A lot of generalities or stereotypes in law, as in life, turn out to be wrong when it matters most. The Brazilian soccer team got out-flamboyanted by the Dutch. The most emotionally deep and riveting movie out right now is for kids, Toy Story 3. The Phillies are pitching better than they’re hitting (not that

One of the interesting things about blogging is that a lot of people seem to consider us part of the “press” – whether that’s the “health” press or the “legal” press. As a result, we get sent a lot of unsolicited press releases, maybe a couple of dozen a week. Most of them are from various small medical-related companies announcing this or that medical advance. Since we’re lawyers, not doctors, we’re not competent to evaluate such things, nor would product reviews be what our chosen audience wants to read. Those emails get the “delete” button, even though they’ve occasionally offered us money for reviews.
But part of the litigation dance these days also involves the press. One thing that the other side does is try to make itself as obnoxious as possible to our clients any way they can.  There’s good reason for it.  It’s part of the game; their rationale being that anything that annoys our clients increases the settlement value of their cases.  Even if a case is lousy and has only a nuisance value – the bigger the nuisance, the bigger that value will be.  Or so a lot of folks on the other side thinks.
Among other things, plaintiffs’ lawyers pursue this annoyance function by trying to generate negative buzz about our clients in the media.  So they (or their PR flacks) send out press releases too. And they send them out to bloggers and other media types who aren’t really competent to make heads or tails of what they’re getting.  In particular, the other side throws adjectives like “illegal” and “fraudulent” around as if they’re so much confetti – or, if (like us) you’re less inclined to be charitable, a smokescreen. Toss in a few vague but dark hints about safety risks, and the other side hopes it can generate negative press. We know all about this as lawyers; it’s part of the drill, especially in the major litigation that we get called upon to defend.
But sometimes the plaintiff side’s offerings to the press find their way to us – as bloggers.Continue Reading Qui Tam Action Looks Like A Ripoff

The New Yorker occasionally runs squibs called “There’ll Always Be an England”– little ditties highlighting charming English eccentricity, often involving gardening for some reason.

We’re thinking of posting entries called “There’ll Always Be Posner,” comments on opinions by Judge Posner, which typically are brilliant and snappily written, typically address jurisdictional issues that nobody raised, typically

Bexis just got back from his Wyoming vacation, hiking in mountains where even his Blackberry couldn’t disturb him, and sure enough, the world didn’t grind to a halt in his absence. That’s fortunate, because if it had there wouldn’t be any material for this post. Bexis found a couple of interesting things in his in

On some days, we think we should re-name this blog. How about: “The Obscure, But Important, Stuff Blog”?

Nah. After three years, we’ll stick with the moniker we chose originally.

But we’ll report on In re Ford Motor Co., No. 09-50109, slip op. (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2009) (link here), which addresses obscure,

You know the “review of remand order” story, because we wrote about it earlier this month:
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c) authorizes a federal trial court to remand a case to state court for either (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) defects “other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Objections to subject matter

We posted about Thomson v. Novartis on Sunday, noting that it was an odd case analyzing an unusual removal issue.
The Civil Procedure Prof Blog saw our post and agreed that the issue was unusual.
Apparently, however, the issue won’t be unusual for long. We received this note from a reader:
I read your post