There's an interview of Caroline Kennedy in the New York Daily News today, where she pushes the idea that she won't owe any political favors to anyone because she hasn't made any significant campaign donations.
I found three things of interest here:
1. the snide and subtle dig at Caroline's overuse of the phrase "you know" (she's not the only public figure to do this, but usually those "you knows" and "likes" get edited out of the copy);
2. conspicuous by its absence is the use of her married surname, Schlossberg, and the fact that she's a Catholic married to the grandson of Jewish immigrants with whom she's had two girls and a boy; and
3. all the comments coming into the online commentary for this Daily News article. Wow. Those readers hate her, don't they?
Me? It's a time of crisis in our country, and while I'm not a New Yorker, I'm thinking that every seat in the US Senate needs to be filled with the best and the brightest our country has to offer.
Take away her surname, and I'm not feeling confident here.
And, if you want to read about how bad it could get for all of us, go check out this great piece by Matt LaBash about how Detroit is doing. (thanks to Will Collier over at Vodkapundit for the heads up here.)
In fact, just stop everything and go read LaBash's piece right now. It's one of the great ones.
12/28/2008
12/23/2008
Expert Challenges Should Be Considered Long Before the Courtroom
In today's Wall Street Journal, there's an opinion piece discussing how many believe that lots of plaintiffs' lawyers are pursuing baseless claims based upon asbestos toxicity (assumedly, mesothelioma cases), entitled Colombo the Asbestos Sleuth.
Pointedly, the article describes the following - which any civil trial lawyer will quickly recognize as a Daubert challenge advanced by the defense in this case:
"Judge Colombo has been overseeing asbestos cases in which defendants were trying to disqualify Michael Kelly, a physician who had diagnosed thousands of people with asbestos-related disease on dubious grounds. The judge made clear in court that he didn't appreciate the national attention of our editorial, to put it mildly. But in the end he did the right thing by granting a hearing into Dr. Kelly's diagnoses. Tellingly, the plaintiff attorneys immediately withdrew all but one of their suits.
"The judge plowed ahead anyway, helping to expose another asbestos scam. Defendants presented evidence that Dr. Kelly was neither a radiologist nor a pulmonologist and had failed the test that certifies doctors to read X-rays for lung disease. They also showed that the overwhelming majority of hospital radiologists who had reviewed Dr. Kelly's patients found no evidence of disease. An outside panel of radiologists who looked at Dr. Kelly's work found abnormalities in only 6 of 68 patients; Dr. Kelly had found abnormalities in 60 of those 68.
"More than 90% of the lung function tests Dr. Kelly performed failed to meet basic standards. The defendants also showed that Dr. Kelly submitted nearly identical reports for every patient he saw, yet he failed to note that some of his patients also had heart disease or renal failure. Asbestos attorneys apparently don't pay for doctors to observe the Hippocratic Oath.
"In his ruling, Judge Colombo laid out the facts and found that "the only conclusion in the face of such overwhelming medical evidence is that the opinions of Dr. Kelly are not reliable." He then disqualified him from the case. The effects will be dramatic -- and salutary to the cause of justice. According to Michigan records, Dr. Kelly has been responsible for reporting more than 7,300 cases of asbestos disease. It is unclear how many of those cases have already been adjudicated, but what is clear is that no new suits bearing the doctor's name will see the legal light of day. Some 95% of Michigan asbestos cases are filed in Wayne County and come to Judge Columbo."
Here's My Question
Over my 20 years in practice, I've seen some silly stuff regarding experts. For instance, I've seen lazy or cheap lawyers in both the plaintiff and defense bar thinking they'll settle out, so why spend the cash on top-flight, expensive experts -- and of course, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.
I know that it's true, sometimes lawyers are just plain stupid when it comes to picking experts. Heck, I've seen them delegate the chore to some pretty little paralegal who got promoted from legal secretary two years back, and doesn't understand the gates anymore than she can speak Swahili.
She picks someone off the web who is nice to her. Someone whose advanced degree is from DeVry University or better yet, one of those online, unaccredited, pay for the degree places. Stupid, stupid, and no I'm not kidding here. True story. True, true, true.
But from the Columbo piece, I'm wondering why the heck a plaintiffs' firm would actually pin its pocketbook on this guy -- good old Dr. Kelly doesn't seem to have hidden the ball here. Dr. Kelly hasn't been exposed by the FBI or Geraldo Rivera -- his credentials (or lack thereof) have been there, for all to see ....
I'm wondering why they didn't submit their expert to their own internal Daubert challenge long before they revealed him as a testifying expert and starting depending upon him to help win their case at trial.
Lesson learned. Do your own Daubert review before you reveal your expert.
Pointedly, the article describes the following - which any civil trial lawyer will quickly recognize as a Daubert challenge advanced by the defense in this case:
"Judge Colombo has been overseeing asbestos cases in which defendants were trying to disqualify Michael Kelly, a physician who had diagnosed thousands of people with asbestos-related disease on dubious grounds. The judge made clear in court that he didn't appreciate the national attention of our editorial, to put it mildly. But in the end he did the right thing by granting a hearing into Dr. Kelly's diagnoses. Tellingly, the plaintiff attorneys immediately withdrew all but one of their suits.
"The judge plowed ahead anyway, helping to expose another asbestos scam. Defendants presented evidence that Dr. Kelly was neither a radiologist nor a pulmonologist and had failed the test that certifies doctors to read X-rays for lung disease. They also showed that the overwhelming majority of hospital radiologists who had reviewed Dr. Kelly's patients found no evidence of disease. An outside panel of radiologists who looked at Dr. Kelly's work found abnormalities in only 6 of 68 patients; Dr. Kelly had found abnormalities in 60 of those 68.
"More than 90% of the lung function tests Dr. Kelly performed failed to meet basic standards. The defendants also showed that Dr. Kelly submitted nearly identical reports for every patient he saw, yet he failed to note that some of his patients also had heart disease or renal failure. Asbestos attorneys apparently don't pay for doctors to observe the Hippocratic Oath.
"In his ruling, Judge Colombo laid out the facts and found that "the only conclusion in the face of such overwhelming medical evidence is that the opinions of Dr. Kelly are not reliable." He then disqualified him from the case. The effects will be dramatic -- and salutary to the cause of justice. According to Michigan records, Dr. Kelly has been responsible for reporting more than 7,300 cases of asbestos disease. It is unclear how many of those cases have already been adjudicated, but what is clear is that no new suits bearing the doctor's name will see the legal light of day. Some 95% of Michigan asbestos cases are filed in Wayne County and come to Judge Columbo."
Here's My Question
Over my 20 years in practice, I've seen some silly stuff regarding experts. For instance, I've seen lazy or cheap lawyers in both the plaintiff and defense bar thinking they'll settle out, so why spend the cash on top-flight, expensive experts -- and of course, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.
I know that it's true, sometimes lawyers are just plain stupid when it comes to picking experts. Heck, I've seen them delegate the chore to some pretty little paralegal who got promoted from legal secretary two years back, and doesn't understand the gates anymore than she can speak Swahili.
She picks someone off the web who is nice to her. Someone whose advanced degree is from DeVry University or better yet, one of those online, unaccredited, pay for the degree places. Stupid, stupid, and no I'm not kidding here. True story. True, true, true.
But from the Columbo piece, I'm wondering why the heck a plaintiffs' firm would actually pin its pocketbook on this guy -- good old Dr. Kelly doesn't seem to have hidden the ball here. Dr. Kelly hasn't been exposed by the FBI or Geraldo Rivera -- his credentials (or lack thereof) have been there, for all to see ....
I'm wondering why they didn't submit their expert to their own internal Daubert challenge long before they revealed him as a testifying expert and starting depending upon him to help win their case at trial.
Lesson learned. Do your own Daubert review before you reveal your expert.
12/01/2008
Is It Really News that We've Been in a Recession For a Year Now?
Today, some big muckity mucks announced that we've been in a recession since December 2007 and they predict we're gonna have continued bad times until the middle of 2009.
All the media outlets are covering this, announcing that it's now official. We're in a recession.
Was this news? Really?
All the media outlets are covering this, announcing that it's now official. We're in a recession.
Was this news? Really?
11/29/2008
Killers on the Loose: They're Looking for the Shoppers in the Wal-Mart Trampling Case
Showing my age, when I first heard the story about the Wal-Mart clerk being trampled to death by crazed bargain hunters on this Thanksgiving's Black Friday, my mind immediately recalled those 11 fans trampled to death in the mob's rush for the best seats at a Cinncinnati, Ohio open seating concert for The Who back in 1979.
Being trampled to death must be very painful, and terrifying, don't you think?
The Authorities Are Considering Criminal Charges Against the Shoppers Who Trampled the Clerk
This morning, I read that law enforcement is going over the WalMart surveillance video, and looking to charge those folk who ran over this poor guy on their way to their DoorBusters. The headline reads almost like a Wanted poster, and I'm wondering when CrimeStoppers will get involved (only halfway tongue-in-cheek):
Sought: Wal-Mart shoppers who trampled NY worker.
They're saying that criminal charges are possible -- if they can figure out the identities of those who actually ran over the poor man.
I think about who these people must be, and what they are thinking about right now. Are they going over that horror in their minds, with regret? Or, are they focused on whether or not they are going to be caught, based upon those surveillance videos?
Some Shoppers Got Mad the Store Was Closing Due to the Death
I suppose it's somewhat good news to report that there were those who tried to help - and got hurt in the process. But this is far from making me feel better at the thought that materialism and a Good Deal were so important that people ran like cattle over this clerk. What is this telling us as a society? Is Elmo that important?
And, can you believe that there were shoppers who actually got angry because WalMart announced the store was closing due to this man's death? WHAT? Did they expect to carry their bags out, and manuever their carts, around the yellow crime scene tape? Did this death mean so very, very little to them?
This saddens me. And, it makes me wonder about what's going on in the minds and hearts of those who did this deed. No one's come forward with mea culpa. Are they still as self-absorbed as they were on Friday morning?
Sensationalism On the Heels of Materialism
It also saddens me that lots of sensationalized media stories will end up making advertising dollars for various publications, online and not, based upon this holiday tragedy.
One bright note: early on, if you wanted to check out a cellphone video of the event, you could see it online. Then, YouTube took the video down for Terms of Use Violation. Thank you, YouTube.
Who Was the Guy Who Got Trampled? The Clerk Who Opened the Door
By the way, it was a 34-year-old man named Jdimytai Damour who died in that shopper's rush. He was the guy who unlocked the doors for these people to enter the store to shop for the early-bird specials.
Rest in Peace, Jdimytai Damour: 1974 - 2008.
My sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Jdimytai Damour. I hope and pray that somehow, someday your holidays - especially Thanksgiving, a day dedicated to recognizing one's blessings with gratitude - can become something of joy and peace once again, despite this terrible tragedy and the horrific memory you must now carry with you.
Again, I am so sorry this has happened to you all.
Being trampled to death must be very painful, and terrifying, don't you think?
The Authorities Are Considering Criminal Charges Against the Shoppers Who Trampled the Clerk
This morning, I read that law enforcement is going over the WalMart surveillance video, and looking to charge those folk who ran over this poor guy on their way to their DoorBusters. The headline reads almost like a Wanted poster, and I'm wondering when CrimeStoppers will get involved (only halfway tongue-in-cheek):
Sought: Wal-Mart shoppers who trampled NY worker.
They're saying that criminal charges are possible -- if they can figure out the identities of those who actually ran over the poor man.
I think about who these people must be, and what they are thinking about right now. Are they going over that horror in their minds, with regret? Or, are they focused on whether or not they are going to be caught, based upon those surveillance videos?
Some Shoppers Got Mad the Store Was Closing Due to the Death
I suppose it's somewhat good news to report that there were those who tried to help - and got hurt in the process. But this is far from making me feel better at the thought that materialism and a Good Deal were so important that people ran like cattle over this clerk. What is this telling us as a society? Is Elmo that important?
And, can you believe that there were shoppers who actually got angry because WalMart announced the store was closing due to this man's death? WHAT? Did they expect to carry their bags out, and manuever their carts, around the yellow crime scene tape? Did this death mean so very, very little to them?
This saddens me. And, it makes me wonder about what's going on in the minds and hearts of those who did this deed. No one's come forward with mea culpa. Are they still as self-absorbed as they were on Friday morning?
Sensationalism On the Heels of Materialism
It also saddens me that lots of sensationalized media stories will end up making advertising dollars for various publications, online and not, based upon this holiday tragedy.
One bright note: early on, if you wanted to check out a cellphone video of the event, you could see it online. Then, YouTube took the video down for Terms of Use Violation. Thank you, YouTube.
Who Was the Guy Who Got Trampled? The Clerk Who Opened the Door
By the way, it was a 34-year-old man named Jdimytai Damour who died in that shopper's rush. He was the guy who unlocked the doors for these people to enter the store to shop for the early-bird specials.
Rest in Peace, Jdimytai Damour: 1974 - 2008.
My sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Jdimytai Damour. I hope and pray that somehow, someday your holidays - especially Thanksgiving, a day dedicated to recognizing one's blessings with gratitude - can become something of joy and peace once again, despite this terrible tragedy and the horrific memory you must now carry with you.
Again, I am so sorry this has happened to you all.
11/24/2008
Trend in Pro Se Representations Continues, But Have You Heard of Bundling?
In today's paper (I read the San Antonio Express-News), there is an AP snipnet about the growing national trend of folk representing themselves in a variety of matters. (Here's the link if you want to read it.)
Not big news. Robert Shapiro's been on this bandwagon for awhile -- surely you've heard about LegalZoom by now. And, sure, there are others out there. (Check out my post over at Everyday Simplicity discussing these self-help law mills.)
Bundling Legal Services Is News To Me
However, one thing did catch my eye in today's article: this new idea of "bundling." Seems attorneys in some states (haven't heard of this in Texas, though I could be wrong) are narrowing their representations down to only a segment of a case, or transaction.
Say, for example, you file the pleadings but that's it. You don't do the discovery.
Or, you draft the contract or incorporation documents. Nix on the other stuff - like making sure the annual minutes are done correctly.
Interesting. This way, the lawyer does get paid some fees, and the client does get some professional advice, even though it's far from complete.
I Still Vote that You're Gonna Wish You Had Sprung for a Lawyer
Guess something's better than nothing. And, I'm still holding to the old adage -- these folk thinking that they can avoid a lawyer and represent themselves in major life issues like child custody or property distribution after death have fools for a client.
It's an old litigator joke: do it right at the start, and the trial lawyer doesn't have a job. (Trial lawyer chuckles with glee.)
Not big news. Robert Shapiro's been on this bandwagon for awhile -- surely you've heard about LegalZoom by now. And, sure, there are others out there. (Check out my post over at Everyday Simplicity discussing these self-help law mills.)
Bundling Legal Services Is News To Me
However, one thing did catch my eye in today's article: this new idea of "bundling." Seems attorneys in some states (haven't heard of this in Texas, though I could be wrong) are narrowing their representations down to only a segment of a case, or transaction.
Say, for example, you file the pleadings but that's it. You don't do the discovery.
Or, you draft the contract or incorporation documents. Nix on the other stuff - like making sure the annual minutes are done correctly.
Interesting. This way, the lawyer does get paid some fees, and the client does get some professional advice, even though it's far from complete.
I Still Vote that You're Gonna Wish You Had Sprung for a Lawyer
Guess something's better than nothing. And, I'm still holding to the old adage -- these folk thinking that they can avoid a lawyer and represent themselves in major life issues like child custody or property distribution after death have fools for a client.
It's an old litigator joke: do it right at the start, and the trial lawyer doesn't have a job. (Trial lawyer chuckles with glee.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)