DVD About Judicial Election, Tort Reform Battle

Get your popcorn and watch a documentary about tort reform and a hard-fought judicial election. Benched: the Corporate Takeover of the Judiciary (KF8776 .B39 2005 at Classified Stacks)

chronicles the most expensive Supreme Court Race in history – the 2004 race for State Supreme Court in Illinois where over ten million dollars was spent.

"Benched" explores the underlying issue of the race – the battle over "tort reform." Critics charge that the insurance industry unfairly targeted doctors in Madison County, Illinois, raising their malpractice insurance premiums to pressure the doctors to lobby their patients and the community for "tort reform", including caps on medical malpractice awards that will only benefit the insurance industry and harm consumers. The doctors contend that they are being driven out of business by "frivolous lawsuits" while victims of medical malpractice and lawyers argue caps on law suits will deny them justice and that claims of an out of control civil justice system are corporate propaganda.

In the end, the documentary reveals the true beneficiary of this campaign for tort reform – Big Tobacco companies. Critics charge that the Philip Morris tobacco company played a role in financing the tort reform movement to get their chosen candidate, Lloyd Karmeier elected to the Illinois Supreme Court in order to have a pending 10.1 Billion dollar judgment voided by the Court.

In December, 2005, Justice Lloyd Karmeier cast the tie-breaking vote reversing the 10.1 Billion Dollar judgement against Philip Morris.

That's the description from the film's website. Makes it sound interesting, doesn't it?

Litilaw: Hundreds of Free Articles on Litigation Topics

Litilaw is a website that makes available

hundreds of recently published articles of interest to litigators and related legal professionals. All articles are full-text, written by lawyers and have been published as part of continuing legal education (CLE) seminars, in legal journals, or are of similar quality. Litilaw links to copies of articles available on the internet, or hosted by us at the author's request.

You can browse categories such as Class Actions, Criminal Procedure, or Expert Witnesses. Or you can run a search to find something more specific. (It appears to search the titles and summaries, not the full-text of articles.)

The articles tend to be practical rather than scholarly.

It's not comprehensive, of course, but the price (free!) will certainly appeal to lawyers (and others) with limited resources.

Litilaw is sponsored by Lexbe, a web-based litigation-management system.

Blocking the Courthouse Door

Here's a newish (Dec. '06) book critiquing the "tort reform" movement: Stephanie Mencimer, Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue (KF8700 .M46 2006 at Classified Stacks).

Publisher's description:

Thanks to constant political oratory against "frivolous lawsuits" and "jackpot justice," it is widely known that there's a legal crisis in this country. * * *

As a result, the lawsuit issue has moved to the political front burner, and in the past three years, state after state has responded by limiting citizens' rights to sue. * * *

But is there really a crisis? National data show that the number of civil suits is falling, not rising, and that the average damage award is also going down. Despite intense media hype to the contrary, the number of personal injury lawsuits filed every year has been tumbling for the past decade. Upon closer examination, the stories of ridiculous lawsuits usually turn out to be false or badly misleading. The crisis, in short, appears to be a phantom.

So how do we explain the scary headlines? Who's behind the "tort reform movement," and what are the real goals? Blocking the Courthouse Door will show that the movement against so-called greedy trial lawyers and irresponsible plaintiffs is the result of a concerted and successful campaign by large corporations to get this issue on the table and thus limit their own vulnerability in the civil justice system. They have spent decades, and many millions of dollars, on focus groups and Madison Avenue public relations research. They have funded institutes, sponsored academic research, bankrolled politicians, set up phony "astroturf " grassroots organizations (with chamber of commerce return addresses), and fed copy to all-too-gullible journalists.

The publisher's website includes an excerpt from the book.

Res Gestae on YouTube

Found on YouTube:: a musical recap of some Hearsay Exceptions, casting Lego figures as the declarants.

Private eyes indicted in ID-theft case

Private eyes indicted in ID-theft case, Seattle Times, Sept. 7, 2007:

State and federal agents have broken up a nationwide "pretext" identity-theft scheme involving private detectives who obtained personal information about their targets — from financial and medical records to tax returns — through deceit and lies, according to a federal grand-jury indictment unsealed Thursday.

The confidential records were purchased by attorneys, law firms, collection agents and others, and federal agents are "actively investigating" whether they might have broken the law as well, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn Frierson.

See TEN INDICTED FOR PRETEXTING IN "OPERATION DIALING FOR DOLLARS" - Defendants Would Adopt Various Identities to Get Confidential Tax, Medical and Employment Info, U.S. Attorney's Office W.D. Wash. press release, Dec. 6, 2007.

Suit against DSHS and Docs for Foster Child's Death

The foster mother has already entered an Alford plea and been sentenced for the death by dehydration of a child in her care. Now a civil suit has been filed against DSHS and two doctors who, the complaint alleges, should have noticed the child's decline in health (as well as the condition of other children in the woman's care) and reported it. Suits against DSHS seem comonplace; suing the child's doctors is unusual. The foster mother's case was in Spokane; the article doesn't say where the civil suit was filed. 2 doctors, DSHS sued in death of 7-year-old, Seattle Times, Dec. 8, 2007.

N.Y. Judge Rebukes Lawyers, Mourns Drop in Civility

Dorsey Firm Sanctioned as Part of Judge's Manifesto on Civility in Legal Profession, N.Y.L.J., Nov. 30, 2007. The judge wrote a 129-page opinion, criticizing the lawyers' conduct of discovery in a case that had settled.

Southern District of New York Judge Harold Baer opened his 129-page decision with a discussion of how "naked competition and singular economic focus of the marketplace have begun to infiltrate the practice of law, subordinating the high standards of service, collegiality and professionalism as a result."

He ended it with his observation that "partners are at times made and retained for their rainmaking skills and not for their legal skill, that the number of billable hours is not only the alpha and omega of bonuses but that these hours -- or at least the ones that count -- often exclude pro bono hours, or that who gets credit for originating a piece of business can throw a firm into turmoil and prompt internecine struggles, or that the bottom line has eclipsed most everything else for which the practice of law stands or stood to the extent that the practice of law is now frequently described as a business rather than a profession."

One of the lawyers who was the target of the judge's anger said that he was no model of civility himself, for instance mocking an attorney who asked for permission to attend church services before a deposition the judge had scheduled for a Sunday.

Beatles Diversion

A defendant who had pleaded guilty to burglary replied to a question in the pre-sentence process that asked what he thought the court should do:

Like the Beetles say, "Let it Be."

Judge Gregory R. Todd in Yellowstone County, Montana, corrected the spelling of the name of the "greatest band in rock history" and proceeded to work dozens of Beatles song titles into his order.

This was all back in February, and you could well have seen it in any number of places. But I'm sharing it, for the people who haven't seen it yet. (I'd buried it in a messy stack of old email myself.) See An Opinion Unlike Any Other, The Legal Scoop: Law Students' Perspectives on the Law, July 30, 2007.

Thanks: Jessica Van Buren.

King: No Right to Court-Appointed Lawyer in Child Custody Dispute

State-paid divorce lawyers not a right: Court rules such cases are private, civil disputes, Seattle P-I, Dec. 6, 2007.

People who can't afford a lawyer to help them navigate divorce proceedings and fight for the custody of their children don't have the right to one at public expense, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

A 7-2 majority found that divorces are private, civil disputes that don't call for state-paid attorneys unless state lawmakers decide to change the law.

The controversial case drew much attention as one that could have expanded much-need legal services for poor people but also cost taxpayers a hefty sum.

The president of the Washington State Bar Association issued a statement:

This case highlights the need to greatly expand access to civil legal services in Washington, particularly when basic human needs are at stake such as in child custody disputes. Every day, people around the state appear in court without legal representation. And they often do so by necessity, rather than choice. Those individuals are also often unable to effectively present their cases in a court. Access to the justice system is a fundamental right, and no person should be denied access simply because they are poor. The WSBA will continue to work with the Legislature to expand access to our court system in Washington.

Legal Representation for Low-Income People Remains a Challenge, WSBA press release, Dec. 6, 2007.

The case is In re King, --- Wn. 2d ---, Washington Courts: majority (C. Johnson, J.), concurrence (Sanders, J.), concurrence (Madsen, J.) (Dec. 6, 2007).

U.S. Supreme Court to hear appeal of Ahmed Ressam case

U.S. Supreme Court to hear appeal of Ahmed Ressam case, Seattle P-I, Dec. 7, 2007. The Court granted certiorari today.

Federal prosecutors argue that the 22-year sentence that Judge Coughenour (W.D. Wash.) imposed was too short.

Click here to see earlier posts about Ressam's case. One links to the 9th Circuit case the Court will review. One links to an op-ed piece Judge Cougenour wrote in the New York Times.

If you want to follow the case in the Supreme Court, here's a link to the docket for United States v. Ressam, no. 07-455.

UW notes: Judge Coughenour teached Advanced Trial Advocacy here; Ressam's attorney, Federal Public Defender Thomas Hillier, is a Trial Ad instructor.

Former nursing assistant sentenced for raping paralyzed patient

Former nursing assistant sentenced for raping paralyzed patient, Seattle P-I, Dec. 7, 2007. The victim was a 33-year-old woman who had had a stroke that left her unable to speak or even open her mouth.

Superior Court Judge Julie Spector called it one of the most tragic cases she had ever seen and noted his ultimate prison term would be up to the state parole board.

"It is such a violation of a trust relationship that you still do not take responsibility for," Spector told [the defendant, Lamin] Darboe. "If it were up to me, I would never release you back into the community."

Beating on a bus: Driver didn't see — or didn't act?

A jury trial began this week in a case against King County by two people who were beaten up by a crowd of teenagers and young adults who dragged them off the bus one night three years ago. The plaintiffs say the driver should have called the police and should not have opened the rear door through which they were dragged.

Beating on a bus: Driver didn't see — or didn't act? , Seattle Times, Dec. 1, 2007. (posted 12/1/07)


Update (12/7): $250,000 verdict for couple assaulted on bus, Seattle P-I, Dec. 7, 2007.

Suing DSHS

The Olympian profiled Seattle attorney David P. Moody, who has made a specialty of suing the Department of Social and Health Services. Olympia grad targets DSHS with legal crusade: Lawyer wins $40 million from state in 7 years, Olympian, Nov. 26, 2007.

In addition to profiling Moody, the article discusses the policy question of how much the state should be vulnerable to suit. Attorney General Rob McKenna says that Washington's waiver of sovereign immunity was much greater than other states' and he favors legislation limiting the state's liability in certain circumstances. The bill discussed was 2006 SB 6215; McKenna's background sheet is here. SB 5997 in 2007 would have shielded the Department of Corrections and DSHS from liability when employees exercised reasonable care, even if errors in judgment resulted in bad outcomes.

David Moody is a former UW Trial Ad instructor.

Violinist's Case Against Seattle Symphony

Judge Catherine Shaffer (King County Superior Court) has dismissed a violinist's claims of discrimination against the Seattle Symphony. A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was not addressed by the motion for summary judgment. 2 claims dismissed in violinist's suit, Seattle Times, Dec. 1, 2007.

Judge Shaffer is also a UW Trial Ad instructor.

To a High Court -- Crusading Law Students

How about reading something inspirational over the winter break? Law student Ilana Mantell recommends To a High Court, "about the students who filed and won the SCRAP decision. The story behind the case is fantastic (and inspiring for law students)."

For more -- including excerpts -- see the book's website.

Within George Washington University, five law students decide to do a practical group project. They take on the Nation's Railroads and the oldest regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. They want compliance with a new law, the National Environmental Policy Act and its application to freight rates. They want the unnecessary extraction of natural resources and the impediments to recycling analyzed and stopped. Their name: Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, SCRAP. In a stunning surprise, published in the New York Times, they petition for compliance with the law and a billion dollar refund. The legal prowess of the Commission and the Railroads confronts them. It is David versus Goliath. As author Neil Thomas Proto reveals, the five find the tools and inner persistence to meet the challenge.

It's available in the Law Library: KF228.S788 P76 2006 at Classified Stacks.

Case finally closes in 1978 slaying of 15-year-old

Case finally closes in 1978 slaying of 15-year-old, Seattle Times, Dec. 4, 2007. A DNA match that wasn't possible with the technology available at the time of the killing implicated the defendant, who has now entered an Alford plea.

Governor Appoints Justice

Governor Gregoire has named Judge Debra Stephens (Div. III, Spokane) to take the Justice Bobbe Bridge's seat on the Supreme Court when Justice Bridge retires at the end of this month. Gregoire picks Spokane jurist for high court, Seattle Times, Dec. 4, 2007.

Judge Stephens has lived in Spokane all her life and is an honors graduate of Gonzaga twice over (B.A. and J.D.). While her private practice specialized in appellate work, she taught as an adjunct at Gonzaga since 1995, covering an impressive variety of courses -- appellate advocacy, community property, state and federal constitutional law, and legal research and writing. She was appointed to Division III in April and was elected without opposition last month

The press release from the Governor's office is here. The photo at right is from Judge Stephens's profile on Division III's website.

Judge: Dog ordinance unconstitutional

Judge: Dog ordinance unconstitutional, Spokesman Review, Dec. 2, 2007:

Spokane’s “dangerous dog” ordinance is unconstitutional because it denies pet owners the right of due process, a Superior Court judge ruled Friday in a case that may have far-reaching effects.

As a matter of law, the administrative procedures used in the city of Spokane regarding “dangerous dog” determinations and appeals from those rulings violate citizens’ due process rights, Judge Robert Austin said in his ruling.

* * *

In the current system, dogs tagged as “dangerous” by the city and its contractor, SpokAnimal, are deemed to be that unless the owner can prove otherwise – flying in the face of the notion of presumed innocence.

Judge's DUI rulings eyed

Judge's DUI rulings eyed, Seattle Times, Dec. 1, 2007:

There are enough questions about the rulings of the judge presiding in the drunken-driving case against King County Councilmember Jane Hague that failed challenges of his jurisdiction in three Woodinville cases may be appealed, a King County Superior Court judge [Helen Halpert] ruled Friday.

In each of the cases before the court Friday, prosecutors had challenged King County District Court Judge Peter Nault and requested another judge. In each case, the challenge was denied, and Nault continued to handle the cases.

Prosecutors also challenged Nault in Hague's case, and Nault denied the challenge.

Army Pays $725 in Set-Aside World War II Case - New York Times

Army Pays $725 in Set-Aside World War II Case, N.Y. Times, Dec. 1, 2007.

A month after the Army said it made a mistake when it court-martialed Samuel Snow and 27 other black soldiers in World War II, the Pentagon has cut Mr. Snow a check for back pay, money withheld while he served a year in prison on a rioting conviction.

The check was for $725. No interest. No adjustment for inflation.

The court-martial stemmed from a riot -- black soldiers (in a Jim Crow Army) against Italian prisoners of war -- at Fort Lawton in Seattle. (Fort Lawton was one of the Army's main feeders to the Pacific Theater during World War II. Discovery Park is now on the site.)

I missed posting about the Army's ruling in October: 1944 Conviction of Black G.I.’s Is Ruled Flawed, N.Y. Times, Oct. 27, 2007.

The [Board for Correction of Military Records] found that the court-martial was flawed, that the defense was unjustly rushed and that the prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, a young lieutenant colonel who went on to fame three decades later as a Watergate special prosecutor, had important evidence that he did not share with defense lawyers.

The Army reviewed the case, after a resolution from the House of Representatives, inspired by Jack Hamann's book, On American Soil: How Justice Became a Casualty of World War II (D805.5.F66 H36 2005 at Good Reads). See Hamann's website for more. See earlier posts too.