Have you ever heard about Stella Liebeck, the lady who sued McDonald's over a hot coffee spill? Do you believe that Americans will sue at the drop of a banana peel?
Then The Tortellini is for you. This new blog on law and politics is a companion to my forthcoming book, Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and its Corporate Allies are Taking Away Your Right to Sue
“Tort reform” has become a staple of Republican politics. Limits on lawsuits are offered as a solution to everything from the health care crisis and economic stagnation to America's moral decline. Americans overwhelmingly believe that the nation is awash in frivolous lawsuits.
And that's just where The Tortellini comes in. Because most of what you’ve heard about “lawsuit abuse” is wrong. The majority sentiment on legal reform comes courtesy of a long disinformation campaign by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other big business sponsors like the tobacco, insurance and automobile industries. These folks have managed to convince voters from to Hawaii to Maine that plaintiffs in civil actions are whiners, hustlers, and layabouts, and that their attempts to win the “lawsuit lottery” have created a “litigation explosion.”
The truth, as The Tortellini will attest, is more complex. The number of personal injury filings are falling, not rising, according to sober government data, median awards are falling, and plaintiffs are taking it on the chin, in everything from medical malpractice to products liabilty lawsuits.
With daily posts, original reporting, useful stats, and other features, The Tortellini will give you the skinny on the latest in the fight for the courthouse: from legislative proposals and court decisions, to the clever tactics companies are employing to minimize legal exposure. Not to mention gossip!
Tips about litigation shenanigins, experts for hire, stealth media campaigns by tort reform groups, etc. are welcome. Contact me at thetortellini@earthlink.net. Meantime, read on!
Right On!
I fire a virtual 21 gun salute in honor of your site's launching.
And, I'd buy you a cup of coffee (not at McDonald's)if your book becomes a best seller.
Posted by: Greedy Trial Lawyer | October 19, 2006 at 06:25 AM
Great idea. I hear more misinformation about that McDonald's lawsuit. Once you dig down and actually read the case and the history of the issue, the lawsuit makes much more sense. I think your blog will shine some much needed light on the subject.
Posted by: The Splitter | October 19, 2006 at 09:05 AM
Sincerity Test Question: Will you support a statute permitting a legal malpractice claim by an adverse third party? To avoid harassment, a lawyering expert certificate of merit is fine.
If you will not, Have a Nice Day. You are then just another unjust, rent seeking lawyer.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | October 20, 2006 at 07:53 AM
What the heck is Supremacy Claus talking about? You can always sue an attorney for malpractice (and you don't need an affidavit from a lawyer to do it).
Posted by: Steve | October 20, 2006 at 12:34 PM
Steve: The adverse third party has no recourse if the carelessness of the lawyer caused an injury. One must have privity. Heirs are really constructive beneficiaries, and do not count as adverse third parties, if that what you were thinking. No other product maker nor service provider has had that obstacle to compensation for the past 100 years.
The misuse of a civil procedure claim reqires scienter and a confession of malice to prevail. It is impossible between people who did not know each other. Rule 11 renders near immunity from civil accountability, with its 21 day take backsies.
Such a privity obstacle is an unjust self-dealt immunity of the lawyer.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | October 22, 2006 at 12:21 AM
Having appreciated your thoughtful articles on tort revision propaganda, I'm very glad to see this blog. Let the truth be known.
Posted by: Maren Chaloupka | October 22, 2006 at 05:17 PM
You're concerned about suing an estate/probate lawyer? The personal representative of the estate hires the lawyer and as far as I know (not practicing in that area because I find it extremely tiresome) there are a number of actions that can be brought against a probate lawyer and the pr for actions that harm beneficiaries/heirs. I'm in Florida so I have little to no knowledge of what the laws are in your state.
Posted by: Steve | October 24, 2006 at 02:54 PM
Steve, Supremacy Claus is talking about standing. Heirs/beneficiaries in most states do not have standing to sue the attorney who drafted the testamentary instrument.
And Supremacy Claus, an "adverse third party" might have other causes of action, but "malpractice" generally wouldn't make sense.
Posted by: David Nieporent | October 28, 2006 at 10:32 PM
Brava!
Welcome to the blogosphere, a nice addition to the conversation. I am an admin lawyer for the govt. so, although I am of the tribe, I am a spectator in the tort reform wars--which are far too much dominated by the bogus "McDonalds Coffee" type arguments and show far too little concern for the rights of people and communities suffering injuries at the hands of employers, polluters, etc.
I have asked my library to add your book to the collection and will spread the word about it after I read it. (I am presuming I will like it-- I've been a WA Monthly subscriber for more than 15 years now I think.)
Posted by: JMG | December 07, 2006 at 04:10 PM