Date: 11/13/2008
By RYAN J. FOLEY
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) _ A Wisconsin man who gunned down a Catholic priest and two others in 1985 should be released from a mental hospital, an appeals court ruled Thursday.
The District 4 Court of Appeals directed state health authorities to prepare to release Bryan Stanley from the Mendota Mental Health Institute with conditions.
The court said state lawyers failed to prove that releasing Stanley, 53, would present a danger to himself or the public. The decision overturns a ruling by a La Crosse County judge who had denied Stanley’s request for release.
Stanley was suffering from psychosis when he walked into St. Patrick’s Catholic Church in Onalaska and gunned down the parish priest, a lay minister and a custodian. Angry the priest was allowing girls to give Scripture readings during Mass, the 29-year-old Army washout claimed to be a prophet sent to cleanse the church.
Stanley was found not guilty by reason of mental disease and was committed to Mendota, a state psychiatric hospital in Madison.
In recent years, Stanley has been given greater freedom as his schizophrenia has been managed with medication. He was moved to an unlocked, minimum security unit at Mendota in 2006 and has been allowed to work part-time in the community and take classes at a local technical college.
He also has spent years researching and writing a 280-page book, “The Becoming of Driftless Rivers National Park,” a cultural and natural history of southwestern Wisconsin.
Department of Justice spokesman Bill Cosh said the state was considering whether to appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. If it doesn’t, the state Department of Health Services will be required to present a plan to a judge for the conditions attached to Stanley’s release.
If approved, he would be released under conditions that would likely include an ankle bracelet so the state can track his whereabouts, staff supervision of his medicine intake and meetings with a case manager and probation agent. That protocol would protect the community, and Stanley would be taken back into custody if he posed a risk, state officials say.
Attorney Tom Hayes, who represented Stanley during his appeal, called on authorities to quickly approve that plan and release his client. Stanley is ready to follow any conditions imposed by the court, said Hayes, who wasn’t sure where Stanley would want to live.
“He’s exhibited an ability to be a pro-social member of any community over the last 15 years,” Hayes said.
Referring to Stanley’s writing, Hayes said, “He’s a very talented person. And now with the proper medication that stabilized his condition, he was able to develop that talent.”
Two doctors — one who treated Stanley at Mendota and another appointed by the court to examine him — both supported his petition for conditional release. They testified that he has a good chance of succeeding in the community as long as he continues taking his medicine.
La Crosse County Judge Ramona Gonzalez had denied Stanley’s petition for release last year, citing instances of him refusing or getting off his medications. She said that created a risk for dangerous behavior that “I am not willing to take … based upon what this crime was all about.”
But appeals court Judge Burnie Bridge, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said Gonzalez was mistaken. Testimony showed Stanley had refused to take his medicine for one day in 1993 and that was because it created harsh side effects; since he switched medications 15 years ago, he has never refused.
The evidence was not “clear and convincing” that Stanley would present a danger as required under state law to keep him committed, she wrote.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Nev. cap on medical damage awards draws criticism
Date: 11/1/2008 6:00 AM
By PAUL HARASIM
Las Vegas Review-Journal
LAS VEGAS (AP) _ As 59-year-old Richard Krikalo lumbers through the office of a junkyard he helps manage, he bumps into a desk and clips a wastebasket with his right leg.
Krikalo is almost blind in his right eye and has trouble with depth perception and peripheral vision.
“I go to the buffet and bump into people carrying food,” he growls, shaking his head, his static right eye unable to follow his blinking left one. “It’s embarrassing. The only time I don’t have to worry about bumping into something is when I’m in bed.”
Krikalo blames a doctor for a botched retina reattachment operation in August 2007. But lawyers tell him it’s economically unfeasible to litigate his complicated case, or that time limitations are an issue.
For that, he blames medical malpractice reforms of the 2004 Nevada Legislature.
“With this new malpractice law in place, I can’t even get a lawyer to go after who’s responsible for what happened,” the Las Vegas resident said, displaying rejection letters from attorneys. “There’s hardly any protection for the consumer any more. Now everything is in favor of doctors.”
Krikalo says he hates frivolous lawsuits, but says someone who loses his eyesight in surgery gone awry should be able to find a lawyer to gain compensation for what he’s lost.
Voters overwhelmingly approved Question 3 in 2004. Physicians called it the “Keep Our Doctors In Nevada” initiative.
Doctors love it. They have seen dramatic savings on malpractice insurance.
Insurance companies profit. They don’t have to make large pay outs.
Attorneys hate it. They believe a potentially lucrative part of their business is cut off.
Some lawmakers wonder whether the law should be amended again, to protect the public.
At the heart of the varied positions is a cap of $350,000 on damages for pain and suffering in all cases.
Children, homemakers, seniors and people such as Krikalo who are able to work despite injury have no loss of future earnings to calculate. Essentially, any malpractice awards they win would come out of the $350,000 allocated for pain and suffering, a sum divvied between the attorney and the client.
In the past, juries would sometimes award seven-figure judgments for pain and suffering to grieving parents who lost a child to medical negligence or to an individual whose quality of life had changed because of a physician’s mistake.
Now Nevadans who believe they have claims may receive letters from attorneys similar to one Krikalo received from an attorney in July of this year: “Unfortunately, the ($350,000) limit on damages makes it economically unfeasible to pursue this matter given the complicated nature of the case.”
The reform also cut from two years to one the time limit for filing malpractice claims.
Krikalo bumped against that when he contacted another local attorney.
“It appears that the time to file your case has already expired, or will expire shortly,” the lawyer wrote.
Physicians have seen malpractice insurance costs drop 20 percent to 30 percent since the 2004 reforms. They believe trial lawyers abuse the system and file frivolous claims hoping for settlements or unreasonably large jury awards.
“The morale of physicians is much improved,” said Dr. Jerry Jones, Clark County Medical Association president. “They’re much happier doing medicine now and our doctors are staying in Nevada.”
Dr. Weldon “Don” Havins, who preceded Jones before taking over as president of the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine this year, said that until Question 3 passed, fast-growing Nevada had trouble attracting new physicians.
Seven new licenses were issued to doctors in Clark County in 2002. Two years later, just the promise of medical tort reform brought a net gain in licensees of 212.
“Since the implementation of the 2004 medical tort reforms, the net gains in Clark County physicians has continued and stabilized,” Havins said.
Havins said a substantial decrease in medical malpractice filings — 337 cases each year in 2002 and 2003 — has been heartening to physicians.
From 2004 to 2007 the number of cases filed ranged from a low of 157 last year to a high of 203 in 2006.
There have been 230 cases already filed this year. But Havins said that probably reflected cases brought after a hepatitis C outbreak in the Las Vegas area.
Only two cases filed in Clark County District Court after the 2004 reforms have gone to a jury. One ended with a $100,000 award; the other, $495,000.
To Havins, the fact that the number of cases filed since 2004 is higher than those filed in the five years prior to the “crisis years” of 2002 and 2003 proves that southern Nevadans still have a solid legal remedy for medical negligence.
“Plaintiffs apparently are not having trouble finding attorneys to take their cases,” he said.
But Jim Crockett, an attorney who quit taking medical malpractice cases, said lawsuits now are usually on behalf of individuals whose future earnings are at stake, including families who lose a breadwinner due to medical negligence.
“My cases were overwhelmingly centered on the wrongful death of children, housewives or senior citizens, who had no economic damages,” he said of his former caseload.
“But for what I had to do to win them, the outcome now isn’t satisfactory for either the client or me,” he said. “If a client gets a little more than $50,000 after four years of stressful litigation, they don’t feel it’s worth it.”
Gerald Gillock, another veteran plaintiff’s attorney, said the reason for the rise in the number of lawsuits, despite a dramatic drop-off in pain and suffering cases, is simple: “There is a lot of medical malpractice out there.”
Janice Moskowitz of the Nevada Division of Insurance said there were six major insurers providing insurance for physicians and surgeons in 2004. Today, there are eight authorized carriers.
The increased competition, Havins said, has helped bring insurance premiums down for doctors, who, according to studies done by Medicare and Medical Economics, spend between 3.2 percent and 3.9 percent of their practice incomes on malpractice insurance.
Robert Byrd, president of the Independent Nevada Doctor Insurance Exchange, said the medical profession in Nevada no longer has to worry about carriers leaving the state.
“Because of the reforms, Nevada is no longer seen as one of the problem states,” he said. “It’s now seen as a very attractive place to do business.”
Medicus Insurance Co., chief executive Sheldon Davidow said a family practitioner who paid a $25,000 premium before 2004 can pay $14,000 to $18,500 per year today. Davidow’s Texas-based firm entered the Nevada medical malpractice insurance market after Question 3 passed.
He said policies for obstetricians and gynecologists now range from $78,000 to $105,000, he said, well below the $150,000 to $200,000 five or six years ago.
Surgeons who had been paying $100,000 for coverage can now get premiums between $55,000 and $70,000 a year, Davidow said.
Median salaries for general surgeons in the West can be $292,000, according to Salary.Com, compared with $235,000 for OB-GYNs and $158,000 for family practitioners.
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, chair of the state’s Legislative Committee on Health Care, said lawmakers in 2009 may revisit the medical malpractice legislation in the aftermath of the hepatitis C outbreak.
Health authorities in Las Vegas have identified 114 people who contracted the incurable liver disease while they were patients at two clinics where officials say staff members reused syringes and vials of medicine. Nine cases are linked by DNA evidence to the clinics, wh ile officials say 105 more could have contracted the virus through other means.
More than 120 lawsuits alleging medical negligence, and a class-action claim have been filed by patients who weren’t made ill but claim emotional distress.
“We have to be fair,” Leslie said. “What has happened with the whole hepatitis C tragedy is the best argument why the caps should be revisited. This scandal has really heightened interest in what caps for pain and suffering mean. Doctors are overprotected and the law really does not protect the patients.”
Leslie believes the ability of an individual to pursue a liability lawsuit for improper treatment provides an additional incentive for a doctor to follow good medical practice.
Meanwhile, Gillock said he takes cases knowing there will be little payout, hoping that one day a jury verdict can be appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.
“I know if we get the right case it will be ruled unconstitutional,” he said.
___
Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal,
“>http://www.lvrj.com
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By PAUL HARASIM
Las Vegas Review-Journal
LAS VEGAS (AP) _ As 59-year-old Richard Krikalo lumbers through the office of a junkyard he helps manage, he bumps into a desk and clips a wastebasket with his right leg.
Krikalo is almost blind in his right eye and has trouble with depth perception and peripheral vision.
“I go to the buffet and bump into people carrying food,” he growls, shaking his head, his static right eye unable to follow his blinking left one. “It’s embarrassing. The only time I don’t have to worry about bumping into something is when I’m in bed.”
Krikalo blames a doctor for a botched retina reattachment operation in August 2007. But lawyers tell him it’s economically unfeasible to litigate his complicated case, or that time limitations are an issue.
For that, he blames medical malpractice reforms of the 2004 Nevada Legislature.
“With this new malpractice law in place, I can’t even get a lawyer to go after who’s responsible for what happened,” the Las Vegas resident said, displaying rejection letters from attorneys. “There’s hardly any protection for the consumer any more. Now everything is in favor of doctors.”
Krikalo says he hates frivolous lawsuits, but says someone who loses his eyesight in surgery gone awry should be able to find a lawyer to gain compensation for what he’s lost.
Voters overwhelmingly approved Question 3 in 2004. Physicians called it the “Keep Our Doctors In Nevada” initiative.
Doctors love it. They have seen dramatic savings on malpractice insurance.
Insurance companies profit. They don’t have to make large pay outs.
Attorneys hate it. They believe a potentially lucrative part of their business is cut off.
Some lawmakers wonder whether the law should be amended again, to protect the public.
At the heart of the varied positions is a cap of $350,000 on damages for pain and suffering in all cases.
Children, homemakers, seniors and people such as Krikalo who are able to work despite injury have no loss of future earnings to calculate. Essentially, any malpractice awards they win would come out of the $350,000 allocated for pain and suffering, a sum divvied between the attorney and the client.
In the past, juries would sometimes award seven-figure judgments for pain and suffering to grieving parents who lost a child to medical negligence or to an individual whose quality of life had changed because of a physician’s mistake.
Now Nevadans who believe they have claims may receive letters from attorneys similar to one Krikalo received from an attorney in July of this year: “Unfortunately, the ($350,000) limit on damages makes it economically unfeasible to pursue this matter given the complicated nature of the case.”
The reform also cut from two years to one the time limit for filing malpractice claims.
Krikalo bumped against that when he contacted another local attorney.
“It appears that the time to file your case has already expired, or will expire shortly,” the lawyer wrote.
Physicians have seen malpractice insurance costs drop 20 percent to 30 percent since the 2004 reforms. They believe trial lawyers abuse the system and file frivolous claims hoping for settlements or unreasonably large jury awards.
“The morale of physicians is much improved,” said Dr. Jerry Jones, Clark County Medical Association president. “They’re much happier doing medicine now and our doctors are staying in Nevada.”
Dr. Weldon “Don” Havins, who preceded Jones before taking over as president of the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine this year, said that until Question 3 passed, fast-growing Nevada had trouble attracting new physicians.
Seven new licenses were issued to doctors in Clark County in 2002. Two years later, just the promise of medical tort reform brought a net gain in licensees of 212.
“Since the implementation of the 2004 medical tort reforms, the net gains in Clark County physicians has continued and stabilized,” Havins said.
Havins said a substantial decrease in medical malpractice filings — 337 cases each year in 2002 and 2003 — has been heartening to physicians.
From 2004 to 2007 the number of cases filed ranged from a low of 157 last year to a high of 203 in 2006.
There have been 230 cases already filed this year. But Havins said that probably reflected cases brought after a hepatitis C outbreak in the Las Vegas area.
Only two cases filed in Clark County District Court after the 2004 reforms have gone to a jury. One ended with a $100,000 award; the other, $495,000.
To Havins, the fact that the number of cases filed since 2004 is higher than those filed in the five years prior to the “crisis years” of 2002 and 2003 proves that southern Nevadans still have a solid legal remedy for medical negligence.
“Plaintiffs apparently are not having trouble finding attorneys to take their cases,” he said.
But Jim Crockett, an attorney who quit taking medical malpractice cases, said lawsuits now are usually on behalf of individuals whose future earnings are at stake, including families who lose a breadwinner due to medical negligence.
“My cases were overwhelmingly centered on the wrongful death of children, housewives or senior citizens, who had no economic damages,” he said of his former caseload.
“But for what I had to do to win them, the outcome now isn’t satisfactory for either the client or me,” he said. “If a client gets a little more than $50,000 after four years of stressful litigation, they don’t feel it’s worth it.”
Gerald Gillock, another veteran plaintiff’s attorney, said the reason for the rise in the number of lawsuits, despite a dramatic drop-off in pain and suffering cases, is simple: “There is a lot of medical malpractice out there.”
Janice Moskowitz of the Nevada Division of Insurance said there were six major insurers providing insurance for physicians and surgeons in 2004. Today, there are eight authorized carriers.
The increased competition, Havins said, has helped bring insurance premiums down for doctors, who, according to studies done by Medicare and Medical Economics, spend between 3.2 percent and 3.9 percent of their practice incomes on malpractice insurance.
Robert Byrd, president of the Independent Nevada Doctor Insurance Exchange, said the medical profession in Nevada no longer has to worry about carriers leaving the state.
“Because of the reforms, Nevada is no longer seen as one of the problem states,” he said. “It’s now seen as a very attractive place to do business.”
Medicus Insurance Co., chief executive Sheldon Davidow said a family practitioner who paid a $25,000 premium before 2004 can pay $14,000 to $18,500 per year today. Davidow’s Texas-based firm entered the Nevada medical malpractice insurance market after Question 3 passed.
He said policies for obstetricians and gynecologists now range from $78,000 to $105,000, he said, well below the $150,000 to $200,000 five or six years ago.
Surgeons who had been paying $100,000 for coverage can now get premiums between $55,000 and $70,000 a year, Davidow said.
Median salaries for general surgeons in the West can be $292,000, according to Salary.Com, compared with $235,000 for OB-GYNs and $158,000 for family practitioners.
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, chair of the state’s Legislative Committee on Health Care, said lawmakers in 2009 may revisit the medical malpractice legislation in the aftermath of the hepatitis C outbreak.
Health authorities in Las Vegas have identified 114 people who contracted the incurable liver disease while they were patients at two clinics where officials say staff members reused syringes and vials of medicine. Nine cases are linked by DNA evidence to the clinics, wh ile officials say 105 more could have contracted the virus through other means.
More than 120 lawsuits alleging medical negligence, and a class-action claim have been filed by patients who weren’t made ill but claim emotional distress.
“We have to be fair,” Leslie said. “What has happened with the whole hepatitis C tragedy is the best argument why the caps should be revisited. This scandal has really heightened interest in what caps for pain and suffering mean. Doctors are overprotected and the law really does not protect the patients.”
Leslie believes the ability of an individual to pursue a liability lawsuit for improper treatment provides an additional incentive for a doctor to follow good medical practice.
Meanwhile, Gillock said he takes cases knowing there will be little payout, hoping that one day a jury verdict can be appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.
“I know if we get the right case it will be ruled unconstitutional,” he said.
___
Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal,
“>http://www.lvrj.com
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Lawyer Ads: Regulating Taste
Date: 10/26/2008
Lawsuit seeks to block tough La. lawyer ad rules
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
Associated Press Writer
NEW ORLEANS (AP) _ Personal injury attorney Morris Bart has spent millions of dollars to make “one call, that’s all” his familiar refrain for television viewers, but new lawyer advertising rules in Louisiana may ruin the return on his investment.
Catchy phrases and mottos like Bart’s have been seen and heard on televisions across the country, prompting some states to silence what have been called deceptive, misleading ads that have eroded the industry’s reputation.
Louisiana is the latest state to take action, preparing to implement some of the nation’s toughest rules on attorney advertising.
But Bart, one of his competitors and a national consumer advocacy group have sued to block the rules from going into effect Dec. 1, claiming the new limits go too far.
“You can regulate speech that is false, deceptive and misleading, but you can’t regulate taste,” he said. “When you put blanket bans on speech, you’re on dangerous ground.”
The rules prevent Louisiana lawyers from promising “results” or referring to “past successes.” They also can’t use nicknames or mottos that imply an ability to get results. A handbook issued by the Louisiana Bar Association cites “the winning law firm,” ”losing is not an option” and “the cash machine legal clinic” as hypothetical examples that would violate the new rules.
A committee will review the ads’ contents, and attorneys who break the rules could suffer professional sanctions.
Bart’s lawsuit claims the rules also impose a broad ban on the use of client testimonials, actors’ endorsements and re-enactments. Ads also won’t be allowed to portray a judge or jury or compare one lawyer’s services to another.
“They’re definitely one of the most restrictive set of rules for advertising in the country,” said attorney Greg Beck of Public Citizen Inc., the nonprofit group that filed similar suits in New York last year and in Florida this year over lawyer advertising rules.
A federal judge in Syracuse, N.Y., ruled in July 2007 that some of that state’s new restrictions were unconstitutional and blocked New York’s attorney disciplinary authorities from enforcing them. The state is appealing that ruling.
Elsewhere, a committee formed by the Missouri Bar Association earlier this year proposed stricter requirements for disclaimers in lawyer ads. A few years ago in South Carolina, lawyers were told they could no longer to call themselves the “heavy hitter” or the “strong arm” after that state passed stricter ad rules.
In contrast, New Mexico lifted a requirement four years ago that all lawyer ads be screened in advance by a bar association committee.
“There really hasn’t been much consistency from state to state,” said Micah Buchdahl, chairman-elect of the American Bar Association’s law practice management section. Buchdahl said efforts to restrict lawyer ads are typically grass roots movements within the profession and not part of a national campaign led by outside interests.
In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that lawyer ads are a form of commercial speech entitled to some First Amendment protection, a decision that spawned a proliferation of attorney ads and periodic attempts to rein them in.
The Louisiana Bar Association, which recommended the new rules adopted by the state’s Supreme Court, said the limits are designed to protect consumers and respond to concerns that some ads give the profession a bad reputation.
“We’re not here to arbitrate taste,” said association president Elizabeth Erny Foote. “Our first goal is to protect the public.”
Chief Justice Pascal Calogero Jr., through a court spokesman, wouldn’t comment on the new restrictions. But the court’s 25-page order issuing the rules said they balance “the right of lawyers to truthfully advertise legal services with the need to improve the existing rules in order to protect the public from unethical forms of lawyer advertising.”
One of Bart’s competitors, attorney William Gee III, has run ads featuring actor Robert Vaughn, who starred in the 1960s TV spy series “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.” Gee thinks the new restrictions will prevent him from using the actor as a paid spokesman.
Gee believes the state’s existing rules, which bar “false, misleading or deceptive communications” in advertising, are good enough.
“It’s our position that these rules go far enough in protecting the public,” said Gee, who has been practicing personal-injury and maritime law since 1984.
Bart, whose firm spends more than $5 million annually on ads in seven television markets in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, claims the rules are part of an anti-consumer movement to shield “big business and corporate America” from costly litigation.
“Big business doesn’t like lawyers like me advertising because we represent consumers and working people that bring claims against big business,” he said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
www.wis-law.com
Lawsuit seeks to block tough La. lawyer ad rules
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
Associated Press Writer
NEW ORLEANS (AP) _ Personal injury attorney Morris Bart has spent millions of dollars to make “one call, that’s all” his familiar refrain for television viewers, but new lawyer advertising rules in Louisiana may ruin the return on his investment.
Catchy phrases and mottos like Bart’s have been seen and heard on televisions across the country, prompting some states to silence what have been called deceptive, misleading ads that have eroded the industry’s reputation.
Louisiana is the latest state to take action, preparing to implement some of the nation’s toughest rules on attorney advertising.
But Bart, one of his competitors and a national consumer advocacy group have sued to block the rules from going into effect Dec. 1, claiming the new limits go too far.
“You can regulate speech that is false, deceptive and misleading, but you can’t regulate taste,” he said. “When you put blanket bans on speech, you’re on dangerous ground.”
The rules prevent Louisiana lawyers from promising “results” or referring to “past successes.” They also can’t use nicknames or mottos that imply an ability to get results. A handbook issued by the Louisiana Bar Association cites “the winning law firm,” ”losing is not an option” and “the cash machine legal clinic” as hypothetical examples that would violate the new rules.
A committee will review the ads’ contents, and attorneys who break the rules could suffer professional sanctions.
Bart’s lawsuit claims the rules also impose a broad ban on the use of client testimonials, actors’ endorsements and re-enactments. Ads also won’t be allowed to portray a judge or jury or compare one lawyer’s services to another.
“They’re definitely one of the most restrictive set of rules for advertising in the country,” said attorney Greg Beck of Public Citizen Inc., the nonprofit group that filed similar suits in New York last year and in Florida this year over lawyer advertising rules.
A federal judge in Syracuse, N.Y., ruled in July 2007 that some of that state’s new restrictions were unconstitutional and blocked New York’s attorney disciplinary authorities from enforcing them. The state is appealing that ruling.
Elsewhere, a committee formed by the Missouri Bar Association earlier this year proposed stricter requirements for disclaimers in lawyer ads. A few years ago in South Carolina, lawyers were told they could no longer to call themselves the “heavy hitter” or the “strong arm” after that state passed stricter ad rules.
In contrast, New Mexico lifted a requirement four years ago that all lawyer ads be screened in advance by a bar association committee.
“There really hasn’t been much consistency from state to state,” said Micah Buchdahl, chairman-elect of the American Bar Association’s law practice management section. Buchdahl said efforts to restrict lawyer ads are typically grass roots movements within the profession and not part of a national campaign led by outside interests.
In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that lawyer ads are a form of commercial speech entitled to some First Amendment protection, a decision that spawned a proliferation of attorney ads and periodic attempts to rein them in.
The Louisiana Bar Association, which recommended the new rules adopted by the state’s Supreme Court, said the limits are designed to protect consumers and respond to concerns that some ads give the profession a bad reputation.
“We’re not here to arbitrate taste,” said association president Elizabeth Erny Foote. “Our first goal is to protect the public.”
Chief Justice Pascal Calogero Jr., through a court spokesman, wouldn’t comment on the new restrictions. But the court’s 25-page order issuing the rules said they balance “the right of lawyers to truthfully advertise legal services with the need to improve the existing rules in order to protect the public from unethical forms of lawyer advertising.”
One of Bart’s competitors, attorney William Gee III, has run ads featuring actor Robert Vaughn, who starred in the 1960s TV spy series “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.” Gee thinks the new restrictions will prevent him from using the actor as a paid spokesman.
Gee believes the state’s existing rules, which bar “false, misleading or deceptive communications” in advertising, are good enough.
“It’s our position that these rules go far enough in protecting the public,” said Gee, who has been practicing personal-injury and maritime law since 1984.
Bart, whose firm spends more than $5 million annually on ads in seven television markets in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, claims the rules are part of an anti-consumer movement to shield “big business and corporate America” from costly litigation.
“Big business doesn’t like lawyers like me advertising because we represent consumers and working people that bring claims against big business,” he said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
www.wis-law.com
Wisconsin goes after Texas man over wild pigs
Date: 10/23/2008 3:23 AM
By TODD RICHMOND
Associated Press Writer
SENECA, Wis. (AP) _ Southwestern Wisconsin in October is close to paradise: crimson-tinged bluffs, rolling ridge-top fields, peace and quiet. But haunting the hollows is something, big, mean and ugly.
For years, dozens of giant, hairy hogs have run wild through its valleys and bottoms, rooting up trees, devouring crops before they sprout and keeping residents indoors. Now state investigators say they know who brought the beasts here, and they want him to pay.
According to them, the culprit is former Gays Mills elk farm owner Robert S. Johnson. They believe he hauled 31 wild hogs from Texas to Wisconsin in 2002 and let them loose near the Kickapoo River in Crawford County.
Johnson was charged in February with illegally stocking wild animals, a civil infraction. A trial to determine whether he’s liable began Sept. 5 in Prairie Du Chien and then delayed. Proceedings are expected to resume Friday.
The state Department of Justice, which is handling the case, wants at least $31,000 in forfeitures — $1,000 for each pig — as well as money to cover environmental damages from Johnson.
Introducing a wild animal that’s not indigenous to Wisconsin can cause a huge amount of damage, said Assistant Attorney General Cynthia Hirsch.
Leonard Olson, who farms near Seneca, said the pigs devoured 90 percent of the corn seed over 14 acres he rented last year and were a big reason he didn’t rent it again this year. The pigs also got at corn on another 118 acres he farms, costing him about $20,000, he said.
“It ticks you off, but there’s nothing you can do about it,” Olson said. “If someone purposely introduced them to us, that’s pathetic.”
Johnson’s attorney, Mark A. Peterson, of Prairie Du Chien, didn’t return messages. According to court documents, Johnson, who lists a San Marcos, Texas, post office box as his address, planned to testify that he had nothing to do with the pigs.
Feral hogs are descended from escaped domestic pigs Spanish explorers brought to the Americas from Europe. Biologists estimate about 4 million of them roam at least 25 states.
They’re not pretty critters. They weigh 80 to 450 pounds, sport coarse hair that ranges from black to red and have tough snouts, with tusks that can grow up to 9 inches long. They’ll eat anything, but they especially like to use their noses to root out food from underground. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates the hogs cause about $800 million damage to the nation’s farm industry annually.
“They are digging machines,” said Vance Haugen, Crawford County’s University of Wisconsin Extension agent.
Wild pigs showed up in Wisconsin around 2000, said Dave Matheys, a state Department of Natural Resources wildlife biologist based in Viroqua.
They’ve been reported in at least a dozen counties, although no one has any idea how many are here or how much damage they’ve caused. State agriculture officials offer no reimbursement for crop damage caused by pigs.
But concern over their effects on the environment and the possibility they could spread diseases to livestock are growing — last year USDA officials said pseudorabies in two Clark County swine herds was likely linked to exposure to wild hogs — and the DNR has declared open season on them.
Crawford County is a pig hot spot. The county is nearly 50 percent forested, crops are plentiful and its steep ridges and ravines provide natural cover. Matheys estimates about 275 pigs have been killed in the county, yet 30 to 50 pigs still roam the area.
Roger Benzing, a 66-year-old farmer who raises corn, hay and alfalfa outside Seneca, calls the pigs devils. He said they’ve cost him about $20,000 in crop damage. His wife, 63-year-old Diann Benzing, said she’s given up hunting for spring mushrooms because she’s so afraid.
“You know they’re always out there,” she said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By TODD RICHMOND
Associated Press Writer
SENECA, Wis. (AP) _ Southwestern Wisconsin in October is close to paradise: crimson-tinged bluffs, rolling ridge-top fields, peace and quiet. But haunting the hollows is something, big, mean and ugly.
For years, dozens of giant, hairy hogs have run wild through its valleys and bottoms, rooting up trees, devouring crops before they sprout and keeping residents indoors. Now state investigators say they know who brought the beasts here, and they want him to pay.
According to them, the culprit is former Gays Mills elk farm owner Robert S. Johnson. They believe he hauled 31 wild hogs from Texas to Wisconsin in 2002 and let them loose near the Kickapoo River in Crawford County.
Johnson was charged in February with illegally stocking wild animals, a civil infraction. A trial to determine whether he’s liable began Sept. 5 in Prairie Du Chien and then delayed. Proceedings are expected to resume Friday.
The state Department of Justice, which is handling the case, wants at least $31,000 in forfeitures — $1,000 for each pig — as well as money to cover environmental damages from Johnson.
Introducing a wild animal that’s not indigenous to Wisconsin can cause a huge amount of damage, said Assistant Attorney General Cynthia Hirsch.
Leonard Olson, who farms near Seneca, said the pigs devoured 90 percent of the corn seed over 14 acres he rented last year and were a big reason he didn’t rent it again this year. The pigs also got at corn on another 118 acres he farms, costing him about $20,000, he said.
“It ticks you off, but there’s nothing you can do about it,” Olson said. “If someone purposely introduced them to us, that’s pathetic.”
Johnson’s attorney, Mark A. Peterson, of Prairie Du Chien, didn’t return messages. According to court documents, Johnson, who lists a San Marcos, Texas, post office box as his address, planned to testify that he had nothing to do with the pigs.
Feral hogs are descended from escaped domestic pigs Spanish explorers brought to the Americas from Europe. Biologists estimate about 4 million of them roam at least 25 states.
They’re not pretty critters. They weigh 80 to 450 pounds, sport coarse hair that ranges from black to red and have tough snouts, with tusks that can grow up to 9 inches long. They’ll eat anything, but they especially like to use their noses to root out food from underground. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates the hogs cause about $800 million damage to the nation’s farm industry annually.
“They are digging machines,” said Vance Haugen, Crawford County’s University of Wisconsin Extension agent.
Wild pigs showed up in Wisconsin around 2000, said Dave Matheys, a state Department of Natural Resources wildlife biologist based in Viroqua.
They’ve been reported in at least a dozen counties, although no one has any idea how many are here or how much damage they’ve caused. State agriculture officials offer no reimbursement for crop damage caused by pigs.
But concern over their effects on the environment and the possibility they could spread diseases to livestock are growing — last year USDA officials said pseudorabies in two Clark County swine herds was likely linked to exposure to wild hogs — and the DNR has declared open season on them.
Crawford County is a pig hot spot. The county is nearly 50 percent forested, crops are plentiful and its steep ridges and ravines provide natural cover. Matheys estimates about 275 pigs have been killed in the county, yet 30 to 50 pigs still roam the area.
Roger Benzing, a 66-year-old farmer who raises corn, hay and alfalfa outside Seneca, calls the pigs devils. He said they’ve cost him about $20,000 in crop damage. His wife, 63-year-old Diann Benzing, said she’s given up hunting for spring mushrooms because she’s so afraid.
“You know they’re always out there,” she said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Atheist group sues Bush over national prayer day
Date: 10/3/2008 9:26 PM
By SCOTT BAUER
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) _ The nation’s largest group of atheists and agnostics is suing President Bush, the governor of Wisconsin and other officials over the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued Friday in U.S. district court, arguing that the president’s mandated proclamations calling on Americans to pray violates a constitutional ban on government officials endorsing religion.
The day of prayer, held each year on the first Thursday of May, creates a “hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders,” the lawsuit said.
The national proclamation issued this year asked God’s blessings on our country and called for Americans to observe the day with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities.
Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle is named in the suit because he is one of 50 governors who issued proclamations calling for the prayer day. The foundation is based in Madison.
Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, and White House press secretary Dana Perino also are named.
The foundation has filed numerous lawsuits in recent years, including one rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court last year that attacked President Bush’s faith-based initiative.
The White House and Doyle spokesman Lee Sensenbrenner had no comment on the lawsuit. A message seeking comment from the task force was not returned Friday.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
By SCOTT BAUER
Associated Press Writer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) _ The nation’s largest group of atheists and agnostics is suing President Bush, the governor of Wisconsin and other officials over the federal law designating a National Day of Prayer.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued Friday in U.S. district court, arguing that the president’s mandated proclamations calling on Americans to pray violates a constitutional ban on government officials endorsing religion.
The day of prayer, held each year on the first Thursday of May, creates a “hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders,” the lawsuit said.
The national proclamation issued this year asked God’s blessings on our country and called for Americans to observe the day with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities.
Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle is named in the suit because he is one of 50 governors who issued proclamations calling for the prayer day. The foundation is based in Madison.
Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, and White House press secretary Dana Perino also are named.
The foundation has filed numerous lawsuits in recent years, including one rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court last year that attacked President Bush’s faith-based initiative.
The White House and Doyle spokesman Lee Sensenbrenner had no comment on the lawsuit. A message seeking comment from the task force was not returned Friday.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.