Posts Tagged ‘Manhattan Institute’

The Rule of Lawyers: the softcover edition

If you enjoy this website, and especially if you want to learn more about the “big” lawsuit campaigns that generate fortunes for lawyers and tag industries with billions in liability, you would probably enjoy my book The Rule of Lawyers, which got a fair bit of attention when it was published last year. Now St. Martin’s, the publisher, has come out with a new softcover edition, just now posted on Amazon at an attractively priced $10.47. It includes a newly written epilogue in which I discuss major developments of the last year such as the fast-food litigation, the enactment of comprehensive tort reform in Texas, and the surprise move by the ABA to support reform of asbestos and class-action litigation, as well as the latest twists in gun, tobacco, fen-phen and lead paint courtroom battles, among others.

The hardcover edition of The Rule of Lawyers continues to be available here and seems to be a popular gift for Father’s Day and for new graduates, law school or otherwise. The Manhattan Institute maintains a site that compiles publicity about the book, related op-eds, etc. As for the spanking new softcover, the publisher tells me that the first copies will be in hand today, and that it will ship later this month. Its back cover is graced with an excerpt from Robert Lenzner’s rave review of the book for Forbes.com, in which he calls it: “A truly gripping read about tort lawyers … a brilliant expose of the way courts are being overwhelmed by mass tort actions.” (& thanks to David Giacalone for (end of item) his kind words).

Terrorism, data-collection, and dot-connecting

Yesterday’s New York Post ran my review of Jeffrey Rosen’s new book The Naked Crowd, on government surveillance, privacy, and the fight against terrorism, a book I wish I could have liked better than I did. (Walter Olson, “Privacy First”, New York Post, Apr. 18). As I explain, my reaction to some passages in the book was to “want to lock Rosen in a room with my Manhattan Institute colleague Heather Mac Donald”. The City Journal piece by Mac Donald being referenced is here.

Wal-Mart: target

“Encouraged by the press criticism, entrepreneurial trial lawyers, eyeing Wal-Mart’s deep pockets with glee, have made it perhaps the biggest private-sector target of the nation?s plaintiffs’ bar. In just ten years, the number of pending lawsuits against Wal-Mart has increased fourfold, to 8,000, and the company has tripled the size of its litigation department. … Wal-Mart faces a growing number of potentially costly class action lawsuits, exemplified by a sex-discrimination suit brought by the Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll firm, notorious for getting Texaco to pay $176 million to black employees in a discrimination suit.” (Steven Malanga (Manhattan Institute), “What Does the War on Wal-Mart Mean?”, City Journal, Spring). See Jul. 7-9, 2000 and more links: Feb. 1, 2004; Dec. 4, 2003; Jan. 11, Jun. 14, and Aug. 29-30, 2001; Sept. 6-7, Sept. 25-26, Nov. 15, and Dec. 13-14, 2000; and Dec. 2, 1999. More: we are linked by Always Low Prices — Always, a blog whose mission is to chronicle “The Best and the Worst about Wal-Mart” and which is put out in part by Kevin Brancato of George Mason U. and the economics blog Truck and Barter. (More: Apr. 19, 2005).

Sparing parents the temptation?

In Ireland, an official health board has objected to the opening of a McDonald’s restaurant in the County Clare town of Ennis, saying its products might make children fat. “Community dietitians” on the board have insisted that before the restaurant chain has its permit application approved it should “prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to determine what effect the restaurant will have on the health of children in the Ennis area.” (“Board opposes a McDonald’s for Ennis over health factors”, Irish Times, Feb. 3). Further reading on the slimness-through-legal-compulsion crusade: David Gratzer (Manhattan Institute), “Cadbury Replaces Cholera”, National Review Online, Feb. 12; Todd G. Buchholz, “Burgers, Fries, and Lawyers”, Policy Review, Feb.; Kelly Jane Torrence, “Food Fight”, Reason, Dec. 23.

Update: NYC’s lead balloon

The New York City council has overridden Mayor Bloomberg’s veto and passed its Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act, notwithstanding critics’ warnings that the bill will stack the deck in favor of liability lawsuits against Gotham’s rental property owners (see Dec. 15). My Manhattan Institute colleague Julia Vitullo-Martin sounds the alarm (“Killing housing”, New York Post, Feb. 5). Update Jun. 2: housing market thrown into turmoil.

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.

Vaccines, cont’d

Britain’s legal-aid commission invested ?15 million in assisting claimants who wanted to sue makers over the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine, but finally decided to call a halt: “After taking expert advice, the LSC acknowledged that, given the failure of research to establish a link between MMR and autism, the litigation was ‘very likely to fail'”. Michael Fitzpatrick, writing for the UK’s Spiked Online, explores what he calls the “enormous waste of public funds” on the litigation. (“Medicine on trial”, Dec. 15). Efforts to pin the blame on the preservative thimerosal have come up short, according to an editorial in today’s WSJ: “Researchers recently examined the health records of all children born in Denmark from 1971 to 2000 for autism diagnoses. Though Denmark eliminated thimerosal from its vaccines in 1992, the researchers found that the incidence of autism continued to increase. A second research team reviewed the records of nearly 500,000 Danes vaccinated for pertussis. They also found that the risk of autism and related disorders didn’t differ between those vaccinated with thimerosal and those without.” (“The Politics of Autism” (editorial), Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29). More on vaccines and liability: Jim Copland (Manhattan Institute), “Liable to Infection”, Dallas Morning News, Dec. 14; Robert Goldberg (also Manhattan Institute), “Vaccinating against disaster”, Washington Times, Dec. 17; and see Dec. 24 and earlier posts. Update Feb. 25: Lancet regrets publication of anti-MMR study; Mar. 4, 2005: another study finds no link.