The Experienced Lawyer and the Law Student Debate Point of Law

Exp. Lawyer:  So, kid, have you seen Point of Law, Walter Olson’s new project?  Sorry about the cigar smoke, by the way. 

Law Student:  I’ll just quit breathing for a while.  But yes, I took a look at Point of Law.  I didn’t know you were a fan of weblogs.

Exp. Lawyer:  Only when they’re fair and balanced.  It’s an exciting weblog too.  A few days ago, the managing editor, Jim Copland, accused plaintiffs’ lawyer Fred Baron of “spouting off” to the New York Times!

Law Student:  A weblog with a managing editor?  Now I’ve heard everything.  Are you sure you can’t blow that smoke the other way?

Exp. Lawyer:  Cigars are good, kid.  You should try one.  But let me finish.  Fred Baron made the ridiculous claim in the New York Times that the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry and the chemical industry have spent over $200 million over the last five years in ad campaigns to make plaintiffs' lawyers look like villains.  And Jim Copland called him on it.  On Point of Law, he wrote, “Mr. Baron, can you back that up?”  It’s been three days, and not a word from Baron!

Law Student:  Does Fred Baron read Point of Law? 

Exp. Lawyer:  Who cares?  Overlawyered picked it up too.  Walter Olson wrote that Copland “dared tort czar Fred Baron to substantiate his claim.”

Law Student: Did anyone e-mail Baron or anything?  Tell him about all this daring and challenging? 

Exp. Lawyer:  You’re missing the point.

Law Student:  Does Point of Law even have comments?  How is Baron supposed to respond—by holding a press conference?  Anyway, maybe you’re missing the point.  Do you doubt that those industries Baron mentioned have spent millions of dollars on the anti-lawyer advertisements that show up during every state judicial race?   

Exp. Lawyer:  Of course I doubt it.  I’ve never read about it on Overlawyered.  Or on Point of Law, for that matter.

Law Student: Then let me fill you in.  In 2002, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was going to spend up to $15 million for a single set of TV ads.  Lots of money, right? 

Exp. Lawyer:  Sure, but it’s not $200 million.

Law Student:  Or how about Forbes?  You’d believe a pro-business magazine, wouldn’t you?  Last year, Forbes reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is funded by those industries that Fred Baron mentioned, spent $150 million from 2000 to 2003 on a “secret war” against plaintiffs’ lawyers and state court judges. 

Exp. Lawyer:  Big deal, kid.  $150 million isn’t $200 million.  You bleeding hearts just can’t add.  But I'm getting bored.  You sure you don’t want to turn off your brain and try one of these cigars?  We could hang out for the rest of the afternoon. 

Law Student:  To tell you the truth, I’ve got to run.  Maybe we’ll continue this conversation another time.

Related posts:

1.  The Experienced Lawyer and the Law Student Debate Class Actions

2.  The Experienced Lawyer and the Law Student Debate Overlawyered.com

Comments

[Walter Olson]

Jim Copland is on vacation and I can't speak for him, but I have a few comments on your arithmetic.

Fred Baron told the New York Times that "The pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry and the chemical industry have spent over $200 million over the last five years in ad campaigns that make trial lawyers look like villains...." In the course of trying to substantiate this very specific assertion, you:

1) treat all business spending intended to influence state judicial elections as if it were spent by the three industries named;

2) treat all such spending as devoted to ad campaigns;

3) treat all such ad spending as devoted to negative ads rather than to (say) ads proclaiming the virtues of favored judicial candidates;

4) treat all negative ads as "really" meant to vilify judges' backers even if their message on the surface is "Vote against Judge X, he's too liberal for the state."

5) treat the plaintiff's bar, as opposed to groups such as labor unions, as the only targets of such (perhaps unspoken) messages in negative ads.

And yet readers who follow the link to the Forbes article on which you rely will find that it flatly contradicts each of these five assertions. (It also begins by proclaiming "For years the trial lawyers had state courts wrapped around their fingers. Now big business is striking back.") As for the $15 million figure, a quick Google search indicates that at one point Chamber officials told reporters they were hoping to raise that very large sum for a national ad campaign, but I can find no indication that they actually did raise or spend that amount or anything near it.

It is hardly news that, of the fortunes spent by both sides in our deplorable system of state court election races, some fraction winds up in ads attacking trial lawyers on the one hand or business on the other. But substantiate Baron's $200 million claim? You've got to be kidding.

[Evan]

Walter: Thanks much for your comment. As always, you are a gentleman and a good sport.

As for the substance of your comment, it's duly noted. Meanwhile, I'm doing some more digging. If it yields anything new, I'll probably give the information to the participants in the dialogue.

[David Giacalone]

Gee, Walter, This is an "entertainment" forum by a p/i lawyer -- you don't expect fact-checking, cogent arguments, and balanced reportage do you?

[Evan]

David: The standards you mention are maintained on this weblog mostly by Saturday guest-posters. While you are waiting for Saturday, may I invite you to have a cigar?

[OLS]

*rolls around the floor laughing*

*recovers - stares down co-workers who are concerned about my mental state*

*starts laughing again*

Ahh - you crack me up. Interestingly enough, your question "can lawyers be entertaining" is similar to the debate question for this years Golden Gavel (a Queensland debating comp for lawyers), which is "Are lawyers funny?"

Any debater worth his salt on the team for the affirmative should be mentioning a few blawgs like this one. Keeps me entertained for 5 minutes every morning anyway... ;o)

- OLS

[David Giacalone]

Evan, Thank you, but I'm not a smoker. However, if you should have any leftover Baby Sam bubble-gum cigars, I'd love to have one.

[Evan]

Editor's Update In an e-mail, Fred Baron confirmed to me that he is "not a blogger" and did not see the "e-stuff" at Overlawyered and Point of Law to which this post refers. He also said that despite repeated attacks on him by Walter Olson, he has never met or spoken to Walter Olson, and "to [his] knowledge," has never been given an opportunity to comment prior to publication of the attacks in the Wall Street Journal and other publications.

[Ted]

Who has ever been given an opportunity to respond pre-publication to an op-ed in any major newspaper?

The Baron & Budd memo was published in full in the January 1998 Harper's, and otherwise investigated in the press and elsewhere so poor beleaguered Fred Baron has had six years to come up with a response; all Walter did was quote it. Elsewhere, Walter has quoted Baron's public response.