Felix Salmon doubts things will turn out entirely as hoped for Charles Smith, the one doing the suing.
Archive for October, 2010
NYC’s outrageous Apple settlement
Among its most insidious features, notes Ira Stoll, is a $2.5 million cy pres fund earmarked for “corporate governance programs at 12 universities across the country,” and which will predictably encourage such academic programs, at law schools and elsewhere, to align themselves further with the agenda of the plaintiff’s securities bar and against the interest of actual shareholders at companies like Apple. I’ve got much more about cy pres law school slush funds in Schools for Misrule, forthcoming. [Future of Capitalism; Jim at PoL]
“Court Bars Molester From Suing Parents of Her Victim”
“The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has refused to follow a convicted child molester ‘down the rabbit hole’ and allow her to sue the parents of the 13-year-old boy she assaulted for failing to protect him from her.” [Matthew Heller, OnPoint News]
N.J.: Drunk drivers can sue the bars that served them, cont’d
The New Jersey Supreme Court will take up the appeal of a case where a Brick, N.J. man hurt in a motorcycle crash was allowed to proceed with a suit against the Toms River restaurant that had served him. [Asbury Park Press via NLJRA, earlier]
A liberal jurist defends arbitration
For a number of years organized trial lawyerdom has made it a top priority to attack contractual clauses providing for arbitration of employment, consumer and other disputes, arguing that only litigation — that is to say, their own services — can provide the needed fairness, deterrence and compensation. Such is the Litigation Lobby’s overreach in this matter that even a veteran liberal, former Ninth Circuit judge and Carter education secretary Shirley Hufstedler, is constrained (with co-author William Webster) to part company with bills introduced by Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold and others: “Astonishingly, such legislation would effectively abolish arbitration as a viable alternative for such disputes.” [National Law Journal]
October 7 roundup
- Lawsuit of the Day: Partner Booted From Three Firms Sues ‘Em All! [Legal Blog Watch]
- Drawing wrong lessons from the Rutgers suicide [Greenfield and more (proposed “Tyler’s Law”), John Schwartz/NYT (quoting Orin Kerr), Volokh and more, Above the Law]
- John Sullivan leaving after 15 years at helm of Civil Justice Association of California [L.A. Times]
- Maybe consumers don’t feel so victimized by overdraft “protection” after all [Bank Lawyer’s Blog]
- Yes, it’s another dust-up pitting all sensible Supreme Court commentators against Dahlia Lithwick, if you like that sort of thing [Kerr, Bodie/Prawfs, Ponnuru, Frank; bonus, Richard Epstein on Erwin Chemerinsky and Hans Bader on a prize flight of Lithwick fancy]
- Blog post relatively sympathetic to Righthaven copyright trollery draws many responses [Robert Zelnick, Patently-O]
- “Should they have let the guy’s house burn down?” [Tyler Cowen; Firey, Cato]
- “Drunken man passes out, wins $850K from police” [six years ago on Overlawyered]
Law firms that represent anti-gay causes
The Human Rights Campaign has issued a report rating major law firms (among other large employers) on how well they address LGBT issues. It takes off points for law firms that have represented anti-gay clients, such as Foley & Lardner, which has represented opponents of gay marriage in litigation in the District of Columbia.
Many nonlawyers will not see anything unusual in this. The thing is, it’s a passionately held tenet of N.Y. Times-reader legal liberalism — sometimes, at least — that law firms must not be publicly shamed for electing to represent “bad” clients in important legal matters. After all, representing those clients does not necessarily mean they share the clients’ objectives or viewpoints. For example, former Bush administration defense official Cully Stimson was widely excoriated after he suggested that it was to the discredit of leading law firms that they had thrown a tremendous effort into the pro bono defense of Guantanamo detainees.
Elie Mystal at Above the Law and John Steele at Legal Ethics Forum are among those to raise the question whether there is any real consistency to all this. And does it make a difference whether the “bad” client is being represented pro bono, or is paying handsomely, as with Sen. Kristen Gillibrand’s repping of Big Tobacco as a young lawyer?
EEOC sues on obesity-as-disability theory
Obesity as such has generally not been included as a disability in the past, so the case may signal a newly activist stance at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC press release, AP]
P.S. As commenters point out, “obesity-as-perceived-disability” would be more precise. The law’s recent extension to complainants “perceived as” disabled is proving, just as advocates hoped and defendants feared, to be a major engine of expansion of legal coverage to complainants who in the past could not claim disabled status. More: John Bratt (recalling “Simpsons” episode).
Seventh Circuit tosses suit against Yahoo over search results
Mrs. Stayart searched on her own name and was dismayed to find icky and spammy sites, so she sued and went on suing. This time it was the turn of the federal appeals court to tell her no. [Eric Goldman (“While this *should* be the end of Stayart’s litigation, it probably won’t be. She can refile her state law claims against Yahoo in state court. She also still has a pending lawsuit against Google.”); Lowering the Bar; earlier]
“Your blog hasn’t covered my pet issue. What are you guys scared of?”
Eugene Volokh attempts to answer that question [Volokh Conspiracy]