Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Archive for June, 2012

International law roundup

Filed under: , , , , , ,

“Lawyer: Suspend murder trial so I can compete in Hemingway look-alike contest”

Attorney Frank Louderback, representing murder defendant Jerry Bottorff, asked the judge to suspend his client’s scheduled trial on July 20.

Why?

He’s entered the annual Ernest Hemingway Look-a-Like Contest at Sloppy Joe’s in Key West and doesn’t want to miss it. The winner will be crowned on July 21.

A judge turned down the request, pointing out that the trial date had been announced long previously, and wished Louderback the best of luck in next year’s look-alike contest. [Miami Herald, MSNBC]

Filed under: ,

Obamacare decision roundup

  • “We won everything but the case.” Ilya Shapiro at SCOTUSBlog on what it’s like to have your arguments succeed while your client goes down. Recommended;
  • David Kopel applauds, especially the Medicaid ruling limiting strings on federal support of states;
  • Michael Greve turns thumbs down: “the Chief’s supposed act of statesmanship has bought nothing that is worth having.”
  • Clark Neily: “as litigators know very well, it is always more important what a court did than what it said. … Notwithstanding the majority’s assurances … the Court ratified what many perceive as the most significant expansion of federal power in 75 years.”
  • John Podhoretz: Roberts’ artful dodgery on tax issue does the Court no credit. Similarly: Jim Huffman;
  • From a David Frum reader: did Roberts bail because the four justices to his right got too frisky on severability?
  • And Cato’s star-packed event looking at the meaning of the NFIB v. Sebelius decision will take place live on the web this coming Monday, Jul. 2, 1:30-4:45 Eastern.

Earlier here, here, and here.

Filed under: , , ,

N. H. med-mal: “early offers,” with a side of loser-pays

Overriding a veto from Gov. John Lynch, the New Hampshire legislature on June 27 enacted SB 406, establishing the nation’s first “early offer” system for medical malpractice claims. The law establishes incentives for defendants to make offers early in the litigation process that cover plaintiff’s economic losses such as medical bills and lost wages. The early-offer process is at claimants’ option only; claimants are free not to request such an offer. [Kevin Pho; supportive website; trial lawyers’ opposition website]

Importantly, the new procedure also contains pioneering elements of loser-pays in both directions. If a claimant chooses to accept a defendant’s early offer of economic-loss expenses, the defendant will pay an additional sum to reflect a scheduled assessment of pain and suffering, plus the reasonable costs of attorney representation. However, if the claimant invokes the early-offer process but then turns down the offer as inadequate, there is a real risk of a fee shift in the opposite direction:

XII. A claimant who rejects an early offer and who does not prevail in an action for medical injury against the medical care provider by being awarded at least 125 percent of the early offer amount, shall be responsible for paying the medical care provider’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the proceedings under this chapter. The claimant shall certify to the court that bond or other suitable security for payment of the medical care provider’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs has been posted before the court shall consider the case.

At TortsProf, Christopher Robinette explains in some detail (contrary to an error-filled screed in a Litigation Lobby outlet) why this adds up to a generally good deal for claimants (who, of course, are free not to trigger the process if they disagree) as well as making the system fairer. “Early-offer” proposals have been championed over the years by Jeffrey O’Connell, the distinguished University of Virginia torts scholar, and by Philip K. Howard of Common Good, among others. More on loser-pays here.

[Research assistance: Cato Institute intern Byron Crowe; cross-posted at Cato at Liberty]

More from John Steele Gordon at Commentary: “This looks like a big step in the right direction.”

Filed under: , ,

NFIB v. Sebelius quote of the day

“For those of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act as a policy matter, this is a bad day,” [Georgetown law professor Randy] Barnett said. “For those of us in this fight to preserve the limits of constitutional government, this is not a bad day.” [Ezra Klein; more from Prof. Barnett at Daily Beast] Similarly, at more length: Sean Trende, RCP via Tom Smith, Right Coast. Contrasting views: Ilya Shapiro, Philadelphia Inquirer (“an unfortunate convergence of two unholy strains of constitutional jurisprudence: liberal activism and conservative pacifism”); Ramesh Ponnuru (“The resulting law may be a better one than Congress wrote. It is not, however, the law that Congress wrote.”).

And here is a podcast from the Cato Institute with colleagues Roger Pilon, Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus, Michael Cannon, and Michael Tanner:

And a video interview with Trevor Burrus here. Don’t forget, if you didn’t check in on it at the time, yesterday’s periodically updated Twitter-scroll post with (at last count) 43 tweets and dozens of links to relevant posts and resources.

Filed under: , , ,