Via Kirkendall, Carl Icahn talks about litigating in a judicial hellhole against Joe Jamail. NSFW, but a spectacular punchline.
More on Jamail.
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
RIAA hasn’t paid artists
“None of the estimated $400 million that the RIAA received in settlements with Napster, KaZaA, and Bolt over allegations of copyright infringement has gone to the artists whose copyrights were allegedly infringed. Now the artists are considering suing the RIAA.” (Consumerist, Mar. 17; David Utter, WebProNews, Feb. 29).
Reader Jim Finkel writes:
Having followed the RIAA lawsuits for a while, I found this most amusing. Even though I am not a lawyer, perhaps if the funds are NOT disbursed soon, there may be a bigger fraud suit. As the RIAA has ostensibly been collecting the monies for the artists, if the RIAA does not disgorge the funds, then they have been litigating under false pretenses. If RIAA expenses are so high that they have nothing left for the artists, then the artists may have grounds to countersue the RIAA for annoying the potential customers with so many frivolous lawsuits that the record business was destroyed, by the RIAA. That might be the ultimate irony.
By the way, for suggesting this suit, I would of course request my portion of the proceeds.
Earlier coverage here.
Deep pocket files: more settlements in Great White fire
“Three more parties sued by victims of the [West Warwick, R.I.] Station nightclub fire have offered tentative settlements in the civil cases now pending in U.S. District Court.” Audio maker JBL, accused of including flammable foam in its speakers and amplifiers, is offering $815,000. “The other two parties offering to settle are ABC Bus Inc., and Superstar Services LLC, which provided bus transportation for the rock band Great White to The Station for its concert, as well as more than 25 kilograms of explosive fireworks material that the band carried on its road trip. Together they are offering $500,000.” (Tracy Breton, “3 more companies offer settlements in Station fire case”, Providence Journal, Mar. 27). Earlier: Feb. 2, etc.
More accolades…
…for our 404 page (“17 brilliant 404 pages and why they are cool”, Royal Pingdom, Mar. 28).
Obama’s financial regulation speech
Prof. Bainbridge doesn’t like much of what he hears (Mar. 27).
Depress the smoking rate, increase the obesity rate
I’m quoted in this morning’s New York Sun on that correlation. (E.B. Solomont, “Post-Smoking Ban, City Gains 10 Million Lbs.”, New York Sun, Mar. 27).
Redesign issues continue
An advisory about a few continuing issues arising from our Movable Type upgrade a week ago and the site redesign that it’s triggered:
* We’re experiencing a surge in comment spam which we’re trying to fix. In the past these attacks have sometimes forced us to close comments briefly or have even brought down the whole site.
* Relatedly, we’re suffering email disruptions which are affecting email addresses @ this domain name and at my personal domain walterolson dot com. If you have sent mail to me or Ted through these sites in the past week, it may not have gotten to us. Editor – at – pointoflaw – dot – com should reach me and is unaffected by the disruptions. Using comments on posts as a substitute for messaging is best saved for a last resort. Facebook messaging is another alternative to consider.
* A couple of readers have reported disruptions to Overlawyered’s RSS feeds. If this is happening to you, too, feel free to point it out in comments to this post. I don’t use feeds and rely on readers to let me know when they malfunction.
* I’m slowly moving up the learning curve on customizing display styles on things like font size and white space. The gavel icon is back on the front page address line. Don’t assume that this design is final as I’m by no means done tweaking it — I might even go back to the pink color scheme.
P.S. Prof. Bainbridge likes the new design. But does Ron Coleman? And QuizLaw favors the distinctive pink.
Update: T-shirts critical of Wal-Mart
Updating our Mar. 29, 2006 post: “Computer store owner Charles Smith has won a two-year legal battle with Wal-Mart, which has demanded he stop making and selling T-shirts and other items with slogans such as ‘Wal-ocaust’ and ‘Wal-Qaeda.’ U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. found that Smith’s products qualified as protected noncommercial speech because his goal was to criticize Wal-Mart, not to make a profit from his products. The judge noted that Smith had sold only 62 T-shirts, including 15 to one of Wal-Mart’s outside law firms.” (Janet L. Conley, “Parody of Wal-Mart Trumps Its Trademark”, Fulton County Daily Report, Mar. 26; Likelihood of Confusion, Mar. 22; Randazza, Mar. 23).
N.H. jury: lawyer’s demand letters amounted to extortion
Now this could crimp the business plans of quite a few attorneys:
A Manchester lawyer who threatened to sue a Concord salon for pricing haircuts differently for men and women and then took money to settle the matter was found guilty of theft by extortion.
A jury took about 1½ hours to convict Daniel Hynes, 27, on Wednesday. Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Baker said Hynes sent letters to at least 19 salons in the state.
One arrived Dec. 20, 2006, at Claudia’s, the North Main Street hair salon owned by Claudia Lambert. In the letter, Hynes said prices should be based on the time a cut takes or on the length of hair, instead of on gender. He wrote: “I demand payment in the amount of $1,000 in order to avoid litigation,” according to court documents. …
Hynes said yesterday that he plans to appeal.
“The conviction goes against the First Amendment,” he said. “People have a right to petition the courts. In my case, I wanted to address my concern with the Human Rights Commission.”
Asked why he sent letters to salons instead of contacting the commission directly, Hynes said lawyers often settle out of court.
“I believe it’s more appropriate to attempt as amicable a resolution as possible,” he said.
… In one court document, he argued that the price structure that he saw as discriminatory had caused him stress and mental anguish, despite the fact that prices for men were less than those for women. He said he was being denied an “inherent benefit in being treated equally.”
(Chelsea Conaboy, “Lawyer guilty of salon extortion”, Concord Monitor, Mar. 21; Greenfield, Mar. 23; Above the Law, Mar. 25; Pasquale, Concurring Opinions, Mar. 24).
Prof. Bainbridge (Mar. 25) cites California’s experience with the now somewhat reformed s. 17200 unfair business practices law, which empowered freelancing lawyers to send out demand letters to businesses over a wide variety of alleged infractions. He concludes that the answer is to amend underlying laws which sweep too broadly in banning business practices, authorize damage claims unrelated to actual injury, and so forth. Although I much appreciate the kind suggestions for further reading he offers in his post, I can’t say I entirely go along with the idea that the scope for possible abuse would vanish if only the underlying laws were written properly. At Concurring Opinions, incidentally, one commenter draws a connection to RIAA’s mass production of demand letters against file-sharers, while another warns that for a target to complain to the authorities of extortion, as did the New Hampshire salon owner, might itself be construed by many courts as “retaliation” against the filer of a discrimination claim and thus as grounds for penalties on its own.
Lawsuit abuse kills puppies
Blogger Rogier van Bakel is furious (via Balko (h/t Slim)) at his local SPCA because they would rather put a dog to sleep than place it with his family with small children. See, they’re worried about getting sued if the dog bites one of the children. van Bakel can’t believe it: he’s even willing to sign a waiver!
His anger is misdirected. The SPCA didn’t kill his dog; trial lawyers did. Courts’ failure to recognize the right of parties to contract out of excessive liability means that the SPCA has to protect itself against attorneys, and can only do so if they avoid situations where they might be sued. With 20/20 hindsight, the would-be John Edwards will say to a jury: “The SPCA has placed other dogs that bit small children and has been sued for it, yet they continue to place dogs with small children!”, and demand punitive damages. Between judges who won’t recognize the right of contract when it interferes with a lawyer’s paycheck, and legislative efforts to prevent parties from agreeing to contract out of the high costs of the liability system, von Bakel cannot distinguish himself from the families who would blame the SPCA if a dog-attack occurs. The offer of a waiver does not help: the SPCA can’t afford to take the risk that an adoptive family will renege on its agreement not to sue if the dog attacks a child.
Now, perhaps we as a society do not want shelters to place animals in homes with small children. Or perhaps we do. But shouldn’t that be a decision that rests with a legislature, rather than random chance and a jury? But when a jury has the power to exact uncapped damages, an SPCA has to anticipate the regulation through litigation.
van Bakel and Balko direct readers to other organizations that have not yet been saddled with a lawsuit demanding such practices, but they will surely follow in the SPCA’s footsteps when the lawyers get a hold of them. The long-term solution is to insist on elected officials who will appoint judges who respect freedom of contract, and who will pass tort reform measures that put common-sense limits on the power of courts to interfere with every-day activity. Even now in Congress is debating S. 1782, which would put further limits on the power of consumers to opt out of expensive litigation, and receive the benefits of lower costs and increased choice; while President Bush will veto such legislation, an Obama administration with a Democratic Congress would surely vote it into law.
For more on the Congressional and trial-lawyer campaign to reduce consumer choice, see the Overlawyered arbitration section.
Apologies to Mr. van Bakel for the misspelling of his name in the original version of the post.