Archive for September, 2011

Lawyers can’t safety-proof national parks

Timothy Egan, New York Times, on lawsuits over rogue mountain goats and other hazards of wild places:

My experience, purely anecdotal, is that the more rangers try to bring the nanny state to public lands, the more careless, and dependent, people become. There will always be steep cliffs, deep water, and ornery and unpredictable animals in that messy part of the national habitat not crossed by climate-controlled malls and processed-food emporiums. If people expect a grizzly bear to be benign, or think a glacier is just another variant of a theme park slide, it’s not the fault of the government when something goes fatally wrong.

More: Steve Chapman (most dangerous animal in the parks is the one “wearing your pants”); David Boaz.

Mandatory disclosure by labor “persuaders”

New Department of Labor regulations will require, on pain of serious criminal penalties, regular disclosures by lawyers, consultants, advisers, website developers, P.R. firms, pollsters and many others whose activities might persuade employees not to sign union cards. (Current regulations require disclosures only regarding consultants who actually meet with employees, as opposed to generating information that might reach them.) The result will be to give the Jimmy Hoffas of the world a road map to put legal pressure on (maybe even “take out“) a wide range of consultants and back-office employees in areas like safety, productivity management and general HR (say, employee-handbook writing), many of whose activities have predictable impact on bargainable issues and worker inclination to unionize. [Labor Union Report](& Legal Ethics Forum)

September 16 roundup

  • House Judiciary holds hearing on asbestos-claim fraud and abuse, with Prof. Brickman headlining [Main Justice, Legal NewsLine, WSJ law blog, PoL, Brickman testimony]
  • Endangered species habitat in Nevada: “Elko County wants end to 15-year-old trout case” [AP]
  • “Why is the Eastern District of Texas home to so many patent trolls?” [Ted Frank/PoL, more] Tech giants say multi-defendant patent suits place them at disadvantage [WSJ Law Blog] Plus: “Patent company has big case, no office” [John O’Brien, Legal NewsLine]
  • Lawsuit settlement and the lizard brain [Popehat]
  • “U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Looks Into Eminent Domain Abuses” [Kanner, Somin] U.K.: “Squatters could be good for us all, says judge in empty homes ruling” [Telegraph]
  • Madison mob silences Roger Clegg at news conference where he releases new study of UW race bias [ABA Journal, Althouse]
  • Life in Australia: “Another motorized-beer-cooler DUI” [Lowering the Bar]

Qui tam suits against for-profit colleges

The WSJ editors wonder to what extent the feds, who have been pursuing a campaign lately to bring the colleges to heel, are coordinating with the private False Claims Act bar. Meanwhile, Rogier at Nobody’s Business spots some ironies in the Justice Department’s suit against Education Management Corp.: “pushing low- to medium-value degrees is something that law schools — including some of the best in the country — do habitually, every day. All of higher education does, with no exceptions I’m aware of.”

Law schools roundup