Overlawyered letters

You've covered (Dec. 12, Jan. 8) the exploits of Jarek Molski, perennial plaintiff in disabled-rights cases. Let me also bring to your attention Matt Lakota, who has sued at least 120 small businesses (including one of my clients) for parking spot infractions and other alleged disability rights violations. For more on Lakota's antics -- which have included writing false parking tickets for people he claims were illegally parked in handicap spots, and then pocketing the $280 fines, a stunt that earned him a conviction on several charges -- see coverage in the Chico News and Review, Sept. 12, 2002, Jul. 15, 2004, and Dec. 16, 2004. Incidentally, my client and I just went to court and won -- Lakota's case was dismissed with prejudice. -- Jeff Aran, Attorney at Law, Sacramento

Posted by Walter Olson at 11:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

In the debate over medical liability you sometimes hear lawyers talk as if doctors who get sued but eventually emerge victorious have no real ground for complaint -- after all, the system has worked the way they say they want it to, what more can they expect besides vindication? I would like to offer my experience in hopes of shedding light on that question.

As a plastic surgeon, I was repeatedly named as a defendant during the litigation over alleged harm from silicone breast implants. It has now been proven scientifically that the implants did not cause the alleged disease. The implant manufacturers were the primary ones sued, but lawyers also named the doctors as defendants, even though they acted in reliance on manufacturers' word as to the implants' safety. Eventually all the cases against me were withdrawn or dismissed, but the experience of being a defendant went on for more than 15 years.

Was I harmed? Leave aside any effects on my insurance; leave aside the mental stress and the inconvenience of depositions, etc. Did you know that Fannie Mae -- and therefore lending institutions -- will not allow you to get a home mortgage or refinance if you have this kind of suit pending? I was turned down by more than one bank. Texas is a community property state and we finally got around this problem by separating our community property and having my wife borrow in her name alone.

I have no doubt that I was harmed, even if our legal system does not recognize the wrong or give me any remedy. -- name withheld by request, Texas

Posted by Walter Olson at 11:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Regarding your coverage (Mar. 8, Mar. 15) of pet owners suing for large sums over the death of their animals: You'll probably see this Illinois $100,000 loss-of-cat story around, but I hope you won't miss the lawyer's quote, which is to my mind the inadvertently perfect summary of the larger problem:

[said Anzalone's attorney, Amy Breyer, who specializes in animal law:] "The point of trying to recover monetary damages is to establish for the whole world to see that this relationship had value," she added. "This shows it's not OK to say 'it's just a cat -- get it out of my face'."

Posted by Walter Olson at 11:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (3)

You are falling for U.K. party politics in citing the supposed legal limitations on people's ability to defend themselves and their homes in the U.K. (Dec. 8). It is not for nothing that the Daily Telegraph is known as the "Torygraph".

It is true that people are only allowed to use "reasonable" force but it is very rare indeed for anybody to be prosecuted for using "unreasonable" force.

There is one cause celebre which has provoked this debate. A man named Tony Martin was convicted of murder (later reduced to manslaughter) for shooting a burglar. But the burglar was shot in the back as he was running empty handed out of the house. We have never had the death penalty for attempted burglary. -- Jeff Richardson, London

For similar arguments, see Australian blogger Tim Lambert, Jul. 16, 2004 and Feb. 3, 2005. The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on cases of this sort can be found here. We covered the Tony Martin case Mar. 10-11 and Jul. 20, 2003. For a defense of Martin, see Val MacQueen, FrontPage, Jan. 28, 2003. -- W.O.

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