The idea is innocent enough: sign up for a Google alert to notify you whenever your client's name is mentioned in that series of tubes that is the Internet.
However, just because Google sends you an e-mail with your client's name next to a word like "scam" doesn't mean that you need to fire off that strongly worded letter just yet: Take a deep breath, count to ten, and then follow the link to make absolutely certain that it is, in fact, your client who is being disparaged.
This will probably be the new protocol hung over the postage machine at the office of Lazar, Akiva & Yagoubzadeh. The California-based firm recently accused the blog Boing Boing of causing "possibly irrevocable damage" to its client, Academic Advantage. Apparently, the firm found the words "academic advantage" and "scam" in the same sentence in one of BB's posts. The catch? First, the post was on research exploring the academic advantage exhibited by some people with autism, and had nothing to do with Lazar's client, a tutoring service. Second, the word "scam" was found in a comment following the blog entry.
The firm's letter spins a different narrative, however, stating that:
"It is clear there is no purpose to this web address but to falsely accuse the Academic Advantage of being a scam or at least associating the Academic Advantage with a scam. There is absolutely no helpful reason for the website to have the words 'Academic,' 'Advantage' and 'Scam' which leads me to believe it was created for malicious purposes."
The benefit-of-the-doubt explanation I've come to involves a lengthy history of accusations of AA's scam-itude, a form letter, and an overworked paralegal or summer clerk. Either way, things didn't end well for Lazar, Akiva & Yagoubzadeh. Per an article in California Watch, the firm was let go by Academic Advantage as a result of the ensuing media fracas.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Legislature Says "Nuh-Uh" to Pay Raise For Judges, Prosecutors
Arkansas lawmakers removed language from a budget bill authorizing a 1.86% pay raise for prosecutors and judges. Arkansas Business estimates the savings at around half a million dollars. The article has Sen. Jim Luker, D-Wynne wondering aloud as to whether this is an instance of political posturing, sticking it to prosecutors and judges while keeping pay increases increases for, say, college professors and football coaches on the table.
The story doesn't appear to have touched a nerve with Arkansans, as reactions both in print and on the web are few and far between, save for one posting from what must be a not-at-all-obnoxious citizen, using the handle "NoMoreCommies" in the comment section of the Tolbert Report's post on the matter.
The story doesn't appear to have touched a nerve with Arkansans, as reactions both in print and on the web are few and far between, save for one posting from what must be a not-at-all-obnoxious citizen, using the handle "NoMoreCommies" in the comment section of the Tolbert Report's post on the matter.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Pay Day (in Court) Lending: Just How Much WIll That Jury Award Cost You?
Before my life was consumed with briefing cases for class, poring over hornbooks, and drinking heavily to numb the existential angst that accompanies being a 1L, I worked for plaintiffs lawyers doing pharmaceutical litigation. Between the costs of expert witnesses, discovery, and general overhead, I was astounded to learn how much money was required simply to prove up a case, much less to cover the expense of a trial.
The issue of funding a lawsuit is a strategic one, and the tactic of making a suit prohibitively expensive is not lost on the defense. Plaintiffs' lawyers can and do run out of money for a litigation. More often, they simply won't take on cases that appear risky or are just plain out of their price range.
Enter the area of litigation financing. A November piece in the New York Times details the exploits of various lending firms and hedge funds who are willing to invest substantial amounts of money (stretching into the millions) to cash poor law firms with promising cases. Per the article:
"The rise of lending to plaintiffs and their lawyers is a result of the high cost of litigation. Pursuing a civil action in federal court costs an average of $15,000, the Federal Judicial Center reported last year. Cases involving scientific evidence, like medical malpractice claims, often cost more than $100,000. Some people cannot afford to pursue claims; others are overwhelmed by corporate defendants with deeper pockets"
The companies aren't doing this out of the kindness of their own hearts, however. As this article and a more recent Times follow-up report, lenders routinely charge rates above 15%, meaning that a plaintiff can be awarded a substantial verdict only to have it swallowed by interest accruing while the defendants appeal.
Further, these lawsuit funding loans exist in an unregulated wasteland in which the lawyer has no accountability to a client when deciding whether or not to contract with the lender. Thus, plaintiffs may go through a litigation only to find, after the fact and without their knowledge, that their lawyers borrowed money at an exorbitant rate and that their day in court, while successful, will end up costing them tens of thousands of dollars or even more.
The flip side is, of course, that not every case with outside funding is a lesson in skullduggery. These lenders can provide an opportunity for meritorious plaintiffs whose cases might not otherwise see the inside of a courtroom. It could also be noted that plaintiffs' lawyers' fees are often usurious with or without an assist from a lender, and for precisely the same reason: with risk comes reward.
I'm curious to see how this phenomenon evolves. At the moment, it smacks of payday lending, but a few tweaks to the most predatory aspects of the practice might open up a pretty compelling partnership between investment firms and plaintiffs. Yeesh, who knows...someday we might hear the phrase "Malpractice-Backed Securities."
The issue of funding a lawsuit is a strategic one, and the tactic of making a suit prohibitively expensive is not lost on the defense. Plaintiffs' lawyers can and do run out of money for a litigation. More often, they simply won't take on cases that appear risky or are just plain out of their price range.
Enter the area of litigation financing. A November piece in the New York Times details the exploits of various lending firms and hedge funds who are willing to invest substantial amounts of money (stretching into the millions) to cash poor law firms with promising cases. Per the article:
"The rise of lending to plaintiffs and their lawyers is a result of the high cost of litigation. Pursuing a civil action in federal court costs an average of $15,000, the Federal Judicial Center reported last year. Cases involving scientific evidence, like medical malpractice claims, often cost more than $100,000. Some people cannot afford to pursue claims; others are overwhelmed by corporate defendants with deeper pockets"
The companies aren't doing this out of the kindness of their own hearts, however. As this article and a more recent Times follow-up report, lenders routinely charge rates above 15%, meaning that a plaintiff can be awarded a substantial verdict only to have it swallowed by interest accruing while the defendants appeal.
Further, these lawsuit funding loans exist in an unregulated wasteland in which the lawyer has no accountability to a client when deciding whether or not to contract with the lender. Thus, plaintiffs may go through a litigation only to find, after the fact and without their knowledge, that their lawyers borrowed money at an exorbitant rate and that their day in court, while successful, will end up costing them tens of thousands of dollars or even more.
The flip side is, of course, that not every case with outside funding is a lesson in skullduggery. These lenders can provide an opportunity for meritorious plaintiffs whose cases might not otherwise see the inside of a courtroom. It could also be noted that plaintiffs' lawyers' fees are often usurious with or without an assist from a lender, and for precisely the same reason: with risk comes reward.
I'm curious to see how this phenomenon evolves. At the moment, it smacks of payday lending, but a few tweaks to the most predatory aspects of the practice might open up a pretty compelling partnership between investment firms and plaintiffs. Yeesh, who knows...someday we might hear the phrase "Malpractice-Backed Securities."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)