March 23rd, 2009

A Deadly Plane Crash Turns Into An Instant "Win an iPhone" Contest

It’s enough to make you vomit. The proliferation of marketers who will do anything in the spirit of Internet marketing.

So late last night a plane crashes in Montana killing 17 14 people. Horrible by any standard.

I Googled “Montana Plane Crash” as part of my continuing look at lawyers and marketing on the web and found a Google Adword link that looks like this (pdf version/MontanaPlaneCrashSearch.pdf):

Montana Plane Crash
Who’s fault is it? Give us your
opinion and get an iPhone
www.nkthen.biz/Survey/polls

There are 17 dead people and grieving families and someone is running a contest to win an iPhone? Please, say it ain’t so. I click and go to the website (/MontanaPlaneCrashiPhone.pdf):

MONTANA PLANE CRASH
Montana plane crash kills 17, including children

Montana Plane Crash – Who is at Fault?
Tell Us What You Think
and win an iPhone!

The Pilot and Crew! It is just an Accident!

So I went to the home page for the domain (http://www.nkthen.biz/), and found it to be pitching Internet marketing services like this (/JosephThenWebMarketing.pdf):

Discover How You Can Generate
An Avalanche of Traffic to Your Website in Just 3 Weeks!

Established Internet Marketer Spills Out Everything in Traffic Generation and How YOU can Get the Traffic you Want!

The author of the book and owner of the site is Joseph Then.

So thank you Joe, for your invaluable contributions to society. The bereaved will no doubt be grateful to you.

 

March 20th, 2009

Linkworthy


John Hochfelder is steamed. At our appellate judges. Who refuse to say why they are reducing jury verdicts. Regarding a Second Department verdict reduction Hochfelder wrote earlier this week:

“The appeals courts must stop refusing to explain their reasoning in cases that address an increase or decrease in jury verdict pain and suffering damage awards.”

And just two days after writing that, the First Department does the same thing, reducing an award without any discussion of the injuries and rationale. Says Hochfelder:

“…we are owed some guidance from the appeals courts, some justification for their decisions involving millions of dollars and we are more and more often getting no explanation at all. In my humble opinion, that’s got to change if the appeals courts want the bar and the public, as well as the parties before it, to be guided by their opinions and to act on them in a manner (i.e., settling cases for reasonable amounts) that will reduce the number of lawsuits brought to trial and appealed.”

John Day found a new cause of action: A driver, “operating said vehicle in a safe and prudent manner, lawfully and under conditions commensurate with road and weather conditions,” falls asleep at the wheel and crashes. And then sues.

Chris Robinette on apology immunity laws, and PA possibly becoming the 36th state to offer one up for tort cases;

The New York Times reports that public housing elevators are clobbering people left and right;

Shrink Rap on doctors protecting doctors by refusing to be critical in patient charts:

..we usually hold off on condemning people in a chart — it makes for messy liability issues, and it’s really just poor form to write “Can you believe that idiot prescribed this combo of meds” or “the last doctor never even listened to the patient’s complaints.”

TortsProf has their 29th iteration of the Personal Injury Law Round-Up; and

On the first day of spring here in New York, I woke up to snow.

 

March 19th, 2009

Law Blogging as Indirect Marketing (Deliberations Blogger Gone Wild)

Two weeks ago I wrote about the folks at Drug and Device Law getting a lot of press as a result of Wyeth v. Levine., since they had written with authority on the issue of federal pre-emption in drug and devices cases for so long.

This week it is trial lawyer and jury consultant Anne Reed at Deliberations due to many recent stories on jurors using Twitter, iPhones for research, Facebook, etc. A sampling from Reed yesterday:

The New York Times has a front-page article today that has gotten a lot of attention, in part for the wise comments of Douglas Keene, president of the American Society of Trial Consultants. Meanwhile I’ve gotten to talk to reporters and columnists from the Associated Press, ABCNews.com, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel’s law blog Proof and Hearsay, BBC Radio’s The World Today and then their Newshour, and Southern California Public Radio’s Patt Morrison Show (Doug Keene was on that one too, with Greenberg Traurig’s Scott Bertzyk) — all in the last two days, with two more interviews coming up.

That link, by the way, has a huge round-up of posts on the subject that she has been writing about for some time now.

Using a blog for solicitation is a losing proposition, as the blog is merely an ad, and therefore utterly uninteresting. But if you write about something you enjoy and care about, and write it well, the media may one day come calling. Whether that results in business is impossible to say, but it if raises your profile in the legal community, it certainly couldn’t hurt.

 

March 17th, 2009

SF Firm Now Cyber-Chasing In Buffalo Plane Crash

The February 12th crash of Continental Flight 3407 and the law firms that appeared to have violated New York and federal ethics rules have previously been chronicled here (see posts below).

But now there seems to be a new entrant: The 50+ lawyer San Francisco based firm of Leiff Cabraser is now running ads via Google that appear under the search “Buffalo Plane Crash.” The ad looks like this:

Buffalo NY Plane Crash
Aviation law answers from
leading, national law firm.
www.LieffCabraser.com

A pdf of the search result is here: /BuffaloPlaneCrashSearch3-17.pdf
Clicking the ad this afternoon brings up this page of the Lieff Cabraser site pitching their services:/LeiffCabraserSite.pdf

While New York’s 30-day solicitation rule has run its course, the federal 45 day rule has not. As per 49 U.S.C. 1136 (G)(2):

(2) Unsolicited communications.– In the event of an accident involving an air carrier providing interstate or foreign air transportation and in the event of an accident involving a foreign air carrier that occurs within the United States, no unsolicited communication concerning a potential action for personal injury or wrongful death may be made by an attorney (including any associate, agent, employee, or other representative of an attorney) or any potential party to the litigation to an individual injured in the accident, or to a relative of an individual involved in the accident, before the 45th day following the date of the accident.

I assume that, if push came to shove, the firm would try to claim that running advertisements does not meet the definition of solicitation set forth above.

Previously at my site on the ethics of internet solicitation by attorneys:

Photo credit: Jordan Husney (via Flickr)

Links to this post:

march 25 roundup
driver on narcotic painkillers crashes car, lawyer says pharmacists liable [las vegas review-journal]; who’s that cyber-chasing the buffalo continental air crash? could it be noted san francisco-based plaintiff’s firm lieff cabraser?
posted by Walter Olson @ March 25, 2009 7:20 AM

 

March 17th, 2009

As Seen On Oprah! (Kinda, Sorta, Almost)

Oprah is big. I know this because my media maven wife tells me so. She has, like, a jillion fans and even more money. I’ve never actually seen her strut her stuff on her show, but a jillion fans (and even more money) can’t really be wrong, can they?

So I was flattered when Harpo Productions, Oprah’s production company, contacted me. It seems that one of her regular segments is with a Dr. Mehmet Oz, and he wanted to do a piece on medical mistakes.

So enter stage right, me. Well, not exactly me, and if you’ve seen me on TV you’d know why. No, they wanted to use some of the images from my website for the show. I have a series of x-rays in my office that show various bits of surgical equipment left behind after surgery.

And by golly those kind of images would look nice on a show about medical mistakes since TV is, after all, a visual medium. And they wanted to use my images.

Of course! I said. And who wouldn’t? And even though Oprah has said jillion dollars, I volunteered that I didn’t want any of it for the use of the x-rays. A simple thank you would be nice. I would help with what was likely to be a valuable piece for a big audience and all would be right with the world.

But Oprah had a problem, it seems, with the “thank you” part. Or at least her legal team did. I asked that my firm receive proper credit for the use of the images so that others would know their source, and if the segment or films appeared on the web, a link back to my site where the films were found.

No sirree, they said. No link. No link? I’ve dished out, and received, more than I can count. They told me it was “standard” not to link. That, of course, is complete nonsense, as you can see from sites such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, among others. Oprah offered up an “end credit,” those scrolly things that roll by at the end that no one ever sees, or on web versions an unlinked url.

OK, I said not wanting to be too much of a pain, because while the link was nice it really wasn’t that big of a deal to me. It would still be fun to write about being kinda, sorta, almost on Oprah. My x-rays would have their 15 nano-seconds of fame and I know that they would like that. And I would have helped Dr. Oz spread the word about real medical problems and mistakes and yada, yada, yada.

But even that seemed to be a problem for Oprah. Because part of the license agreement was this wonderful little bit that I’ll summarize: We (Oprah) get to use your x-rays. And you (Turkewitz) get to surrender your First Amendment rights to discuss that fact. In other words, I get to pay them to use my material. Not with cash, but with good old fashioned rights. What a deal!

Here is the actual language, paragraph eight, from the license agreement that they wanted me to sign:

Licensor acknowledges and agrees that it shall not and cannot use Harpo’s name or logos or Ms. Winfrey’s name, voice, picture or likeness for any advertising or promotional purposes without first obtaining the written permission of Harpo relating to the Material. Specifically, Licensor agrees not to use Harpo’s name or trademarks, Ms. Winfrey’s name or likeness, or a quote from Ms. Winfrey or the Program on Licensor’s website, in any Licensor-related publication, in connection with the marketing or advertising of Licensor or in connection with any book, blog, or other publication, product or service (including digital transmissions such as the internet or other on-line computer communication services) relating to Licensor. Further, Licensor hereby agrees not to use the phrase “As seen on Oprah”, or similar statements, in any promotional or advertising material it creates or on its website.

OK, so they want to use my stuff and they don’t want me to talk about it or even mention Oprah’s holy name or use her image.

But there was one last avenue to explore — because after all, this would have been fun — and that last avenue was the part about obtaining written permission. So I told them I had every intention of blogging about it. Great!, they said, what did you want to write? Umm, since the show hasn’t aired, how could I possibly know? Does Oprah review a book that she hasn’t yet read?

And that, my friends, was the end of that. Over several weeks and a couple dozen emails with three different people from Harpo working on this little project, they successfully overlawyered the issue to death. I know what you’re thinking, her career will probably hit the skids as a result.

Now I don’t mind being played for a fool, but that’s only if the foolster happens to be my offspring, and I’m even willing to bend that rule if the foolster is merely a friend of the offspring. I’m game to ask why the chicken and all manner of other critters crossed the road, and to laugh at assorted knock, knock jokes, though I generally draw the line at the 9th iteration.

But I don’t really care to be played for a fool by Oprah, no matter how big a shot she may be.

The licensing agreement, never signed, is here: /Oprah-Harpo.pdf