Evan Schaeffer's Legal Underground

Making Amends with the Legal Underground Coffee Mug

What am I going to do with my 72 Legal Underground coffee mugs? It seems to me that in the 15+ months that this weblog has (dis)graced the blogosphere, I've taken a lot of cheap shots. You know, low blows. Easy laughs. Unfair and undeserved mockery of perfectly innocent people.

There have been plenty of targets. Most of them I like, two of them I don't. But they're all getting a coffee mug. The only one who will complain about my gift-giving is my secretary, who'll be responsible for boxing them up and shipping them out.

Here's who's getting a coffee mug, and why.

• Justice Antonin Scalia, for this post: "Justice Antonin Scalia to Get Own Reality TV Show."
• Judge Richard Posner of the Becker-Posner Blog, for these posts: "Advice to Federal Judges #3" and "A Polite, Though Extraordinarily Serious, Dissent from the Becker-Posner Definition of the Term 'Weblog'."
• Walter Olson of Overlawyered, for this post: "The Experienced Lawyer and the Law Student Debate Overlawyered.com."
  
• Ted Frank, Olson's sidekick at Overlawyered and frequent commenter on this weblog, for this post: "The Official McDonald's-Coffee-Post-Commenter Awards."
• Jim Copland of Point of Law, for this post: "The Experienced Lawyer and the Law Student Debate Point of Law."
• Howard Bashman of How Appealing, for this post: "Howard Bashman's Daily To-Do List."
• Drama critic Terry Teachout of About Last Night, for this post: "Critic Terry Teachout Consumes Too Much Art, Violently Explodes."
• Professor Ann Althouse of Althouse, for this post: "Law Professors: Blog Your Way to Tenure."
• Professor Glenn Reynolds a/k/a Instapundit, for these posts: "Advice to Young Lawyers #18," and "Advice to Families of Lawyer's #7."
  
• Dennis Kennedy of DennisKennedy.blog, for this post: "Tragedy Strikes Blawging World: Fifty of the Best Perish."
• Matt Homann of the [non]billable hour, for the same.

Finally, although I don't like the next and last two recipients, I figure they could use a reminder to read my weblog: the American Tort Reform Association (this post) and the Madison County Record (this post).

After the 13 mugs go out, I'm still left with 59. The next five people to leave a suggestion in the comments about what to do with the remainder can have two each. Then I'll be down to only 49, an amount I think I can persuade the garbage man to haul away.

Justice Is for Morons . . .

. . . But that's just my opinion about the new magazine, Justice, that will debut June 21.

After reading about Justice at Robert Ambrogi's LawSites, I requested a press kit from the publisher. A mock-up of a Justice cover contained in the press kit gives you a pretty good idea that the magazine, even if it is for morons, might be a hit. It contains these headlines:

• Exclusive! Martha Speaks! "My Life Behind Bars"
• Michael Jackson Accuser's Details
• Laci's Parents: The Justice Interview
• How Kobe Beat the Rap

Justice, it seems, aspires to be the National Enquirer of the legal press. Also contained within the press kit is a summary of some of the magazine's editorial content. Here are some direct quotes:

• The Justice Interview -- Each month we talk to the biggest names in the public spotlight, and let them answer the questions America wants to know.
• Stars Behind Bars -- Most celebrities who get arrested should probably use their phone call to get hold of their hair and make-up person -- justice can be ugly.
• The Advocate -- Our experts helps (sic) JUSTICE readers cut through the red tape and solve a problem. What will that boss who didn't pay a hard-working employee her overtime say when we call him to remind him of this fact? Only JUSTICE readers will know.
• The Justice Files -- True stories of courageous citizens who took on the big guys.
• The Mafia Files -- Celebrated former mobster (of Goodfellas fame) (sic) and federally-protected witness Henry Hill gives his unique view current cases (sic), and thumbs up or down mob portrayals (sic) in TV and film.
• Do I Have a Case? -- A TV judge tells JUSTICE readers if they have a legal leg to stand on.

That last one is my favorite. The "TV judge" is Judge Judy. Though a mock-up of one of her columns in the press packet intentionally contains two columns of nonsense words, there's a teaser in larger type to give you a sense of Judge Judy's style: "No explanation? No evidence? You couldn't win that case if you had the O.J. jury."

So will you be lining up at the newsstand on June 21? Since those "sics" in the bulleted section signify errors in the original, future readers might hope that JUSTICE takes the time to add a couple of copyeditors and proofreaders to its staff.

You could say that failing to do so would be an INJUSTICE . .  except that the magazine seems to be targeting folks who can't read.

And Speaking of Copyright, Are the Poachers Stealing from Me Too?

Podcasting has generated a lot of buzz lately (e.g., Robert J. Ambrogi's article today)--enough buzz, apparently, to cause the Internet poachers to find a new way to make a buck off of RSS-distributed content.

More specifically, I received an e-mail from a kind weblogger who sent me this link to a PodRazor page in which my podcasts (and those of others like Denise Howell) are republished as streams, with an advertisement injected into the stream.

Try one out yourself. The ad shows up in a Windows Media Player display and can be changed to a visualization by right-clicking on the screen.

In the spirit of Marty Schwimmer to Bloglines, I say to Podrazor: take my podcasts off your site! On the other hand, I'm no intellectual-property lawyer like Marty, so I'd appreciate your thoughts and comments about Podrazor and what it's doing.

And thanks to Kevin Heller, who corresponded with me by e-mail about this post. (And finally, to Robert J. Ambrogi: How could you write an article cataloguing the "universe of lawyers who podcast" and fail to mention me? I'm so hurt!)

Act Now, Before They Get Sued!

David Giacalone, guest-posting at RiskProf, has written an update about the notorious "Get Your Million Dollars!" Vioxx website. It's still there, and now advises readers to act quickly, since at any time "we may be sued."

Though lawyers didn't design the website, some of their Google ads ended up there, presumably without their knowledge. David concludes:

We would also like to think that lawyers using AdWords and AdSense and similar content-targeted ad programs, will take active measures to find out where their ads are appearing and act to assure that their ads do not appear on inappropriate sites.  It should not have taken the complaints of Sen. Orrin Hatch, or even of Walter Olson, for lawyers to be "outraged" that their ads appear on such sites.  If such oversight is impossible or impractical, perhaps content-target ted programs are just too unpredictable to be ethical advertising options for lawyers.

I suppose the question is whether the obnoxious Vioxx website was an aberration or the beginning of a trend. If the latter, then the question is: How can lawyers find out where their Google Ads are appearing? I don't think they can. If not, David has a point: lawyers shouldn't be using Google Ads. Once they stopped, I suspect the Google folks would take a more active role in solving the problem.

Related Posts:

1. Is Walter Olson Running Out of Material?

2. Vioxx Scam Shocks the World: Lawyers Are Declared Guilty by Association

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.

Judge Maag's Defamation Lawsuit Explained--More Than in the Newspapers, Anyway

Judge Gordon Maag, the Democratic candidate for Illinois Supreme Court who recently lost to Judge Karmeier, has sued over an allegedly defamatory election flyer that was mailed to voters before the election. The defendants are the Coalition for Jobs, Growth, and Prosperity, whose name is on the flyer; the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce; and two individuals. Many newspapers have covered this story, including the Chicago Tribune and the St. Louis Post Dispatch. The Post article, for example, is here; another article from the Belleville News-Democrat is here.

The Belleville News-Democrat criticized the lawsuit in an editorial, calling it "over-the-top" and saying that Maag was out to intimidate his opponents. The News-Democrat also published a third article explaining why Maag was "unlikely to succeed"--

Bill Schroeder, a law professor at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale School of Law, . . . said Maag's chances of prevailing are not good.

"You've got to prove actual malice," Schroeder said. "You've got to prove people published something they knew was false, or that they had reckless disregard of whether it was true or false."

But Maag's attorney, Rex Carr, told the Chicago Tribune that "the charges are so blatantly false that no one could make them without lying or recklessly ignoring the truth." 

And you know what? He's right, as I'll explain.

Until yesterday, I didn't know anything about the lawsuit except what I read in the various newspaper accounts (there are more than I mentioned). Though most accounts were dismissive of the lawsuit or included quotes calling it "laughable," not one set out the allegedly false statements in detail or put the statements into context. It's not hard to do, however. Yesterday, I got Maag's defamation lawsuit from the courthouse, aided by my law-student assistant. The lawsuit attaches the entire flier that's caused all the controversy. (As I learned by accident, you can also see the entire flier by following this link to a pdf file, at least until someone takes it down.) Whether or not you agree with Judge Maag's decision to sue, it's not hard to see why he was upset about the flier: it's false from start to finish, and makes Maag out to be complete scum--a monster, in fact. It certainly must give him a bad feeling to know his long and distinguished career on the bench ended like this, with his reputation in tatters. (A close family member who doesn't follow politics or the courts and who lives in the area where the flier was distributed said to my wife Andrea about Maag, "He's the one who let that murderer out, isn't he?")

Those Nutty Plaintiffs' Lawyers: An Update

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about an unhappy reader who was threatening to sue me unless I deleted a certain post. He was also threatening to file a bar complaint, contact my malpractice insurer, complain to the attorney general, etc.

Here's the update: although I didn't delete the post, I haven't heard again from my antagonist, who was once sending me an e-mail or two every day.  So maybe we can put this latest controversy to rest.  I hope so.

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?

Those Nutty Plaintiffs' Lawyers: Still a Little Nutty!

For the second time since I started this weblog, I'm being threatened with a lawsuit. This time, the threats arise out of this post. Although someone who claims to be connected with the post wants me to delete it, I won't. For one thing, if I agreed to delete a post every time someone disagreed with it, I wouldn't have much of a weblog.

On the other hand, I do think it's important to correct factual errors. My correspondent says the error for which I am going to be sued is in the quote I took from the New York Law Journal. Specifically, one of the dates is wrong. According to my correspondent, the reference to "March 1998" in the original post should read "January 1999."

Assuming the correction is correct, you can consider the original post corrected. It's confusing, I know. It's also not good enough for my correspondent, who says that the only thing that will satisfy him is for me to completely delete the post. Here's one of his last e-mails to me, threatening a bar complaint and other actions:

I will be filing a complaint with the grievance committe on friday. They are sending me the papers. Also please let this serve as formal notice that i will be filing suit, against you, and your lawfirm by November 1, 2004. Please put your malpractice carrier on notice. I will also being sending out a letter by friday to all the insurance company's what type of website you run, and to look into your lawyer practices just in case you are filing frivolous lawsuits. A complaint with the attorney general will follow. YOU ARE VERY STUPID TO JUST PLACE STORIES ON YOUR WEBSITE. GOOD LUCK.

It might be time to rouse the old defense team from retirement. Stay tuned for further developments.

A Question for Readers: What Do You Want to Know About the Vioxx Case?

Have you heard or seen any Vioxx advertising?  Sure you have: it's a mass tort that has legs.  For those who read this weblog, it will mean a unique opportunity to showcase actual mass-tort lawyers and judges at work.  As we get started, here's a cast of characters to help you keep track of what will happen in the weeks ahead--

The Judges: Who Will Get the Giant Federal Case? Since multiple Vioxx cases have been filed in federal court, either side can file a motion asking that all the federal cases be consolidated into a single forum.  In fact, I heard that a group of plaintiffs' lawyers did exactly that on October 5.  It's the judges of the JPMDL who will rule on the request and decide what federal judge will be assigned to the consolidated Vioxx cases.  In a hearing that will take place in front of the judges of the MDL, many Vioxx lawyers will be lobbying for a federal district judge they know or a forum with which they are familiar.  (Meanwhile, the Vioxx cases filed in New Jersey have already been consolidated and handed off to a single judge.)

The Class Action Lawyers: Fighting for Control of the Giant Federal Case  Even before the forum is selected by the MDL judges, well-established plaintiffs' lawyers will be fighting for control of what will later come to be called the "Plaintiffs Management Committee" or "PMC."  In exciting back-room conferences, lawyers will scream at each other about the number of individual clients they have and threaten to take drastic action against those who refuse to support their team.  If they can't work it out themselves by agreement, they'll submit opposing plans to the judge for a decision.  What drama!

A Chinese Menu Ad That I Can Call My Own?

Two weeks ago, I did a post about a new method of advertising for plaintiffs' lawyers called the “Chinese Menu Ad.” Since then, I’ve been working with a consultant to come up with a Chinese Menu Ad of my very own. Below is the draft the consultant presented to me last Friday. Frankly, I think it’s a little over the top and borderline distasteful, but perhaps I’m just not in synch with the times. Any feedback would be appreciated.

CALL US NOW TOLL FREE: 1-808-GET-CASH

Did you or a loved one ever ingest Serzone, a drug that was prescribed to treat depression? If so, our law firm would like to talk to you. You may have legal rights, including the right to receive MILLIONS of dollars. For more information, please keep reading.

If you or a loved one didn't ingest Serzone, that's okay. That's because you or a loved one may have ingested the diet drug Meridia. If so, we would like to talk to you. Your ingestion of Meridia may have caused serious gastric problems, and you may be dying right now as you read this advertisement. That’s why you should call us at once. If you do, we will explain your legal rights to you, including your right to receive MILLIONS of dollars.

Call within the next 24 hours, and you’ll also receive a FREE consultation about a drug called Rezulin. If you or a loved one ever used Rezulin, which was prescribed to fight diabetes, you may have legal rights, including rights not very different from users of Serzone and Meridia, one of which is the right to receive MILLIONS of dollars.

If you’re thinking about setting this ad down right now so that you can call us on the phone, that’s great. But first, let us take a few moments to tell you about a drug called Baycol.