Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘Europe’

Must-read Instapundit post

Glenn Reynolds quotes (AEI visiting scholar) Jack Goldsmith:

In my two years in the government, I witnessed top officials and bureaucrats in the White House and throughout the administration openly worrying that investigators acting with the benefit of hindsight in a different political environment would impose criminal penalties on heat-of-battle judgment calls. These men and women did not believe they were breaking the law, and indeed they took extraordinary steps to ensure that they didn’t. But they worried nonetheless because they would be judged in an atmosphere different from when they acted, because the criminal investigative process is mysterious and scary, because lawyers’ fees can cause devastating financial losses, and because an investigation can produce reputation-ruining dishonor and possibly end one’s career, even if you emerge “innocent.”

Reynolds: “As I’ve said before, this war has been overlawyered, which is not to say it has been well-lawyered. … Law and lawyers are swell in their place. The extent of that place, however, is not unlimited.” And a Reynolds commenter says:

Welcome to the post-SarBox, [Eliot] Spitzer world. We in business face this on a regular basis. I can’t decide whether I’m glad public servants experience the same headaches we do or concerned because an intelligence/military failure costs lives, while a business failure costs only money (though when Spitzer was around, it also sometimes cost freedom).

In business, not only has bad judgment become a crime, so has a good decision made on the basis of incomplete information, which later turns out to have been the wrong call. This is not good for America, where innovation and risk are what we do better than Europe, China, or India.

In the words of the master blogger himself, Read the whole thing.

Filed under: , ,

More Prop 65 follies

Hoover Institution’s Henry I. Miller:

Moreover, because Prop 65 is enforced entirely through litigation, it has created a system of legalized extortion. To initiate a lawsuit, a plaintiff need only show that a listed chemical is present in a consumer product and that the defendant business “knowingly” exposes Californians to that product without posting the warnings. Prior to filing the suit, the plaintiff must send the defendant a notice describing the exposure; 60 days thereafter, the plaintiff may sue. That notice may be the first inkling a retailer has that his products are exposing consumers to listed chemicals.

The latest chemical to run afoul of Prop 65 is di-isodecyl phthalate, or DIDP, an important and extremely useful additive used to soften hard vinyl plastic and found in dozens of common items, including shower curtains. It is also used to insulate the wires in the walls of homes across America. Safely used for more than 50 years, it is one of the most thoroughly tested products in the world and has been closely examined by numerous regulatory agencies throughout the United States and Europe. Through all that evaluation, no credible scientific review has found DIDP to be dangerous in normal use.

However, those favorable conclusions didn’t faze regulators at California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), who recently decided that DIDP may pose a risk of developmental harm in humans and, therefore, should be listed under Prop 65.

But the mere presence of something does not imply that it’s dangerous; one needs to know the dose, length of exposure, how the body disposes of it, and so forth. Prop 65 standards only look at the potential for risk as criteria for listing. Using that logic, since people regularly suffocate from a chunk of meat blocking their windpipe, maybe steaks should be listed too. (One hates to give the regulators ideas, however.)

Filed under: ,

Deus ex curium

So on the eve of the Sabbath (for me), I end my week of guest-blogging offering conceptually loftier reporting of loftier, if heretical, overlawyering of a Central European kind (hat tip to a blog called Religion Clause).

Now, we all remember this popular number from law school — United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and his Staff (“Mayo“), the guy who unsuccessfully sued The Prince of Lies (instead of hiring one) in federal court. Now a court in Timisoara, Western Romania, has dismissed a lawsuit purportedly against God Himself by Mircea Pavel, 40, who is serving 20 years in prison for murder. He has some issues, only not justiciable ones, it seems. The English is Interfax’s, and their regular English-speaking guy seems to be in the Catskills this weekend, so let’s work our way through this together, with Defendant’s help:

Failing to [receive an] answer [to] his prayers, the prisoner sued the [sic] God for “fraud, betrayal of trust, corruption and influence peddling.”

Pavel brought charges against “the defendant God, who lives in the heavens and is represented in Romania by the Orthodox Church,” the Evenimentul Zilei daily reported.

According to the act [lawsuit?], during the baptismal service he “drew a conclusion with [entered into a stipulation with?] the defense” to rescue him from any disaster.

“But the contract’s terms were offended [breached], despite of [sic] my payment in different forms and numerous compellations by way of prayers,” Pavel said in his lawsuit.

Eventually the court dismissed the case, ruling that “God is not subject to law and does not have an address.”

No address?! Now that is heretical; He is, as we know, found everywhere. Well, these folks just recently got rid of Communism, so we can be charitable on the theological training.

But the subject matter jurisdiction point is well taken. There may be other problems with the alleged contract, including most of the grounds for dismissal relied on in Mayo. Also: Pavel’s capacity to enter into a contract (Orthodox baptism is done in infancy); the statute of frauds (or its Soviet-era Romanian equivalent) on several counts; and, of course, in a suit against God, there must always be recourse to the defenses in equity — the plaintiff, the murderer Pavel, comes to court with some very unclean hands.

Give Pavel credit, though, and not just for going after the deep pockets. He believes God had a role in his misfortune, even if, perhaps, he has failed to name an indispensible necessary party — namely Mircea Pavel.

—

Thanks for hosting me! It’s been a pleasure. Stay in touch at my law blog, LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®, or the entirely more wide open Likelihood of Success.

Filed under: , , ,

Class actions from scratch

The important issues challenging our society remain at the forefront of the class action bar:

Microsoft has been targeted by a $5m (£2.5m) lawsuit over its Xbox 360 console and the infamous yet almost forgotten scratched disc saga. There have for a long time been many rumours about the Xbox 360 scratching game and movie discs.

Count on lawyers never to forget. What’s this about?

A growing number of Xbox 360 customers are reporting having problems with their disc’s getting scratched by the DVD drive when switching the unit’s position from vertical to horizontal and vise versa.. Initially we thought this was the usual fanboy vs. hater propaganda that swirls around the launch of any new console like this. It didn’t take long until the seriousness of the situation…

… which is explained at some length. Not everyone is sympathetic to the victims in this dog-eat-dog world. But most of the discussion of this burning issues seems to go back, indeed a couple of years.

On the other hand, there’s always the Old World, ever eager to distract from its own coming demographic obsolescence by beating up on that most American of companies, Microsoft. Yes, less than a month ago word got out that the EU lean was on Microsoft to address the problem — which Microsoft seems grudgingly to admit to.

One month: That’s about long enough to read the story, do some research, find a lead plaintiff, and file the lawsuit. So foes of the class action can thank the European Union for this one. Considering the “popularity” of Microsoft on either side of the pond (right up there with plaintifs’ lawyers), not much sympathy is to be expected. But this is an interesting exercise in how the once-forgotten can, in the new global economy, still be resurrected, as long as the statute hasn’t run.

Filed under: ,

Basset hound ban?

“Dog breeders have warned that some of Britain’s best-loved breeds including dachshunds, bulldogs and basset hounds could disappear because of new and potentially far-reaching government animal-welfare measures.” Animal welfare groups have campaigned against the breeding of pedigreed animals, saying the pursuit of distinctive characteristics such as head size in bulldogs often comes at the expense of the animal’s health. A controversial Europe-wide treaty on animal breeding would translate the idea into law. “Dog breeders fear that the treaty’s terms are so broad that it would effectively forbid the breeding of distinctive types of dog because their defining characteristics could be seen as risking their welfare. According to the Scottish Kennel Club, ratifying the treaty would mean that anywhere between 30 and 40 breeds would effectively be outlawed.” The director of Edinburgh-based Advocates for Animals calls the argument “scaremongering nonsense”. (James Kirkup, “Euro rules ‘could outlaw 40 dog breeds'”, The Scotsman, Apr. 30).

Filed under: , , ,

Evolution and the legal client

We often talk about lawyers manufacturing clients in the class action context, but how about creating an entirely new class of clients? Some European activists are embarking on that path, taking their case through the European courts:

In some ways, Hiasl is like any other Viennese: He indulges a weakness for pastry, likes to paint and enjoys chilling out watching TV. But he doesn’t care for coffee, and he isn’t actually a person — at least not yet.

In a case that could set a global legal precedent for granting basic rights to apes, animal rights advocates are seeking to get the 26-year-old male chimpanzee legally declared a “person.”

Hiasl’s supporters argue he needs that status to become a legal entity that can receive donations and get a guardian to look out for his interests.

“Our main argument is that Hiasl is a person and has basic legal rights,” said Eberhart Theuer, a lawyer leading the challenge on behalf of the Association Against Animal Factories, a Vienna animal rights group.

So far, they haven’t had any luck, but they plan to appeal to higher courts, including “the European Court of Human [sic] Rights, if necessary.” The article notes that not all animal rights activists are supportive, including one “who worries that chimpanzees could gain broader rights, such as copyright protections on their photographs.”

But, surprisingly, Americans may already be ahead of them. It’s not unusual for a family fighting over an estate to fight over the family pets as vehemently as they fight over any other piece of property. But what is unusual is giving the pet a say in the matter, as in a Tennessee case decided this week:

A dogfight over Alex the Golden Retriever was resolved by agreement Monday in Probate Court.

[…]

The agreement, which was approved by Judge Karen Webster, adopted the recommendations of attorney Paul Royal, who was appointed by the court as guardian ad litem to represent Alex’s interests.

Guardians ad litem commonly are appointed to represent minor children or incapacitated adults in court proceedings, but legal observers cannot recall another local case in which one was appointed to represent a dog.

See? Lawyers will never exhaust the supply of clients, because we can always creatively come up with new sources. (And if we run out of pets, we can always adopt the idea first proposed by environmentalists in the 1970s, to allow lawyers to represent trees.)

Filed under: , , ,

More on infant mortality stats

Linda Gorman of the Independence Institute writes in an email:

I was finally catching up on my reading on Overlawyered.com and came across your Feb. 4 post on the possibility that Amber Taylor had a point when she noted that the IRS might give U.S. parents an incentive to count have a dead baby classified as a live birth.

This assumes that parents can affect the classification on the death certificate. U.S. parents do not typically fill out death certificates. She needs to provide evidence that parents affect classifications in meaningful numbers in the United States before anyone should take this speculation seriously.

The evidence that birthweight registration varies from country to country rests on statistical comparisons of the number of very low birthweight infants recorded. An early paper, which is very short, is here (PDF). These studies have been followed by a number of papers on birth registration in various European countries. At this point, the evidence suggests that what are counted as live births in the U.S. are often considered fetal deaths in other countries. They are thus not included in infant mortality statistics, and OECD has (finally) included a note to this effect in its international comparisons of infant mortality. It wouldn’t be a public policy issue if those who wanted to reduce the amount of privately provided medical care in the United States hadn’t used it as an indicator of the poor performance of the U.S. health care system. If you’d like more references, I’d be happy to provide them.

Filed under: ,

UK: Teen-B-Gone noise device a human rights violation?

“A black box emitting a high pitched pulsing sound designed to deter loitering teenagers is being used in thousands of sites around Britain just a year after its launch, prompting warnings from civil liberties campaigners that it is a ‘sonic weapon’ that could be illegal.” The so-called Mosquito device emits a disagreeable though harmless noise at frequencies that can be heard by most persons younger than 25 but not by most of those older. “Liberty [a legal-rights campaign] suggests the device may fall foul of article eight of the European convention on human rights, conferring the right to a private life, or article 14 on the grounds that it is discriminatory on grounds of age. The organisation also believes it may contravene environmental health legislation – a suggestion dismissed by inventor Howard Stapleton on the ground that many devices, including cars, are louder.” (Lucy Ward, “3,300 sales and rising – ultrasonic answer to teenage gangs sets alarm bells ringing”, Guardian, Mar. 17).

Filed under: ,

European speechcrime, cont’d

Perhaps not unrelated to the French Mohammed-cartoons trial mentioned yesterday, this is from Brussels Journal (Feb. 2):

If Turkey joins the EU then we will have the comedy situation that denial of the Armenian Holocaust is a criminal offence in France, whilst mentioning it is a criminal offence in Turkey. The happy result of this could be that the entire population of France could be lifted and placed, Midnight Express like in Turkish prisons. Of course the entire population of Turkey could then find itself extradited to France and imprisoned there.

Before anyone objects, yes, it’s of course true that the laws in question do not actually compel citizens to speak affirmatively on behalf of the official view, so it’s still possible (through silence) to avoid breaking anyone’s law. The concept remains funny, though.

Filed under: , , ,