February 9, 2010

Note: Today's Trial Lawyers, Inc.: K Street Live Event Now an Online Presentation / Conference Call

IMPORTANT NOTE: To anyone who was planning on attending MI's live event on Capitol Hill this afternoon, at which we were to unveil the newest Trial Lawyers, Inc. report, Trial Lawyers, Inc.: K Street--A Report on the Litigation Lobby 2010, we've had to cancel due to projected inclement weather, speaker and attendee unavailability, and Senate office building closure to the public.

In lieu of the live event, we're sponsoring a conference call and online presentation, at the same time (2 pm). Stay tuned for details.

UPDATED: Conference call information.

February 8, 2010

Plight of community banks

Kevin Funnell at Bank Lawyer's Blog says blunt regulation threatens to wipe them out.

P.S. And a protest in New Mexico.

February 2, 2010

New boom in antitrust enforcement?

Looks like lawyers will be kept busy (WSJ):

The Justice Department is looking for test cases to expand its antitrust authority. And the FTC wants to circumvent the courts' narrow interpretation of the Sherman Act by reclaiming a legal tool it has hardly used in more than two decades--Section 5 of the 1914 law that created the agency.

Invoked in the FTC's Intel suit, that law allows the FTC to act against a company that engages in "unfair methods of competition." The law largely fell into disuse after courts repeatedly slapped down the FTC for using it too broadly.

More: WSJ Law Blog.

January 29, 2010

Meteorites, pandas and pants

Washington is bereft as China reclaims ownership of the panda cub born here four years. ago. (Washington Post, "National Zoo panda Tai Shan to fly to China on custom FedEx plane.")

So who, or what, will replace Tai Shan in the heart of Washingtonians? The previously endearing Gilbert Arenas is now a felon and has been suspended by the NBA for bringing guns to the workplace, so he's out. Roy Pearson of pants suit fame is quirky, but not in a cute way; he's back in the news this week trying another strategy -- attack the court -- to regain his job as a D.C. administrative judge.

Pet rock to the rescue! Or rather, pet meteorite. Today's Washington Post reports on the dispute over ownership of the "spunky bit of chondrite" that plunged through the roof of a doctor's office on Jan. 18 in Lorton, Va. (previously known mostly as the home of the Lorton Prison). The doctors, Marc Gallini and Frank Ciampi, were planning to donate the meteorite to the Smithsonian and contribute $5,000 to Haiti relief. But as the Post accounts, "Ownership battle brews over Virginia meteorite":

[In] an extraterrestrial soap opera still unfolding, the landlords of the Virginia building that houses the doctors' office now say they are the rightful owners of the meteorite. Museum officials said the landlords informed them, midday Thursday, that they were coming to take the stone out of the Smithsonian by sundown.

Gallini and Ciampi hustled to get a lawyer to fire off a letter to the museum, barring them from releasing the stone, pending resolution of ownership.

The landowners have a rock solid case, we think. In the United States, the property owners own the meteorite. See Law of Ownership and Control of Meteorites by D.G. Schmitt, McEwen, Schmitt & Co. Barristers and Solicitors.

Unless there's something unique in Virginia law? There's no official state rock, but if the Legislature acts quickly to give chondrite that status, then it becomes a cultural artifact subject to different laws altogether. Although that would be a taking...

January 27, 2010

Foreign Corrupt Practice Act mega-sting, cont'd

FCPA Blog describes some of the elaborate stage-management of the sting for maximum media effect, the WSJ Law Blog connects the dots on the role of "Individual 1" in helping lure arms dealers into the trap, and FCPA Professor has a guest post from Dru Stevenson on the entrapment defense. Earlier here. More: Peter Henning, NYT.

January 24, 2010

Legal drama, circa 1954

In 1954, WMAQ radio in Chicago broadcast a drama series in conjunction with the Chicago Bar Association, "Case Dismissed." Host of the program was John C. Fitzgerald, Dean of the Law School, Loyola University.

As the Old Time Radio Researchers Group summarizes: "The program shows us just how fragile liberty and justice can be. These stories of everyday events are still interesting, even after 50 years. Stories of criminal liability, legal wills, buying on installment, and leasing an apartment. Each story is well written, and the acting, though dated and a bit hokey by today's standards, still manages to achieve the desired effect." Agreed, it's pretty good.

The 12 extant episodes are available at www.archive.org here, and episode summaries are here. A recurring theme is the economic anxiety of people looking for work or having their jobs threatened. And: Get a lawyer!

January 14, 2010

A Foreign Corrupt Practices Act double standard?

Mike Koehler at FCPA Professor notes that the law appears to ban doing favors for foreign government officials in circumstances where the same favors would be lawful if done for domestic U.S. government officials.

January 13, 2010

The next prohibitionists are cell phone prohibitionists

And they're modeled explicitly after Mothers against Drunk Driving.

From today's Washington Post, "28 percent of accidents involve talking, texting on cellphones":

Because of the extent of the problem, federal transportation officials unveiled a organization Tuesday, patterned after Mothers Against Drunk Driving, that will combat driver cellphone use.

The group is called FocusDriven, promoted now at a new government website -- www.distraction.gov. The DOT's news release describes the group as a "national non-profit," but it's difficult to detect any lines separating government, activist group, and lobbying outfit. The Post reports:

"It's hard because everyone's addicted to their cellphone," said FocusDriven's president, Jennifer Smith, a Texan whose mother was killed by a man who ran a red light while talking on his cellphone. "That's where we come in. We put a real, human face to it. We're going to put the pressure on legislatures." [our emphasis, as below]

And here's where the fervent simply ignore issues of self-incrimination and the dangers of ever-expanding government power.

Smith said law enforcement needs stronger laws and better tools to enforce them. "Using a subpoena to get cellphone records has got to be a standard procedure," she said. "Perhaps cars should have a data recorder, like [an airplane's] crash recorder to use in these cases."

A ban on cell phones in vehicles is clearly the ultimate goal. Indeed, the FocusDriven.org website declares the group to be, "Advocates for Cell-Free Driving," and the WaPo story quotes MADD's executive director, Chuck Hurley, saying, "The main reason people talk on their cellphones is because they can. Eventually, [signal blocking] technology will address that."

When the prohibitionists take the wheel, liberty and accountability get shoved out the door.

UPDATE (3:40 p.m.): Also part of the campaign is the National Safety Council, which on Tuesday celebrated the anniversary of its ban the phone campaign: "As the National Safety Council celebrates the one year anniversary of its call for a total ban on cell phone use while driving, we look back at the amazing progress during the past year. This timeline marks critical events that helped bring attention to a behavior that's killing thousands of people each year."

Continue reading   The next prohibitionists are cell phone prohibitionists

Cut the important stuff first

The art of government budgeting in hard times [Coyote]

January 12, 2010

In defense of mandatory arbitration clauses

Jonathan Adler at The Obiter Dictum (New York Law School) outlines arguments made by Paul Bennett Marrow:

1. Entering into a contract containing a mandatory arbitration clause is essentially a voluntary choice made by all parties involved.
2. Mandatory arbitration is needed to mitigate the effects of asymmetrically-held information.
3. A commercial system without the right to arbitrate will (a) suffer from increased costs across the board, (b) limit lending to only the safest recipients, and (c) overburden courts.
4. There is insufficient empirical evidence to support enacting the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009.