chronicling the high cost of our legal system


Top page
Reaching us:
Search the site


June 29-July 1 -- Crowded drugstores illegal?  For years lawyers have warned that cramped retail store layouts may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act because of the way they impede "access" by customers with wheelchairs and other mobility impairments.  Now an advocacy group for the disabled has sued the Duane Reade drugstore chain, charging that many of its outlets in Manhattan are in violation, especially those with multiple levels and obstructed aisles.  One plaintiff says some nonprescription medicines are placed on shelves too high for her to reach; another says she feels her privacy is compromised when a store employee assists her to the pharmacy area.  In crowded locations such as midtown Manhattan, mandates for uncrowded drugstores will probably lead to the closure of some locations -- thus making everyone go farther to get their prescriptions filled -- and higher prices at the rest, given that rent per square foot is a major element of overhead cost.  The law firm Fish & Neave is representing the disabled group, in conjunction with the not unironically named New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.  (David W. Dunlap, "Tight Retail Spaces Prompt Suit by the Disabled", New York Times, June 27; "Duane Reade Stores: Disability-Impaired", VisualStore.com, June 27) (& letter to the editor, July 6). 

June 29-July 1 -- Ohio auto insurance wreck.  The trial-lawyer-backed 4-3 majority on the Ohio Supreme Court has been doing creative things to expand the scope of coverage of auto insurance in the Buckeye State, with the unfortunate consequence that the price of it is soaring.  "The court says that the insurance policies a business buys on its fleet of automobiles covers its employees and their families when driving their personal cars on vacation or on any other personal matter -- from taking the kids to school to driving out for groceries." ("Liability unlimited? This is not your father's car insurance", (editorial), Columbus Dispatch, June 3; "Court extends uninsured coverage beyond belief" (letter to the editor), Columbus Dispatch, June 2)(& letter to the editor, July 6).  Update Nov. 2-4: bill to reverse court decision goes into effect after being signed by governor. 

June 29-July 1 -- Domain-name disputes are busting out all over.   A site called BaseballProspectus.com thinks a site called BaseballPrimer.com is infringing on its intellectual property, right down to its initials "BP", which we regret to inform them British Petroleum got to first (Sean Forman and Jim Furtado, "Unexpected Reader Mail", BaseballPrimer.com, April 4 -- includes lots of reader reaction).  The Fox television network this spring sicced its lawyers on a science-education web site created by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, "The Why Files", whose title it says infringes on the trademark of its series "The X-Files."  "I'm not sure if Fox is trying to get a legal hammerlock on the alphabet or what their motives are, but that's what it seems," said the "Why" site's editor.  ("Fox aims to shut down acclaimed science web site", ESchoolNews, March 1).  And the Tata Group, a diversified industrial group on the Indian subcontinent, has obtained a ruling from the World Intellectual Property Organization closing down a sixually* oriented website by the name of bodacious-tatas.com; Marc Schneiders, a commentator from the Netherlands who says he is not connected with either party in the controversy, has put up a (clean) site called bodacious-tatas.org explaining why he thinks this ruling is madness.  (Tata Group's view: "Tata Sons evicts porbographic* cyber squatter", Aug. 28, 2000). 

* Misspelled deliberately, to dodge filters.

June 29-July 1 -- Cell phone follies.  "The New York assemblyman who drafted a bill that bans the use of cell phones while driving is pushing a bill that would punish offenders of the law as if they'd been driving drunk."  In Connecticut, a bill introduced in the state senate "also makes eating, tuning the radio and reading in the car an offense." (Elisa Batista, "Car Phone Ban Author Wants More", Wired News, June 28). 

June 29-July 1 -- Now we are 2.  Overlawyered.com began publishing July 1, 1999, which makes us two years old.  Drop us a line with testimonials about how you first learned of the page, what your favorite feature is, stories that got picked up by the wider press after running here first, unlikely people who read us -- all that sort of thing.  We'll publish some highlights and keep the rest as souvenirs. 

June 28 -- "Colorblind Traffic-Light Installer Gets Fired, Sues County".  Former traffic-light installer Cleveland Merritt is suing Palm Beach County, Fla., "for firing him because he is colorblind and couldn't distinguish between red and green wires."  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already ruled in his favor on his Americans with Disabilities Act claim, agreeing with his lawyer that "the county could have kept him on the job by assigning him to other duties not affected by his colorblindness."  There are "19 differently colored wires in a traffic light". (AP/FoxNews.com, June 27). 

June 28 -- Chapman, Broder, Kinsley on patients' rights.  The American Medical Association recognizes that medical malpractice litigation operates with amazing randomness and is actually "a barrier to quality improvement" -- so why exactly do they wish to expand it?  (Steve Chapman, "Seeing your HMO in court", Chicago Tribune, June 21).  Backers of the Kennedy- McCain- Edwards bill rely to an extraordinary degree on anecdotes -- keep that in mind the next time the trial lawyers start dismissing critics like us as anecdotal (David Broder, "Battle of Anecdotes", Washington Post, June 26).  And Slate editor Michael Kinsley calls the bill the perfect piece of legislation for our era, not meaning that in a complimentary way.  "Republicans charge that Democrats are in the pocket of the Trial Lawyers Association, and it's pretty true.  But there are also strategic and even philosophical reasons why proposals like the patients' bill of rights rely on lawsuits to do their dirty work."  They are a "way to impose rules on the private economy while avoiding the big-government stigma."  Unfortunately, the "downside of this approach includes the enormous, though hidden, cost of litigation (the lawyers, the punitive damages, etc.), the inconsistent standards of judge-made law as opposed to uniform rules," and so on.  Kinsley concludes that liberalism of this sort is "flawed ... [but] better than nothing." ("Liberalism a la Mode", Slate, June 21).  See also "Patients' Right to Sue" (WSJ editorial), OpinionJournal.com, June 24). 

June 28 -- More things you can't have: glowsticks.  Some federal drug enforcement officials consider glowsticks, the neonlike tubes of light waved by concertgoers, to be "drug paraphernalia", and a group of New Orleans "rave" promoters, attempting to comply with a court order, have barred the novelty items from their clubs.  (Janelle Brown, "Sell a glowstick, go to prison", Salon, June 20).  Update Feb. 20, 2002: court strikes down. 

June 28 -- "Lawyers put profits above lives".   Why did Texas lawyers suing Firestone (see June 25) refrain for years from reporting the tire failures to the federal government's safety agency, NHTSA, thus ensuring the danger would continue?  They've claimed it was because they were afraid NHTSA would undercut their cases by investigating and wrongly clearing the tires, but Prof. Lester Brickman, a legal ethics specialist at Yeshiva University's Cardozo Law School, holds out an alternative theory: "they didn't want to alert other lawyers to the chance for profit".  (New York Post (op-ed), June 27). 

June 27 -- By reader acclaim: student sues law prof over class demonstration.  Talk about learning by doing: a student is suing her law professor "for pulling a chair out from under her as a demonstration in a class on personal injury lawsuits.  Denise DiFede, 30, charges Pace University Law prof Gary Munneke caused her 'severe pain and mental anguish' when he pulled the stunt."  She's demanding $5 million and is also suing Pace University School of Law, in White Plains, N.Y., where the incident took place.  "Munneke was teaching a 'torts' class, discussing Garrett vs. Daley -- a case about a child who injured another kid when he pulled out a chair from under him."  DiFede's lawyer said she "was badly injured because she has an 'eggshell' body and had undergone a back operation shortly before her fall." (Dareh Gregorian, "Class Action", New York Post, June 26; "Student Sues Professor Over Class Demonstration", Reuters, June 26; Jim Knipfel, "Billboard: The Three Stooges Go To Law School", New York Press, June 27). 

June 27 -- Educational privacy gone to extremes.  The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act is another of those feel-good enactments whose cumulative effect on our national life has been so harshly punitive: it prohibits public schools from releasing any "education records of students ... without the written consent of their parents."  Since that includes grades, it may now violate federal law for a teacher to disclose how a student scored in any class or project -- even posting a child's artwork on a wall with a gold star may be legally dubious, according to one school attorney.  The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to help clarify the law in a case where a teacher allowed students to "grade" each other's work aloud, which meant the grades were necessarily "disclosed" as they were given.  ("High court to hear school grade, honor roll case", AP/CNN, June 26; "Why Is This In Court?" (editorial), Washington Post, June 27). 

June 27 -- Warren Buffett was wrong.  Not long ago the famed investor, through his Berkshire Hathaway, bought a substantial stake in USG (Yahoo page), the big maker of drywall, joint compound, ceiling tiles and other familiar construction-site products.  In doing so Buffett was widely reported to have placed a bet that the company's legacy of asbestos litigation would soon be resolved through some agreed-on scheme of compensation for injured workers, despite the opposition of organized trial lawyers to any legislation that would remove claims from the tort system.  No such reforms have been forthcoming, however, and on Monday USG joined Owens Corning, Armstrong World Industries, GAF, W.R. Grace and other major industrial companies that have lately sought protection from asbestos suits in the bankruptcy courts ("USG files for Chapter 11", CNNfn, June 25; "USG Files for Bankruptcy, Blames Lawsuits", Yahoo/Reuters, June 25; company site).  As each company folds its hand, lawyers demand higher payouts from those remaining, in a joint-and- several-liability "last-man club".  While USG reported $3.78 billion in revenue last year, its asbestos-related payouts this year are expected to surpass $275 million, a large portion of which will likely go toward claims on behalf of persons never injured by its products, with more claims flooding in by the tens of thousands, the "vast majority", it says, for workers who are not in fact ill (background).  "We have said repeatedly that U.S. Gypsum can afford to pay for its own liability, but it cannot pay for the liability of other companies or pay everyone who was exposed to asbestos-containing products -- yet that is exactly what is happening because of the high volume of new cases and other asbestos-related bankruptcies," said chairman William C. Foote.  The company's management cites the party switch of Vermont Sen. James Jeffords as a reason for throwing in the towel, since a Senate organized by Democrats is unlikely to give the nod to any legislative fix for the litigation morass.  ("USG Says It May Seek Bankruptcy Protection After Jeffords Decision", Wall Street Journal, June 5). 

Still not bankrupt is Crown Cork & Seal (Yahoo page), the big Philadelphia-based packaging company, which in 1963 "bought Mundet, a North Bergen, N.J. firm that made cork bottle caps and insulation that contained asbestos. Only interested in the bottle-cap business, Crown sold off the insulation part of Mundet just 93 days later. It neither operated the insulation business nor ever intended to.  Crown has paid dearly for those 93 days, paying out millions of dollars to settle some 70,000 asbestos-related claims, and bringing the company to the edge of bankruptcy" with its aggregate payouts mounting into many hundreds of millions (Monte Burke, "An Affair to Remember", Forbes, June 11 (reg)). Update Jun. 26-27, 2002: judge upholds bill passed by Pa. legislature limiting Crown's asbestos liability (DURABLE LINK)

June 26 -- Managed care debate.  "The 'patients bill of rights' is the issue du jour, but the problems it was designed to address have largely passed," writes Virginia Postrel.  "Managed care operates in a market, imperfect though it may be.  When patients are unhappy enough to complain to Congress, they're also unhappy enough to complain to their insurance-buying employers -- who are a lot more nimble than the political process." As employers shop for plans that will not tick off their workforces too badly, many of the things people hated about managed care a couple of years ago are already being changed (VPostrel.com, "The Scene", scroll to "Obsolete Reform"; and see Michael Lynch, "Timing Error", Reason, July 1998).  Those without health insurance currently constitute 17 percent of the U.S. population, and the Employment Policy Foundation estimates that the figure would increase to 23 percent by 2010 if Congress enacts the cost-inflating new bill, with 9 million more persons off the insured rolls ("Patients' Rights Legislation: The Triangle of Health Insurance: Quality, Cost and Access", June 20 (PDF).  Not all the increase is attributable to the PBR, however, since the EPF's paper says that the number would increase to 19 percent even without the change.  Although Sen. McCain has described organized medicine's support for the PBR as unanimous, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons begs to differ (letter from Jane Orient, M.D., June 21).  And employers are not inclined to credit assurances from trial lawyer-Sen. John Edwards (D.-N.C.) and other Kennedy-McCain sponsors that tagging them with liability for managed-care practices is the furthest thing from their minds ("Senate Patients' Rights Debate Focuses on Employers", Fox News, June 25). 

June 26 -- Spoof memo draws EEOC probe.  Dateline Columbia, S.C.: the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission "has opened a preliminary inquiry into a tongue-in-cheek memo that urged female pages at the state House to dress more provocatively.  The memo was written as a spoof reply to a dress code banning the pages, mostly University of South Carolina students, from wearing low-cut blouses or short skirts."  The memo's anonymous authors also exhibited disrespect toward the Women's Caucus, urging female pages to ignore future memos from the caucus.  (Jim Davenport, AP/Nando, June 13). 

June 26 -- "Burn Victim Files Suit Over Yellowstone Scalding".  "A man is suing the federal government for negligence after he was badly scalded in a Yellowstone National Park thermal pool last year.  Lance Buchi, 19, of Holladay, Utah, and two friends jumped into the 178-degree water at night on Aug. 21, apparently mistaking the pool for a narrow stream. ... The three worked for Amfac Parks and Resorts, the park's management company." ("Burn Victim Files Suit Over Yellowstone Scalding", AP/FoxNews.com, June 21). Update Sept. 6-8, 2002: judge lets case go forward. 

June 26 -- Welcome Bourque.org readers.  Pierre Bourque's page has been called the "Drudge Report of Canada" and we were stampeded by Canadian readers yesterday after he linked our piece on trial lawyers and tire defects.  Also sending us visitors: John Armor's American Civil Rights Union, conceived as a counterweight to the ACLU; WCSI Radio, Columbus, Ind. (among "sites of the week", June 9); Green Party volunteer Paul Franklin in Santa Cruz, Calif.; "Libertarianistaj Organizoj kaj Aliaj Subtenantoj de Libereco", a page for libertarian-minded speakers of Esperanto; Max Utens Press, publisher of "Informed Consent in Otolaryngology" and other medico-legal treatises; DomeLights.com "Cop's Lounge" ("Links and other features of interest to cops and their friends"); CapitolGate, among the favorite sites of Ohio political consultant Mark R. Weaver (June 25); and Burton Randall Hanson's "Law and Everything Else" page (featured site this week), among hundreds of others.   Ask your favorite webmaster to give us a link as well! 

June 25 -- Trial lawyers knew of tire failures, didn't inform safety regulators.   "A group of personal-injury lawyers and one of the nation's top traffic-safety consultants identified a pattern of failures of Firestone ATX tires on Ford Explorer sport utility vehicles in 1996," reported Keith Bradsher in yesterday's New York Times lead story.  "But they did not disclose the pattern to government safety regulators for four years, out of concern that private lawsuits would be compromised."  By 1996 trial lawyers suing Bridgestone/Firestone, through the work of a consultant named Sean Kane, had identified 30 cases of tire failure, "a few" involving deaths.  For the next four years, however, they chose not to file the safety complaints that would have called the pattern to the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  They were afraid doing so might prejudice their chances of winning their cases because the agency might investigate and find no proof of a defect.   Of the 203 reported U.S. deaths linked to failure of the tires, 190 occurred after 1996 and thus might in principle have been averted had the lawyers chosen to speak up. 

"Dr. Ricardo Martinez, the administrator of the traffic safety agency from 1994 to 1999, said he was appalled to learn that information had been kept from his staff for years.  He said he would have ordered an immediate investigation if anyone had told him of the tire problems. ...Mr. Kane said that the lawyers' first duty was to win as much money as possible for the crash victims whom they represented.  The lawyers typically work on contingency and collect up to a third of any settlement or court verdict." 

Prominent legal ethicist Geoffrey Hazard Jr. of the University of Pennsylvania Law School agrees that current ethical codes leave lawyers with only a "civic responsibility", not a legal duty, to report safety problems of which they become aware.  "Ford engineers were falsely reassured in 1999 when they checked the federal complaint database and found it virtually empty -- because lawyers had not filed complaints."  Even after a February 2000 Houston TV report on the tires triggered a NHTSA investigation, the lawyers withheld from the agency some information on problems with the tires: "You don't want to be tipping your hand to the defendants," said Mr. Kane, who since 1997 has been the partner for tire issues at a litigation consultancy called Strategic Safety.  (Keith Bradsher, "S.U.V. Tire Defects Were Known in '96 but Not Reported", New York Times, June 24 (reg); see Sept. 15, 2000)  (& letter to the editor, July 6). (DURABLE LINK)

June 25 -- "Lawyers' client bashed for due fees".  Dateline Australia: "Two Melbourne lawyers, one of them a QC, stood outside a conference room while a client who owed them money was bashed inside, a court was told yesterday."  Solicitor Alan Shnider is now facing criminal charges over the incident, as are two men who summoned property developer George Kallis to the rendezvous and then allegedly beat him while Shnider waited outside.  (Melbourne Age, June 23).  In other news, while public concern is on the rise in Australia about mounting litigiousness, some members of the Down Under bar are dismissing it all as a "myth" and "smokescreen" cooked up by their opponents -- taking a leaf from their American counterparts, who've been sticking to that line for years (Larissa Dubecki, "Come up and sue me some time", Melbourne Age, June 23). 

June 25 -- Barney's bluster.  After online joke site Cybercheeze ran an item proposing a variety of demises for the cartoon character Barney ("150 Ways to Kill the Purple Dinosaur"), it got this letter (June 6) from Barney's owners, Lyons Partnership, L.P., advising: "We have reviewed your website and have concluded that it incorporates the use and threat of violence towards the children's character Barney without permission from Lyons Partnership" and demanding that the item be pulled, to which the site owners fired off this massively rude reply (June 14). 

June 22-24 -- Columnist-fest.  To read at the beach, or even inland: 

*  Christopher Caldwell on the Jenna Bush case and our absurdly puritanical youth-drinking laws (thanks so much, Liddy Dole) ("Pour, Little Rich Girl", New York Press, June 6). 

*  Wendy McElroy on the EEOC's finding that librarians suffered "second-hand harassment" when patrons were permitted to visit dirty websites ("The Next Wave of Office Politics: 'Second-Hand Harassment'", Fox News, June 6; see June 4). 

*  Amity Shlaes on the traveling circus of product-liability forum-shopping that has currently pitched its tent in Jefferson County, Mississippi ("Will Grisham soon be unemployed?", Financial Times/Jewish World Review, May 30; see May 4-6). 

*  "Kennedy-McCain is the medical profession's effort to counterattack its enemy, the insurance industry, using expensive lawsuits as a weapon. ... the ultimate victims will be lower-income employees who will lose insurance coverage," writes Morton Kondracke ("Patients Rights' Bill Is Doctors' Overkill In War With HMOs", Roll Call, June 21). 

*  Jacob Sullum on the welcome dismissal of several municipal suits against the gunmaking industry ("Shot down", Creator's Syndicate/Reason.com, May 15) and on the reasons the Bush Justice Department should simply drop, rather than try to settle through negotiation, the lawsuit it inherited against tobacco companies ("A Real Racket", National Review Online, June 21). 

*  Wrap-ups on the Court's lamentable Casey Martin decision: Stuart Taylor, Jr., "Nice Guy Wins, Dumb Lawsuits to Follow", National Journal/The Atlantic Online, June 5 (quotes our editor); John Leo, "Duffers in the Court", Jewish World Review, June 6; David E. Bernstein (George Mason U.), "Casey Martin Ruling Is Par for the Course", Wall Street Journal, May 30

June 22-24 -- Updates.  Further developments in stories we've written about: 

*  In as belated and ungracious an apology as he could muster without sustaining further political damage, California AG Bill Lockyer now says he regrets his remark about locking Enron exec Ken Lay in a cell with tattooed "Spike" (June 1-3, 8-10) and doesn't after all think "that prison rape is proper punishment for criminals" ("Lockyer Regrets 'Crude Remark'", L.A. Times, June 20). 

* New York's Rev. Al Sharpton, widely seen as wanting to clean up his affairs in preparation for running for office, has at last paid Steven Pagones the money he owes for defaming him in the Tawana Brawley case, thus ending a prolonged charade in which Sharpton claimed that the many tailored suits and other accouterments of his expensive lifestyle didn't really belong to him and therefore couldn't be seized to satisfy the debt (Dave Goldiner, "Rev. Al Pays Off Pagones in Brawley Slander Case", New York Daily News, June 14; see Dec. 29, 2000). 

*  A California judge last month vacated an $88.5 million arbitration award of legal fees that would have been paid to Milberg Weiss and other politically connected law firms that successfully litigated a challenge to the state's "smog impact fee" (see Dec. 5, 2000).  The fee was supposed to remain "confidential" but leaked out anyway, resulting in a huge public outcry.  (Statement, Dean Andal, member, Calif. Board of Equalization; Michael A. Glueck, "Sweetheart Deal Enriches Law Firm", Orange County Register, Jan. 21, reprinted at Orange County CALA; Greg Turner, "State Gambles, Taxpayers Lose", Cal-Tax Digest, February; "Taxpayers fleeced again: Lawyers' bill for smog-fee suit should be challenged", editorial, Sacramento Bee, Jan. 12; Kevin Livingston, "California Ups the Ante in Smog Fee Award Fracas", Law.com, Dec. 15). 

June 21 -- "Catherine Crier Live" today.  Our editor is scheduled to be a guest today on the Emmy award-winning journalist's "Court TV" program, to discuss this website. (5 p.m. Eastern/Pacific). 

June 21 -- Annals of zero tolerance: bagpiper prom garb.  In Holt, Mich., 17-year-old Jeremy Hix went to his school's May senior prom "in his authentic bagpiper's uniform, including a skandubh [skean dubh], a knife with a 3-inch blade.  In keeping with Scottish tradition, Hix carried the knife in a sheath tucked into his sock."  Although he did not remove the knife from its sheath, a chaperone noticed it and reported him for weapons possession.  Now Hix, "one year shy of graduation, is facing an expulsion that would effectively ban him from all Michigan public schools for the rest of his high school career."  Veteran teacher Bill Savage said the authorities are scared of not being punitive enough: "The school's legal counsel is saying, 'If we make an exception in this case, it will explode the litigation box wide open.'"  (John Schneider, "Schneider: Legal Ploy", Lansing State Journal, June 14) (& letter to the editor, July 6). 

June 21 -- Pregnant actress complains at being denied virgin role.  In Great Britain, actress Bethany Halliday is filing a complaint with an employment tribunal against the famed D'Oyly Carte opera company, which taking note of her state of pregnancy declined to cast her in the role of a virginal teenager.  In Gilbert & Sullivan's "Pirates of Penzance", the daughters of Major-General Stanley Poor wandering one! are supposed to have been raised in such delicacy and seclusion that they scream every time they see a man.   The D'Oyly Carte producers noted that Ms. Halliday "would be at least six months pregnant at the time the show was due to open", beyond which the show's costumes call for tight Victorian corseting.  Actors' Equity is backing Ms. Halliday's complaint, which may test the bounds of the widely noted "authenticity" exception to discrimination law, which allows an employer to take into account otherwise protected characteristics when they affect the believability of character portrayals.  ("Pregnant singer 'refused' virgin role", BBC, May 18; Art: Bab collection). 

June 21 -- Tobacco-fee tensions.  A newly organized group in Maryland is calling for a boycott of baseball's Baltimore Orioles until owner Peter Angelos retreats from his demand to be paid $1.1 billion for representing the state in the tobacco litigation.  "'We believe Mr. Angelos should be fairly compensated for his effort.  However, as a matter of law, the $1.1 billion fee is totally outrageous,' said Jeffrey C. Hooke, a Chevy Chase investment banker and co-founder of the organization called Project $1.1 Billion Recovery".  Earlier this month, "Maryland’s highest court found the lawyer’s argument that he [Angelos] is entitled to the full 25 percent [of the state's $4.4-billion recovery] to be 'completely without merit.'"  (Lori Montgomery, "Taxpayers Call for Boycott Against Angelos, Orioles", Washington Post, June 10).  (Update Apr. 10, 2002: Angelos settles for $150 million).  Wrangling continues over Texas tobacco fees as new AG John Cornyn seeks to escape the Texarkana court of federal judge David Folsom, who appears less than well disposed to Cornyn's efforts to investigate the circumstances under which the politically connected Big Five trial lawyers hauled home a $3.3 billion fee (Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, "5th Circuit Weighs Dispute Between Texas AG and Plaintiffs' Lawyers Over Big Tobacco Litigation", Texas Lawyer, June 12; see Sept. 1, 2000).  And the state of Florida, which has helped lead the way in escalating the level of rhetoric against tobacco companies, has quietly decided to resume investing state pension fund money in those very same companies ("Florida approves pension fund investments in tobacco stocks", AP/FindLaw, June 20) (& letter to the editor, July 6). 

back to top
More archives:
June II - III - July I

Recent commentary on overlawyered.com

Original contents © 2001 and other years The Overlawyered Group.
Technical questions: Email Webmaster