Posts Tagged ‘OJ Simpson’

October 4 roundup

  • O.J. Simpson trial 15 years after [Tim Lynch, Cato at Liberty; a couple of my reactions back then]
  • Hackers expose internal documents of British copyright-mill law firm [Steele, LEF] Insult to injury: now that target law firm may be fined for privacy breach [same]
  • BAR/BRI antitrust case: “Judge Cites ‘Egregious Breach’ of Ethics, Slashes Law Firm Fee from $12M to $500K” [ABA Journal]
  • “Confessions of former debt collectors” [CNN Money via CL&P]
  • Big investigative series on prosecutorial misconduct [USA Today]
  • “Even with malpractice insurance, doctors opt for expensive, defensive medicine” [Jain/WaPo] “Medical malpractice suits drop but take a toll” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Paul Carpenter, of the Allentown Morning Call, on problem and possible solutions] A contrary view: Ron Miller.
  • “Card check is dead … long live card check” [Hyman]
  • “Canada: Deported Russian spy sues for readmittance” [four years ago on Overlawyered] A role model for some in the spy ring recently deported from the U.S.?

Updates – May 17

Updating a few of the earlier stories covered around here:

  • Maybe it’s not so gay after all: Rebekah Rice, the California high school student who sued her school after they disciplined her for saying “That’s so gay,” has lost her lawsuit.

    “All of us have probably felt at some time that we were unfairly punished by a callous teacher, or picked on and teased by boorish and uncaring bullies. Unfortunately, this is part of what teenagers endure in becoming adults,” the judge wrote in a 20-page ruling. “The law, with all its majesty and might, is simply too crude and imprecise an instrument to satisfactorily soothe deeply hurt feelings.”

    Moreover, the judge picked up on the same irony we noted when we first covered the story:

    “If the Rice family had not told everyone that Rebekah had been given a referral for saying ‘That’s so gay’ then no one else would have know it either, and she would not have been referred to as the ‘That’s so gay girl,'” the judge wrote.

    (Update to the update: Matthew Heller has the opinion.)

  • Contrary to what we had speculated, it appears that Pants Judge Roy Pearson still has a job and may continue to do so. According to an unnamed D.C. official, and exemplifying the attitude with which the tort reform movement is fighting, “I don’t think it’s appropriate not to reappoint someone just because they file a lawsuit. You can’t retaliate against someone for exercising their constitutional, First Amendment right to file a lawsuit to vindicate their rights.” (No, but you can retaliate against someone for filing a frivolous lawsuit.) Meanwhile, as a face-saving publicity stunt, the American Trial Lawyers Association filed an ethics complaint against Pearson; really, Pearson isn’t doing anything that ATLA doesn’t endorse in other situations.
  • Remember Ted and Mary Roberts, the husband-and-wife team of San Antonio lawyers who hatched a blackmail scheme in which the wife had sex with married men and the husband threatened to sue them unless they paid him to keep quiet? (Ted’s been convicted; Mary is awaiting trial.) The bankruptcy trustee, acting on behalf of their estate, had sued the local San Antonio Express News for violating their privacy by reporting on their scheme; Howard Bashman reports that the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the lawsuit by a lower court. So the newspaper won a complete legal victory — but truthfully reporting on a criminal scheme by prominent lawyers nevertheless must have cost them six figures’ worth of legal expenses.
  • O.J. Simpson will not be suing the Kentucky steakhouse that wouldn’t serve him. His lawyer — the one who rushed to announce that O.J. was a victim and that the steakhouse “screwed with the wrong guy” — now tries to blame the owner for “using the episode for publicity.” (Originally, May 10.)
  • The bogus Equal vs. Splenda unfair competition lawsuit (Mar. 8) over Splenda’s “Made From Sugar, So It Tastes Like Sugar” slogan settled on undisclosed terms, moments before a jury announced its verdict. Although we don’t know the terms of the settlement, it shouldn’t be too hard to figure out the non-monetary part: just check whether Splenda changes its advertising.