Overlawyered.Com:
I like this site, and if you do too, you might want to vote for it in the ABA's Blawg 100 "Generally Speaking" category. "You may vote for as many blawgs as you wish, but you can vote for any particular blawg only once." (I voted for How Appealing as well as Overlawyered.)
That could be better worded. It took me a few minutes to try to figure out whether that sentence was a mistake, or a nonsensical joke, or whether I was just an idiot not understanding it properly. (It sounded like the sentence was saying "vote for as many blawgs as you want, but you can only vote once for one blawg.") Turns out I was just an idiot.
(For all other idiots like me, the sentence means that you can cast a vote for as many blawgs as you like, but for each blawg you do vote for, you can only cast one ballot, and no more.)
I know that's a strong claim to make. Here are the details if interested:
On 12/20, three articles inspired me to comment: One comment was benign and neutral, and was posted fairly quickly:
STORIES THAT SHOULDN'T GET AWAY, PART I
(Comment by me, Robb Shecter)
My comments on two other posts, though, were motivated by the blogged-about websites:
I AM LAWSUIT ABUSE
JUDICIAL HELLHOLES 2007
I found reasonable questions about their motivations after I read them and took the time to look into the sites' sources. (I found that both sites either have no data to back up their claims, or misinterpret data to promote their point of view. They appeared to simply be marketing or propaganda.)
My comments weren't critical of Overlawyered; but rather written in a cautionary, fact-checking tone about what I'd found. Until this experience, I hadn't thought that there was a political dimension to this topic or blog. I'm disappointed that this may be the case!
So anyhow, that's my story. This experience was disconcerting enough to me, that it's inspired me to start a group blog with fellow law students. Above everything, I believe we must be fact- and evidence-based in our communication and policy making.
So no - they won't get my vote. :-(
Also meant to add that my fact-checking comments were *not* posted.
In Shecter's case, he complained that about the quality of data the I Am Lawsuit Abuse website cited -- and then made a series of incorrect factual assertions that didn't cite any data, making one wonder about the sincerity of his original objections. He also asked a question ("Who is the group [that established the I Am Lawsuit Abuse website]?") that was answered in the first five words of the post he was ostensibly commenting on, but apparently hadn't actually read. These two things combined led me to believe (perhaps incorrectly) that this first-time commenter was attempting to troll, rather than seriously engage in a discussion.
I also took his comment that he "couldn't find any data" in the Judicial Hellholes report -- which had over 450 footnotes -- to be a troll in light of the other comment.
Plaintiffs' attorneys Peter Nordberg and Eric Turkewitz regularly post thoughtful comments that disagree with us, and I've never moderated a single one of their comments. Other websites post every comment, and let comment threads devolve into name-calling. If moderation means I have the occasional false positive and over-moderate a good-faith comment that was just honestly clueless rather than disingenuous, it's worth it not to have every thread devolve into the anonymous rantings of "Supremacy Claus" against "land pirates."
Do not worry. It is a sign of Overlawyered.com's intellectual flabbiness and tendency towards propaganda rather than truth that it does not dare allow unmoderated comments. Apparently, it is a blog for true believers.
One really good thing has come of this. You are no longer so naive when looking at this propaganda. Hopefully, you are a more critical thinker who will think twice before making assumptions about the political neutrality of other sites.
But, apparently, comments that agree with a post without contributing information are good and allowed. Only those that disagree are held to this standard.
They censor viewpoints that they dislike - see the discussion above.
If there were a list of "worst" sites, it would get my vote for that.
But from re-checking these sources, I think my initial take was on target:
1) I can't find a) statistical data or b) real methodology in the JUDICIAL HELLHOLES report. All that I saw are *anecdotal reports* of headline-grabbing excesses. And these are what are footnoted, as you mentioned. But I believe a better, scientific standard is to look at some kind of aggregate data - not just focussing on the attention grabbers. For example, "A state is a Hellhole if its 2006 per capita tort awards are 30% above the national median."
Maybe I simply didn't look in the right part of the document. I'm happy to find out if I'm wrong.
2) I AM LAWSUIT ABUSE: I don't remember how I asked about the name of the organization. Maybe I wasn't too articulate. Today, however, I rechecked the site and sources, and believe that my substantive issues (which you didn't address above) are still valid:
This site is deceptive in a bait-and-switch style: 1) Slick video presentations that often don't make solid claims that can be refuted. e.g., Dr. Olga Jarett's story; Randy Baumgarten's story. 2) The emotional / man-on-the-street story lines of the "Stories" are not the types of torts referred to in the Towers Perrin report - Asbestos, and other less sexy tort sources. 3) The "Facts" they quote are generally either not facts (opinion polls) or are used misleadingly: The Towers Perrin report actually shows that, with the exception of two costly years, tort costs have been FALLING since 1991, and probably a few years beforehand. (p. 3) And those exceptions? Due to asbestos claims. (p. 4) Surely, this would be recognized in a balanced report.
Quick summary - I'm totally open to the idea that tort reform needs to happen, but these two sources have an unwholesome and questionable feel.
And secondly - maybe my original comments weren't as clearly written as this one. Would the above had satisfied your editorial requirements?
There are also many outright lies or half lies in MOST of their stories. For instance, they lied that the guy who sued 1-800-Flowers did not have an express agreement to keep his name away from soon-to-be ex. They were negotiating a settlement at that point, and in no way was he cheating. But that would make suit look as a book case of breach of contract.
Towers Perrin does not show tort costs "falling since 1991." It shows tort costs rising from 0.62% of GDP to 2.28% of GDP between 1950 and 1987, dropping in response to the first wave of tort reform to 1.81% by 1999, increasing sharply from 2000 to 2003, and down to 1.87% in 2006, more than triple what it was in 1950. But just because I've lost 20 pounds in the last few months doesn't mean I'm not overweight--and, as I've noted on several occasions, Towers Perrin's estimates understate the impact of the tort system by failing to take any measurement of the secondary effects of raised costs to consumers, lost jobs and depressed wages, and adverse effects on public health and safety. (And given that these days most asbestos costs are imposed upon innocent third parties, that more asbestos money goes to lawyers than to injured plaintiffs, and the extensive fraud by the plaintiffs' bar in the asbestos context, asbestos remains fertile ground for reform.)
I don't write the Judicial Hellhole report, which is merely an attempt to document jurisdictions where the judiciary systematically acts abusively to funnel money to trial lawyers. If anything, it's underinclusive.
What is the lie in Jason Barney's account of the 1-800-Flowers case? I don't see it. Three different posters wrote about the case on Overlawyered, and not one claimed that Leroy Greer didn't have an express contract, merely that it was a suit that readers might be interested in. The anonymous poster is mistaken in his characterization of the case, though: Greer alleges that he had reconciled with his wife, who had moved back in, but had his outside relationship exposed when 1-800-Flowers faxed the receipt to his wife at her request. I won't be so uncharitable as to call Gg's misstatement a "lie," however.
My most recent Overlawyered post linked to Consumerist's call for anti-reform legislation, and Overlawyered regularly links to and comments upon anti-reform articles, blog posts, op-eds, and legislation, so r78's and Gg's claims of "censorship" and one-sidedness are the false attacks of people who never read the site. (r78: didn't you throw a big fit because I didn't explicitly disclose that I work for AEI, even though it's public information? How come you never disclose that you work for a California plaintiffs' law firm that is extorting money from innocent defendants when you launch your attacks on civil justice reform and reformers?)
It's certainly not true that I don't deal with "opposing views"; my most recent SSRN piece does nothing but. Because of the holidays, I've only posted a few times in the last week, but I link to the anti-reform site Consumerist, Paul Krugman, Daily Kos, and Barack Obama on posts I've written that are currently on the front page.
Of course not. I get that. I tried to make that clear. I'm just pointing out interesting information I see about these documents, in the (assumedly) same spirit that you were, when you found them and linked to them.
BTW, I disagree with your Towers Perrin analysis, but I think we can leave that conversation where it is - it's OT here; I don't want to annoy people.
My real point was to show that this is a subject about which reasonable people can disagree, and that these documents may be questionable. And not to prod you too hard, but I don't think you answered my question:
NB: I think I actually put a lot of detail in the posts above - more than I usually would for a simple blog comment.
Several plaintiffs' firms (including, by one of r78's comments in another thread, r78's) are guilty of legalized extortion: I think it's a public-policy problem when a law firm brings hundreds of meritless cases, and then settles for less than the cost of defense at pennies on the dollar of the claimed injuries for a big payday for the attorneys.
I've always found the posts and comments in Volokh to be more balanced, or at least more intellectually rigorous than those at Overlawyered. I would hope regular readers of Volokh would not read Overlawyered, or ATLA for that matter, with the same expectation of quality commentary on the law.
Like the Tillinghast report Frank so happily cites, Overlawyered is filled with misleading statistics and dubious methodology of the same kind Frank routinely criticizes anti-tort "reform" groups like Public Citizen of using.
As to the baselessness of my comment above, well, I'll leave that to anyone who has ever read Overlawyered to decide on. I'm sorry you take it so personally that you're a lobbyist. As I've told you before, I don't know why, because you're really quite good at it and you should be proud of that.
I am flattered, however, that you keep track of all the sites I have or have not commented on. I am also a HUGE fan of the NBA, so you might also want to check Truehoop, on ESPN.com's NBA section, for me. I have occasionally commented there and I know you won't want to miss a word of my insight.
EV was kind enough to delete this information from this site.
So do not dare post a comment over at Overlawyered unless you don't mind you personal information being published by Ted Frank.
As a physician every time a patient dies I consider it a failure. Similarly every time a law suit is filed it is a failure. The goal should be to totally eliminate all law suits and or at least try and hold them to a minimum. But proposals to move in that direction are opposed by liberals. (loser pays). Now I know this is how you make your living but how does this benefit society? What is it about being a liberal makes you want more and more law suits? Saying this is how the little man can succeed against the rich and powerful is way too self-serving.
I don't think this is a "liberal" or "conservative" issue, inasmuch as those terms are still useful, if they ever were. It would seem most forms of "tort reform" would be anti-conservative, at least in the anti-big government, power to the individual sense. If you're truly a libertarian, the most typical "reform", damage caps, ought to be opposed by you.
No one wants more and more lawsuits. In fact, tort claims are on the decline - what's on the upswing are businesses suing businesses, but there aren't any "reform" movements to limit those, if you'll notice.
I disagree that when one of your patients dies you have failed, for the simple reason that we all die, which doesn't mean you fail every time. However, a lawsuit is in a sense a failure to reach an amicable resolution. But some times it stems from an honest disagreement, and I can't think of a more effective or fair way to have that disagreement resolved than by 12 people without a stake in the outcome. Would it be preferable if the parties found another way? Sure, but obviously they can't.
BTW, I'm not an "opponent" of Overlawyered - it's a site reflecting the position of corporate interests in the debate, which is not necessarily bad. I am an opponent of many of the proposals that side makes to achieve their goals however.
Also, almost every state already has a form of loser pays, via "offers of judgment". I say "almost" because I haven't reviewed all of them, but I would expect it includes every one.
I don't know if this was addressed to me or not but since it followed my post, I will try to respond.
I agree that in an ideal world, we would not have lawsuits. In that world, doctors would not negligently kill people, priests wouldn't molest school children, drunks wouldn't get behind the wheel of a car, corporations wouldn't sell shoddy or dangerous products, and so forth. But, unfortunately, we don't live in that world. And - lest I be accused of being a simplistic propaganda machine like others - let me say that the vast majority of doctors, hospitals, corporate employee, etc. are honest and ethical and want to do the right thing.
The right to access to courts isn't a liberal versus conservative issue. I am a AUH2O Conservative and believe in personal responsibility. When someone's negligence or recklessness injures other people, they should be held accountable. If we were to criminally prosecute more people, there would be fewer civil suits.
As a physician, I have beneficial therapies removed from my armamentarium because of junk science presented in the courtroom. I hope you or your wives never get pregnancy related morning sickness because the very best therapy has been removed from the market. It was the exact equivalent of wrongfully convicted but here there is no exoneration.
Presidential candidate Edwards made millions successfully collecting after arguments that were based on a false claim totally reputiated by science. But instead of being shunned he is a liberal hero. He stole massively from the rich, gave a little to the poor and kept the rest for himself.
Does this make me an apologist for big business? I own no stock in any of those companies but my sense of justice is upset.
r78 has never commented on Overlawyered. I got his IP address when he left an exceedingly nasty personal attack on my personal blog, which warns that IP addresses are retained, and he's lucky I didn't post it there: there's no right to throw false personal accusations around anonymously, especially from someone who is perpetually whining about undisclosed associations. r78's claim of being a Goldwater conservative is highly questionable, given his commenting history on this blog and others.
Libertarian1, you may be interested in the regular discussion of medical malpractice litigation and expert evidence at Overlawyered and the Point of Law blog.
I agree that there are silly lawsuits. I wish they're weren't and I admit that I feel that way because of selfish reasons - every time I go before a jury with what I believe is a legitimate case I face an uphill battle because most of the people on the jury will biased from the start against plaintiffs because they have heard about all the silly suits.
In reality, the number of civil personal injury suits has beeen declining steadily in California - but you wouldn't know that from reading the paper.
Re Edwards: I don't know the specifics of the cases he has tried. The only one I really read much about is the one where the girl was injured by the swimming pool filter vacuum. If Edwards did win verdicts that were contrary to science, I agree with you that that is wrong. But, at the same time, if the evidence he submitted did convince the jury I have enough respect for the jury system that I don't think I would substitute my judgment for theirs.
I am not saying that the jury system is perfect. I have lost cases that I know in my heart I should have won just because of the bias of 4 jurors on a panel of 12. But that doesn't make me think that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater and get rid of the jury system and, instead, just go with judges to decide these things. Because, as much respect as I have for judges, they are just people, too, and not immune to the prejudices and opinions that we all have.
Plaintiff and his lawyer stated clearly about express agreement regaring confidentiality on NBC morning show. That makes it a clear cut case of breach of contract. But overlawyered spin doctors always manage to miss such info. They continue to the evry day recycling of the original false inuendo.
Note that nowhere in here does Ted Frank deny that he published by IP address and personal information.
And apparently in Frankspeak "exceedingly nasty personal attack" translates to daring to mention Frank's corporate paymasters.
Finally, the post that Frank links to confirms my Goldwater conservative credentials. When discussing "conservatives" in that post, I start by defining that term as it is used in popular political discourse today. True conservatives do not favor torture, rampant government surveillance, corporate welfare, etc. but, unfortunately, "conservatives" as that term is widely used today, do.
But I am glad to see that Mr. Frank is working hard on behalf of his corporate sponsors over at the AEI today. They are getting a good return on their investment.
link 1
link 2
link 3
link 4
By the way, I basically agree with mrb: Mr. Frank and his colleagues are running an advocacy site, a very effective one, which I think mrb correctly analogizes to ATLA's output. I agree with some of the litigation problems that Mr. Frank identifies although, like mrb, I often disagree with the proposed solution. Many plaintiffs' lawyers feel the same way I do about these issues and find the over the top characterization of the plaintiffs' bar found on sites like Overlawyered to be unfair. But my main point is: the Volokh Conspiracy tends to carefully select issues to blog about and then go into depth, almost always reserving final judgment until all of the facts are in and can be digested and weighed. In stark contrast, Overlawyered is an advocacy site, with hit and run descriptions of controversies that fit their thesis and, regrettably, with a fairly constant insinuation of improper conduct directed at the plaintiff's lawyer not just before the facts are in but immediately when the lawsuit is filed.
If you're a physician, you know that the press doesn't always report medical issues correctly or thoroughly, and you shouldn't be surprised that not all legal issues are reported thoroughly as well. Many of the crazy cases you read about are small claims cases filed by people acting without a lawyer. Would we like to get rid of those? Sure - but we can't get rid of them before they actually file. So the headline gets picked up that so and so asked for $1 billion dollars because of this or that, but the fact the case gets tossed gets no press. There's a woman in my area who calls my office twice a year wanting to sue the President and FBI for wiretapping her phone to get her recipes. One of these days she's going to figure out she can file by herself in small claims and the press will pick it up. The judge will dismiss it shortly thereafter, but you'll only remember that someone filed suit for that and shake your head at our "lawsuit culture". But how would you handle that case differently?
As for Edwards, without seeing the evidence, I have no idea if his cases were legit or not. And if you haven't seen the evidence, you really don't either. It would be like the public deciding if your care was correct based on a newspaper article. And as to how much his client's got, you don't know that either. But you've made a lot of assumptions which you would bristle about if someone made about you with so little facts.
Are all lawsuits good? Legitimate claims? No. No human endeavor is perfect. Is there room for improvement - absolutely, again all human endeavors have room for improvement. But it's not as bad as Ted and the other lobbyists for his side would have you believe, and their solutions are not about making it more "fair", but rather benefiting their clients.
I don't expect you to agree with me completely. But you do need to understand there is no lily white side in this debate. And the propaganda put out by Overlawyered and its ilk is only one side of the issue, and it is just that - propaganda designed to promote the interests of its backers.
I appreciate your willingness to admit that Overlawyered is primarily interested in advancing the cause of limiting what the individual can recover in a negligence claim.
As for your other "highlights", let's just say they are few and far between, and the site's advocacy of reforms in those areas is, shall we say, limited.
Ted, how can one have an honest discussion with a duck who won't admit he's a duck? First, you have to be honest about what you are, and that's a lobbyist. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
And I'm betting many defendants feel pretty bad about the way plaintiffs' lawyers characterize them; that's life. The question isn't whether it hurts their feelings, but whether it's wrong. We've published responses from attorneys whose work we've criticized before. We've published corrections when we've made factual errors before.
I said, of course, nothing of the kind. We're "primarily interested" -- besides in web traffic -- in limiting meritless litigation that burdens society. If you think that most meritless litigation consists of negligence claims filed by individuals, well, maybe you're right, but we have no special interest in that type of case.
(Caveat: I speak for myself, not Ted or Walter.)
David,
I guess the key there is what constitutes "meritless litigation" and "burdens society". Because it appears that the society you speak of primarily consists of insurers and corporate America. Despite the fact that businesses file suit at a rate 3x that of individuals, most of the "meritless" claims Overlawyered seems interested in are those filed by individuals.
Like I said, you're a tort reform lobbying site, and that's fine. I don't know why you guys want to pretend to be something else if you truly believe in tort reform.
Well, I agree that we're not "balanced," but "balance" is a journalistic slogan of dubious merit which is not at all the same thing as being "fair." ("He says 2+2=4, but she says it equals 6.") We do worry about accuracy, but not "balance."
And as for "innuendo," at least our "innuendo" doesn't result in the forced transfer of millions of dollars from deep pockets to the people willing to make the most shameless arguments.
You're better than this. I hope.
(And I don't have any objection to contingency fees, which appears to be what you're referring to when you say "what they can pay their lawyer." The only time I think it's anybody's business how much the attorney makes is in a class action.)
Assuming arguendo that your facts are true -- I've never tallied them -- so what? Are you claiming that this shows bias because you think businesses and individuals are equally likely to file a meritless suit? Is there any reason to believe that?
As for our purpose, if publicizing meritless suits leads to policy changes, great, but we don't "lobby."
(And I don't have any objection to contingency fees, which appears to be what you're referring to when you say "what they can pay their lawyer." The only time I think it's anybody's business how much the attorney makes is in a class action.)
Assuming arguendo that your facts are true -- I've never tallied them -- so what? Are you claiming that this shows bias because you think businesses and individuals are equally likely to file a meritless suit? Is there any reason to believe that?
As for our purpose, if publicizing meritless suits leads to policy changes, great, but we don't "lobby."
You're right, but in this case it actually is true. When "tort reform" legislation, which you said is Overlawyered's primary interest, has an impact on family law cases or contract disputes, you let me know. Until then, let's not play silly games.
"I want to limit suits of dubious merit in order to limit costs imposed on innocent parties and society, and for legitimate suits, I want to limit windfall damages all out of proportion to the injury claimed."
I agree with you wholeheartedly. We just don't agree that the tort reform proposals advanced in most legislatures do that. I am glad to see you have no objection to contingency fees, but most posters and commenters on the site do.
As to your lobbying, I haven't read all your posts individually, so perhaps that's correct. But as a site, that is exactly what Overlawyered is intended to do, lobby for tort reform. And frankly, I can't figure out why you guys are so ashamed of it.
It is so obvious that I must be missing all the legal ramifications. Judge: Maam, your case is dismissed. Clerk: Please remit court costs of $1000. Don't have it, we will seize your assets.
That is bad because the poor won't be able to file meaningless lawsuits? To me it is a win:win for society.
"Edwards won at least 94 cases, according to Lawyers Weekly, of which 54 netted more than $1 million each. Normally attorneys take a 40 percent cut of cases that go to trial. In his last year as a practicing attorney, 1997, he reported an adjusted gross income of $11.4 million. Of course, despite their slimy reputation, trial lawyers can be on the side of right. It just happens Edwards wasn't.
Medical malpractice was his specialty, and he reportedly tried more than 60 such cases, winning more than $1 million in over half of those. Most involved Ob/gyns. Indeed, he was so feared, according to the Center for Public Integrity, "that doctors would settle cases for millions of dollars rather than face him at trial."
Edwards' specialty was cerebral palsy, a set of permanent conditions affecting control of movement and posture that usually appear at toddler stage. There is no cure, although stem cell studies in both humans (umbilical cord cells) and rats (neural cells) have produced promising results. More than 10,000 U.S. children are diagnosed with it yearly. Edwards claimed the disease developed because negligent doctors ignored fetal heart monitors indicating the child might not be getting enough air during birth and thus failed to deliver it immediately through cesarean surgery.
Yet Edwards won his cases not because scientific evidence favored him but because of his smooth-talking "trust-me" demeanor -- and heart-wrenching pleas in which he ghoulishly sometimes pretended to be the voice of the unfortunate child crying out for justice.
It's not considered impossible that asphyxiation during birth could cause cerebral palsy; just darned unlikely. United Cerebral Palsy lists about a dozen ways to help prevent the condition. Not one mentions the birthing procedure.
A 2003 study evaluated almost 1,000 life births to see if cerebral palsy or other problems could by affected by type of birth. Conclusion: "Delivery mode (whether vaginal or cesarean delivery) was not associated with any of the outcomes that were evaluated."
Months earlier, another study observed that cerebral palsy rates have shown "no change over 30 years" despite fetal monitoring and a huge increase in the number of C-sections. Further, "The prevalence of cerebral palsy is the same or lower in underdeveloped countries than in developed nations," even though "emergency cesarean delivery based on electronic monitor data is limited or absent."
Now here's the horrible kicker: A Swedish report released in December found that emergency cesarean delivery increased the odds of cerebral palsy by a statistically significant 80 percent. It's bad for the mother, too. Another 2006 study, in the journal Obstetrics &Gynecology, found that moms with cesareans had more than three-and-a-half times the chance of dying shortly after childbirth than those who had vaginal delivery.
"Some of the increased risks for the mother include possible infection of the uterus and nearby pelvic organs; increased bleeding; blood clots in the legs, pelvic organs and sometimes the lungs, says the March of Dimes. Further, cesarean birth "is more painful, is more expensive, and takes longer to recover from than a vaginal birth," says the group.
But scientific reality is but a minor hurdle to slick plaintiffs lawyers like Edwards. Insurance companies fork over massive payments to plaintiffs and their lawyers, then pass the costs on to doctors in malpractice fees. In one state, annual Ob/gyn malpractice premiums have reached $250,000."
Nor do I ever see how often Edwards advocated a C-section would have been the right thing to do in his cases. Or how he would be responsible for an explosion in C-sections when no one seems to know anything about the evidence in his cases. Particularly when many of his cases would have resulted in confidential settlements.
Insurance companies do pay out for the injuries their insureds cause. Isn't that why we buy insurance? Is it an inherently bad thing because they do pay for the risks they cover sometimes? Which state has average annual OB-GYN premiums of $250,000?
I keep reading all these claims, but the factual basis behind them is never shown. I'm not sure how one can demonize Edwards about cases where they didn't see the evidence. It would be like demonizing all surgeons because you heard about one who operated drunk.
Windfall "damages" in family law actions? Was this written by a lawyer?
It is odd, indeed, that Overlawyered contributors squeal so much when anyone points out the fact that Overlawyered is a corporate funded tort-reform site. Nieporent above states:
If you think that most meritless litigation consists of negligence claims filed by individuals, well, maybe you're right, but we have no special interest in that type of case.
Nieporent above states:
All anyone needs to do to disprove that statement is just scroll through the past 20 or 30 posts over at Overlawyered. There are several posts about personal injury actions and two or three carping about John Edwards. To suggest that is is just some odd coincidence that so many of their posts parrot the standard "lawsuits are out of control" and the "libruls are coming to take you money" is just a coincidence is silly.
I don't see why they're ashamed of being lobbyists and corporate mouthpieces. The pay is good for those occupations. ATLA - or whatever it is called - promotes the interests of its members. Overlawyered (and several other sites) promote the interests of corporations and insurers. Why lie about it?
Overlawyered is not "funded" by anybody, "corporate" or otherwise, unless you count the BlogAds at the side of the page.
What's odd is that you're so unable to rebut any of the things we post that you spend all your time engaging in ad hominems.
We don't "parrot" the "lawsuits are out of control" line. (Perhaps other people "parrot" us?)
Edwards is a trial lawyer running to the far left in this campaign. That's not a coincidence, but it has nothing to do with the site itself. We've criticized Trent Lott. We've criticized Rudy Giuliani for his gun litigation and Michael Bloomberg for the same, plus for his general nanny-statism. And Mike Huckabee for his. It happens that the trial lawyer lobby is generally heavily pro-Democrat, but there's nothing we can do about that. You seem to want the phony kind of balance the MSM practices, in which if we say something bad about someone who happens to be a Democrat, we also have to find a Republican to criticize. But we cover an issue. If one party is more right than the other on that issue, well, then, we're going to criticize one party more than another.
Because it's wrong -- we don't get paid by anybody to do Overlawyered -- and it's also economically illiterate. Since corporations and insurers aren't magical money trees, the "interests of corporations and insurers" are the interests of consumers.
It doesn't benefit consumers when a college student sues a bed manufacturer because he fell out of a bunk bed when his alarm clock woke him up. It certainly doesn't benefit consumers when it takes seven years for the courts to reject this lawsuit.
Perhaps the lesson is that it's a bad idea to try and promulgate wholesale changes in the law based on the actions of a few individuals? Whether they be drunk college students or CEOs of multinational corporations.
(And perhaps the mere fact that legislation is (purportedly) intended to prevent a particular problem does not mean that it actually does so, or that it's a cost-effective way of doing so?)Sure. That's why we compile reports about lawsuits filed by many people, rather than "a few individuals." And why we don't advocate -- we can't promulgate laws -- "wholesale changes" in any law. It's not as if, e.g., loser pays is some sort of weird idea plucked from thin air by some columnist for the Wall Street Journal; it's a common feature of many countries' legal systems.
That's not my thesis, so if you say so. I find nothing inherently evil about corporations and insurers. I have several businesses that are incorporated.
"That's why we compile reports about lawsuits filed by many people, rather than "a few individuals."
Even the "many people" you compile "reports" on represent a tiny percentage of the suits filed. It's like making policy recommendations based on the corporate wrongdoings highlighted by Mother Jones. You're right, loser pays isn't novel (although it's also not as widespread in those countries as is often implied), but we already have it in most, if not all, states, so I'm not sure why you're even hanging on to that.
We both know that the centerpiece of almost every tort reform effort is damage caps. Pretending otherwise is silly.
I don't know who specifically pays for the servers for Overlawyered. But it is just that was started, I believe, by Walter Olsen of the Manhattan Institute. According to Wikipedia "The Manhattan Institute received $19,470,416 in grants from 1985-2005, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation. [10] The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon Mobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merill Lynch."
Ted Frank is or was an employees of the American Enterprise Institute. According to Wikipedia: AEI has received more than $30 million (combined) in funding from sources including:[citation needed]
* The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.
* Castle Rock Foundation
* Coors Brewing Company
* Earhart Foundation
* ExxonMobil
* JM Foundation
* Microsoft Corporation [1]
* Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Rockefeller Brothers Fund[32]
* Sarah Scaife Foundation
* Scaife Family Foundation
* Smith Richardson Foundation
I don't know what portion of that funding trickles down to Mr. Frank but he did recently publicly state on one of his blogs that he became a millionaire on paper in 2007 for some period of time. Cheers to him.
I guess Overlawyered is just extra-lucky that the "right" party just so happens to be the one who provides the funding for its writers. But, that could change at any moment, right?
What a joke. So in you believe that there is no action that a corporation or insurer could possibly take that would primarily benefit its executives and shareholders at the expense of consumers generally? That is just an economic impossibility in your mind. That is your idea of being economically literate?
Let's put this in concrete terms. Have you heard of Enron? Who do you think benefited from their fraudulent schemes? Was it a) Enron executives, b) Enron shareholders who dumped the stock before it tanked, or c) consumers? And bonus points if you can identify what corporate funded think tank had Enron CEO Kenneth Lay on its board of trustees. (Okay, I'll give that one to you, it was the American Enterprise Institute)
Oh wait, is that an ad homeniem? Pointing out that a funder and board member of AEI was a swindler?
And for the record, I don't like people who engage in the same sort of un-nuanced vitriol from the opposing side, which is why I am appalled by the Edwards campaign and his blame everything on corporations shtick.
As a 1L, I had Civ Pro 1 last semester, which used the case book Civil Procedure, Sixth Ed. by Stephen C. Yeazell. (I really enjoyed it; Clearly written, and lots of practice "hypos".) I remembered reading this:
In no way do I think that I'm an expert of this subject matter, but some information in the case book does seem to contradict the assertions made by Overlawyered, I Am Lawsuit Abuse, etc. And so when I saw those posts on Overlawyered, my natural instinct was to look for the data behind the claims. And as I described above, I was unsuccessful in my search.
But back to Yeazell's book. Section V, Incentives to Litigate (starting at p.259) was really interesting, and dead-on-target to this discussion. This section breaks with common case book form, and presents data, bar charts and graphs on a variety of topics, such as Civil Litigation in U.S. Courts, 1984-2000. Here's another relevant quote from the section:
NB: My point here isn't to show that "tort reform is unnecessary", but rather to raise the level of discussion - to look for real evidence, rather than headline-grabbing anecdotes.
Unfortunately, the statistics on this issue are rarely comprehensive, which allows people to pick and choose what they like from those stats. For example, David would rightly question why 1984, and I'd guess it's because they didn't keep the stat before then. Likewise, during the med mal "crisis", Overlawyered liked to mention how much insurers had lost since 2001. Why 2001? Because the 90s had been very profitable for insurers.
Well, then, it's pretty foolish of you to talk about it, isn't it?
None of which, of course, are corporations. (And that's less than a million per year, not exactly a huge amount.) The breakdown can be seen here. And what's your point? Overlawyered is not run by the Manhattan Institute.
No party provides any funding for any of us. And your comment would be incoherent if it weren't false. Why would it be "lucky"? Whatever groups of people support tort reform would support us.
I do not "assume" that plaintiff's lawyers are greedy or unethical; when plaintiff's lawyers do something greedy or unethical, I point it out.
I guess you have to be a lawyer to read that and not get upset. In tort cases 51% of the time the decision is in favor of the defendant so it only costs him tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees (lawyers win!!) instead of additional millions in judgments. And you have a difficult time understanding why in other parts of the civilized world -loser pays.
And, from my moderate exposure to science and statistics, the median seems to often be preferred to the mean as a measure of central tendency. (And there are many others.)
For example, national home prices are often (usually?) reported as "median home prices." This probably because, for that data set - a large number of data points clustered around some areas, but with some extremes at one end - the median gives a more accurate impression.
I think it could reasonably be argued that the median is the appropriate measure for tort costs for exactly the same reasons as those for home prices. But to really know if it's the best, we'd have to know other measures; standard deviation form the mean, etc.
Tens of thousands? Really? I can't imagine the average car wreck case, which I believe is the majority of individual tort cases, costs tens of thousands. I'd be interested to know the actual cost. And generally, it doesn't cost the individual defendant anything but his deductible. It costs his insurance company. And being in the insurance business has been, with the exception of the hurricane years, extremely profitable.
Again, we have loser pays, and it's not applied to every case in other parts of the "civilized world". By the way, simply saying they do it elsewhere doesn't mean much. Other parts of the civilized world have universal health care. Does that mean it's a good thing?
That's not exactly true David. When the media "botches", or you disagree with its premise, a story which reflects negatively on corporate America or negatively on tort reform efforts, you usually do a thorough investigation and report multiple ways to debunk it. That intellectual rigor is not as prevalent on Overlawyered with reports that fit into the site's tort reform mission.
Again, I fail to understand why you don't want to acknowledge that Overlawyered is a tort reform lobbying site. It's very good at doing that.
Actually,I reproduced it word for word so there is no game to play. I guess now you realize that it was silly to imply that there were windfalls in family law. That you childishly attempt to argue that I doctored anything just reveals your, umm, approach to truth.
I notice that you omit any discussion at all of AEI and its corporate funders. Why is that?
My contention is that the opinions of the heavyweights at Overlawyered (Olsen and Frank) are bought and paid for by their "think tank" employers. You seem to be implying that they are cheap dates, too. So be it.
I wrote:
You responded:
I understand that you have not (yet) landed a "scholar" position at AEI or the Manhattan Institute. But the main authors over at Overlawyered are employed by those organizations. Why you believe that they are not "funded" is puzzling.
I note that you have abandoned without comment your previous inane argument that what's good for corporations must be good for consumers. Don't worry, nobody noticed. Nobody else is reading this thread at this point.
I wrote:
You then posted the following and the portion you quote from me is shown in italics
Did you just not see the rest of my paragraph?
If you hope to land a job at a corporate funded think tank, you will probably want to work on being less obviously dishonest.
You mean the part without any data in it? Yeah, I saw it. Since the lack of data meant that it couldn't support your point, it really wasn't worth responding to.
The main authors at the Volokh Conspiracy are employed by various law schools. Why don't you go look up the funding of those institutions and then claim that the universities' sources of money are "funding" the Volokh Conspiracy?
Responding to Max's specific allegations, which are the only specific allegations in this thread:
* I'm curious what Max finds objectionable about this post. The issue of the high cost of attorney advertising on Google without any competition for reducing contingent fees (on cases that are not remotely contingent) has been commented upon by ethics scholars such as Lester Brickman and by the New York Times. This is a case where Overlawyered made news.
* My post on thimerosal is factually and scientifically accurate. The plaintiffs' lawyers claiming vaccines cause autism are relying on junk science, and thousands of doctors, dozens of science bloggers, and the CDC will tell you the same thing.
* Are you claiming that the intrusiveness of discovery is not a real privacy issue? I've personally been subpoenaed to turn over a hard drive. A California court ordered a corporation--who promised privacy to its customers--to turn that list over to an indicted law firm so that law firm could harangue its customers against their will to troll for clients. I found that opinion problematic, as did a practicing attorney, and I linked to that post.
* Research found that an attorney who brought a publicity-seeking bogus claim against a celebrity had previously brought a publicity-seeking bogus claim against another celebrity. I blogged about it, when no one else had noted the issue, and noted a potential ethical problem with the publicity-seeking.
Max's position seems to be that raising questions about ethics is "innuendo." It's not: it's raising questions about ethics.
If a gangster walks into your store, and says he wants a $50,000 not to cause $100,000 of physical damage, it's extortion.
If an attorney walks into your store, and says he will bring a meritless lawsuit that will cost you $100,000 to defend unless you pay him a $50,000 settlement, it's legal. But the economics are exactly the same as in the case of the extortion. I have no qualms about identifying this public policy problem as "legalized extortion," and it costs American investors billions of dollars every year.
What a hoot. The link you provided states that 17% of the Manhattan Institute funding comes directly from corporations. So you disproved by claim that corporations fund them by linking to a site that says explicitly the opposite.
Try again.
Oh come now. The core value of the *Ted Frank* brand is propogation of the corporate tort reform viewpoint. Your only value to them is spreading the gospel that plaintiffs are eveeeeeel. AEI doesn't make widgets, they are a megaphone for corporations and other moneyed interests.
So, feel free to spin as much as you want about how Overlawyered just has nothing at all to do with your work for AEI but saying so doesn't make it so.
This is your best argument yet.
So you are equating the AEI with, say, UCLA? If Mr. Volokh woke up tomorrow and decided what this America really needs is more government regulation, a steeply progressive income tax and 7 brides for every man - he would still have a job at UCLA (assuming these views didn't prevent him from teaching his students.)
If Ted Frank decided tomorrow that corporations were trying to stack the legal system against common folks and decided to start writing about that on Overlawyered - he would be tossed out of AEI by the afternoon. His only usefulness to AEI is his willingness to advance their message.
I mean, really, who do you think you are fooling?
I have the t-shirt and sneakers, but not yet the sunglasses or action figure. I was hoping to receive them for Chanukah, but no such luck.
Thank you.
Oh and it seems that you have now become sufficiently embarassed by your argument that the AEI is really no different than UCLA line of reasoning. Shall we just add that to the heap of silly arguments that you have abandoned?
That really is the issue isn't it and I guess I can see why you made your lame-ass attempt at humor - you just didn't have any other come back.
Here's a suggestion - steal one from the Chimp's playbook and decline to "speculate on hypotheticals."
You said that that Overlawyered was corporate funded. I pointed out that this was false. You implicitly admitted you didn't know what you were talking about, but instead of slinking off, tried to divert attention by going off onto some tangent about the Manhattan Institute and AEI. You then claimed that the M.I. was corporate funded, and cited as evidence a wikipedia entry which said that it got millions from some foundations and that some website said that some corporations were contributors. So I explained to you that the only bit of data you provided was not actually about corporations at all. I was hinting to you that this data point was irrelevant to the claim you made, but I guess you weren't able to figure that out. Then I pointed out to the actual data, showing that only 17% of its receipts were from corporations, thus falsifying the description of it as "corporate funded."
As for the rest, you can rest assured that my decision not to respond to every one of your bizarre rants is merely evidence of fatigue, not that I've conceded your point.
I am not privy to Ted's employment arrangement with AEI, but I would assume that, as with anybody in the real world who isn't tenured or protected by a union, that said employment is conditioned on him continuing to produce high quality scholarship. None of which speculation has anything to do with Overlawyered, of course, which is a private website, not a product of AEI.
And, like Ted, I find it ironic that the people who are quickest to condemn hide behind anonymity.
You said that that Overlawyered was corporate funded. I pointed out that this was false. You implicitly admitted you didn't know what you were talking about, but instead of slinking off, tried to divert attention by going off onto some tangent about the Manhattan Institute and AEI. You then claimed that the M.I. was corporate funded, and cited as evidence a wikipedia entry which said that it got millions from some foundations and that some website said that some corporations were contributors. So I explained to you that the only bit of data you provided was not actually about corporations at all. I was hinting to you that this data point was irrelevant to the claim you made, but I guess you weren't able to figure that out. Then I pointed out to the actual data, showing that only 17% of its receipts were from corporations, thus falsifying the description of it as "corporate funded."
As for the rest, you can rest assured that my decision not to respond to every one of your bizarre rants is merely evidence of fatigue, not that I've conceded your point.
I am not privy to Ted's employment arrangement with AEI, but I would assume that, as with anybody in the real world who isn't tenured or protected by a union, that said employment is conditioned on him continuing to produce high quality scholarship. None of which speculation has anything to do with Overlawyered, of course, which is a private website, not a product of AEI.
And, like Ted, I find it ironic that the people who are quickest to condemn hide behind anonymity.
Thank you for your advice about the practice of law. Perhaps someday, if I take it to heart, I will achieve the level of success you have.
It is operated by two people who are on the payrolls of corporate funded "think tanks". You can squeal all you want, but that is the simple truth.
You implicitly admitted you didn't know what you were talking about, but instead of slinking off, tried to divert attention by going off onto some tangent about the Manhattan Institute and AEI. You then claimed that the M.I. was corporate funded, and cited as evidence a wikipedia entry which said that it got millions from some foundations and that some website said that some corporations were contributors. So I explained to you that the only bit of data you provided was not actually about corporations at all. I was hinting to you that this data point was irrelevant to the claim you made, but I guess you weren't able to figure that out. Then I pointed out to the actual data, showing that only 17% of its receipts were from corporations, thus falsifying the description of it as "corporate funded."
As for the rest, you can rest assured that my decision not to respond to every one of your bizarre rants is merely evidence of fatigue, not that I've conceded your point.
Or do you really want to contend that AEI would happily continue to employ Mr. Frank if his views didn't match those of the corporate funders?
I am not privy to Ted's employment arrangement with AEI, but I would assume that, as with anybody in the real world who isn't tenured or protected by a union, that said employment is conditioned on him continuing to produce high quality scholarship. None of which speculation has anything to do with Overlawyered, of course, which is a private website, not a product of AEI.
And, like Ted, I find it ironic that the people who are quickest to condemn hide behind anonymity.
Shorter Niporent: nevermind what I said about those entities not being funded by corporations.
Or do you really want to contend that AEI would happily continue to employ Mr. Frank if his views didn't match those of the corporate funders?
"High quality scholarship"? I wonder what sort of education one has to receive to imagine that the AEI produces "high quality scholarship"?
That goes to show you don't know what the word "ironic" means. But, in any event, I don't hold myself out as a "high quality scholar" so who I am is pretty irrelevant. Nice try though.
Perhaps you should be if you are going to scurry around to other websites doing his janitorial work.
-"Multiple commenters have drawn the connection between the fact that a click on an ad merits a $54 charge and the fact that a distasteful ambulance-chaser will be paying the $54 charge to suggest an obvious strategy to penalize ambulance chasers." Every lawyer who represents clients with asbestos-induced mesothelioma is an ambulance-chaser? Have you ever met anyone with mesothelioma? Have you ever sat in their living room while they struggled to talk while their wife sits there with tears in her eyes? I have and you would have to be a heartless scum of the earth bastard to be a lawyer who was only concerned with your own fee in representing these people. And, to my knowledge, I have never met such a lawyer. I'm not saying they don't exist, but to gratuitously insult them all is hackish.
-"You often hear about the plaintiffs' bar and their solicitous concern for the privacy of citizens, and how they'll be happy to bring class actions to protect that privacy. Of course, as we have repeatedly noted (e.g., Jun. 20, 2005 and Feb. 9), that concern for privacy extends only as far as it doesn't interfere with trial lawyers' desire for a payday." It is equally stupid for John Edwards to say that all corporations are evil or for someone to say that all defense lawyers are trying to keep the little guy down as it is for you to say that all trial lawyers are disingenuous and only concerned about a payday.
-"Trial lawyers looking for a cash cow have seized upon the quackery..." On Overlawyered, there is never a question of whether plaintiffs' lawyers might have other, or parallel motives than seeking a "cash cow." You know this to be true, so you assert it no matter the circumstance. QED. Like Edwards and evil corporations.
I simply don't think that you run an intellectually honest analytical site like the Volokh Conspiracy. You run a site that starts with a thesis, finds fac