Overlawyered letters

I am an ice hockey referee and was officiating at a high-school game a while back when a player shot a puck which hit me in a not entirely dignified portion of my anatomy. Both team medics were out on the ice immediately, the player and his coach apologized for hurting me, and after taking a quick break I completed the game. I told them their apologies were completely unnecessary and that I would neither call a penalty nor hold a grudge; I can tell when an injury was unintentional, as this was. Besides, I was completely out of position and it was my own fault that I got hit.

Two days later, I received an e-mail from someone describing himself as a spectator who said that I should sue the player, the player's parents, the coach, the team, the rink, the state and regional hockey league, and the manufacturers of the equipment that I was wearing at the time of the so-called injury. The letter listed complete contact information for a lawyer that would take my case.

Getting struck with a puck is just a part of being a referee. I've been hit with pucks, sticks, and players more times than I care to count, and I've never been injured to the point where I've had to seek medical treatment. As far as I'm concerned, sports officials MUST be willing to take personal responsibility when they step out onto the playing area. Should my good luck run out, it is standard policy in USA Hockey that referees be given supplemental insurance to ensure proper medical coverage.

I was so disgusted with the letter that I contacted the bar association and called its attention to the possibility that the lawyer was involved in improper solicitation of business. I also sent letters to all of the people and organizations named in the letter. I did not ask for anything; I simply wanted to warn them. I received many letters of thanks, and one company sent me a coupon for a free pair of very fine skates in thanks for my efforts! I told them I was reluctant to use the coupon because they did not owe me anything but the president of the company wrote back and said that lawsuits have been costing them huge amounts of money, and that it was his privilege to support the people who wear the stripes.

Please continue your incredibly important work. Something needs to be done, and our lawmakers are not going to take the lead. -- Name withheld by request, New Jersey

Posted by Walter Olson at 11:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (1)

I must take issue with your statement (regarding religious vilification laws in Australia, Dec. 3) that "an essential part of the task of proselytizing for one faith is convincing listeners that there is something seriously wrong with or deficient about others."

While there are certainly misguided individuals claiming that their faith is The Only Way, this does not apply to everyone. Even Pope John Paul II has said that "salvation is not denied to non-Christians".

Badly done, sir. Broad, sweeping generalizations are usually not your style. -- Duane Roelands, Paradise, Pa.

Good point; I should have specified that some (as opposed to all) faiths hold such proselytizing to be essential. I've fixed the relevant text, with an explanation -- W.O.

Posted by Walter Olson at 10:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (3)

A recent AP story brought readers up to date on civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, who is 91 and suffers from dementia and is in poor health. At the end of the story comes this incidental note:

"More recently, Parks' lawyers have filed two suits involving the hip-hop duo OutKast and their record company, BMG, over a song titled 'Rosa Parks.' They seek a total of $5 billion."

Well, if she is suffering from dementia, was this suit her idea or was this a case of lawyers deciding to file the action? -- Moin Yahya, Edmonton, Alberta

Posted by Walter Olson at 10:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (2)

I am a lawyer working in Australia but am also admitted to practise in England and Wales. I follow your site with interest and was appalled to note (Oct. 7) that referral fees could be paid by or to solicitors in England and Wales.

It was with great relief then, that I learnt that a motion was presented to the Law Society of England & Wales (the regulatory body) which voted overwhelmingly (3 to 1) in favour of returning to the old position of referral fees not being allowed.

Although the motion has to be ratified by the Council it gave me a bit of a fuzzy feeling to know that there are lawyers out there who not only have principles themselves but who will stand up for them. -- Sean Stocks, Perth, Western Australia

While the vote of the membership is not binding, the Law Society has pledged to re-examine the issue by this Spring. -- W.O.

Posted by Walter Olson at 10:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)