We started out the week with our Come At Me Bro post rebutting some commentary from the other side about the games plaintiffs play with protective orders.  So we suppose it’s appropriate to close the week on the same note, responding to criticism from a different plaintiff-side blog directed at another of our posts.  We don’t mind being criticized; we’re lawyers.  That’s what we do for a living, and it’s what the other side does to us.  It’s not called an “adversary” system for nothing.
But here on the blogosphere, unlike in litigation, there’s no notice.  We don’t have to email someone that we’ve raked over the coals, and neither does anybody else.  Somebody drops an anvil on us; we throw a bomb back atcha.  It resembles the Spy vs. Spy cartoons we read in Mad Magazine when we were kids.
Maybe we’re catching more flack these days because there are more, better plaintiff-side blogs.  One of the best on the other side is Max Kennerly’s “Litigation & Trial” – it certainly looks prettier than ours, with a nifty barbarians-at-the-gates graphic at the top.  That graphic reminds us of some mass torts we’ve known.  Did Atilla pillage on contingent fee?
Anyway, Max is pretty smart.  His posts are always thoughtful, if usually misguided.  Come to think of it, he’d probably say the same thing about us.  He has some thoughts about our Spherical Error II post from a couple of weeks ago about the weird ways that the court construed the Pennsylvania consumer protection statute (the “UTPCPL”) in Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, 2010 WL 3527601 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2010).Continue Reading Blog vs. Blog