We’ve posted four more entries from our alarmingly backed-up pipeline of reader letters, on our letters page. Among topics this time: the oddly divergent views of Wisconsin’s governor on the protection of lawful activities, with special reference to cheeseburger-selling and helmetless cycling; the recently announced class action settlement in Lamb v. Wells Fargo; complaints that some Texas jury pools are now “tainted” against lawsuits; and U-Haul’s role as bystander in the Ford Explorer litigation frenzy.
Posts Tagged ‘about the site’
Overlawyered on Madison radio
I’m scheduled to talk about tort reform on Madison, Wisconsin’s WIBA radio, 1310 AM, Wednesday at 3:35 p.m. Central.
Welcome New Statesman (UK) readers
The well-known British magazine mentions us in the course of an article taking a more favorable view than our own of the spread of “compensation culture” across the pond (Stephen Grey, “Turn to the lawyers for justice”, Mar. 8). Also in the U.K., the Risk of Freedom Briefing, edited by Roger Scruton, runs a condensation of one of our writings from last year (Walter Olson, “Litigation Un-Limited”, Issue 18). The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin quotes us on the record number of applicants to law schools, in an article alas not online (Jerry Crimmins, “Record crowd knocks at law school doors”, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Jan. 13).
Also not online is a Feb. 16 symposium on litigation reform at Business Insurance magazine, which asked the question: “At which level of government are tort reforms best aimed?” Our response: “Trial lawyers lose because they can’t be everywhere at once. If they have to worry only about fighting running skirmishes at the state level, they’ll usually do pretty well at blocking reform. But when a big campaign goes on for federal-level tort reform, even if it fails — which it usually seems to — a bunch of states will often manage to pass serious reforms, as happened last year in Texas and elsewhere. Washington also has an indispensable role to play in setting ground rules for state-court lawsuits against out-of-state defendants, not to mention the large class of cases that arise under federal law.”
Latest newsletter
Our latest free newsletter, summing up the past 3-4 weeks’ worth of items on the site, went out this morning to its 2300+ subscribers. If you didn’t receive it, you can sign up here for future mailings and to read older newsletters. It’s a great way to keep up with items on the site you may have missed.
Latest newsletter
Our latest free newsletter, summing up the past 3-4 weeks’ worth of items on the site, went out this afternoon to its 2300+ subscribers. If you didn’t receive it, you can sign up here for future mailings and to read older newsletters. It’s a great way to keep up with items on the site you may have missed.
Posting lull
Postings from me will likely be sparse over the next few days as I’m on the road: the International Association of Defense Counsel has invited me to speak at their midyear meeting in Orlando. Next week there’ll be more travel, including a speech next Wednesday at a conference put on by the Center for Constructive Alternatives at Hillsdale College in Michigan. There’s more ahead, including two New York City events later this month (details to come); I’ve also agreed to be a participant in the University of Colorado at Boulder’s 56th Conference on World Affairs this Apr. 5-9. If you’re an event sponsor interested in booking an appearance, you can email me directly through this site or contact the Manhattan Institute at 212-599-7000.
Posting lull
There probably won’t be any more posts from me until Thursday, when I return from (weather permitting) my Indiana speaking trip.
Latest newsletter
What, you still haven’t signed up for our free newsletter, which sums up recent items on Overlawyered with near-telegraphic brevity? It’s a great way to stay in touch with the site if you aren’t checking in every day. The latest issue, digesting about three weeks’ worth of posts, went out earlier today to its 2200+ subscribers. You can sign up at this link to receive future newsletters and read older ones.
Another traffic record; Laura Ingraham radio show
With our commentary on John Edwards drawing links from all over the place, yesterday was another record day for traffic, with 12,908 unique visitors, breaking Jan. 7’s record of 10,798. We’re being forced to upgrade to a new and more expensive hosting plan, but that’s the sort of problem it’s nice to have (to send us an Amazon donation that will help defray the costs, click here).
I’m set to appear as a guest on Laura Ingraham’s national radio show to discuss Sen. Edwards, but not this morning as originally scheduled. It’ll probably be next week.
Spitzer vs. the SEC
Mike O’Sullivan at Corp Law Blog says he’s not so sure it’s a bad thing for the SEC to have a reputation as “legalistic” rather than creative in its approach to fighting market misconduct: “The SEC has a great deal of authority over the U.S. capital markets. If the SEC does not act within the four corners of the law, the SEC would inject a great deal of uncertainty into the capital markets. …
“This is one of the reasons why I think it’s inappropriate to compare the SEC to Eliot Spitzer’s operation. Spitzer feels free to use New York’s Martin Act to attack anything that strikes him as abusive, regardless of whether it’s clearly illegal. The SEC has in its arsenal nothing as open-ended as the Martin Act, and that’s a good thing for US markets. The Martin Act is, as one commentator called it (PDF), a ‘fierce sword’ of uncertainty, permitting prosecutors to stretch the definition of crimes and then engage in extensive discovery to compel their targets to capitulate. This makes the Martin Act a very useful tool for a prosecutor looking to make his mark, and a nearly useless guide to a person looking to avoid becoming the target of a prosecutor looking to make his mark.
“Beyond creating uncertainty, another interesting consequence of open-ended criminal statutes like the Martin Act is the freedom they give prosecutors to legislate on the fly.” (Dec. 29). Plus: welcome National Law Journal readers (Andrew Harris, “Waging war against Wall St. corruption”, NLJ, Dec. 22, not online, quotes me suggesting that Spitzer is “imposing a different regulatory scheme nationwide than the one imposed by the federal government,” not necessarily a good idea given that he isn’t answerable to a nationwide electorate).