“A prominent civil rights attorney who was indicted this month on tax charges has sued a retired police detective for writing a letter that expressed ‘glee’ at the news. Stephen Yagman claims in the suit filed Wednesday that the three-paragraph letter he received from Jerry Le Frois caused him ‘extreme emotional distress.’ Le Frois’ June 23 letter says he felt ‘glee and profound satisfaction’ when he learned that Yagman had been charged earlier this month in a 19-count federal indictment. Le Frois identified himself as a former member of the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Investigations Section, which was a frequent target of Yagman’s civil rights suits.” (“Attorney sues former L.A. cop who expressed ‘glee’ he was indicted”, AP/Sacramento Bee, Jun. 29). More watch-what-you-say-about-lawyers posts: Apr. 18 and links from there.
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Update: Tex. jury rejects flasher’s-remorse suit
In the latest development regarding suits by young women who come to regret being filmed in compromising states of undress during Spring Break, Mardi Gras, etc., a Denton County, Tex. jury has decided to award no damages to Brittany Lowry and Lezlie Fuller, who “accused Mantra Films of misappropriation and fraud after the two were videotaped in March 2002 flashing their breasts during a vacation at Panama City Beach, Fla.” (Domingo Ramirez Jr., “Women lose Girls Gone Wild lawsuit”, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Jun. 29)(via Lattman). Earlier: Sept. 28-30, 2001; Mar. 6-7, 2002; May 1, 2006; May 2, 2006.
“Do you know who I am?”
According to an editorial report in London’s Telegraph earlier this year, an Italian court has ruled that it is not inappropriate for a lawyers’ association to discipline one of its members for uttering in the course of a social interaction that classic phrase of intimidation, “Do you know who I am?” (“We know who you are” (editorial), Daily Telegraph, Jan. 15). If adopted in this country, such a disciplinary rule might tend to crimp the style of famed tort high-roller Stanley Chesley, to judge by an generally puffy recent Cincinnati Enquirer profile (Chuck Martin, “Champion for little guy”, May 28). (These seeming puff pieces so often turn out to embarrass inadvertently.) More on Chesley: Mar. 6, 2006; Aug. 24, 2005; Jan. 11, 2004; Aug. 7-8, 2001; Aug. 16-17, 2000; Jun. 1, 2000; Apr. 12, 2000; Mar. 30, 2000; Dec. 23-26, 1999.
Thanks to guestblogger Hans Bader
You can find out more about Hans’s work here, and his posts appear frequently at the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s group blog, Open Market.
The first refuge of a scoundrel
A Feministe commenter writes about street harassment (h/t Slim):
Last summer, I was walking on the street, holding a large coffee I had just bought. Suddenly, a guy coming from behind me grabbed my ass and asked me ‘where I was walking with that nice ass of mine’. I was lost in my thoughts when it happened, and it surprised me so much that it made me screamed and jumped, which resulted in me throwing *very* hot coffee all over his face and shoulders. It was an accident, but I can’t tell you how much satisfaction I got from hearing him scream in pain as he got burned by the coffee.
The best part? As I was walking away, laughing my ‘nice’ ass off, he screamed at me that he was going to sue me!
Long-time Overlawyered readers will also note the fortunate fact that the commenter’s coffee didn’t have an identifiable brand name that permitted her assailant to sue the restaurant for serving hot coffee.
Update: Judy Cates heads ITLA
The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association has installed as its president none other than Swansea, Ill. class action lawyer Judy Cates, known to longtime Overlawyered readers for her venture into columnist-suing (Feb. 29, 2000) following the controversial Publisher’s Clearing House settlement. For one of Cates’s more recent suits, see May 4, 2004. (“She’s our poster-lawyer”, St. Clair Record, Jun. 18).
Spitzer, Faso, and the New York high court
I’ve got an op-ed today in the New York Post about one of the less obvious issues in the high-profile race for Governor of New York: whoever wins will get to reshape the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, with implications long into the future for the state’s legal well-being. Would a Gov. Spitzer appoint anti-business crusaders to the court? (Walter Olson, “N.Y. Judge Wars: Hidden ’06 Issue”, New York Post, Jun. 30)(cross-posted at Point of Law) (& welcome readers of Prof. Bainbridge, who says kind things).
“Middle-class peeves cost more money than exists”
Via R.J. Lehmann (Mar. 27), here are some figures indicating that the sum total of the alleged costs of other people’s bad behavior may well exceed the total sum of money in existence. To be more specific: start by adding up the claimed health expenses, productivity losses and other social costs of such indulgences as alcohol ($185 billion a year, it’s said with spurious precision), overeating ($115 billion), gambling ($54 billion), and so forth. Then throw in categories such as the costs of crime, time wasted by employees visiting web sites and watching sports events, and so forth. By the time you’re done, Lehmann says, you can “come up with a grand total of $7.39 trillion – well in excess of the $6.70 trillion that actually exists” — at least if you’re willing to include a few dodgy entries in the catalog, such as taxes. (Thomas C. Greene, The Register (UK), Mar. 16).
It’s not hard to see the relevance of this line of logic to themes often dealt with in this space. In the utopia of the litigators we would succeed in charging the social costs of our overeating to the food business, the costs of our gambling to the casinos and lotteries that led us on, the costs of 9/11 to assorted banks, airlines, building owners and Saudi nabobs, the costs of street crime to deep-pocketed entities guilty of negligent security, and so on and so forth for the costs of auto accidents, pharmaceutical side effects, failure to learn in school, domestic violence, etc. It would not be surprising if the sum total of all the different injuries, insults and indignities dealt out to the human race, if monetized at the rates prescribed by advocates, handily exceeded the sum total of wealth on hand to pay, even were the whole wealth of the world placed at the courts’ disposal.
Why the Jessica Cutler case matters
For some reason, we haven’t yet covered the Washingtonienne libel suit, where Little Rock law professor Robert Steinbuch revealed he was “R.S.” by filing suit against the infamous blogger, causing Judge Paul Friedman to comment, “I don’t know why this guy thought it was smart to file a lawsuit and lay out all of his private intimate details in an appendix to the complaint.”
Now Wonkette reports that Cutler’s third set of attorneys in the litigation Robert Steinbuch has filed against her, and has not yet retained new attorneys. Why might you care? Because Steinbuch, who waited until May 16, 2005 to complain about a May 4, 2004 blog post, is planning on arguing that every new blog post restarts the statute of limitations for a plaintiff wishing to complain about a blog. (T.R. Goldman, “A Man Scorned”, Legal Times, May 22). If Cutler defends against this argument pro se, Judge Friedman could be induced into an erroneous ruling that makes life difficult for bloggers everywhere. And there’s no reason that Steinbuch’s logic wouldn’t equally apply to computer databases like LEXIS that “republish” mainstream media articles upon request. One hopes Friedman will see through the Steinbuch argument.
Craigslist classifieds suit
Google, Amazon, AOL and Yahoo are all defending Craigslist in the suit demanding that it censor its housing ads so as to prevent users from requesting “gay Latino sought for roomshare” and the like (Lynne Marek, “Online Peers Stand Up for Craigslist in Lawsuit”, National Law Journal, Jun. 28). Earlier coverage: Aug. 10, 2005; Feb. 9, Feb. 20, Mar. 6, 2006. Craigslist’s defense, by CEO Jim Buckmaster, is here.
