The Legal Underground

Weekly Law School Roundup #33

This Week: Do's and Don'ts on Halloween, as Collected from Some World-Renowned Law-Student Weblogs

Do's . . .

Use your law-school smarts to come up with nifty costume ideas: assault and battery, Leonard v. Pepsico, and more. [Natalaw]

Or select from these fine costume ideas. [Neo Tokyo Times]

If your costume is historical in nature, do some research to assure historical accuracy, then wear some knee-high boots anyway. [Mixtape Marathon]

Before donning your regalia, be sure to read these four costume hints. [Jeremy's Weblog]

Then try to get to Georgia, where you can do Halloween with a beer on the beach. [the thin line]

While you're on the beach, sing a song. [Letters of Marque]

Much later, you can return to match the blogger with the costume. [Exhausted Mind]

And Don'ts . . .

Marshmallows expand in the stomach, so if they're part of your Halloween celebration, think twice before indulging. [will work for favorable dicta]

Don't carve a pumpkin unless you know what you're doing with that knife. [Soupie's BBQ & Daycare]

Please, no insensitive jokes about Supreme Court justices. [Singing Loudly]

And don't spend too much time watching football, as you'll see nothing but a "terrible group of games." [The Electric Commentary]

Finally, if you insist on blogging about your Halloween adventures, wait until you're sober. [The Slithery D]

Weekly Report #41: The Impact of the Elections on a Plaintiffs' Practice

Where I work in Madison County, Illinois, there's been more than a year of constant, negative press coverage and advertising about greedy plaintiffs' lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits, drive the doctors out of town, and supply Democratic judges with "wads of cash." That's the political environment we live in, and it doesn't bother me too much personally. But it's probably taking a toll on potential jurors who must decide the fate of their neighbors who are injured. Many of these potential jurors have been brainwashed into thinking that all claims are phonied-up and that all plaintiffs are liars.

Even if tort reformers don't get their candidates elected in the coming elections, there will be a great deal of work to do in restoring the public's trust in the system. If, on the other hand, the tort-reform-minded candidates do get elected--as has happened in many jurisdictions around the country since big business learned it could influence election outcomes with "wads of cash"--the result will be an immediate erosion of personal rights and liberties. It will be a large step toward the past, when, for example, large companies did nothing about unsafe work conditions--even when employees were certainly dying from occupational diseases--because the companies thought they could get away with it. In those days, if you came from certain walks of life, your life if valued in a court of law might be worth close to nothing.

It's only one of the reasons I think this election is important. For the sake of my clients, I'm hoping that the Democratic candidates are elected in the tight races for president, Missouri governor, and Illinois Supreme Court. If these candidates lose, it will surely affect my practice, but I'll still have my law license and lots of ways to earn a living. Those who are really going to lose are injured people and their families.

Wait until it happens to you, and you'll see what I mean. Although I hope you never have to find out.

Some Facts About Med Mal Cases in Madison County, Illinois

In discussing its endorsement of Gordon Maag for the Illinois Supreme Court, the Edwardsville Intelligencer points out why it's way too simplistic to argue that doctors are leaving the county because of "frivolous lawsuits"--

Between 1996 and 2003, 320 medical malpractice cases were filed in Madison County. In some instances, those cases went no further than the filing stage. Further, 162 cases were dismissed, either because they were dropped or because of out-of-court settlements.

Only 11 cases resulted in verdicts -- and seven of them favored the defendant. The cases decided for the plaintiff resulted in awards ranging from $25,000 to $1.78 million.

Over that eight-year period, that's an average of 40 medical malpractices cases per year filed in Madison County.

While we don't have much basis for comparison, that seems to be a pretty low total compared to the thousands and thousands of medical procedures performed each year by our doctors.

And only four cases won by plaintiffs? That's one every two years.

For more on this topic, see the "tort reform" category. I also dealt with frivolous lawsuits in a recent advice post and in a post directed to Dr. Rangel of RangelMD.com.

Advice to Families of Lawyers #4

Dear Mr. Schaeffer:

My marriage is falling apart. Let me explain. I met my wife exactly four years ago, when we were standing in line to vote at the last presidential election. When I spotted her, I thought she was so striking with her blue eyes and dark hair that I almost forgot why I was there. When I heard her declare her party—Democrat—I almost swooned. We both voted for Al Gore, went out for coffee, and were married four months later.

Flash forward four years. In this presidential election, you can count on me to vote for John Kerry. I had hoped to say the same about my wife. Although she’s been on the fence for some time, I thought I’d get her back into the fold by election day. You can probably guess what happened. She saw that Bush wolf-pack ad. Ever since, she’s been a basketcase. It scared the bejesus out of her so much that she’s gone firmly over to Bush and is threatening to divorce me if I don’t do the same.

I’ll tell you what, Mr. Schaeffer, that wolf ad was a dirty trick. Though my wife is also afraid of spiders and rattlesnakes, wolves just make her crazy, especially the gray ones. I told her there aren’t really wolves outside our house—that the wolves were supposed to represent terrorists—but she just won’t listen. Did I tell you she’s not the brightest bulb in the family’s chandelier, even though she’s a lawyer?

I don’t know what to do. Vote for Kerry and get the boot, or vote for Bush and save my marriage. What do you think?

Signed, Undecided in University City

Is This the Start of a Scandal That Will Change the Missouri Governor's Race?

Yeah, the Cardinals lost the World Series. I was there last night to see it happen and believe me, it was a sorry sight. Congratulations to the Boston fans. The thousands of them on the field after the game sure looked like they were having fun.

Now to something more important. In the next box over last night was none other than Secretary of State Matt Blunt, the Republican candidate for Missouri governor. He's running against state Auditor Claire McCaskill, and the race is deadlocked.

For most of the game, Blunt was hanging out on the inside part of his box. I don't blame him, since the game was heartbreaking to watch. But when he came out into the seats to look around a little bit, you know what he was drinking? Bailey's out of a shot glass. He wasn't doing shots, mind you--he was sipping it!

Definitely uncool. Defintely a scandal. Mr. Secretary of State, dude, you need a new look. (We call him "dude" because he's only 32.) May I suggest, Mr. Secretary of State, dude, drinking Budweiser when you're in St. Louis?

Judge Posner on the Law Reviews

In a recent essay titled "Against the Law Reviews," Judge Richard Posner says law review articles are "too long, too dull, and too heavily annotated." The reason? He blames the law-student editors.

There's certainly some merit in his point of view. But I really liked the thoughtful response from Micah at Crooked Timber: "Don't Blame the Law Students: A Reply to Posner." If you have any interest at all in the debate about law-student editors, be sure to check it out. (Thanks to Abnu for the heads up.)

Meanwhile, Professor Leiter (who thinks he's Friedrich Nietzsche, by the way) also weighs in, boldly proclaiming that law-student editors possess "no real scholarly or intellectual skills." Not only that, but they're also responsible for all the worst developments in legal scholarship "over the past thirty years."

Leave it to a law professor to place the blame for poor legal scholarship on someone other than the professors whose names appear on the articles. I wonder what Professor Bainbridge would say. (Meanwhile, I must admit that Nietzsche-infatuation or not, Leiter's always an entertaining read.)

The Thursday Morning Politics Roundup

The We're-On-The-Edge-Of-Our-Seats Edition

Oh, the angst!  Andrew Sullivan's half-hearted endorsement of Kerry.  [TNR Online]

Oh, the shock! Walter Olson says "Bush doesn't merit re-election." [Overlawyered.com]

Obama's giant lead in the Illinois Senatorial race: "This one is so in the bag, as Republican carpetbagger Alan Keyes makes an ass out of himself, that Obama has spent more time campaigning for other candidates than himself."  [Daily Kos]

Who's profiting from the election?  Lawyers, apparently: "[T]he Democrats have now filed 35 lawsuits in 17 states."  [Power Line]

"No more blood for oil."  Eminem's get-out-the-vote video: "Mosh."  [DaShadySpot.com]

Tight!  Why the presidential race might be much closer than you think.  [Lean Left]

Interesting Facts About the Vioxx Fiasco from Fortune Magazine

Newsworthy enough to talk about in a law school classroom, here's a quick summary of the Vioxx mess from Fortune magazine's November 1st cover story--

Headline on the cover: "Merck's $27 Billion Heart Attack."  Headline inside: "Will Merck Survive Vioxx?"

Number of Americans who took fen-phen: 6 million

Amount of money paid so far to settle fen-phen lawsuits: $16.6 billion

Number of Americans who took Vioxx: 20 million

Fortune's prediction of the cost of the Vioxx litigation: "The cost of settling the lawsuits will almost surely be in the billions of dollars, quite possibly in the tens of billions."

Number of people who took Vioxx worldwide: 80 million

Market cap lost since Vioxx was withdrawn from the market: $33 billion

Boast Merck made about Vioxx in its 1999 Annual Report: The "biggest, fastest, and best launch ever."

Date Merck began the study that led to what it says was the first evidence of a heart risk: 1999

When plaintiffs' lawyers say Merck first knew about a heart risk: As early as 1996

Number of lawyers named in the article: 5

Number of documents already produced in the New Jersey Vioxx litigation: 3 million

Plaintiffs' lawyers named in the article: Jere Beasley, Chris Seeger, and Andy Birchfield, Jr.

Defense lawyer named in the article: Amy Shulman

Other lawyers named in the article: Kenneth Frazier, Merck's general counsel

Annual sales of Vioxx until its withdrawal: $2.5 billion

Money Merck spent on direct-to-consumer advertising: $500 million

Quote from a pissed-off doctor, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine: "Had the company not valued sales over safety, a suitable trial could have been initiated rapidly [to pin down Vioxx's cardiovascular risk] at a fraction of the cost of Merck's direct-to-consumer advertising campaign."

Quote from Merck's general counsel: "We communicated appropriately, and in the end we took the actions that were in the best interests of patients."

Number of times the article mentions tort reform: 0

There you have it.  For a detailed field guide to the lawyers who will be sorting out the Vioxx mess for the next five or ten years, see my Cast of Characters.

UPDATE 2/14/04. For all of my collected Vioxx posts, look here. If you are (a) someone who was harmed by Vioxx or (b) a lawyer who wants to refer your Vioxx cases to a highly-competent team of mass-tort lawyers, look here.

Guest-Writers: This Space Is Available

There's no Wednesday guest post today. That means I'm responsible for the fun, unless you'd like to read the past guest posts that are stored in the "guests" category. If you need a recommendation, take a look at the great post by Matt Homann: "Five Indispensable Tips for Law Students and New Lawyers."

For those of you who are thinking, "Hey, I'd really like to become a guest-writer," the rules are here. It's fun, easy, and endorsed by George Bush's personal wolf pack!

Halloween as Practiced in the Schaeffer Household

In theory, it seemed like a good idea. Baby Sam had already posed for this weblog as bait for a predatory trial lawyer, so on Halloween, why not dress him up as a lawyer himself? After all, he is a little bit older now--all of five months.

But in practice, it didn't work out quite as planned. Yesterday as the sun was setting, Sam's oldest sister and I dressed him up in the suit Andrea had bought for the occasion in Chicago. Then we took him out in the yard for some photos. But just look what happened. Poor Sam: he's way too innocent to be a lawyer. It wouldn't be considered a detriment that he has no hair--but he doesn't even have any teeth.

In truth, however, that's not the real problem. I have to be honest. The real problem is that if you look at the picture, he seems to be enjoying himself. Favoring the open-neck look, leaning back against his briefcase in the grass with his shoes and tie off--all that's needed to complete the picture is a six-pack of Bud Light.

That's why the suit's going back to the store. This year for Halloween, Sam's going to be a clown. The alternative is just too damn scary.

[Below the Fold: Other Schaeffer-Family-Related Posts.]