone's eyes.'" However, the judge said, that's no substitute for showing that defendant Long Island College Hospital had negligently caused Fellin's injuries, which he said the plaintiff's side hadn't shown. (Tom Perrotta, New York Law Journal, Jul. 15).

I'll be traveling on business, so there'll be no more posting from me until Sunday or Monday. See you then.

Martin Grace of Georgia State has a neat table (PDF) listing last year's per capita expenditures in each state on liability insurance defense costs, with a separate breakout for med-mal defense costs. That and much more is available this morning at my other website, Point of Law.

According to one of his health care advisers, the Massachusetts Senator actually supports "meaningful but enactable" malpractice reform, according to a new report. (Mark A. Hofmann, "Adviser says Kerry supports malpractice reform", Business Insurance Daily News, Aug. 4). The Kerry campaign website has more (scroll down). George Wallace at Decs & Exs (Aug. 4) doesn't think there's much here that's new, but we're not so sure, especially on the punitive damages language and in the failure to raise federalism objections which ordinarily are front and center in Democratic resistance to liability reform at a national level.

"A new look at X-rays used to help win billions of dollars for asbestos victims detected abnormalities in only 4.5 percent of the X-rays -- not in 96 percent, as medical experts intitially testified. The study by Johns Hopkins University radiologists found that medical experts who testified on behalf of plaintiffs in asbestos suits almost always found something suspicious on their X-rays, whether it was asbestos dust or a likely malignant tumor." The study appeared in this week's Academic Radiology, a scientific journal. (Bill Scanlan, Rocky Mountain News (Denver), Aug. 5; Reed Abelson, "Study Raises Questions of Witnesses", New York Times, Aug. 4). See, among many other entries on this site, Jan. 21. More: the journal Nature weighs in (Emma Marris, "Asbestos study suggests bias in experts", Aug. 5). Yet more: GeekPress, MichMedMal.

Knoxville, Ga.: "The grandparents of a child conceived while her parents were both in the Crawford County Jail want the county to help them support the baby. LaTonya Finney and boyfriend, Adrian Howard, were jailed in 2002 to await trial on robbery charges. While they remained behind bars, Finney became pregnant." Finney's parents now say that because their daughter was impregnated while in prison, "Crawford County Sheriff Kerry Dunaway shares some of the responsibility -- and the cost -- while the tot's parents are both serving prison terms." The couple say the sheriff granted them a conjugal visit, but he says the man picked a lock and gained access to the women's portion of the prison to see his girlfriend.

"'I just think it's a very, very bizarre social conscience these people have that their daughter conceives a child and they think the sheriff is responsible,' said county attorney David Mincey Jr. The sheriff said he wasn't even aware of Finney's pregnancy until Howard filed suit demanding to be released from prison to care for Adrianna. That case is still pending." (AP/CNN, Aug. 2).

This time it's an Alameda County, Calif. jury that has rejected a Brady Center-backed suit against Beretta over an accidental shooting. (Thaai Walker, "Jury clears gun maker", San Jose Mercury-News, Aug. 3) (via Conservative Contrarian).

"Anyone who denies there’s a crisis with medical malpractice insurance is probably a trial lawyer" -- Democratic candidate Barack Obama, considered a prohibitive favorite to win the vacant U.S. Senate seat in Illinois this November, quoted at Chicago Automobile Trade Association site, May 10 (via Ted in the comments section at Legal Underground).

Thanks to MedPundit for her prolific and excellent posts over the past week. Her regular blogging, which includes a steady supply of items about malpractice and other medico-legal topics, can be found here, and should be on your regular round of blog stops if you are even slightly interested in matters medical.

More discussion of the McDonald's coffee case, the blogosphere discussion of it, and why it's relevant today on our sister blog, Point of Law (Aug. 4).

One additional point merits discussion: "PG" of Blog de Novo (Aug. 3) makes the oft-heard argument that it was alright for Stella Liebeck to sue McDonald's for millions because she first tried to settle for her medical expenses. I recently had an experience that shows why this thinking is fallacious.

Real estate tycoon Leona Helmsley is suing Woodlawn Cemetery in the Bronx for $150 million in compensation, including $100 million for "severe anguish and emotional distress", because she says her late husband Harry's family mausoleum has lost the views, serenity and solitude it once had. "Mrs. Helmsley's complaint, first reported Monday in The New York Post, is that the 'perpetual beauty' and 'peaceful solitude' of the spot have been destroyed by the latest of many community mausoleums to be built at Woodlawn. But the view Mrs. Helmsley describes as forever lost is bleak: the access ramps to the Major Deegan Expressway, a traffic light at Jerome Avenue and 233rd Street, and locked gates where the cemetery's grand entrance once was." Woodlawn's president says he has been unable to find any precedent for a lawsuit complaining of loss of views from a mausoleum. (Jane Gross, "Tomb Trouble: Nimby Strikes at Woodlawn", New York Times, Jul. 29; "NY property tycoon sues cemetery", BBC News, Jul. 27).

North Carolina: "Raleigh lawyer Larkin Kirkman was paid more last year for representing poor people in court -- more than $137,000 -- than I. Beverly Lake earned as chief justice of the N.C. Supreme Court. ... [Kirkman] represents juveniles, parents accused of abusing or neglecting their children and defendants charged with low-level felonies and misdemeanors."

"Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Donald W. Stephens questioned whether some lawyers are being honest about the hours they spend defending those cases. 'Many of us were shocked to find that some of the highest-paid lawyers on this list participated in no jury trials during that payment period and represented very few indigent defendants charged with serious felonies,' Stephens said." However, Kirkman said that some of the money paid him in 2003 was for 2002 work and that his previous years' earnings from the county had been lower, at $87,750 for 2002 and $76,648 for 2001. (Andrea Weigl, "Lawyer fees criticized in Wake", Raleigh News & Observer, Jul. 16).

A sad example of how the Democratic party has become the political wing of the plaintiffs' bar is a recent post in the Daily Kos defending John Edwards by lionizing the result in the infamous McDonald's coffee case, where a jury awarded Stella Liebeck $2.9 million for spilling a 49-cent coffee on herself. (Daily Kos, Aug. 1). Professor Bainbridge refutes (Aug. 1), with reference to our Dec. 10 entry. Blogger "Curmudgeonly Clerk" (Aug. 2) continues to insist that hot coffee is unreasonably dangerous, which sidesteps the question why our legislatures continue to permit it to be sold. Strangely, the Clerk is aware of and cites McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic, a Seventh Circuit case that should've ended the coffee debates once and for all, but doesn't reconcile that decision with his defense of the Liebeck case.

Meanwhile, Maxine Villegas's sister spilled McDonald's coffee on her, and she's hired Liebeck's lawyer to sue McDonald's. (Matt Fleischer-Black, "One Lump or Two?", American Lawyer, Jun. 4.) Though scheduled to go to trial last month, there hasn't been additional press coverage.

Bryan Banquells bought a 1985 Nissan King Cab from the El Cajon Ford dealership for $29 -- that's right, $29. But the dealership soon thereafter learned, and notified Banquells, that the vehicle was legally in "salvaged" status and should not have been sold without a disclosure to that effect. It offered to buy the truck back but Banquells, who has retained attorney Hal Rosner, doesn't like that idea; he "refuses to drive the car and feels the dealership should provide him with a new one". Reader Steve Headley comments: "Guy buys $29 truck, truck is bad, now wants brand new truck. Yeah.... that makes sense to me." Banquells says he does not feel safe taking his small children around in his $29 truck now that he knows it was salvaged. ("Dealer, Customer Face Off Over Salvaged Car", NBCSanDiego.com, Jul. 26). P.S.: reader Chuck Shepherd interprets the quoted material from the article as signifying only that Banquells wants a "new" truck in the sense of "replacement used", rather than in the sense of "brand-new".

Ending a standoff, Democrats and Gov. Schwarzenegger have agreed to scale back but not eliminate the already-notorious SB 796 or Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, signed by recalled Gov. Gray Davis as a favor to trial lawyers during his waning days, which allows all and sundry to sue over labor code violations whether or not any worker was injured by the violation or complained. The compromise will eliminate most suits over non-posting of signs and will give employers a grace period to respond to allegations of a violation before exposing them to suit. (Dale Kasler, "Labor law was budget blocker", Sacramento Bee, Jul. 29; Calif. Labor & Employment Law Blog, Jul. 29; Jul. 30). For our previous coverage, see Oct. 20, 2003.

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.

Michael Krauss at Point Of Law today reports on a securities action against drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb in which the company won an outright dismissal of the case ("with prejudice" = cannot be filed again), but paid $300 million anyway rather than take its chances on appeal. Also at Point Of Law today: the Federal Trade Commission is throwing a conference next month on the subject of protecting consumers in class actions; and if you want a press pass to the ATLA convention, be aware that certain kinds of press are not welcome. Update Mar. 2, 2005 (judge in Bristol-Myers case slashes fees).

One North Carolina doctor's story.

Our editor, Walter Olson, has covered this territory before, but it's worth revisiting as Kerry and Edwards make their way across key states in their bus caravan campaign. The report on the men behind John Edwards at EdwardsWatch makes for interesting reading.:

According to published reports, Edwards received $4.65 million from 3,220 lawyers, 29 paralegals, 17 legal assistants and 555 people with the same address as a personal injury attorney contributor (such as a spouse or close relative). The $4.65 million represents 63% of the total money raised by Edwards. Over one-third of those contributors gave the maximum $2,000..

His biggest contributors include patron, friend, campaign finance director, and asbestos-litigator extraordinaire Fred Baron, Silicon Valley litigator William Lerach (see also this), and the mysterious Stephen Bing.

He also has close ties to the law firms Girardi and Keese and Chitwood and Harley. And that's just the tip of the special interest iceberg.

Other tidbits from the EdwardsWatch site include the discount air travel Edwards gets from his trial lawyer friends and the money he's gotten from every state trial lawyers association in the country. Has there ever been a candidate so beholden to one special interest?

More: See also details at Rantburg and Edwards' PAC donors from OpenSecrets.org.

There may be good news on the horizon for physicians in John Edwards' home state. No, the state didn't pass sweeping tort reform. It's market magic:

Unlike the last survey, business-related cases didn't just lead the top of the list. In a dramatic change from past years, they made up more than a quarter of all the entries for 2003, with 14. That's more than double the number of business recoveries reported to Lawyers Weekly in 2002 — and matches the tallies in medical malpractice and auto negligence.

Another telling statistic: In 2003, six business-related cases resulted in recoveries of $7 million or more, according to the survey. There were only three reported in that range in 2002 — and only one in 2001. In contrast, no contested personal injury recoveries reached $7 million in 2003.

Why is that good news for physicians and what does it have to do with the free market? It means that lawyers will be expending their energies on business cases instead of malpractice cases. This may not be good for the economy of North Carolina, but it would give doctor's and hospitals a reprieve. As one lucky winner, I mean attorney, puts it:

"In my view, in terms of making a living, business misconduct cases in today's environment are becoming almost as profitable as personal injury, where you traditionally have had more high-end verdicts and settlements," said Hunt.

And I thought they were in this to champion the little guy.

Click here to see a list of the top 55 verdicts for 2003 in North Carolina, none of which were under one million dollars.

A 1990 federal law restricts commercial trade in American Indian archaelogical remains and so-called sacred objects, and pressures public institutions to hand over ("repatriate") such holdings to tribes. According to its critics, the law has begun to put a serious crimp in archaelogical investigation of the North American continent. It also menaces legitimate dealers of artifacts with prison terms over vaguely defined offenses, all while providing the adherents of certain religious tenets (those claimed to be traditional native beliefs) with powerful legal muscle not available to those of us who may hold other (or no) religious beliefs. (Steven Vincent, "Grave Injustice", Reason, Jul.). For the "Kennewick Man" controversy, the most famous thus far to arise under the law, see Feb. 14 and links from there. For cases with sometimes-overlapping effect arising from a federal law which restricts trade in artifacts whose components include the feathers of eagles and other protected birds, see Sept. 11-12, 1999.

The medmal crisis isn't just affecting doctors, it's having an impact on nurses, too:

Kimberly Ridpath was shocked to learn earlier this year that the malpractice insurance policy for her 150 health care workers had been canceled.

"I cried. I couldn't eat. I couldn't sleep,'' said Ridpath, a registered nurse.

(Could this be the woman Senator Edwards was talking about?) She eventually found a policy, at roughly ten times the price of her original. It's the nursing home work that makes her company such a high risk. But the problem isn't confined to nurses who staff nursing homes. Midwives and nurse practitioners, who often serve the underserved, are finding their malpractice insurance premiums rising, too. As result, they can no longer afford to staff public health clinics on the cheap as they once did. Tort reform. It really should be a bipartisan issue.

Despite a split between circuits on the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to resolve "whether disabled moviegoers must be given better seats than the front-row accommodations they're provided in many new stadium-seating theaters. ... Instead, at the urging of the Bush administration, they left undisturbed rulings against two theater companies while the government reviews its guidelines for movie theater owners." (Gina Holland, "Court Dodges Fight Over Disabled Seating", AP/WTOP, Jun. 28; "Supreme Court decision lets disabled sit away from the picture", KATU, Jul. 1; "Beyond the letter of the ADA" (editorial), The Oregonian, Jul. 3; Christine M. Garton, "Disabled Moviegoers Fight Stadium Seating", Legal Times, Jun. 24). For more on the controversy, see Nov. 11 and links from there.

Residents of central Ohio fear and loathe the town of New Rome. Most people, including the state's Attorney General, suspect it exists only to line the pockets of a few people who live in its three block radius. The tiny town (pop. 60) has a per capita income of $12,983, but takes in $300,000 a year in traffic tickets. (Take a virtual tour of the town here.) It's almost impossible to pass through New Rome without getting stopped for a violation, be it speeding or a broken tail light.

Ohio residents can breathe easy now. New Rome was dissolved this week by court order. Sometimes, the system works.