Non-Sequiturs: 8.30.06
* Allegations of bill padding at Holland & Knight. An isolated occurrence — or more widespread within Biglaw? [WSJ via WSJ Law Blog]
* The secret to success: Wake up early. Like really early — try 3 a.m. That Ann Althouse is a machine! [Althouse]
* Here’s a link for those of you who don’t think we need tort reform. It’s a long post, but well worth reading. (And it’s not Ted Frank’s fault that the reporter got so much wrong.) [Overlawyered via Volokh Conspiracy]
* We think that judicial clerkships are fabulous — for clerks, for judges, and for this great nation of ours. But Raffi Melkonian disagrees — and makes some interesting points. [Crescat Sententia]
(3) Comments
Posted in: Ann Althouse, Biglaw, Clerkships, Holland & Knight, Money, Non-Sequiturs, Ted Frank, Tort Reform
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
I think the Crescat Sententia link is wrong.
David,
Ted Frank quibbles with the newspaper article, not the outcome of the case. Is your point that the article was so poorly written that we need tort reform?
Perhaps I'm letting my extrinsic knowledge of Ted's views on tort reform color my reading of the post. But he did write this in the post in question:
[I]n this case a complainant did win a small fortune after abusing a lawn mower in an extensively negligent way..., yet the story is sold to the public with barely a hint of that negligence as a tale of a "defective mower".
It seems to me that the point Ted's trying to make is that the MSM has a bias against efforts to reform the tort system. But again, maybe I'm reading too much into things.
P.S. And I fixed the Crescat link; thanks! The perils of control C, control V...