Archives

Categories

Registration

Resources

Archive for January, 2010

FindLaw’s Continuing Problems with its “Blogs”

Friday, January 29th, 2010

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:

Doctor Found Innocent Of Malpractice

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)

Bryan A. Lowe & Associates – Las Vegas Bankruptcy

Friday, January 29th, 2010
The firm was founded on a philosophy of service that not only emphasizes quality representation in terms of experience and expertise - but places a high value on initiating appropriate actions to meet the client's legal needs and objectives. Particular stress is also placed on providing individualized service and achieving results.

Elder Law

Estate Planning

Corporate and Tax Law

Probate and Estate Administration

Bankruptcy

http://www.bryanalowe.com/

WaMu shareholders get their voice in bankruptcy

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Shareholders of Washington Mutual Inc will have a voice in the company's bankruptcy after a judge refused on Thursday to disband their committee, which Washington Mutual said would complicate the case.

The U.S. Trustee, who plays an oversight role in bankruptcy, appointed the committee earlier this month after being petitioned by 3,500 shareholders. The company immediately asked the court to disband it.

The committee will be able to speak with a unified voice and hire professionals, who would be paid by the company.

Washington Mutual has said since it filed for bankruptcy in 2008 that it is hopelessly insolvent, and therefore there is no need for an official committees of shareholders.

Man accused of keeping arsenal due in NJ court

Friday, January 29th, 2010

A man who authorities say had a cache of weapons and a map of an Army base in a New Jersey motel room is due in court on Friday.

Lloyd Woodson was arrested Monday after a convenience store clerk in Branchburg called police to report he was acting strangely.

Police say Woodson was wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying an assault rifle. Officers found weapons including a grenade launcher and a map of New York's Fort Drum in his motel room.

Woodson is charged with state and federal weapons violations.

Authorities have not said whether they think he was planning an attack. The FBI said Woodson has no known terrorist connections.


Court rejects NH’s claim to $110M malpractice fund

Friday, January 29th, 2010

The New Hampshire Supreme Court on Thursday put a dent in the state budget by rejecting the state's claim to $110 million in surplus from a fund that underwrites medical malpractice insurance.

In a 3-2 decision, the court upheld policyholders' claim they had a constitutionally protected contractual right to the money. The court said the state could not change its law to apply retrospectively to contracts with policyholders.

"I'm disappointed. I thought it was going to be a close call to begin with," said Gov. John Lynch. "We'll manage through it."

Lynch said the decision means the state will have to find $45 million over the next 17 months. He was not specific on what he will do.

Republicans, who are in the minority in the Legislature, have repeatedly called the state's claim an attempt to "steal" money from doctors and health care providers.

Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Yesterday, The Maryland Court of Appeals decided Prince George's County v. Longtin. The Plaintiff in this case was arrested for murdering his wife. When the real bad guy was found, Plaintiff brought a claim against Prince George’s County, alleging false imprisonment and, more significantly I think, that police officers engaged in a pattern or practice of “unconstitutional and unlawful detention and interrogation” and “excessive force and brutality." One fact that had to stand out to the jury to lend credibility to his claim: the police ignored DNA evidence that ruled out the Plaintiff, keeping him in jail another six months. The jury bought in, awarding over $6 million in damages, which included over a $1 million in punitive damages collectively against the police officers. Why don’t you remember reading about any of this? The murder was over 10 years ago. The wheels of justice sometimes cruise casually.

The jury appeal of this case is easy to see. It is transcendently awful enough to have your wife murdered. But being wrongfully accused when the evidence should have sent police in another direction and then being physically and mentally brutalized by police? It makes anyone’s top 5 nightmares list. These police officers crossed lines that would make Jimmy McNulty blush.

Still, there are limits to the ‘it could just as easily have been me” feeling you might be having reading this post. Plaintiff admitted to having a verbal and physical altercation with his wife just hours before her body was found. After the altercation, he got a knife and ran after her. Later, she turns up missing and murdered. So while I fault the police for a lot based on these reported facts, jumping to conclusions about Plaintiff guilt is not one of them. I mean, what are the chances?

That’s more on the facts than I planned but it is just an incredible story. Anyway, Prince George’s County argued – apparently without shame – from the beginning that that the Local Government Tort Claims act barred his claim because he did not provide adequate notice. Plaintiff responded with the complex legal theory of “how on earth can you expect me to give you notice when you have wrongfully imprisoned me for more than 180 days?”

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals agreed, finding that an “ordinary prudent person” in Plaintiff’s situation could not have given notice in 180 days. I’m dumbing down a complex opinion, but I think that is an adequate summary.

What would have saved everyone a lot of time in this case and furthered justice in countless others would be if the Maryland legislature would simply abolish the Local Government Tort Claims and the Maryland Tort Claims Act. What exactly is the wisdom in treating government different from you and I when it comes to the statute of limitations? If we all agree it is fair that a local government can be sued in actions sounding in tort in the same manner and extent that anyone can be sued, why change the limitations period? I think the idea of governmental immunity is illogical and outdated but at least I understand the rationale. Altering the statute of limitations is a crude and illogical way to treat citizens in substantially similar situations in dissimilar ways.

Interesting historical footnote that may be of interest only to me: Prince George’s County was the first county in Maryland to waive sovereign immunity in 1970.

You can read the full opinion here.

St. Joseph’s Stents and Lawyers

Friday, January 29th, 2010

The Baltimore Sun has an interesting article on the race among lawyers to attract St. Joseph stent lawsuits that includes some quotes from me.

St. Joseph’s Stents and Lawyers

Friday, January 29th, 2010

The Baltimore Sun has an interesting article on the race among lawyers to attract St. Joseph stent lawsuits that includes some quotes from me.

High court’s ruling is a blow to campaign finance reform

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

A conservative legal foundation on Wednesday asked federal regulators to give a green light to corporations and unions to begin spending their treasuries to influence this year's congressional elections.

The James Madison Center for Free Speech asked the Federal Election Commission to formally throw out its rules that restrict corporate and union spending on politics, saying the step is needed to implement last week's Supreme Court decision that freed such groups to get more directly involved in election campaigns.

"This is an election year," said James Bopp, the center's attorney. "Speakers will want to exercise the First Amendment rights to political speech" outlined in last week's decision, he said, "so the FEC should adopt these regulations quickly."

Without a formal declaration by the FEC, Bopp said, advocacy groups will be hesitant to take full advantage of the new leeway the Supreme Court granted in last week's controversial 5-4 ruling, fearing they might be subject to enforcement action.


Defense Verdict in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit in Baltimore

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

A federal court jury in Baltimore found that an Elkton obstetrician was not liable in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The core of the case is bound to raise moral concerns with at least some jurors. Plaintiff claimed she would have terminated her pregnancy if she had been advised that her child had Down syndrome, claiming the child’s expected future medical care was projected to be as much as $16.4 million.

The plaintiff claimed that her triple screen blood test found that she had a 2.6% chance her daughter would be born with Down syndrome. The case was a classic case of he said/she said. The doctor claimed the patient was told three times of her test results and that she rejected the doctor’s suggestion that she get the more invasive amniocentesis test.

Most likely, the jury believed the doctor’s notes were accurate and made contemporaneously with his discussions with the patient regarding the results. Only the doctor, the Plaintiff, and God know exactly what information was conveyed. But I also wonder the extent to which this federal jury had a problem with the “I would have had an abortion” claim from Plaintiff. Statistically speaking, someone on that jury strongly believed that abortions are immoral.