Overlawyered.com
chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Top page
Reaching us:
Search the site
Accolades


 
ARCHIVE -- MAY 2000 (III)


May 31 -- From our mail sack: ADA enforcement vignettes.  Reader Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity tells us that every month or so he visits the Department of Justice to pore over the new batch of publicly released enforcement letters from the department's Civil Rights Division.  Although the letters are made available by the Department in such a way that parties in the disputes are not individually identifiable, they do provide insight into current enforcement priorities and trends.  A few highlights that Roger passes on from letters issued by DoJ regarding the enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act: 

"The Civil Rights Division's Disability Rights Section has in the last month or so sent a lot of letters to doctors' offices on behalf of hearing-impaired patients complaining that the doctors don't have interpreters (a couple of the offices didn't understand why the doctor and patient couldn't just write notes to each other) [see also Sept. 29-Oct. 1]. 

*  "A dance studio got a DOJ letter when it refused to continue giving lessons to a student who was prompting complaints from other students' parents because accommodating her took up so much class time. 

"Other interesting issues prompting DOJ letters: 

*  "A cruise ship that refused to let a blind person on board for a trip unless he had a medical note stating he could safely travel alone; 

*  "An HIV-positive student who demanded an air-conditioned classroom; 

*  "A blind person who wasn't allowed into a doctor's office because in the past other patients had had an allergic reaction to his guide dog; and 

*  "A truly tragic case -- a man with a 'manual disability' who could not pull the trigger on a gun." 

May 31 -- Jumped ahead, by court order.  A Delaware court has found that Christiana Care Health Services breached its contract with Ahmad Bali, MD, when it demoted him from third-year to second-year resident.  Rather than simply allot monetary damages to Dr. Bali for the trouble and expense of having been held back needlessly at the second-year stage, the court took the more unusual step of ordering the hospital to accord him fourth-year residency status as if he'd completed the third-year program.  The result is to put him in the same place he'd be if not for the hospital's earlier breach, which is certainly one kind of fairness for which the law sometimes strives.  But what if third-year residency isn't simply a re-run of second-year, but involves the acquisition of distinctive skills?  (Miles J. Zaremski, "Delaware court reinstates terminated resident", American Medical News, March 20). 

May 31 -- Columnist-fest.  More opinions worth considering: 

* Paul Campos weighs in on the "pink-skirt" case, in which a transgendered employee of a Boulder, Colo. bagel shop is suing because its owner wouldn't let him wear that girlish item of apparel on the job ("The strange land of identity politics", Rocky Mountain News, May 16; Matt Sebastian, "Bagel shop wouldn't let him wear pink dress [sic], so he sues", Scripps Howard News Service, May 11). 

*  Big American companies whose German operations were seized by the Nazi regime and run with forced labor are now coming under legal pressure to pay "reparations".  "If we Jews care about justice and retribution, we should not take this money," argues Sam Schulman of Jewish World Review.  "It is tainted -- tainted with innocence. And taking money from the innocent blurs the line between innocence and guilt."   ("Some Reparations Money is Better Left on the Table", Jewish World Review, May 18).  An earlier Schulman column examines the drift of the campaigns against the Swiss and the Austrians away from the aim of individualized justice for expropriated families and toward the expiation of inherited national guilt by way of large transfer payments. ("David Irving's Mirror for the Jews", May 2). 

*  Rachelle Cohen of the Boston Herald can't help wondering: does Massachusetts really need to spend tax money setting up a state-sponsored law school?  ("Must taxpayers pay to create more lawyers?", May 24). 

May 30 -- You were negligent to hire me.  "A former Escondido school district administrator who resigned two years ago after revelations of a 1963 rape-related conviction won a $255,000 jury verdict yesterday against Superintendent Nicolas Retana and the district."  Thirty-four years previously, at age 17, William Zamora had been convicted in New Mexico of assault with intent to rape, serving two years in prison and later being pardoned by the governor.  When he applied for an $88,000/year administrative job in 1997 with the district near San Diego, he failed to disclose his long-ago conviction on his employment application, later saying he thought the pardon had wiped his record clean.  But an FBI fingerprint check turned it up, and Zamora resigned at once: a California law passed the previous year forbade school districts to hire persons with felony sex convictions.  He then proceeded to sue the district and supervisor, contending that if they "had done their jobs properly... they would have waited until the crime check came back before hiring him," and charging that his privacy had been invaded when Retana conversed with an Albuquerque school board member about the conviction.  Last week a jury awarded him $15,000 on the negligent hiring claim and $240,000 on the invasion of privacy claim.  "Superior Court Judge Lisa Guy-Schall kept jurors from hearing the details of Zamora's conviction, in which he pleaded guilty. She said she didn't want to preside over a mini-trial of events that happened 37 years ago."  (Onell R. Soto, "Ex-administrator wins $255,000 verdict against Escondido schools chief, district", San Diego Union-Tribune, May 24; and earlier Union-Tribune coverage, May 17, May 21, 1999; May 20, 1999). 

May 30 -- Illegal to talk about drugs?  The so-called Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, which has been moving rapidly through Congress with relatively little public outcry, would make it a felony punishable by ten years in prison "to teach or demonstrate to any person the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance," knowing or intending that a recipient will use the information in violation of the law.  The aim is to shut down the publishing of books, magazines and websites that furnish information on drug manufacture or use, such as High Times magazine and Lycaeum.org.  The prohibition on "distribut[ing]" such information "to any person, by any means" could make it unlawful even to post a weblink to offshore sites of this nature.  Another provision of the bill would make it a crime to "directly or indirectly advertise for sale" drugs or drug paraphernalia -- and whatever the peculiar phrase "indirectly advertise" may mean in practice, it's probably not good news for the First Amendment.  A Washington Post editorial calls the provisions "overly broad" and "so vague as to threaten legitimate speech": "The mere dissemination of information, especially without specific intent to further crime, seems within the bounds of free speech protections." 

SOURCES: "The Anti-Meth Bill" (editorial), Washington Post, May 26; Amy Worden, "House Bill Would Ban Drug Instructions", APBNews, May 10; Declan McCullagh, "Bill criminalizes drug links", Wired News, May 9; Jake Halpern, "Intentional Foul", The New Republic, April 10; "Senate panel considers ban on Internet drug recipes", AP/Freedom Forum, July 29, 1999; Debbi Gardiner and Declan McCullagh, "Reefer Madness Hits Congress", Wired News, Aug. 6, 1999; J. T. Tuccille, "Shall make no law", About.com Civil Liberties, Aug. 15, 1999; Phillip Taylor, "Marijuana activists denounce proposed ban of drug recipes", Freedom Forum, Jan. 6.

May 30 -- Won't pay for set repairs.  Orkin, the pest control company, is declining to compensate two consumers who've requested that it pay for fixing their TV sets after they attacked unusually convincing simulations of cockroaches that ran across the screen in its ads.  The company says a Tampa, Fla., woman tried to kill the insect by throwing a motorcycle helmet at her set, while another man damaged his set by throwing a shoe at it.   ("'I felt really stupid': Orkin cockroach commmercial has some viewers fooled ", AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 6). 

May 30 -- Welcome San Jose Mercury News visitors.  At Silicon Valley's hometown paper, columnist John Murrell ("Minister of Information") proposes this among sites "for your weekend Web wandering pleasure ... your darkest visions of out-of-control litigiousness will be confirmed".  (May 26 entry).   The weblog at uJoda.com ("From My Desktop"), where you can pick up Macintosh icons and graphics, reports that its author "found a great site called overlawyered.com, though not eye candy, it is rich in content" (May 6 entry).  The pro-Second Amendment Fulton Armory featured us as their site of the week a couple of weeks ago, and we've also been linked recently by the Australian Public Law page maintained by the law faculty at the Northern Territory University, down under ("Not much to do with public law but we couldn't help ourselves," they explain re including us); by the Smith Center for Private Enterprise, a free-market think tank at Cal State, Hayward; by ClaimsPages.com, which offers a vast array of insurance-oriented links; and by the website of attorney Jule R. Herbert, Jr. of Alabama's Gulf Coast, among many others. 

May 26-29 -- "Dame Edna's Gladioli Toss Lands in Court".  "Dame Edna Everage", the character created by Australian comedian Barry Humphries (website, B'way show), makes a custom of ending her show by flinging gladioli to the crowd, but now a man has hired a Melbourne law firm to undertake legal action, saying a stem of one of the large flowers struck him in the eye.  49-year-old singing teacher Gary May is "seeking unspecified damages for pain and suffering, loss of income and medical expenses." (Reuters/Excite, May 25, lnk now dead).  Last year (see Dec. 7) NBC's "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" was sued by an audience member who says he was injured by one of the free t-shirts propelled into the crowd. 

May 26-29 -- "Skydivers don't sue".   Lively Usenet discussion last month and this among skydiving enthusiasts (rec.skydiving) over recent lawsuits in the sport.  In one, Canadian skydiving acrobat Gerry Dyck is suing teammate Robert Laidlaw over a 1991 accident during an eight-man stunt jump near Calgary in which Dyck was knocked unconscious and severely hurt on landing.  (Jeffrey Jones, "Canadian skydiver sues teammate for mid-air crash", San Jose Mercury News, April 24, no longer online).  The other followed the death of James E. Martin, Jr., a Hemet, Calif. dentist and veteran of more than 5,000 jumps who perished when a line snagged on his parachute, his fifth time out on that gear.  Now his widow's suing the gear maker, Fliteline Systems of Lake Elsinore, Calif.; vice president Mick Cottle of Fliteline, the first defendant named in the suit, says Martin was a "close friend".  "Few lawsuits over sky diving deaths ever reach judgment," reports the Riverside Press-Enterprise. And "most makers of sky-diving gear do not carry liability insurance, which reduces the likelihood of plaintiffs gaining a settlement."  About 32 sky-diving deaths occur annually in the U.S., of which about five lead to lawsuits, according to one frequent expert witness in the field; he estimates that plaintiffs have won only 1 or 2 percent of cases he's seen, though it's unclear whether he's including settlements in that estimate.  (Guy McCarthy, "Lawsuit blames gear in sky diver's death", Riverside Press-Enterprise, May 8, link now dead; Remarq saved thread; Deja.com archive, recent search on "lawsuit" -- hundreds of posts in all) 

May 26-29 -- Insurers fret over online privacy suits.   The wave of lawsuits against Yahoo!, DoubleClick and others for privacy sins has insurance companies "concerned they will have to pay for potentially massive torts they didn't anticipate" in liability policies they've written for the dot-com sector.  "'If it's not the next really big issue, it's one of the next big issues where we can expect a lot of litigation,' said Thomas R. Cornwell, VP of the technology insurance group" for insurer Chubb.  "Plaintiff's attorneys are honing their skills and preparing for a boom in such lawsuits," reports the magazine Business Insurance in its May 22 lead story.  "'Just as the Internet itself is a growth area, Internet law is being recognized as a growth area within the legal profession,' said David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington.  The nonprofit organization supports plaintiff lawsuits on Internet privacy."  "My guess is that now that the blood is in the water there will be a lot of plaintiffs' attorneys sniffing it up," said one lawyer who's sued Yahoo.  (Roberto Ceniceros, "Internet privacy liability growing", Business Insurance, May 22, fee-based archives).  Expect the cost of securing liability insurance for an Internet launch to rise accordingly. 

May 26-29 -- Suits by household pets?  "Somewhere out there -- maybe in a Boston zoo or a Fresno research lab -- a Bonzo or Fido is biding his time, deceptively peeling a banana or playing dead, quietly getting ready to sue his master," writes Claire Cooper of the Sacramento Bee.  As animal-rights courses proliferate at law schools, activists are quietly looking for test cases in which to assert the singular new notion of standing for nonhuman creatures -- with themselves as the designated legal representatives, needless to say.  ("Pets suing their masters? Stay tuned, advocates say", May 13).  In March the Seattle Times profiled the Great Apes Legal Project, which views the non-human primate kingdom as plausible rights-bearing clients.  This provoked a letter from reader David Storm of Everett, who said the article was "very interesting, but the goal doesn't go far enough. In addition, we should declare the apes to be lawyers, which would simultaneously improve our legal system."  (Alex Tizon, "Cadre of lawyers working to win rights for apes", Seattle Times, March 19; letters, March 21).  See also Roger Bryant Banks, "Animal Dogma", SpinTech (online), May 12, on the question: if Chimp v. Zoo is a good case, why not also Chimp v. Chimp, following incidents of violence or harassment? 

May 26-29 -- EPA's high courtroom loss rate.   Most federal agencies win most of the time when their regulatory decisionmaking is challenged in federal court, but the Environmental Protection Agency in recent years has been a glaring exception, losing a large share of the cases it has defended, including high-profile battles over electric car mandates, gasoline reformulation, and Clean Water Act permit-granting, among many others.  Why does it fare so badly?  Jonathan Adler of the Competitive Enterprise Institute thinks one reason is that agency policymakers adopt extreme legal positions, partly due to unclear authorizing statutes, partly due to zealousness among political appointees at the top.  "Environmental Performance at the Bench: The EPA's Record in Federal Court", Reason Public Policy Institute, Policy Study #269; "EPA in Need of Adult Supervision", CEI Update, March 1; Adler's home page.  Ben Lieberman, also of CEI, calls attention to one of the more unusual confrontations the EPA has gotten into of late: its crackdown on coal-burning utilities has led it into a showdown with the government-owned Tennessee Valley Authority, which means it's the feds versus the feds. ("EPA's tug at TVA's power", May 19, no longer online). 

May 26-29 -- Ready to handle your legal needs.   Stephen Glass, who resigned in disgrace from The New Republic just over two years ago after being caught making up stories, is graduating this month from Georgetown Law School.  The Pop View has posted this summary of the episode for anyone who's forgotten (via Romenesko's Media News). 

May 25 -- Conference on excessive legal fees.  In Washington today from 10 to 4 Eastern, the Manhattan Institute, Federalist Society, Hudson Institute and Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. team up to host a conference on ideas for "protecting unsophisticated consumers, class action members, and taxpayers/citizens" from overreaching legal fees (schedule and confirmed speakers at Federalist Society site; live broadcast at U.S. Chamber site requires RealPlayer). 

May 25 -- Thomas the Tank Engine, derailed.  "Children's online privacy": the sort of sweetness-and-light notion practically no one's willing to criticize in principle.  Yet regulation is regulation, and seldom lacking in real-world bite.  Declan McCullagh at Wired News reports that the popular children's TV show Thomas the Tank Engine has had to discontinue sending regular email bulletins to legions of young fans because obtaining parental consent individually would be too cumbersome.  The show's website cites the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which took effect last month.  Other online publishers are also unilaterally cutting off subscribers under the age of 12, to their distress. ("COPPA Lets Steam Out of Thomas", May 13; Lynn Burke, "Kid's Privacy an Act, or Action?", April 20). 

May 25 -- "Taking cash into custody".  Local law enforcement agencies systematically dodge the constraints of state forfeiture law to help themselves to proceeds after seizing cash and property in traffic stops and drug busts, according to this Kansas City Star investigation.  And though Congress's enactment of federal-level forfeiture law reform was much trumpeted earlier this year (see April 13, Jan. 31), it's likely to leave many of the abuses unchecked.  (Karen Dillon, Kansas City Star, series May 19-20). 

May 25 -- What the French think of American harassment law.   Pretty much what you'd expect: "Fifteen years after the first harassment trials, puritanism in the office is total," marvels the New York correspondent of a French paper named Liaisons Sociales.  "A suggestive calendar in a man's locker? Prohibited. Below-the-belt jokes? Totally excluded. Comments about physique? Illegal. The result is that behavior in the workplace has been profoundly changed. The doors of offices are always open. The secretaries are always present during tete-a-tete meetings, in case they need to be witnesses in litigation."  A few feminist French lawyers would like to emulate the American way of doing things but lament that in their country litigation is frowned on, damages are set at a token level, and, as one complains, "current French law makes no mention of things like improper jokes".  (Vivienne Walt, "Curbing Workplace Sexism Evolving Slowly in France," New York Times, May 24 (reg)).  Plus: chief exec of leading British fashion chain canned after inappropriate conduct (Fraser Nelson and Tim Fraser, "Pat on the bottom costs boss £1m job" Sunday Times (London), May 10). 

May 25 -- His wayward clients.   In March, in 275 pages of court filings, Allstate, Geico and other insurers filed a lawsuit charging what they called "the most extensive fraud upon the New York no-fault system that has ever been uncovered," suing 47 doctors, chiropractors and businessmen all told.  But the complaint did not name as a defendant a lawyer who's given legal advice or assistance to just about every one of those 47 defendants; he's a former chairman of the State Bar Associationís health committee who rents office space in a politically connected law firm.  Among his specialties is to assist chiropractors and others in getting around a New York rule that no one can own a medical practice other than a licensed doctor.  The complaint says a Milford, Conn. physician who holds a license to practice medicine in New York had served as the front guy for no fewer than 29 medical practices in the state.  (Glenn Thrush, "Black Belt Lawyer Robert Borsody Evades $57 Million Fraud Lawsuit", New York Observer, March 20). 

May 24 -- Musical chairs disapproved.  "The traditional children's party game of musical chairs has been accused of breeding violence," reports the BBC.  A booklet produced under the auspices of the British education ministry by a group called the Forum on Children and Violence argues that the diversion rewards the "strongest and fastest" children and suggests that nursery schools consider an alternative game such as "musical statues".  The education spokeswoman for the opposition Tories, Theresa May, called the advice "political correctness gone mad".  ("Musical chairs 'too violent'", BBC News, May 23). 

May 24 -- After the great power-line panic.  Eleven years ago reporter Paul Brodeur penned a series of articles for The New Yorker charging that electric power-line fields were causing childhood cancers and other ailments, later published as a book entitled Currents of Death.  Trial lawyers promptly went on the warpath, and the resulting binge of scare publicity terrified countless parents.  Hundreds of millions in litigation costs later, the suits have mostly fizzled. But have any lessons been learned? Forbes reprints an excerpt from Robert L. Park's much-discussed new book, "Voodoo Science" (Oxford U. Press).  ("Voodoo Science and the Power-Line Panic", May 15).  Among groups that stoked the panic were Trial Lawyers for Public Justice: see, e.g., "Names in the News: Kilovolt Cancer", Multinational Monitor, March 1992 (second item, quoting TLPJ's Michael Koskoff). 

May 24 -- Smudged plumage.  The Baltimore Orioles, owned by trial lawyer zillionaire/political kingmaker Peter Angelos, say that in order not to threaten the "goodwill" arising from their exhibition performance against the Cuban national team last year (see Dec. 9, Oct. 19 commentaries), they'll refuse to hire any baseball player who defects from Cuba.  Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity calls this stand "morally indefensible -- telling those fleeing a totalitarian regime that they are unwelcome and unemployable" -- and wonders how well it accords with the federal laws banning employment discrimination on the basis of national origin and lawful-immigrant status.  Maybe the team could beat such charges by arguing that it has nothing against Cuban émigrés based on their national origin as such -- it might hire them, after all, if they were loyal Castroites playing with Fidel's approval.  ("Peter Angelos in foul territory", National Review Online, May 18; "Orioles Avoid Cuban Players Who Have Defected", Reuters/Yahoo, May 17, link now dead). 

May 24 -- ADA & the web: sounding the alarm.  "It's simply a matter of (Internet) time before pitched battles over accommodations in the virtual world rival their physical counterparts," writes MIT's Michael Schrage ("Brave New Work: E-Commodating the Disabled in the Workplace", Fortune, May 15; quotes our editor).  The National Federation of the Blind's recent lawsuit against AOL is "a 500-pound gorilla that party-goers canít ignore," according to a metaphor-happy lawyer with Morrison & Foerster.  "...If the court rules that AOL is a public accommodation, it could require anyone engaging in e-commerce to make their Web site ...accessible to people with disabilities." (Ritchenya A. Shepherd, "Net Rights for the Disabled?", National Law Journal, Nov. 15, 1999).  "In a few years, if regulatory history is repeated, any Web site that doesn't provide government-sanctioned equal access for the handicapped could be declared illegal," warns an Internet Week columnist (Bill Frezza, "The ADA Stalks The Internet: Is Your Web Page Illegal?", Feb. 28).  Coming soon, we hope: a few highlights from the mail we've been inundated with on this topic, much of which we haven't even had a chance to answer yet (thanks for your patience, correspondents!). 

May 24 -- Bargain price on The Excuse Factory.  Usually we urge you to buy books through our online bookstore, but right now Laissez Faire Books is offering an unbeatable discount on our editor's book about law and what it's doing to the American workplace, The Excuse Factory, just $12.25 while they last (hardcover, too).  And it makes a good occasion to check out the rest of the LFB catalogue.  (Order direct from them.) 

May 23 -- Steering the evidence.  The FBI is probing charges of evidence- and witness-tampering in a liability case that led a San Antonio judge last week to impose sanctions on plaintiff's attorneys Robert Kugle, Andrew Toscano and Robert "Trey" Wilson.  Bridgett and Juan Fabila had sued DaimlerChrysler, demanding $2 billion, over a 1996 accident in Mexico which killed several family members in their Dodge Neon.  Their lawyers alleged that the car's steering column decoupler was defective.  But someone anonymously sent DaimlerChrysler evidence of misconduct by its adversaries, and eventually the carmaker succeeded in laying before 224th District Judge David Peeples evidence of the following: 

* The steering decoupler was broken by the time the carmaker was allowed to see it, but photographs taken shortly after the accident showed it intact.  The plaintiff's lawyers denied for two years having any knowledge of such photos, and then, when they came to light, moved unilaterally to drop the suit, then argued (unsuccessfully) that the judge had no authority to impose sanctions on them because his jurisdiction ended with the suit.  Close inspection of the steering decoupler revealed the minute scrapings of wrench marks and other signs of deliberate tampering. 

* One of the attorneys' investigators "tried to bribe two Mexican highway patrol officers in an attempt to change their testimony and threatened the family of a Red Cross official who said Fabila told him the accident had occurred because her husband fell asleep behind the wheel." 

* The "investigator who took the first set of photographs claim[ed] Wilson told him in March that his firm was 'running a bluff, but we had our hand called.'"  The lawyers said later that their real demand was for $75 million, of which they would get 40 percent as their share, according to the San Antonio paper's Rick Casey. 

Senior partner Robert Kugle of the Kugle Law Firm counter-accused the car company of itself bribing witnesses and tampering with evidence, while Wilson and investigator Stephen Garza "both asserted their Fifth Amendment right not to testify". After an inquiry, Judge Peeples dismissed the Fabila family's suit with prejudice, ordered attorneys Kugle, Toscano and Wilson to pay $920,000 in legal expenses that DaimlerChrysler had incurred -- it's not quite impossible for a defendant to recover its legal costs in an American courtroom -- and said he planned to report his findings to the state bar and to county prosecutors for possible action.  The FBI has seized the vehicle pursuant to further investigation, according to Casey.  Kugle continues to declare his innocence of wrongdoing and says he intends to appeal; the other two attorneys were not available to reporters for comment.  Ken Glucksman, associate general counsel of DaimlerChrysler, said the case was "the most flagrant example of misconduct I've seen in more than 20 years as a lawyer" and said he hoped the attorneys were disbarred.  Update: final ruling by judge sets stage for appeal (June 26). Further update (Mar. 17, 2003).

SOURCES: Adolfo Pesquera, "Sanctions issued in tampering case", San Antonio Express-News, May 18; San Antonio Express-News coverage by Rick Casey, various dates; "Judge Dismisses $2 Bln Suit vs. Daimler", Reuters/FindLaw, May 18; "DaimlerChrysler wins $920,489 in fines against three Texas attorneys", AP/Detroit Free Press, May 18; Dina ElBoghdady, "DaimlerChrysler fights baseless suits", Detroit News, May 19; "Lawyers who sued DC fined", Detroit Free Press, May 19, link now dead.

May 23 -- "Toronto Torch" age-bias suit.  Shirley Zegil, 52, has filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, saying she was improperly discharged by a Brantford strip club because of her age.  "They told me I was too old and fat," said Zegil, who has been disrobing for audiences for more than two decades and performs under the nicknames "The Contessa" and "Toronto Torch".  But she still has plenty of loyal fans among older clubgoers: "A girl is never too old to strip," she says. (Dale Brazao, "Stripper, 52, a winner in my court of appeal", Toronto Star, May 22, no longer online). 

May 23 -- Favorite bookmark.  Edward E. Potter is president of the Employment Policy Foundation, which plays a prominent role in debates on workplace issues in the nation's capital. Yesterday the Cincinnati Enquirer asked him to list his favorite bookmarks, and this site made it onto the short list.  Thanks!  ("Weighing future of work force" (interview), May 22). 

May 23 -- "Lawyers' tobacco-suit fees invite revolt".   Arbitrators' award of $265 million to Ohio tobacco lawyers was the final straw for editors of USA Today, which came out editorially yesterday in favor of limiting attorneys' tobacco swag.   Fee hauls have mounted to $10.4 billion, including $3.4 billion for lawyers representing Florida, $3.3 billion (Texas), $1.4 billion (Mississippi), and $575 million (Louisiana), the latter of which works out, according to a dissenting arbitrator, to $6,700 an hour.  The paper calls the "mega-paydays" a "sorry legacy" of the tobacco deal and notes that lawyers "who represented many states are being paid repeatedly for piggyback efforts."  (May 22). 

May 23 -- "Harvard reenacts Jesus trial".   Among dramatis personae in simulated trial of founder of Christianity: divinity prof Harvey Cox as Pontius Pilate and, as defense lawyer for the man of Galilee, none other than Alan Dershowitz, who "said the role fulfilled a lifelong dream. 'Jesus is the one client I've always wished I could have represented,' said the law professor whose clients have included O.J. Simpson, Claus von Bulow and Leona Helmsley".  Arguing that crucifixion was too severe a penalty for defying Roman authorities, Dershowitz "came up with a novel substitute punishment. 'I think it would be appropriate to tie him in litigation and appeals for years," he said. 'That way he would spend his life with lawyers, whom he hated.'"  (Richard Higgins, Boston Globe/Omaha World Herald, May 13). 

May 22 -- Texas tobacco fees.  "Every three months, like clockwork, another $25 million arrives for the five Texas tobacco lawyers."  The five are fighting tooth and nail to avoid being put under oath by Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, a Republican, about how they came by that money, specifically, "longtime allegations that his predecessor, Dan Morales, solicited large sums of money from lawyers he considered hiring" for the state's tobacco case.  (Wayne Slater, "Trial lawyers give heavily to Democrats", Dallas Morning News, May 14; Clay Robison, "Cornyn moves in on anti-tobacco lawyers", Houston Chronicle, April 27; Susan Borreson, "Motions Flying Again Over Tobacco Lawyers' Fees", Texas Lawyer, July 26, 1999; "Lawyers Challenge AGís Subpoenas", Nov. 17, 1999). 

So far, according to the Dallas Morning News report, the five have taken in more than $400 million of the billions they expect eventually from the tobacco settlement, and have recycled a goodly chunk of that change into political donations -- more than $2.2 million in unrestricted soft money to the Democrats already in this election cycle, with further sums expected.  Walter Umphrey, along with members of his Beaumont firm, "has put at least $350,000 into Democratic coffers. 'The only hope of the Democratic Party is that the trial lawyers nationwide dig down deep and the labor unions do the same thing,' he said.  In addition to Mr. Umphrey and his firm, John Eddie Williams and members of his Houston firm have given $720,000; Harold Nix of Daingerfield, $420,000; Wayne Reaud of Beaumont, $250,000; and John O'Quinn of Houston, $100,000." 

May 22 -- Not child's father, must pay anyway.  "Told by his girlfriend that she was pregnant, Bill Neal of Glasgow Village presumed he was the father and agreed to pay child support."  Eight years and $8,000 in payments later, Neal was curious why the child didn't take after his looks, arranged for a DNA test to be done, and discovered the boy was someone else's.  So far the courts have ruled that he has to keep paying anyway because he didn't contest the matter earlier.  The legal system is big on finality on the matter of paternity, as men have learned to their misfortune in similar cases lately in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. (Tim Bryant, "Man must pay support even though he is not boy's father", St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 17, no longer online). Plus: John Tierney on "throwaway dads" ("An Imbalance in the Battle Over Custody", New York Times, April 29 (requires registration)). 

May 22 -- "Jury Awards Apparent Record $220,000 for Broken Finger".   It happened in Atlanta after 41-year-old dental hygienist Linda K. Powers took a spin on the dance floor with Mike D. Lastufka but came to grief when Lastufka "tried a shag-style spin move"; her thumb wound up broken and she sued him.  The previously reported Georgia record for a broken finger or thumb was $20,000 to a tennis instructor hurt in an auto accident.  (Trisha Renaud, Fulton County Daily Report, Jan. 28). 

May 22 -- Annals of zero tolerance.    In Canton, Ohio, a six-year-old boy has been suspended from school for sexual harassment after he jumped from the tub where he was being given a bath and waved out the window to a school bus that was picking up his sister (Lori Monsewicz, "Boy, 6, jumps from tub into sex harassment trouble", Canton Repository, May 11). In the latest "finger-gun" incident, the principal of a Boston elementary school visited a class of second-graders to admonish several of them for making the thumb-as-trigger gesture during a supervised play-acting session; the youngsters were not subjected to discipline, however. (Ed Hayward, "School gives hands-on lesson after kids pull 'finger guns'", Boston Herald, March 28).  And the American Bar Association Journal -- who says its views don't coincide with ours occasionally? -- points out that "a child is three times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed violently at school" and recounts many noteworthy cases: "A second-grader who accidentally grabbed her mother's lunch bag containing a steak knife was disciplined despite turning the bag over to her teacher as soon as she realized her mistake. A middle-schooler who shared her asthma inhaler on the school bus with a classmate experiencing a wheezing attack was suspended for drug trafficking."  "Kids are not going to respect teachers and administrators who cannot appreciate the difference between a plastic knife and a switchblade," says Virginia lawyer Diane Fener.  (Margaret Graham Tebo, "Zero tolerance, zero sense", ABA Journal, April). 


back to top
More archives:
May II - III / June I

Recent commentary on overlawyered.com


Original contents © 2000 and other years The Overlawyered Group.
Technical questions: Email Webmaster