Alex Beam at the Boston Globe and Ian Crouch at the New Yorker write about the rise of lawsuits over unsatisfactory book contents, as with class actions filed over Greg Mortenson’s challenged memoirs and, before that, those of James Frey. Beam also brings up the outrageous lawsuit against former President Jimmy Carter and his publisher by someone who disagrees with the views Carter expressed in a book on the Mideast conflict. I’m quoted in both pieces (and at especially generous length in Beam’s). [Boston Globe, New Yorker; earlier here, here, etc.] (& WSJ Law Blog)
Author Archive
“Hot Coffee” documentary (HBO) reviewed
Great review by Miami Herald TV critic Glenn Garvin casting a skeptical eye on the trial-lawyer film project (“done in by its essential dishonesty… like any good lawyer — and unlike any good documentarian — [director Susan Saladoff is] intent on concealing the weakness in her case).” Read it here. Meanwhile, from the “How does this sort of thing get past the editors of the Washington Post?” files, there’s this from Hank Stuever:
For to really embrace tort reform, you have to be willing to treat all potential plaintiffs as no-good grifters. … To support tort reform, you have to believe all lawsuits against businesses are a threat to the free market.
Stuever does not, for some reason, name any proponent of reform who has actually asserted either of the propositions. Do you think that might be because he’s trafficking in absurd caricatures? (earlier on “Hot Coffee” here, here, here, etc.)
P.S. More: Cory Andrews, WLF. And if lawyers are really eager to have the facts of the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case come out, it’s curious they don’t take steps to release the trial transcript, in the absence of which critics of the case are obliged to speculate on key points. And as I just wrote in a comment at Abnormal Use:
I believe organized tort reform groups were caught flat-footed by the McDonald’s case and didn’t get around to doing much with it until it had already become the talk of the nation through talk shows, late night TV and so forth. As often happens, plaintiff’s-side advocacy groups were more aggressive in seeking coverage for their side in the media. Thus Public Citizen and allies gave a press conference on Capitol Hill and were rewarded with a big Newsweek story summarizing their talking points (as well as, earlier, coverage in the news-side WSJ). I’m pretty sure no groups critical of the Liebeck award ever did a comparable press push; and the McDonald’s company itself, so far as I know, never chose to cooperate with commentators who might be sympathetic to its legal case.
June 27 roundup
- “Electronic Arts Has Right to Refer to John Dillinger in Its Video Games” [Volokh]
- Fans of “Civil Gideon” (constitutional entitlement to publicly funded lawyers in civil cases) glum that SCOTUS didn’t give idea much of a boost in Turner v. Rogers case last week [Concurring Opinions symposium, ABA Journal]
- Feds (in particular, the FTC) go after Google [AW, Manne & Wright/TotM, Stoll]
- “The Dept of Education, Yale, and the New Threat to Free Speech on Campus” [Greg Lukianoff/HuffPo] “In Making Campuses Safe for Women, a Travesty of Justice for Men” [Christina Sommers, Chron Higher Ed] Feds crack down on campus flirting and sex jokes [Michael Barone, D.C. Examiner] Heather Mac Donald on Yale hostile-environment complaint [City Journal, earlier] “Why Cross-Examination Rights Matter in Campus Sexual Harassment Cases” [Hans Bader]
- Trial lawyer propaganda coup? HBO airs plaintiff’s-side “Hot Coffee” documentary [Abnormal Use, Ted Frank/PoL, Schwartz/NYT, more, yet more]
- Financial institutions abroad will be pleased to be roped into U.S. regulatory schemes. Won’t they? [Dan Mitchell, Cato at Liberty]
- Proposal for judge-guided negotiations in NY med-mal cases leaves Ted Frank underwhelmed [PoL]
- “Virginia inmate sues after gruesome tries at sex change” [AP]
Groupon, discount vouchers, and the law
Groupon and other novel discount-voucher services have been enjoying much attention lately. But state consumer law has long imposed substantial regulation on the practice of coupon discounting: some states bar the use of coupons for the purchase of alcoholic drinks, others require that coupons carry a maturity at least as long as five years or some other time span, and so forth. Are the new social-discount services at risk for significant legal exposure? [Benjamin Edelman and Paul Kominers via Felix Salmon]
Hitting a Sirius jackpot
Lawyers expect major benefits from the settlement of a suit against the satellite-radio service, though class members won’t be getting cash [Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Settlement Site]
Book review: “The Churchills”
Not really any legal content, but I’m in the New York Times Book Review today with a review of Mary S. Lovell’s enjoyably gossipy The Churchills, a history of England’s most celebrated political family, which concentrates more on the clan’s personal entanglements than its achievements in oratory or war-making. You can read it here.
“Louisiana Legislators Narrowly Reject Car Seizure for Littering”
A near encounter with forfeiture madness in the Pelican State [The Newspaper]:
Under the legislation, impounded vehicles [of third-conviction litterers] would be sold at auction with the revenue split 10 percent to the towing company, 30 percent to the local police or investigative agency, 10 percent to the indigent defender board, 20 percent to the prosecutor and 30 percent to the state. The vehicle would be seized regardless of whether the offender was also the owner of the car. A bank or other lien holder on a leased car would have to pay “all towing and storage fees” before recovering their property.
According to The Newspaper, the bill passed the Louisiana state senate by a vote of 34 to 1 before its defeat 49-46 in the state House.
Pixilated version of famous Miles Davis image
Oh, what an expensive bet on “fair use” that idea for album art turned out to be [Andy Baio, waxy.org via @petewarden]
Is the Supreme Court too “individualist”?
Some academic critics say the Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision is the latest in a string of decisions in which the Court has insisted that litigants be accorded individual rather than group or batch consideration, even though “a more collectivist view,” as Connecticut lawprof Alexandra Lahav contends, would carry with it more “potential for social reform.” I take up this charge, and defend the Court, at Cato at Liberty. More: John Steele at Legal Ethics Forum, with a link to Samuel Issacharoff’s work.
“Too Much FDA Intervention Equals Too Few Drugs”
Bloomberg columnist Ramesh Ponnuru tackles the pharmaceutical-shortage issue covered recently in this space.
P.S. Although it is only indirectly related to the issue of manufacturing shortages, note also the interesting reader comment on the gout drug Colchicine, known and used for millennia. Per relatively recent FDA rules, colchinine and various other older drugs, formerly “grandfathered” and free for anyone to produce, have been awarded in exclusivity to a single manufacturer, at considerable cost to consumers.