None of them caught tuberculosis. (Molly McDonough, “Tests Reveal Lawyer’s Fellow Air Travelers Free of TB”, ABA Journal, Nov. 28). Earlier: Jun. 2, Jul. 8.
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Lawrence v. Graubard Miller
Alice Lawrence had timely paid $18 million over 22 years to Graubard Miller in a lengthy dispute over her husband’s estate. The law firm had billed her on an hourly basis—until there was a $60 million settlement offer on the table, at which point it suddenly renegotiated its retainer agreement to be a 40% “contingent fee”, though there was obviously nothing contingent about the award, and the firm wasn’t offering to repay the money it had already billed. Five months later, there was a $105 million settlement—and Graubard Miller claimed as its fee for the five months of work $42 million of the $45 million additional money that it had negotiated, for a total of $60 million for the case. Lawrence asked the New York courts to protect her, but a 4-1 majority of the Appellate Division upheld the decision (via Lattman). The New York Times article (not to mention Bizarro-Overlawyered, which unsurprisingly doesn’t care much about fraud and rip-offs when they’re occasioned by attorneys against widows) doesn’t even begin to mention the fact that the “contingent fee” didn’t provide any risk for the law firm: the retainer agreement had a floor whereby Graubard Miller got to charge an hourly rate for the first year of trial even if it didn’t collect anything, guaranteeing it another $1.2 million on top of the $18 million it had already collected. The best coverage in the New York Law Journal, which notes that Graubard Miller schnorred another $7.8 million in gifts and gift taxes from Lawrence, whose total payment thus totaled nearly $68 million. (Anthony Lin, “Late 40 Percent Retainer Pact Survives Widow’s Dismissal Bid”, Nov. 29; Anthony Lin, “Widow’s Suit Seeks Return of $50M in ‘Excessive’ Fees and Gifts”, Sep. 16, 2005).
Unfortunately for Lawrence’s case, she did negotiate the Graubard Miller firm down from its original 50% (!) contingent-fee proposal, so in one sense she wasn’t completely the unwitting pawn of the firm, even though Graubard Miller failed to suggest that she consult independent counsel about the multi-million dollar negotiation. The question becomes whether the attorney-client relationship is at all fiduciary, or whether it’s purely contractual—in which case, one wonders why there is such an elaborate screening mechanism to permit prospective attorneys to participate in the guild in the first place.
It’s nice that the New York courts are so respectful of contracts that they dismiss cases at an early stage of the litigation. One hopes that they do that in situations other than those involving the fiduciary duties of attorneys.
Mark Steyn book excerpt = human rights violation?
Reminding us once again that our neighbor to the north lacks a First Amendment-strength guarantee of free speech, and stands in very great need of one: Canada’s largest non-profit Islamic body, the Canadian Islamic Congress, has launched human rights complaints against the prominent magazine Maclean’s and its editor-in-chief over a book excerpt from Mark Steyn, the well-known conservative columnist. “Complaints were submitted to Human Rights Commissions in B.C. and Ontario on the grounds that ‘the article subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt,’ according to a CIC press release. In the release, the CIC labels Steyn’s article as ‘flagrantly Islamophobic.'” (Kate Lunau, “Canadian Islamic Congress launches human rights complaints against Maclean’s”, Maclean’s, Nov. 30)(& welcome visitors from Steyn’s own SteynOnline).
Update: Stephen Yagman draws three-year sentence
The high-profile Los Angeles attorney, who’s made frequent appearances in these pages, is headed to federal prison following his conviction for tax evasion, money laundering and bankruptcy fraud (see Jun. 24). U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson chided Yagman for testimony “so transparently untrue in so many areas.” (Scott Glover, “Attorney Yagman sentenced to 3 years for tax evasion, fraud”, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 28). Best known for his lawsuits against police departments, the much-criticized Yagman has also represented the principals in a famous Americans with Disabilities Act filing mill that launches mass complaints against small businesses and settles them for cash (Mar. 18, 2005; Nov. 4, 2006). According to the L.A. Times account, he “twice was suspended by the state bar for charging clients ‘unconscionable’ fees.” When a retired police sergeant sent him a letter expressing “glee” over his indictment, Yagman promptly sued him (Jan. 5, 2006). Norm Pattis (Nov. 29) reflects: “I wonder whether Yagman became a Leona Helmsley-type figure. The law is for little people, he appears to have thought.”
San Fran fireplace ban?
Time running out to roast chestnuts by an open fire: “Under the auspices of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, ‘public hearings’ are being held to determine the fate of the family hearth. Those of us who live in rural areas have a pretty good idea what the outcome is going to be.” (Jeffrey Earl Warren, “Should fireplace fires be banned?”, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 22; Jonathan Curiel, “Smog board wants to ban wood fires on bad-air nights in winter”, Nov. 6). This has been building for a while (Dec. 27, 2002; Dec. 24, 2001; Feb. 28, 2001). Related: Denis Cuff, “Air quality agency has beef with charbroiling smoke”, InsideBayArea.com, Nov. 28.
ABA Journal “Blawg 100”
The ABA Journal has named Overlawyered to its inaugural “Blawg 100”, one of thirteen sites labeled “Generally Speaking”, i.e., generalist law sites. In fact, you can vote for us here as best of category if you like. Note also that another of the thirteen is my and Ted’s other site, Point of Law. Howard Bashman’s ever-popular How Appealing at Law.com is currently leading in the balloting, but our sites are at present doing well in the competition, with Point of Law at #4 position and Overlawyered at #2 (cross-posted, in slightly altered form, from Point of Law).
P.S. Ernie the Attorney, as usual unfailingly generous, has some comments about the history of the blawg form, as well as the story of a New Orleans photo not taken.
And now we’re in the lead — even though, as another of our generous brethren states the case, “for every vote that QuizLaw gets, an angel is granted a demurrer”.
Child support collection, for a percentage
Once again, the combination of contingency fees and law enforcement spells trouble: an article by Tresa Baldas in the National Law Journal reports that controversy is mounting over the activities of private firms that go after noncustodial parents’ child support obligations in exchange for a percentage share of the bounty (“Suits collecting around child support collectors”, Sept. 17, no free link). “Critics of the industry — many of them lawyers — claim that private collectors of child support are engaging in predatory practices, such as charging excessive contingency fees as high as 50%, and using aggressive collection tactics that run afoul of federal laws.” The private agencies escape the scrutiny of federal debt collection laws and have been operating effectively without regulation, but state lawmakers are now moving to fill the gap, with 13 states having passed laws intended to protect the services’ clients (if not always their adversaries) by capping fees, prohibiting the agencies from collaring state-directed payments, and giving clients more leeway to withdraw from contracts.
November 28 roundup
All-medical edition:
- Shocker for New York docs: possible assessment of $50K apiece to make up losses at nonprofit med-mal insurer [White Plains Journal-News Chamber reprint]
- Dr. Ray Harron, a central figure in furor over mass asbestos and silicosis screenings, seems rather hard to locate at the moment, though he does have a lawyer speaking on his behalf [NY Times, WV Record]
- Another push to raise the threshold of liability for emergency room care in Arizona [AZ Business Gazette]
- End run around Roe? Some state legislatures attaching sweeping new tort liabilities to the provision of abortions [Childs]
- Three nominees for worst-founded medical lawsuit, lamentably unsourced [Medical Justice]
- Spokane psychiatrist shouldn’t have engaged in romantic (though not sexually consummated) dalliance with forty-ish patient; that much is clear. But should she now get cash? [AP/Seattle Times]
- “Baby falls to floor during home delivery, mom sues hospital for too-early discharge” [SE Texas Record]
- A sensitive subject: malpractice and doctors’ suicides [KevinMD, a while back]
- “If the ‘loser pays’ system is so bad, why do most other countries keep it around instead of switching over to an ‘Americanized’ system of tort law?” [WhiteCoat Rants]
- Hospital, ambulance service among those sued after fatal crash of NFL’s Derrick Thomas [seven years ago on Overlawyered]
“Is Overlawyering Overtaking Democracy?”
Walter’s appearance at the Federalist Society Lawyers Convention (along with Victor Schwartz, Ted Eisenberg, and David C. Vladeck) is now on-line, along with many other programs.
Operation Santa disclaimers, cont’d
We posted last week on a report from Newark, where the U.S. Postal Service was backing off its support for the longstanding Operation Santa toys-for-poor-kids charitable drive and, in particular, demanding that volunteer gift-givers show up in person and sign a lengthy waiver. It turns out the change of policy is nationwide in scope and “at the advice of legal counsel”:
There have been no lawsuits or accusations of impropriety.
Sue Brennan, a spokeswoman for the Postal Service, says the change was made “to protect the children and to protect the integrity of the program and the Postal Service.”
The letters [from needy children] often included home addresses and telephone numbers. “We were giving out information about these kids to people we didn’t know,” she says.
(Larry Copeland, “Volunteers answering letters to Santa now have to sign a clause”, USA Today, Nov. 23)(via ShopFloor). In other changes to the program, the Postal Service will no longer wrap the presents or transport them free to the central post office. A follow-up report in the Star-Ledger finds a reaction of “anger and disappointment among volunteers,” and the donation coordinator at the prominent local law firm of McCarter & English says her firm has decided to designate other charities instead. (Judy Peet, “Donors say ‘bah, humbug’ to Operation Santa rules”, Newark Star-Ledger, Nov. 21).