A federal jury has disapproved a $300,000 “success bonus” that a Greenwich, Ct. divorce lawyer tried to charge his client following a high-pressure five-day divorce mediation. Noted lawprof ethicist Geoffrey Hazard, testifying for dissatisfied client Gary Zimmerman, said the extra charge resembled a contingent fee on the lawyer’s part and that contingent fees are supposed to be disallowed in divorce litigation. (Thomas B. Scheffey, “$300,000 ‘Success Bonus’ for Five-Day Mediation? Not So Fast, Says Jury”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Mar. 29). David Giacalone has more (Mar. 29).
Archive for May, 2005
Also new at Point of Law
If you’re not visiting our sister site Point of Law regularly you’re missing out on an awful lot. F’rinstance: contingency-fee tax collection in Mississippi, courtesy of that state’s AG; Alan Dershowitz’s coincidental whereabouts during the Larry Summers flap; liability reform in Georgia, South Carolina and Missouri, and (on asbestos) in Texas and Florida; topical TrackBack spam pings; the “Constitution in Exile” brouhaha; overtime lawsuits; crying wolf on class action reform; pressure for cooperation in white-collar crime cases; how Westchester County, N.Y. residents subsidize wildman enviro-litigator Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and California residents subsidize trial-lawyer front groups as well as propaganda for antitrust enforcement; jury selection in Scotland; several posts on The American Lawyer’s recent special issue, “Plaintiff’s Power”; the supposed hypocrisy of lawsuit reformers; high-tech shareholder suits; much, much more from Ted on silicosis doctors’ testimony; Mike DeBow on Ford Crown Victoria suits; and Jim Copland on the Second Circuit’s dismissal of a tobacco class action. And don’t miss Ted’s priceless story of what happened to ATLA’s own insurance company (did you really think those guys would be good at running one?).
“Cancer label for foods is considered”
There’ll always be a California, cont’d: “Buying cereal, olives, potatoes, bread, almonds — even prune juice — at the grocery store soon might come with a cancer warning from the state of California. State officials are considering a requirement that grocery stores, retailers and restaurants alert customers about acrylamide, a carcinogen created when starchy foods like potatoes and breads are baked, roasted, fried or toasted.” (Greg Lucas, San Francisco Chronicle, May 25). For more about the naturally occurring compound and the litigation it has already provoked, see Dec. 27-29, 2002, Sept. 19, 2003 (final item), and Apr. 6, 2004. For more on Proposition 65, the bounty-hunting statute under which lawyers will inevitably file more suits against businesses that fail to post signs warning of acrylamide should the proposed regulation become effective, see Nov. 4-5, 2002 and these links.
Beach blanket bankruptcies, cont’d
Now it’s the $60 million in legal fees from the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas & Electric-affiliated energy companies that’s drawing criticism. (Tom Schoenberg, “$60M Bankruptcy Bonanza”, Legal Times, May 6). See Jan. 13, Sept. 22, 2004 (hundreds of millions in main PG&E bankruptcy), etc.
“Investigators Blame Stupidity In Area Death”
It’s a parody from The Onion (May 25), and more than one reader has written in to direct our attention to the final paragraph.
Medical matters: new at Point of Law
Loads of coverage of health matters in recent weeks over at our sister website, including: liability fears and emergency room admissions; New Jersey bans “retaliating” against expert witnesses over testimony they give, no matter how untrue it may be; Ted on one lawprof’s grossly misleading use of med-mal statistics, and a second round of the same; pain medication in nursing homes (and more on nursing homes); two doctors pick up stakes; Australian med-mal rates fall after reform; same thing in Texas; HHS introduces a distinctive “early offers” program for medical malpractice claims involving its clients; please don’t let him grow up to be an M.D.; Pennsylvania hospitals’ bill; MICRA and Prop 103; the March of Dimes wants Bendectin back; federal judge Loretta Preska in Manhattan throws out a major Dickie Scruggs case against the non-profit health sector; and a must-read article on defensive medicine. To explore all this and much more, follow the links provided or visit the site’s topical page on medicine and law.
Made ill by colleague’s perfume; jury votes $10.6 million
After eight days of deliberation, an all-female federal jury in Detroit has voted $10.6 million, including $7 million in punitive damages, $2 million for mental anguish and emotional distress and $1.6 million in compensatory damages, to former radio host Erin Weber, who said she was made ill by a co-worker’s perfume and later fired after WYCD-FM’s owner, Infinity Broadcasting, failed to resolve her complaints. Weber said that exposure to colleagues’ use of nail polish remover triggered sensitivity to the emanations of a co-worker wearing Tresor, a popular scent which Lancome describes as “romantic, sensual, emotional” and as based on such ingredients as rose and lilac. “Weber claimed exposure to Tresor caused her to lose her voice and take lengthy absences from work. She also said she once ‘felt an electric shock quell through my entire body’ and required heavy medication to combat the effects,” according to the Detroit News. In addition, Weber claimed, the co-worker, who is also a radio host, continued exposing her to the perfume despite her complaints and even walked by her on purpose. Infinity lawyer Daniel Tukel said the company had ordered the co-worker to stop wearing perfume and disputed Weber’s claim that it had “blacklisted” her from radio employment. The company says it will appeal, and a reduction in the award is likely, since federal law “generally caps punitive damages at $300,000 for the claims that Weber brought.” (David Shepardson, “Radio DJ wins $10.6 million in stink over perfume”, Detroit News, May 24; Kim North Shine, “DJ takes in sweet smell of victory”, Detroit Free Press, May 24). For some earlier posts involving claims of unusual sensitivity to widely encountered chemicals, see May 6, 2002, Apr. 25, 2001, and Jul. 3-4, 2000. For complaints about perfume, see May 17-19, 2002 and Apr. 24, 2000 (& welcome James Taranto readers). Update Jul. 6, 2007: federal judge after trial reduced Weber’s award to $814,000.
“State says rare flower planted to foil project”
Sonoma County, Calif.: “State wildlife officials believe someone planted endangered flowers at a Sebastopol building site to try to stop a disputed housing development. Saying the act amounts to criminal fraud, state Department Fish and Game botanist Gene Cooley said his agency concluded that Sebastopol meadowfoam plants found on the Laguna Vista site were transplanted from somewhere else.” (Mary Callahan, Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, May 14)(via Jonathan Adler, Commons Blog, May 14).
Ted’s London travelogue
Over at Ted’s personal website — whoops, I don’t think I was supposed to mention yet that he has one — he’s recording various touristic impressions of the British scene, including Cadbury’s hot chocolate machines, whose prevalent dispensing temperature of 92 Celsius (c. 200 degrees Fahrenheit) may shed light on the Stella Liebeck vs. McDonald’s hot-coffee-spill controversy (May 20). The headline “New Bid To Curb Greedy Lawyers”, incidentally, can be traced to this Evening Standard piece (Joe Murphy, May 17) which summarizes new proposals from the Blair government aimed at bringing no-fee, no-win lawyers under greater control and curbing the rising perception of a “compensation culture” in the United Kingdom.
“Court: Man Can’t Take Both Sides of Same Case”
Massachusetts’ highest court has rebuffed John Otis III of Scituate, who first won a largely uncollectable $6.5 million verdict from a drunk driver and then tried to get that victory overturned so as to extract money from others. Otis, a pedestrian, was hit by inebriated motorist Todd Cusick, whose insurance policy limits were only $50,000. Here’s what happened next, according to reporter Sue Reinert of the Quincy Patriot-Ledger:
In a complicated legal maneuver, Otis agreed to free Cusick from his liability. In return, Otis got authority to sue Cusick’s attorneys and his insurer, Arbella Mutual Insurance of Quincy, on Cusick’s behalf. Otis would collect any winnings from the suit.
In this second lawsuit, Otis contended that Cusick got a raw deal from his lawyers, who were hired by Arbella. Cusick would have won the lawsuit if his attorneys had done a good job, Otis argued.
To make his case, Otis’ attorney, Driscoll, had to present the exact opposite arguments that he had made in winning the $6.5 million judgement, yesterday’s ruling said. He even contended that some crucial facts were different, the decision written by Justice Martha Sosman said.
“In short, Otis’ position in the present suit is that he should not have recovered anything in the first suit,” Sosman wrote.
Otis’s downfall proved to be the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which per Wikipedia “precludes a party from taking a position in a case which is contrary to a position they have taken in earlier legal proceedings”, at least if the position proved successful in the first round. (Sue Reinert, Quincy Patriot-Ledger, Mar. 15)(via Common Good Society Watch). For a 2004 case in which Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit invoked judicial estoppel to stymie the attempt of a bankrupt debtor to pursue a personal injury case not disclosed during his Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, see In re Superior Crewboats (PDF), summarized at the Louisiana blawg Naked Ownership (Jun. 21, 2004).