Given the vulnerabilities of Movable Type to attack — comments are down once again and I don’t know at this point when we can get them back up — it looks as if we’ll have to join the crowd in migrating over to WordPress. (And I had really wanted to spend the week on other projects.)
Those who might want to share relevant MT-to-WP conversion experience are welcome to check in through email (since comments are busted).
The site crashed under spammer attack this morning — I’m told the link from Instapundit with its resulting heavy traffic was just a coincidence — and we’ve had to shut down comments and search temporarily while we try to get back on our feet. Update 1:15 p.m. Eastern: search back up (although all old saved searches are broken, you’ll have to re-search on individual terms), comments still down.
Litigants with too much time on their hands? An enactment called the Presidential Coin Act directs the Treasury to mint coins honoring each President. Stanley L. Klos of Florida is suing, claiming the ten men who served as president under the Articles of Confederation should be entitled to coins too. Under traditional concepts of legal standing, it would seem Klos might have trouble proving a particularized injury to his own legally protected interests. (Elaine Silvestrini, “Scholar Sues To Recognize ‘Presidents’ Before Washington”, Tampa Tribune, May 7)(via Above the Law).
41-year-old South Texas personal injury solo practitioner Hermes Villarreal was admitted to a McAllen hospital on April 16, 2005, reporting that his heart was racing. The hospital put him on a 24-hour EKG. Villarreal reported being under stress, but refused a psychiatric consultation or the recommended medication. At 5 a.m. on April 19, 2005, the day of his scheduled discharge, “Villarreal summoned the nurse on duty and requested a razor, saying that he wanted to take a shower and shave his chest, because the EKG monitor leads attached to his chest were bothering him.” The nurse complied with his wishes, and Villarreal locked himself in the bathroom and committed suicide with the razor.
This was, said Villareal’s family, the hospital’s fault; since it’s South Texas, a Hildalgo County jury, after a three-week trial, awarded $9 million in March (which looks to be reduced at least to $1.64 million under Texas law capping damages). Ironically, the opening line of the Texas Lawyer story says “It was a suicide no one saw coming,” but doesn’t question the resulting jury verdict.
Somehow, the trial lawyer, Raymond L. Thomas, a close friend of Villarreal’s, interjected himself into the closing argument, telling an emotional story of a Rolex Villarreal had given him as a gift that left the jury in tears; the press coverage doesn’t acknowledge the blatant violation of ethical rules (see also Texas Rule 3.04(c)(3)), much less indicate whether he got away with it because of the failure of the defense to object or a judge’s failure to oversee her courtroom. (Jenny B. Davis, “Attorney, Interrupted: Seeking Meaning, Recovery for a Legal Life Lost,” May 5 via ABA Journal).
Terms were undisclosed (AP/WTNH). Ted’s post on the case at the time drew wide attention.
How many errors can you spot in the Jeannette Borzo/California Lawyer magazine story on legal blogging and its sentence about this weblog?
As best as most people can tell, the history of legal blogs began in July 1999 when two lawyers-a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and another attorney from New Jersey-launched Overlawyered (www.overlawyered.com).
As a judge considers whether to impose sanctions on attorney Clifford Shoemaker for hitting investigative blogger Kathleen Seidel with an intimidating subpoena, one of Shoemaker’s attorneys asks the court for more time “to gather the material I would need to show the Court the justification for the Subpoena and its scope,” which prompts Eric Turkewitz to wonder (May 6): “Why is it necessary to look for justification for the subpoena after it was issued?” And: “Other than talking to Shoemaker, who must have already had justification before the subpoena was issued, why would it be necessary to interview any other witness? It’s only Shoemaker’s rationale that matters to the sanctions motion.”
In another indication that heavy-handed pursuit of a blogger might not have worked out very well as a legal strategy, Shoemaker’s own clients, the Sykes family, have now voluntarily dropped their vaccine-autism suit against Bayer, which was the basis for the subpoena (Seidel, Orac).
Perhaps-ominous sequel: Seidel points out in a new post that Shoemaker’s legal papers accuse her of arguably tortious conduct in her comments on autism litigation, including interfering with “witnesses’ professions, professional relationships, and economic opportunities”, and that the witnesses in question in the Sykes suit, Dr. Mark Geier and David Geier, have previously pursued long and costly litigation against four scientists and the American Academy of Pediatrics over an article in Pediatrics which disputed the Geiers’ findings. The suit — which was eventually dismissed without prejudice as to the scientists, and dismissed with prejudice as to AAP — contended that damages were owing because the article in question had cut into the Geiers’ potential income as expert witnesses.
Maybe it’s better sometimes not to stand on all your legal rights? “Jeffery Ely ran over a dog and then sued its owners for the cost of repairing his vehicle. Ely claims in court filings that he suffered $1,100 in damages after Fester, a brain-damaged miniature pinscher, ran in front of his 1997 Honda Civic in January.” (USA Today, May 7).
Yesterday the Manhattan Institute released a new report by my colleague Jim Copland, “Trial Lawyers Inc. — Asbestos“. As I note at Point of Law, even as a longtime observer of asbestos litigation I found it quite an eye-opener. I’m happy to announce that Jim Copland will be joining us tomorrow for a guestblogging stint to explain some of his findings.