November 2007 Archives

"Central Florida's most famous hotel owner, Harris Rosen, lashed out at hurricane expert Dr. William Gray for his gloomy storm predictions saying they have damaged state tourism. Rosen said he believes Florida lost billions of dollars in business because of Gray's outlook and even threatened a lawsuit. 'Look, doctor, you've made these forecasts and you were wrong once,' Rosen said. 'You made the forecast and you were wrong twice. Are you going to continue to make these forecasts?'" ("Hotel Mogul Threatens Lawsuit Over Hurricane Expert's Gloomy Forecasts", WKMG/Local6.com, Nov. 29). And: more thoughts from Florida Masochist.

David Rossmiller at Insurance Coverage Blog (who's also a co-blogger of mine at Point of Law) continues to be the must-read source on this sensational story and its fast-breaking developments. He's posted a PDF of Jones v. Scruggs, the lawsuit before Judge Lackey by lawyers who say they were cut out of Katrina fees. He also offers some answers to the question posed by a commenter at Above the Law, who asks, "What kind of cheap-o offers a $40,000 bribe to resolve a dispute over $26.5 million in attorneys fees?!" (To begin with, the ruling sought from Judge Lackey would not have disposed of the fee claim, just sent it to arbitration.) Martin Grace scents a ripe irony in the fee-dispute lawsuit, noting that it charged Scruggs with engaging in the same sorts of tactics toward fellow lawyers that he regularly accused insurers of practicing toward their insureds: "lowballing claims and producing fake documents in support of the claims."

Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft writes that Judge Lackey "presumably [agreed] to tape his calls with the defendants. I suspect the F.B.I. also got a wiretap on Scruggs' or his co-defendants' phones, since there are several calls described in the Indictment that don't involve Judge Lackey. Getting a wiretap on a law firm's telephone is unusual -- particularly due to the substantial and cumbersome minimization efforts required to ensure that calls of clients and lawyers unrelated to the criminal investigation are not overheard." At the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, columnist Sid Salter has more on co-defendants Tim Balducci and Steve Patterson. A PDF of the indictment is here.

The internal cohesion of the anti-insurer lawyer consortium known as the Scruggs Katrina Group (SKG) appears at present to be under extreme pressure. Rossmiller reports that "policyholder lawyers in general tell me they are seething over Scruggs" and in particular that at least some lawyers who have been his allies "don't want their names and their cases tarnished with the Scruggs name". On Thursday an extraordinary contretemps developed in which SKG co-founder Don Barrett of Lexington, Miss. sent a letter (PDF) to a judge hearing Katrina cases against State Farm, suggesting that SKG was being re-formed without Scruggs and would take over the litigation with he, Barrett, as lead counsel (Lattman, WSJ). Within hours, Scruggs had dispatched a letter of his own (PDF) saying that Barrett was misinformed, that it was up to plaintiff families to decide who they wanted to represent them, and that many would undoubtedly wish to retain Scruggs (second posts at Lattman and Rossmiller). As of Thursday evening, the Scruggs Katrina Group website has prominently posted the Scruggs letter but not the Barrett one; one might speculate that if some sort of split within SKG is imminent, the website operation, at least, may have maintained loyalty to the Scruggs side.

On the statewide political repercussions, see Majority in Mississippi, Sid Salter at the Clarion-Ledger, and Chris Lawrence at Signifying Nothing, who also quotes Salter in a comment thread predicting: "The next sob story will be that Dickie's indictment is about Bush administration persecution of trial lawyers and a rehash of Paul Minor's problems." Take it away, Adam Cohen and Scott Horton!

On political repercussions nationally, it didn't take long for the Hillary Clinton campaign to cancel the Scruggs-hosted fundraiser that was to have been headlined by husband Bill Clinton next month (Associated Press, WSJ Washington Wire). The North Dakota political blog Say Anything thinks politicos in that state should return the (rather substantial) sums they have received from Scruggs and colleagues, but one may reasonably assume that such calls will be ignored, just as elected officials have been in no hurry to divest themselves of the booty collected from such figures as felon/mega-donor William Lerach.

Where are Scruggs's admirers and defenders? One can only suppose that somber music is playing in the corridors at the business section of the New York Times, which has run one moistly admiring profile of the Mississippi attorney after another in the past couple of years. As of 3 p.m. Thursday, the Times's very restrained story on the indictment was in a suitably inconspicuous position on the paper's online business page -- the 15th highest story in the left column, in fact. The story, by serial Scruggs profiler Joseph B. Treaster, quotes the relatively ambiguous line attributed to defendant Timothy Balducci -- "All is done, all is handled and all went well.” -- but omits the far more smoking-gunnish "We paid for this ruling; let’s be sure it says what we want it to say.” And things are anything but upbeat at Mother Jones, where Stephanie Mencimer concedes that she finds the indictment "pretty damning".

More links: Paul Kiel, TPM Muckraker (indictment "devastating... it doesn't look good for Scruggs"); Legal Schnauzer (defender of Paul Minor distinguishes the two cases); WSJ interview with Judge Lackey (sub-only) and editorial (free link), Rossmiller Friday morning post (certain details in indictment suggest that a conspiracy insider, possibly Balducci, may have cooperated with prosecutors)(& welcome Instapundit, Point of Law, TortsProf, Adler @ Volokh, Open Market, Y'allPolitics, Majority in Mississippi, Rossmiller readers).

Time running out to roast chestnuts by an open fire: "Under the auspices of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 'public hearings' are being held to determine the fate of the family hearth. Those of us who live in rural areas have a pretty good idea what the outcome is going to be." (Jeffrey Earl Warren, "Should fireplace fires be banned?", San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 22; Jonathan Curiel, "Smog board wants to ban wood fires on bad-air nights in winter", Nov. 6). This has been building for a while (Dec. 27, 2002; Dec. 24, 2001; Feb. 28, 2001). Related: Denis Cuff, "Air quality agency has beef with charbroiling smoke", InsideBayArea.com, Nov. 28.

Jurists behaving badly dept.:

According to the commission report, [Niagara Falls, N.Y. city court judge Robert] Restaino was presiding over a domestic-violence case when a ringing mobile phone interrupted proceedings. When no one took responsibility for the ringing phone, Restaino ordered that court security officers search for the device.

About 70 defendants were in the courtroom that day to take part in a monitoring program for domestic violence offenders. ... After all the defendants denied having the phone or knowing who it belonged to, Restaino sent 46 people to jail. Fourteen who were unable to make bail were handcuffed and jailed for several hours.

The New York state Commission on Judicial Conduct removed Restaino from office Tuesday, calling his action "a gross deviation from the proper role of a judge." (Janine Brady, "Panel gives judge a ringing rebuke", CNN, Nov. 28; Elefant, Nov. 28).

Why Norm Pattis won't be voting for John Edwards (Nov. 28)(via Elefant).

The ABA Journal has named Overlawyered to its inaugural "Blawg 100", one of thirteen sites labeled "Generally Speaking", i.e., generalist law sites. In fact, you can vote for us here as best of category if you like. Note also that another of the thirteen is my and Ted's other site, Point of Law. Howard Bashman's ever-popular How Appealing at Law.com is currently leading in the balloting, but our sites are at present doing well in the competition, with Point of Law at #4 position and Overlawyered at #2 (cross-posted, in slightly altered form, from Point of Law).

P.S. Ernie the Attorney, as usual unfailingly generous, has some comments about the history of the blawg form, as well as the story of a New Orleans photo not taken.

And now we're in the lead -- even though, as another of our generous brethren states the case, "for every vote that QuizLaw gets, an angel is granted a demurrer".

"A federal grand jury today indicted one of the nation’s most successful trial lawyers, Richard F. Scruggs, on criminal charges that he and other lawyers engaged in a scheme to bribe a judge." The 13-page indictment charges five lawyers, including Scruggs and his son and law partner Zach, with offering Mississippi state judge Henry Lackey $40,000 for favorable action in a lawsuit filed against the Scruggs firm over Katrina insurance fees. "The indictment says Judge Lackey, who sits in Mississippi’s Third Circuit Court District, reported the 'bribery overture' to federal authorities and agreed to assist investigators in an 'undercover capacity.'" (AP/New York Times, Nov. 28; Biloxi Sun-Herald).

Jerry Mitchell of the Jackson Clarion-Ledger is out front on the story, reporting: "Some of the conversations between Balducci and the judge were apparently taped," and reporting alleged language uttered by some of the indicted lawyers, including: "We paid for this ruling; let’s be sure it says what we want it to say.” ("Scruggs arrested on bribery charges", Nov. 28). David Rossmiller is following developments at Point of Law and at his blog, where he has a PDF of the indictment.

More: Y'all Politics has considerable reader comment about the implications for other Mississippi political figures, and notes drily that "for starters, Dickie Scruggs fundraiser for Hillary Clinton on December 15th featuring Bill Clinton, will likely be cancelled." Many sites, including Michelle Malkin's, RedState, and Tim Noah's "Chatterbox" at Slate, are speculating on the close proximity of these developments to the surprise retirement of Scruggs' brother-in-law, Sen. Trent Lott.

Once again, the combination of contingency fees and law enforcement spells trouble: an article by Tresa Baldas in the National Law Journal reports that controversy is mounting over the activities of private firms that go after noncustodial parents' child support obligations in exchange for a percentage share of the bounty ("Suits collecting around child support collectors", Sept. 17, no free link). "Critics of the industry -- many of them lawyers -- claim that private collectors of child support are engaging in predatory practices, such as charging excessive contingency fees as high as 50%, and using aggressive collection tactics that run afoul of federal laws." The private agencies escape the scrutiny of federal debt collection laws and have been operating effectively without regulation, but state lawmakers are now moving to fill the gap, with 13 states having passed laws intended to protect the services' clients (if not always their adversaries) by capping fees, prohibiting the agencies from collaring state-directed payments, and giving clients more leeway to withdraw from contracts.

Thomas Geoghegan's See You in Court: How the Right Made America a Lawsuit Nation was, as Peter Lattman notes, reviewed favorably by Adam Liptak this weekend.

A working paper of my rebuttal is available on SSRN.

Get your scorecard here (Molly McDonough, "Who Are the Lawyers Behind the Presidential Bids?", ABA Journal, Nov. 26).

Since 1979 nineteen countries led by Sweden have banned corporal punishment by parents of kids in the home. A bill scheduled for debate today before the Massachusetts legislature would make that state the first to join the trend. (Laurel Sweet, "Bay State’s going slap-happy", Boston Herald, Nov. 27; "Anti-spanking bill is folly" (editorial), Nov. 28; Stephen Bainbridge, Nov. 22 (New Zealand)). Earlier: Apr. 19, 2004 (U.K.); Feb. 14 and Feb. 24, 2007 (proposal in California).

More: such laws in both Sweden and New Zealand have been softened (i.e., made more lenient toward parents) by the interpolation of reasonableness standards, per Kiwi website Big News (via QuizLaw).

All-medical edition:

• Shocker for New York docs: possible assessment of $50K apiece to make up losses at nonprofit med-mal insurer [White Plains Journal-News Chamber reprint]
• Dr. Ray Harron, a central figure in furor over mass asbestos and silicosis screenings, seems rather hard to locate at the moment, though he does have a lawyer speaking on his behalf [NY Times, WV Record]
• Another push to raise the threshold of liability for emergency room care in Arizona [AZ Business Gazette]
• End run around Roe? Some state legislatures attaching sweeping new tort liabilities to the provision of abortions [Childs]
• Three nominees for worst-founded medical lawsuit, lamentably unsourced [Medical Justice]
• Spokane psychiatrist shouldn't have engaged in romantic (though not sexually consummated) dalliance with forty-ish patient; that much is clear. But should she now get cash? [AP/Seattle Times]
• "Baby falls to floor during home delivery, mom sues hospital for too-early discharge" [SE Texas Record]
• A sensitive subject: malpractice and doctors' suicides [KevinMD, a while back]
• "If the 'loser pays' system is so bad, why do most other countries keep it around instead of switching over to an 'Americanized' system of tort law?" [WhiteCoat Rants]
• Hospital, ambulance service among those sued after fatal crash of NFL's Derrick Thomas [seven years ago on Overlawyered]

Walter's appearance at the Federalist Society Lawyers Convention (along with Victor Schwartz, Ted Eisenberg, and David C. Vladeck) is now on-line, along with many other programs.

At least not unless she loses some weight (Paul Chapman and Graeme Baker, "New Zealand bars British man's 'fat' wife", Daily Telegraph, Nov. 21; Zycher, Medical Progress Today, Nov. 21). Australia "last year refused citizenship to a healthy British woman who wasn't heavy enough." (Aida Edemarian, "Are you too fat to emigrate?", Guardian, Nov. 20).

We posted last week on a report from Newark, where the U.S. Postal Service was backing off its support for the longstanding Operation Santa toys-for-poor-kids charitable drive and, in particular, demanding that volunteer gift-givers show up in person and sign a lengthy waiver. It turns out the change of policy is nationwide in scope and "at the advice of legal counsel":

There have been no lawsuits or accusations of impropriety.

Sue Brennan, a spokeswoman for the Postal Service, says the change was made "to protect the children and to protect the integrity of the program and the Postal Service."

The letters [from needy children] often included home addresses and telephone numbers. "We were giving out information about these kids to people we didn't know," she says.

(Larry Copeland, "Volunteers answering letters to Santa now have to sign a clause", USA Today, Nov. 23)(via ShopFloor). In other changes to the program, the Postal Service will no longer wrap the presents or transport them free to the central post office. A follow-up report in the Star-Ledger finds a reaction of "anger and disappointment among volunteers," and the donation coordinator at the prominent local law firm of McCarter & English says her firm has decided to designate other charities instead. (Judy Peet, "Donors say 'bah, humbug' to Operation Santa rules", Newark Star-Ledger, Nov. 21).

The recent controversy over attempts by organized lawyerdom to ban or restrict predispute arbitration contracts led to a Wall Street Journal editorial ("Party at Ralph's", Nov. 7) which in turn drew forth the following letter to the editor from David S. Rowley of San Diego (Nov. 14):

Although you got the lawyer-money connection in the Democratic anti-arbitration strategy exactly right, you skipped over the bodacious arrogance inherent in the phrase "alternative dispute resolution." ADR is lawyer-speak for anything other than a lawsuit, making a lawsuit the "regular" way. ADR gets about the same treatment from the bar as "alternative" medicine gets from doctors.

Every time people sit down and reason together, some lawyer is losing money. Why not ban that? A lawsuit is the most expensive, time-consuming, disruptive and unpredictable of all dispute resolution models. That so many people are so quick to sue suggests that the lawyers have sold the masses on the "regular" way. What a tragic commentary on our times.

Earlier: Oct. 18. More thoughts on arbitration: ADRQueen, Oct. 16.

A hearing officer has recommended a reprimand for Boston judge and libel-suit winner Ernest B. Murphy over those "fascinatingly repellent" letters he sent to the publisher of the Boston Herald demanding a settlement of what proved a winning $2 million libel suit (Jessica Van Sack, "Public reprimand urged for Judge Murphy", Boston Herald, Nov. 21; see Sept. 28, etc.). The operators of the Irish Pub & Inn in Atlantic City, New Jersey are suing the publishers of Philly magazine over their description of the tavern as a "dive bar", and aren't buying the magazine's claim that the description was intended as complimentary. (Michael Klein, Philadelphia Inquirer "Inqlings", Nov. 18). And a New York lower court judge has declined to order Google/Blogspot to divulge the identity of "Orthomom", whom a Lawrence, N.Y. school board member had sought to sue on the theory that it was defamatory to have termed her a "bigot". (Nicole Black, Nov. 18, with links to other blog coverage).

More: And Eugene Volokh (Nov. 27) posts today on a disturbing case from Canada in which a lawyer involved in the shutting down of "hate speech" websites proceeded to sue for defamation -- successfully so far in the Ontario courts -- over having been called (among other things) an "enemy of free speech".

How many lawyers does it take to eject an underperforming teacher from a Gotham classroom? Apparently quite a few:

The Bloomberg administration is beginning a drive to remove unsatisfactory teachers, hiring new teams of lawyers and consultants who will help principals build cases against tenured teachers who they believe are not up to the job. ...

At the center of the effort is a new Teacher Performance Unit of five lawyers, headed by a former prosecutor fresh from convicting a former private school principal who had a sexual relationship with a student....

The plans, at a cost of $1 million a year [including five additional consultants whose job includes documenting underperformance], are described in a memo and an accompanying letter to principals from Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein. In the letter, he urged principals to help teachers improve but added, “When action must be taken, the disciplinary system for tenured teachers is so time-consuming and burdensome that what is already a stressful task becomes so onerous that relatively few principals are willing to tackle it. As a result, in a typical year only about one-hundredth of 1 percent of tenured teachers are removed for ineffective performance.

“This issue simply must be tackled,” he wrote. ...

Randi Weingarten, the president of the city’s teachers union, the United Federation of Teachers, called the lawyers a “teacher gotcha unit” and said she found it “disgusting” that the Education Department would issue such a memo after the release of new school report cards that bluntly grade schools A through F.

(cross-posted from Point of Law). More: Jane Genova isn't a fan of the initiative (Nov. 27).

All-automotive edition:

• Court won't unseal settlement arising from $105 million Aramark/Giants Stadium dramshop case for fear girl's father will try to get his hands on money [NJLJ, NorthJersey.com, Childs; earlier]
• Great moments in insurance defense law: you mean it wasn't a good idea to infiltrate that church meeting to investigate the crash claim? [Turkewitz first, second posts]
• Columnist Paul Mulshine rejoices: Ninth Circuit decision "if it stands, will lead to the end of the SUV as we know it" [Newark Star-Ledger]
• Is it unfair -- and should it be unlawful? -- for insurers to settle crash victims' claims too early? [Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog]
• If Ron Krist prevails in shoot-out of Texas plaintiff titans, he vows to have sheriff seize John O'Quinn's Batmobile [American Lawyer; see also Ted's take earlier]
• In much-watched case, Australian high court by 3-2 split upholds highway authority against claim defective bridge design was blameworthy after youth's dive into shallow water [RTA NSW v. Dederer, Aug. 30]
• Redesigning Toyota's occupant restraint system? Clearly another job for the Marshall, Texas courts [SE Texas Record; Point of Law; more]
• Bench trial results in $55 million verdict against U.S. government after Army employee on business runs red light and paralyzes small child [OC Register]
• Vision in a purple Gremlin: her Yale Law days shaped Hillary in many ways [Stearns/McClatchy]
• Zero tolerance for motorists' blood-alcohol -- are we sure we want to go there? [Harsanyi, Reason]
• Driver falls asleep, so of course Ford must pay [two years ago on Overlawyered; much more on our automotive page]

When highly-paid sports figures are hurt in car crashes or other accidents, the potential damages are of course enormous, and the incentives to pursue creative litigation options seem to be accordingly sharp. On Oct. 4 we reported on the legal aftermath of a 1997 rented-limo crash that ended the careers of Detroit Red Wings hockey star Vladimir Konstantinov and team masseur Sergei Mnatsakanov and also injured star player Viacheslav Fetisov, who later returned to the ice. We noted then that lawyers for two of the injured team members were suing a car dealer that sold the vehicle involved, on the perhaps creative theory that by making the seat belts too hard to reach it was legally responsible for the passengers' non-use of them. Now we learn via the New Jersey Law Journal about a different arena of litigation on the injured players' behalf. It seems they "sought to cash in on New Jersey's reputation for pro-policyholder jurisprudence" by filing an action seeking $200 million from the National Hockey League's providers of auto insurance. However, a "unanimous New Jersey appeals court ruled in 2006 that the carriers were not liable, and affirmed a summary dismissal of the coverage suit. The NHL policy, while it covered team vehicles, did not cover drivers who worked for outside limousine companies, even if the limo companies were hired by teams," according to the panel's ruling. Now the New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to review that ruling. (Henry Gottlieb, "NHL's Insurers Score Hat Trick in N.J. Supreme Court", New Jersey Law Journal, Oct. 29).

Updating David's post of Oct. 2: "in the end, only about 1,700 people asked to be reimbursed" over James Frey's pseudo-memoir, after Random House set aside $2.35 million in a settlement fund. Legal fees: $783,000, or more than $400 per dissatisfied reader. Attorneys Larry Drury and Evan Smith, defending the escapade, spoke of the litigation's value in deterring publishers from printing inaccurate memoirs in future. ("'Million Little Pieces' refund claimed by only 1,700", AP/CNN, Nov. 3; earlier coverage).

And, as the night follows the day, there descend the class-action shareholder lawyers, led in this case by San Diego's not-at-all-tainted Coughlin Stoia of Bill Lerach fame. ("Crocs facing possible suit despite earnings hike", Northern Colorado Business Report, Nov. 9; Keith DuBay, "Lawyers pounce on Crocs", ColoradoBiz Magazine/Denver Post, Nov. 15). "Imagine that! Sandals seasonal? Who knew?" (Al Lewis, "Idiots' lawsuit is nothing but a Croc", Denver Post, Nov. 16).

A federal judge has declined to dismiss the controversial lawsuit. "The imams have argued that they were removed because of religious and ethnic bias. The airline says they were ejected solely because of security concerns raised by passengers and crew members." In August, the imams dropped the most widely criticized portion of the suit, which had named as defendants fellow passengers who had expressed fears for the flight's security. (Dan Browning, "Flying imams score points in suit vs. US Airways", Arizona Republic/Minneapolis Star Tribune, Nov. 21; Audrey Hudson, "Judge grants imams day in court", Washington Times, Nov. 22). See Dec. 6, 2006, Mar. 15, 2007, etc.

More from Ann Althouse (Nov. 21): "Yes, let's get to the factfinding. No need to throw this out on a motion to dismiss when the plaintiff's version of the facts must be taken as true."

Controversy continues over the extent to which litigation has tended to obstruct brush and understory removal as well as post-blaze recovery efforts in the fire zones: Damien Schiff (Pacific Legal Foundation), "Misguided litigation magnifies wildfires", San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 5); John Berlau, "The Environmentalist Fires", American Thinker, Oct. 29; BioStock blog, Oct. 5. The Sierra Club defends environmental litigation in this Oct. 23 statement. Last year the Society of American Foresters last year released a study entitled "Forest Service Land Management Litigation 1989-2002", which is available at the Society site. Earlier: Oct. 24, etc.

It was named the most absurd law in Great Britain, but there's a certain logic behind it:

...the reason people are banned from dying in parliament is that it is a Royal palace.

Nigel Cawthorne, author of The Strange Laws of Old England, said: "Anyone who dies there is technically entitled to a state funeral.

"If they see you looking a bit sick they carry you out quickly."

(Gary Cleland, "Don't die in parliament, it's the law", Daily Telegraph, Nov. 6).

And for readers here in America, happy Thanksgiving, and see you after the holiday.

"Under the revised system, the post office will still hand out Santa letters to people who want to donate [gifts to needy local kids]. However, people who want to give must come to the Post Office at Federal Plaza, present a photo ID and sign a contract holding the U.S. Postal Service blameless, '...against any and all causes of action, claims, liens, rights or interests of any kind or type whatsoever...'" (Judy Peet, "'Dear Santa' letters come with legal catch", Newark Star-Ledger, Nov. 19; BaristaNet, Nov. 20). More: Nov. 27.

Eight-minute documentary short from Moving Picture Institute ("Indoctrinate U.", etc.) examines a Saudi billionaire's London defamation suit against American author Rachel Ehrenfeld, whose book Funding Evil (never published in the U.K.) had charged him with funding terrorism. (Sullum, Reason "Hit and Run", Nov. 19). Earlier: Oct. 26, 2003, Jun. 11, 2007. Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz "has won so many defamation claims that he publishes an anthology of apologies on his website. ... The sheikh denied being a libel tourist in England where he and his sons had for many years had substantial connections, including residences and a London-based oil company." (Dominic Kennedy, "US writer fights gagging order on al-Qaeda claims", Times Online (U.K.), Nov. 1).

A lawsuit against milk producers over failure to warn buyers about the phenomenon gets poured down the drain by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit (Howard Bashman, "D.C. Circuit Doesn't Swallow Lactose-Intolerance Class Action", Law.com, Nov. 19). Earlier: Sept. 9, 2006, etc.

Legislation on the Hill would ban them; sponsors include Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.). (Paul Caron, Nov. 16, via Elefant; Dennis Crouch, Patently-O, Nov. 13). Earlier: Oct. 21, 2006.

Tas Sinadinos was fired by his employer in Australia after it found he had used a company credit card for "inappropriate and unacceptable" personal spending including thousands of dollars for escort services. He sued for unfair dismissal and argued that such expenses "could be considered entertainment" and that the need for "company" was "not dissimilar" to other expenses for a relocating executive such as fitting out a new apartment. An Industrial Court judge was not receptive, asking whether Sinadinos lived in the "real world". (Jennifer Cooke, "Escorts a work expense, court told", Sydney Morning Herald, Nov. 13) (via Stumblng Tumblr).

"Hundreds of defendants sitting in prisons nationwide have been convicted with the help of an FBI forensic tool that was discarded more than two years ago. But the FBI lab has yet to take steps to alert the affected defendants or courts, even as the window for appealing convictions is closing, a joint investigation by The Washington Post and '60 Minutes' has found." The bureau has now agreed to release the files involved (John Solomon, "FBI's Forensic Test Full of Holes", Washington Post, Nov. 18; more Post coverage; Obbie, Nov. 18; Ambrogi, Nov. 19; Althouse).

• Dickie Scruggs will host Dec. 15 Hillary fundraiser headlined by Bill [Clarion-Ledger via WSJ law blog]
• Megabucks campaigns for state judicial office: Symptom? Illness? Both? [Justice O'Connor @ OpinionJournal.com, Adler @ Volokh; Pero]
• U.K. kids' author says publisher's safety worries vetoed depiction of fire-breathing dragon in book [Daily Mail]
• Roger Parloff describes the Judith Regan complaint as bizarre, and angry commenters are soon denouncing him as a Fox's-paw [Fortune Legal Pad; Althouse; ritual disclaimer]
• Wonder why booking a dance venue can get pricey? Here's one reason [WV Record]
• "Why should I take a dollar out of [my neighbor's] pocket?": a Virginia Tech family wrestles with the temptation to sue [Mundy, WashPostMag]
• Essential silliness of the "media diversity" scare [Welch, LAT]
• Boston's James Sokolove, known for his heavy rotation of personal-injury TV ads, is now chasing for ... patent plaintiffs? [WSJ law blog; earlier]
• Great big gobs of mutilated monkey meat could bring five years in slammer for NYC immigrant [IHT]
• Recounting the tale of Miami's one-time high-living "King of Torts" Louis Robles, who stole from around 4,500 clients [AJP "CEO Alert" series, PDF]

• Campaign regulation laws spell incumbent protection in New Zealand too [Bainbridge]
• Influence of newspaper lobby retards natural migration to the web of fine-print legal notices [Liptak, NYT]

The columnist lets him have it with both barrels, concentrating on the Lerach connection ("Setting the Bar for Corruption", syndicated/Washington Post, Nov. 18).

Both houses of Congress have voted over the past month or two to block the EEOC lawsuit now underway against a Massachusetts unit of the religious group over its policy requiring workers to speak English on the job. But the House leadership has nonetheless promised bilingualism advocates that the proposal will be kept out of a final bill. (John Fund, "Mi Casa, Sue Casa", OpinionJournal.com, Nov. 19). For more details about the Framingham, Mass., controversy, see PoL, May 3; earlier coverage of the controversy on Overlawyered is here and here. More: Bader, Morrissey, ScrappleFace; & welcome Michelle Malkin readers.

Note that the proposal here is not to provide free lawyers in cases where careful case-screening establishes a fair argument that the eviction is in some way legally wrongful or unjustified. It's to use taxpayer money to make sure that tenants who've trashed the apartment or stiffed the landlord on months of rent are also assigned a lawyer who will predictably use all the procedural leverage available to stall things out further, extract a payment as a condition for the tenant's leaving, and so forth. NYU's Brennan Center is pushing the scheme, which has 22 sponsors on the New York City council. (Manny Fernandez, "Free Legal Aid Sought for Elderly Tenants", New York Times, Nov. 16). For more about "Civil Gideon" schemes, see this post (scroll) and this one (David Giacalone: "Attorney Employment Assurance Plan").

P.S.: To clarify matters: for now, the program would apply to elderly tenants (which doesn't mean all the occupants of the apartment will necessarily be elderly).

"For the last several years, Wal-Mart Stores and other large chains have threatened legal action to intimidate Web sites that get hold of advertising circulars early and publish prices online ahead of company-set release dates." After one such site received a nastygram from Office Depot, it began reporting forthcoming sale prices at "Office Despot", whereupon the retailer sued, without ultimate success but presumably at a nontrivial defense cost (Randal Stross, "What to Do When Goliaths Roar?", New York Times, Nov. 18).

Gotta protect those state revenues?

Even as Governor Deval Patrick seeks to license three resort casinos in Massachusetts, he hopes to clamp down on the explosion in Internet gambling by making it illegal for state residents to place a bet on line. He has proposed jail terms of up to two years and $25,000 fines for violators.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), however, reacted strongly against the proposal:

"I believe in personal liberty," Frank said. "Adults should be able to do what they want. I wish my fellow liberals would not be so inconsistent on this issue."

(Matt Viser, "Internet gambling is a target of Patrick bill", Boston Globe, Nov. 10)(via Brayton).

And from everything I've heard a well-deserved one, to Ofra Bikel of PBS Frontline, chronicler of prosecutions gone bad (Obbie, Nov. 12). More here and here.

...sue Rick Brookhiser. But that's not to say the emotional distress on my end isn't real (NRO "The Corner", Nov. 17).

P.S.: And yes, he did misspell my surname, which an old friend really shouldn't do. But I don't want him to correct it, lest more people who Google on my name wind up landing on the post.

Philadelphia law firm Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner & Weinstock wants $1 billion from members of an income tax software group, Free File Alliance, including H&R Block and Intuit (Gina Passarella, "Tax Preparers Face Proposed Billion-Dollar Class Action Over E-Filing", Legal Intelligencer, Nov. 15; Paul Caron, Nov. 15).

"Access Copyright has launched a $10 million lawsuit against Staples/The Business Depot for unauthorized copying by store customers. The copyright collective claims this is the largest lawsuit ever launched over copyright infringement of published works in Canada." (Michael Geist, Nov. 15)(via Fagstein).

• President Bush addresses the Federalist Society, in front of a crowd of 1800 or so including me and Walter. [White House; WaPo]
• Rudy Giuliani addresses the Federalist Society today. [AP/NY Times]
• So does Walter. Come say hello to us at the various events: I'll be at Walter's panel at 9, at the two Rudy events, and at the dinner tonight.
• Edwards advertises proposed violation of 27th amendment [Franke-Ruta]
• The renationalization of American justice. [Financial Times]
• Bader on ENDA. [Bader; Bader]
• The kernel of truth in Lerach's ethics sermon. [Parloff; Point of Law; Ribstein]

At the Federalist Society 25th anniversary convention in Washington this weekend, I'll be on a panel discussion tomorrow morning (Friday) with lawprofs Ted Eisenberg (Cornell) and David Vladeck (Georgetown) and famed reformer Victor Schwartz (Shook, Hardy & Bacon). Do come up and say hi afterward if you're in the audience. Look for Ted who'll also be attending, as well as other names familiar from this site.

After the glamourpuss tort-chaser's campaign over environmental contamination at the high school met with one reverse after another in court, ending in a judicial ruling of no merit, plaintiff's lawyers have now agreed to reimburse the city and school district of Beverly Hills for a not insignificant chunk of their legal expenses in defending the claims, in the sum of $450,000. As readers of this site know, prevailing defendants very seldom recover fees from losing plaintiffs or their lawyers in American litigation. The Civil Justice Association of California has details (Oct. 9).

This summer Viking published a book by journalist Joy Horowitz entitled Parts Per Million: The Poisoning of Beverly Hills High School which, as its subtitle implies, would appear to place much credence in the lawsuits' claims of disease causation from oil wells on the high school campus (undated L.A. Times review by Robin Abcarian). For the side of the story that proved more convincing to the courts, see the work of Norma Zager and Eric Umansky here and here as well as this article in Time. Brockovich herself, incidentally, now has a blog of her own.

Norm Pattis makes a couple of nominations from the local crop he sees in Connecticut (Nov. 14). To me, at least, "Lady DUI" doesn't sound as bad as Pattis's choice for a "close second", which

goes to a firm boasting that it can get every dime possible for you if you are injured. The lawyer intoning this commitment stands slapping baseball bat into an open hand. What does he do, beat the adjuster to death for an extra dollar or two?

National Journal's The Gate has the story on the latest setback for the pants judge (Nov. 14). A committee concluded that he did not demonstrate "appropriate judgment and judicial temperament," but apparently did not specifically invoke the Breeches of Doom affair. Our coverage is here.

Patrick Ruffini is looking for a couple of hundred more people to give his question a thumbs-up in the next 75 minutes to ensure that the Democratic candidates taking questions from the Internet aren't just given left-wing softballs.

That's what San Francisco lawyer Waukeen McCoy says of a revelation that his firm billed Federal Express for 23.5 hours of one of its attorneys' time over a single day. The fees were requested, and disputed, after McCoy's firm and others beat FedEx in an employment discrimination case. (Dan Levine, "Former Co-Counsel Turn on Each Other in FedEx Fee Fight", The Recorder, Oct. 26). P.S. Australian lawyer Stumblng Tumblr writes, "of course it was; it was supposed to be 24.5 hours".

Actually, attorney Mark Lanier's massive bash, for thousands of attendees "including, seemingly, every judge and politician in Texas", would have gone forward whether or not Merck had plunked down billions, and with Lanier saying he expects only $30 million in fees plus $10 million in expenses in the affair, which was once expected to yield a much bigger payday, the atmosphere might even be subdued. (Lattman, Nov. 13). Earlier coverage of Lanier Christmas parties here and here; the only parties we've heard of to compare are Willie Gary's.

Class action lawyers say the club led fans to buy memberships on the assumption that they'd get an inside track to tickets for performances by the teen phenomenon. Instead, the concerts have proved to be the year's hottest ticket and fans have been left to buy from scalpers or go without. "The Web site does not guarantee ticket availability, but represents that members who log on shortly after tickets become available will have a good opportunity to get them, according to the lawsuit." (AP/CNN, Nov. 13). More: Lattman.

"Three disabled people have sued Walt Disney World for not allowing them to use their Segways to move around its theme parks. ... Disney says it fears Segways could endanger other guests because they can go faster than 12 mph." (AP/Centre Daily Times (Pa.), Nov. 11). More: Washington Post, MagicalMountain.net. in Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas ("Note to Disney: Don't give up on Segway suit", Nov. 13) writes:

If a disabled person can get around just as well in a wheelchair as on a Segway, does Disney have the right to pick the wheelchair in the interest of guest safety?

One of the people suing Disney says she did not want her children seeing her rely on a wheelchair.

But to go that route means we expand the ADA to accommodate not only people's disabilities but also their feelings about their disabilities.

I feel for that woman, but this is a huge legal leap.

• Ethical questions for Vioxx lawyers [WSJ law blog] And who's going to make what? [same; more from Ted at PoL]
• American lawyers shouldn't get all self-congratulatory about the courage shown by their Pakistani counterparts [Giacalone; more]
• Just another of those harmless questionnaires from school, this time about kindergartners' at-home computer use. Or maybe there's more to it [Nicole Black]
• Probe of personal injury "runners" bribing Gotham hospital staff to chase business nets another conviction, this one of a lawyer who stole $148,000 from clients [NYLJ; earlier]
• Facebook sometimes sends text messages to obsolete cellphone numbers relinquished by its users, so let's sue it [IndyStar]
• Series on defensive medicine at docblog White Coat Rants [first, second, third]
• Arm broken by bully, student wins $4 million verdict against Tampa private school; bully himself not sued [St. Petersburg Times]
• Washington, D.C. reportedly doing away with right to contest a traffic parking ticket in person [The Newspaper, on "the politics of driving"]
• "Walking headline factory" Scruggs to be arraigned November 20 [Rossmiller]
• More on whether government's refusal to alter paper currency discriminates against the blind [Waldeck, ConcurOp via Bader; earlier]
• Eric Turkewitz hosts a truly marathon Blawg Review #134 [NY Pers Inj Law Blog]

In both of which cases the hospital is being targeted for blame:

About a year ago, Linda Long was attending the East London Holiness Church in London, Ky. That's one of a handful of churches in the country that practice snake handling, which is exactly what it sounds like it is -- congregation members handle venomous snakes in the belief that the faithful will not be harmed.

Long was bitten in the cheek by a rattlesnake and died -- and now her family is suing the hospital where she was brought for treatment.

In a suit filed earlier this month, Long's family alleges employees of a London, Ky. hospital ridiculed Long when she was brought there after the attack and failed to treat her in a timely manner. She later was airlifted to the University of Kentucky Medical Center, where she died.

("Family of 'snake handling' victim sues hospital", USA Today "On Deadline" blog, Nov. 9; Michelle Cottle, New Republic "The Plank", Nov. 11).

Meanwhile, in Britain, Anthony Gough, 24, says he is considering legal action in the death of his wife, Emma, following the birth of twins at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital. The Goughs are members of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect which opposes blood transfusions on religious grounds and Emma had refused such a transfusion; doctors had in vain urged Gough to override his wife's wishes. Gough says a machine would have permitted self-transfusion of his wife's blood but that hospital staff did not know how to use it. (Andrew Parker, "Jehovah hubby: I blame doctors", The Sun (U.K.), Nov. 7)

For reporting on unlawful dumping of sludge into US waters, twelve ship workers are getting whistleblower payments of $437,500 apiece, in what one of their lawyers describes as an "amazing and unexpected windfall that the government essentially arranged for them". Lawyers for all but two of the workers are charging them fees of $10,000 or less apiece, and one charged no fee at all. However, attorney Zachary Hawthorn of Beaumont, Texas, who represents two clients, says he's entitled to a 33 percent contingency from their share, amounting to nearly $300,000. Federal prosecutors in Boston "suggest Hawthorn took advantage of unsophisticated ship hands who are not native English speakers and who had little familiarity with the American legal system. They also contend his work was 'materially indistinguishable' from that of the other lawyers, who were paid 90 percent less than his requested fee." On the other hand, the clients have signed statements asking that the fees be approved. Prevailing law restricts lawyers from charging excessive fees and does not make client consent a defense if unreasonable fees are charged, but in practice "judges are typically reluctant to interfere with lawyer-client fee arrangements, especially when a client has not complained". (Sacha Pfeiffer, Boston Globe, Nov. 10).

According to the U.S. Chamber-affiliated Madison County Record, if lawyers are successful in pursuing an Illinois class action against mortgage broker Amerifirst over the meal-interrupting telephonic intrusions, "the lawyers would have to notify each and every aggrieved member of the class with an unsolicited phone call of their own." ("Our View: All in the Family", Oct. 28; Ann Knef, "Class plaintiff's attorney-husband is TCPA specialist", Oct. 24; "Lakin files class action against mortgage lender over pre-recorded messages", Oct. 22).

The proposed law imposing liability on private employers who discriminate on the basis of employees' sexual orientation has cleared the House for the first time. My own views haven't changed since I wrote on the proposal in Reason a decade ago in the course of a review of Andrew Sullivan (who has switched sides since then and now favors the bill). Both sides of the debate get fully aired in the comments to this Dale Carpenter post and by various contributors to the Independent Gay Forum.

More: Possibly related, the case of Aaron Charney versus Sullivan & Cromwell has settled: David Lat, "A Big Pay Day for Big Law Gay?", New York Observer, Nov. 6.

Ted reacts at Point of Law to word of the announced $4.8 billion deal. Here are some other early reactions and reports: Parloff, Carlile @ BLT (view from negotiation room), Richard Nagareda, Zipursky/Pharmalot, Byron Stier (thinks the system worked as it's supposed to), settlement site, trial scoreboard @ OnPoint News, Tim Worstall. More: Beck & Herrmann.

Following up on the story Jason Barney wrote about Oct. 25: a Seattle jury has awarded $15 million to the woman gravely injured when an improperly secured entertainment center fell off a rented U-Haul trailer and through her windshield. "U-Haul was ordered to pay 67 percent of the total amount and the balance is to be paid by James Hefley, the man who rented the U-Haul trailer. Jurors did not find the company that rented the trailer to Hefley or Federici liable. ... Federici's attorneys argued that U-Haul knowingly rented a poorly designed trailer that in which loads could not be secured. They said that the trailer could have been made safer with a cargo net or higher tailgates and that U-Haul knew there had a been a number of similar incidents." (Christine Clarridge, "Woman hit by unsecured load awarded $15 million", Seattle Times, Nov. 9).

Make way for another creative application of the Americans with Disabilities Act: the office of Texas attorney general Greg Abbott says it could violate the ADA for the Texas Lottery Commission to permit sale of its lottery tickets in stores that allow smoking. "Lewisville resident Billy Williams complained to the commission in 2006 that he had an asthma attack after buying a ticket at a smoky store." Abbott's office found that the ADA requires that disabled residents be provided with "'meaningful access' to state services", in this case consisting of lottery tickets, and that smoking-allowed policies at participating retailers could impair such access. ("Smoking questioned for stores that sell lottery tickets", AP/Houston Chronicle, Nov. 9).

William K. Mattar, 43, of Buffalo "has built a substantial auto-injury practice through the estimated $2 million he spends each year on ads produced by CJ Advertising in Nashville, Tenn." Now three lawyers who worked for Mattar have quit in acrimonious circumstances, providing a look inside the firm's workings. Joseph Bergen said Mattar had admitted never having tried a case and had never taken a client deposition in the nine years Bergen had worked with the firm. As business poured in from TV viewers, the lawyers say, Mattar stopped using his staff lawyers to screen the cases for likely merit, instead devolving that task on a call center in Tennessee. Meanwhile, the staff lawyers' caseloads swelled to more than 200 cases apiece, along with which came "increased pressure from Mattar to settle a minimum of two to three cases a week each," whether or not the lawyers felt the cases were in an appropriate posture to settle. The three are setting up their own personal-injury firm, and Mattar depicts them as disgruntled employees who are misleading clients in hopes of taking away business from him. (Michael Beebe, "Mattar’s 3 trial lawyers quit", Buffalo News, Oct. 25; "Mattar says lawyers conspired to steal clients", Nov. 1; Martha Neil, "Former PI Colleagues Now Battling in Buffalo", ABA Journal, Nov. 1). For some reason the Buffalo-Rochester area has generated a steady stream of colorful stories about law firms with saturation TV-ad budgets, sometimes coupled with factory-line methods; see our earlier coverage of Cellino & Barnes/The Barnes Firm and the now-retired Jim ("The Hammer") Shapiro, of "hand you their severed heads" fame, who conceded in a deposition that he had never tried a case.

The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that doctors in Vancouver, Wash. can't be held liable for resuscitating a baby after he was born without a heartbeat. The parents said the medics had wrongly failed to ask their permission before saving the child's life. The infant survived but with severe disabilities. (AP/Seattle Times, Nov. 8; "State high court: No liability for doctor who revived newborn", AP/KOMO, Nov. 8; opinion with first and second concurrences, all PDF).

Eugene Volokh has an extensive analysis up at the Conspiracy (see Nov. 2). For some flavor of the Phelps group's extreme forays into picketing and public abuse of hapless Topeka residents, and intensive lawsuit-filing against countless defendants, see SPLC's "A City Held Hostage" and "Halting Abusive Lawyers".

A Nassau County, N.Y. judge rebukes two parents "engaged in a 'vitriolic and venomous' dispute over child custody and visitation." Note that it's not a case of divorce or its aftermath: "The couple never married." (Vesselin Mitev, "Judge Blasts Parents for Using Court to Attack, Demean Each Other", New York Law Journal, Oct. 24).

Major tobacco companies have gotten one of those letters from the Federal Ministry of Finance in Lagos, Nigeria, proposing a gigantic and unlikely transfer of funds. Problem is, this time it's authentic. Hans Bader has details (Nov. 7). Similar, earlier suits by foreign governments: Nov. 16, 2000 (Saudi Arabia); Feb. 1-3, 2002 (others).

• "What you will not see in the findings of this bill, where politicians typically describe the problem they intend to solve, is any evidence that arbitration harms consumers or anyone else." [WSJ]
• You saw it first on Overlawyered (Jun. 9; Jul. 20; Sep. 14): "Plaintiffs Lawyers in 'Blood Feud' Over Fees From $2 Billion Settlement" [American Lawyer]
• Junk science verdict against Dole Pineapple and Dow Chemical over pesticide use. [Cal Biz Lit]
• Alabama Supreme Court points out that good-faith contract dispute does not merit multi-billion-dollar punitive damages. [Birmingham News; Marketwatch; Exxon v. Alabama via Alabama Appellate Watch via Bashman]
• Still more Montgomery Blair Sibley follies. [Legal Times]
• The latest farm follies. [Postrel; Mair; Rauch]
• Why Ron Paul is a crank [Frum]

More damning evidence on a subject on which there's been plenty already (Sept. 6, 2001, Sept. 24, 2006, etc.; Oct. 31, 2006): "a study by the Federal Highway Administration and the Virginia Department documented a 12 percent increase in rear-enders at Northern Virginia intersections where cameras enforced red-light violations. Although proponents of cameras contend the number of such accidents decreases as motorists become used to this new enforcement technology, the study says that isn't so. Meanwhile, simply extending the time that the traffic light stays yellow helps reduce violations and accidents. However, that solution isn't necessarily popular with towns that see red-light tickets as a revenue source, the [Miami] Herald says." (Martha Neil, "Traffic Cameras Mean More Rear-Enders", ABA Journal, Oct. 31; Larry Lebowitz, "Red-light cameras a signal for war", Miami Herald, Oct. 29).

Columnist Gary Slapper of the U.K. Times gives his nominations of odd ones from around the world. Among them is a Gilbert-and-Sullivanish 1874 proceeding in which a Winnipeg magistrate served as judge in his own case on a charge of public intoxication (Nov. 5).

• "I've always thought that promoting yourself as a 'Super Lawyer' or 'Best Lawyer' was pathetic, self-aggrandizing and meaningless." [Larry Bodine; Karen Donovan, Portfolio ("cheesiest"); ABA Journal]
• That big campaign by bossy public health groups and tobacco-suit veterans for legal restrictions on fat in the American diet is still with us, even as its scientific credibility falters [Tierney, NYT]
• "1,700 Connecticut Attorneys Suspended Over $110 Bill" -- now that sounds like a bargain [ABA Journal]
• Blackwater meets Elmer Gantry? John O'Sullivan shouldn't plan on being invited to the Edwards inaugural [NRO Corner]
• Nor would it be prudent to invite Felix Salmon and Ben Stein to the same dinner party [Portfolio; more]
• Truly dreadful idea from feminist Northwestern lawprof Kimberly Yuracko: constitution obliges states to ban sexist homeschooling [SSRN via Prawfsblawg; Serious Learning, Ragamuffin Studies, TalkToAction, Marcy Muser]
• New at Point of Law: some results of Tuesday's election; employers whipsawed on risk of fetal injury; signs of exhaustion at long jury trials; wanna become a law professor?; 9/11 dust injury, or ground-up pills in his bloodstream?; more on Chevron/Texaco and the Ecuador Indians; dept. of New York Times self-parody; and more;
• Lawyer who sued McDonald's over cheese-allergic client served cheeseburger (Aug. 10, Sept. 1) asks to be released from case, says he's quitting law practice [LegalNewsLine]
• Of seven leading White House aspirants, all but McCain have law degrees, and all the other six but Romney practiced as lawyers [Liptak, NYT]
• UK: "A lorry driver sentenced to 150 hours' community service for a drunken racist assault has been let off after probation chiefs claimed the punishment could breach EU working hours limits." [Daily Mail]
• Notation on Scruggs's court file: to be "kept away from the press" [five years ago on Overlawyered]

"A New York judge has permitted a legal malpractice suit to proceed against a group of personal injury lawyers who tried to argue that the medical malpractice suit they allegedly botched had no merit in the first place." Morelli Ratner (of Benedict Morelli fame) and Schapiro & Reich had filed a suit on behalf of Victoria Kremen alleging failure to diagnose cancer. The suit was thrown out on statute-of-limitations grounds, but in her later action against the lawyers Kremen argued that they might have avoided the usual time limits by invoking certain exceptions to the statute. The lawyers proceeded to argue that Kremen's suit was doomed anyway, but Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Emily Goodman was not impressed: "[S]uch arguments fly in the face of the fact that Defendants represented Plaintiffs for almost three years, presumably because they believed that the lawsuit had merit." (Anthony Lin, Legal Malpractice Suit Against Personal Injury Lawyers Permitted to Go Forward", New York Law Journal, Oct. 31).

Jim Copland explains what's at stake in elections today in Mississippi.

And Copland's piece doesn't even include the latest news, that incumbent AG Jim Hood has been sued by State Farm, which makes some explosive allegations. A judge has granted (and another judge has extended) a TRO against Hood's harassment of the insurer.

Update: see also Forest Thigpen's take.

Power tools manufacturer Black & Decker Corp. rejected Victor Breehne for a ''highly wrist-sensitive job" at a Tennessee plant after medical tests suggested that Breehne was vulnerable to carpal-tunnel syndrome. Now he's suing, charging that the rejection violates the Americans with Disabilities Act:

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has challenged the use of such tests, which aren't uncommon in manufacturing settings, on ADA grounds. But it lost a federal lawsuit in 2001 against Rockwell Automation Inc. after that company denied jobs to 72 applicants at an Illinois plant.

(Allison Connolly, "B&D sued after it rescinds job offer", Baltimore Sun, Oct. 16; "Man sues after job offer rescinded over carpal tunnel test", Reliable Plant, Oct. 17). For the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Echabazal v. Chevron, in which the Court (over vociferous protests from some disabled-rights advocates) unanimously ruled that an employer was not obliged to hire a disabled applicant who was at greater risk of injury and death than other workers, see Mar. 1-3, 2002 and links from there.

John Ashcroft in the New York Times:

One of our nation’s most important comparative advantages over our adversaries is the creativity and robustness of the private sector. To cut ourselves off from that advantage would amount to a form of unilateral disarmament.

Yet if we allow the litigation to continue, that is precisely what we will do. The message that will be sent to American companies is that they can be exposed to crippling lawsuits for helping the government with national security activities that they are explicitly assured are legal. The only rational response would be for companies to adopt an attitude of extreme wariness, even in the most urgent or clear-cut situations. To put the matter plainly, this puts American lives at risk.

Earlier.

I am told that I am scheduled to be on the KPFA Morning Show 7:10 am Pacific time to talk about the Mukasey nomination.

"Threatened with a potential defamation suit, two individuals have apparently retracted their claimed characterization of a Spokane, Wash.-area law firm formerly known as 'Wetzel & Wetzel' as 'Weasel & Weasel.'" Jim MacDonald, president of the Bayview, Idaho Chamber of Commerce, "read a letter of contrition" at the chamber's regular monthly meeting "as demanded" by the offended lawyers. Does this mean we're going to get in trouble with our earlier references to Cruel & Boring, We'll Getcha & Mangle Ya, Huge Cupboards of Greed, etc.? (Martha Neil, ABA Journal, Oct. 25; Herb Huseland, "Bayview News: Law firm claims slander", Spokane Statesman-Review, Oct. 25).

P.S. Australian lawyer Stumbling Tumblr adds, "there's no indication in the story whether weasels had also threatened proceedings".

Another bunch of things not to do if you're a member of the legal profession, all courtesy Law.com:

• Don't forge a judge's name to a judicial order to lull your clients into thinking you're properly pursuing their case [Laurence S. Jurman of Dix Hills, N.Y., who's pleaded not guilty to the above allegations; NYLJ]
• Don't fail to inform your client in a criminal-defense trial that you yourself are facing criminal charges on charges of stalking in the same court [Steven Olitsky of Irvington, N.J., whose convicted client is arguing ineffectiveness of counsel on the grounds that the eventually-disbarred Olitsky was in no position to negotiate effectively with prosecutors; NJLJ]
• Don't read golf magazines during depositions or leave your client alone and unrepresented by walking out of an important deposition [Jonathan D. Herbst of Philadelphia's Margolis Edelstein; client's loss of $11 million defamation case led to professional liability award recently reinstated by Pa. high court; Legal Intelligencer]

Milwaukee cop Robert Henry was fired after being caught on tape in 2002 roughing up an arrested suspect. A federal judge has now ruled against Henry's lawsuit over his firing. However, that doesn't mean taxpayers are off the hook for the wayward officer's continued support: "Henry was not criminally charged, and he later successfully filed for lifelong disability payments after he said he suffered stress for being fired. He remains on disability leave from MPD." (John Diedrich, "Proof & Hearsay" (Journal-Sentinel blog), Nov. 1).

Attorney Garry J. Wise has some extremely kind things to say about us at his blog (Nov. 2). Thanks!

Legally hazardous for a US-based website to make itself available for British readers to visit? "[Attorney Giovanni] Di Stefano claims that he has consulted several QCs and has been told that British authorities could have powers to act against foreign-based broadcasters and websites and issue a European arrest warrant. They could be liable for breaching an English court order guaranteeing anonymity to the blackmail victim and witnesses if their speculation reached Britain." (Adam Fresco and Dominic Kennedy, "Charge anyone naming Royal ‘victim’, says accused’s lawyer", Times Online, Oct. 31).

In which the attractive principle behind the line-item veto goes deeply, seriously wrong (Althouse, Oct. 30). One commenter says that the law was previously changed to prevent letter-by-letter vetoes but that the legislature did not ban the practice for numerals.

We've just overhauled the more comprehensive blogroll that extends and supplements the purposefully terse one on our front page. Check it out and discover something new to read.

• Curlin gets 400 new owners, as the Kentucky fen-phen plaintiffs ripped off by their attorneys get the right to seize Shirley Cunningham Jr. and William Gallion's 20% share of the Preakness Stakes winner. [AP/NYT; earlier]
• As Lerach pleads guilty, LA Times editorial defends class action abuses, incorrectly says that the PSLRA fixed everything and that Lerach didn't act illegally after it was passed. [LA Times]
• That $10.9 million verdict against the Westboro Baptist Church was "not about the money." [Reuters] Really, now, this case imposing bankrupting damages for a protest on a public sidewalk is appalling. Granted: Phelps is bigoted scum, and rude bigoted scum at that. But Albert Snyder's claimed physical injury is that the protest exacerbated his diabetes: what sort of junk science is that? NB that Snyder was not even aware of the protest at the funeral until he watched it on television. Why not liability for the news program? Even those happy to see the anti-gay bigotry of the WBC punished should take pause: Snyder testified at length that the protest upset him particularly because his son was not gay.
• Overlawyered favorite Willie Gary (Apr. 29, Oct. 2004), on the hook for $28,000/month in child support for love child. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]
• Deep-pocket search in Great White fire case. [Childs]
• Lawsuit over which school 9-year-old can play football for. [Tulsa World (via TMQ G. Easterbrook)] Worse, the judge rewarded the plaintiff by second-guessing the league decision. [Tulsa World]
• It only takes ten months of legal proceedings for Cal-Berkeley to evict trespassers squatting on university property. [SF Gate]
• Don't hold your breath: who's watching the trial lawyers? [Examiner]

I loved the Seinfeld series, but the abysmal commercials for Bee Movie had me all set to ignore its release. But now that I know that the movie is really about the disastrous inadvertent consequences of a ludicrous class action lawsuit, I might have to reconsider. But I still doubt it will be as good as The Incredibles.

When plaintiff attorneys were trying to get a Madison County judge to approve a settlement in a class-action lawsuit against the maker of Paxil, they touted that the company would have to pay up to $63.8 million.

How much did consumers actually get? The parties aren't saying -- and they'll never have to.

According to the settlement, any money that didn't get claimed by consumers goes back to GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Paxil, which is used to treat depression. And the attorneys for both sides, as well as the company that was hired to handle consumers' claims, are not required [to] give the court a report on how many people made claims or how much money was actually paid to them.

But one payout is certain: The plaintiff attorneys got $16.5 million.

So-called reversionary settlements, where unclaimed money goes back to the defendant, give companies a particular incentive to collaborate in crafting payout schemes that end up reaching few consumers. According to the article, settlements of that sort are especially common in the famous class-action jurisdiction of Madison County, Ill. (Brian Brueggemann, Belleville (Ill.) News-Democrat, Oct. 21).

Immigrant advocacy groups are filing a complaint with the New York attorney general's office naming 16 pharmacies in Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island, claiming "that federal civil rights law and state health regulations require pharmacies to provide linguistic help" to "people who speak little or no English". "That assistance should include interpreters at pharmacies and written translations of medication instructions, the advocates say." The advocacy groups are New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, the New York Immigration Coalition and Make the Road New York.

It seems a creative reinterpretation of "national origin discrimination" has been going on for some time:

Health advocates have increasingly used federal civil rights law to push hospitals, nursing homes and clinics to provide language services. Language barriers to health services constitute discrimination based on national origin, they argue, a violation of federal civil rights law, which applies to hospitals because they receive federal funds through Medicare and other programs.

The latest effort aims to expand similar requirements to pharmacies.

As of the year 2000, according to one report, 138 languages were known to be spoken in the borough of Queens alone. (Anne Barnard, "Non-English Speakers Charge Bias in Prescription Labeling", New York Times, Oct. 31).

The plaintiff's lawyers -- which include Milberg Weiss as well as Grant & Eisenhofer and Schiffrin Barroway -- are asking a court to approve $460 million in fees, plus about $29 million in expenses. They say they spent 488,000 hours on the litigation, and you'd better not express any skepticism about that figure unless you were in the room watching or something. (WSJ law blog, Nov. 1).

A discussion by Judge Posner at the Becker-Posner blog (via Childs) provokes this on-point comment from reader "Phil":

Perhaps one of the reasons social-host liability hasn't caught on yet is that the "duty" one is expected to perform is onerous.

Should one of my guests insist on driving home drunk, I have two choices: either take his keys by force, or call the police and have him caught.

In the first case, I could get badly hurt -- and, if my friend is only slightly over the legal limit, the combined physical harms to me and my friend are probably much higher than to the sum of the expected harms to all drivers on the road.

In the second case, my friend will lose his license, and perhaps his freedom. The penalty for getting caught driving drunk is much higher than the harms resulting from the individual infraction, as a deterrent, required because of the fact that so few drunk drivers are caught. So this is not something I would do to a friend. A stranger, perhaps, but not a friend.

The fact is that social hosts faced with an intoxicated friend who insists on driving have no reasonable recourse.

Eric Goldman calls the case of BidZirk v. Smith, filed by a South Carolina eBay reseller against the blogger who'd criticized its services, "a flagship example of how a pernicious and misguided plaintiff with a thin skin can ruin a blogger's life." Maybe "ruin" is no longer the operative term, since a federal court has just thrown out the case. Among the court's determinations: calling a company's founder a "yes man" is opinion and not actionable as defamation (Oct. 28 and, before that, Nov. 21, 2006; decision (PDF)). More: Ron Coleman fingers as a culprit the "American Rule" (no shifting of fees) under which "there is for all practical purposes no downside to suing someone on the most preposterous of grounds and losing -- hence making the bringing of meritless litigation a part of every large company’s toolkit for silencing criticism and destroying smaller competitors."