September 2006 Archives

On Apr. 10 of last year Ted introduced readers to the far-flung class actions and other lawsuits filed by mother-daughter team Armettia Peach and Ashley Peach of Madison County, Ill., as represented by the Lakin Law Firm of that celebrated county. Now Steve Korris reports in the Madison County Record that the various Peach family lawsuits have not been faring well of late -- the details get so intricate that we won't even try to summarize them, so just go check out the piece ("Dynamic suing duo fizzling in court", Aug. 24).

Oh, honestly, now. We never claimed to.

I'm guest-blogging for the entertaining David Lat at his Above the Law site today. Here's a sample post:

The Spring Valley, N.Y. chapter of the NAACP "has filed a complaint accusing the Ben Gilman Medical and Dental Clinic of religious discrimination for closing on Saturdays. The complaint, filed Sept. 6 with the state's Division of Human Rights, alleges that the clinic's practice of remaining closed Saturdays in observance of operators' Jewish Sabbath, unlawfully imposes their religious beliefs on others." (Suzan Clarke, "NAACP sues Spring Valley clinic", White Plains, N.Y. Journal-News, Sept. 15). Eugene Volokh has a thorough discussion (Sept. 25).

Notwithstanding various impediments which ordinarily restrain civil defendants from filing countersuits -- and particularly from naming their adversaries' lawyers in those countersuits -- a "Superior Court judge rejected a motion [last] Friday to throw out comedian Dom DeLuise's lawsuit claiming his former daughter-in-law caused him emotional and financial distress when she sued him for $2 million." Among defendants named in the lawsuit was attorney Steven Zelig and his law firm, which had represented Brigitte deLuise in her allegedly wrongful suit. Zelig argued that the state's "SLAPP suit" statute should bar the comedian's counteraction, but "Judge Judith C. Chirlin disagreed. 'I find that there were sufficient grounds for the lawsuit to have been filed,' she said. "There is a likelihood of it prevailing on the merits.'" The AP coverage doesn't specify what the alleged problems were with the original suit, however (merely unfounded in law and fact? scandalous as well?) so it's hard to know what implications there might be for the rights of defendants in other cases. ("L.A. Judge Lets DeLuise Lawsuit Proceed", AP/CBSNews.com, Sept. 23). More: George Wallace, Decs and Excs, Sept. 29.

Florida divorce lawyer Steve Miller wants your business if "you and your spouse hate each other like poison". Just a few easy steps, and "you're on the way to getting rid of that vermin you call a spouse." His YouTube video is discussed by Carolyn Elefant (Aug. 30), Greedy Trial Lawyer (Sept. 2), and Jacobson Attorneys in South Africa (Aug. 31) which contributes a Flickr photo documenting a marketing effort by divorce attorneys in that country ("Cheating Bastard!"). Miller's site is here.

"The big question here, of course, is whether Apple's attempt to own the word 'pod' means that we should pick another name for 'podcasting' before it's too late." (Wired "Listening Post", Sept. 28). More: Slashdot, The Inquirer, Russell Shaw on ZDNet, and lots more.

...and it's a law firm that returns your call, according to a rival trial lawyer, J. Steele Olmstead of Tampa. Olmstead has asked the Florida Bar to look into whether any money has changed hands in the relationship between Orlando law firm Morgan & Morgan and chiropractor Gary Kompothecras, which might constitute unlawful "patient brokering". Morgan & Morgan, which denies wrongdoing, has been in the news lately as the home base of Republican lieutenant governor candidate and state Rep. Jeff Kottkamp, who is not named in the Bar complaint. (Mary Ellen Klas and Beth Reinhard, "Fundraiser host being investigated", Miami Herald, Sept. 22)(via Lattman).

George Blake, a fugitive from British justice and MI6 double agent who escaped from Wormwood Scrubs prison 40 years ago and fled to Russia, has been awarded £3,350 in damages by the European Court of Human Rights because British authorities delayed too long in resolving a dispute over whether he could collect royalties for his autobiography. Blake, who is now 84 and still on the lam, is believed to have betrayed more than 40 MI6 agents, many of whom were killed, during his career as a double agent. The British government objected to his obtaining royalties on the grounds that he had violated confidentiality by publishing the memoir, but the ECHR accepted the arguments of Blake's lawyers that it was a violation of his rights for the dispute to have dragged on for nine years in British courts. (Richard Norton Taylor, "MI6 double agent Blake wins damages from government", The Guardian (UK), Sept. 27; Joshua Rozenberg, "Britain must pay traitor Blake for breaching his human rights", Daily Telegraph, Sept. 27; Dave Zincavage, Sept. 27).

The entertainer's "Straight Outta Lynwood" album includes a song by that title, the first two stanzas of which are:

I sued Taco Bell...'cause I ate half a million chalupas,
and I got fat!
I sued Panasonic...they never said I shouldn't use their microwave
to dry off my cat!

Fuller lyrics are here, and a sound sample can be found here.

I was a guest this afternoon on Michelle Martin's live National Public Radio talk show, "Talk of the Nation", discussing New York City's proposed ban on most uses of trans fats in restaurants. ABC News "World News Tonight" also had me comment for a news segment on the issue planned for tonight's broadcast.

On NPR, NYC Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden claimed that it is always possible to duplicate the taste and other gustatory qualities of a trans fat recipe using other fats. For an example of a business that stumbled by buying into this particular premise, see Jun. 30 (West Virginia potato chip maker Mister Bee).

P.S. On the NPR audio clip, check out the section just before I come on where host Martin, interviewing Frieden, does a blind taste testing of two wafer cookies, one made with trans fats and one without. And here's a mention by Bonnie Erbe at USNews.com (Sept. 27)(attributing to me "typical eloquently opinionated New York style").

Few Gotham restaurants paid much heed when city health commissioner Thomas Frieden announced supposedly voluntary curbs on the use of partially hydrogenated fats, so now the city is planning on making the restrictions mandatory. Among many, many foods that will apparently need to be either reformulated or bootlegged: Krispy Kreme "Hot Original Glaze" doughnuts. In the New York Sun, reporter Russell Berman quotes my reaction: "When is Nurse Bloomberg planning to let us fill up our own plates?". ("City Wants to Ban Some Fatty Foods in Restaurants", Sept. 27; "Freedom Fries" (editorial), Sept. 27).

Note for future reference: never, never get a vanity license plate reading "NV" (as Californian Nick Vautier did, innocently picking his own initials). Or plates reading XXX, MISSING or NOPLATE. "NV was meter maid code for 'not visible.' ... Los Angeles, for example, accused him of illegally parking a blue Ford, a silver Hyundai, a blue Chrysler and a blue Chevy truck, all with the same license plate." ("California: Innocent Man Stuck With 100 Parking Tickets", TheNewspaper.com, Sept. 17 (via Nobody's Business); Steve Harvey, "Vanity Plates Backfire on Mr. 'Not Visible'", Los Angeles Times, Sept. 17).

In case you imagined that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission these days was all sweetness and reason with employers in enforcing anti-discrimination law, check out Baseball Crank's analysis (Sept. 12) of a new Sixth Circuit case, EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines (PDF). Watkins Motor Lines hired Stephen Grindle, who then weighed 340 pounds, as a driver/dock worker:

Approximately 65% of his time was spent performing dock work including loading, unloading, and arranging freight. The job description for this position notes that the job involves climbing, kneeling, bending, stooping, balancing, reaching, and repeated heavy lifting.

Grindle continued to gain weight, hitting a high of 450 pounds.

In November 1995, Grindle sustained an on-the-job injury. He was climbing a ladder at the loading dock and a rung broke. He started to fall and caught himself but, in doing so, he injured his knee. ...

[In 1996 an industrial clinic doctor, Dr. Walter Lawrence,] found that Grindle had a limited range of motion and that he could duck and squat but he was short of breath after a few steps. Dr. Lawrence also noted that "[o]n physical examination, the most notable item is that the patient weighs 405 lbs." Dr. Lawrence concluded that, even though Grindle met Department of Transportation standards for truck drivers, he could not safely perform the requirements of his job.

So the company let him go, he sued, and the Sixth Circuit has now upheld the dismissal of his suit on summary judgment, not on the grounds you might think (that the grounds for his dismissal were obviously rational) but rather on the grounds that morbid obesity, when not caused by a physiological disorder at least, is not an "impairment" under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Michael Fox at Jottings of an Employer's Lawyer also comments (Sept. 12) as does lawprof Sam Bagenstos (Sept. 12).

Bumrungrad International Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand, treated 58,000 American patients in 2005, and looks to treat 20 percent more this year. Why?

At Bumrungrad Hospital, [spokesman Ruben] Toral said, the lower cost of living is a major factor in the savings, but so are differences in how the medical system operates.

Doctors in Thailand pay about $5,000 a year for malpractice insurance, compared with more than $100,000 for some specialties in the United States.

Thai courts will adjudicate malpractice claims, but the largest award ever issued was about $100,000 and the law there doesn't permit damages for pain and suffering.

More on the Marcus Fiesel/Donna Trevino case, as noted here Sept. 11: "The birth mother who sued Butler County for $5 million over her son's death in foster care had no intention of reuniting with the boy, according to court records The Enquirer obtained Monday. In addition, the attorney who stands to gain millions in the civil case if the case is successful knew that." (Sheila McLaughlin, "Birth mom didn't want Marcus", Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 26)(hat tip: reader D.B.).

I was a guest this morning on the nationally syndicated radio show, discussing rumored BlackBerry lawsuits, wage and hour law, and class actions.

The TV host says a phone call should have sufficed to ask a retired teacher to make changes in his Oprah-for-president campaign (Sept. 25), which she calls "a flattering thing". ("Oprah Says Her Lawyers Overreacted", AP/Washington Post, Sept. 25).

Yes, it's regular Overlawyered mentionee Jack Thompson (Aug. 17, Jul. 24, Jun. 25, etc.) at it again -- how did you guess? This time he wants $600 million from Take-Two Interactive, Sony and other defendants over the rampage by 14-year-old Cody Posey on newsman Sam Donaldson's New Mexico ranch, which left three members of the youth's family dead in July 2004. It seems Posey had "obsessively" played the game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. (AP/Washington Post, Sept. 25)(via KipEsquire). More: Lattman, Sept. 27.

The rum maker contends that the three women's injuries "were caused after a bartender poured rubbing alcohol on the bar of the 'Secrets' adult club and ignited it as part of a promotion for flaming drinks in 2002." The complainants, it suggests, have already recovered damages from other and more culpable entities in the accident. The plaintiff's lawyer says the 151-proof liquor has been the cause of other accidents when it caught fire, but Bacardi counters that the label warns against use in flaming drinks and that the bottle includes a "flame arrester". ("Bacardi Denies Its 151 Rum Caused Bar Burn Injuries", AP/FoxNews.com, Sept. 25). For our earlier coverage, see Jul. 27.

I was a guest this afternoon on Paul Harris's radio show on KMOX, St. Louis. We discussed Judge Weinstein's ruling certifying a national class action over "light" tobacco claims (see PoL Sept. 25), the court decision last week keeping alive the Pelman obesity case against McDonald's (Sept. 22), and a deaf group's lawsuit demanding captioning at Washington Redskins football games (Sept. 21). You can listen here -- it's practically a podcast.

Bizarro-Overlawyered is upset about the fact that a legislator, over twenty years ago, mentioned a lawsuit involving "a burglar [that] fell through a skylight and injured himself only to recover thousands of dollars from the owner of the skylight," and points to this MS Word account of the case of Bodine v. Enterprise High School to debunk the tale. Those dastardly reformers, misrepresenting the facts once again! (Of course, there are several thousand posts on Overlawyered over the last seven years, and not a one before today mentions this case, so it's hardly central to the reform movement. It doesn't appear on the ATRA website, either. But why split hairs when there's a chance to demonize reformers?)

Except if one actually goes to the document, buried within a lot of rhetoric criticizing reformers for mentioning the Bodine lawsuit, we learn: Ricky Bodine was a 19-year-old high-school graduate who, with three other friends (one of whom had a criminal record), decided the night of March 1, 1982, to steal a floodlight from the roof of the Enterprise High School gymnasium. Ricky climbed the roof, removed the floodlight, lowered it to the ground to his friends, and, as he was walking across the roof (perhaps to steal a second floodlight), he fell through the skylight. Bodine suffered terrible injuries to be sure, though one questions the relevance: if the school is legally responsible for burglars' safety, it doesn't matter whether Bodine stubbed a toe or, as actually happened, became a spastic quadriplegic. But I fail to see what it is that reformers are supposedly misrepresenting. A burglar fell through a skylight, and sued the owner of the skylight for his injuries. Bodine sued for $8 million (in 1984 dollars, about $16 million today) and settled for the nuisance sum of $260,000 plus $1200/month for life, about the equivalent of a million dollars in conservatively-estimated 2006 present value.

In other words, a burglar fell through a skylight, and blamed the skylight's owners for his injuries; because the law permits such suits, and because the law does not compensate defendants for successful defenses, Bodine had the ability to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayers for injuries suffered in the course of his own criminal behavior. Bodine's only hope of recovery is the law's rejection of proximate cause as prerequisite to liability. Assemblyman Alister McAlister, the Democratic legislator who used the story to push for reform, described the facts correctly. McAllister didn't mention that Bodine was 19, but so what? He didn't mention that Bodine was 6'1" and a waiter, either, and all three facts are irrelevant. Lilliedoll accuses McAlister of falsely claiming that the legal theory was "failure to warn," but that's hardly an inaccurate description of a duty-to-trespassers theory: the alleged duty could have been fulfilled by posting visible warnings to trespassers of the dangers of traversing the roof.

Were the skylights safe? Perhaps not; there had been other accidents (all involving trespassers) at other schools, though not long enough before Bodine's accident for a school bureaucracy to have time to react. But, for most people's sense of justice, that is hardly relevant: Bodine had no business being on the roof in the first place. In the words of anti-reformer Justinian Lane, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

If this is the best the anti-reformers can do to point out "distortions" in the reform movement, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job. (Earlier in the series: Sep. 17; Sep. 18). And once again, the only people misrepresenting anything are the supporters of the litigation lobby, who once again fail to honestly engage with the reform position in their efforts to rebut it.

Update: David Nieporent notes in the comments:

Ted, you missed the best part of the skylight anecdote. In another post on Tortdeform, Cyrus Dugger approvingly cites a long passage from a book review of an anti-tort reform book. That passage also attempts to debunk the skylight story. But here's how it describes it:

The actual case involved a teenager who was on the roof of a school and, by the best accounts we can find, was trying to redirect a light because they were trying to play basketball. And while he was on the roof he stepped through the skylight, which had been painted over black. So this may have been a trespasser, but it wasn't a burglar. (Emphasis added.)

That's right: in this account which is trying to debunk myths about the case, cited approvingly by Tortdeform, it turns a thief into a guy "trying to redirect a light."

Britain: "Headteachers yesterday warned that litigious parents could soon sue schools for failing to prevent their children from drinking, smoking or taking drugs. ... Families are already taking legal action over schools' alleged failure to tackle bullying and heads say they could soon be held responsible for obesity, pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, drug taking and drinking." (James Meikle, "Heads predict lawsuits over obesity targets", The Guardian, Sept. 12).

Attorneys for the talk show host have fired off a cease and desist letter to retired Kansas City teacher Patrick Crowe, 69, over his efforts to draft her as a presidential candidate. In addition to demanding that he surrender his website oprah08.net (which lands visitors on this site) and give up his toll-free number 1-866-OPRAH08, the letter (courtesy Smoking Gun) insists (p. 2) that Crowe "refrain from using any and all references in any vehicle (including, without restriction, websites), for any reason, to Ms. Winfrey" or her properties. (Matt Campbell, "Quest to elect Oprah becomes publicity opera", McClatchy/ Seattle Times, Sept. 23; Andrew Buncombe, "Oprah blocks bid to make her President", The Independent (U.K.)/Belfast Telegraph, Sept. 22). Ann Althouse comments: "would Oprah be a good President? I think she's too litigious." (Sept. 24).

McDonald's week continues on Overlawyered (Sep. 22; Sep. 20). McDonald's is being sued over a trend of strip search hoaxes we discussed two years ago.

Here, a caller from a payphone in Florida tricked a Hinesville, Georgia, McDonald's male manager and 55-year-old male employee into strip searching and molesting a 19-year-old female employee, who put up with the telephone-instructed molestation for thirty minutes before putting an end to matters. The franchise immediately fired the two men three days after the February 2003 incident, and offered the female victim counseling and a new job, but she instead quit and sued the franchise and McDonald's. McDonald's did warn the franchise (and other franchises) about the hoax in 1999 and 2001, (and the McDonald's training manual now explicitly rules out strip searches of employees rather than relying on common sense) but such warnings are, of course, evidence that they should have warned more, according to the plaintiffs. The district court threw out the suit against McDonald's, and many of the claims against the franchisee.

The defendants' attorneys apparently have little faith that the law will have the common sense the employees lacked and blame the appropriately responsible parties rather than the deep pockets: to avoid liability they are buying into the plaintiff's theories and seeking to blame each other in September 15 arguments before the Eleventh Circuit on interlocutory appeal. Some more aggressive defense might have had an effect: "The whole thing is really stupid," said Senior Judge Peter Fay. (Alyson M. Palmer, "Bizarre 'Strip-Search Hoax' Case Before 11th Circuit", Fulton County Daily Report, Sep. 25).

It can wind up breaking the hearts of actual parents, as in this gambling-SWAT-raid tale recounted by Radley Balko (Sept. 18).

The Minnesota appeals court took exception to a provision of the law providing that a car owner would be responsible for traffic infractions caught on camera unless he or should could prove someone else was driving. (Joy Powell, "Court upholds ruling against traffic cameras", Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sept. 23). For more on the evils of traffic-cams and contingency-fee law enforcement, see Sept. 6, 2001, Apr. 8-9 and Apr. 19-21, 2002, Mar. 10, 2004, and Mar. 31, 2005.

In a first-of-its-kind suit, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is demanding damages from automakers for the impact of global warming. "Because, after all, the California attorney general is the one who should be deciding national policy on the global warming controversy," notes Ted at Point of Law. Even accepting Lockyer's contentions at face value, autos sold in California contribute less than 1 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions (David Shepherdson, "Calif. sues over auto emissions", Detroit News, Sept. 21).

Is Lockyer making it up as he goes along with the new suit, legal-theory-wise? It would seem so. His theory that autos constitute a nuisance have never been enacted as law even by the California legislature, yet he's asserting it retroactively to punish past behavior by Detroit and Japan worldwide. His views clash strongly with those held by elected officials in many other states, which is one reason our system gives the U.S. Congress, rather than the California attorney general, the right to set national environmental policy. His notion that internal combustion engines might not be unlawful in themselves, but constitute nuisance in this case because manufacturers could be doing more to minimize their impact, makes as much sense (which is to say, no sense whatever) as if he sued California's own drivers on the grounds that they contribute to the problem by taking unnecessary trips.

Prof. Bainbridge has quite a bit more to say about the abuse of power involved in using this type of litigation as an end run around the political branches of government which are the proper locus of authority on policy matters of this sort (Sept. 21).

Reader Earl Wertheimer writes: "I would rather see the automakers simply agree to stop selling cars in California. Let them walk & bicycle for a while. This would promote better fitness and also reduce future obesity lawsuits."

Reader Loren Siebert writes: "I wonder if the discovery process will include how many motor vehicles the state of CA has purchased and operates." And Nick Fenton at DTT Buzz has suggestions for more litigation (Sept. 20).

More: Lockyer "is unlikely to win" the suit, according to legal experts interviewed, especially since "a similar case brought by California and other states against utilities companies in 2004 failed in the courts". "Even with a small chance of success, environmental advocates say the new legal action is useful and necessary", one reason being "to pressure carmakers". “I hope that automakers realise this will be the first of a series of lawsuits,” says Jim Marston of Environmental Defense. (Roxanne Khamsi, "California faces uphill battle on car emissions", New Scientist, Sept. 22). EconBrowser (Sept. 24):

...the key question in my mind is not the extent to which reducing greenhouse emissions from vehicles may be a good idea, but rather whether, under previously existing U.S. law, it has been lawful to manufacture cars that emit carbon dioxide. I submit that it has, and if a judge somewhere now creatively determines that a company can be punished for such perfectly lawful behavior, then I fear that America is no longer a nation ruled by law, but rather ruled at the whim of whatever those currently wielding power happen to think might be a good idea.

Yet more: Brian Doherty, Reason "Hit and Run", Sept. 21.

George Will profiles the brave Muslim feminist, which would be worthy of mention even if it didn't lead off with this anecdote:

"While her security contingent waits outside the Georgetown restaurant, Ayaan Hirsi Ali orders what the menu calls "raw steak tartare.'' Amused by the redundancy, she speculates that it is intended to immunize the restaurant against lawyers, should a customer be discommoded by that entree. She has been in America only two weeks. She is a quick study."

See also Nov. 11, 2004; AEI, Aug. 28.

Speaking of class actions without cognizable causation: Wal-Mart refuses to sell albums that contain foul language, but a Tool CD that didn't have the Tipper-Gore "Parental Advisory" label slipped through the cracks (as did another album with a song that had the phrase "menage-a-trois" in the lyrics). This is supposedly grounds for a class action lawsuit, but it's really just a legalized extortion attempt, since if the court certifies the class, it will cost Wal-Mart about as much to defend the case as it would to just pay the plaintiffs' attorneys a nuisance settlement. (I presume they've sued The plaintiffs will be disappointed because they failed to sue beneath the Class Action Fairness Act $5 million jurisdictional requirement to keep the case in judicial hellhole Cook County; the case is thus almost certain to be removed to federal court, and the federal appellate courts for Chicago scrutinize class action settlements too closely for the hit-and-run plaintiffs' bar's comfort.)

Even plaintiffs' attorney David Fish is appalled at the blatant misuse of consumer fraud laws. Professor Childs isn't impressed, either, and Peter Lattman comments.

The infamous class action litigation seeking to blame McDonald's for the obesity of putative class members is going forward, having survived a third motion to dismiss. (Mark Hamblett, "N.Y. Judge Rebuffs McDonald's Motion to Dismiss Deceptive Ad Claims", New York Law Journal, Sep. 22). Judge Sweet's opinion will be posted to the AEI Liability Project Documents in the News page later today. I discuss the Pelman case in my Taxonomy of Obesity Litigation paper. The failure of the motion means that, unless McDonald's can persuade Judge Sweet to bifurcate discovery to resolve class certification issues first, the plaintiffs will be able to impose millions, and perhaps tens of millions, of dollars of litigation expenses on McDonald's if they dare to defend themselves instead of buying off the class. Copycat litigation is likely.

Ironically, yesterday was the day that the folks at the Bizarro-Overlawyered site chose to attack pending legislation shutting down such ludicrous suits as "pure hype" because there supposedly were no such suits. (The House already passed the bill in a bipartisan 306-120 vote.) It's a mystery to me why the special interest group of the litigation lobby is devoting so many resources trying to shut down legislation that they claim makes no difference. Earlier at Overlawyered: Apr. 20, 2005; Jan. 27, 2005; Sep. 4, 2003. Cross-posted at Point of Law.

Every so often someone suggests that poorly conceived pro se (self-represented without a lawyer) lawsuits can't count as a symptom of an overlawyered society, since lawyers aren't involved in them, right? I left a comment at Evan Schaeffer's site the other day about this question and reproduce it here:

I agree that it's fair to point out that many dubious legal claims are advanced by unrepresented pro se litigants, and also fair to point out that most lawyers would have advised against pressing many of these claims, and thus would have played a socially beneficial role had they been called into the case by the claimant.

I don't agree that the moral is that such cases have no logical link to public discontent with the legal profession. Our system is set up so as to encourage marginal pro se claims (like marginal claims generally) through liberal rules of civil procedure that make it easier to get into court, rules on causation and damages that make longshot theories seem worth a try, lack of loser-pays, and so forth. These ground rules were largely developed by, and are certainly jealously guarded by, the profession that administers and makes its living from them, and that profession is assuredly not the hatters, the cobblers, or the cigar makers.

The New York Times has more on that dispute in which an L.A. boutique is claiming that Us Weekly is wrongfully failing to give it publicity (see Sept. 12). (Mireya Navarro, "The End of a Beautiful Friendship?", Sept. 21). More: Ellis Henican, "Only in America: Suing to Be a Celeb", Newsday, Sept. 20.

Bruce Carton of Securities Litigation Watch writes, regarding the demise of our Trackback function (Sept. 20): I sent you a Trackback when I linked to your great Nelson Rocks post (my post at Securities Litigation Watch is here, where I tried to create a humorous securities disclosure/MD&A version of the Nelson Rocks disclaimer) -- I was wondering why it never showed up."

In Australia, at least, it seems this whole land claims and reparations business is getting rather serious. "The judgment will not affect homes or businesses, as the Australian courts have ruled that native title does not apply to land owned on a freehold or long-lease basis." However, if the judgment is upheld against an expected appeal by the state of Western Australia, descendents of natives may win the right to convert public lands in the city (such as urban parks) into permanent encampments, and boaters worry that control over the right to use waterways may also be affected. (Kathy Marks, The Independent (U.K.), Sept. 21; "Native title could lock up parks: Ruddock", AAP/The Australian, Sept. 22; Chris Merritt and Patricia Karvelas, "Title win boosts capital city claims", The Australian, Sept. 21). Perth is a city of 1.5 million. A native claim over land in Melbourne and its environs is expected next. (Ben Packham, "Native title claim looms", Herald-Sun, Sept. 21).

In Salisbury, England, a "firm of solicitors is offering hairdressers cash to refer customers who reveal that they have marital problems. But one hairdresser has criticised the idea as unethical and refuses to help." The law firm of Trethowans says there is nothing in violation of Law Society rules in its offer of £75 to salon stylists who steer distraught spouses its way, the fee "payable when the courts grant a decree nisi or upon the agreement of a separation deed." The law firm's director describes the payments as "just a different sort of advertising" and says he has heard of firms in other geographic areas doing the same thing. (The Times (U.K.), Sept. 1). Alex Wade comments ("'Short back and sides? How's your marriage, by the way?'", The Times (U.K.), Sept. 15).

Truly bad ideas from legal academia, part 2038 of a series: GWU lawprof Jonathan Turley wants to get rid of the common-law rule that you can't sue someone for injuring the reputation of a dead person. ("Give the Dead Their Due", Washington Post, Sept. 17). At Volokh Conspiracy, commenter elChato writes,

I for one look forward to the descendants of the original Hatfields and McCoys settling in court who was responsible for starting and perpetuating their long-ago feud. The OK Corral battle can live again. Any descendants of Boss Tweed should be able to sue bookwriters who claim he stole $200 million (where's the proof?), Huey Long's descendants should be able to sue anyone who said he engaged in bribery and corruption (he was never convicted- where's the proof?), and on and on and on.

Yes indeed, a great use for the time and energies of the court system which is otherwise sitting idle because there simply are not enough disputes among the living to keep judges busy.

"The National Association of the Deaf has filed a lawsuit against the Washington Redskins to get team officials to offer closed-captioning for the deaf and hearing-impaired at FedEx Field." The lawsuit cites the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Hamil R. Harris, "Hearing-Impaired Fans Sue for Access to Closed-Captioning", Washington Post, Sept. 20). Related: Feb. 19 and Aug. 1, 2000 (movie theaters); Mar. 9-11, 2001 (comedy club, sign interpreters)

If you can stand one more post about the McDonald's coffee case, this 2002 opinion in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, is extraordinarily sensible. Most notably, coffee served at 65 C (a mere 150 degrees Fahrenheit), will cause a full-thickness burn in 2 seconds, so the court rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving not-so-hot coffee, refuting the claims regularly made by the plaintiffs' bar that a few degrees' difference could have avoided injury. (Bogle v. McDonald's Restaurants Ltd., Neutral Citation [2002] EWHC 490 (QB), Case No: HQ0005713.)

Following a long period in which we battled trackback spam, the entire trackback function just seemed to stop functioning a while back. Since it has been some months now since any legitimate trackback has registered, I've turned the whole function off rather than potentially mislead newcomers about its availability. Technorati remains the most convenient way of seeing whether we've been linked lately on other sites.

For those who care about such things, there's now a slightly updated version of my biographical page up, with (finally) a current photo of the new clean-shaven me (as I've been since last December).

In Waukegan, Ill., 49-year-old Beatrice Vance died of a heart attack after waiting two hours in a hospital waiting room. A coroner's jury has declared her death a homicide. (Lake County News-Sun, AP, Chicago Tribune). Medical blogs are discussing: GruntDoc, MedPundit, KevinMD. Plus a discussion at Prof. Bainbridge's. (cross-posted from Point of Law).

As in earlier rounds (May 31 and Nov. 2, 2004, etc.), some proponents are advancing the view that despite its sweeping and ambiguous language, the amendment wouldn't really endanger any existing legal rights of unmarried persons in Virginia. The Roanoke Times editorially rejects that view: "The legal views conflict sharply. This can mean just one thing: years of litigation under every facet of law that touches upon human interactions. In the antagonistic court arena, the relationships of families and friends will be ripped apart. ... Voters should reject this unfair amendment, which has the potential for so many unintended consequences." ("The anti-family amendment" (editorial), Roanoke Times, Sept. 19). See also Mar. 20, 2005 (sequence of events in Michigan).

In Valparaiso, Indiana, Martha Seroczynski stages weekly protests at the county courthouse against the war in Iraq. The Porter County Board of Commissioners has asked her to show proof of homeowner's insurance and name the county as an additional insured. It's a county policy of some years' standing; "Valparaiso Elks Club member Jeanie Stevens said her organization was required to show proof of insurance for its Flag Day ceremony on June 14 at the square." Ms. Seroczynski's insurer, however, has raised objections, and that's aside from the question of why having insurance should be a prerequisite for the right to protest in the first place. County attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger has attempted to resolve the problem by asking Ms. S to sign a waiver promising not to sue the county if injured, but she refuses. "Her right to protest does not relieve us of our responsibility to protect the liability of the other 140,000 citizens of this county," County Commissioner John Evans has said. ("War protester asked for insurance proof to continue protests", AP/Fort Wayne (Ind.) News-Sentinel, Aug. 27; Robyn Monaghan, "Protester furor fuels free speech debate", Northwest Indiana Times, Sept. 6).

Sources and, in all too many instances, identifying details are missing, but maybe you could inquire further through the author's website. (James Wysong, MSNBC, Sept. 15).

Mike of the Crime & Federalism blog seems to have identified the next culprit to blame for the obesity epidemic. The record, however, should reflect that I beat him to the punch in publishing, in a law-review article that a reader informs me is the first to mention Count Chocula in the footnotes.

Now it's a group of Italian female lawyers who are suing to suppress that particular variety of commercial speech. (Nick Pisa, "Parking is no joke as Italy's women sue over beer ad", Daily Telegraph (U.K.), Sept. 17). For earlier precedents in the U.S. (Stroh's sued over "Swedish bikini team") and Canada (Ontario vs. Molson's and Labatt's ads), see Carlin Meyer, "Sex, Sin, and Women's Liberation: Against Porn-Suppression", Texas Law Review, April 1994 (PDF), at footnote 314. Another example: RealBeer.com, July 16, 1999 (Venezuela).

In Flight 5191's aftermath: "Some families are planning to hire private pathologists to perform second, independent autopsies, in addition to the ones performed by the state medical examiner's office." The idea would be to look for evidence that victims did not die from blunt force trauma from the crash, as officially conducted autopsies suggest, but instead survived that trauma and thus could have suffered prolonged agonies in the ensuing blaze, as Fayette County Coroner Gary Ginn initially assumed before getting the autopsy results. If an argument could be sustained that the loved ones' sufferings were prolonged, the door would be opened to getting huge additional monetary awards from defendants, aside from the millions expected to be paid anyway. (Linda B. Blackford, Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader, Sept. 17).

Gun control groups and transnational bureaucracies sympathetic to their cause imagined that it would be easy work to float new treaties and other initiatives restricting gun sales and ownership. Then 64 percent of Brazilians voted against a gun ban, and an unwelcome truth began to dawn on them: talk of individual rights is not just something for Americans. (Joshua Kurlantzick, "Idea Lab: Global Gun Rights?", New York Times Magazine, Sept. 17).

I was a guest on the high-rated Baltimore show this afternoon, discussing my BlackBerry column.

My latest column for the Times Online (U.K.) is now up and deals with one academic's recent prediction that employers would become targets of lawsuits based on their workers' BlackBerry addictions. An excerpt:

...it made a perfect hey-Martha-look-at-this story, arriving amid the August silly season. As it happens, media people love to confess to their own BlackBerry addictions, which subtly reflect their own importance (people need to reach me day and night!) and in any case make a more agreeable topic of conversation than their gin, shopping or sex addictions....

All that having been said, it’s very unlikely that employers need worry about BlackBerry-addiction suits. Despite rumors to the contrary, American courts have not in fact been much inclined to let sunken-eyed Jane blame her addictions on deep-pocketed James. Compulsive gamblers’ suits have mostly flopped so far - as have those alleging videogame addiction - while the very modest success enjoyed by plaintiffs in fast-food lawsuits has come on other legal theories, such as ingredient mis-labelling.

Justinian Lane writes in the comments: "I oppose any tort reform measure that places corporate efficiency ahead of the public safety."

I don't believe him. I mean, perhaps Lane honestly believes that one can always put safety ahead of efficiency, but if so, it's because he hasn't thought about it very deeply.

Florida gubernatorial nominee (and incumbent state AG) Charlie Crist (Feb. 3) has picked Jeff Kottkamp, a "mostly conservative" state representative, to be the party's nominee for lieutenant governor. Kottkamp, a plaintiff's lawyer, was the only Republican to break ranks and vote against joint-and-several liability reform. (Brian E. Crowley, "Conservative trial lawyer joins Crist on GOP ticket", Palm Beach Post, Sept. 14). See also Aug. 18, 2005, and other related: May 21 and Jan. 17, 2006, as well as Ted's of Aug. 22, 2005, etc.

Is H. Beatty Chadwick concealing major assets, as his ex-wife's lawyers contend and as a court has agreed? Or is Chadwick right in his story about not being able to lay hands on the money? And is Chadwick stubborn enough to have stuck with a false story through 11 years -- so far -- of imprisonment for contempt of court? ("A divorce case's singular result: 11 years in jail ... and counting", AP/Baltimore Sun, Sept. 17).

When Paula's Wig Boutique in Orange, Conn., filed a small claims action against Paul Lewis for $1,200, the cost of a hairpiece he hadn't paid for, he countersued seeking more than $15,000 in damages saying that the boutique's collection efforts had caused him a heart attack. (Dirk Perrefort, "Milford man counter-sues in hairpiece lawsuit", Connecticut Post, Sept. 15; "Man: Toupee almost killed me", AP/Danbury (Ct.) News-Times, Sept. 15).

In his New York Times column today, Joe Nocera recounts a battle between a company called Audible.com, headed by Donald R. Katz, and one called Digeo, backed by Paul Allen of Microsoft fame, over whether Audible was infringing on Digeo's patents. The column is behind the TimesSelect screen ("Tired of Trolls, a Feisty Chief Fights Back", Sept. 16), but David DeJean at ComputerWorld summarizes some of the relevant content and poses some pointed questions for Mr. Allen (" Patent troll? Say it ain't so, Paul Allen", Sept. 16).

Until now, we've ignored a small left-wing think-tank's admitted attempt to create a Bizarro-world version of Overlawyered. The writers are a recent college graduate and a recent law-school graduate who don't appear to have actually read anything reformers write in support of reform. (For example, one post links to Overlawyered when defending the infamous McDonald's coffee lawsuit, but fails to address any of Overlawyered's arguments for why the McDonald's coffee case is meritless, and simply repeats ATLA propaganda that Overlawyered refuted.) The blog has consisted mostly of thoughtless regurgitation of trial-lawyer talking points; when original analysis is attempted, it rises to the level of self-parody, such as an analysis of Leonard v. Nationwide (see POL Sep. 7 and links therein) that ignores the language of the insurance policy, the relevant Mississippi precedent, the existing discussion in the blogosphere, and any semblance of public policy rationalization in lieu of a Wikipedia definition to argue that the decision (and the defendant) are racist because some African-American plaintiffs might lose as a result.

Another such post is Justinian Lane's "The Myth of the Frivolous Lawsuit." The standard trial-lawyer talking point on such issues is to redefine "frivolous lawsuit" to consist of an exceedingly narrow subset of what it is laypeople are talking about when using the term "frivolous lawsuits," note that the legal system has some mechanisms to address this narrow subset of cases, and then conclude that there's no problem and thus no need for reform. (Or, as per John Edwards, announce Potemkin legislation to tackle this artificially constrained set of "frivolous lawsuits" that does nothing to actually address the problems of the tort system.) But Lane, perhaps because of his unfamiliarity with the legal system, bites off more than he can chew and inadvertently proves the reformers' point.

Ricky Lee Patterson had been seeking a $500,000 settlement from Cracker Barrel restaurant. "Prosecutors brought charges after an examination of the mouse found that it died of a fractured skull, had no soup in its lungs and had not been cooked - all of which suggested the rodent was dropped into the customer's soup after it had died." (AP, Sep. 14).

"A morning radio host fired after he threatened the wife and young daughter of a rival during on-air rants has sued his former employer for breach of contract, alleging his comments did not breach acceptable decency standards." Troi Torain, who broadcast under the name "Star", was fired by Clear Channel's Power 105 and later arrested for threatening to commit grotesque acts of abuse upon the 4-year-old daughter of a rival DJ, Raashuan Casey. A judge dismissed the charges on condition that Torain stay out of trouble for six months. His new suit says the episode wasn't significant enough to warrant his dismissal; $10 million would help make things better. (Joshua Rhett Miller, "Star on attack with Clear Channel suit", New York Metro, Sept. 14). More: Rafer Guzman, "Star: Notoriety good for business", Newsday, Aug. 30.

David Lat on nicknames of big law firms: "Cruel & Boring" for Crowell & Moring may be the best known, while "Huge Cupboards of Greed" (Hughes Hubbard & Reed) was new to me (Sept. 13).

If the Forces of Disapproval ever tire of beating up on Wal-Mart, they'll need a new business to blame for the world's not being everything it ought. George Will thinks Coca-Cola might fill the bill ("Liberalism as Condescension", syndicated/RealClearPolitics, Sept. 14).

"Large universities now employ the equivalents of small law firms on staff, and it's worth pondering what this Perry Masonification of our schools says about how they operate. ...As Ed Stoner, a retired Pittsburgh lawyer who, over a 30-year career, represented numerous schools in Western Pennsylvania, told me: 'People [today] are much less inclined to think, "I wouldn't sue the university, it'd be like suing my mother." People tend to look at the university as one more institution that might have a lot of money.'" (Mark Oppenheimer, "College Goes to Court", OpinionJournal, Jul. 14).

Back in a post of Aug. 31, 2003 we reported on the legal onslaught waged by Entrepreneur Media, publisher of Entrepreneur magazine, against Scott Smith, who had been so rash as to name his public relations shop Entrepreneur PR. Smith filed for bankruptcy after being told to pay a $1.4 million judgment, but the case has now taken a turn not so favorable for Entrepreneur Media. Last month a U.S. bankruptcy judge issued an order to show cause why he should not impose $10 million in sanctions on Entrepreneur Media and its lawyers, Latham & Watkins, over their conduct in the case, which included accusing Smith of hiding assets. "A hearing is set for next month." (Kellie Schmitt, "Bankruptcy Judge Threatens $10M in Sanctions for Latham, Client", The Recorder, Sept. 7).

"Texas plaintiffs' lawyer James 'Wes' Christian, the legal mind behind the rash of claims alleging naked short-selling in penny stocks...was a consistent seller of several companies that he is representing in high-profile and bitter legal fights," according to records obtained by the New York Post. For example, "in May 2001, several months after Nanopierce retained Christian to launch one of the initial lawsuits against naked short-sellers - and after the publicity surrounding the legal battle goosed the stock price - he began unloading blocks of stock." Christian is partnering with regular Overlawyered mentionee John O'Quinn on the naked-short-selling lawsuits, which have not fared well in court thus far. (Roddy Boyd, New York Post, Aug. 18).

Reporter Christopher Faille interviewed me for an August 23 article in the subscriber-only HedgeWorld. The article quotes me as saying that Mr. Christian

"seems to be preserving a possible line of argument that inducing a stock-price rise isn't really part of his business plan, he just happens to own these stocks because the companies pay him in shares, he would have been happy to take cash payment instead, et cetera."

That was precisely what Mr. Christian said in the interview Tuesday—that he took the stock instead of cash simply because Nanopierce didn't have the cash necessary for him to do the original pre-litigation due diligence.

Older ethical rules -- now often fallen into disuse -- used to discourage or prohibit lawyers from taking stakes in enterprises they represented in litigation. As the HedgeWorld article quotes me as saying, "If what attorney Christian is doing is consistent with the ethical rules of the Texas bar, maybe it's time to revisit those rules."

The Democratic candidate, Patricia Madrid, is state attorney general and a former trial attorney; ATLA has provided her campaign $10,000 (among the $430,000 in trial lawyer contributions) and made an extensive ad buy. (Wilson press release, Aug. 31) Madrid's office has been using taxpayer money to blanket the state with mailed pamphlets trumpeting recent settlements by the AG's office, prominently featuring the same photo she uses on her campaign site. (Steve Terrell, "Roundhouse Roundup", The New Mexican, Aug. 31).

The lawyers just love to sue Rockstar Games (e.g., Aug. 17; Mar. 5; Jul. 27, 2005; Feb. 19, 2005; Dec. 29, 2003); this particularly ludicrous suit alleged that "Grand Theft Auto:San Andreas," the first part of which takes place in an ersatz parody of Los Angeles, infringed the trademark of a local strip club, "The Play Pen" because the game's version, "The Pig Pen," (one of hundreds of locations in the game) had a similar name and also had a parking lot and a round awning. Judge Margaret M. Morrow rebuffed the claim. But it took 100 entries on the docket, numerous depositions of game designers, expert-witness surveys, and a 55-page judicial opinion before this common-sense issue could be resolved in court. Moreover, the PlayPen attorneys say they'll appeal, subjecting the matter to the random-legal-opinion generation of the Ninth Circuit. (AP, Aug. 8; Trademark Blog; E.S.S. Entertainment 2000 v. Rock Star Videos, CV 05-02966 MMM (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2006)).

In the weird coincidence department, one of the junior defense attorneys in the suit is not only someone who has worked on behalf of the RIAA in their oft-criticized "spamigation" suits against individuals who allegedly illegally download songs, but a co-creator of the lonelygirl15 Internet phenomenon.

The amusing and well-written rock-climbing disclaimer we linked to yesterday had already been the subject of some attention around the web. Attorney David Canton used it as the model for a disclaimer about doing business on the Internet that was in turn picked up on Slashdot (May 6).

Unfortunately, the Nelson Rocks Preserve itself, which includes some of the most challenging terrain in the Eastern United States, has mostly closed itself to rock climbing by the public following a number of injuries and rescue emergencies. A few days ago (Sept. 9) Tom at AllClimbing.com passed along a rumor that the preserve might reopen next year.

Happily, her retirement proved temporary.

A whole field of malpractice litigation has been based on contentions that babies could have been spared injury if doctors used Caesarean sections more often, and doctors, in part responding to the incentives sent by the legal system, now order the procedure at high rates even when it is not clearly indicated. But what if C-sections themselves turn out to be much more dangerous to babies than we had realized? (Nigel Hawkes, "Babies 'are more likely to die' after an elective Caesarean", The Times (U.K.), Sept. 7)(via the returned MedPundit).

Some time ago, celebrity boutique and paparazzi-magnet Kitson had a legal dispute with Us Weekly magazine over payment for a book party the store threw for an Us editor. It was settled for a small chunk of change and a standard non-disparagement clause over the lawsuit. Us Weekly had the last laugh, however; it stopped covering the store in its magazine, to the point of cropping out the Kitson logo when publishing photos of celebrities shopping there. Or it thought it had the last laugh, because Kitson is now suing Us Weekly claiming a legal right to the publicity the magazine is withholding and alleging $10,000/week in damages from the loss of publicity. The Jossip blog has the complaint and somewhat more detail than the mainstream press account. (Andrew Blankstein, "Celebrity Boutique Sues Us Weekly, Saying Lack of Coverage Is Hurting Business", LA Times, Sep. 12) (via Romenesko).

Long, blunt, amusing warning and disclaimer by the folks who run the Nelson Rocks Preserve, a private wild area in West Virginia. "Live with it or stay away. ... Don't think it can't happen. ...You're on your own." Update: more about the disclaimer here.

The wildly popular oval "W" stickers sported nationwide by supporters of President Bush's 2004 re-election bid are at the center of a federal copyright case in Texarkana. This week, a judge set a Nov. 7 trial date.

Jerry Gossett of Wichita Falls claims the stickers are based on his idea, which he copyrighted in 2001. He accuses the Republican National Committee and campaign material maker Spalding Group of stealing his concept after he pitched it to them."

A plaintiff's expert has estimated damages at $100 million, defense attorneys said....

Texarkana, where Bill Clinton appointee David Folsom presides as the federal judge, has a reputation as a plaintiff-friendly venue, but Altman [Gossett attorney William Altman of Wichita Falls] said he simply sought a speedy docket.

It's between two of legal academia's best-known bloggers -- Gordon Smith of The Conglomerate and Steve Bainbridge of the eponymous blog -- and it concerns who should be more the boss in corporate governance, directors or shareholders. Catch it here.

One of the more notorious lawsuits in modern Australian history finally reaches a conclusion as rival opera troupes agree to split the bequest of the late Melva Thompson, who died four years ago at 95. Of her A$2 million benefaction, more than $800,000 has been eaten up on legal fees. (Corrie Perkin, The Australian, Sept. 6).

The commenters at Starbucks Gossip aren't impressed.

For our coverage at the time, start here (scroll down a little, up a lot). Much of this site's later coverage of 9/11 litigation is to be found (for reasons of association, if not exactly logic) on our aviation page.

Well debunked by Jack Shafer ("Press box: Nicotine madness", Slate, Sept. 1).

Reader D.B. of Cincinnati writes, regarding "not about the money" lawsuits (Sept. 1, Sept. 7, etc.):

You may be interested in the tragic story from Cincinnati. Three year old Marcus Fiesel was taken from his mother. She had three children by three fathers and they lived in a flea infested place which was smeared with feces and lacked food. She told police that the children were "their problem" now. The children were put into foster care. Marcus was placed in a home where he should not have been, as the foster father had a police record that was not discovered. His foster mother pretended to faint at a local park, and when she awoke she said Marcus was missing. There was a huge community search, but Marcus was never found. Later police discovered that the foster parents had wrapped him in a blanket and left him in a hot closet for 2 days while they attended a family reunipn.Then the foster father burned his body. The birth mother is suing everyone she can for $5 million and saying it is "not about the money." There is outrage in Cincinnati first over the circumstances of his death and now over this outrageous lawsuit. The Cincinnati press has covered the story for the last 2 weeks with almost daily updates. Here is a report on the lawsuit and a Cincinnati Enquirer editorial.

Manhattan solo practitioner Andrew Lavoott Bluestone claimed to be sending out informational advisories on legal issues, but a judge ruled that he was promoting his practice and implicitly proposing a commercial transaction. (Anthony Lin, "Judge Rules Attorney's Faxes Are Prohibited Advertising", New York Law Journal, Sept. 6). More on junk fax law: Jul. 31, etc.

"Passengers on a flight from France to Mauritius have filed suit against Air France after musician Bonnie Tyler performed a song at the request of the co-pilot. ... The complaining passengers reportedly claimed they were traumatized by the experience and had feared for their safety during the celebration." ("Passengers complain after Tyler sings", UPI, Sept. 3). Flyertalk pages us (Sept. 5) and David Lat also notes the case (Sept. 6).

The exotic dancers' lawsuit against Anchorage strip clubs Fantasies on 5th Avenue and Crazy Horse cites the Alaska Wage and Hour Act and seeks class-action status. Key quote: "This isn't about how much money I make in tips," said dancer Jennifer Prater. "This is about wage and hour laws." A 1987 Alaska Supreme Court ruling rejected clubs' contention that the dancers were independent contractors as opposed to employees. (Megan Holland, Anchorage Daily News, Sept. 6).

A federal judge in the District of Columbia has dismissed a lawsuit against dairy manufacturers filed by the animal-rights group that calls itself the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). The lawsuit claimed that it was legally wrongful for producers not to label dairy products to warn of the risk of lactose intolerance ("District Court Dismisses Anti-Dairy Lawsuit", USAgNet/Wisconsin Ag Connection, Sept. 5). Ted covered the suit Jun. 21, 2005; see also May 28, 2004. Bill Childs comments on the dismissal (Aug. 23) and also has details of a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court (over two dissents) that a hair oil manufacturer did not have to warn of the dangers of ingesting its product.

Apple—usually the victim of plaintiffs' attorneys (e.g., May 23; Feb. 2; Oct. 27; Aug. 9, 2005, etc.)—has decided to glorify one, Mark Lanier, with a three-page puff piece co-advertising Lanier and Mac computers. The story falsely portrays the multi-millionaire as a "David" going up against a Goliath, falsely claims he won two Vioxx cases (one of his "wins" was for fifteen dollars), and falsely claims he received a $250 million "judgment" in a Vioxx case (not so). For more on how Lanier really operates, see today's Point of Law post and Point of Law's Vioxx litigation coverage. (h/t W.F.)

Notwithstanding Ted's debunking post of Aug. 25 (see also Sept. 5), the press continues to take this subject seriously, complete with its supposed legal ramifications. (Jay Akasie, "‘Addiction' to BlackBerries May Bring on Lawsuits", New York Sun, Sept. 7). Jonathan Adler leads a discussion at Volokh Conspiracy (Sept. 7).

That proved to be a losing argument for British attorney Timothy Gascoyne, who defended the sightless Omed Aziz from a charge of dangerous driving after Aziz was apprehended operating his Peugeot 405 in a wrong lane approaching oncoming traffic on the ring road in the West Midlands. The winning argument, which prosecuting attorney Peter Love got to make: "A blind man controlling a vehicle is inherently dangerous. A careful and competent driver would not dream of driving in this manner." Aziz, of Wednesbury, drove for half a mile following the instructions of a friend in the passenger seat (who was also not a lawful driver) on braking and steering. (Nick Britten, "I'm perfectly safe on the roads, says blind driver", Daily Telegraph, Sept. 5; "Blind man drove car for half-a-mile", Western Mail, Sept. 5).

Virginia Postrel says Marvel Comics did itself no favors recently by taking a tough negotiating stance over The Atlantic's proposed cover use of one of its images. (Sept. 6). I had no idea anyone was asserting trademark rights over the word superhero. (Corrected Sept. 10 to fix error about how The Atlantic was going to use the image -- see comments.)

"Laura Balemian, whose husband Edward J. Mardovich died in the World Trade Center, received one of the largest awards paid out by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund: $6.7 million. But she in turn paid out what is almost certainly the highest legal fee. While the vast majority of victims were represented before the fund pro bono or for a nominal fee, Balemian paid her lawyer, Thomas J. Troiano, a one-third contingent fee, or over $2 million." In an affidavit, 9/11 fund special master Kenneth Feinberg calls Troiano's fee "shocking and unconscionable", and says that fund guidelines recommend that attorney fees be kept under 5 percent of family recoveries; Troiano, however, says Mrs. Balemian knew what she was getting into and that his efforts produced outstanding results. (Anthony Lin, "Attorney's $2 Million 9/11 Fee Called 'Shocking, Unconscionable'", New York Law Journal, Aug. 29; Alfonso A. Castillo, "9/11 widow battles over attorney's fee", Newsday, Sept. 1; MyShingle, Aug. 28).

"The chairman of British betting company Sportingbet, Peter Dicks, was detained by American authorities in the early hours of today in what is being seen as a further crackdown on online gambling. The detention of Mr Dicks, 64, comes just two months after David Carruthers, the chief executive of BetOnSports was arrested in Texas on alleged fraud and racketeering charges. Mr Carruthers, who has maintained his innocence, was on his way to the company's offices in Costa Rica." (Miles Costello, "Sportingbet boss detained in US", Times Online (UK), Sept. 7). For our earlier coverage, see my Times Online column on Carruthers' arrest as well as Jul. 20 and Jul. 27.

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: "Police said Jeffrey Rothman died in March 2001 at age 20 after jumping off Second Avenue Pier, and an autopsy determined that he had taken the drug Ecstasy and died accidentally. His father, David Rothman, charges that the police department did not follow proper procedures, did not treat the case as a possible homicide and showed a general lack of professionalism." The senior Rothman, who is filing his suit without a lawyer, says it's not about the money and talks of using the $10 million for charity. (Lisa Fleisher, "Trial date set in lawsuit against MB, police", Myrtle Beach (S.C.) Sun-News, Aug. 24; comments at Fark).

Orac, whose blog has done much to rebut vaccine conspiracy theories published in the mainstream media, expresses hope (via Childs) that a new study showing the likelihood of autism increases with the age of the father will add to the weight of evidence showing that autism is genetic, rather than caused by vaccines.

Of course, Orac is presuming that litigation-driven theories and for-hire-expert testimony have any basis in rationality or science. We have known for nearly twenty years that "sudden acceleration" is much more likely to occur to elderly, new, or very short drivers, and demonstrating conclusively that it is purely a function of pedal misapplication, yet we still see lawsuits (and verdicts!) today alleging that (apparently age-discriminating) magnetic interference with defective cruise control causes accidents (e.g., Aug. 7).

I have a short op-ed in Washingtonpost.com on the eat-one's-cake-and-have-it-too trend in civil litigation to attempt to undo contracts after the fact. (cross-posted at Point of Law)

Houston plaintiff's lawyer John O'Quinn, famed for his huge fee hauls in asbestos, tobacco and silicone breast implant cases, was the winning bidder at $500,000 at a Labor Day auction of a Lamborghini race car signed by celebrities. O'Quinn "also spent $335,000 on a Batmobile used in the film 'Batman Forever.' His other purchases at the auction included $250,000 for a 1938 Cadillac Town Car used by Pope Pius XII and $290,000 for a 1941 Packard limousine used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt." (AP/Houston Chronicle, Sept. 5; Houstonist, Sept. 5)(title allusion).

"As of Friday, when the 60-day blackout period for 'electioneering communications' by nonprofit interest groups begins, political speech will enjoy less protection than dirty movies. While a sexually explicit film is protected by the First Amendment if it has some socially redeeming value, an 'electioneering communication' is forbidden even if it deals with important and timely public policy issues." (Jacob Sullum, syndicated/Reason.com, Sept. 6).

September 1 UPI interview with William Plested III, president of the American Medical Association (via Kevin MD):

Q: Ken Suggs, head of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, recently told UPI that doctors and lawyers should stop fighting each other and unite against the medical malpractice insurance companies who keep hiking insurance premiums to push their profits higher. How would you respond?

A: Do you have any idea what happened with medical malpractice insurance? It's almost totally in the hands of doctor-owned companies; doctors who put together their finances to get a company to give them insurance, because the for-profit insurers all ran. There is no profit in this; (the insurers) left it. And people who are not out to make a profit, they're just out to protect doctors (via) their own insurance companies, they're the one who are left.

Related.

For years lawyers representing the owners of the children's-show character Barney have been firing off cease-and-desist letters to parodists who've portrayed various forms of violence being visited on the purple dinosaur (see, for example, Jun. 25, 2001). Now one such exchange has escalated, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation has sued Lyons Partnership, owner of Barney rights, seeking a court's declaration that Stuart Frankel is not committing infringement by publishing a Barney parody site. (Robert Ambrogi, Legal Blog Watch, Aug. 24). Update Nov. 30: Lyons backs off.

They're "beginning to look like a fiasco", opines David Hardy (Aug. 31):

A second dealer has filed a counter-suit in his home state, a NY dealer they charged with criminal offenses had to be let off with disorderly conduct (in most states, about a minor a misdemeanor as they have), they seized guns from that dealer but had to return them, the city has settled with two on terms that have them audited by a special master (whom the city has to pay)... oh, and a third dealer now says he's going to sue.

More details: Bradley Hope, "Gun Dealer Hits Bloomberg on Sting Operation", New York Sun, Aug. 31.

"In a strange twist to Britain’s newest terrorism scare, a regional police force admitted Monday that it had sent officers for 'diversity training' to an Islamic school that the police searched Sunday as part of a crackdown on jihadist recruiters and trainers. In a statement, the Sussex police said the Jameah Islameah school south of London 'has been used by officers and staff undergoing advanced training for their role as diversity trainers to the rest of the work force.'" (Alan Cowell, "British School, Searched in Inquiry, Was Used to Train Police", New York Times, Sept. 5).

I'm scheduled to be a guest this morning at 11:45 Eastern Time on CNBC's "Morning Call", discussing the possibilities that employers will get sued over their employees' "BlackBerry addiction". I'll be arguing that such suits are unlikely to get anywhere if filed.

I'm not convinced it was the most edifying panel on habeas corpus ever, but if you prefer to watch me on video than read me on the subject, the American Constitution Society has streaming video of the June panel "Limiting the Great Writ: Restrictions on Habeas Corpus."

Merck wants Leonel Garza's $13 million verdict reviewed. (AP/Boston Globe, Sept. 1). For other doubts about the case, see Ted's post of Apr. 23 and Point of Law coverage here.

No, that couldn't possibly be true. There must be some error in the report. (WSJ law blog, Aug. 30; Nathan Koppel, "Lawyer's Charge Opens Window On Bill Padding", Wall Street Journal, Aug. 30 ($); Stephen Bainbridge, Aug. 30; Carolyn Elefant, Aug. 31; Matthew Farmer (ex-Holland & Knight) letter to judge in PDF format).

A prisoner at Bullingdon near Bicester, Oxfordshire, "is suing the Prison Service after he cut himself falling from the top bunk in his cell". The inmate told a prisoners' magazine that bunk beds were "an accident waiting to happen". (BBC, Aug. 27). As Ted noted Aug. 16, a New Jersey appeals court recently overturned a jury verdict awarded to a student who fell from a loft bed, ruling the dangers obvious.

Apparently there is no honor among thievesplaintiffs' attorneys. The Texas Shark Watch Blog tells us that John Edwards' money-man, Fred Baron, has sued his former law firm:

Never one to overlook any conceivable cause of action, Baron alleges in his petition filed in Dallas state district court breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty, tortious interference, conspiracy to tortious interference, fraud or alternatively negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy to fraud, fraudulent transfer, conversion, legal malpractice, negligence, unjust enrichment, and alternatively promissory estoppel or quantum meruit.

The blog has much more about plaintiffs' bar involvement in Texas politics, including the use of over a million dollars of trial-lawyer money to support the independent-Republican candidacy of Carole Strayhorn, presumably to split the Republican vote and unseat a governor who has done much for reform. Efforts by trial lawyers to supplant reform-friendly Republican legislators with their own stalking-horse candidates in Republican primaries were unsuccessful, however.

Larry Ribstein has some advice for Times business columnist and not always intentional comedian Ben Stein (Sept. 3).

I suppose Evan Schaeffer pointed to this post by a USD 1L who is being incorrectly taught that the McDonald's coffee lawsuit isn't frivolous to get my goat, but I just find it very, very sad that a generation of law students is being taught to twist the tort system improperly. Of course, if someone googles "McDonald's coffee lawsuit", nine out of the top ten links will be happy to share with them the ATLA fictions about the lawsuit; it's only a matter of time that the trial lawyer wikiality replaces the truth.

Thus reads the advertising tagline of Colorado Springs law firm McCormack & Murphy P.C. Shrewd marketing? Disturbingly exclusionary? A manifestation of sincere religious conviction? All of these? (David Lat, Above the Law, Aug. 31, who got it from Parenthetical Statement).

Posted on a case Ted had already covered last month. This is the replacement post. My mistake. Sorry!

Illinois, like some other states, allows parties to request a single change of judge as of right. That statute is questionable enough public policy as it is, but Madison County judges had interpreted the rule to permit class action plaintiffs to obtain automatic changes for each plaintiff in the case—thus effectively permitting a class action attorney to pick his judge. Madison County Chief Judge Ann Callis has changed the rule so that it limits substitution of judge to only one time as a right, and the Korein Tillery law firm is now challenging that rule's constitutionality, which could delay its implementation for a couple of years if they get the right judges to hear the case. (Steve Gonzalez, "'Judge shopping' rule challenged by Tillery firm", Madison County Record, Aug. 31; Brian Brueggeman, "Law firm set to challenge court ban on automatic judge change", Belleville News-Democrat, Sep. 1). (Cross-posted at Point of Law.)

Thomas Joseph Bentey flunked out of St. Thomas University School of Law of Miami, and claims it was a conspiracy of the school to admit students it knew would flunk out, and wants his tuition and room and board back (as well as damages for lost wages and "embarrassment"). (The complaint also complains that Bentey's mother called the law school, but that it refused to review his C grade in Contracts II, and seeks an injunction for a review of the grade.) The attorneys seek class action status, which is frivolous on its face, because the individualized issue of whether a St. Thomas student flunked out because of their own underachieving would clearly predominate any group inquiry even if the conspiracy theory had any basis in rationality. One might also make some adverse inferences about Bentey's attorney, Michael Lombardi of Lombardi & Lombardi, for coming up with such a cockamamie theory of recovery that will only result in more embarrassment for his client, but he is a "Super Lawyer." Other defendants in the shotgun complaint include the ABA and the Department of Education, suggesting hopes for a number of nuisance settlements. (Bentey v. St. Thomas University School of Law, No. 2:06-cv-03463-PGS-RJH (D.N.J.); Leigh Jones, "Law School Sued for Expelling Students", National Law Journal, Sep. 1).

Update: Orin Kerr comments at the VC blog.

September 11 litigation as an industry, courtesy of the asbestos/tobacco zillionaires from South Carolina:

While other lawyers have resolved most or all of their cases -- at least 32 of the roughly 90 total lawsuits have settled -- Motley Rice has settled only three. ...According to several lawyers and plaintiffs in the case, Motley Rice has made unusually high settlement demands, often 5 to 10 times higher than similar plane crash cases. The higher demands stem from Motley's calculations for what it calls "terror damages" -- compensation for the amount of time frightened victims knew they were fated to die -- of between $750,000 and $1 million a minute, according to those lawyers and clients, who requested that their names not be used because the settlement process is confidential.

The story deserves a place in the "Not About The Money" files because client after client informs the Boston Globe that their litigation stance is entirely unrelated to that disdained cash nexus; presumably it's just happenstance that they have wound up represented by lawyers who are making monetary recovery a very high priority indeed. Somehow one is reminded of the character in Flannery O'Connor: "Mrs. Hopewell had no bad qualities of her own but she was able to use other people's in such a constructive way that she never felt the lack." (via Lattman)(cross-posted from Point of Law).

The New Republic, like the Washington Monthly before it, is hyping this newly hatched groupuscule which aims to woo gun owners into an anti-NRA coalition. Trouble is, it's a bit of an uphill slog convincing people you're all for private gun ownership when your executive director played an active role on the plaintiff's side in the lawsuit campaign against the firearms industry (see Jun. 29). (Michael Blanding, "Gun crazy", The New Republic, Sept. 4). Cam Edwards has the details (Aug. 30).

"For no apparent reason, the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have dragged [MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard] Lindzen and about 15 other global- warming skeptics into a lawsuit over auto- emissions standards. California et al. have asked the auto companies to cough up any and all communications they have had with Lindzen and his colleagues, whose research has been cited in court documents." (Alex Beam, "MIT's inconvenient scientist", Boston Globe, Aug. 30).