Archive for November, 2003

Compulsory chapel for Minn. lawyers, cont’d

In the state of Minnesota, lawyers can lose their licenses unless they complete two credits every three years in what is called “Elimination of Bias” training, which resembles what is known in other contexts as diversity or sensitivity training. As we commented two years ago (see Dec. 18, 2001): “The point is less to regulate attorneys’ conduct than to instill in them opinions that the authorities consider correct about complex political and moral questions, and many of the resulting seminars have had a tendentious, preachy anti- white- male tone.” Now an attorney named Elliot Rothenberg has taken the matter to the Minnesota Supreme Court by defying the requirement. “The Board of Continuing Legal Education recommended last June that Rothenberg?s license be placed on involuntary restricted status” because of his refusal to submit to the training. “Rothenberg argues that the rule violates his free-speech rights and the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government endorsement of particular religious viewpoints.” (Barbara L. Jones, “Lawyer challenges two-credit anti-bias requirement”, Minnesota Lawyer, Nov. 17, subscriber-only article; website about the case by Peter Swanson, a lawyer who has filed an amicus brief in Rothenberg’s favor) More: Power Line has a summary with many further details. (& see Jan. 2). Update: Aug. 4, 2005.

Dog gets off leash, punitive damages for pet store

William Dyer at BeldarBlog has some comments (Nov. 16) about a case in which an Austin, Tex. judge awarded $47,000 in damages, including both emotional and punitive damages, against Petco over the death of a dog that got away from a Petco employee while being walked after a grooming, later ran into traffic and was killed. (“Judge awards $47,000 in runaway pet case”, AP/Houston Chronicle, Nov. 16; Claire Osborn, “High price put on dog’s life”, Austin American-Statesman, Nov. 16). For more on damage claims over the emotional worth of pets, see Jul. 30 and links from there.

Hall of reciprocity

Welcome visitors from GruntDoc, “Ramblings of an Emergency Physician in Texas”, which has a pleasing graphically rendered blogroll as well as the expected reflections on medical and military matters. And Southern Appeal, “The random musings of a Southern Federalist and his co-conspirators”, notably including Prof. Michael DeBow of Samford U.’s Cumberland School of Law, who’s written some great stuff on the tobacco-Medicaid litigation. The site is also your one-stop resource for commentary supportive of the appeals court nomination of Alabama AG Bill Pryor. Speaking of such nominations, Prof. Bainbridge offers cogent thoughts about a much-criticized speech by appeals court nominee Janice Rogers Brown (Nov. 4; see Nov. 1) but did startle us several paragraphs before the end with a sudden rhetorical question about whether we personally at this site are “just wasting [our] time.” Alex Wellen, author of the much-talked-about new memoir Barman (relating his experiences as a graduate of a second-tier law school turned intellectual property litigator) has launched a new legal weblog in which he generously lists us among his “blog mentors”; when Wellen’s book tour took him to Manhattan we had a chance to meet and compare notes in person. And we got a great many visitors last week when Todd Dominey of Atlanta (WhatDoIKnow.org) called us “nice” and put us on his “Enjoying” list.

Ninth Circuit gun decision

Eugene Volokh has extensive commentary in several posts on the recent Ninth Circuit 2-1 decision holding gun manufacturers potentially liable because a mentally ill bigot, Buford Furrow, went on a shooting rampage. (David Kravets, AP, Nov. 20) (via Bashman). Furrow is not one of the thirteen defendants.

Trivia not noted elsewhere: the two judges in the majority opinion, Richard Paez (see Kausfiles, Sep. 17) and Sidney Thomas, had some notoriety a couple of months ago when they were two thirds of a panel that made nationwide headlines by trying to enjoin the California recall election before an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit overturned them in an 11-0 decision. Among the problems with this decision: it forces California standards upon defendants in other states in violation of the Commerce Clause; and, like the punchcard case, the judges impose a new judicially-created rule on their public-policy say-so without any thought as to real-world consequences, which Professor Volokh effectively elucidates. The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Peter Nordberg (who is better known to readers of this site for his Blog 702, see July 5), is quoted by the AP as saying “I believe this is the first federal court of appeals decision to sustain a claim like this one.” Does it make me an old fogey already because I remember when calling a position “unprecedented” was an argument against its judicial adoption? (UPDATE: Peter Nordberg responds.)(& welcome Kausfiles readers)

UPDATE: As part of a lengthy criticism of the opinion, Clayton Cramer notes the absurdity of the following allegation: “Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants intentionally produced more firearms than the legitimate market demands with the intent of marketing their firearms to illegal purchasers who buy guns on the secondary market.” (Nov. 20) (via Volokh). That same logic of liability can, of course, be used to hit the manufacturers of any product that can be misused: alcohol, cigarettes, slot machines or casinos (the market of “legitimate gamblers” as opposed to addicts), prescription medications, sugar, SUVs, telephones. Congress is considering action to undo the decision. (Jason Hoppin, “9th Circuit Takes Aim at Gun Companies”, The Recorder, Nov. 21).

Read On…

Sorry, wrong (class-action) number

Maryland state judge Steven I. Platt “has knocked down a class-action settlement involving late fees on telephone bills, saying the attorneys’ request for $13 million in legal fees was excessive”. Under the terms of settlement of the four-year-old lawsuit, Verizon Maryland had agreed to set aside an impressive-sounding $51.9 million for refunds, but in fact only 18,000 of the 2-million-plus eligible customers submitted claims for their refund of (in most cases) $6, “making the settlement worth less than $200,000.” “Virtually all of the money on the table would have gone to the lawyers, and only a very small share would have gone to the class members themselves,” said Michael J. Quirk, a staff attorney for Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, which opposed the settlement. (Caroline E. Mayer, “Md. Judge Cites Legal Fees In Rejecting Phone Accord”, Washington Post, Nov. 18).

Richmond & Oklahoma City radio

Yesterday at 3:15 p.m. EST I was a guest on Michael Graham’s talk show on WRVA, Richmond, Va., to discuss money laundering regulations and the latest controversy to assail radio host Rush Limbaugh (I wrote about the general subject of money laundering law in 1999 for Reason). And tomorrow morning at 8:35 a.m. CST I’ll be a guest on Oklahoma City’s WKY radio morning program.

Back from travel & award

I’m finally on web duty again following my trip to give a talk before the American Tort Reform Association gathering in Las Vegas. ATRA has two current projects that especially merit readers’ attention. One is its recent update of its “Judicial Hellholes” reports on local jurisdictions famed for unfairness to outsider defendants, such as Madison County, Ill., Jefferson County, Miss., St. Louis, Philadelphia, Miami and Los Angeles. Recent news coverage can be found here.

The other project is ATRA’s recent launch of what it calls the Legal Reform Champions List. The list is intended to address a widespread (and sometimes infuriating) phenomenon: many lawyers who make a career specialty of litigation defense quietly undermine their clients’ interests by working covertly or openly to block reforms that would curb the volume or cost of litigation, often mindful of their own self-interest in ensuring there are plenty of future lawsuits requiring their services to defend. ATRA’s new list takes a relatively positive approach to this problem: rather than denounce by name defense lawyers who operate as effective allies of the litigation lobby, it singles out for praise those who (often at a real cost to their strict monetary interest) work in the public policy process to combat excessive litigation. We wrote about this problem in The Rule of Lawyers (in a passage not online through conventional means, but available with registration through Amazon’s book-peek feature).

I am happy to report something I wasn’t expecting when I set off for the trip: at my Monday appearance ATRA was kind enough to give me its “Civil Justice Achievement Award” 2003. This seems to be the year for me to receive handsomely engraved awards (see Sept. 24). Thanks! (& welcome Ernie the Attorney readers)

Phony class action nabs alleged murderer

See? Class actions do have social value! Seattle police tied a suspect to a murder by sending him a solicitation to obtain money in a class action over parking tickets–thus obtaining DNA from saliva on the return envelope. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers asked unsuccessfully for the evidence to be thrown out. (Tracy Johnson, “Judge upholds police trickery”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 18; Christine Clarridge, “Ruse police used to get DNA was legal, judge declares”, Seattle Times, Nov. 18; Tracy Johnson, “Police ruse illegal, lawyer says”, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Oct. 25; Richard Willing, “Police dupe suspects into giving up DNA”, USA Today, Sep. 10; AP, May 30). (via Daily Legal Newswire)