Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Archive for August, 2006

Mich. high court reinstates Geoffrey Fieger reprimand

By a 4-3 margin, the Supreme Court of Michigan has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect “the interests of an officer of the court in uttering vulgar epithets toward the court in a pending case” (decision in PDF format, p. 19) and has therefore sent back a case involving the disciplining of Geoffrey Fieger with instructions to reinstate the reprimand. After seeing a $15 million medical malpractice verdict overturned, Michigan’s most prominent plaintiff’s lawyer had described the appellate judges who ruled against him as variously “jackasses”, “Hitler”, “Goebbels” and “Eva Braun”, said that he was declaring war on them, said that they could kiss a portion of his anatomy not generally revealed in public, and repeatedly proposed that various objects be employed to assault a similar location on their persons.

In dissent, Justice Michael Cavanagh wrote that it matters not whether Fieger violated “a disciplinary rule he swore to obey when admitted to the practice of law”. The point is instead that “the judiciary, upon which is conferred unique powers, significant influence and considerable insulation, must not be so shielded that the public is denied its right to temper this institution”. Which raises at least one question: in what sense should Fieger be counted as a member of the “public” for these purposes? As a lawyer deputized with power to initiate compulsory process to drag unwilling parties into the Michigan courts, wouldn’t it be fair to say that “unique powers, significant influence and considerable insulation” have been conferred on him, too, in exchange for which he might reasonably be asked to submit to professional rules not applicable to the general public to guard against the abuse of these unique powers? (Dawson Bell, “Fieger reprimanded for attacks on judges”, Detroit Free Press, Jul. 31; Charlie Cain, “High court reinstates Fieger reprimand for comments”, Detroit News, Aug. 1).

We covered the controversy at hand (and its underlying lawsuit) Sept. 14, 1999, May 3, 2001, and Apr. 3, 2006. Other coverage of Fieger’s antics can be found here.

Filed under: , , ,

Fantasy sports leagues? Shut ’em down

A class-action law firm, Gardy & Notis, is suing ESPN, Viacom, Disney, CBS, Hearst, and The Sporting News, among others, alleging that their participation in the thriving field of fantasy sports leagues violates the anti-gambling laws of New Jersey. DeadSpin notes (Jul. 31) that named plaintiff Charles Humphrey “is a resident of Colorado, not New Jersey, and he points out in the suit that he, in fact, has never played any of these fantasy games, unlike you, you heathens.” Humphrey’s press release is here and the complaint (PDF) is here (via Bill Childs and Kevin Heller). The complaint asserts a right to recovery under qui tam (bounty-hunting) laws of Illinois, Georgia and the District of Columbia which allow random outsiders to file lawsuits to recover moneys reaped by way of unlawful gambling.

Filed under: , , , ,

Duly noted

Threats against federal judges are on a record-setting pace this year, nearly 18 months after the family of a federal judge was killed in Chicago….

The rise in civil lawsuits, especially those filed by people who do not have lawyers, and a change in criminal cases in federal courts help explain the increase, the marshals say.

Donald Donovan, chief deputy marshal in Baltimore, said people who file and lose multiple lawsuits account for the largest percentage of threats.

Federal courts now handle many more violent crime prosecutions, cases that were once the province of state and local courts….

(Mark Sherman, “An angry trend: Threats against federal judges set record pace”, AP/Boston Globe, Jul. 28).

Filed under:

Dead man suing

Madison County, Illinois, inimitable as ever: “For two-and-a-half years the Lakin Law Firm has carried on a Madison County class action lawsuit with a dead plaintiff,” reports the Madison Record, which says Lakin lawyer Jeffrey Millar did not inform Circuit Judge Daniel Stack about his client’s having assumed room temperature. The defendant, American Family Insurance, eventually twigged to it, and now the Lakin firm plans to switch to a live plaintiff from Ohio so as to keep the suit going. “Millar has confirmed the death of [client Manuel Hernandez of Granite City], but he has not answered questions that American Family Insurance submitted about his knowledge of it. Millar objected to the questions, arguing to Stack that American Family Insurance should submit them not to Hernandez’s attorney but to Hernandez himself.” (Steve Korris, “Dead plaintiff should answer questions, class counsel argues”, Jul. 20)(via Insurance Coverage Blog).

Filed under: , , ,

Great moments in lawyer discipline

Way back in 2000, a Texas trial judge dismissed a $2 billion products liability suit against DaimlerChrysler and imposed sanctions of $865,000 on San Antonio attorney Robert Kugle and two associates at his firm, Andrew Toscano and Robert “Trey” Wilson III, also referring the matter to the State Bar of Texas for possible disciplinary action. As we summarized the episode in our post of Jul. 20, 2003, the judge found “that the steering decoupler of the sued-over Dodge Neon had been altered to simulate mechanical failure and that Mexican policemen had been asked to change their accounts of the accident giving rise to the suit. An appeals court called the firm’s conduct ‘an egregious example of the worst kind of abuse of the judicial system.'” Now, six years later, the leisurely process of state bar discipline still hasn’t run its course in Toscano’s case, Wilson drew a two-year probated suspension, and both men are practicing law in San Antonio. The American Tort Reform Association doesn’t think that’s a suitable outcome. (Mary Alice Robbins, “‘Texas Justice Massacre’ Billboard Targets Attorney’s Alleged Misconduct”, Texas Lawyer, Jul. 5; David Shepardson, “Chrysler takes fight to lawyers”, Detroit News, Mar. 21).

Filed under: , , , ,

“N.M. Legislators: Bar Owners Need ESP”

Under the terms of a bill proposed in the New Mexico legislature, if a “drinker is caught with a blood alcohol content (BAC) exceeding 0.14, the bar owner will be deemed legally responsible and may lose his license” if the bar had served the drinker within the previous two hours. According to Nobody’s Business, this implies that bar owners in New Mexico who don’t want to break the law may be well advised to develop “paranormal gifts. …they must know if a customer who leaves their establishment intends to drink more over the next two hours — perhaps at a friend’s home.” (Jul. 10; “Proposed liquor law changes draw comments”, AP/Los Alamos Monitor, Jul. 6).

Filed under: ,

London’s (and Belfast’s) libel-shoppers

Britney Spears has resorted to the courts of justice in Belfast, Northern Ireland, to slap down the National Enquirer, while singers Paula Abdul and Whitney Houston are reported to be contemplating similar trips in search of the plaintiff-friendly libel laws of the United Kingdom. Aren’t they just a little bit ashamed of themselves? The “speedy results and whopping damages” of defamation suits in the U.K. “might be nice for the celebrity claimants. But it’s bad for those of us who live in Britain permanently. These libel tourists are helping to prop up our illiberal, antidemocratic, and ‘repugnant’ libel laws, which are an offense to free speech and open debate.” (Brendan O’Neill, “Throwing our judicial junk in Britain’s backyard (or courts)”, Christian Science Monitor, Jul. 24). But actually, reports Mark Stephens in The Times (London) Online, it is global business magnates rather than entertainment figures who are nowadays the busiest libel tourists in the British courts. They come from America, Russia and the Middle East to squelch the naughty insinuations of the financial press that not everything about their business dealings is on the up and up (“New celebrities of the libel courts”, Jul. 18).

Filed under: , , , ,

“While I know some lawyers who are happy, most aren’t.”

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit), Jul. 30:

It’s possible, of course, that they’re the kind of people who weren’t really happy before they became lawyers — not surprisingly, the field has an attraction to people who like to complain. But it’s also true that older lawyers seem to enjoy it more — and to have enjoyed it more when they were new at it — than today’s lawyers. I think the practice of law is substantially less enjoyable than it used to be, even if it’s sometimes more lucrative.