The Washington DC lawyer suing the drycleaner for $65 million faces an ethics complaint filed by the American Association of Justice. AAJ, the national association of trial lawyers committed to civil justice, filed the complaint this week, asking the Washington DC bar to look at this outrageous behavior.
And while there's no telling about the specifics, it appears that the Magic Pants guy is something of a frequent flier. News reports indicate that this isn't his first time. In divorce proceedings, a court apparently awarded legal fees against him for taking unreasonable positions in litigation.
All of this is provides a nice window into the civil justice system. It works because there are systems in place that come down hard on the few who abuse it.
That's a nice thing.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The Case of the Magic Pants
Readers get the gist of this blog. Too often, corporate interests engage in half-truths (or worse) in a calculated effort to poison jurors. That's bad because our civil justice system is essential to a healthy democracy and safe republic.
But it would be wrong to claim that there aren't legitimate concerns with abuse of the civil justice system.
And that takes us to the curious case of the magic pants. In Washington DC, an administrative law judge, one Roy Pearson, Jr., sought $65 million in a lawsuit against a drycleaner. Why? The drycleaner lost his pants.
They must have been magic pants. That's the only way anyone could ever claim to have suffered such a profound injury. According to various news reports, the drycleaner offered to settle the matter for many times the value of the lost pants, and the gentleman declined. After all, magic pants aren't worth ten thousand dollars, they're worth $65 million.
The guy is a nut, and that's apparent on the face of things. But the bigger problem is that the Chamber of Commerce and other groups hellbent on shutting the courthouse will use this nut's magic pants as fodder for their cries of lawsuit abuse.
Well, I have to agree with the Chamber in this case. This is in fact lawsuit abuse. One can only hope that the Washington DC bar takes disciplinary action against the magic pants guy. While we're at it, let's hope that the Washington DC courts quickly dismisss Judge Magic Pants' lawsuit. It would seem that the courts have more important business that needs attention.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
But it would be wrong to claim that there aren't legitimate concerns with abuse of the civil justice system.
And that takes us to the curious case of the magic pants. In Washington DC, an administrative law judge, one Roy Pearson, Jr., sought $65 million in a lawsuit against a drycleaner. Why? The drycleaner lost his pants.
They must have been magic pants. That's the only way anyone could ever claim to have suffered such a profound injury. According to various news reports, the drycleaner offered to settle the matter for many times the value of the lost pants, and the gentleman declined. After all, magic pants aren't worth ten thousand dollars, they're worth $65 million.
The guy is a nut, and that's apparent on the face of things. But the bigger problem is that the Chamber of Commerce and other groups hellbent on shutting the courthouse will use this nut's magic pants as fodder for their cries of lawsuit abuse.
Well, I have to agree with the Chamber in this case. This is in fact lawsuit abuse. One can only hope that the Washington DC bar takes disciplinary action against the magic pants guy. While we're at it, let's hope that the Washington DC courts quickly dismisss Judge Magic Pants' lawsuit. It would seem that the courts have more important business that needs attention.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Deflating the Litigation Myths
Reported in The Washington Post Tues., May 8, 2007:
"Juries in medical malpractice cases tend to sympathize with the doctors being sued rather than the patients who are suing them, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Columbia has concluded after analyzing three decades of research on the subject."
And the bigger part of the study is that doctors and hospitals almost always win these cases, regardless of whether that's the right outcome. Philip Peters is publishing his study in the Michigan Law Review. He finds that injured consumers win only about 27 percent of all cases that go to trial against doctors and hospitals. Patients lose cases that independent medical reviewers say they should win.
This isn't news to anyone who represents injured consumers in the courtroom. The study makes the point that doctors often win cases that they should lose. Jurors aren't told about what goes on behind the scenes. The doctor's insurance carrier pours money in for jury consultants and focus groups. The defense witnesses generally practice their testimony with the help of consultants, videotape sessions, and all the bells and whistles that money can buy.
Even with the statistics showing that doctors win the great majority of cases that go to trial, the insurance industry's spokespeople decry the profits from frivolous lawsuits. That is one odd idea. Juries don't award large sums of money in frivolous lawsuits. In fact, they don't award any money in frivolous lawsuits. And that's the way it should be. But here is what is absurd: How can anyone make money on a frivolous lawsuit? Next time you hear someone spouting off, just ask how that works. I'm still waiting for someone to explain it to me.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
"Juries in medical malpractice cases tend to sympathize with the doctors being sued rather than the patients who are suing them, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Columbia has concluded after analyzing three decades of research on the subject."
And the bigger part of the study is that doctors and hospitals almost always win these cases, regardless of whether that's the right outcome. Philip Peters is publishing his study in the Michigan Law Review. He finds that injured consumers win only about 27 percent of all cases that go to trial against doctors and hospitals. Patients lose cases that independent medical reviewers say they should win.
This isn't news to anyone who represents injured consumers in the courtroom. The study makes the point that doctors often win cases that they should lose. Jurors aren't told about what goes on behind the scenes. The doctor's insurance carrier pours money in for jury consultants and focus groups. The defense witnesses generally practice their testimony with the help of consultants, videotape sessions, and all the bells and whistles that money can buy.
Even with the statistics showing that doctors win the great majority of cases that go to trial, the insurance industry's spokespeople decry the profits from frivolous lawsuits. That is one odd idea. Juries don't award large sums of money in frivolous lawsuits. In fact, they don't award any money in frivolous lawsuits. And that's the way it should be. But here is what is absurd: How can anyone make money on a frivolous lawsuit? Next time you hear someone spouting off, just ask how that works. I'm still waiting for someone to explain it to me.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The Thing About Gonzales
What's the big deal about Alberto Gonzales? Why should consumers care? The latest revalations are that Attorney General Gonzales has, in the words of Stephen Colbert, a truthiness problem. But why is that such a big deal--don't all politicians lie?
It's easy to be jaded and to suffer political scandal fatigue. And that's true no matter who is in power. As someone wiser than me once said, "Politics suck." The other thing is that many commentators fondly point out that US Attorneys serve at will and past presidents, including a recent former occupant of the White House who sinned by lust, fired a slew of them, too.
Here's the problem and why it matters. When prosecutors are hired and fired based upon who they do and don't prosecute, we have a problem. Prosecutors now ask things like,"Did this guy/gal commit the crime?," or "Can we prove that they did it?" Under the current regime, they apparently needed to ask, "Did the president's chief of staff want me to prosecute?," or "Will I piss off the White House if chase this guy or gal?" That's no way to run a criminal justice system.
That by itself is enough for all of us to say that the guy has to go. But it gets worse with the evasions, cover-up and denials. Mr. Gonzales wasn't out of the loop. And the decisions to fire these people were made based upon these illegal considerations. The rest of us should care because protection of the public shouldn't turn on who gave money to the current occupant of the White House.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
It's easy to be jaded and to suffer political scandal fatigue. And that's true no matter who is in power. As someone wiser than me once said, "Politics suck." The other thing is that many commentators fondly point out that US Attorneys serve at will and past presidents, including a recent former occupant of the White House who sinned by lust, fired a slew of them, too.
Here's the problem and why it matters. When prosecutors are hired and fired based upon who they do and don't prosecute, we have a problem. Prosecutors now ask things like,"Did this guy/gal commit the crime?," or "Can we prove that they did it?" Under the current regime, they apparently needed to ask, "Did the president's chief of staff want me to prosecute?," or "Will I piss off the White House if chase this guy or gal?" That's no way to run a criminal justice system.
That by itself is enough for all of us to say that the guy has to go. But it gets worse with the evasions, cover-up and denials. Mr. Gonzales wasn't out of the loop. And the decisions to fire these people were made based upon these illegal considerations. The rest of us should care because protection of the public shouldn't turn on who gave money to the current occupant of the White House.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Portland Cruise Ship Illness
Reported on the front page in today's Oregonian (Apr. 4, 2007):
Vacationers on a four-night river cruise departed Portland on March 21. After getting underway, they learned that there had been an outbreak of gastrointestinal illness on the prior cruise. On the March 16 cruise, 33 people fell ill. An unknown number fell ill on the March 21 cruise.
The ship, The Empress of the North, reportedly has not passed various health inspections. Yet no one breathed a word until the ship got underway.
The article relates that company officials are discussing refunds. But that hardly seems sufficient to cover the harms and losses suffered by sick passengers. Buried in the article is this nugget: federal law does not require cruise ship operators to inform passengers of prior disease outbreaks. As with so many safety issues, consumers place blind reliance in sellers. I imagine that almost all consumers who go on cruises would expect to be informed about problems before departing.
If consumers can't count on government inspections and company disclosures, what is left? About all that remains is the civil justice system. Paying sickened travelers for their harms and losses is a lot less desirable than avoiding injury in the first place. But if no one else will take care of these folks, it's ultimately left to our civil justice system.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Vacationers on a four-night river cruise departed Portland on March 21. After getting underway, they learned that there had been an outbreak of gastrointestinal illness on the prior cruise. On the March 16 cruise, 33 people fell ill. An unknown number fell ill on the March 21 cruise.
The ship, The Empress of the North, reportedly has not passed various health inspections. Yet no one breathed a word until the ship got underway.
The article relates that company officials are discussing refunds. But that hardly seems sufficient to cover the harms and losses suffered by sick passengers. Buried in the article is this nugget: federal law does not require cruise ship operators to inform passengers of prior disease outbreaks. As with so many safety issues, consumers place blind reliance in sellers. I imagine that almost all consumers who go on cruises would expect to be informed about problems before departing.
If consumers can't count on government inspections and company disclosures, what is left? About all that remains is the civil justice system. Paying sickened travelers for their harms and losses is a lot less desirable than avoiding injury in the first place. But if no one else will take care of these folks, it's ultimately left to our civil justice system.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Pet Food Cases
It's easy to hold forth from the sidelines. You get a nice cushy chair and maybe a refreshing beverage of choice, gaze out over the field, and then make pronouncements. When you're not in the game, it's easy work.
The recent pet food scandal provides an interesting and somewhat frightening snapshot of America's civil justice system. One thing it reveals is how dependent consumers are on manufacturers' safe practices. It's rare to have governmental oversight of consumer goods. It just doesn't happen. And while many sellers and manufacturers act responsibly, it is too common that people get hurt when profits are put before safety.
The other thing that is revealing is how our civil justice system defines injury. While state laws vary, many states treat pets as nothing more than personal property. At the same time, most states do not allow people to recover for their emotional losses that are tied to the death of a beloved pet. I suppose some could argue that there are good reasons for that. But those of us who own pets know better.
As is common with food supply injury, the scope of the problem is not yet apparent. Nor do we know whether and to what extent these problems were caused by lack of oversight, neglect, poor testing, or contamination. But there are real problems here.
Kudos to my colleagues who are willing to take on these cases. My guess is that they will be tough. Maybe they present an opportunity to achieve justice. Let's hope at the very least that those who have made a mess are called to account.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The recent pet food scandal provides an interesting and somewhat frightening snapshot of America's civil justice system. One thing it reveals is how dependent consumers are on manufacturers' safe practices. It's rare to have governmental oversight of consumer goods. It just doesn't happen. And while many sellers and manufacturers act responsibly, it is too common that people get hurt when profits are put before safety.
The other thing that is revealing is how our civil justice system defines injury. While state laws vary, many states treat pets as nothing more than personal property. At the same time, most states do not allow people to recover for their emotional losses that are tied to the death of a beloved pet. I suppose some could argue that there are good reasons for that. But those of us who own pets know better.
As is common with food supply injury, the scope of the problem is not yet apparent. Nor do we know whether and to what extent these problems were caused by lack of oversight, neglect, poor testing, or contamination. But there are real problems here.
Kudos to my colleagues who are willing to take on these cases. My guess is that they will be tough. Maybe they present an opportunity to achieve justice. Let's hope at the very least that those who have made a mess are called to account.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Mandatory Arbitration Abuses
What is buried in the fine print of your credit card subscriber agreement, your cable service agreement or your banking rules? Chances are there's a mandatory arbitration agreement buried in there. Sometimes it was there from when you first signed on, but more commonly, it's put there after the fact. What did that recent credit card mailer say?
The theory behind arbitration was not a bad one. We were told that arbitration would lead to quicker decisions and save consumers money. But there are big problems in practice, and mostly it's about the bad guys feeding at the trough.
Sometimes, the mandatory arbitration clause is nothing more than fine print that means, "consumers who use our service surrender all rights. " Take Comcast Cable, for example. In a recent Oregon case, Comcast tried to enforce an arbitation clause that stripped its subscribers of rights provided by Oregon law. Paul & Sugerman represented the consumers and obtained a good decision from the Oregon Court of Appeals. (The Court of Appeals threw out the clause. A copy is at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A127818.htm.)
Horror stories about the fun-house mirror world of arbitration are wide-spread. One of industry's favorite providers, National Arbitration Forum, apparently uses two sets of rules. Banks, credit card companies, and the like get the more favorable set of rules, of course. And consumers get nailed. See the story at http://www.naca.net/News-Events/News.aspx?item=11714
Kudos to the Oregon Court of Appeals for properly applying the law. More important, Congress is finallystarting to take notice of the arbitration sham. Maybe if we keep shining bright lights on these practices, we'll be able to end the abuses.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
The theory behind arbitration was not a bad one. We were told that arbitration would lead to quicker decisions and save consumers money. But there are big problems in practice, and mostly it's about the bad guys feeding at the trough.
Sometimes, the mandatory arbitration clause is nothing more than fine print that means, "consumers who use our service surrender all rights. " Take Comcast Cable, for example. In a recent Oregon case, Comcast tried to enforce an arbitation clause that stripped its subscribers of rights provided by Oregon law. Paul & Sugerman represented the consumers and obtained a good decision from the Oregon Court of Appeals. (The Court of Appeals threw out the clause. A copy is at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A127818.htm.)
Horror stories about the fun-house mirror world of arbitration are wide-spread. One of industry's favorite providers, National Arbitration Forum, apparently uses two sets of rules. Banks, credit card companies, and the like get the more favorable set of rules, of course. And consumers get nailed. See the story at http://www.naca.net/News-Events/News.aspx?item=11714
Kudos to the Oregon Court of Appeals for properly applying the law. More important, Congress is finallystarting to take notice of the arbitration sham. Maybe if we keep shining bright lights on these practices, we'll be able to end the abuses.
David F. Sugerman
Paul & Sugerman, PC
www.pspc.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
