Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) died yesterday, a week after routine gall bladder surgery (cholecystectomy). He was a powerful congressman with his finger on the button of Pentagon appropriations.

And with his high-profile death comes an opportunity to explore some medical malpractice issues.

So let's do this in Q & A form:

What is the first reaction as to why this happened?

First up is the most common reason for malpractice litigation with gall bladder surgery: That the common bile duct was mistakenly cut. I don't know what happened here, of course, since I don't have the medical records or the autopsy results, but you can bet that is one of the first places people will look.

As basic background, the liver produces bile that helps us digest. It is transmitted to the intestines via ducts. The gallbladder stores bile. A schematic is seen here at left.

Was this due to infection, instead of a common bile duct injury?
Some are claiming that the death occurred because the intestine was mistakenly cut during surgery, and that this caused an infection. Someone investigating the case would then naturally ask the following questions:

Was the cut intestine noticed during surgery, and if not, why not? Cutting something that you're not supposed to cut is one thing. But failing to notice that it was cut is a whole different thing. This is often the dividing line between when a malpractice case is successful or not. Bad results by themselves don't mean malpractice. Failing to recognize mistakes, however, is a different concept entirely.

If noticed during surgery, what was the response? This surgery was done via a laparoscope, in which the scope is passed through a small incision, with surgery done with a camera-assist. Depending on when and where the bad surgical cut happened, and whether it was noticed at the time, the logical questions are who, if anyone, was called in to assist in the repair and how was it done?

When were the first signs and symptoms of infection noticed and reported and what was done about it? If the cut was noticed during surgery, then in addition to any potential antibiotics that may have been given, would have been very strict discharge instructions to the patient on the signs and symptoms of infection and the critical nature of prompt action.

If this is a known risk of the procedure, why blame the doctor?
This one is a classic, and defendants love it in the courtroom. But it is the wrong question to ask. The issue is not whether something was a known complication or risk, but whether it was avoidable with good care.

Think of it this way: Is a car accident a risk of driving? Does the fact that accidents are a risk of driving mean that the guy who ran the stop sign is not responsible?

Was Murtha just one of up to 98,000 estimated deaths from malpractice in the US each year (Study: To Err is Human)? Time will tell on that one. And we will see to what extent if death has an effect on the health care debate in Congress and the desire by some to grant certain immunities to the medical industry for malpractice.

On a last note, not only was Murtha deeply involved in political-military issues, but the surgery took place at the National Naval Hospital in Bethesda, MD. This adds another potential political element to any investigation or legal action in the event that family moves in that direction.

Labels: John Murtha, Medical Malpractice

Maybe someone that knows Latin can help me. I'm looking for the proper way to write "Let the Lawyer Beware!" much the way the buyer must beware (caveat emptor). An online dictionary tells me that consultus is the Latin for legal expert, and from which consultant is derived; though jurista seems like a possibility and it also looks and sounds better.

So this post has nothing to do with being afraid of lawyers, but rather, as a warning to those with the juris doctorate.

Frankly, I've always hated the use of Latin phrases in the law, as it always seemed pretentious. My usage is usually de minimis, limited to res ipsa loquitor and a few other well known phrases. But if using Latin helps save someone from outsourcing their marketing (and ethics) to others, it will be a good thing.

Why write on this again? Because I'm featured in the ABA Journal this week, in an edition that deals with online activities, Wired! The article is part of The Business of Law section, entitled Search and Deceive, and dedicated to comment spam and the problems hiring marketers for law firms. (Kevin O'Keefe is featured also, and as you can see from the picture they used, he's clearly more photogenic than yours truly.)

Their piece is inspired by Martindale-Hubbel's use of comment spam that I wrote about late last year (Martindale-Hubbell Apologizes For Blog Spam; Suspends Spammer; Promises to Answer Questions)

The essence of the article is this:

With the proliferation of social media forums and fly-by-night legal directories, lawyers need to be even more cautious when they enlist the services of outside sales and marketing firms to improve website traffic and search engine rankings.

The many problems with FindLaw, of course, equally apply, but the FindLaw postings occurred after the original article was written.

It's good to see these problems now leaking out of the legal blogosphere to mainstream legal publications.

But I still need that Latin phrase. Though I'll accept Middle French, Middle English and any other dead language. Anyone? Bueller? (Yeah, I know, like he'd ever know Latin...)

Labels: Marketing

Now I know what you're thinking with this headline: "John Stossel? You love the guy? He is always whining about trial lawyers, how can you love him?"

No, really, I do. Because for a writer, hypocrites like Stossel are like manna from heaven. This story is inspired by a little fluff interview with New York Magazine earlier today where this question and answer appeared:

Who is your mortal enemy?
Smug, ignorant, and arrogant Upper West Side Lefties and personal-injury lawyers

Awww, isn't that cute. Johnny-boy wants to kill me and all the other personal injury attorneys in the country. We're his "mortal enemy."

The guy must have been sued big time and got clobbered to have that type of hissy fit. Oh wait. It was the other way around.

That's why Stossel is so much fun to write about. You see, he was the plaintiff in a lawsuit after professional wrestler Dave Schultz slapped him twice. But he didn't just sue the wrestler that smacked him down, but the World Wrestling Federation as well. The case reportedly settled for $400,000. Here is the video of the two slaps (with an out take above): 


So what happened to change his mind? Usually, I refer to tort "reformers" as people who have never been seriously injured by the negligence of another. The hypocrites suddenly see the light when they become injured.

So here's my list of theories on why Stossel flipped backward after being compensated for his injury:

1. He wasn't seriously injured, but claimed that he was, and therefore assumes others that make claims are just like him;

2. He hated his own attorney, and therefore assumes others are just like him or her;

3. He realized that beating up on lawyers is super easy to do because when we defend ourselves we sound like, well, lawyers;

4. If you shill for big business, you get lots of speaking fees for conventions.

5. Since the time of that incident, he's been sued or threatened with suit a number of times and isn't too keen on being on the other side. From a profile on Stossel comes these revealing incidents that tend to support the "I hate being on the other side" theory:

Accuracy isn't one of Stossel's strong suits. He's admitted to making a number of serious mistakes in the past, he's been sued in connection with his reporting, and the "research" he's used to prop up his arguments has been routinely debunked by leading academics. In 2000, for example, Stossel declared that organic produce was worse for you than conventional fruits and vegetables; it turned out his report had been based on faulty research and he was forced to issue a public apology. When he argued that global warming was a myth, no less than 104 Nobel Prize winners took him to task. (For his part, Stossel said he was relying on another group of "unnamed" scientists.) More recently, he had to issue a correction and an apology to the evangelical pastor of an African-American church after he distorted his words.

Stossel is -- and this is fun to add -- not just a hypocrite on tort "reform" but on his avowed libertarian philosophy. He has stated that "Free markets, not coercive governments, are the consumer's best friend. The people who are really ripping us off are the lawyers, the politicians, and the regulators." Yet, when it comes to litigation, he wants Big Government to come riding to the rescue to protect him.

From a 2004 Washington Monthly story by Stephanie Mencimer comes this:

In April 2002, Stossel hosted a fundraiser in south Texas for Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, a corporate front group that was helping doctors seeking caps on malpractice lawsuit damages.

Ahh yes, Big Government coming in to protect negligent doctors. That is just what anti-government libertarianism is all about. Way to go Johnny-boy.

And now, after digging around a bit, I come to The Admission as to why he actually flipped. From the same Washington Monthly piece comes this whopper:

While he doesn't include it in the book, Stossel did once offer the real explanation. In what was perhaps a moment of candor back in 1996, when he was giving a speech to the conservative legal group, the Federalist Society, someone asked Stossel why he had abandoned consumer reporting to bash government and trial lawyers. According to the Corporate Crime Reporter, Stossel replied, "I got sick of it. I also now make so much money I just lost interest in saving a buck on a can of peas."

If he ever decides to give up his career as a pseudo-journalist, he would make a perfect spokesman for the US Chamber of Commerce, which has, ahem, started its own frivolous lawsuit.

As a famous reporter has been heard to say, Hey, give me a break.

Labels: tort reform

I was amused some months back when I was named one of New York's personal injury "SuperLawyers." I had some ambivalence about it since it was difficult to know much about the magazine's methodology in making selections.

But no matter now; the company has now been sold to Thomson West and my days on the list, it seems safe to say, are numbered. I'd bet good money I won't be on it next year.

Why? Because Thomson West also happens to own FindLaw, whose dreadful history of selling links, ripping off a certain blog name, exploiting dead victims for its dreck-blogs by a writer who appears to know little about the law, and diminishing the profession of law in general, has been a recent topic here. FindLaw gets paid big buck by some lawyers, and it has lost business as a result of my posts regarding its conduct. And if you charge $10,000 a year to lawyers, it doesn't take more than a few lost pigeons accounts to tick people off.

So you can bet that FindLaw will make sure that SuperLawyers keeps a healthy distance from me next year. But they really have a bigger problem than little old me.

You see, folks, FindLaw will want it's big-paying customers to be included in the SuperLawyer listings. And since SuperLawyers thrives on the very expensive magazine ads that supplement its listings, and FindLaw has an existing catalogue of lawyers willing to spend heavily on marketing, those lawyers are real important. Some B-law grad was whispering the magic word "synergy" into the ears of the powers-that-be.

So while the purchase by Thomson West would seem at first blush to bolster the credibility of SuperLawyers, the company actually runs smack into an inherent conflict of interest that gums up the works. While it tries to build an objective rating system with SuperLawyers it is also taking big money for the FindLaw listings. And that is a big problem if you want to claim objectivity in ratings.

Over at Bob Ambrogi's Law Sites, he writes that Thomson West intends to build a Chinese Wall of sorts between the companies. He writes:

[Christopher Kibarian, president of the Business of Law group] said that a key priority for Thomson will be to provide assurances of the independence and integrity of Super Lawyers ratings. Super Lawyers already employs a rigorous selection process, he said, one that has been recognized by bar associations and courts across the country for its credibility and sophistication. It combines peer nominations and evaluations with third-party research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis.

On top of that, Thomson will create an independent advisory board to ensure the integrity and independence of the ratings process.

Will it operate independently? Ask yourself this: Do you trust any company that would exploit a dead child for ad copy on a faux-blog?

FindLaw's credibility is currently around zilch. And that means that everything that comes near it will be adversely affected. Thomson West will try to build up the SuperLawyer's brand, which already suffers from credibility problems. But as long as they keep FindLaw's dreck-blogs, they will run into continuing problems. And that is in addition to the conflict and credibility issues.

If Thomson West has any hope of success here it will have to figure out way to rise to a higher place. As the legal blogosphere confronts ugly lawyer commercials, ghostbloggers (more, more and more) comment spammers, and marketing hustlers of every stripe, the major companies should be trying to reassure its customers that if they are entrusted with the marketing of a lawyer (and therefore with the lawyer's ethics) they won't screw things up. And right now, the opposite is happening.

Labels: FindLaw, Malpractice, SuperLawyers

This is the issue in a nutshell: If a volunteer firefighter is in an accident while responding to an emergency, and the insurance policy of the car that clobbered him is already exhausted, can he get the benefits of the fire department's own Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Endorsement (a/k/a the SUM policy)?

In a matter of first impression, the trial court in American Alternative Insurance v. Pelszynski said yes. The matter came before Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Mark Cohen when the fireman filed for arbitration on the policy and the insurance carrier brought an action in Supreme Court to stay the proceedings, claiming the fireman's car was not part of the coverage.

Justice Cohen shot down that idea, relying on a New York State Insurance Department informal opinion, dated February 8, 2002, which interpreted the SUM policy as similar to one where a person drives his own car for a business. He wrote that:

The opinion found that an employee of the business operating their own vehicle during the course of employment and while acting within the scope of their duty would be covered under the SUM endorsement.

If the coverage was available to someone in their own car using it for a business, then it should likewise be applicable to the fire department.

If it was the fireman's lawyers that found that insurance department opinion for the judge, then that was some good lawyering by his counsel, Kevin Grennan.

h/t NYLJ ($)

Addendum: More from Roy Mura in the comments and at Coverage Counsel

Labels: Insurance Industry, Supplemental Underinsured Policy (SUM)

Jane Jarvis, the long-time organist for the New York Mets at Shea Stadium, died last week at age 94. Shea Stadium's Queen of Melody inspired fans over the course of 15 years, and her playing, oddly enough, held lessons for lawyers. Stay with me here. I have a point this time.

Those of my age that grew up spending times watching the Mets at Shea remember her playing for the fans, and the fans responding, and Jarvis tinkling the ivories back at us. It was like an exuberant conversation during her 1964-1979 tenure as she kept us entertained between innings and during other breaks. Anyone who spent time at the now-gone ball yard remembers Jarvis doing Meet the Mets on the Thomas organ.

Ultimately she was replaced by over-amplified canned music (and a thousand other distractions of the modern ball park). But canned music, of course, can't respond to the fans. Her playing was personal. She could see and hear what was going on, and speed up, slow down and modify on the fly. Live music is like that.

So where does the law come in to this? Lawyers often used canned materials too. We borrow briefs and memos from others for use.

But here is the important part: Too many lawyers, it seems, borrow the brief and don't actually read it. They don't make it personal to the actual facts of the case. The writing doesn't crackle with originality and pertinence, because oft times it is neither.

I once read a brief that was filled with "this honorable court" and "respectfully" this and "respectfully" that, and behind all the obsequious writing was garbage. I always figured that if one wanted to be respectful to the court, one would tailor the brief to the actual facts and points that needed to be made. The writer would make it easy on the eyes instead of forcing the judge (or clerk) to go burrowing through the darn thing trying to figure out what the actual point is.

Other briefs I've seen over the years have clearly been filled with cut-and-paste from other briefs, or straight out of WestLaw. It's pure laziness and the message that the judge no doubt receives is, "If the lawyer didn't care, why should I?"

There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with a form book, of course. If you are doing something for the first time it's good to see how someone else did it. The mistakes are in believing that this the only way to do it, or that the form shouldn't be changed at all. The mistake is in ignoring your audience.

Jarvis used sheet music to get her songs down when learning them. But then she adapted each song, just as the lawyer must adapt each and every argument (if, that is, you actually want to communicate a point to the judge)

Jarvis was a virtuoso when it came to the organ and the crowd. And that was because she didn't sit back and rely on the forms she started with.

A 2008 article in the Daily News described Jarvis's experience this way:

When it comes to music and the Mets, Jarvis once wrote the book. "I made all the decisions," she says. She had a song for when the Mets trotted to their positions, and a song for when they smacked a homer, and then there was the Mexican Hat Dance to get things going when the home team really needed it during the seventh-inning stretch. An entire generation of Met fans came to identify the team's championship run in 1969 with her lilting keyboard work.

Rest in peace.

(P.S. Pitchers and catchers report in 17 days. I think Jarvis would want me to mention that)

Updated:

• New York Times obituary
• Recalling a Meeting With the Pied Piper of Shea (NYT)
  

Labels: Baseball, Legal Writing, Odds and Ends

FindLaw continues to have problems with its so-called law blogs. Today's problem: Their writer doesn't appear to know a damn thing about law.

Why does FindLaw continue this charade of having blogs by producing crap content?

From its Philadelphia Personal Injury Law Blog (coded "NoFollow" so it doesn't get Google juice) comes this mega-screw-up of a headline:


Oy. That's what happens when non-lawyers try to write law blogs. Legal terms get thrown around willy-nilly without the writer knowing what they are doing.

It's always been one of my pet peeves in newspapers when I see a headline declaring that someone was found "innocent" of a crime. Criminal juries, of course, don't determine innocence. (Nor do civil trials.) Criminal trials just determine whether the prosecution sustained its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But at least when I see newspapers do it they aren't conflating the criminal with the civil.

Memo to writer Emily Grube who continues to churn out this awful dreck at the behest of her employer: This was a civil trial and you used the language of the criminal world by waltzing into the guilt-innocence issue. That's a whopper of a mistake, as we say in legalese.

But it's clear this wasn't an inadvertent mistake, because it continues in the content with this gibberish:

It took the jury less than an hour to find that Dr. Robert Stratton was not guilty of providing poor emergency room care to Dennis J. Kowalick.

Civil juries don't determine "guilt." That is a criminal law term. The civil jury in a malpractice case will determine negligence. And I can't believe anyone would hire a writer for a law blog when that writer didn't understand such fundamentals.

FindLaw obviously continues this crap because it thinks it will get SEO juice. These "blogs" are merely ads designed to dump as many SEO friendly terms onto the web, quality be damned. And if FindLaw need to use a dead child for its self-promotion, well so what, because the ends of self-promotion and making money are more important than anything else, right?

I assume that no one at FindLaw cares, since they've permitted this stuff to go on for months now. I would have thought that its professor-contributors from Writ: Anthony Sebok, Marci Hamilton, Michael Dorf, Carl Tobias, Sherry Colb, Joanna Grossman, Neil Buchanan, and Julie Hilden, to name a few, would have raised a ruckus since they are now associated with these shitblogs. Perhaps they don't care either.

If FindLaw can find professors to write Writ, you would think they could find a lawyer or two to write blogs. But then, FindLaw would have to actually give a damn. Marketing appears to trump all else and remains the holy grail; produce quantity and not quality.

As Scott Greenfield discusses, anyone can have a blog, but not everyone should.

The wonder of it all is that there are lawyers that actually outsource their marketing to FindLaw. I assume that they remain utterly clueless as to what this company does in their names, though if they find out they could save a bundle (and their reputations) by taking their business elsewhere.

And a final obligatory note: You don't have to be a lawyer to write a law blog, as Walter Olson shows at Overlawyered and Point of Law.

More:
Are FindLaw's "Blogs" Tainting Its Clients, Commentators and the Profession of Law? (1/4/10)

Labels: FindLaw, Marketing

Detroit attorney Carl Collins III has paid a $5,000 fine for chasing victims in the wake of the February 2009 crash of Continental/Colgan Flight 3407 near Buffalo, according to The Detroit News. According to the US Attorney's Office he sent letters out to victims' families 12 days after the crash, in violation of federal law that bans solicitations within 45 days of air disasters. This is the second such settlement regarding the crash, with New Jersey attorney Richard Weiner having likewise been fined $5,000 for chasing clients with letters.

Both of these actions came from federal authorities. New York has its own 30-day anti-solicitation rule (for all mass disasters), which applies to out-of-state attorneys as well. New York has thus far been silent on the issue of whether anyone has been pursued for violations.

The chasing was a big topic for me early in the year, as I tracked a string of law firms that started to electronically chase clients by running Google Adwords, before pulling the ads after they were exposed. You can read those posts at this tag: Buffalo Air Crash. This air crash was the first true test of New York's 30-day rule that went into effect in February 2007. The 30-day rule was not effected when other parts of the new rules were tossed out by a federal judge in July 2007.

Some of those ads had been run through various marketers, with the effect that lawyers had outsourced their ethics along with their marketing. I had discussed the concept of such ethics laundering to beat New York's 30-day anti-solicitation rule a year ago.

As of today, I am not aware of any attorney having yet been sanctioned for such e-chasing (which I covered two years ago in Attorney Solicitation 2.0 - Is It Ethical?) but that day is surely coming.

My thanks to Buffalo attorney Roy Mura, of Coverage Counsel fame, for passing on the Detroit News story.

Labels: Attorney Ethics, Buffalo Plane Crash

Over at Point of Law, Carter Wood points out that the American Association of Justice spent 1.33M in the 3rd quarter for congressional lobbying, much some of it on the health care bill. In his commentary, Wood says:

The filing provides more evidence that the trial lawyers helped craft language establishing state demonstration projects, preventing serious reform.

Now this is what the health care insurance industry spent: $38 million in 2009. (via WSJ Health Blog). [Update: This is limited to the health insurers, and does not, for instance, include drug makers. Also, note that the lobbying by the attorneys' group includes a wide array of consumer issues.]

One of the constants of the tort "reform" lobby is pointing out what consumer groups spend to preserve rights, and ignoring the vast sums that come out of the Fortune 500 to lobby for various corporate immunities.

Labels: tort reform

So news comes out that President Obama has skipped jury duty in Chicago. Is that a good thing?

Here in New York, it used to be that there were exemptions from jury duty for lawyers, doctors, and a panoply of others. Everyone and their brother seemed to have a legit excuse. The legislature killed that off, and now all the exemptions are gone. Rudy Guiliani famously sat jury duty while mayor, as did Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Chief Judge Judith Kaye.

But how about the President?

On the plus side of having him sit, it promotes jury duty and the concept that power is dispersed among the people. The distribution of power among the citizens and away from the Crown was the very essence of the Revolution. The Declaration of Independence, once you get past its magnificent opening, leads into its bill of particulars regarding the usurpations of power by King George with this:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States

And among that list of usurpations is this:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury

And this is not just enshrined in the Declaration, but the Bill of Rights. The Sixth Amendment protects those charged with crimes and the Seventh Amendment guarantees juries in civil trials:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

There is little disagreement among the people of the need for the dispersion of power -- though oddly there are conservatives that wish to consolidate power among the few and call this "reform." This concept of greater government power has thus far been widely rejected. (I never really understood how conservatives that preach limited government wish to endow it with more in this circumstance, but that is an issue for another day.)

Notwithstanding the noble goal of jury duty, any lawyer that has spend 12 seconds in the jury selection process knows that many people want to talk their way out of it, even personal injury lawyers. But I have sat, as has my wife and my brother.

On the flip side of having Obama serve jury duty is the security problem, not just for the courthouse but for the nation as a whole as it requires the man with the button to be in one place for an extended period. Leaving aside the issue of distraction for the other jurors, the forcible placement of the President in one place could turn into a life and death problem for all of us.

So, while I am a huge fan of the jury system, when it comes to the top honcho, I believe that deferment until he leaves office is appropriate.

Labels: Inside The Jury Room

Demonstrating that, perhaps, there is no sewer deep enough for it to descend into, FindLaw has used the death of a child to promote the services of the lawyers that pay them fees.

On its Philadelphia Personal Injury Law Blog (coded as "nofollow" so that site doesn't get Google juice) FindLaw's writer, Emily Grube, re-hashes the tragic accident of a nine-year old that was hit by a car while playing with its scooter. After the re-hash comes this deep-thinking analysis:

There are many difficult questions about this case: Was the driver aware that she hit White? Was she aware that he was under the car? Did she continue to drive in an attempt to flee the scene?

Truly profound. I know I feel more educated having read it. At the end of it comes the call-to-action: "If you have been involved in a similar situation such as a hit and run, or a pedestrian injury, you could discuss your possible personal injury case with..." blah, blah blah

The "blog" is one of the dreck-blogs that I wrote about previously (Are FindLaw's "Blogs" Tainting Its Clients, Commentators and the Profession of Law?), that offer little content beyond repeating a local story, making damn sure the name of the victim is repeated in the event the victims (or their survivors) Google the event, and ends with a call-to-action. There is, of course, no comment area since discussion isn't the point of the ad.

(If the name of the writer sound familiar, Ms. Grube also writes dreck-blogs for other FindLaw sites, having apparently left what little dignity she may have been born with in the dust.)

In my prior posting, FindLaw was using dead adults in its pseudo-blogs, which appear as little more than ads designed to chase clients. The extent to which such ad-blogs violate local ethics laws has yet to be explored by any ethics committee that I know of, though surely that day is coming soon.

So who sponsors this kind of crap? When you click their link, these are the firms I found at the top of the link, that would benefit from FindLaw's use of dead children in its ads:

The Law Offices of Eric Strand
West Chester, PA

Law Offices of Basil D. Beck, III
Norristown, PA

Law Offices of V. Erik Petersen
Harleysville, PA

Hark and Hark
Philadelphia, PA

Law Office of Henry S. Hilles, III
Norristown, PA

So long as lawyers continue to pay money to FindLaw for its services, this will no doubt continue. (See, FindLaw, How To Leave and Save Your Reputation.)

And the continued existence of such crap will continue to hurt the legal community and our clients, and make it even more difficult to find objective jurors.

Lastly, it's worth noting that Mark Bennett had previously published a partial list of New York attorneys that were supporting this kind of conduct (Call This Notice). Yet FindLaw continues, and subjects more of their clients to being associated with its ugliness. So it appears that FindLaw doesn't really care about the reputations of the very people that hire them. Considering that FindLaw is the agent of these firms, that's important.

The only way for FindLaw's clients to preserve their reputations appears to be to ship out, because it doesn't appear that FindLaw will shape up.

Labels: Attorney Ethics, FindLaw

When you are up against a deadline, the prospect of a court clerk rejecting papers can not just be problematic, but fatal. And because of prior instances where some clerks have rejected papers based on their understanding (or misunderstanding) of rules, the Office of Court Administration has issued changes.

There are now just four reasons for a clerk to reject papers:

1) papers that do not have an index number,
(2) documents commencing or concluding a lawsuit that do not list the names of all parties,
(3) filings offered in the wrong county, or
(4) documents not signed as required by court rules authorizing sanctions for frivolous contentions.

The rules come because the White Plains general practice firm of Tilem & Campbell brought a lawsuit to challenge what they saw as inappropriate rejections of papers by clerks.

From today's New York Law Journal (reg. req.)

Labels: Courts

A comment came in yesterday about a possible class action suit against FindLaw. I didn't publish it because it was a blatant advertisement for a couple of firms who bizarrely thought I created this blog so that they could freely advertise. Go figure.

But the ad itself is worth discussing so it now follows with the names of the law firms redacted.

The potential class deals with FindLaw promising attorneys that it will put them on the first page of Google, which, of course, is impossible to do for all of your clients if you have more than a few clients and you use normal keywords. Lawyer search service hustlers are pretty much everywhere these days, and slime predominates from WhoCanISue and SueEasy to FindLaw, to MalpracticeLawOffice and AnAttorneyForYou amongst the gazillion companies sleazing their way across the web.

The redacted version of the ad, originally submitted on the post on how to save thousands of dollars a year by dumping FindLaw, looks like this:

We understand that many attorneys are dissatisfied with services and products provided by FindLaw. Many laws firms have told us that their business dealings with FindLaw did not come close to meeting their expectations. For example, we have been informed that FindLaw made promises about placement on the "first page" of search engines that were not delivered?

Attorney [redacted] and [redacted] have joined forces to investigate any potential causes of action that may flow from FindLaw's business dealings with lawyers across the United States. A number of attorneys have contacted us and have asked to retain our services, therefore we are in the process of gathering more information and documentation to assist us in our investigation. Any feedback, documentation and suggestions that you would like to share with us would be greatly appreciated. We are also looking for experts in the areas of legal marketing and the Internet.

If you would like to learn more about this matter or offer your assistance, please click on the link below in order to connect with our law firms. You can expect to receive a prompt and confidential response. [redacted]

While I certainly see the anger in those that wasted big bucks with FindLaw, such a suit on these terms seems to be a no-win situation since the actual contract that the lawyers signed with FindLaw would govern, there are unlikely to be any such written "first page" assurances, and the verbal assurances (even if admissible given the existence of a written contract) would likely differ from case to case. That would tend to be problematic given the need for common questions of fact for the victims in a class action.

It would also be problematic given the sophisticated nature of the potential plaintiffs and the fact that only a moron would believe every customer could be on the first page.

To the lawyers that tried to use my blog to chase clients: If you want to chase, do it on your own dime.

While the above class action seems to be a likely loser, there may be another avenue to explore. If lawyers want to claim that FindLaw's dreck-blogs tarnishes their reputations (as well as the reputations of every other attorney in the country) and constitutes a breach of contract, then more power to you. Perhaps a suit lies in such a claim and I wish you well in nailing them to the wall for their scuzzy conduct. Here is a copy of the FindLaw Master Agreement.pdf for you to go looking for additional ammunition.

I'm just trying to help. If anyone goes that route, give FindLaw my best regards. If you succeed based on my tip, please remind them where it came from.

Labels: Class Action, FindLaw

A dramatic slip and fall caught on video. Too bad he was trying to throw a chair through a Burger King door at the time. Will he be dumb enough to sue?

Point of Law has AAJ's agenda for protecting consumer rights. They don't like the list. I do.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals opines on champerty and maintenance in New York. You don't know what that means? If you practice personal injury law, you better damn well find out at Blawgletter.

Is that really a stodgy, New York, government bureaucracy on Twitter?

How many auto accidents take place each year because of drivers distracted by cell phone use and texting? The answer is here;

OK, CareerBuilder has placed an ad on the web that I don't think you will ever see on television. My wife is still laughing...

In honor of the 20th Anniversary of The Simpsons, that law-talking guy...

Scott Greenfield has an example of a good lawyer ad from one of the bastion of fine personal injury firms in New York, Trolman Glaser and Lichtman -- even Walter Olson seems to like it! Too bad the firm also  is part of the wretched FindLaw system of using dreck-blogs for advertisements. Hey TGL, if you're reading this, isn't it time to get on the phone with your FindLaw rep and tell them to stop creating stuff that hurts our clients and our reputations? It's already hard enough to find impartial jurors for personal injury cases, we don't need them making things worse;

Finally, Blawg Review #246 at The Client Revolution, looking into the crystal ball at the future of law.

Labels: Random Notes