Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Author Archive

Waxman hearing = weapon in litigation?

Nice tactic, if you can get away with it: after filing suit, get a House committee to conduct a hostile investigation of your opponent with your clients appearing as friendly witnesses. That’s what appears to have happened in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s hearings last week on alleged shortcomings in the work of Iraq contractor Blackwater USA. The friendly witnesses in this case, called by committee chairman Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), were family members of several Blackwater consultants killed in Iraq, who are suing the company for damages. According to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the hearing followed upon the sending of a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi by Orange County, Calif., plaintiffs’ lawyer Daniel Callahan of Callahan & Blaine, who’s representing the families. The letter urged a “fruitful and meaningful” investigation of “these extremely Republican companies, such as Blackwater, who have been uncooperative to date”. (S. A. Miller, “Iraq contractor focus of hearing”, Washington Times, Feb. 8; Lattman, WSJ law blog, Feb. 9; Larry Margasak, “Blackwater E-Mail Outlines Gear Shortage”, AP/Washington Post, Feb. 7; Chaos in Motion, Feb. 8).

More: in the comments section, attorney Daniel J. Callahan responds.

Filed under:

Wild parrots of Telegraph Hill

A beloved San Francisco tourist attraction, the birds roost in two ancient WildParrots.jpg cypress trees whose owner says he can no longer afford the liability risk should they topple or shed branches on spectators. The city is stepping in to spare the axe by taking responsibility for the chance of injury. (Charlie Goodyear, “Preserving perches for wild parrots”, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 14; “Buzz saws threaten home of Telegraph Hill parrots”, CBC, Nov. 3, 2005). A 2004 film about the parrots is available here on DVD.

Filed under: , , ,

Calif. proposal to ban spanking, cont’d

Turns out there was a law professor behind the idea (Jan. 22):

As for what sparked [Assemblywoman Sally] Lieber’s decision to introduce a bill about spanking, it wasn’t a rash of emergency room visits from 3-year-olds with sore bottoms. The San Jose Mercury News, which first reported the no-spanking story, wrote that Lieber “conceived the idea while chatting with a family friend and legal expert in children’s issues worldwide.” That friend was University of San Francisco Law School professor Thomas Nazario, who fiercely opposes corporal punishment. “It was my idea and I was primarily responsible for coming up with the final draft,” he explains. (Which makes Lieber sound more like Nazario’s pawn than a legislative leader, but I digress.)

(Eilene Zimmerman, “Spanking mad”, Salon, Feb. 5). WryMouth (Jan. 29) has an account of Prof. Nazario’s appearance on the popular Los Angeles radio show “John & Ken” to discuss the idea. Orange County Register columnist Steven Greenhut writes: “I don’t advocate spanking as a rule, but it seems rather harsh to rip a child out of a happy home and put him in some nightmare foster-care scenario and put a parent in jail for doing something that has been widely practiced through the history of parenting.” (“Lawmaker deserves a spanking”, Jan. 28).

Filed under: , ,

Kentucky fen-phen scandal, cont’d

It just keeps getting juicier:

The attorneys accused of misappropriating more than $64 million from Kentucky’s fen-phen settlement initially withheld another $27.7 million, which they turned over to their clients only after the Kentucky Bar Association began investigating the case, newly filed court records show.

The additional payments also came after one of the lawyers — Melbourne Mills Jr. — discovered in January 2002 that the settlement was for $50 million more than the other two lawyers, William Gallion and Shirley Cunningham Jr., had told him, according to the records.

Mills was so angry that when Gallion showed up at his birthday party on Feb. 6, 2002, Mills called him “a thief” and insisted that more money be given to the clients, according to a deposition from Mills’ administrative assistant, Rebecca Phipps.

(Andrew Wolfson, “Lawyers held 2nd cache of diet drug settlement”, Louisville Courier-Journal, Feb. 11; Beth Musgrave, “Fen-phen ruling could come soon”, Lexington Herald-Leader, Feb. 13). Earlier coverage: Mar. 6 and Aug. 25, 2006, Jan. 24, 2007, etc.

Filed under: , , , ,

“Bill would fine parents who skip school conferences”

Truancy laws for grown-ups in Texas? “A Houston-area legislator wants to subject parents to criminal charges for skipping a scheduled meeting with their child’s teacher. Rep. Wayne Smith, R-Baytown, said it is time for the state to crack down on Texans who are shirking their parental responsibilities by failing to meet with the teacher when their child is having academic or disciplinary problems.” (Terrence Stutz, Dallas Morning News, Jan. 30)(via Bullwinkle Blog).

Filed under: ,

Who’s riding that snowplow?

As we’ve had occasion to mention before (Sept. 24, 1999; Reason, Dec. 1999; Jan. 17, 2001), the supposedly progressive position in employment law has for many years been that employers should not be at liberty to take into account job applicants’ criminal records; the only conceded exception comes when a past conviction is closely related to a high risk of serious re-offense, as when an embezzler released from prison seeks a job handling money at a bank. Very much in the spirit of that progressive stance, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino “authorized a new policy two years ago eliminating questions about criminal convictions on all city job applications and dispensing with criminal background checks for applicants for jobs that don’t involve working with children or the elderly or accessing residents’ homes.”

How well did this new policy work out, you ask? Well, when Joseph M. MacDonald, a 26-year-old resident of South Boston, applied for a job with the Boston public works department, city officials never checked his criminal record because of the new “second-chance” policy. So they never found out about his long rap sheet (three drug convictions, seven drivers’ license suspensions) until Feb. 3, when police say MacDonald, riding his city snowplow, ran down a 64-year-old woman as she crossed a street, then fled the scene. (Donovan Slack, “Hit-run suspect had long record”, Boston Globe, Feb. 7; “Records show history of offenses”, Feb. 7).

So a hard lesson has now been learned, right? You must be kidding. Although the city has admitted that it slipped up in not checking MacDonald’s driving status, Mayor Menino and one of his human resources deputies continue to defend the broader policy on ignoring criminal records (“The mayor believes firmly in giving people a second chance,” said a spokeswoman after the incident.) And both Menino and newly elected Gov. Deval Patrick intend to press ahead with a previously announced plan to limit private employers’ access to job applicants’ criminal records, the better to enforce those obligatory second chances. (Andrea Estes, “Patrick seeks to limit background checks”, Boston Globe, Feb. 12)(via No Looking Backwards). More: Coyote Blog.

Filed under: , , ,

“When the courts gag parents”

“[A] wide range of parental speech has been prohibited by family courts, all in the name of the child’s best interests. … Even more courts have based custody decisions partly on parent-child speech and religious upbringing. In Michigan, for example, courts routinely favor the parent who takes the children to church more often. Other courts have denied parents custody based partly on the parents’ teaching their children the propriety of racism, polygamy or homosexuality….

“[F]ew courts have grappled with the question whether judges are allowed under the First Amendment to make such decisions. … Many people would trade all their free-speech rights for the right to teach their own children. And government power to constrain how parents teach their own children is dangerous. Restricting the spread of ideas from parent to child can help today’s majority, or today’s elite, entrench its views. Also, the power to suppress parents’ speech might spread beyond divorces to intact families, too.” (Eugene Volokh (UCLA Law), L.A. Times/Newsday, Feb. 12)(discussion at Volokh Conspiracy).

Filed under: , , ,