Taking the high road in his campaign for the GOP U.S. Senate nomination, Florida Governor Charlie Crist suggested on Monday that his opponent in that primary, Marco Rubio, might have used a Republican Party credit card for personal expenses, and that worse yet, he spent the money on personal grooming. Appearing on Greta Van Susteren’s show on FOX, Crist went so far as to insinuate that the services involved might have been a little out of the Republican mainstream. "He charged a $130 haircut, or maybe it was a back wax," Crist said.  "We're not really sure what all he got at that place."

When Van Susteren followed up, Crist continued to sow doubt as to just what service Rubio might have received.  "I don't know what it was," said Crist. "Initially we were told it was a haircut.  And then he said it wasn't a haircut.'"  Governor, maybe you should appoint a special prosecutor.  What did the candidate wax and when did he wax it?  The public has a right to know.

Finally, attempting the dangerous and rarely performed Triple Lindy, Crist tried to question Rubio's ethics, manhood and commitment to fiscal conservatism in a single soundbite:

Then he had the gall to go on Neal Cavuto's show and said it was his money [that he spent at the salon].  It was a credit card from the Republican Party.  It was party donor's money.  The detachment from reality is stunning to me.  And to try to say that you're a fiscal conservative, yet you spend $130 for maybe a haircut and maybe other things, I don't know what you do at a salon [if] you are a guy.  I get my haircut for $11 from a guy named Carl the Barber in St. Petersburg, Florida where I grew up. And to me that's real fiscal conservatism. 

Nailed it!

Rubio responded through a spokesman the next day, saying: "Last night, Charlie Crist gave an 11-minute nationally televised interview in which he made multiple references to back waxing, but not a single mention of fighting the liberal Obama agenda. This speaks volumes about what his priorities are."

Rubio did not deny the waxing allegations, however.

Link: FOX Tampa Bay
Link: Huffington Post
Link: Politico

According to a study by online insurance company insurance.com, attorneys (including judges) are at the very top of the list of most dangerous drivers, a result that a company spokesperson suggested was because of their mistaken belief that they are better at multitasking than those in other professions.

Personally, I always accept the results of studies by online insurance companies at face value, but for those of you who are skeptical, the company said the findings were based on the percentage of people seeking a comparison quote via its website who reported they had made at least one accident claim in the past.  In order, the top ten most dangerous by this measure were attorneys or judges, financial professionals, government workers (specifically GS-6), bartenders or waiters, business professionals, dog groomers, marketing/advertising professionals, barbers or stylists, coaches, and nurses.  The least dangerous (or least likely to report) were athletes (17 percent) and homemakers (24 percent).

The report did not say how large the data set was or how the company might have controlled for the many other possible variables.  For example, attorneys and judges may just be more likely to report prior accidents honestly.  No?  Okay, maybe they are more likely to report because they tend to have more expensive cars, or enjoy filling out reports more than others.  Hard to say.  The company suggested (speculated, really) that the reason attorneys and professionals in general do so poorly is that they are in professions that "demand multi-tasking - being on the phone, moving fast on a tight schedule - [and so] are prone to more distractions and . . . more accidents."

If that's true, though, it does not explain why dog groomers are apparently such lousy drivers, unless that is a much more demanding profession than I thought.  If these people are shaving more than one dog at a time while driving, they should stop.

The new study is mostly consistent with a 2006 report by the same company that ranked occupations by the average premium paid.  You would expect the safer-driving professions to pay less, and that was generally the case.  According to that report, the attorney/judge classification paid an average of $1,370.39 per year, 61st out of the 63 occupations ranked (that is, two from the bottom), while athletes and homemakers were 14th and 15th respectively.  Business professionals, government workers, and nurses were near the bottom, too, but "breeder/groomer/trainer" (sixth most dangerous this year) was much nearer the top of the 2006 list, paying an average of $1102.83 (17th-lowest).

The cheapest premiums were paid by scientists, who could get coverage for less than retired, disabled, or unemployed people, and even less than students.

 
 You pay how much less than me, Doc?

Having seen how some scientists drive, though, I'm inclined to think there's something seriously wrong with this study.

Link: Reuters

As I wrote last year (here, and here), since 1849 the Kentucky Constitution has required anyone holding any "office of honor or profit" to swear that they have never fought or otherwise participated in a duel. This provision was added because existing anti-dueling laws had failed to put an end to the practice, common among offended gentlemen of the day, of resolving disputes at gunpoint.  The idea was to deter dueling by threatening the future political career of anyone who engaged in a duel (assuming his future career had not already been derailed by a bullet).  To this day, anyone entering public office -- or simply taking the oath after passing the bar exam -- must affirm that they have never dueled.  But that may be about to change.

 

When discovery disputes were still resolved with pistols at dawn. 

Kentucky Rep. Darryl Owens (D-Louisville), who is an attorney himself, has introduced a bill that would remove the dueling language from the state constitution, and so presumably from the statutes reflecting that provision.  Owens said he was sponsoring the legislation partly because the language is "archaic" and needs to be updated to make it relevant to our modern society, and partly because it is embarrassing to have people laughing while taking an oath of office.

"The laughter as a result of the dueling language, in my opinion, detracts from what should be a solemn and important occasion," said Owens at a House committee meeting.  He suggested in particular that forcing new governors to swear that they had not fought any duels could contribute to negative stereotypes about the state.  Republicans also agreed that the amendment was a good idea.  "When we take that oath," said one, "it's serious business.  It's just not appropriate to have the snickers."

As of March 10, the proposal had been given its second reading in the House.  If it passes the House and Senate, it will then go on the ballot in November.  Voters must approve any amendment to the state constitution.

According to a constituent survey posted on Rep. Owens' site, 81% of respondents favored removing the dueling language, suggesting that 19% are concerned about a possible dueling resurgence, or possibly that they just enjoy the snickers.

Link: MSNBC
Link: Kentucky Public Radio

On Monday, blogger Eric Turkewitz was rightfully horrified by two sentences in a decision by a New York appellate court.  Here's the first sentence from Dockery v. Sprecher:

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), entered July 10, 2008, as, upon the granting of that branch of the motion of the defendants Stanley Sprecher, Peninsula Radiology Associates, P.C., and Peninsula Hospital Center pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the plaintiffs' case, which was for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, upon a jury verdict finding the defendants M. Chris Overby, and Levine Overby Hollis, M.D.s, P.C., 45% at fault, and nonparties Philip Howard Gutin, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center 55% at fault for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Thomas Dockery, and that the plaintiff Thomas Dockery sustained damages in the principal sums of $10,000,000 for past pain and suffering, $27,750,000 for future pain and suffering, $370,000 for past loss of earnings, $80,000 for future loss of earnings over a period of 28 years, and $21,636 for loss of Social Security income, and that the plaintiff Karen Dockery sustained damages in the principal sum of $18,000,000 for past loss of services, and $48,700,000 for future loss of services, and upon so much of an order of the same court entered December 3, 2007, as granted, after the jury verdict, that branch of the motion of the defendants M. Chris Overby and Levine Overby Hollis, M.D.s, P.C., pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the plaintiffs' case, which was for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Stanley Sprecher, Peninsula Radiology Associates, P.C., Peninsula Hospital Center, M. Chris Overby, and Levine Overby Hollis, M.D.s, P.C.

Wow. Does that suck. Yes, but not as hard as the second sentence, which was over ten percent longer. The one above is 303 words long; the second contained 343 words.  I'm not going to reprint the second one because (1) there is some question as to whether it is actually a single sentence, because it has semicolons, and (2) it's already been posted and I don't want to be responsible for the Internet exploding.

Eric, who practices in New York, bravely and respectfully criticized the court's work and expressed the hope that it could do better.  I, who do not practice in New York, am going to be more of a smartass about it.  What possible excuse could there be for that horrible train-wreck of a sentence?  It isn't just that it's long, although that is a very bad sign.  It's also so recursively complicated that it is impossible to figure out the meaning of the first part without reading to the end, by which time you have forgotten what the first part said.  The writer uses the full name of every party every time.  The facts aren't in chronological order.  It uses Latin.  I have to stop now because this is giving me a nosebleed.

As Eric also points out, this is not just about style, it's about meaning.  I felt obligated to see if I could do better, and after about 20 minutes of reading that one sentence, I think this is what it means:

Karen and Thomas Dockery sued several defendants after Thomas was allegedly injured by medical malpractice. At trial, the jury found two of the defendants (Dr. Chris Overby and Dr. Levine Overby Hollis) 45% at fault, assigning the remaining 55% to nonparties.  It awarded Thomas more than $38 million in damages, and awarded Karen over $66 million for loss of services.  After the verdict, however, the judge granted motions for judgment as a matter of law that defendants had filed at the close of plaintiffs' case, and dismissed the claims against all defendants.  Plaintiffs appealed.

I'm honestly not sure if that's accurate, though, because of the extreme badness of the court's original language.  And as Eric points out, it would be better if the law were not so hard to understand.

A long sentence every once in a while is not a bad thing, if done right.  In this article, Gerald Lebovits cites the example of a "famous 202-word sentence" by Justice Scalia -- it's long, but is long for a reason, and is still readable because of parallelism and the use of other techniques to break it up into shorter units.  None of which applies to the Faulknerian monster above.  According to experts like Bryan Garner, most mortals should stick to an average of 15-20 words per sentence.

Maybe statutes are different -- or maybe not.  One commentator has stated that 42 U.S.C. § 1396a, a multi-part, but single-sentence, Medicare statute that sets forth what state plans for medical assistance must provide, "is generally regarded as the longest sentence in the English language."  I could not get an accurate word count of this monster, but it was somewhere north of 11,600 words.

It's long, but I'm not sure it's fair to call it "English."

Link: New York Personal Injury Law Blog

If you think the "Legal Tool of the Week" might be, let's say, Westlaw or some new iPhone app, you are at the wrong website.

In fact, it is William Ogletree, a 62-year-old Texas attorney who is the owner of one "expensive black leather coat . . . made by Polo, size X-Large, [with] a plaid lining."  Or at least he was the owner of one of those, until he left it in a food court at Houston Intercontinental Airport on December 30, 2009.  Said coat now esta desaparecido.

In a letter obtained and posted by The Smoking Gun, Ogletree threatened litigation if one or more of the relevant entities did not either produce the coat or pay him $800 for the cost of a new coat.  "I have diligently attempted but failed to determine which of the above-addressed entities is responsible for the area and who should have collected the coat, kept it in a secure place and held it for a reasonable period of time for the owner to locate it," Ogletree wrote in a letter to Continental Airlines, the food court operator and the City of Houston.  "I contend that one or more of the parties breached their duty under the bailment laws of the State of Texas and could be responsible for intentional conduct and how they manage lost and found items for which they are responsible. . . . I am looking forward to discovering how all of you deal with lost property . . . I suspect your record is dismal and that employee theft runs rampant."

Ogletree stated that he had eaten at a pizza restaurant in the aforementioned food court on the day of the alleged bailment violation.  He believed the name of the restaurant was "Famiglia," but he said he was more than willing to come to the airport and identify the restaurant and the person who waited on him.  "I remember her very well," he said, "due to how badly she treated me."  He was also quite upset that none of the above-addressed entities had been willing to take responsibility for the tragic events of December 30, and stated his readiness to take the matter to court.  "To avoid this, all of the three entities need to come to an agreement on which party is responsible," Ogletree wrote.

I don't think it should be difficult to come to an agreement on which party is responsible, but I don't think Bill is going to like the answer we agree on.

Link: The Smoking Gun