For example (emphasis ours):

Congress is taking up legislation this week that will wipe out arbitration provisions in hundreds of millions of consumer contracts — for everything from credit-card agreements to cell phones to health-insurance policies, even a contract for the purchase of a kitchen sink.

Holy sh*t! Not the f*cking kitchen sink! I'm moving to Canada this time, I swear to God!

Anyway, in our august and respected opinion (ha ha ha ha) this WSJ piece was misrepresenting the real issue at hand — whether or not arbitration should be mandatory. The piece of legislation she refers to does not remove your ability to enter into arbitration, a fact that she manages to ignore. She also refutes generalized "anti-arbitration" arguments with studies paid for by the American Arbitration Association — the people who most directly benefit from forcing consumers to use their services.

We could have written a response to the piece, but some kind consumer lawyers sent us one that had been written already and we like it. So, we're just going to link to that and save ourselves some time. In short, however, our point is this: We think the market should be able to decide whether or not arbitration is a better deal for consumers, and in order for it to decide it has to be able to choose.

There's nothing wrong with arbitration, if that's what you want to do, but you should not be forced into it by your employer, your nursing home, or in order to purchase something. Especially a kitchen sink.

Big Business Wants You Out Of The Courtroom [Cranky Greg]
Arbitration Works Better Than Lawsuits [WSJ]

The absurdly hypocritical claims were made to weasel out of a British tax on potato crisps and other potato-based foods. London Justice Nicholas Warren ruled that Pringles were made, not of potatoes, but out of good 'ole fashioned American chemicals.

Potato chips "give a sharply crunchy sensation under the tooth and have to be broken down into jagged pieces when chewed," the Cincinnati-based company's lawyers argued. "It is totally different with a Pringle, indeed a Pringle is designed to melt down on the tongue."

Warren agreed. Pringles aren't "made from the potato" for the purposes of the tax office's exemption, he said. He didn't say what Pringles are, other than that they're tax-exempt.

What's that old adage about a duck?

Pringles are not potato chips, judge says in British tax case [L.A. Times]

While Target's competitors make it clear that their coupons are one-use affairs, Target's coupon expressly orders their cashier: "return card to guest." According to one Target manager, this means "one use only." Go figure.

In case you needed another reason to avoid Target's wedding registry, read Nick's sad story:

Dear Consumerist,

My wife and I registered at Target for our wedding registry. We shop there often and were very happy with the selection of items we would be able to register for. Our experience went pretty well, until we tried to buy the items that were still left on the registry. We're hoping you'll be able to make a difference like you did with the whole gift receipt issue.

When we signed up for our registry, at the bottom of one of the pages, was a note about getting a coupon for 10% off everything left on the registry. The exact words were: "For up to 90 days after your wedding, save 10% on all items remaining on your registry. Look for a special coupon in the mail". Excellent, we thought, we'll be able to buy everything on our registry, but we won't have to buy it all at once. I figured that Target would have some restrictions, so I made a mental note to check the card carefully once it came in the mail.

Fast forward 5 months, we're now married and ready to buy what's left on our registry. The coupon comes in the mail and it says "Take 10% off any items remaining on your Club Wedd Registry. See back for details". We check the back side for details and note the date that it expires (actually 85 days from the day of our wedding, not 90), and two sentences that seemed to explain the policy best. "Limit one 10% coupon per Club Wedd registrant." and "Cashier: Scan the coupon, scan the registry bar code and return card to guest." (Side note: we also registered at Bed Bath and Beyond, whose 10% coupon loosely read "THIS IS A ONE-TIME USE COUPON!" Maybe not quite so strong...but close) After reading those two sentences (and taking into account how strongly BBB worded their coupon) we decided that it must mean we can use that coupon any number of times until the expiration date and we would get 10% off on the items that were remaining on our wedding registry. Why else would they return the coupon to us if we couldn't use it more than once?

So coupon in hand, we went to the nearest Super Target (since the Target in town is old and doesn't have as much selection) to see what items from our list they had in stock. We found quite a few of the things we had registered for, but didn't buy everything because we needed to bring a bigger vehicle for some of the items and money was a little tight since we had just gotten back from our honeymoon. It wasn't a big deal though, we would be able to come back later with a bigger vehicle and get the rest. We go to the register with the items we had room for, received our 10% off and got our coupon back from the cashier. Perfect!

The very next day, a certain high demand video game system that we had registered for happened to be in stock at our local Target, so over lunch we went in to buy it. The cashier rung us up and scanned the coupon and got a nasty error sound with a message that said the coupon is not valid or has been used. Of course it's been used, we've got 90 days to use it to get the stuff from our registry! The manager comes over to see what the problem is and tells us that she has only ever used the wedding registry coupons as one use. What!? We tell her none of the information we got said that, plus why would they return the card to us if it was only good for one use? She wondered the same thing, and after consulting with someone over a walkie talkie, decided to give us the discount and told us if we wanted the 10% off of anything else we had to get it right then. Well great, we each had 5 minutes left before we had to get back to work, so we just took the discount and left without buying anything else from our registry.

I've tried calling the Club Wedd toll free number, but they've been no help and when I was able to escalate my call they simply told me that the coupon was one time use only and they could not reactivate the coupon. We've been extremely happy with Target up until this point, but now we just feel we've been lied to. In the information they gave us there was no indication that we could only use this coupon once. We directly affected at least $1300 in sales from items on our registry, not to mention everything else our guests bought because they happened to be in the store. All we want is to get 10% off the items left on our registry, whether that be through another one time use coupon, or a coupon that is reusable, like the information led us to believe. We've already told several other couples and they thought the coupons were reusable as well. Maybe Target should also change the wording so other couples don't have the same problems we did.

Thank you,

Nick

The fine print is clear: this is a reusable coupon that provides 10% off items stuck on the registry. Target is a massive corporation, with plenty of cash to throw at soulless corporate lawyers. If they wanted a one-use coupon like their corporate compadres, they should have printed one. But they didn't!

Fire off an Executive Email Carpet Bomb, and if that doesn't restore the discount you are owed, ask a small claims court to enforce Target's poorly written contract.

Kurt allowed Audioholics.com to reprint his entire response to Monster Cable. Here's our favorite part:

I have seen Monster Cable take untenable IP positions in various different scenarios in the past, and am generally familiar with what seems to be Monster Cable's modus operandi in these matters. I therefore think that it is important that, before closing, I make you aware of a few points.

After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1985, I spent nineteen years in litigation practice, with a focus upon federal litigation involving large damages and complex issues. My first seven years were spent primarily on the defense side, where I developed an intense frustration with insurance carriers who would settle meritless claims for nuisance value when the better long-term view would have been to fight against vexatious litigation as a matter of principle. In plaintiffs' practice, likewise, I was always a strong advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement were on the table. I am "uncompromising" in the most literal sense of the word. If Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds. As for signing a licensing agreement for intellectual property which I have not infringed: that will not happen, under any circumstances, whether it makes economic sense or not.

I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to accede to its demands. Let me be clear about this: there are only two ways for you to get anything out of me. You will either need to (1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction. It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind. If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's attention upon the merits of your claims—or, to speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims—from start to finish. Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.

I will also point out to you that if you do choose to undertake litigation, your "upside" is tremendously limited. If you somehow managed, despite the formidable obstacles in your way, to obtain a finding of infringement, and if you were successful at recovering a large licensing fee—say, ten cents per connector—as the measure of damages, your recovery to date would not reach four figures. On the downside, I will advance defenses which, if successful, will substantially undermine your future efforts to use these patents and marks to threaten others with these types of actions; as you are of course aware, it is easier today for your competitors to use collateral estoppel offensively than it ever has been before. Also, there is little doubt that making baseless claims of trade dress infringement and design patent infringement is an improper business tactic, which can give rise to unfair competition claims, and for a company of Monster's size, potential antitrust violations with treble damages and attorneys' fees.

I look forward to receiving the information requested and will review it promptly as soon as it is received.

Sincerely,

Kurt Denke

"Can you explain to me why 31 law firms had to be involved with the plaintiffs?" Judge Pauley asked, adding that he "found a disconnect" between the number of the different groups of plaintiffs and the number of law firms. Ms. Sweeney [of Coughlin Stoia] explained that the "bulk of the work" - 84.7% - was done only by just six firms. Among those six firms are Ms. Sweeney's firm as well as the Philadelphia-based firms of Berger & Montague and Kohn Swift & Graf.
 
One sticking point yesterday involved a separate $32 million legal fee award that the card issuers had agreed to pay Coughlin Stoia and three other firms. The fee came in a similar lawsuit brought in California that was dismissed on appeal.
 
A lawyer who was objecting to the settlement, Irving Bizar, yesterday advised Judge Pauley to take those $32 million away from the law firms and add it to settlement pool.

In case you think $2.5 billion could bankrupt the company, The Salt Lake Tribune points out that Exxon Mobile's profit in the last quarter of 2007 was $11.7 billion, and that "the award represents less than three weeks' worth of Exxon profit." (Update: Consumerist reader oeolycus points out that several newspapers are misrepresenting Exxon's profit: "Their NET INCOME was $11 billion. Net profit is closer to $5 billion.") In this case, "excessive" seems to be related to what Exxon claims is appropriate under maritime law. Additionally, Exxon says it's already paid "$3.4 billion in criminal fines, cleanup costs and compensation payments."

The punitive damages would be dispersed to about 33,000 Alaskans, and Exxon is seeking to cut the per-person award from $75,000 to $30,000.

The New York Times' coverage of yesterday's argument is somewhat exciting to read, with Justice Ginsberg—who sympathizes with the plaintiffs—subjecting "Exxon's lawyer, Walter Dellinger, to a rapid-fire series of questions about his central arguments," and arguing with him about maritime law from as far back as 1818. By contrast, the Exxon-sympathetic Justice Breyer argued over how much culpability a company should accept for its employees' actions:

"This is a very dramatic accident. It involves oil spills, and they cause an enormous amount of trouble. But there are accidents every day, and ships are filled with accidents."

Given that punitive damages have not been the normal rule in maritime cases, Justice Breyer continued, "then it will be a new world for the shipping industry and for those who work on the ships" if the courts begin to impose them. "What principles do you have to suggest, if any," the justice asked Mr. Fisher, "for creating a fair system that isn't just arbitrary?"

"Exxon Valdez payout could be cut in half" [AP via Salt Lake Tribune]
"Justices Take Up Battle Over Exxon Valdez " [New York Times]
(Photo: Jack Smith/Associated Press)

He writes:

Either way, I'm just a college kid who draws for fun. I don't know what to do, what step to take next or even if I'd have enough support to really make these guys realize what they're doing. I realize that this situation could possibly be a result of art scouts giving the corporation designs without really crediting anyone (and, as a result, not be any fault of the company themselves), but I feel like this deserves an explanation or an apology at the least. Maybe even compensation, since they seem to be making a Swiss mint on these things.

You know, I didn't expect it to happen, but things actually did end up with (somewhat of) a happy ending. I managed to get back in touch with the head of Manches, the guys that do administrative or production or whatever for All Saints, and we managed to work out a settlement.

Because they deal with plagiarism of their stuff a lot, they were apparently very receptive and sympathetic. Apparently, designers get about 2 - 3 percent of the profits in royalties. I managed to squeeze 7.5% out of them. So, that equals out to about $2,400 with the weak dollar.

Long story short, I've licensed the design to them for this run, and I'm still in ownership of it.

All in all, they were kind to me about it - however, from what I hear, them paying me wiped out all of their profit on these shirts. Should teach their designers a lesson!

From WSMV:

There were video clips of XXX rated sex scenes, and the pornography was so graphic that Channel 4 could not broadcast it.

"I wish I could take the thoughts and images out of her head," said Hill.

The Hills had bought three MP3 players for their children that came from a Wal-Mart store in Sparta, Tenn. It turns out one of the MP3 players had been returned to the store from a previous owner who loaded sex clips, graphic war scenes and lyrics about using drugs.

The Hills want to know why Wal-Mart would sell used merchandise as new in the first place, which is in violation of its own policies.

"If they want to be a major retailer, they need to act like it," said Hill.

Walmart offered to replace the MP3 player, and confirmed that used merchandise is not supposed to be placed back on the floor. The family declined Walmart's offer because, "They've already bought their daughter a new one and are hanging onto the controversial one until they talk to a lawyer."

Good luck with that one. The great inappropriateness lawsuit of 2008. Is William Jennings Bryan still alive?

Check technology items before you hand them over to your kids, people!

Child's 'New' Player Loaded With Porn [WSMV](Thanks, Michael!)

In the complaint, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley argues that a sales event is not a settlement, and that the lawyers for the consumers shouldn't be able to reap additional fees from the addition of a sales event.

We are unaware of precedent in which a special event, or any type of sale open to the general public, has been deemed a benefit of a class-action settlement and this court should avoid that precedent. We believe this aspect of the proposed settlement demeans the class-action process, which can be used as a meaningful tool to protect consumers.

"The special event is nothing more than a retail sale, which would primarily benefit the defendant, TJX Companies. If deemed a benefit to the class, the retail sale also presumably would benefit class action counsel, whose fees would be impacted by a nominally higher valued settlement," Coakley wrote. "It is unclear what benefit, if any, the class gains from a retail sale that is open to the general public. TJX should not inure the good will of this court or the public for a sale that enhances its bottom line, nor should the class's attorneys reap large fees for an unquantifiable and dubious benefit. Here, class action counsel anticipates receiving fees of $6.5 million, based, at least in part, on an unquantifiable benefit to the class from the special event. This represents a tremendous amount of money to the extent it is linked to the special event, or vouchers."

"Massachusetts AG Slams TJX Consumer Settlement Sale" [eWeek via The Register]
(Photo: Getty)

If arbitration is so wonderful, why is it mandatory? Are we citizens or subjects?

Are you sure your new home is protected? Are you sure your family, will not join the growing ranks of the homeless? Are you sure you understand arbitration and tort reform? Are you sure that the American Arbitration Association, hasn't stealthily already entered every phase of your life? Do you think you still have the right to a trial by a jury? Do you still think you can sue anyone who wrongs you? Do you still think frivolous lawsuits are those that happen to other people? Do you tire hearing any more about big business flagrantly squashing your rights? Do your eyes glaze over and your mind shut down when you hear all these things? Are you bored by this rhetoric? Is it all just to complicated for you to understand? I understand.

But, please read on. Because you have been majority deluded, confused and overwhelmed ... just so these things will slip right by unnoticed.

If you have a new home, new car, a car lease, a Visa, Master Card, American Express, Discover card, bank account, a cell phone, a storage room, electricity or even an exterminator. YOU have given up your seventh Amendment rights. You have given up your seventh amendment rights, you cannot sue any of these people. Sounds crazy doesn't it? Well, call any of them and ask if you have an arbitration clause in your contract with them ... because you do.

We are bombard daily, with harassing telemarketers, a mailbox full of trash offers and clutter ... our bills are stuffed with slick adds and offers. We don't have time to read all this junk..... And there in lies the problem. Big Business knows you don't. We are the new hurried, fast food, drive by cleaners generation, the multi taskers. ... with more on our plates than we can handle. So big business has used your over burdened life style to their distinct advantage. You are screwed. Those little offers or things you think are privacy propaganda, in your bills, they aren't, they say "if you continue to use our services and do not pay off your account immediately you are now accepted the following terms.....You have now accepted arbitration ... and you didn't even read it.

Not one person in this country, is not bound by an arbitration clause and the shocking part of it ... most don't even know it. But you will, when you become one of the enlightened and destroyed. And believe me you do not want to be.

Ignorance is bliss ... and you can remain blissfully unaware of the dangers lurking, that threaten you, your family, your home and your livelihood. But when it hits you, it will be, a rude awakening ... like a two by four right between the eyes. AM I am trying to scare you? You bet I am. Because many of us do not have the time to watch fear factor, we live it daily. And, you may have just signed on for a guest appearance.

Take your home for instance. You made your down payment. You make your payments on time, you paid your property tax, you have homeowners insurance. Your investment is safe. You are living the American dream. Not so Kimosabie. You have rolled the dice with your future, put all your money on the pass line, and you weren't even aware you were gambling.

Example: You have a lovely new home, all decorated, a manicured lawn, a place for your stuff, and somewhere to come home to. But what happens if you start having problems with that new house? You just call your builder for repairs right? What if he doesn't answer your phone calls, faxes, or emails. What if the problem continues to worsen ... as you try to get him to live up to his moral, and ethical responsibilities. You say well I have a contract. And you do.

Now..... you will take the time to read, all that raft of papers that were shoved at you at closing. Uh oh...earnest money contract, arbitration clause. Closing papers arbitration clause...warranty papers arbitration clause.

Your foundation is cracking, your walls have lines that weren't there before, the carpet is damp and your house is taking on a musty smell. Your children begin to be ill and Fido's' hair falls out. What are you going to do? Your wife is frantic. She is calling neighbors, many experiencing the same sort of problems. Many do not want to admit it and "patch up and dump." Some will get by with it, until the new owner sues them. Yes, the new owner can sue you, just can't sue your big builder. Big business, little business that is how tort reform works.

And yes, you all paid to have your house inspected and had a relator and you called them all. You can start at the governor's office and they will refer you into a vortex of time-consuming, catch 22's that will make you crazy. You will end up lastly at the Heath department. They can try to help you find temporary housing ... soon, or maybe later....if you qualify and of course fill out the paper work.

You have now filled out paper work for every agency in the state. You stay up all night filling out this waste of time. Then bleary eyed drag yourself to your day job. No one understands. They think you are a real putz and offer you their lawyer's phone number...thinking you just are not smart enough to handle your own affairs. Little do they know...yet.

They think they are not in any danger...and that you just do not understand how to hand these things.

You call you insurance company...you know that agency that has you safe in their out stretched hands. That agency you pay those hefty premiums to each month. Guess what, substandard construction and builder defects are not covered items.

You are on the phone with your lawyer, he has looked over your papers, and informs you, YOU cannot sue your builder, you have signed an arbitration clause.

You say, well lets arbitrate ... it is faster and cheaper and my house is deteriorating as we speak, my investment is being destroyed. He really doesn't want the case, but will take it for a substantial upfront fee. He knows neither of you are going to be happy with the outcome, so he gets his upfront. Many of these legal eagles also have arbitration clauses in their own contracts. The contract you must sign to have legal representation. And you have to have a lawyer no matter what AAA arbitration tells you.

Your shower falls out. Black puffy balls are growing out of your carpet. Your windows are leaking, your hardwoods have begun to buckle, the children are sick, their eyes are all red, they have constant sore throats, you are having migraines you think from all the stress, your wife is crying, and her nose is bleeding ...and your cat just died. ( Am I Exaggerating ... No unfortunately, I am not.) I am just reliving part of what happened in our neighborhood, compliments of our greedy, unethical, unscrupulous builder. He sold us our homes after filing a lawsuit against the roofer and subcontractors with no disclosure. Yes, I said, he sued ... the big boys still have the right to sue, this only applies to you and me, the little guys.

Arbitration is great protection for the mass builder. First, most of you can't afford it and second if you can roll out 30 to 100,000 dollars it is still an unfair playing field. The builders team of high priced, sleazy prostitutes can make chopped liver of you in short order. They do this for a living. In our case, one of the builders' law partners, was/is also a AAA arbitrator. You want him to rule on your case?

Why didn't you repair your own house?

First you didn't think that was your responsibility, it was the builders. Second you had no idea the amount of damage and third, when you found out how many thousands of dollars it would cost ... you couldn't afford it.

You hadn't planned on the down payment, the new drapes, the new lawn mower and then repairs? TO A BRAND NEW HOUSE! Did you figure an extra 20 to 150 thousand for that in your budget? Like us, you probably bought a new home so repairs would not be an issue.

Well, guess what else you can't afford? You can't afford arbitration. Nobody tells you what it costs. The American Arbitration Association will not even give you a total cost, but if you can't afford it ... they will be more than happy to send you a form that authorizes them to just charge all their monstrous fees as they occur, on to your credit cards. How ever many it takes. Do I have you attention now? Do you think you have entered the twilight zone. Well, welcome to our world.

Homeless in Houston

Jordan Fogal Please google my name for more information or check out HADD.org or HOBB.org, tort deform

3003 Memorial Court #2407 Houston Texas 77007

713-802-9727

PREVIOUSLY: Tremont Homes Sells Rotten Lemon, Provokes Victimized Homebuyer Into Five-Year Consumer Crusade
Jordan Fogal Responds To Your Comments About The Rotten Lemon Tremont Homes Sold Her

Southern California Fire Legal Help [Consumer Attorneys Of California] (Thanks to Eric!)
(Photo: CNN)

"[T]he bank asks for substantial costs related to the arbitration itself, and those costs are significantly higher than court filing fees. . . . In one case that I handled, the fees alone amounted to $450. Furthermore, the arbitration company sends the arbitrator a judgment form already filled out so that all the arbitrator need do is check the appropriate box... In my case I did not award the bank the litigation-related fees. . . . I never got another case!"

Full article inside...

National Arbitration Forum... weren't those the guys Public Citizen found ruled in favor of companies 95% of the time? Yep, they are.

Mandatory binding arbitration against consumers is a scam. Let's abolish it and keep it where it was designed for, businesses to deal with other businesses.

Sept 2006 [West Virginia Lawyer via Credit Slips
(Photo: Jackass)

What People Can Do If Foreclosure Looms [WSJ] (Subscription req'd)
(Photo: goat_girl_photos)

From Credit Slips:

[The arbitrator] admitted that they never show up and he has never had an attorney show up before. Just before I left, he suggested that we might reschedule. I told him I would not agree to rescheduling and that I believed he had no choice but to find an award in favor of my client. This made him extremely uncomfortable and he indicated he would need to talk to someone at NAF [National Arbitration Forum] first. I reminded him that he was supposed to be impartial and he told me he would give me his decision in a few days.

I just want to clarify that the arbitration notice states that FIA will appear by telephone. Mr. Curry [the arbitrator] told me that they never appear in person and often don't call.

Arbitration First-Hand [Credit Slips]
(Photo: It'sGreg)

• Assess Your Responsibilities: Be aware of your liabilities, and make sure you and your ex-spouse take sole responsibility for your respective assets.
• Dissolve All Joint Accounts: Open your own accounts and dissolve any joint accounts. Don't let any property or account stay bound to more than one name.
• Sell The House: If the mortgage bears your name, you are responsible if the house goes into foreclosure. Sell the house and split the profits instead.
• Divide Any Shared Cash: With the help of lawyer, split any remaining liquid assets.
• Document Everything: Courts love documents, as will any creditor that pops up down the road.
• 
  We also asked our resident divorce expert for advice:

  Divorce is more than a legal event; it is also financial reallocation of the divorcing couple's assets and liabilities. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for a former spouse to discover after the divorce that they were unaware of all the marital assets that should have been shared, or an ex-spouse's debt that they remain responsible for. Therefore, it is imperative that divorcing spouses each consult with an attorney to ensure the deal they bargained for is truly what they want to get.

  Even if you follow all these steps, and consult with an attorney, it's still a good idea to keep a close eye on your credit report to ensure that creditors aren't holding you responsible for your ex's debts.

  How Will My Divorce Affect My Credit? [Ask The Advisor]
  (Photo: billjacobus1)

Ching estimates that a lawsuit against a Chinese company typically lasts 10 years and costs five times as much as a normal case.

"If it's a small or medium manufacturer, it's not even worth considering suing them. It's not about the merits of the case, they could be dead liable, but it would be too difficult, too lengthy, too expensive," he said.

The roadblocks to suing a Chinese company have diverted most liability lawsuits to U.S. importers and wholesalers. Litigation lawyers say that while they have seen a spike in the number of inquiries about liability suits, most of the more than 100 pending suits filed over Chinese products target only the American or Canadian importer, the wholesaler or the retailer of the product.

The most cost-effective way to hold a Chinese manufacturer responsible, said Cohen, may not be through the courts. "Publicity may be the best weapon for anyone who can't afford litigation," he said.

Liability Lawyers Struggle to Pierce the Chinese Curtain [Washington Post]
(Photo: Petr Ruzicka)

From The Advocate:

Two years ago, [U.S. District Judge James Brady] rejected arguments from Verizon and others that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act violated the First Amendment by regulating commercial speech.

Junk faxes may cost Verizon $8 million [The Advocate]
(Photo: nomad73)

Advertising "Free ratings and profiles for every lawyer so you can choose the right lawyer," Avvo promises to guide consumers to the "right lawyer" like Consumer Reports guides consumers to the right shampoo. Avvo was controversial from the get-go, and called a flat-out scam by Seattle class-action lawyer Steve Berman, who is now suing Avvo for deceptive practices and violations of Washington's consumer protection laws.

It is an interesting idea: that lawyers can be rated like vaccuum cleaners or wine. Many many lawyers have long survived on referrals from satisfied clients and other attorneys, but Avvo take the approach that a lawyers public record is enough. Avvo suggests the following "fundamental" requirements:

• Good standing with the state bar association: In other words, the bar association—which licenses attorneys in your state—believes this lawyer is fit to practice law.
• No disciplinary sanctions: A sanction is a disciplinary action taken against a lawyer by the state regulatory agency. A sanction can be a minor reprimand, or it can be a very serious punishment like suspension or disbarment from practicing law. If you see a sanction on an attorney's record, proceed with caution.
• Experience with cases like yours: Most lawyers concentrate in a few areas of the law. Once you know what these areas are, it's easier to find lawyers with the experience and skills that are relevant to your situation.
• Good communication skills: Regardless of your legal issue, you want someone who keeps you informed and stays in touch, every step of the way. Legal matters can be confusing and your attorney is your advocate and guide. Don't settle for anything less.

All seem like good requirements. It makes lawyers nervous to include disciplinary sanctions as a "fundamental," but assuming the state professional responsibility board is doing its job well, I don't see any problem with that. Just know that a disciplinary "sanction" may be due to something like a trust accounting or recordkeeping error, so a "sanction" doesn't necessarily mean a lawyer is unethical or even sloppy. Nobody's perfect.

Avvo also recomments you consider:

• Is this lawyer's office convenient to your home or office?
• How much does the lawyer charge?
• Is this lawyer recommended by former clients?
• Do you care where your lawyer went to law school or how many years they've been practicing law?

All these are also good things to consider. So why all the fuss? The complaint just filed in federal district court (read the complaint at WSJ Law Blog) in Washington gives a few examples:

• After lawyer Enrico Salvatore Leo added to his profile two softball awards he won, his rating increased .6 points.
• Deborah Rhode, an Avvo board member and Stanford Law professor, scored a perfect 10, while Larry Kramer, the dean of the Stanford Law, scored a 5.7.
• Justice Ginsburg and Justice Alito received the same rating as Lynne Stewart, the government lawyer currently serving a prison term relating to her conduct in a recent terrorism trial.

Umm, maybe the system needs a bit of work. There are also features allowing clients to rate lawyers, which leads one to wonder whether vote spamming to lower competitors' ratings will become a problem. And, fundamentally, lawyers really aren't like vacuum cleaners. Sure, you can check for the fundamentals, but you won't know whether you can work with a lawyer or have confidence in their work from a ratings web site. You can try, but whether this will actually serve legal consumers in a meaningful way remains to be seen.

It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit comes out, especially since Super Lawyers, another lawyer-rating service, is under attack, as well. — SAM GLOVER

[via WSJ Law Blog]

"Never before in recorded history have a group of defendants engaged in such misleading and unfair business practices," Pearson said in his opening statement. You don't get a lot of firsts in recorded history in D.C. Superior Court, though I should add that Marion Barry was in the building for his day in traffic court, and the pants suit easily outdrew the ex-mayor-for-life.

"At 89, I'm not ready to be chased," she said. "But I was in World War II as a WAC, so I think I can take care of myself. Having lived in Germany and knowing the people who were victims of the Nazis, I thought he was going to beat me up. I thought of what Hitler had done to thousands of Jews."

Pearson paused. He struggled to breathe deeply. He could not continue. Pearson blurted a request for a break, stood up, turned around and walked out of the courtroom, tears dripping from his full and reddened eyes.

When he returned, he called that moment when Chung offered him the wrong pants "a Twilight Zone experience," and again, he welled up and had to halt the proceedings. Pearson wanted to submit the remainder of his testimony in writing, but Judge Bartnoff wouldn't hear of it.

Judge Who Seeks Millions for Lost Pants Has His (Emotional) Day in Court [Washington Post]
(Photo: Inside Edition)

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, says that can be considered fraud only if the signs misled a "reasonable" person. No reasonable person, he says, would interpret them to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

Judge Now Wants Just $54M From Cleaner [Washington Post]
PREVIOUSLY: DC Judge Seeks $65 Million In Damages From Korean Cleaner
(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

• Walmart CEO H. Lee Scott accepted "a number of yachts," and a pink diamond from Irwin Jacobs, in exchange for allowing Jacobs' company the exclusive right to buy unsold Walmart merchandise;
  
• Irwin Jacobs hired H. Lee Scott's son, Eric S. Scott, who had worked for Walmart as a buyer;
  
• E. Stanley Kroenke, a cousin by marriage of the descendant of Walmart's founders owns 55 stores that are leased back to Walmart at a highly inflated price;
  
• Several Walmart executives were given backstage passes to an Eagles concert;
  
• Walmart's General Counsel, Robert Rhoads, had an affair with a subordinate and paid for her apartment and college tuition; it ended well when Rhoads divorced his wife and married the subordinate.

  We're shocked, shocked to find that Walmart executives might be hypocrites. — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER

  Ex-exec hits back at Wal-Mart [CNN]

"In fact, Verizon basically argues that the entire lawsuit is a giant SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit, and that the case is an attempt to deter the company from exercising its First Amendment right to turn over customer calling information to government security services.

Communicating facts to the government is protected petitioning activity," says the response, even when the communication of those facts would normally be illegal or would violate a company's owner promises to its customers. Verizon argues that, if the EFF and other groups have concerns about customer call records, the only proper remedy "is to impose restrictions on the government, not on the speaker's right to communicate."

Verizon says phone record disclosure is protected free speech [Ars Technica]
(Photo:stopnlook)

Banks — especially in states like Massachusetts — were also hard hit. Why? Because under current federal law, its banks, not merchants, who have to pay to make customers whole again: forgiving fraudulent purchases on credit and debit cards and, of course, cancelling compromised cards and bank accounts, then issuing new ones to their customers. Needless to say, that's an expensive process, especially when you've got to repeat it 45 million times, as banks across the country will have to do in the wake of TJX. Not surprise, then, that banks aren't taking this sitting down.

TJX slapped with class action suit by banks [InfoWorld] (Thanks to Mike!)
(Photos: takomabibelot)

How does he get to $65 million? The District's consumer protection law provides for damages of $1,500 per violation per day. Pearson started multiplying: 12 violations over 1,200 days, times three defendants. A pant leg here, a pant leg there, and soon, you're talking $65 million.

Lawyer's Price For Missing Pants: $65 Million [Washington Post]
(Photo: frogmuseum2)

Anyway, over at Dumb Little Man they've got a collection of links that one woman found useful when going through her divorce. We can't speak to their usefulness personally...as we've never been divorced. Or married.—MEGHANN MARCO

14 Resources on Divorce and your Finances [Dumb Little Man]
(Photo: cadmanof50s)

W. L. Carter knew there was something fishy going on when he went to his lawyers' office a few years ago to pick up his settlement check for the heart damage he had sustained from taking the diet drug combination fen-phen.

W. L. Carter, a fen-phen plaintiff, said he was angry about how he had been treated. "The greed got the best of them," he said of his lawyers.

The check was, for starters, much smaller than he had expected. And his own lawyers threatened to retaliate against him if he ever told anyone, including his family, how much he had been paid. "You will be fined $100,000, you will go to jail and you will be sued," Mr. Carter recalled them saying.

Mr. Carter was right to have been suspicious. The lawyers defrauded their clients, a state judge has ruled in a civil case, when they settled fen-phen lawsuits on behalf of 440 of them for $200 million but kept the bulk of the money for themselves.

Fraud Inquiry Looks At Diet-Drug Case [New York Times]

Not necessarily. In many cases, neither they nor their lawyers read the offering plan carefully. Buyers often must hand over a $200 deposit for the thrill of getting three days to review the plan, sometimes 500 pages or more. It includes floor plans; tables that provide square footage, estimated taxes and common charges; and detailed descriptions of construction materials and apartment finishes. But it is also filled with technical and legal language that would be indecipherable to anyone other than a real estate lawyer.

The Danger in the Fine Print [NYT]

Inside, some tips to help you win your case in conciliation court.

The price of admission is generally low, between $50 and $100 most places. The plaintiff (the person who starts the case) files a short statement of the claim, pays the filing fee, and serves the defendant either by mail or by using the sheriff or other third party for personal service.

Conciliation court is a great place for consumers to get some justice. Before bringing your claim, however, you will want to check with your state's conciliation court to make sure you can actually bring your case. Generally, the defendant you intend to sue must have some personal or business presence in the state. Also, the amount of money you are seeking will probably have to fall beneath a certain amount. In Minnesota, for example, the total amount of the claim must be below $7,500.

You can probably find the complaint forms and other information on your state's or county's website. Fill them out carefully and completely, and bring them to court to file.

Here are a few more tips for your day in court:

• Spend a bit of time watching the daytime court shows. Seriously. Other than the judge's sass, they're not too different from conciliation court. Notice what the litigants do wrong.

• Bring all your exhibits and witnesses with you to court. Make an extra copy of documents, and keep them organized.

• Focus on the logical reason you should win. So often I see people want to tell their story. (A) There isn't time, and (B) it's irrelevant. Stick to the facts and why they matter.

• Always show respect for the judge or referee. They are the ones who decide whether you win or lose. The no-fail method of address is "your honor."

Conciliation court is a great way for consumers to get some justice in the courts. Build your case carefully and present it as professionally as you can, and good luck on your day in court! — SAM GLOVER

(Photo: mikehager66)

Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process in which a neutral third person (a mediator) aids the parties in jointly resolving their dispute. Unlike arbitration, a mediator does not decide the dispute for the parties. Instead, he or she helps the parties resolve it themselves (usually in a form that will be final and binding). Nothing said in the mediation can be used in a later arbitration or lawsuit.

UPDATE: Our tipster says, "Verizon employees commit sales fraud, then proceed with stonewalling tactics to avoid resolution. They eventually agree on a settlement but then withdraw it because I won't sign a 'gag clause'." More on this inside.

We have a particular image of a Verizon lawyer, but we were wrong. Verizon agreed to reverse all erroneous charges - almost $2,000, cancel one of six lines without an ETF, and allow the contract to expire almost one year early. Those are the exemplary results we expect only from executive support.

Our tipster's email below.

•My conflict with verizon started in August 06 when my sister and I came in to a store looking to add 2 lines to her existing family plan (for a total of 6 lines). The sales rep said they could do this by having 1 line added to her plan, and creating a new account with 1 line and minimal minutes. They said they would merge these two accounts once we signed the contracts.

•This never happened - thus my 1000+minute usage had my 450 minute individual plan racking up $300+ in charges each month.

•After stonewalling from the store manager and local store rep, I spoke with a regional store manager (Mario Turco) in early October. He promised the world to get things fixed, but would never follow up or reply to any emails to document his promises.

•Early November I was leaving for a 3 week business trip and received notice they were going to suspend my phone service for non payment. Multiple calls and emails to Mario and his subordinates were ignored. After leaving for the trip, he finally returned my call and verbally assured me I would not lose my service while traveling.

•Two weeks later, without warning, my service was suspended while 1000 miles from home and relying on the phone for my sales for my business. This occurred on a Saturday so there was no one available at Verizon until Monday authorized to remove the suspension.

•Upon returning home early December 06, I received several phone based promises from Mario but he refused to email me anything in writing so I could review how he was going to fix things. He and subordinate repeatedly pressured me to give social security numbers so they could authorize changes on the account.

•Based on the Verizon customer agreement - I sought information on the Mediation program that is detailed in the agreement. I called Dec 1st to Verizon Customer service and spent 40 minutes on the phone without any representative capable of telling me information or documentation on their mediation program.

•A rep eventually called me back and directed me to a mediation request form on their website to initiate a complaint. I filled it out and sent it in Dec 4th. I was told the process would start within 30 days.

•I received no response or acknowledgement from Verizon for several weeks. Finally faxed an angry letter and received a response form a L. Lane-Turner in executive relations. She said the address on the form was old and would not be acknowledge as received until Dec 16th. She fedex'ed me a written assurance my account would not be suspended again, and that I'd hear about the mediation process within 30 days.

•Well over 40 days passed without contact from Verizon. I once again initiated contact to bug them on following through on the mediation.

•After more delays, I finally had a mediation session scheduled with a Rynae Benson (mediator/paralegal for Verizon) and a lawyer/rep for Verizon, Monica Harper. Monica apologized profusely (generically) for all the trouble, without admitting specific faults or causes of fraud. Said their employees would be 'counseled' on their mistakes.

•Presently have negotiated a $2000+ credit to zero out my individual account, while merging it to my sister's account (while having to drop an little-used line from the master account with no ETF). Also the contract will terminate in one year 8-07 instead of 2 years.

•I really haven't come out ahead except for maybe $200 in fees - since if their fraudulent sales person hadn't lied in the first place, I would have avoided hours of time on calls to CSR's and documenting/emailing people.

UPDATE: Our reader writes again:

Verizon employees commit sales fraud, then proceed with stonewalling tactics to avoid resolution. They eventually agree on a settlement but then withdraw it because I won't sign a 'gag clause'.

Thanks for posting my note about my mediation progress on Saturday. Unfortunately, Verizon Wireless' representative, Monica Harper, added a non-disclosure requirement that was not part of the original agreement. Please let your readers know that the $2000+ settlement amount is misleading as far as any generosity on their part. It is merely a credit against charges we never agreed to.

Back in August 06 VZW Store sales representatives lied and committed fraud to get contracts signed at their store, resulting in this ridiculous bill. For the past 7 months, we dealt with stonewalling from their sales staff, management and their district manager. Lies from their district manager resulted in my phone being shut off during an important business trip. I documented and recorded dozens of unreturned emails, phone calls and several conversations with CSRs and management.

The $2000+ they want to stick me with is the result of a fraudulent sales trasaction. The settlement I agreed to represented approximately $60 in revenue that they actually took a loss on had their sales staff been trained to be honest. I received a generic apology and assurance their employees would be 'counselled'. Does anyone believe VZW is motivated to keep their sales staff honest if they're still haven't settled this after seven months?

By the way, to read about Andy Wilt's experience with 'fair dealing' from this company representative, google /Monica Harper Verizon/.

Here's the email trail from the mediation settlement efforts:

Feb 21st
R—, I'm attaching a short release for your review and signature. Since we will be making changes to Account No. 9XXXXXX, I will need M— to also sign the document since the account is in her name. Please review and let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Very truly yours,

Rynae Benson

___________________________________
GENERAL RELEASE AND COVENANT NOT TO SUE

In consideration of (1) waiving balance of $2,141.25 on Account No. 3XXXXXXXX through January billing, (2) waiving February bill balance (not yet billed) on Account No. 3XXXXXXX, (3) terminating service for mobile number XXX-XXX-XXXX on Account No. 9XXXXXXX, (4) waiving early termination fee for termination of mobile number XXX-XXX-XXXX on Account No. 9XXXXXXX, (5) transferring mobile number XXX-XXX-XXXX from Account No. 3XXXXXXXX to Account No. 9XXXXXXX, and (6) Adjust contract dates for all mobile numbers on Account No. 9XXXXXXX, including the transferred mobile number XXX-XXX-XXXX, to end on August 30, 2007, by Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless, I, R—, hereby release and forever discharge Verizon Wireless, and its assigns, successors, affiliates, parent companies, subsidiaries, branches, employees, officers, directors or agents, from all claims, rights, and liabilities of any nature, including, but not limited to, all actions, causes of action, damages, punitive damages, suits, debts, charges, sums of money, attorneys' fees, costs, accounts, covenants, controversies, agreements, promises, penalties, grievances, arbitrations, forfeitures, liens, and demands whatsoever, known or unknown, at law or in equity, by contract (express or implied), tort, pursuant to statute, or otherwise, that I now have, ever had, or will ever have based on, by reason of or arising out of any event, occurrence, action, inaction, transaction or thing of any kind or nature occurring prior to or on the date this General Release and Covenant Not to Sue is executed, including, but not limited to, any and all claims relating to Account Nos. 9XXXXXXX and 3XXXXXXX. Further, I hereby agree that I will not institute any suit or action at law or otherwise against Verizon Wireless, its assigns, successors, affiliates, parent companies, subsidiaries, branches, employees, officers, directors or agents relating to Account Nos. 9XXXXXXXX and 3XXXXXXXXX.

It is understood that the consideration herein stated is not an admission of liability by Verizon Wireless but that it is in settlement of a disputed claim and that liability is expressly denied by Verizon Wireless. I agree not to disclose the terms and conditions of this General Release and Covenant Not to Sue to any other party or parties without the written consent of Verizon Wireless.

__________________________
R—-
I hereby authorize all changes to Account No. 9XXXXXXXX as reflected in this document.

_________________________
M—-

##################
Response Feb 22nd

Rynae-
In our discussions during mediation, conditions of non-disclosure were not brought up. This has now been added to the agreement. I do not have a problem signing a 'covenant not to sue' agreement as part of this mediation. During the mediation process, I sought financial compensation for the lost time and business that was caused by your employee's misbehavior. Because this was denied, I will not sign anything that may restrict my ability to publicize my experience with media, websites or government agencies.
Please amend this release so the non disclosure conditions are removed and we'll both sign and submit this.

Regards,

R—
################
Follow up Feb 26th

Hi Rynae-
I just left a voice mail for you regarding the mediation process that was being conducted with Verizon Wireless over the past couple weeks. I sent the following message last week and received no response. Please respond via email or contact me at XXX-XXX-XXXX with an update.

Regards,

R—
################
Feb 26th

R— - I have forwarded your concerns about the Settlement Agreement to Monica. I will follow up with her tomorrow to see if we can come to a resolution.

Rynae Benson

###############
Feb 27th

R— - I would like to schedule a follow up call so we can discuss the settlement agreement. Monica is representing VZW in this matter and would be the person who can answer any questions and discuss the non-disclosure piece of the agreement. Let me know your availability so I can schedule a quick 15 minute call.

##############
Feb 27th

Rynae-
I would prefer if we can continue to communicate via email concerning this agreement. Can Monica please send a written explanation for this non-disclosure requirement?

Regards,

R—

##############
Patiently waitied for any response until Mar 6th

Rynae,
I have been waiting almost 2 weeks for a written response concerning the non-disclosure clause that was added to the mediation agreement. Can you please confer with Monica Harper and offer a prompt written response? I have entered into this mediation process in good faith and have been more than patient with these delays. I left a voicemail at your office as well in an effort to receive a follow up.

Regards,

R—

###############
Mar 7th - a response from Monica

R—:
You recently participated in Verizon Wireless' mediation program in an effort to settle a dispute. As part of the proposed resolution, we require the execution of a general release, which includes a confidentiality provision. The purpose of the release and this provision is to ensure that the parties have fully and finally resolved their dispute. Confidentiality provisions are typical in such settings and without such a provision here, Verizon Wireless lacks the finality it sought to obtain through the settlement. If you have any further questions, I can be reached at 240-568-2484.

Thank you,
Monica Harper
240-568-2484

#############
Mar 7th response - I had received a similar 'close of business' deadline from them during mediation negotiations, so I returned the favor.
Monica-
If this confidentiality provision is a requirement of this settlement, it should have been brought up during the mediation. You have modified our agreement by adding a new condition - requiring my silence about details of my poor customer experience with VZW . If you now wish to withdraw the offer to settle that was originally agreed to on February 20th, please indicate so by close of business March 8th.

Regards,

R—

###############
No response from Monica or Rynae - left a voicemail for Rynae and then sent Mar 9th:

Rynae,
Please let me know whether this mediation process is being terminated by Verizon Wireless.

Regards,

R—

###########
No responses at all since - To avoid any further delays and stonewalling, I'm going to initiate the arbitration process this week rather than wait for more silence.

It appears they would rather pay arbitration and labor costs than see my experience publicized. I hope this article gets Dugg'ed and they lose more customers and respect. Exposure may be the only way to get some sense of recourse for their fraudulent behavior.

I'll keep you posted on the progress of the arbitration proceedings.

The paint was chipping off David Berlind's Pontiac Vibe at an alarming rate. The dealer refused to cover it so David took GM to BBB court. A series of monkeyshanks ensued, the most egregious being:

...After the hearing is over, each party (us, and GM) is allowed to send to the BBB a final statement and rebuttal. So as to guarantee impartiality, neither party can see the other party's final statement/rebuttal until both have been submitted...when GM's final statement came in, it included specific references to our rebuttal.... references that could not have been made unless they saw our rebuttal before submitting their own.

David says he found many other Pontiac Vibe owners on the net experiencing the same problem: paint chipping too fast, dealer denies culpability, GM taken to BBB court, BBB bends over like a tranny pre-op saving up for surgery.

Guess that's what happens when you're funded by the companies you're supposed to regulate. — BEN POPKEN

GM: 'Stand by. We're about to spam you.' [Berlind's Testbed] (Thanks to KT!)

Blue Fish T-shirts' unauthorized use of the VERIZON Marks constitutes trademark and trade name infringement and unfair competition under federal, state and common law. Such use of the VERIZON Marks conveys the false and misleading impression that your company's merchandise is sponsored or approved by Verizon or that your company is somehow affiliated with Verizon. Such infringing use violates Section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act and also tarnishes Verizon's reputation and constitutes trademark dilution in violation of Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act. There is no justification for your company's unauthorized use of the VERIZON Marks.

Which can only mean one thing: buy now before it's too late! — BEN POPKEN

Verizon tries to stop sale of VerizonMath T-Shirts! [VerizonMath]

Regardless of guilt, you need to take some immediate steps if a debt collection suit lands on your doorstep, and reader and consumer lawyer Sam Glover is here to tell you what they are.

Unsurprisingly, he you advises to get a lawyer. It may come as a surprise that in this case they're not very expensive. — BEN POPKEN

In the event of a lawsuit, please head for the nearest lawyer [Caveat Emptor]

Patty's tale, inside, navigates the tortuous twists as Progressive tries to avoid paying her any more then the barest minimum after one of their clients hit her car.

Patty isn't taking it lying down, though. She's fought the Progressive agent at every turn, and now she's taking her case to a lawyer.

But the process hasn't been fun.

After the last go around with the Progressive agent, she says, "I felt like I drank a gallon of gas and ate 7 lit matches!"