As Walter noted, Lerach was a bundler for Edwards; his plea agreement included an agreement by the government not prosecute illegal campaign donations. Still, while Edwards is giving back Lerach’s personal donation, he’s holding on to the rest of the $78,000 that Bill Lerach raised for him, even as Edwards criticizes Hillary Clinton for holding a fund-raiser at Jones Day (whose attorneys have given more money to Obama) and taking money from lobbyists. Edwards hasn’t given back the $125,000 Geoffrey Fieger is indicted over raising for him either.
Posts Tagged ‘politics’
Judy Cates running for judgeship
Longtime readers of this site may remember attorney Judy Cates of Swansea, Ill., who filed and later settled a defamation lawsuit against St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan over a humorous and disrespectful column McClellan had written regarding a controversial class-action settlement Cates and other lawyers had reached with magazine sweepstakes firm Publishers Clearing House (Nov. 4 and Nov. 30, 1999; Feb. 29, 2000; for other watch-what-you-say-about-lawyers cases from Madison County and thereabouts, see Dec. 23, 2004). More recently, Ms. Cates served as elected president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (Jul. 3, 2006). And now she’s thrown her hat into the ring for a seat on the state Fifth District Appellate Court, which sprawls over 37 counties. She’ll mount a challenge in the February Democratic primary to Jim Wexstten, who was appointed this year to fill a vacancy on the court and who is regarded as a moderate-to-conservative Democrat. The Post-Dispatch’s coverage forgivingly (or perhaps prudently) does not mention her having sued the paper’s columnist (Adam Jadhav, “Swansea lawyer to challenge appointee for judgeship”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Aug. 25; Nicholas J.C. Pistor, “Lawyer’s entry heats up race for appellate court”, Aug. 28; “Not recommended” (editorial), Madison County Record, Aug. 18).
Attorney-presidents
We’re very likely to have one next time (Jill Lawrence, “For next president, USA likely to call on lawyer”, USA Today, Sept. 5).
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.
“Granholm’s picks cheer trial lawyers”
“A trio of judicial appointments announced this week underline [Mich. Gov. Jennifer] Granholm’s determination to temper [former Gov. John] Engler’s judicial revolution — and reward Michigan’s plaintiff’s bar, which has been among her most important sources of financial support.” Of three trial lawyers Granholm is naming to judgeships, two have served as board members of the Michigan Trial Lawyers Association. (Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press, Aug. 22).
Geoffrey Fieger indicted
Longtime Overlawyered favorite Geoffrey Fieger, a fixture in Michigan politics and personal injury law for many years, and his law partner Vernon (Ven) Johnson were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of unlawfully “conspiring to make more than $125,000 in illegal contributions to presidential candidate John Edwards’ 2004 campaign”. Fieger, who’s being represented by Gerry Spence, says it’s all a plot by Republicans in the U.S. Department of Justice. (Oakland Press; Detroit News, more; Detroit Free Press, more)(& Pattis).
Cuba? You mean they have government-run health care there?
For all his newfound capitalist prowess, it seems Sen. John Edwards still isn’t familiar with some fairly basic geopolitical facts on the ground:
“I’m going to be honest with you — I don’t know a lot about Cuba’s healthcare system,” Edwards, D-N.C., said at an event in Oskaloosa, Iowa. “Is it a government-run system?”
(ABCNews.com “Political Radar”, Aug. 17)(via Weigel)(disclaimer).
Holier-than-thou Edwards called to account
I don’t think it would much matter if Democrats were to live in The World According to Edwards, who has never taken lobbyist money. Nice symbolism, perhaps, but how does it make candidates any purer to disdain checks from lobbyists while avidly vacuuming up contributions from the various industries they represent?
Edwards is no less tainted by the trial-lawyer money he scoops up by the bucketful than he would be by lobbyist contributions.
Podcast: The Role of State Attorneys General
The Federalist Society has posted a podcast of their recent panel:
Recently there has been growing discussion concerning the appropriate role of state Attorneys General. Some argue that state AGs have overstepped their boundary by prosecuting cases and negotiating settlements that have had extraterritorial effects, and sometimes even national effects. Others argue that state AGs are simply filling a vacuum left by the failure of others (for example, federal agencies) to attend to these issues. In light of this debate, the Federalist Society hosted a panel in Washington, D.C. featuring several state Attorneys General who discussed the proper role of state AGs.
Panelists included:
* Hon. Bob McDonnell, Attorney General of Virginia
* Hon. Donald Stenberg, former Attorney General of Nebraska; Erickson & Sederstrom
* Hon. John Suthers, Attorney General of Colorado
* Hon. J. B. Van Hollen, Attorney General of Wisconsin
* Ms. Peggy Little, Little & Little; Director, Federalist Society Pro Bono Center, Moderator
Survey of Texas judges
Bill Childs notes a Baylor Law Review study polling Texas judges on whether they think there are problems requiring tort reform based on what they see in their own courtroom.
I can’t imagine why anyone thinks such a study will produce useful results. The study has typical issues, such as the typical anti-reform eliding of what “frivolous” means, ignoring that the state-law definition of “frivolous” differs from the common-sense meaning of the word used by many politicians. Another question asks whether judges have recently presided over cases where compensatory damages awarded were too high, but excludes cases where compensatory damages were required to be reduced by statutory limits, and the authors draw opinions from this intentionally biased question.
But there’s a larger problem with the very nature of the study. Judges who correctly run their courtroom and follow the law are generally not going to have runaway juries, so they are likely to say (and even say correctly) that their juries generally don’t produce outlandish results. The problem requiring reform are judges who are in the pocket of the plaintiffs’ bar, and create judicial hellholes, and let Mikal Watts and Mark Lanier run wild. If such judges thought there was a problem requiring tort reform, they wouldn’t let plaintiffs’ attorneys get away with what they get away with. Most reasonable judges would find it problematic if a plaintiff loaned money to a juror and had phone conversations with them during trial when a jury came back with an implausible multi-million dollar verdict for an overweight 71-year-old man’s second heart attack when he wasn’t even taking Vioxx, but the Starr County judge in Garza v. Merck signed off on the judgment: of course he doesn’t think anything’s wrong with that if he’s polled by professors, but that doesn’t make him correct.
Polling judges in judicial hellholes to find out whether there is a need for legal reform is like polling O.J. Simpson to find out if there’s a problem with domestic violence.
Nevertheless, expect to see the poll widely used by the litigation lobby and their academic water-carriers in upcoming months and years.
Post updated 10:30 PM to clarify nature of questioning.