Posts Tagged ‘federalism’

Self-parody law firm employment case

Scanning through million-dollar verdicts looking for Overlawyered stories, I found this $1.1 million verdict against a California law firm for failure to accommodate an attorney who asked to be able to bill 140 hours a month while undergoing treatment for liver disease.

Not especially notable, but I was highly entertained that the law firm’s defense was that it really fired Warren Snider because he took time off to go to his father-in-law’s memorial service. (Tina Bay, “Jury Awards Lawyer $1.1 Million in Wrongful Termination Suit”, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Aug. 7).

Update: Crime & Federalism has more.

AAJ… AAJ… AAJ… who?

Gesundheit! Among other problems with the decision of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America to rename itself the “American Association for Justice” — like, that the new name is vague, defensive and presumptuous — Robert Ambrogi points out that it also has the disadvantage of being “cumbersome. ‘ATLA’ is a phonetically pleasing acronym that is easy to say and easy to remember. ‘AAJ’ sounds like the beginning of a sneeze.” (Jul. 20). Longtime ATLA antagonist Victor Schwartz said, “If a shark called itself a kitten fish I would still not put my daughter in to play with it.” (“The profession formerly known as lawyering”, UPI, Jul. 19). George Wallace weighs in with more links (Jul. 14). And Norm Pattis bids the organization farewell (Jul. 21). See Jun. 29, Jul. 14.

Rhymes for “AAJ”, incidentally, include “hodge” and “podge”, “stodge”, “lordly as the Raj”, “wealthy as a Lodge”, and “obvious dodge”.

More time on your law school exams? $95, please

We’ve posted many times (Jul. 21, 2004, Mar. 24, 2006, etc.) on the subject of students who angle for extra time on exams through the use of debatable or borderline disability diagnoses, but Mike Cernovich has an anecdote from personal experience (Mar. 15) that should raise the level of alarm. P.S. Here’s more from Boston, where 12 percent of students in the affluent suburb of Wayland are getting accommodations (Ron DePasquale, “More time for SATs a concern”, Boston Globe, Jun. 1).

Federal Marriage Amendment vs. federalism

Among its other defects (see links gathered here), this misbegotten proposal would impose a single federalized outcome on states and localities which currently take widely differing views of same-sex marriage. Some FMA advocates have sought to depict the federalist objections to the amendment as mere makeweight and window dressing — tactical objections by opponents who dislike the proposal for its substance and are merely casting about for arguments against it. One hopes these advocates were suitably chastened in March when James Q. Wilson, doyen of conservative policy analysis, announced his opposition to the amendment citing exactly these federalist grounds:

The states should also decide about gay marriage. Some conservatives are urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment banning this, but this would be a mistake. People should vote on this matter and about the conditions of life they wish to experience where they live. Though I oppose gay marriage, voters in some states may approve it. If they do, we will have a chance to learn what it means in practice, with the costs and benefits falling on people who have accepted it….

The rising demand that every personal preference become a constitutional right is a worrisome disease. People, of course, do have rights; the Constitution and the first ten amendments spell most of them out. That document defines the essential requirements of life and liberty. Adding new invented rights by either a ratified amendment or judicial overreaching is a mistake.

(WSJ, Mar. 18, reprinted at AEI site). More: Jonathan Rauch, Dale Carpenter’s new paper for Cato, Julian Sanchez (& welcome Volokh, Sullivan, Independent Gay Forum readers).

“Eye-popping” class action fees

Norm Pattis, who says he has litigated scores of unreasonable search claims on behalf of individual plaintiffs, has some thoughts (Apr. 18) on excessive class action fees, occasioned by the news that in Connecticut, “a simple case against the Department of Corrections involving strip searches of inmates is about to yield a $2.5 million settlement. Of that [sum], about $834,000 will go to attorney’s fees.”

“The U.S. Senate Takes On Medical Malpractice Reform”

I’m moderating a panel with this title Monday afternoon at 3 at AEI.

The U.S. Senate has announced that it will be debating new legislation to reform America’s medical malpractice law in early May. Is the Senate likely to pass useful reforms? What types of reform should they consider? What is the appropriate role of the federal government in addressing the issue and what are the potential conflicts between the federal government and the states?

At this AEI event, a distinguished group of panelists will discuss the questions surrounding federal medical malpractice reform. The panel will include Michael S. Greve, the John G. Searle Scholar at AEI and director of the institute’s Federalism Project; George L. Priest, the John M. Olin Professor of Law and Economics at Yale Law School; and Dr. Stuart Weinstein, the current chairman of Doctors for Medical Liability Reform and the Ignacio V. Ponseti Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at the University of Iowa.

Admission is free.