Michael Fox has an interesting post entitled Be Wary of Recording Devices that Pick Up Audio as Well as Video. With the proliferation of portable recording devices (i.e. phones that include cameras) you can expect to see an increase in litigation involving claims of improper recording.
Oh, and UnivAtty has a post with pointers to articles about video surveillance of the campus at the University of Texas.
The Clarion Ledger has this report on the ongoing FBI investigation into "huge jury verdicts in Jefferson County and several of the trial lawyers who have been involved with them." The article discusses the possibility that plaintiffs lawyers are repeatedly naming a local drug store as a defendant in lawsuits to prevent their cases from being removed to federal court.
This is not news, at least not to lawyers. In Louisiana, we have our share of cases where local defendants are named just to keep the case out of federal court. This tactic is called "fraudulent joinder" and amazingly, it seems to succeed in many cases.
I'm a defense lawyer, in case you need to assess my bias. And, having said that, here's what I think: We are now at the point where plaintiffs' lawyers are concocting bizarre legal theories which distort the law, not for the purpose of bringing new parties into the case with the expectation that those parties will be held liable, but for the purpose of bringing in parties solely to maximize the tactical advantage against other parties against whom liability is actually sought.
So we are seeing more local defendants who are brought into lawsuits, and if they have to pay for legal defense even though the plaintiffs' don't really want to hold them liable, too bad. I don't know how other lawyers view this situation, but I view it as a form of legalized extortion.
