Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘ethics’

Edward Fagan’s tsunami lawsuit

Nineteen German and Austrian tourists are filing a lawsuit against the government of Thailand and the French hotel chain Accor over the Indian Ocean tsunami. Naturally, the lawsuit has been filed in New York. Another defendant is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; plaintiffs complain that NOAA’s Pacific Tsunami Warning System failed to issue a warning for a tsunami in a completely different ocean. (Aside from the fact that NOAA owes no duty to vacationing Germans in Thailand, NOAA did try to notify other countries of the tsunami potential of the earthquake.) The suits against NOAA and Thailand in a US court are frivolous in the narrowest sense of the word, and will likely be quickly dismissed; Accor will probably have to spend some time and money if it can’t get out on jurisdictional grounds. Edward Fagan (Feb. 5, Aug. 13, Apr. 2, Aug. 8, 2003 and links therein) is the attorney; press coverage uncritically repeats the claim that he is “best known for filing lawsuits seeking reparations for Holocaust victims,” a self-promotion others disagree with. (Jean-Michel Stoullig, AFP/Wash. Times, Feb. 15; cf. also AP, Feb. 13; hat tip to reader D.C.). I’m curious: does Fagan sue his local news weather department if he gets wet because of an unanticipated rainstorm?

At least Fagan isn’t claiming that his lawsuit will stop tsunamis. This site does make that claim for its “lawsuit”; it’s possible that it’s a tongue-in-cheek art project, but the smart money is betting that it’s the work of a full-fledged self-parodying moonbat. It’s not clear if there’s an actual lawsuit; lawsuits by the deranged tend to be more entertaining than socially problematic, except for district court judges unfortunate enough to be in the Ninth Circuit.

Filed under: , , ,

Update: NY Fen-Phen Fee Fracas

Parker & Waichman referred fen-phen cases to Napoli Bern; Napoli Bern negotiated a fen-phen settlement with the manufacturer. Now, Parker & Waichman is charging that Napoli Bern’s lump-sum settlement was distributed in such a way to favor Napoli Bern’s direct clients, thus increasing the total attorney fee take for Napoli Bern and decreasing the amount it would have to share with referring law firms. Napoli Bern denies the allegations. (Jonathan Glater, “When Law Firms Collide, Things Sometimes Get Ugly”, NY Times, Feb. 12) (via Bashman). Previous coverage: Dec. 28, 2001.

Filed under: , , ,

Billed for 94-hour day

“Norwich, Conn., solo Timothy C. Spayne has paid the federal government $1.24 million to settle allegations that he billed Groton, Conn.-based Electric Boat for up to 94 hours in a single day for representing EB employees in workers’ compensation cases. U.S. Attorney Kevin J. O’Connor called it one of the most egregious instances of government fraud during his more than two years in office.” (Keith Griffin, “Billing for 94-Hour Day Nets Solo $1 Million Fraud Charge”, Connecticut Law Tribune, Feb. 7).

Filed under: , ,

If the government wants to save money, it could start here

Logan Young loves Alabama football. He loves it so much that he paid a Memphis-area high school coach $150,000 in exchange for the coach steering a top recruit to Alabama. This act was certainly immoral and violated about twenty NCAA violations. But because the coach works for a public school, the act was also bribery of a state official. And so the federal government prosecuted Young under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), and convicted him for conspiracy, bribery and money laundering. (AP, “Shady boosters can now fear federal prosecutors,” (Feb. 5); “The real outrage was Young’s conduct,” Birmingham News, Feb. 6). Was this really the best use of government resources? RICO, a statute originally targeted at organized crime, has been extended far beyond this purpose and is now used to go after abortion protestors and immoral boosters. I do not agree with what Logan did, but I would argue that the detriment to society is not so great to warrant such an expenditure of tax dollars and judicial resources.

Filed under: , , ,

Ohio AG: Attorneys that challenged election results should be sanctioned

“Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro has asked the Ohio Supreme Court to sanction four lawyers who handled a legal challenge, later withdrawn, to last year’s presidential election in Ohio.” The challenge focused on the long lines faced by voters, a claimed shortage of voting machines in African-American neighborhoods, and potential fraud. The AG’s motion calls the election challenge “meritless” and claims it was done for “partisan political purposes.” The motion continues, “A contest proceeding is not a toy for idle hands. It is not to be used to make a political point, or to be used as a discovery tool, or used to inconvenience or harass public officials, or to be used as a publicity gimmick. [It] is a wholly inappropriate forum to address the localized problems of long lines, shortages of machines, failing to receive notice of the proper voting precinct or casting of provisional ballots.” (Reginald Fields, “Attorney general’s call to punish lawyer is reply to election challenge,” Cleveland Plain-Dealer, Jan. 19; Editorial, “Blaming the messengers,” N.Y. Times, Feb. 3). See also earlier posts (Dec. 20; Dec. 15.)

Filed under: , , ,

Update: New York pro bono

More on that proposal (see Dec. 15) to let New York attorneys take pro bono credit for more activities along the lines of “improv[ing] the legal system”, which some think should mean, e.g., lobbying in Albany against liability reform: critics are saying the idea is shaping up as a public relations disaster for the state bar, and threatens to divert resources from the goal of helping poor persons with their legal problems (Thomas Adcock, “N.Y. State Bar Draws Fire With Proposal to Change Pro Bono Definition”, Jan. 18); and David Giacalone blasts the idea (Jan. 19). See Monica Finch, “Working group seeks input on expanded definition of pro bono”, NYSBA State Bar News, Nov./Dec.

Filed under: ,

Courts slashes bankruptcy fees in retiree case

“The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s decision to slash White & Case’s legal fee in a bankruptcy-related case from $5.5 million to $1.8 million, criticizing the firm’s fees as excessive.” The prominent law firm “made the fee request in 1999 in connection with its representation of 25,000 retirees from the textile manufacturer St. Louis-based Monsanto, which later spun off into the company Solutia, also of St. Louis. Solutia subsequently filed for bankruptcy and sought to alter Monsanto retirees’ benefits.” White & Case was asking as much as $370 an hour for some of its lawyers’ time, although one of the nation’s most prominent plaintiff’s lawyers, Frederic Levin of Pensacola, Fla., was contenting himself with $250 an hour for his work in the same case. (Julie Kay, “White & Case to Get Less Than Half Its Bill for Bankruptcy Case”, Miami Daily Business Review, Jan. 10). More on bankruptcy fees: Sept. 22, 2004 and links from there.

Filed under: ,

Update: legal malpractice verdict tossed on appeal

“The Nevada Supreme Court recently reversed a jury verdict for $3.3 million against two lawyers for alleged malpractice in their representation of a quadriplegic man.” Attorneys W. Randall Mainor and Richard Harris (see “Crumbs from the Table”, Feb. 8-10, 2002) had settled Jason Nault’s medical malpractice claim for $17 million, of which only $2.5 million went to Nault himself, the rest going to “his wife, whom he has since divorced, the lawyers [who got $6.8 million] and the couple’s daughter.” The high court “concluded that the evidence didn’t support the damages.” (“In Brief”, National Law Journal, Dec. 13, not online as free link).

Filed under: ,

Lawyers’ pro bono obligations

Robert Starr, a Manhattan lawyer who is director emeritus of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, suggests that working for groups like NYSTLA that oppose litigation reform should count as pro bono work for lawyers. According to the New York Law Journal, “In April, the [New York] state bar House of Delegates voted to expand its definition of pro bono to include: activities to improve the law, the legal system or the profession; financial assistance to legal services organizations and services to organizations that protect civil rights, liberties or public rights; or when standard legal fees would ‘deplete the organization’s economic resources.'” (Elizabeth Stull, “Many Solo, Small Firm Attorneys Lack Time, Resources for Pro Bono”, New York Law Journal, Dec. 13)(via Giacalone). Update Jan. 23: more controversy.

Filed under: ,