Attorney Find Blog

Civil litigation serves a useful purpose in society, and without it consumers would lack a lot of important protections.  You aren’t likely to find any calls for tort reform or punitive damage caps here.  But today I’m compelled to say:  IS NOTHING SACRED?

On January 31, litigation commenced among the heirs of deceased Grateful Dead frontman Jerry Garcia.  Grateful Dead fans are quite possibly both the largest source and the largest consumer base for bootleg audio in the world.  The Grateful Dead made it easy for them for a lot of years, sometimes even providing taping areas at their shows so that anyone who wanted to steal their music could do so easily and with reasonably good sound quality.

Deborah Koons Garcia is apparently suing to gain control over unpublished tapes of her late husband’s musical performances.  She wants to restore those tapes, but other members of the limited liability corporation formed by Garcia’s heirs are holding up the process.  Deborah’s lawsuit is just the latest in a round of legal squabbling that’s included other heirs suing to keep the corporation intact and Garcia’s 19 year old daughter suing Deborah for alleged financial mismanagement.

Public opinion on the culture surrounding the Grateful Dead during the band’s glory days was always dramatically split.  To some it was a safe haven of love and acceptance, a return to a simpler life in which people lived off what they created with their hands and offered food to a hungry stranger.  To others, it was a subculture built around drug use and irresponsibility.   More than a decade after Jerry Garcia’s death, some might have expected a peaceful, nurturing legacy and others a generation of social dropouts ill equipped to move forward.  Some might have expected the phenomenon to fade away and be all but forgotten.  I’m sure none of us could have expected a legacy of corporate greed.

It’s become fairly routine for prospective employers to check an applicant’s credit report as part of the screening process, but recently some citizens’ groups have begun to protest the practice, pointing out that it limits the ability of people with past financial problems to make positive changes, and often on grounds that have nothing to do with the jobs they’ve applied for. Other consumer advocates point to studies indicating that at least 25% of credit reports contain serious errors.

A 2004 survey indicated that about 20% of employers conducted credit checks before extending any offer of employment, but other data indicates that the number has increased dramatically in the short time since the survey was conducted.

Now, Washington State Senator Steve Hobbs (D, Lake Stevens) has introduced a bill that would prohibit employers from using credit reports as a screening tool except in specific industries, like financial services and public safety.

Today’s Christian Science Monitor today reviews two new books about the United States Supreme Court that go beyond the decisions rendered by the court to the politics and planning that led to each of the modern appointments to the court (Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court, by Jan Crawford Greenburg) and to a study of the impact of the temperments, personalities, and pairings of justices on the fabric of the court (The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America, by Jeffrey Rosen).

A Wisconsin attorney who once prosecuted drunken drivers for the Madison attorney’s office has been charged with DUI after arriving at a police station to pick up a client charged with DUI. Attorney Rick Petri says he got a phone call around 2 a.m. from police saying his client, Patrick DePula, had been charged with drunk driving. Petri admitted that he had been drinking alcohol in front of his television earlier in the evening but thought that it would be out of his system when he had to pick up DePula. Petri blew a 0.09 on a breath test at the police station. Petri and DePula were charged with first offenses punishable by fine, license suspension or revocation of up to 6-9 months, and an alcohol assessment. Petri apologized and expressed his embarrassment about the incident. He also added that he hopes people learn a valuable lesson from his actions.

A Nevada Supreme Court opinion called an attorney’s arguments “misconduct” because they “encouraged jurors to look beyond the law and the relevant facts in deciding the case before them.” The court imposed sanctions on the attorney, Phillip Emerson, and referred the case to the State Bar for further disciplinary proceedings.

Emerson reportedly made arguments about personal injury litigation in general during four trials in which he represented defendants. His comments centered around the idea that such trials wasted taxpayers’ money and jurors’ time, and were contributing to the declining view of the legal profession.

The unusual court ruling raises questions about the acceptable boundaries of arguing beyond existing law when addressing a jury, and may inspire judges to tighten standards for courtroom argument, at least in Nevada.

A federal judge has put a $50 million Hurricane Katrina class action settlement for as many as 35,000 State Farm policy holders on hold due to the need for more information from the parties involved, especially the insurance company. U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter of the U.S. District Court of Southern Mississippi decline to sign off on the widely-reported settlement and wrote that the settlement did not establish a “fair, just, balanced or reasonable” procedure for handling such claims. The rejected agreement promised that State Farm would reconsider Hurricane Katrina insurance claims and denials for some 35,000 policyholders who did not sue the company.

Specifically, Senter questioned everything from plaintiff cases and blanket security given to State Farm and its agents to the moneys involved and the scope of the insurance settlement. Senter especially wondered if the blanket immunity and proposed claims process would give State Farm too much power in these types of cases. He also said the plan was not a global settlement because it didn’t do enough to include claims of those people currently involved in litigation who may wish to opt into this settlement, and added that the $50 million cap should be broadened. With that said, the leading plaintiff attorneys in the settlement said that they still plan to make initial payments to the hundreds of families they represent in the settlement apart from the proposed class.

It is unknown whether this federal decision will affect a separate $80 million settlement between State Farm and some 640 cases already in litigation.