Archive for December, 2008

California Good Samaritan ruling, cont’d

As mentioned yesterday, California’s Supreme Court has ruled 4-3 that the state’s “Good Samaritan” law providing tort immunity for rescuers applies only to medical personnel providing medical help at an emergency scene, and not to civilians. “Although the law does not distinguish between types of emergency care, the court majority said the context shows it was meant to be limited to medical care. The law was part of a package of legislation on emergency medical services, Justice Carlos Moreno said in the majority opinion.” (SF Chronicle). Unless you’ve got medical training, then, think twice about offering to help. Docbloggers have been discussing the decision since then, with GruntDoc siding with the dissent, SymTym countering on behalf of the majority, and Throckmorton reporting that even being on the right side of the law isn’t enough to provide reassurance nowadays: “Most of my colleagues are afraid to stop at the scene of an accident and render aid for fear of being sued. The Good Samaritan Law is supposed to prevent this fear of suits but no one seems to believe that it will offer any protection.”

P.S. Gleeful Gecko: “Never put out a burning Californian.”

Microblog 2008-12-19

  • Newest “Trial Lawyers Inc.” report is on Louisiana [Manhattan Institute, Point of Law]
  • Mel Weiss disbarred automatically w/strong language from judges [Matter of Weiss h/t @erwiest]
  • Pro se claimant: I wrote down cure for cancer and then the darn hospital stole it! [Above the Law]
  • “California Supreme Court Ruling May Deter Good Samaritans” [The Recorder; SF Chronicle with copious reader comments, GruntDoc, our coverage last year]
  • Due diligence on dodgy funds? Sometimes it seems everyone’s relying on someone else to do that [Bronte Capital] Madoff fraud may date to 1970s, maybe “recent laxity” angle has been overdone [Securities Docket] “Ponzi crawl” = pub crawl whereby new person is added at each location and has to buy a round [Re Risk]
  • Radley Balko on Julie Amero malware-prosecution story [Reason, earlier]
  • Join Paul Ehrlich in some of the world’s most famously refuted predictions, and you too may get to be Obama’s science adviser [John Tierney/NYT, John Holdren]
  • Wisconsin Minnesota pig-sitter trial set for March, claim is that defendant let star porker overfeed and gain a hundred pounds [LaCrosse Tribune h/t @kevinokeefe]
  • More on the Patent and Trademark Office “acceptable error” employment case [Venture Chronicles, Jeff Nolan; earlier]
  • Procter & Gamble “Satanism” case finally settles, soap giant got $19 million verdict against four Amway distributors who spread rumor [OnPoint News]
  • Once filing of a suit severs the channels of communication, attorneys and clients alike begin to make up “what really happened” narratives [Settle It Now]
  • Sometimes lawyers need to be formal. Don’t IM “Court denied your appeal u will b executed saturday thx” [Beck & Herrmann]
  • Bangladesh hoping to build replica of Taj Mahal despite copyright claims [Times Online h/t @mglickman]
  • Midnight regulations? “OMB Watch” vigilant (and with reason) during this R-2-D transition but sang different tune in 2000’s D-2-R [Gillespie, Reason]

It’s 8:00 pm, But The Sun Hasn’t Risen

Reuters:  No deluge of lawsuits – yet- in Madoff case.  Reuters is surprised that an army of plaintiffs hasn’t sprung from the ground to destroy whatever is left of Madoff Securities and anything else in its vicinity.  Reuters reports this as though it’s news.

This story is a classic example of why journalists shouldn’t report on serious legal matters without some training, perhaps to 2L, or at least long experience as a crime beat reporter.  Of course Madoff hasn’t been sued.  Most of the likely law firms that could sue it are wondering whether they’re potential defendants, or which of the potential defendants they already represent.

Madoff was a heavily capitalized hedge fund with sophisticated investors, perhaps fifty billion dollars worth of investors.  Each and every one of those sophisticated investors had, or has, heavy legal talent among the New York, Chicago, London, and Los Angeles bigfoot law firms that would be best qualified to bring a suit against Madoff, its auditors or accountants, and the brokers who steered business its way.  The investors themselves, and the auditors, accountants, and brokers, who were generally investing other people’s money, are looking at their lawyers asking, “How did I let myself do this?”  For that matter, some of the law firms are looking at themselves and asking, “Why did I let my client do this?”  Or they’re reaching out to their banking and hedge fund clients and asking, “Wouldn’t you like to know that you’re not responsible for doing this?  I can tell you why.”  Or they’re so conflicted among their various clients that they’re asking themselves, “What do we do?”

And then there are the insurers.  And the reinsurers.  And their lawyers.  Finally, don’t forget that most of these firms have a few very sharp white collar criminal defense attorneys, who are also getting calls.  The white collar crime-only boutique firms will have a field day.

The conflict checking alone among the bigfirms probably isn’t finished.  As for firms specializing in class actions and securities litigation for plaintiffs, well, some of their best, such as Dreier and Associates and what’s left of Milberg Weiss, have been having troubles of their own.

The Madoff lawsuits will come, and the schadenfreude will flow.  As a wise man once said, “Patience, grasshopper.”

Before and After

While I don’t plan to promote my own blog here, because there’s not much to promote, this is a story that I think needs wider circulation.  Police and prosecutorial abuse is a problem that’s gotten more attention in the past year thanks to a certain District Attorney, but it hasn’t gotten enough to suit me.

Suppose we have a jailhouse lawyer, who sues the local sheriff and district attorney for alleged civil rights violations.  Suppose, just after filing that suit, the jailhouse lawyer gets into a fight with deputy sheriff jailers, and comes out on the losing end.  As in, “a trip to the hospital for broken bones” losing end.  Then suppose he’s charged as a felon for assaulting his jailers, and, in the office of the District Attorney who charged him, the same District Attorney he sued, a poster appears with photos of the inmate’s face before and after the trip to the emergency room, along the lines of a certain well known anti-drug commercial involving a frying egg.

Suppose the inmate’s attorney requests the poster as Brady material, but the poster somehow vanishes:  This Is Your Face After Inconveniencing The Stanly County District Attorney. Any Questions?

“Can I take the shot? CAN I TAKE THE SHOT?”

Before your weekend begins, though this may be old news to some, I wanted to share this shocking story of waste, fraud, and abuse committed by staff at the United States Attorney’s office for the Central District of California, all on the taxpayer’s dime: Remembering The Greatest Prosecutor Practical Joke Ever.

Fortunately no one’s life, liberty, or property was lost in the perpetration of this act.

Roman Catholic Diocese of Vermont Hit With 18:1 Punitives Award

A jury in Vermont has awarded a former altar boy $192,500 in compensatory damages, and $3.4 million in punitive damages, for suffering alleged molestation at the hands of a priest in 1977.  According to the Times Argus of Vermont, this is the third trial this year involving the same priest, who, amazingly, still retains his collar though he’s retired from active service.  As a result, the diocese of Vermont appears to be teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.  The diocese has announced it will appeal the verdict.

The ratio of punitive to compensatory damages appears to violate the  Supreme Court’s suggestion in Exxon Shipping v. Baker (an admiralty case decided on statutory grounds) that a punitive ratio in excess of single digits, or even 1:1, is unconstitutional.  But as Cal Punitives points out, is this the case with which to put that suggestion to the test?

“Music industry to abandon mass suits”

It might bring to an end the public relations nightmare of the Recording Industry Association of America, and it should certainly cut down on the number of future legal nightmares endured by bewildered parents, grandparents and other bystanders who’ve been getting sued because their kid used the family computer to visit a music-sharing service at 1 a.m. P.S.: CNet has a copy of the enforcement notice RIAA is planning to send to ISPs instead.

Unhappy holidays for American toymakers?

The Consumer Product Safety Act of 2008, sponsored by Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush and quickly signed into law by President Bush, soon goes into effect.  Sold as a measure to protect children from the perils of Chinese and other foreign-made toys which may contain lead paint, the law was written with good intentions. Unfortunately, good intentions sometimes produce bad consequences.  While this law may never save a child, it will certainly have consequences for small businesses which produce toys, as well as other products intended primarily for children under 12.

As always, the devil is in the details, and Publius Endures has given the details careful scrutiny.  Among other little details, this law may require toy manufacturers and importers to perform costly outside testing, at a cost of over $4000, on each lot of toys shipped.  If the law is so interpreted by the people who draft its enabling regulations, that will simply put small manufacturers out of business, leaving the American toy market to giants such as Mattel or driving more of the business to overseas competitors who produce on a larger scale and can absorb the cost.  The result, probably not intended at all by lawmakers, may be monopoly or oligopoly in the American toy market, accomplished through regulation rather than market forces.

For more on this example of unintended consequences of hasty lawmaking in response to a panic, see Upturned Earth, which suggests that congress or regulators might be persuaded to amend or sensibly interpret the law, if only they understood what a potential monster they’ve created.

Guest Blogging, and an Introduction

Due to deadlines and other real life commitments, Walter Olson has graciously invited me to guest blog here through the holidays, which I shall begin in earnest on Sunday.  I am your lump of coal from Overlawyered.  I regularly blog at my own site, Social Services for Feral Children, to which Overlawyered has linked on several occasions, for which I am deeply thankful.  I am an attorney with a civil defense practice in a medium southern state, and enjoy writing about bizarre or abusive lawsuits among other topics.  You may notice that at my own site I write with a rather more acerbic style (meaning I cuss and call people names) than prevails at Overlawyered.  In keeping with the conventions established here, I shall attempt to maintain a dignified presence in order to avoid spoiling Walter’s holiday.