Among the actions taken by the ALI at the meeting in San Francisco this past week was the rejection of the need for the magic words "reasonable degree of medical certainty."
The following language was approved for Section 28(a) of the Restatement of Torts Third:
"Subject to Subsection (b), the plaintiff has the burden to prove that the defendant’s tortious conduct was a factual cause of the plaintiff’s physical harm."
I am still in San Francisco at the ALI meeting. Last night we had a reception at the Legion of Honor and then dinner at the Boulevard.
On today’s agenda are discussions of proposed restatements on the law of nonprofit organizations, aggregate litigation (class actions) and restitution and unjust enrichment. Tonight is a black tie dinner at the Westin St. Francis.
There is one custom at this meeting that I have never seen at any meeting of lawyers I have ever attended. There are scores of federal and state judges here, but none of the name tags identify the judges as judges. Yesterday I was talking to the Chief Justice of New Zealand and had no idea that she was a judge.
I am in San Francisco attending my first meeting as a member of the American Law Institute.
Yesterday I attended a meeting of the Members Consultative Group for the Restatement Third, Economic Torts and Related Wrongs. We spent two hours debating five black-letter law sections of a draft of the restatement, including a very interesting discussion of the law of damages. Last night there was a dinner for the first-year members at the R & G Lounge and then several of us went to the Buena Vista Cafe for Irish coffee.
This morning we will hear speeches by the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit as well as the President and President-Elect of the ABA. Later today there will be floor discussions about changes in the restatements in the fields of software contracts and international intellectual property.
Some of you have looked at the upper right-hand corner of this blog and noticed that our firm name has changed to The Law Offices of John Day, P.C. Those of you on our announcement list received a more formal notice last week.
What’s going on? John Branham, the gentleman I started the firm with in 1993, turned 65 last fall and decided to leave the firm at the end of the year. Rebecca Blair, who has been a shareholder of the firm for several years, has now became a name partner in the firm.
We are in the same location, have the same phone number and, with a couple of exceptions, the same personnel we had four months ago. Regrettably, we are losing a lawyer in a couple days. Jimmy Streett, who clerked with us as a rising third-year student and has been with us since his graduation from Vanderbilt two years ago, is moving home to Arkansas to take over his father’s law practice. Jimmy has done a very good job for our clients and we will miss him.
Is this the worst lawyer ad of the year?
I hope so.
Here is the owner of the offending law firm.
The Tennessee Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Nashville on June 5, 6 and 7. Here is a list of the tort cases which will be heard and the issues to be determined in each case:
* Simpson Strong-Tie Company v. Stewart, Estes, & Donnell – Rule 23 Middle District Court of TN – Certified Question
1. Does the absolute litigation privilege apply to communications made preliminary to a proposed judicial procedure, where such communications are directed at recipients unconnected with the proceeding in hopes of soliciting them to become parties to it?
Each year the Chamber of Commerce surveys corporate general counsel and "senior litigators" to "to explore how reasonable and balanced the tort liability system is perceived to be by U.S. business. "
The bottom line from the executive summary: "There has been an improvement in how the senior attorneys surveyed view the state court liability system, with a net increase of 25 percentage points between 2003 and 2007 in those indicating the system is excellent or pretty good. Further, a majority (57%) report that the litigation environment in a state is likely to impact important business decisions at their company, such as where to locate or do business."
And how did Tennessee rank? Number 7, enough to earn it a "Best" ranking.
Florida’s Supreme Court has put its foot down on judges and clerks that seal records. It has adopted interim amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.240 to articulate the circumstances under which court fiings can be kept secret from the public.
The Court describes the amendments as requiring the following:
1. A request to make court records in noncriminal cases confidential must be made by written motion. [Note: an Agreed Order will not work.]
2. A public hearing must be held on any contested sealing motion and may be held on certain uncontested sealing motions.
3. A sealing order issued by a court must state with specificity the grounds for sealing and the findings of the court that justify sealing.
4. All sealing orders must be published to the public.
5. A nonparty may file a motion to vacate a sealing order.
6. A public hearing must be held on any contested motion to vacate a sealing order and may be held on certain uncontested motions to vacate.
7. A court may impose sanctions on any party who files a sealing motion without a good-faith basis and without a sound factual and legal basis.
8. Most significant for our purposes here, by mandating that the case number, docket number, or other identifying number of a case cannot be made confidential, the removal from public view of all information acknowledging the existence of a case is expressly not allowed.
I have been in Destin the last few days. KATA and TTLA had a joint seminar at the Hilton. I spoke Tuesday morning, had dinner with friends last night, and came back today.
Back to work!
Slate has published this article about Monica Goodling and the Regent University School of Law.
Did you know that "[u]nder Ashcroft, career lawyers were systematically fired or forced out and replaced by members of conservative or Christian groups or folks with no civil rights experience. In the five years after 2001, the civil rights division brought no voting cases on behalf of African-Americans. It brought one employment case on behalf of an African-American. Instead, the division took up the "civil rights" abuses of reverse discrimination—claims of voter fraud or discrimination against Christians."
Day on Torts