A reminder (evergreen post)

Since it looks as if we’ll have thousands of new readers today, this might be a good time to reprint in slightly updated form an evergreen post that first appeared in 2007:

* When we post on Overlawyered about a real or potential lawsuit, it doesn’t necessarily mean we think the case is without merit. We regularly discuss meritorious cases.

* Not infrequently lawsuits we discuss are well founded on existing law, but that existing law is ill-conceived and deserves to be reconsidered. Or both law and lawsuit may make perfect sense, but the level of damages demanded may be excessive or implausible. Or the combatants on one side or both may pursue dubious tactics and theories. Or the media coverage of the case may have been credulous or one-sided. You get the idea.

* Sometimes it’s not clear what if anything either side did wrong in pursuing a dispute, but the case still stands as a monument to the high cost of resolving things through legal process. A recurring example: the family feud over a legacy that ends by consuming the estate in litigation costs.

* We also discuss a certain number of cases that are just plain interesting: they raise novel or non-obvious legal issues, or they shed light on human nature as it manifests itself in legal disputes. And, yes, it does happen on occasion that I take note of a case without being sure what I myself think of it.

* Finally, the multiple people who have posted content on the site are different people and don’t always agree with each other.

Sorry if this introduces complexity where people were expecting to find simplicity.

One Comment

  • Well, it wouldn’t be called “Overlawyered” if it were simple now, would it?