June 6th, 2008

Tort "Reform" Gone Bad. And the Personal Injury Round-Up

This first piece comes from Medical Economics, and was written by a Nevada physician that had been active in the tort “reform” movement there. He recounts the story of clear negligence — admitted by the pathologist that read the slides — and the jury verdict notwithstanding the evidence in favor of the doctor. The author and tort “reformer,” medical oncologist Arnold Wax, is appalled and now understands the ramifications of what he brought to his state. (h/t Kevin, M.D.) From the article:

It appeared that the case would be resolved quickly, considering that the defendant freely admitted his error. However, this turned out to be far from true.

As I’d expected, the jury found the original pathologist negligent. But, to my surprise, Mary wasn’t awarded any damages… The jurors reasoned that the pathologist had not acted maliciously, and that if he were found liable for a monetary award, he might leave the state. They were likely influenced by political ads that ran during the state’s tort reform ballot campaign, describing physicians who were leaving Nevada because of its malpractice crisis.

That article, which should be read in full, appeared today and just missed the Personal Injury Round-Up by Brooks Schuelke that appeared in my feed reader at the same time. As usual, Brooks brings all the news that’s fit to link.

 

June 5th, 2008

Texas Lawyer Makes Obscene Filing. Now What? (Updated)

(There is now an update at the bottom of this post. This pleading was never filed.)

Now this is a Texas-sized blunder. In an answer to a lawsuit yesterday, defense attorney David Ayers of Houston called the claimant a “dumbass” and a “fucking idiot.” Oops. A copy of the filing is now at Overlawyered.

I will assume, based on the language that was used, that this filing was created as an internal joke at his firm of Werner Ayers, and that it was errantly filed instead of the real McCoy. There is really no other explanation I can think of other than, perhaps, it being intentionally done while in a drunken stupor.

But now what? This is a modestly sized firm of seven lawyers, doing corporate defense work in commercial and tort cases, and here is the type of story likely to get passed around. And around. And around. And that means they need to think in terms of three things:

  1. Sanctions from the court;
  2. Upset clients who aren’t keen on their attorneys acting this way; and
  3. Their Internet reputation.

On the first part, it seems that they must pick up the phone and call the judge immediately, if they haven’t already done so. Explain exactly what happened, that it wasn’t meant to be filed, and hope the judge has a Texas-sized sense of humor. Then beg for mercy. And cite, hopefully, a previously unblemished ethical record.

On the second part, I note from Ayers’ biography that he has one client in particular that apparently gives him a lot of business:

David Ayers, partner, serves as national defense counsel, coordinating and defending a mass tort docket across the country for a Fortune 100 company

Call the big client. And all the other big ones too. And the small ones. It’s better that they find out from you than to hear than to about it from others. Or from the newspapers.

The third part is trickier. Because it is the type of story to be picked up by a wide variety of blogs, both in the legal blogosphere and in traditional media, and that means that for years in the future when people Google the firm name or the lawyer’s name this incident is likely to pop up on the first page. And so picking up a copy of Dan Solove‘s book, the Future of Reputation on the Internet, would be a wise thing. (Or read it for free.) If they don’t understand the potential of such an incident, this book and the potential flurry of blogging on the subject might swiftly bring it home.

So here is what I would do: Create a blog. Why? Aside from there being many good reasons to create a blog, something Kevin O’Keefe writes on often, one that should not go unnoticed is that a well-written blog will eventually knock the screw-up off the first page. In a year it could be very deeply buried for anyone doing a quick, routine look-up of the firm. A dumb mistake just seems less important when it pops up on page five than on page one. So a blog will bring the twin benefits of demonstrating expertise in an area and deep-sixing the blunder. It will take time, but it will happen.

In some fashion this isn’t much different than the story of Flea, who was blogging his own medical malpractice trial under a pseudonym and saying things you wouldn’t want a jury to hear, only to get busted on the witness stand and then outed on the front page of the Boston Globe. And so the things that I discussed a year ago in Flea and Crisis Management very much apply here also. This is the type of event that they have to be proactive about in order to limit the damage.

Updated 6/6/08): I received a call from a partner at the firm, Scott Raynes. He alerted me that this was an internal practical joke, and that this was never filed. His comment on Overlawyered (#4) is reproduced here:

This was never filed. It was a joke within our office: this fake answer was created and doctored to make it look like it had been filed. It was then forwarded to Ayers, the partner on the case. Once David recovered from the shock and realized it was in jest, he forwarded it to the plaintiff’s lawyer (an old friend of his back when they were at Fulbright & Jaworski together) to share in the joke. The plaintiff’s attorney called Ayers to confirm that it was, indeed, a prank. There is no such filing in the case.
Scott Raynes
Werner Ayers, L.L.P.

A big thumbs up to the firm on knowing a thing or two about damage control for a joke that went a bit out of control. They’ve utilized comments on the blogs that referenced it and picked up the phone to make a call to make sure it got immediate attention.

 

June 5th, 2008

Linkworthy

I’ve little time to post regularly and have a trial coming up. But these were all interesting bits I would have loved to write on this week, or are simply worth reading:

A new book is out from Albany Law prof Timothy Lytton (Harvard Univesity Press): Holding Bishops Accountable: How Lawsuits Helped the Catholic Church Confront Clergy Sexual Abuse. A snippet is here (h/t Steiger):

The prevalence of clergy sexual abuse and its shocking cover-up by church officials have obscured the largely untold story of the tort system’s remarkable success in bringing the scandal to light, focusing attention on the need for institutional reform, and spurring church leaders and public officials into action.

…the lessons of clergy sexual abuse litigation give us reason to reconsider the case for tort reform and to look more closely at how tort litigation can enhance the performance of public and private policymaking institutions.

For those who have emailed me about going out on your own: Solo lawyer guru and author Carolyn Elefant is running a workshop on setting up your own practice on June 30th in Washington DC;

The China Law Blog has modest hopes for Blawg Review #162, hoping merely to achieve world peace;

Do the recent crane collapses demonstrate the dangers of federal preemption? Justinian Lane at TortDeform thinks so; He also debates Ted Frank regarding an amicus brief Frank submitted in Wyeth;

A major insurance company has apparently been reading 1984, as they reportedly changed the titles of Claims Reps to Counselors (Shigley);

More on how medical apologies work at Overlawyered. If defense lawyers start telling the docs and hospitals to act like actual humans when the screw up, instead of denying, obfuscating, running away and scaring patients in the waiting roooms, I’m going to have to change careers (see also: How to Put Medical Malpractice Attorneys Out of Business);

Want to know what it’s like inside a tornado? This bank surveillance video captures it — keep your eye on the glass doors and the action outside.

And a judge orders a deposition right on the state line after the parties couldn’t agree where it should take place (Lowering the Bar). Gotta love that one.

 

June 2nd, 2008

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Fantasy Baseball Case

The US Supreme Court denied certiorari today in the fantasy baseball case of Major League Baseball Advanced Media v. CBC Distribution. That dispute had formed the basis of my April Fools Day hoax, claiming that cert had been granted but that a dispute arose when three members of the Court recused themselves due to participation in a fantasy league, and two others did not.

The suit revolved around the use of real statistics generated by players at the major league level for use in fantasy leagues, when major league baseball claimed that those that wanted to use the stats needed to pay a licensing fee, while plaintiff CBC, which runs a service for fantasy players, claimed no such fee was needed under the First Amendment. Since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had sided with CBC, Major League Baseball has now definitively lost the case.

The hoax, and the underlying legal and baseball issues of recusal that inspired it, was the subject of a second post: Deconstructing a Fantasy (And Who Was Duped?) The brief order did not mention anyone recusing themselves for participating in a fantasy baseball league.

The dispute over when court members should recuse themselves, however, remains unresolved.

See also: Sam Alito Talkin’ Baseball (and Antitrust): (Tony Mauro @ Blog of Legal Times)

 

May 30th, 2008

New York to Add Three New Law Schools? Is That Bad?

It’s been buzzing around a couple of blogs that New York is considering funding three new law schools, to add to the 15 we already have. I haven’t seen anyone support the idea yet, except the politicians who want to bring jobs into their districts. But one part of the idea might have merit and be worth considering.

First the nuts and bolts of the proposal, then we’ll go to the naysayers, and then I’ll add my two rupees on which part might be a good. This is from a May 30th New York Law Journal article:

With no advance notice and little fanfare, the Legislature included in the budget passed April 2 money for two feasibility studies: $3 million for the State University at Binghamton and $2.25 million for St. John Fisher College, a Roman Catholic institution in Pittsford, near Rochester.

Additionally, it provided $250,000 for “planning” of a law school at SUNY Stony Brook — to cover expenses such as approvals by the New York State Department of Education and the Board of Regents and accreditation by the American Bar Association. Finally, the Legislature earmarked $45 million for a Stony Brook law school building should one be required.

Now the first person to check in on any such proposal is, you guessed it, Walter Olson who isn’t too keen on the idea:

Because we all know if there’s anything New York needs to subsidize, it’s the creation of more lawyers…The future lawyers of New York thank you, taxpayers!

Next up, Scott Greenfield:

I’ve long taken the position that one of the primary problems with lawyer over-reaching, ethical issues and just plain diminishing revenues is that fact that we have too many lawyers. And if we have too many in general, you can bet that New York, the lawyer haven of the world, has too many in particular.

So what’s New York going to do about it? What else, build more law schools!

Both are right that New York has plenty of law schools. But what we don’t have is plenty of public law schools. Only SUNY Buffalo and the City College of New York are public; all others require the big bucks.

So what do those of modest means do? Do we want the bar to be overly weighted toward the well-to-do, or do we want it to be more egalitarian? Should law be open only to those fortunate enough to have chosen their parents well?

Now I happen to be a big fan of public education, and when I last checked my bio I saw I was still a graduate of SUNY Albany (undergrad) and SUNY Buffalo (law). Building additional law schools may be dumb since we have so many, but more public education is a slightly different subject.

And so those feasibility studies might better be geared toward acquiring existing law schools and converting them to public education. (And making the two that we have better.) Maybe a study will show it is doable, maybe not. It seems to me that what we need are not more lawyers and law schools, but different ones.

I would also add that, in reading the comments of some public officials, the primary concern seems to be bringing pubic money into their own area. In other words, just another porky project. That is a lousy reason to build anything.

But if existing facilities and personnel can be converted from private to public in order to make the law more accessible to talented people of lesser means, then I think that’s something to consider.