Can't imagine what this family is going through

Under Ohio law, the bodies of [individuals] who die in motor vehicle accidents must undergo an autopsy—the same as those who die violently or suspiciously or unattended, or who simply happen to be younger than age 2.

* * *

[One Couple’s deceased son’s] brain had been removed for examination [during the required autopsy], and at the time he was buried—a few days after the accident—it was still in Cincinnati, immersed in a fixing solution of formaldehyde and salt at the Hamilton County coroner’s office. The solution causes the brain to solidify so that it can be sectioned and analyzed, a routine process that takes 10 days to two weeks.

This article from the ABA Journal opened my eyes. I can't stop thinking about the pain this family must be feeling.

Read the article and shudder. It will run chills up your spine.

The Body in Question:

Coroners eye Ohio suit demanding they tell families about removal of body parts

By Mark Hansen

FROM THE JULY ABA JOURNAL

Passengers in the car are now covered when Police Stop and Search the Vehicle

When a police officer makes a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The question in this case is whether the same is true of a passenger. We hold that a passenger is seized as well and so may challenge the constitutionality of the stop.

Justice Souter wrote the majority opinion; this is what the United States Supreme Court held:

Supreme Court Holding: When police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and so may challenge the stop's constitutionality.

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the United States Supreme Court:

When a police officer makes a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The question in this case is whether the same is true of a passenger. We hold that a passenger is seized as well and so may challenge the constitutionality of the stop.

Click here to read the entire opinion.

Celebrate! This is the One Hundredth Post

So it's only fitting that the topic f the 100th post should circle back to the ethical problem with the pants judge. The sixty-four million dollar pants judge has piqued the curiosity of the legal community in a way that I hope never happens to anyone in my circle.

During his testimony yesterday, the crowded courtroom laughed at his outlandish comments on the stand. We can only hope that the end of his trial will bring a peaceful end to this legal nightmare.

That pants lawyer makes all lawyers look terrible

As if the public does not hold lawyers in contempt already, this pants judge adds fuel to the fire. Personally, I think his antics belong on a psychiatrist’s couch-- not in a courtroom. In my opinion, he is abusing the court system for his own amusement. and potential financial gain. We can only hope that the system slaps him with sanctions, or worse: disbarment. After all, lawyers have been disbarred for much less than filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Click here to read the article in the Washington Times.

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20070613-113032-6302r.htm

FDCPA is the debtor's friend

From Law.com:

Debt-collection lawyers are increasingly being hauled into court as defendants in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuits by debt-burdened consumers who use litigation to fend off creditors.

Lawyers say the statute's vague and broad language opens the door to cases against law firms, and a recent federal court decision that denied litigation immunity to a debt-collection law firm creates even more risk for debt-collection lawyers.

Other factors behind the trend include mistakes in court filings made by debt buyers -- or their lawyers -- who purchase debt from creditors but frequently lack enough information to avoid making false statements in pleadings.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Statute of Limitations Law for debt collections in Maryland

In Maryland, the statute of limitations on debt collection runs for THREE years from the date the debt accrues, unless:

• FOUR YEARS: Under the UCC, Breach of Contract under any sale of goods and services: FOUR years after the cause of action, even if the aggrieved party is unaqare of the breach.
• TWELEVE YEARS: Promissory notes or instruments under seal, bonds, judgments, recongizance, contracts under seal, or other specialties.
• TWELVE YEARS: Financinfg statement, unless a continuation payment is filed by a secured party SIX MONTHS prior to end of TWELVE YEAR period. Maryland Commercial Law articel Sec. 2-725; Courts and Judicial Proceedings article Sec. 5-101-02; 9-403.

This is not meant to be legal advice.
If you need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

DON’T alter discovery documents

Do not lie during discovery; you’ll get caught.

This article outlines how a lawyer altered discovery documents.

What in the world was he thinking? DId he think he would get a way with it?

Sends chills up my spine.

Read this story. It contains a lesson in Ethics for the rest of us.

Firm's Mea Culpa Adds Twist to Class Action Against Best Buy

Matthew Hirsch, The Recorder
June 4, 2007

A consumer class action against Best Buy has taken an odd turn, as its outside counsel asked to withdraw from the case because one of the firm's lawyers had altered documents given to the plaintiffs.

In a May 24 motion received by a San Francisco Bay Area plaintiffs lawyer involved in the case, Minnesota-based Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Cerisi says partner Timothy Block had been placed on an indefinite medical leave. The day after he stopped working, he informed the firm "that he had redacted and altered documents that he later produced to plaintiffs in this matter."

The motion adds that the defense firm had been informed by Block's attorney that he had self-reported his actions to the Minnesota Board of Professional Responsibility.

Thanks to my friends at Solosez for tipping me off to this BIZZARE story.

First ask: do you really want this client?

In the past, we have discussed some of the clients whom we should avoid - and some we wish that we had avoided.

Too late comes the wisdom. But never too late to learn.

A few "warning" signs that this client is better off in someone else's office:

• this client has had multiple lawyers previously;
• this client has been sued by the former lawyer;
• this client does not respond to your communications;
  
• this client leaves voice mails before nine a.m.; or
• this client does not pay your attorney fees on time.

Any one of the above should signal "warning bells" in your head. If a client signals more thatn one -- RUN -- don't walk -- away.

Lesson learned, the hard way. But learned, nevertheless.

Vioxx? ALJ sheds some light on relevant legislation

http://www.justice.org/pressroom/FACTS/products/vioxximmunity.aspx

Immunity for Vioxx Makers and Guidant Execs?

The Dirty Little Secret About the U.S. House Medical Malpractice Bill

Hidden in the bill that is being falsely advertised as malpractice insurance relief for doctors are sweet product liability protections for the drug industry: Sweeping immunities that will make it impossible for people injured or killed by unsafe drugs and products—like Vioxx and Guidant's heart device—to hold manufacturers accountable.

Specifically, the Bill Protects Drug and Medical Device Makers By:

Capping damages for any injury, or even death, at $250,000

* No matter how serious the injury it causes, and no matter how negligent its misconduct, companies like Merck and Guidant will never have to pay more than $250,000 in compensation for noneconomic loss to patients and families who are injured or killed by defective drugs. Noneconomic damages are the only compensation for the injury itself, as opposed to reimbursement of out of pocket expenses.

* Non-economic damages compensate people for devastating injury or loss, such as having to live the rest of one's life in a wheelchair, or for the loss of fertility, or for excruciating and chronic pain.

* For people with low incomes, like stay-at-home moms, children, and seniors, noneconomic damages are often the only way to be fairly compensated for devastating injury.

Under H.R. 5, drug companies will keep their profits while injured people are denied justice.

Shielding pharmaceuticals from punitive damages

* Punitive damages are intended to punish companies when they put Americans at risk by marketing a product they know to be unsafe.

* This bill ensures that except in rare instances, drug companies will never be subject to punitive damages because the bill requires an injured person to prove that a defendant intended to harm that particular person, an impossible standard to prove against a drug company that sells to millions of consumers.

* It also specifically prohibits punitive damages for FDA-approved products. Amazingly, it doesn't stop there. It also gives immunity to drug makers for many drugs and devices that are not FDA-approved!

* Under H.R. 5, the only way to recover punitive damages against a drug company is to prove that it knowingly lied to the F.D.A. and even then, a plaintiff would also have to meet a heightened standard of proof. Even in the very rare case in which a patient meets this huge burden, the bill still caps punitive damages at $250,000 or two times the amount of economic damages- no matter how egregious the misconduct.

H.R. 5 removes all incentives for safety, eliminates punishment for misconduct and leaves the public's welfare in the hands of the drug industry.

What This Means for Consumers:

* Without the threat of full liability—especially liability for punitive damages—there are no financial disincentives for keeping profitable but dangerous, even deadly drugs and medical devices off the market.

* H.R. 5 forces consumers to accept a Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all limit on the compensation a jury would be allowed to provide for an injury caused by a defective drug or device.

July 21, 2005