Archive for June, 2008

June 9 roundup

  • Florida trial lawyers have funneled millions to Gov. Charlie Crist and GOP state legislators; now guess why Orlando isn’t going to get commuter rail [Bousquet/St. Petersburg Times; Sentinel]
  • What his ex-law firm told the world was “extremely inappropriate personal conduct” was in reality no more than a “brief, consensual kiss” with co-worker, charges attorney in $90 million defamation suit; Kasowitz Benson says it was following zero tolerance policy [American Lawyer]
  • SCOTUS, 9-0, Thomas writing, narrows scope for money-laundering charges over hiding unexplained cash — but will that curb forfeiture abuse? [Grits for Breakfast, Greenfield]
  • After West Virginia high court refuses to review $405 million royalty dispute jury verdict against Chesapeake Energy and another defendant, company scraps plans to build $30 million headquarters in the state [PoL]
  • Even after discounting anti-corporate rhetoric, there does seem to be a story here about aggressive seed patent litigation tactics used by agri-giant Monsanto, a firm known to our readers [Barlett & Steele, Vanity Fair; earlier]
  • Medical liability consequences of much-promoted concept of hospital “never events” [Buckeye Surgeon]
  • Cellphone rage update: Judge Robert Restaino ousted for jailing 46 people after one of the annoying devices rang out in his Niagara Falls, N.Y. courtroom [Buffalo News, earlier]

Detroit Free Press on Fieger acquittal

Detroit’s liberal newspaper voice, which supports extending campaign finance law, has this to say in an editorial:

…There is no doubt that Southfield attorney Geoffrey Fieger completely subverted [the aims of campaign law] when he essentially laundered through employees of his law firm hefty contributions to the 2004 presidential campaign of John Edwards.

But can you make a federal case out of it? A U.S. District Court jury didn’t think so, refusing Monday to convict Fieger and law partner Vernon (Ven) Johnson of doing anything illegal. So congratulations to Fieger for gaming the system and then beating it.

But that doesn’t make what he did right. …

…the system ought to have some integrity, and the limits established by law ought to be enforced. Fieger got around them by being clever, pleading ignorance, then getting a jury to see it his way. It certainly helped that the local U.S. attorney’s office had been frighteningly aggressive in its pursuit of Fieger, and that he had the cash to hire an attorney who reputedly has never lost a case. Yes, money matters in criminal justice at least as much as it does in politics.

No doubt, Fieger’s acquittal gives a little more mettle to other fat cats who want to skirt the law. It’s a victory for him, but a step back for the political process.

Fieger himself has tried to put out the line that it is only because of some mean old plot against politically active trial lawyers that he was ever prosecuted at all. If the Free Press editorial is any indication, it doesn’t look as he’s getting very far with that line. More here and here.

Further: Scott Greenfield, and Freep reporter Dawson Bell (unless your name is Geoffrey Fieger, don’t try to get away with doing what he did: “It’s still a crime.”). Ted in comments adds: “And let’s not forget the all-too-typical and appalling sight of the defendant partying with the jurors he snookered.” Per the account in the Free Press, “Champagne sat on ice at each table” in the Greektown establishment. “A stocked bar was in the corner.” Earlier on post-trial juror fraternization with winning disputants and their lawyers here, here, etc.

Slain in the Spirit: Tennessee case

Another story in a genre we’ve covered before, namely the lawsuit against a church whose congregants commonly faint or swoon during worship, the grounds being that more or better assigned “catchers” would have helped avert injury. This one was filed by Matthew Lincoln against Lakewind Church in Tennessee (Smoking Gun, Jun. 5; Childs, Jun. 5). Our earlier coverage has included the Michigan woman who successfully sued her Pentecostal church on similar grounds, and an Australian plaintiff who lost.

Rob Lowe nanny lawsuits

The other nanny suing Hollywood figures Rob and Sheryl Lowe “was going to settle with the Lowes but then she too wound up being represented by [attorney Gloria] Allred”. So Laura Boyce now finds herself at the center of big legal and publicity hoopla:

Boyce’s claims don’t target Rob Lowe at all but focus on Sheryl Lowe for such off-putting behavior as walking around naked — in her own home — and making “numerous sexually crude, lascivious and racially derogatory comments,” which led Boyce to quit her job. Sheryl Lowe has denied the allegations.

“The home is a workplace for the people who are working in it — the nannies, the chefs, the drivers,” says Allred. “Celebrity employers do not have special rights. They are not insulated from liability because they are in their home. Celebrities are not above the law. They don’t have license to commit sexual harassment because it’s in their home.”

Lowe has pre-emptively sued Boyce and the other Allred-represented nanny, Jessica Gibson. (Rachel Abramowitz, “Rob Lowe’s privacy, nanny woes”, Los Angeles Times, Jun. 4).

Update: Alice Griffin v. Starbucks

Updating our August 2006 post on Alice Griffin v. Starbucks: Griffin alleged that a Starbucks barista spilled hot coffee–195 to 205 degrees–on her, causing second-degree burns on her foot and permanent nerve damage when it scalded her through her pantyhose. A jury agreed and awarded $301,000. The court reduced the award to $201,000, and both sides appealed. On appeal, the New York Appellate Division reduced damages further to $76,000. (Griffin v. Starbucks Corp. (N.Y.A.D. Jun. 5, 2008); Matthew Nestel and Dareh Gregorian, “Gal’s Star’Bucks’ Cut”, NY Post, Jun. 7). New York has tort reform giving judges extra discretion to reduce damages through remittitur.

Read On…

Lerach: “Serving Time, but Lacking Remorse”

In today’s NY Times, Joe Nocera lambastes Bill Lerach’s lack of remorse and notes that his crimes weren’t victimless.  To which I would add: given that Lerach’s Portfolio defense of his crimes demonstrates that he lied in his sentencing letter to the court and the allocution he made, and given that Lerach got a reduced sentence under the Guidelines for “acceptance of responsibility” because of those false representations, why isn’t the government looking to make a criminal contempt or perjury charge?  (We’ll give John Keker the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t know what was in Lerach’s heart when he falsely told the court “Mr. Lerach has stepped up and accepted responsibility.”)  Surely Judge John Walter doesn’t condone this sort of thing.

If the government doesn’t step up here, it’s further evidence that they got rolled in their plea negotiation with Lerach.