How Many Purses Can You Buy For $125,000?
February 6, 2009
What do you call $125,000 in gift cards to a women’s clothing store? An attorneys’ fee!
It seems the clerks at Windsor Fashion in California were requesting email addresses and telephone numbers for customers paying by credit card. A minor inconvenience or a modest intrusion – but also a violation of Civil Code § 1747.08 (a) (2). (Metropolitan News-Enterprise through Walter Olson)
Attorney Neil Fineman rushed forward to reverse this travesty of justice, slapping Windsor Fashion with a class action lawsuit. As part of a settlement OK’d last month by a California judge, each class member who can be found will receive a $10 gift card to Windsor.
Rather than walking away with a fat check for his legal services, Fineman himself will soon become a regular at the store as he tries to work off the 12,500 $10 gift cards he received as compensation for filing the action.
The New York Times Gets It Right
January 7, 2009
A few weeks back, I wrote a post about a California Supreme Court ruling that puts Good Samaritans on the hook for legal damages when they try to help someone in distress. Now, the New York Times has joined the chorus, with a strong editorial criticizing the decision. Money graph:
The implications of the ruling are disturbing. When people see an accident, the law should not discourage them from offering the best help they can. Now, however, Californians will have reason to hesitate. If they offer non-medical help – like pulling someone out of a burning house, or rescuing a drowning person – they may be putting their life savings at risk.
Good Samaritans On The Hook In California
December 22, 2008
Good Samaritans who try to rescue victims of car crashes or other emergencies can be sued for damages,
Update From California
July 16, 2008
California’s Statewide Commission for Impartial Courts held its first public hearing this week and the results were predictable. Legal elites from the Golden State and beyond paraded before the Commission to bemoan the “threats” to judicial independence because of “special interests” and called for action to take “politics” out of the courtroom.
Former California Governor Pete Wilson actually proposed a constitutional amendment that would “urge judicial candidates in California not to answer political questions and that would require all questionnaires to include that advice.” Wilson once called on California voters to dump a sitting state Supreme Court Justice who didn’t agree with his political views on crime. Apparently public officials berating judges doesn’t qualify as “politics,” but the horrors of filling out questionnaires have become so severe that a full-blown amendment to the constitution is required to ensure judicial impartiality.
Instead of berating judges, one august participant, Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, likes to beat up on voters. Earlier this week, Moyer went so far as to say voters are too unsophisticated to understand the importance of judicial independence. (He ought to know – voters elected him).
The Commission’s Chair, California Supreme Court Justice Ming W. Chin, repeated his assertion that courts are accountable to codes of conduct, the law, and the Constitution,” but evidently not to the people. The Commission’s interim report isn’t due until next month, but when lawyers start talking like this, it’s usually a good sign they want to push voters out of the judicial selection process.
Time to Put California On Your Radar
July 8, 2008
California’s Commission for Impartial Courts will hold its first public “fact-finding” hearing next week reports Legal Newsline. The commissioners will hear from Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer – a well-known opponent of democratic judicial elections – and view “horrifying” ads from judicial races around the country. Sounds like the “facts” have already been “found” and all that’s left is to figure out how better to insulate California judges from California citizens.
“The commission,” says commissioner and California Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin, “believes that courts should be accountable … to well-established codes of conduct that require them to follow the law and the Constitution.” Of course everyone wants judges to follow appropriate codes of judicial conduct and uphold state constitutions. But let’s hope the commissioners remember that quaint old democratic notion that judges – like all other public servants – must also be accountable to the people.
Cleaning Up Class Action Abuse
June 20, 2008
The Washington Legal Foundation has an interesting new paper by California state Sen. Tom Harman on a class action reform bill he introduced in the state senate.
One of the many problems with class action lawsuits, Sen. Harman explains, is that after a case is won or settled, the plaintiffs’ attorney must seek out the class members – many of whom don’t even know they are part of a lawsuit – so they can receive their portion of the judgment or settlement. However, plaintiffs’ lawyers have little incentive to exert themselves on the class members’ behalf because they get paid before any plaintiff is compensated. Judgments or settlements that never make their way to class members are typically doled out to charities.
Sen. Harman proposed withholding a percentage (around 10%) of the plaintiffs’ lawyer’s fee until a judge determines that as many of the class members as possible have been found. Although the bill failed in California, Sen. Harman and WLF hopes it can serve as a model for other states trying to reform class action systems. As Sen. Harman puts it:
Fighting through the special interests to a more just legal system is a difficult and often frustrating task, but in the end, worth the effort. Class action suits are more easily subject to abuse because the injured parties often are unaware of their injuries.