“A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that insurance companies can be required to pay long-term disability benefits to a recovering drug addict if the person would face a significant risk of relapse by returning to work.” The First Circuit parted company with the Fourth, which has ruled the opposite way. [Jacob Gershman, WSJ Law Blog, subscription; Colby v. Union Security Insurance, PDF]
Archive for January, 2013
“A helpful reminder…”
“…Video game consumption is not correlated with gun violence” [Maggie Koerth-Baker, BoingBoing]
Also: on which same general subject, a helpful reminder that Ralph Nader is still an idiot [Erik Kain, Forbes; Gamespot]
Alternative (really alternative) dispute resolution
January 20 roundup
- I’m in today’s NYT Book Review reviewing “Foundation,” Peter Ackroyd’s new book on English history up to the Tudors [NYT]
- Stanford Law School launches religious liberty clinic [Karen Sloan, NLJ] AALS panel on “The Freedom of the Church” [Rick Garnett, Prawfs]
- Party in breach, nasssty thief, we hates it forever: lawyer parses Hobbit’s Bilbo-dwarves contract [James Daily, Wired]
- To pay for roads, vehicle-mile fees > gas tax, but either > general sales tax, argues Randal O’Toole [Cato at Liberty]
- Steven Teles on the high cost of opaque, complex and indirect government action [New America via Reihan Salam]
- I’ve given a blurb to Mark White’s forthcoming nudging-back book on behavioral economics, “The Manipulation of Choice: Ethics and Libertarian Paternalism” [Amazon]
- “Internet-Use Disorder: The Newest Disability?” [Jon Hyman]
Lance Armstrong as litigant
The disgraced cyclist, like quite a few celebrities (and non-celebrities), had filed defamation actions against persons over statements he had good reason to know were true. That’s not just a violation of his adversaries’ rights, but an inherently sanctionable use of the courts [Michael McCann/Sports Illustrated via Turkewitz; Emily Bazelon/Slate (“Armstrong ‘sued so many people that by his own admission he can’t remember their names'”)]
“I learned not to have kids…It will make you go broke”
The Miami Herald profiles a child support lawyer who says her clients regularly fall victim to computer mistakes:
A lot of [Chantal] Suttle’s time representing dads is spent cleaning up errors on behalf of the state, which can take away a dad’s driver’s license or passport, or seize his bank account, for supposed non-payment. And it can be done without ever even going to court — the state lets fathers know with just a letter in the mail.
“I have about six clients right now who have paid on time and perfectly for over a decade, and still their driver’s license has been suspended and/or their bank account has been seized,” she said.
“Failing Law Schools” at Cato
Here’s the video of our Wednesday event at which author Brian Tamanaha (Washington U.) discussed his book Failing Law Schools. Neal McCluskey (Cato) and Paul Campos (Colorado) commented, and I moderated. We’ve had lots of appreciative comments from those who’ve watched, and I wholeheartedly endorse the book, which is persuasive in both its analysis and its recommendations.
More: After the panel, Megan McArdle of Newsweek/Daily Beast interviewed Prof. Campos on the latest bad numbers for law schools. Other comments include Paul Caron/TaxProf, Stephen Diamond of Santa Clara University (disapproving of Cato and the panelists) and Constitutional Daily here, here and here (differing sharply with Diamond).
And: Cato Daily Podcast (audio) with Prof. Tamanaha.
Lawyer billed client “for time they spent having sex”
The ultimate Overlawyered story? Minnesota: “An Eagan lawyer is suspended indefinitely after having an affair with a client whom he represented in a divorce, then billing her for time they spent having sex. … At various points, Lowe billed the woman for legal services on the dates of their sexual encounters, coding the time as meetings or drafting memos. … [He] won’t have a chance for reinstatement for at least a year and three months after the decision… by the Minnesota Supreme Court.” [St. Paul Pioneer-Press]
Red Bull energy drink class action
Class action lawyers have filed suit saying that contrary to its marketing, the popular beverage doesn’t actually “give you wings.” [Reuters, ABA Journal] Meanwhile, the same scientific observation that underlies the lawyers’ action — that pharmacologically, the drinks don’t seem to deliver effects readily distinguishable from those of a strong coffee — is hard to square with the oft-expressed fear that Red Bull et al pose unusual risks to consumers, although the New York Times does seem to manage to keep both ideas in its head at once. [Jacob Sullum]
More: Ron Miller, in comments (“this completely mischaracterizes the lawsuit”).
Free speech roundup
- Spirit Airlines v. DOT: “Government Can’t Silence Speech Criticizing Its Actions, Even If That Speech Is ‘Commercial'” [Ilya Shapiro/Sophie Cole, Cato]
- Virginia Supreme Court speedily rejects prior restraint against Yelp review [Paul Alan Levy, Volokh, earlier]
- Why schools crack down on speech [Hans Bader]
- “Mann v. Steyn — CEI SLAPPs Back” [Adler, earlier]
- Hellhole jurisdictions? “The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist” [Max Fisher, WaPo] “Egyptian court sentences Christian family to 15 years for converting from Islam” [FoxNews] Pakistan mob burns man accused of desecrating Koran alive [Reuters] And see, via Volokh, blasphemy penalties from Tunisia (seven years for posting Mohammed cartoons) and Egypt.
- “Congressman-Elect Kerry Bentivolio Sued Me For Calling Him a ‘Deadbeat Santa'” [Mike Betzold, Deadline Detroit]
- UK government agrees to rollback of law criminalizing insults [Telegraph, Independent]