October 4 roundup

  • O.J. Simpson trial 15 years after [Tim Lynch, Cato at Liberty; a couple of my reactions back then]
  • Hackers expose internal documents of British copyright-mill law firm [Steele, LEF] Insult to injury: now that target law firm may be fined for privacy breach [same]
  • BAR/BRI antitrust case: “Judge Cites ‘Egregious Breach’ of Ethics, Slashes Law Firm Fee from $12M to $500K” [ABA Journal]
  • “Confessions of former debt collectors” [CNN Money via CL&P]
  • Big investigative series on prosecutorial misconduct [USA Today]
  • “Even with malpractice insurance, doctors opt for expensive, defensive medicine” [Jain/WaPo] “Medical malpractice suits drop but take a toll” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Paul Carpenter, of the Allentown Morning Call, on problem and possible solutions] A contrary view: Ron Miller.
  • “Card check is dead … long live card check” [Hyman]
  • “Canada: Deported Russian spy sues for readmittance” [four years ago on Overlawyered] A role model for some in the spy ring recently deported from the U.S.?


  • OJ Simpson: The Evidence That Wasn’t Presented…

    OJ didn’t get off because Johnny Cochran was *that* brilliant but because Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden were *that* incompetent……

  • Several of the bill collectors quoted in the article said that the only way to meet their collections quotas and make a living was to violate collections laws. They regretted this but they felt that personal necessity outweighed public law. In view of the heavy burden of undischargeable debt with which new lawyers now start their careers, can we reasonably expect of them greater honesty than the much-criticized established lawyers they’re competing against? Or will they, under that financial pressure, find it even easier than the previous generation of lawyers to rationalize dishonesty such as padded bills and barratry? If so, then the public reputation of the legal profession, now at rock bottom, will drill through the rock.