There are ways, claims Mary Roach in the San Francisco Chronicle, channelling Walter Sobchak. (“Fingering the finger”, Apr. 18 (via Romenesko)). “I would put good money on the digit hailing from someplace other than the hand of a meat or tomato or onion processor who works in a plant that processes ingredients for Wendy’s. People who work in processing plants do not have long, well-groomed fingernails. Long nails are against the rules in these plants.” Scott Herhold of the San Jose Mercury News is reminded of a 1987 hoax involving a finger that wasn’t. (“1987 finger mystery just a lot of tripe”, Apr. 17). Earlier entries: Apr. 9 and link therein.
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
“U.S. Lawyers Have Little Stomach for Obesity Cases”
“Where are the promised obesity lawsuits?” Evan Schaeffer asks, citing an April 18 Reuters story by Gail Appleman. (He miscredits Overlawyered with the prediction of particular timing, however; we simply quoted a Lawyers Weekly USA headline that in turn relied upon the public statements of plaintiffs’ attorneys.)
Schaeffer goes on to suggest that the several states that have enacted laws protecting the fast-food industry have wasted their time. But of course the states that bar obesity lawsuits aren’t seeing obesity lawsuits. The plaintiffs’ bar bragged about how they used the media to change the playing field for tobacco litigation, and the fast-food industry stepped forward to prevent an instant replay, and won the public debate–thus discouraging many lawyers from spearheading these actions so far ahead of public opinion, especially when state law prevented recovery. But Richard Daynard, speaking at an AEI conference on the subject last month, certainly didn’t sound like he was going to give up: “I think these cases in the long term may have viability.” And John Banzhaf complained just yesterday that a 93% downward revision by the CDC of the estimated effects of obesity was a corporate conspiracy that wouldn’t affect lawyers’ plans for future lifestyle litigation. (Joyce Howard Price, “CDC says obesity deaths overestimated”, Washington Times, Apr. 20). It’s to the credit of the plaintiffs’ bar that many recognize that the lifestyle litigators may have bitten off more than they can chew; one suspects that the true concern is that such litigation could create a backlash against the compensation culture that funds Trial Lawyers Inc.
There’s a strange disconnect in Schaeffer’s argument. He suggests that reformers are deliberately exaggerating the risk of lifestyle litigation to get legislation passed — but what would be the motivation for achieving that goal if the risk is exaggerated? If the plaintiffs’ bar is really opposed to lifestyle litigation, as Schaeffer suggests, why not score some cheap political points by supporting the legislation instead of fighting it so hard? A cynic might suggest that they’re trying to keep the door open for copycat litigation in case the pioneers find a jurisdiction that will let the claims proceed. As it is, the Pelman decision (Jan. 27) will likely cost McDonald’s shareholders millions of dollars in litigation costs.
Compulsive gambler
Donald Carroll says the Borgata casino in Atlantic City was too helpful in getting his credit reinstated. (Judy DeHaven, “Gambler says Borgata took him on limo ride back to debt”, Newark Star-Ledger, Apr. 3). See Apr. 28, 2004 and links from there (& letter to the editor, May 10).
Wal-Mart vs. Kevin Brancato
Kevin Brancato, a Ph.D. candidate at George Mason who heads the masthead at the economics blog Truck and Barter, also publishes a weblog entirely devoted to following the fortunes (policy and otherwise) of the Wal-Mart Corporation, by the name of AlwaysLowPrices.net (see our cites to it on Apr. 13, 2004 and Apr. 6, 2005). In contrast to the Wal-Mart-bashing line taken by so many other sites, Brancato frequently, though not invariably, rises to the defense of the company and the efficiencies of its way of doing business. This has done nothing to prevent Wal-Mart’s lawyers from sending him a cease and desist letter ordering him to vacate the name and URL “AlwaysLowPrices”, a phrase which is of course Wal-Mart’s service mark. (T&B, Apr. 5). Kevin Heller at TechLawAdvisor (Apr. 6) doesn’t think he stands much of a chance if Wal-Mart goes to court.
Confucianism and hyperlitigation
Decline and Fall of Western Civilization (that’s the name of the blog) on some antecedents of overzealous use of the courts (lower case in original):
it seems we are far from the first society to be so enthralled. china under the 17th c qing dynasty saw the rise of the songshi, the “litigation master”, who was blamed for a massive litigation backlog that overwhelmed the system of adjudication and worked to undermine the classical and confucian principles of harmonious social behavior. (the songshi were ultimately proscribed in the 18th and 19th c.) the elizabethan pettifogger is another derisory example from an age that saw itself awash in trivial litigation.
“Gaius Marius”, who writes the blog, has more on Confucius-influenced attitudes toward litigation as disharmonious and a breach of the social peace; the word songgun apparently translates from the Chinese as “litigation hooligan”. All that plus a kind reference to this site as “invaluable” (Mar. 14).
Childhood bully loses appeal against Eminem
“A man who bullied Eminem at school has been told he cannot sue the superstar over lyrics in which the rapper claimed he was almost killed by his schoolmate. A Michigan appeals court dismissed DeAngelo Bailey’s legal action because most fans would not take Eminem’s story of a vicious attack seriously.” (“Eminem safe from bully’s lawsuit”, BBC, Apr. 16; Ben Schmitt, “Eminem’s bully loses court appeal”, Detroit Free Press, Apr. 16). More: opinion (PDF) courtesy ALP.
Rosa Parks update
92-year-old Rosa Parks “has dementia and is only faintly aware of what is happening around her,” but that didn’t stop lawyers from filing a $5 billion lawsuit on her behalf against the music companies that permitted the music group OutKast to release a song with the title “Rosa Parks.” (Jan. 17). The case has settled with the promise of a CD and a television tribute to her, featuring her guardian, Dennis Archer, as host. No conflicts of interest there. I couldn’t find any press coverage indicating how much Parks’s current lawyer, Willie Gary (Oct. 14, Aug. 13, 2003, earlier links), was paid in the process; Archer refused to discuss financial terms. (Peter Slevin, “Settlement Commits Music Producers to Honor Rosa Parks”, Washington Post, Apr. 15). The Sixth Circuit held that the rappers did not have a first amendment right to name their song “Rosa Parks” because they could have called it “Back of the Bus” rather than use an allusive title. One looks forward to more federal court diktats over song titles. (Parks v. LaFace Records (6th Cir. 2003) (argued by the late Johnnie Cochran)). (And welcome Slate readers: check out the main page.)
How lawyers almost killed “The Onion”
Continuing juvenile humor litigation day at Overlawyered: “We were very nearly sued out of existence by Janet Jackson,” said former Onion editor-in-chief Robert Siegel, thanks to a story headlined “Dying 13-Year-Old Gets His Wish, Will Pork Janet Jackson.” (Samara Kalk Derby, “Jackson almost killed Onion, editor reveals”, The Capital Times, Apr. 12) (via Romenesko).
The Ultimate Warrior
That’s the monicker of a World Wrestling Federation star turned conservative political commentator; he has a Director of Communications who sends nastygrams that certainly go further than your garden-variety nastygram (Something Awful, Apr. 11, see especially second and third pages).
Update: Judge in Batra swivel-chair case censured
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct has censured Acting Supreme Court Justice Diane A. Lebedeff “for presiding over a case in which she had a ‘significant social and professional relationship’ with the plaintiff, attorney Ravi Batra”. The case in question was none other than the one described in our Nov. 11, 2003 entry, in which Batra, a noted judicial kingmaker in city politics, was demanding $80 million in damages for a fall off a swivel chair in his office, eventually settling with the furniture store for $225,000. Reports the New York Law Journal:
One of the aggravating factors the commission’s unanimous decision pointed to was that during the five years Lebedeff handled Batra’s case, she excused the defense lawyers on approximately five occasions, saying she wanted to “engage in ‘gossip’ or other social conversation not related to the case, with Mr. Batra.”
…Batra said, “The fact that the judge and I were friendly is a stipulated fact in the determination and was contemporaneously known to defense counsel, who never objected.”
An attorney with Gair, Gair, Conason, Steigman & Mackauf, representing the judge, “said that Lebedeff accepts the censure because she recognizes that there was an appearance of impropriety. He stressed, however, that there was no claim that any of her actions were improper.” (Daniel Wise, “Presiding Over Friend’s Trial Results in Censure”, New York Law Journal, Apr. 11). Norm Pattis (Apr. 12) finds defense mistakes in part to blame.