Saturday, December 24, 2011

As 2011 closes, I look forward to using the new alimony law for temporary support; even though the law isn't in effect until /2012.
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/probateandfamilycourt/documents/enacted-alimony-bill.pdf

Friday, November 18, 2011

Transgender Equal Rights in Massachusetts

0 comments
Kudos to the Massachusetts legislature for passing the Transgender Equal Rights bill, extending anti-discrimination protections to all residents of Massachusetts.  The bill awaits signature by Gov. Patrick.  The Senate and House versions can be found here: H.502 and S.764, but the most critical section of each is quoted here: "The term 'gender identity or expression' shall mean a gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of an individual, regardless of the individual’s physiology or assigned sex at birth."

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Tobacco company violated consumer protection laws.

0 comments

     On September 1st, the Massachusetts Superior Court found that Lorillard Tobacco Co., the manufacturer of Newport cigarettes, violated consumer protection laws and was negligent and grossly negligent.  The estate of Marie Evans and her son said in their complaint that she started smoking as a minor after Lorillard distributed free cigarettes at her public housing complex.
     A violation of G.L. c.93A normally carries with it double or triple damages and awards attorney's fees to Ms. Evans' estate and her son.  The Court determined that given the size of the punitive damages award - $81 million dollars - it is not awarding multiple damages but that the attorney is entitled to  attorney's fees for what the attorney reports was 10 years of litigation.
     The complaint alleges that Lorillard, when Ms. Evans was a child, handed out free cigarettes at her apartment complex.  The Court found that Lorillard (a) breached their duty to safely market and properly warn consumers about the safety of its cigarettes, (b) that the cigarettes were unreasonably dangerous, and (c) that in so doing, Lorillard violated its duty to accurately report to the public its research and knowledge about the safety (or lack thereof) of its cigarettes.  The court's Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law can be read at Tobacco-on-Trial.  The web site is anti-tobacco (no surprise there) but the document appears to be an accurate and complete reproduction of the Court's decision. 
      In 1960 when Lorillard handing out free cigarettes in a Roxbury housing project, the public had no idea how dangerous cigarettes could be.  The public had no idea that Lorillard had also specifically targeted for "youthful" and "immature" smokers, that they had based their business on a high school demographic and that they knew by 1950 that cigarette smoking was linked to cancer even as they marketed cigarettes to teens as "harmless".  As the public began to learn that scientists had conclusively linked cigarettes to cancer, Lorillard voluntarily ran advertisements claiming that there was still a scientific debate on the issue and promised that Lorillard would look into it.  The advertising campaign was designed to create doubt about the health issue of smoking without Lorillard openly denying that there was a problem and while Lollilard knew credible and substantive scientific evidence to the contrary.
     As a result, Ms. Evans was hooked onto Newport cigarettes, smoked that brand all of her life, and died of small cell lung cancer caused by her cigarette smoking.  The Court found that Lorillard voluntarily stepped up to the plate, promised to tell the truth about cancer and cigarettes, and promptly lied, and as a result Ms. Evans' son and her estate are entitled to seek recovery what it cost them to obtain the verdict.

Pragmatist and wit, Hon. Terence Evans passed away.

0 comments
9/7/11.   Somewhat belatedly, I would like to recognize the passing of a jurist and writer to admire - Hon. Terence Evans, justice of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.   His wry use of pop culture and extended metaphor to make a (sometimes stinging) point illuminated the law, and legal writing, as a vivid, living thing.  Do not let all of the dusty brown and faded green books fool you.  Legal writing can deliver a snap when the occasion arises.
      As a few examples, you can read his brief historical exposition on the varieties of naming college mascots in Crue et al. v. Aiken, 370 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2004), the judge-as-lighthouse-warding-off-stubborn-attorneys metaphor in Chester v. MARITIMA del LITORAL, S.A., 586 F.Supp. 192 (E.D.Wisc.1983), and explanation via footnote regarding the proper spelling of "ho" in US v. Murphy, 406 F. 3d 857 , (7th Circuit 2005).
     Writing such as his takes lawyers and jurists beyond technical wizardry into the realm of artists and authors, which is precisely where we should aspire to be.  Colorful, meaningful prose is an aesthetic and rhetorical treasure - don't undervalue it.