The National Association of Wrongdoers (“NAW”) gave Vice President Cheney its “Sharpshooter Award” last night at its annual convention. The theme of the meeting, held at the Ritz Carlton in Bermuda, was “Invest in America.”

The Sharpshooter Award is given as appropriate to the American citizen who best demonstrates the characteristics of Aaron Burr.

Charles Winthrop Hamilton VI, President of NAW and CEO,COO,CFO and President of American International Metals, Inc., LLC (“AIM”) commented that the Vice President had achieved great success in American politics and was viewed as a “hawk” by the world despite the fact that he refused to serve in the military himself. “This is a real stroke of genuis,” Mr. Hamilton remarked. “If the Vice President had brought these skills to Madison Avenue rather than Pennsylvania Avenue we would all be drinking New Coke. A man who can successfully attack the patriotism of John Kerry and Max Cleland while bearing more student deferments than Abby Hoffman has got a real gift.”

The manufacturers and others supporting a federal asbestos bill want it bad – so bad that they think it is appropriate to engage in conduct like this.

The sponsors of this site obviously do not let truth get in the way of their position. For example, they make this point in talking about opponents to the federal legislation: “Patrick Leahy (Vermont) $704,854 received from lawyers and lobbyists in the last election cycle. The lawyers and lobbyists were his largest contributors.”

Senator Leahy supports the legislation.

Joy and I got back from Phoenix last night after spending a long weekend there at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the National Board of Trial Advocacy, the parent of which is now known as the National Board of Legal Specialty Certification.

After the meetings ended Saturday afternoon we drove to Sedona with Steve Croley and Bridget McCormack to watch the sunset. Steve is the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Bridget is the Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs at the University of Michigan Law School. (Bridget also serves on the NBLSC Board.) They are great people, and we had a great time both in Sedona and at the Spirit Room in Jerome.

Steve is writing (another) book but I am not sure if I can mention the exact topic or not so I won’t. I will say that Steve is just the right person to write a book on this topic and I look forward to its publication.

The Vice President accidently shot another man – a lawyer – during a hunting trip this weekend. Read about the hunting trip here.

The owner of the ranch has placed comparative fault in play: the injured man “”came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn’t signal them or indicate to them or announce himself.”

Mary Matalin’s take on it: “[The Vice President] felt badly, obviously. On the other hand, he was not careless or incautious or violate any of the [rules]. He didn’t do anything he wasn’t supposed to do.”

The AP just issued a story at 9:30 P.M. today that is titled “Cheney Apparently Breaks Key Hunting Rule.”

A quote from the article: “It’s incumbent upon the shooter to assess the situation and make sure it’s a safe shot,” said Mark Birkhauser, president-elect of the International Hunter Education Association and hunter education coordinator in New Mexico. “Once you squeeze that trigger, you can’t bring that shot back.”

Of course, you saw that analysis here before 7:00 A.M. this morning.

One of the significant problems with running a plaintiff’s practice is managing cash flow. Any fees earned are usually contingent fees, and cases are not always resolved in such a way and a such a time to meet professional and personal financial obligations.

There are at least four different ways to address this issue. First, you can visit your friendly banker and arrange a line of credit that you dip into went you need to meet payroll, significant expert expenses, etc. This is probably the most common way of handling the situation.

Second, you can do business with a company that provides funding for plaintiff’s lawyers. Here is an article describing what these companies do and what they charge. There are several different models out there and the interest rates for each of them are much higher than you would expect to pay a bank.

You have undoubtedly heard about the claim against a Benihana restaurant where a man allegedly died because he was hit in the face by a shrimp. The jury did not hold the restaurant liable.

These were the facts according to the article at www.law.com: “On Jan. 27, 2001, Mr. Colaitis, his wife Jacqueline and his two sons and others went to the Munsey Park location of the popular eatery to celebrate one of the boy’s birthdays. According to testimony given by Ms. Colaitis, the sons, Christos and John Alexander, and at least two other members of the dinner party had been struck and burned by pieces of food tossed by the unidentified chef. After the second burning, Mr. Colaitis asked the chef to stop. Instead, the chef allegedly flung one more piece of shrimp at Mr. Colaitis’ head. Jerking away from it, he wrenched two vertebrae in his neck. He had the first operation six months later.” Mr. Colaitis later died, allegedly from complications of the neck injury.

The only thing my experience tells me about hibachi-style restaurants is that they never have a table until you have had at least one drink. Then, when you walk behind the curtain, there are lots of empty tables.

An insurance defense firm was hit with a jury verdict in a legal malpractice case last Thursday, February 2. 2006. The lawsuit arose after the now-plaintiff insurer got hit with an adverse verdict in a products liability trial.

The plaintiff in the malpractice action claimed that the underlying case was lost because the defense lawyer “spent woefully few hours preparing, failed to call critical witnesses and muffed chances to attack the plaintiff’s credibility.” More specifically, the evidence alllegedly “showed that [the defense attorney who actually tried the case] spent 20.5 hours preparing for the ladder trial, failed to elicit expert testimony that could have refuted the [original] plaintiff’s experts, failed to take advantage of expert testimony for defendants that got out on summary judgment and failed to exploit evidence that would have shown [the original plaintiff] to be a lying fraud.” In all, 21 errors were claimed.

I have seen some recent evidence of this kind of case as well. I sit on the Standards Committee for the National Board of Trial Advocacy and as part of my work on that committee I have to review lawsuits filed against board-certified lawyers. I just reviewed a big stack of them on Tuesday and can tell you that the type of lawsuits filed against lawyers are different today than they were just five years ago. Historically, the claims involved blown statutes of limitation, other missed deadlines and an occasional failure-to-disclose-conflict case. We now see more and more “strategy-related” claims.

Contact Information