September 24th, 2008

Bush: Bad Companies Should Be Allowed To Fail

Hypocrisy again. Addressing the nation just a few minutes ago, George Bush claimed this as a long held belief:

I believe that companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business.

He made this claim as part of an argument to modify his position on allowing failure, because some financial institutions are basically too big to go under. But contrary to his argument, this wasn’t a change at all. In fact, asserting it was a change seems more like a flat out falsehood.

You see, each time his administration stepped forward for tort “reform” over the years, it was to do exactly the opposite: To protect companies from their negligence or bad decisions. Artificial one-size-fits-all caps on damages, for example. Administrative agencies trying to preempt state tort law, as another example. Trying to curtail punitive damages for the worst of the worst, as a third.

Tonight’s speech, of course, will be analyzed by others regarding the financial crisis we are in, the amounts that should be allocated to rescue giant financial institutions, the powers that should be granted, etc. I doubt that few will dwell on this one sentence that jumped out at me while he spoke.

But Bush’s claim that he believes companies that make mistakes should be allowed to fail is just not true. He has protected them in the past. Today’s bail out proposal may be a deviation from his alleged political philosophy, but it doesn’t deviate from his past conduct. And at least one person noticed.

 

September 23rd, 2008

Linkworthy


Sometimes life gets in the way of blogging. And that’s a good thing. Two weekends ago I ran in the 210 mile Reach the Beach Relay in New Hampshire. This past weekend I threw a suprise party for my wife (that was a huge surprise, when she found out three days in advance). And next weekend I am organizing the inaugural running of the Paine to Pain 1/2 Marathon trail race here in Westchester.

In playing blog catch-up, these are some of the things that caught my eye with interest:

Scott Greenfield doesn’t mind the huge federal bail out of Wall Street, but he wants something in return;

An intentional running down of pedestrians is an accident for insurance purposes, rules a New York appellate court (No-Fault Paradise);

Kevin Underhill summarizes the legislation giving the Treasury $700B to spend as they choose with no oversight;

David Newdorf says litigation is like running a marathon, at law.com. My question: How did this guy get inside my head and how do I get rid of him?

TortsProf has the 9/19/08 edition of the Personal Injury Law Round-Up;

Blawg Review #178 comes up from down under, which follows, naturally, Blawg Review #177 (in case you weren’t around, like me, and want to see what folks were talking about last week).

 

September 22nd, 2008

"Metrolink Train Attoneys" Appear (And What If It Happened in New York?)

The Los Angeles Metrolink train accident that killed 25 people and injured over 100 others seems to have brought out the worst in a few attorneys, with ads and website popping up to advertise for victims. As reported by Kevin O’Keefe, even YouTube ads have been popping up.

It was exactly this type of disaster in New York that led to new ethics rules. In 2003, the Staten Island Ferry crashed, killing 10 people. And while victims were still being pulled from the wreckage, some lawyers had already contacted the Staten Island Advance in order to place ads for the next day’s papers. Thus was born New York’s new attorney advertising rules (some of which are being constitutionally challenged).

Regardless of whether any one particular rule is constitutional or not, one thing is clear: That those lawyers that leap after cases in such a fashion do a great disservice to the profession. The few who do this make the rest look bad.

Those seeking counsel for such an incident — indeed for any kind of incident — should avoid such people at all costs. They have merely shown that they have advertising moxie to get noticed, and bad taste in what they have done.

 

September 18th, 2008

Contingent Legal Fee Reduced to 20% in Staten Island Ferry Case

The legal fees for a firm that tried one of the cases resulting from the 2003 Staten Island Ferry disaster has been dropped by 40% by Eastern District Judge Jack B. Weinstein. The accident killed 11 and injured dozens more. This represented a fee reduction from one-third, as set forth in the retainer agreement, to 20%. (New York Law Journal: Judge Cuts Attorney Fees in Award to Ferry Victim)

The case involved a victim that had been left paralyzed from the shoulders down after the accident. Plaintiff’s counsel had previously rejected a $10M offer and went to a finding before an advisory jury. The resulting $22.9M verdict was then reduced by the court to $18.3M (which both sides apparently agreed to).

Fee reductions will happen on occasion in New York when the court must oversee the settlement of someone that is incapacitated, either due to being a minor or having medical problems. But on those occasions that a reduction occurs, it generally happens only if a case settles early or easily. This one, by contrast, concerned a plaintiff that didn’t have a brain injury, and the case was litigated in full. It also occurred after a $10M settlement offer was rejected, thereby increasing the risk to the plaintiff and counsel.

Essentially, plaintiff’s counsel received no credit from the court for the risks inherent in rejecting the settlement and increasing the award from $10M to $18.3M.