Eric,

My guess is "Ms. Lunt, Esq." googled the pseudonymous Dr. Flea, as he suggested, & lo and behold she unmasked him! Result, good bye blog, at least for now.

Now come on Eric, why not out the good Dr. and/or better yet identify the players in the ongoing Boston, MA case.

A Fan of "The Game"
 

I don't think Googling can unmask him. There are way too many pediatricians that fit his vague description. And it is highly unlikely his blog was found by plaintiff's counsel on her own, since these blogs are really pretty obscure compared with newspapers. If someone like that were to be outed, it would probably be because another patient or a colleague of his saw it and passed on the info.

Best guess is that his own counsel, out of an abundance of (appropriate) caution, told him to take it down.

And, by the way, I practice in New York, not MA, and don't know any of the parties or their attorneys.

--ET
 

Or perhaps one of the lawyers (for either side!) found out about it via the legal blogs, where it was starting to get some significant play.

Quite a while ago, I emailed him at his site and got a bounce message containing his real name. I haven't been interested enough to search through the trial records and figure out who the other players are. But his track-covering has definitely not been perfect in the past.
 

I don't think we will see this blog reappear. I think the risks are too high. I have no doubt that there are lawyers right now, trying to figure out who various medical bloggers are and who their patients are, so they can file suit against the doctors for "privacy violations" and then "settle" instead of going to trial. (aka to non-lawyers as "legal extortion")

Once that becomes common (i.e. happens even once) we will see US medical blogs disappear. It will be a shame when that happens.

It wouldn't surprise me if "Ms. Lunt, Esq." will try to get the identity of all of Flea's patients, and get a class action going for privacy violations.

Medical malpractice insurance isn't at a state where it can accomodate blogging. There isn't enough experience with it to be able to set premiums. There isn't enough income associated with blogging to support even modest insurance premiums.

The UK medical blogs will stay up because in the UK legal system the loser pays the legal bills of the winner. If the US were to adopt that policy, marginal lawsuits would disappear in the US too. But then so would marginal lawyers. As a non-lawyer cynic, I say that will never happen.

But hey, when a judge can demand $65 million for a lost pair of pants, what does anyone expect?

It is what is known as a "tragedy of the commons". When a resource is not privately controlled, the first to exploit it can liquidate it and acquire what ever the liquidated value is. The liquidated value of medical blogging might be a few hundred $k. The non-liquidated value to everyone collectively might be higher, but who ever liquidates it first gets all the liquidated value.

With such a time pressure to be first it will probably happen within a month.
 

Speaking as a medical malpractice plaintiff's attorney, I can tell you this guy is every med mal defense attorneys worst nightmare. Not only is he posting about his trial, but his posts are arrogant, condescending and sophomoric. Referring to opposing counsel as a "pillow biter?" Seriously. I can only imagine what a peach he must be as a client. In case you can't find his prior posts anywhere else, you can see them on my blog as I made pdf's of them.
Hans Poppe
http://www.poppelawfirm.com/blog/
 

Poppe,

And why on Earth would you choose to do that? Do you just feel the urge to show that malpractice attorneys are indeed the ill-intentioned parasites that most people already think they are?

You are simply disgusting.
 

Maria
You say "malpractice attorneys are indeed the ill-intentioned parasites that most people already think they are" like it is a "bad" thing.

It is not a "bad" thing, it is a "good" thing. It is a "good" thing that the current legal system requires "good" lawyers to be "bad" people. A "good" lawyer is supposed to do anything that is not illegal, necessary for his/her client to "win".

What does Dr Flea being sophomoric about "legal" tactics have to do with medical malpractice? Absolutely nothing, but if plaintifs counsel can use that to "win", irrespective of the facts in the medical malpractice case, that is just "good lawyering".

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The legal system has absolute power, and the legal system has become absolutely corrupted.

The adversarial legal system we have is derivative of the "trial by combat" and later "trial by champion" system of "justice" that prevailed in times past.

It is not about "justice", it is about winning. Winning isn't about principles, it is about money.
 

ET, I have a question for you.

I think I have a solution under a terms of use agreement. Essentially, the blog is only offered under a "terms of use" where the user agrees to not use the content to identify the blogger or individuals blogged about, and agrees that if the user does identify the blogger and disclose that to a third party, that the user is responsible for all damages plus 3x punitive damages.

Does this work? Or am I being hopelessly naïve?
 

Daedalus, your first problem is that you can't get punitive damages for a breach of contract. Also, I doubt that this agreement would prevent anyone from testifying, as you suggest, since it would be against public policy to allow contracts to override the legal interests of the public in a full and fair trial.

Finally, in order to enforce a "terms of use" agreement online, you probably have to require a click-through accepting the terms to get to the content. A "ha ha ha, you read it so you have to comply with my terms" agreement isn't going to be enforced - there has to be a meaningful opportunity to opt out of the contract.
 

Oh, and there's no such thing as an "oral derivative work". To the extent you're using copyright for protection, the work must be fixed in a medium for copyright to attach.
 

I think I have a solution under a terms of use agreement. Essentially, the blog is only offered under a "terms of use" where the user agrees to not use the content to identify the blogger or individuals blogged about, and agrees that if the user does identify the blogger and disclose that to a third party, that the user is responsible for all damages plus 3x punitive damages.

Does this work? Or am I being hopelessly naïve?

Hopelessly naive. It takes 2 to make a contract. If you post something on the web (like the secret communications with your attorney) there is nothing to prevent others from using it at a trial if deemed appropriate.

--ET
 

What about live performance art? Singing a copyrighted song? Isn't that an oral derivative work?
 

"What about live performance art? Singing a copyrighted song? Isn't that an oral derivative work?"
The song is copyrightable, but you're not creating a derivative work when you sing it - you're just publicly performing it (which is a violation of the copyright unless you have a license).