December 28th, 2007

Blawg Review of the Year Nominations

The anonymous Editor of Blawg Review has opened nominations for Best Blawg Review of the Year. The nominating is open, according to his rules, only to those that have hosted one of the past 140 Blawg Reviews or those that have already signed up for a future one. (Edit: Nominations are now open until Jan. 14th, due to the holiday.)

The editor is looking for a peer-reviewed award (or as close as the legal blogosphere can approximate), as opposed to a popularity contest.

Since he points out, quite rightly, that such “best of” awards are so highly subjective, I’m going to participate and nominate by listing those reviews that inspired me when I wrote my marathon themed Blawg Review #134 this year. The editor’s recommendations of some of the presentations that might be considered for nomination, which include mine, are up at Virtually Blind.

In listing these reviews, I tip my hat to each as I borrowed ideas and concepts from each writer and stood on their shoulders to create my own:

#89, The Mummers Veil by the anonymous Editor himself, inspired me to indulge in fantasy visits with different bloggers. A rigid regard for the truth, I understood, was not necessary to presenting the best posts of the week. The point was to simply point to good law blog posts, making it available in a fun, creative way. Doing so in the context of a story often makes it more interesting (if you can pull it off without being “annoying, strained and distracting” as David Giacalone once wrote).

#101, from Diana Skaggs at The Divorce Law Journal, based on the Kentucky Derby. Since I had decided one month earlier to host a November review based on the NYC Marathon, a review based on the Kentucky Derby certainly caught my interest. She galloped through the legal blogosphere in winning fashion in a creative review that clearly was long in the making. I loved watching her mid-stride integration of law and racing.

#106 from Brett Trout at IT Blawg was based on a motorcycle race track. With another racing review, I took mental notes on how different parts of a race course, or different concepts, might be used to help introduce different legal topics in a very non-traditional manner.

#127, from Anne Reed’s Deliberations, was based on jury selection. As a trial lawyer that obviously appeals to me, and I watched as she took 17 different selection tips and matched them to posts. In her review however, she didn’t just link but went into the personalities of the posters to match them up with different concepts.

#137, by Colin Samuels at Infamy or Praise, was based on the third part of Dante’s Divine Comedy, Paradise. While #137 came after my own, the Inferno themed #35 and the Purgatory themed #86 came before. In these, Dante travels with his guides, the poet Virgil and later Beatrice. This inspired me to add a guide of my own — Marty, an alter ego or one-man Greek chorus — who ran the race with me and would drop in from time to time to comment. While I couldn’t pull off the wonderful literacy of Colin’s pieces, his posts were there to remind me that the bounds of a review are limited only by the creativity of the mind.

Two final notes on the Blawg Reviews:

First, while the editor has an interesting idea with the nominating process, the reality is that many folks are out of town for the long holiday weekend. I’m guessing the nominating will therefore be very light. Having a yearly award in April would have a much better response rate. Yeah, yeah, I know. (Edit: Nominations are now open until Jan. 14th, due to the holiday.)

Second, it seems that the vast majority of reviews are written by practicing attorneys. Professors are notably absent. (In fact, professors rarely even acknowledge their existence, an exception being Prof. Dan Solove and his band of merry Concurring Opinionators for #75.) I haven’t figured out why yet, since the primary purpose is to simply round up interesting blog postings, and their own postings are often included. Is there a reason professors are less likely to let their hair down and go outside their usual comfort zones?

Links to this post:

An Honor To Be Nominated
Blawg Review was honored to be nominated by the ABA Journal editors as one of the Blawg 100, where our humble Blawg Review blog was unfortunately categorized under the heading “Generally Speaking” along with many of the most popular law
posted by Editor @ January 04, 2008 2:29 PM

not another blawg award
with the success of the simply the best blawg meme and the recent announcement of dennis kennedy’s blawggies, following the aba journal’s blawg 100, it seems the last thing the blawgosphere needs is yet another list of who’s the best
posted by Editor @ December 28, 2007 2:55 AM

 

December 28th, 2007

More on New York Steam Pipe Explosion


The Manhattan steam pipe explosion from this past summer was in the news again today. The explosions, just two blocks from my office, resulted in one death, many injuries, and more than a few frayed nerves. (The explosion was at 41st and Lexington, I’m at 40th and Park.)

The New York Times reported that a million dollar study done by Con Ed found that the explosion “was caused by a combination of heavy rainfall, leaks in underground water and sewer pipes and debris that clogged two critical devices designed to let water out of the steam main.”

 

December 27th, 2007

Will NY Doctors Be Hit With $50,000 Surcharge?

Is yesterday’s headline a real issue, is it a scare tactic from the Superintendent of Insurance, or does it come from the NY Sun taking something out of context to help push immunity legislation for doctors?

The headline in the Sun reads: N.Y. Doctors Could See $50,000 Fee: ‘Surcharge’ Would Rescue Malpractice Insurers.

The scary headline comes from an interview with Superintendent Eric Dinallo, who is running a task force to address the insurance “crisis” that hit when New York jumped its medical malpractice premiums 14% this year. The reasons for the jump are an issue I addressed earlier, and are a function of state mis-management during the George Pataki years (see: Why New York Medical Malpractice Insurance Jumped 14%.) Among the many reasons were artificially low rates (set by the state) and Governor Pataki taking (with legislative approval) about $700 million from a malpractice rainy day fund to help balance the state budget.

The screaming headline in the paper (front page, above the fold) it should be noted, had nothing whatsoever to do with rising malpractice claims or payouts. Those have remained stable for many years. No, the reason for the headline is the state-created shortfall, and the ways they are trying to fix the system they broke.

One method of trying to “fix” the system, of course, is to break it further by trying to blame lawsuits for the problem. We see these types of complaints all the time. If only the health care workers would be given some form of immunity for negligence, it is argued, all would be well with our health care system. Because, as everyone knows, nothing forces a person to act responsibly better than grants of various forms of immunity or protection.

Public Citizen recently put out a report on the faux crisis. It is a devastating indictment of the state’s mismanagement and puts to bed the phony claims that problems are related to lawyers and lawsuits. It also points the finger where it belongs and makes its own suggestions on how to remedy the problems.

Some more facts from the Public Citizen report:

  • There have been fewer medical malpractice payments in the past five years than in any five-year period on record;
  • Amounts paid out, when adjusted for inflation and population, have either risen slightly in the past five years or declined slightly, depending on the measure used;
  • Only about 1 percent of New York’s doctors are enrolled in the state’s program for physicians deemed too risky by commercial insurance providers. Yet these doctors’ payments have been so massive that they and other losses have drowned the program in more than $500 million in red ink this decade;
  • A sliver of doctors are responsible for nearly half of the dollars paid out for medical
    malpractice in New York. Physicians who made three or more malpractice payments
    between 1990 and 2006 — accounting for no more than 4 percent of New York’s
    doctors — were responsible for nearly half (49.6 percent) of medical malpractice
    dollars paid out on behalf of doctors in the time period.
  • Costs for cases involving brain damage, blamed by some for rising insurance rates,
    are in fact modest in comparison with other types of cases. The category for injuries
    including brain damage ranks 5th of 10 in total amounts paid out. This fact exposes
    the lunacy of the radical proposal to deprive newborn babies of their legal rights and
    cede their care to a state-run fund.
  • Researchers have found that premiums consistently make up only a small percentage
    of doctors’ total expenses and that rising premiums have not, historically, depressed
    physicians’ incomes.

The state’s Department of Health’s Office of Professional Medical Conduct has been notoriously lax when it comes to doctor discipline. Just last month it was revealed that it waited three years to alert hundreds of people that a doctor had been reusing syringes with multi-dose vials, thereby contaminating the vials and exposing hundreds of people to infections. According to the Public Citizen study, New York’s comptroller found that the Office of Professional Medical Conduct failed to investigate about 175 doctors for whom investigations should have been triggered based on the agency’s existing criteria.

Frankly, if we have an insurance crisis because the state took $700 million to balance the budget in tough years, and we have a small percentage of doctors responsible for so much of the damage, then it is a no-brainer on how to equitably fix the problem. It isn’t by a $50K surcharge on doctors, a scare tactic if ever I saw one. And it isn’t be restricting access to the courts for those that have been injured by negligence.

It’s by doing two basic things: Taking the money back from the general fund where it had disappeared to and investigating the few bad doctors that do so much of the damage and putting them out of business. It means a responsible government engaging in good health policy by policing the medical force and using sound budgetary policy instead of shell games.

Fault here lies not with the vast majority of doctors, nor with the patients that were injured or their representatives. It lies with former governor and the legislature. The problems have been identified and the proper solutions offered. The state should do the right thing and fix the problem appropriately, without injuring those that are most involved.

Links to this post:

grand rounds
grand rounds vol 4 number 15, welcome to south africa. and a happy new year to all!! rlbates is suturing for a living. she gives an informative overview on post hematoma in plastic surgery. how to decrease the chances.
posted by Bongi @ January 01, 2008 12:13 AM

 

December 26th, 2007

Why BigLaw Gets the BigBucks

Scott Greenfield is perplexed. He’s a top-notch criminal defense guy with more years of trials and appeals under his belt than he probably cares to count, and doesn’t understand why BigLaw is paying obscene amounts of money to young associates who are years away from gaining actual, useful experience.

Scott writes, with salaries now approaching $200K (actually way more when you count the bonuses), that the ridiculous numbers now being paid are surely the thing that will drive business away from BigLaw and into the hands of the solos and small practitioners. “First year associates are near useless as lawyers,” he writes. “They are incapable of producing useful legal work, and at best churn out wasteful hours of memos stating the obvious at great length in order to produce the requisite number of hours. Sure, they think they’re doing a bang-up job, but that’s only because they have no clue of the utility of their efforts.”

While it’s understandable that newbie lawyers will go to these places to put in their 2,000+ billable hours a year, have no life, rake in the dough and get little useful experience if they actually intend to litigate cases, it doesn’t explain why the clients hire them.

But that part is easy. Clients often hire BigLaw for one reason: Because the person that does the hiring knows that no one will ever second guess them on trying to find “the best.” They don’t have to actually be the best, of course. It’s like the old Wall Street saying that no one ever got fired for buying IBM. It didn’t have to be the best stock, and the BigLaw firm doesn’t have to be the best firm. But the person that does the hiring knows that they won’t lose their job with a BigLaw pick, but that picking a firm with “only” 100 lawyers, or heaven forbid, just five lawyers or a solo, opens them up to criticism if things go wrong. The fact that the smaller firm might be able to do twice the job at half the price doesn’t really factor into the equation.

It’s just the age-old game of CYA. Nothing more. Nothing less.