Client-chasing roundup

Walter Olson — Fri, 30 May 2008 04:11:17 +0000

Screening firm hired by Beaumont, Tex.’s Provost Umphrey to do mass silicosis x-rays at Pennsylvania hotels is fined $80,500 for breaking various state rules, like the one requiring that a medical professional be on hand [Childs]
Milberg Weiss’s special way of obtaining perfectly pliant clients — that is to say by bribing them under the table — harmed other class members by increasing fees but not settlement sums, suggests a new study by St. John’s lawprof Michael Perino for Ted’s project at AEI [Carter Wood @ PoL]
Time for Texas to join many other states in requiring lawyers to inform clients when practicing without professional liability insurance [SE Texas Record; earlier here, here and here]
Lawyers, in concert with their public pension fund allies, jockey for control of securities case against Bear Stearns [Gerstein/NY Sun]
Another court, this time in California, rules that a screw maker can’t sue a law firm on the claim that its solicitation of potential claimants wrongly portrayed the company’s products as defective; amicus brief from state trial lawyers group and Sen. Sheila Kuehl says relevant provisions of state’s “SLAPP” law were “meant to protect plaintiffs groups, not companies” [The Recorder via ABA Journal; earlier case from Tennessee]
Most lucrative Google AdSense words still dominated by asbestos and other personal injury practice, the top terms being “mesothelioma treatment options” ($69.10 per click, and the point of obtaining the click is not to provide treatment options), “mesothelioma risk” ($66.46), and “personal injury lawyer michigan” ($65.85) [CyberWyre via NAM “Shop Floor”; more here, here, etc.]

Tags: AEI, asbestos, Bear Stearns, California, chasing clients, Google, mass screenings, Milberg Weiss, Provost Umphrey, silicosis, Texas, x-rays

Client-chasing roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

The dangers of doing an M&A agreement over a weekend

Ted Frank — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 02:35:20 +0000

When I was practicing full-time, I strongly (and rarely successfully) argued for sticking to internal deadlines and against trying the last-minute editing of briefs or other documents for anything other than egregious errors: the risk of larger irreparable errors being introduced in a hectic rush always seemed to me to outweigh the benefits of crafting paragraphs ever so finer. Such an error may have occurred in the Bear Stearns deal, and will no doubt show up on Above the Law tomorrow. NY Times:

JPMorgan and Bear were prompted to renegotiate after shareholders began threatening to block the deal and it emerged that several “mistakes” were included in the original, hastily written contract, according to people involved in the talks.

One sentence was “inadvertently included,” according to a person briefed on the talks, which requires JPMorgan to guarantee Bear’s trades even if shareholders voted down the deal. That provision could allow Bear’s shareholders to seek a higher bid while still forcing JPMorgan to honor its guarantee, these people said.

When the error was discovered, James Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, who was described by one participant as “apoplectic,” began calling his lawyers at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz to seek a way to have the sentence modified, these people said. Finger pointing over the mistakes in the contracts began as bankers blamed the lawyers and vice versa.

Tags: Bear Stearns

The dangers of doing an M&A agreement over a weekend is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Bear Stearns – Overlawyered

Client-chasing roundup

The dangers of doing an M&A agreement over a weekend