As we’ve previously written, Republican Supreme Court Justice Medina and his wife were indicted last month by a Harris County grand jury for conduct relating to a fire at their home. Shortly thereafter, the Republican district attorney had the indictments dismissed.

Now the case takes another twist. Six members of the grand jury have sued so they can speak out about the evidence in the case. The jurors contend that the district attorney and other lawyers in his office have waived any privileges of secrecy by continually talking about the case.

I don’t know where this will go, but it’s obviously not going away any time soon.

This is a diversion from our regular personal injury and litigation news, but I saw Kevin O’Keefe had a post earlier this week that Austin was the top blogging city in the country. If that’s the case, why are there so few law blogs in town. Aside from this one, the only active law blogs I know of are the following:

Todd Smith’s Texas Appellate Law Blog

Jamie Spencer’s Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer and Austin DWI Lawyer blogs

Wayne Schiess’s Legalwriting.net blog

Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer

Don Cruse’s Supreme Court of Texas blog

Taralynn Mackay’s A Nurse Attorney’s Thoughts and Texas Nursing Jurisprudence blogs

In a town this size, with this many tech-savvy attorneys, I would expect more blogs. And if I left any active blogs off, please let me know (and yes, there are other old blogs or "blogs" that are just advertisements, that I didn’t include — I don’t need to know about them).

Jay Harvey, an Austin personal injury lawyer and current president of the Texas Trial Lawyer's Association, has a letter to the editor in today's paper supporting the Pakistani lawyers who are standing up for the rule of law. 

There have been demonstrations all over the country in support of the lawyers, including demonstrations in New York and Washington D.C., but the response here has been a bit disappointing.  It is one thing for those of us in the law to pat ourselves on the back saying that we do what we do, in many instances, to help people.  But to demonstrate, knowing that you are likely to be arrested, be separated from your family, and even be tortured, is quite another commitment.  And yet, little has been heard about it from the Texas bar.  One of the few things that I have heard is a story from the Tex Parte blog talking about the personal effect this issue has had on one Dallas lawyer.

We’ve been critical of the Consumer Products Safety Commission for its failures in regulating dangerous products (see posts here, here and here). Now, the Washington Post reports that manufacturer groups have paid for numerous trips for CPSC executives:

The chief of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and her predecessor have taken dozens of trips at the expense of the toy, appliance and children's furniture industries and others they regulate, according to internal records obtained by The Washington Post. Some of the trips were sponsored by lobbying groups and lawyers representing the makers of products linked to consumer hazards.

The records document nearly 30 trips since 2002 by the agency's acting chairman, Nancy Nord, and the previous chairman, Hal Stratton, that were paid for in full or in part by trade associations or manufacturers of products ranging from space heaters to disinfectants. The airfares, hotels and meals totaled nearly $60,000.

Not surprisingly, these gifts included trips to China, in part financed by the Toy Industry Association.

The article went on to note that Ann Brown, who served as CPSC chairman from 1994 to 2001, traveled only at the expense of the agency or of media organizations that sponsored appearances where she announced product recalls, refusing to accept gifts from those that the commission regulates. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Food and Drug Administration have similar bans on accepting gifts from those it regulates.

Thanks to Bill Childs at the Torts Prof Blog for the heads up.

Roy Pearson, the Washington judge who sued his dry cleaner after they lost his pants, has lost his job.  Mr. Pearson had been up for a ten year appointment to the bench.  Instead, the Washinton Post reports that he received a letter yesterday at 3:30 p.m. telling him to vacate his office by 5:00 p.m.  Hopefully, this is the last chapter in the sad saga of Mr. Pearson's lawsuit.

Unfortunately, two plaintiff's lawyers have made the news this month, and not in a good way.  In fact, both stories show the danger of greed and how people can become victims of their own success.

The first case involves Florida personal injury lawyer Louis Robles, the proclaimed King of Torts.  Mr. Robles pled guilty last week under a plea deal for federal fraud charges.  The South Florida Sun Sentinel article describing the charges and deal pretty much sums the story up:

Between 1989 and 2002, Robles collected more than $164 million on behalf of roughly 7,000 asbestos clients, according to court records. Some were World War II veterans. Some were retirees living on Social Security checks. Some died of asbestos-related diseases, leaving spouses and children to recover settlement funds.

Initially, the settlement checks were promptly dispersed — with Robles' firm deducting up to 40 percent in attorneys' fees. But around 1994, Robles began dipping directly into settlement proceeds without his clients' knowledge to fund his extravagant lifestyle, prosecutors said.

During the mid-1990s, Robles and his wife were spending roughly $2 million a year on travel and living expenses, prosecutors said. Robles, who has filed for bankruptcy, also lost millions investing in ill-fated start-up ventures and obscure Hollywood movies, including one called Love God.

By September 2002, Robles had embezzled $13,522,160 from his clients and had only $25,000 remaining in trust accounts.

Unfortunately, the news wasn't much better before that.  In November, the law firm of Milberg Weiss and two of its partners were indicted for allegedly paying three plaintiffs $11.4 million in illegal kickbacks in about 180 cases spanning 25 years --- and then repeatedly lying about it to the courts.  Earlier this month, Bill Lerach, one of the indicted partners, entered a guilty plea requiring him to serve between 1 and 2 years in prison and to pay fines in excess of $8 million.

While both of these stories happen to be about plaintiffs' lawyers, I think the real story is about greed.  Each of these guys were very successful at what they did, but they still found the need to break the rules to satisfy their greed.  And unfortunately, that's becoming more and more of an issue in litigation, from all sides.  Certainly plaintiff's lawyers are guilty of such conduct, but it's showing up everywhere.  Insurance companies are increasingly taking unreasonable positions and using questionable tactics to minimize what they pay; in personal injury claims, health insurance subrogation companies are more aggressive in seeking every dollar; and defense lawyers seem to be taking more unreasonable positions that tend to escalate the conflicts instead of helping the parties either resolve disputes or get ready for trial. 

We would all be well served if the parties took a step back and took the attitude that this isn't a game where the parties try to extort every penny possible or to pay as little as possible.  Instead, while we should all zealously represent our clients, we also need to remember that our goals should include resolving disputes in a manner that's fair to all sides and to not let greed get in the way of those goals.

As Univeristy of Texas grads, we're always interested in blogs of fellow UT grads.  Two of the better blogs in the tort arena from UT Law grads are Bill Childs' TortsProf Blog and Edmund Normand's firm blog at Wooten, Honeywell in Orlando.

The odd thing is that even though these guys are now in different parts of the country, they both have a similar interest:  amusement park safety.  How do two guys who went to law school in Austin, where the closest "amusement park" is Schlitterbahn water park about 90 miles away, both end up with expertise in amusement park law?  Strange.

In any event, we recommend both blogs.  To read a couple of Bill's thoughts on amusement park safety, click here.  To read some of Edmund's thoughts, click here.

Not our usual post, but we're both fathers, and in honor of father's day, we thought the USA Today article, A Lawyer's Guide to Father's Day, deserves a link.  Among the highlights of the article:

But the most important lesson is that all children are born with an innate sense of the law. Indeed, when the Framers spoke of natural rights, they might have hit on the same discovery in their own children. You can actually track your kids' development by the legal arguments they make. Take it from me, the best way to prepare for parenting is to take a law course at your community college.

*********************

Contracts. By 3, negotiating with kids is like working with little Teamsters on a labor contract. Bring a sandwich truck to the site; it becomes part of the contract. Likewise, once a parent buys a scone at Starbucks or allows cartoons in the morning, it is part of an unwritten but enforceable contract. This develops into a form of collective bargaining with the addition of another sibling: Any benefit to one is instantly an expected benefit to the other. Break the contract and you'll face work stoppages, unending protests and even sabotage that ranges from spilled milk to items in the trash can.

*********************

Due process. By 6, kids will insist on full due process in adjudicating their claims. Major penalties such as loss of Game Boys require something close to a full trial with two days of arraignment, jury selection and sequestration - and inexhaustible appeals.

The full article is worth a read.  And thanks to Luke Gilman at the Blawgraphy for the link.