Is Microsoft Building eDiscovery Tools In the Next Version of Office?

This Craigslist ad certainly makes it look likely:

Microsoft User Research would like the feedback from legal professionals in the Seattle area who have experience with eDiscovery and the early stages of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM). Your insight and experiences would be invaluable in helping decide which new prototype features are included in the next generation of Microsoft Office.

This study will be 90-minutes long on the Microsoft campus in Redmond, and can be chosen between Tuesday, February 22 and Friday, February 25. And for your time and participation, we’ll be able to offer you a choice of Microsoft hardware, software or games, ranging in value from $49 to $999. 

Source: Microsoft User Research: Experience with eDiscovery?

My hope is that they make it easy enough to do that many of the eDiscovery ripoff artists are put out of business.

The iPad hasn’t matched my vision for trial presentations yet

Back in August of 2010, I wrote a blog post about how an Android tablet could be the ultimate trial presentation system.  Although I’m not a member of the Cult of Jobs, I would buy an iPad if it could deliver what I envisioned in my earlier blog post.  So I was kind of excited to see a review about two iPad apps designed to make it easier to allow lawyers to present evidence.  Sadly, it appears that these apps will not even come close to what I need:

Are these hypercool iPad apps ready for prime time? At this point, perhaps for a very small and manageable matter, they could have a place for someone who likes toys and is willing to take the risks associated with them. They are both fun apps to work with, and I would be willing to bet that both will improve with time. I would also be willing to bet that the pricing disparity will level out — as it did several years ago between Sanction and TrialDirector. Note to my past and future clients: I will not be using my iPad in trial (unless of course you insist).

Source: Two iPad Apps Make Their Cases for Trial

Check out the article to see what the applications can and can’t do.

Asbestos, Payday Loans, and Russian Girls–When Will Google Fix The Spam Problem?

I’m working on an asbestos lawsuit involving Union Carbide Corporation.  I thought I’d do a Google search for “Union Carbide asbestos” and the following result turned up at the top of page 3:

image

Apparently, Google thinks someone out there might need a payday loan so they can buy bakelite asbestos from Russian girls giving hand jobs. 

Come on.

Look, I know that some spammers are pretty sophisticated and hire real people to write bogus content to fool the search engines.  But this is blatantly spam by any definition.  The excerpt shows that the page is nothing more than random words thrown on a page.  What makes matters worse is that while this is #31 on Google, #34 is a very lengthy deposition of a corporate representative of Union Carbide. 

The corporate representative was designated as the person “with the most knowledge of Union Carbide’s historical knowledge of the potential dangers of asbestos exposure.”  This link is incredibly useful and should be in the top three results for a search of Union Carbide and asbestos, yet it is outranked by a spam site.  Bing at least manages to place this link as #13.

If Google doesn’t get their spam act together, Bing or some other search engine will have a chance to gain even more market share from Google.  I can’t help but wonder how many spam sites would simply disappear if Google didn’t allow them to make money from Google ads on the sites.  But that’s a topic for a different day.

Dead Patients Cost a Hospital $4 million Dollars Less Than A Doctor’s Bruised Ego

In Florida, the maximum amount of money a hospital has to pay the family of someone who died as a result of a doctor’s negligence is $1 million dollars.  Now read this:

The Supreme Court will not overturn a Florida surgeon’s $5 million slander award after a hospital executive said he would not send his dog to the doctor for surgery.

* * * *

Sadow and the hospital had been fighting in court because the doctor was denied privileges to do surgery in Lawnwood’s open-heart institute. A Lawnwood official then told another doctor about Sadow: “I would not send my dog to him for surgery.”

Source: Court will not overturn $5 million slander award

In other words, the hospital would have saved $4 million dollars if they had let this guy operate and he ended up negligently killing someone. 

Welcome to the wonderful world of tort “reform.”

Happy Meal Lawsuit Illustrates Why People Hate Lawyers, Democrats

When I was a kid, you know who decided what I ate for dinner?  My mom and dad.  My mom and dad took responsibility for raising me, and if they felt that it was in my best interest to say “no” to me, they did.  Today, there are some parents who aren’t willing to take that responsibility.  For proof, we need only look to a class action lawsuit filed because McDonald’s advertises that their Happy Meals come with toys:

“I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald?s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience,” said Parham, from Sacramento.

“But as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald?s makes that so much harder to do.

“I object to the fact that McDonald?s is getting into my kids? heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”

Source: AFP: California mom sues McDonald’s over Happy Meals

This lawsuit is doomed to lose.  Doomed.  McDonald’s has a First Amendment right to say in their advertisements that their Happy Meals come with toys.  Such a claim is only deceptive if the Happy Meals do not in fact come with toys.  Unless McDonald’s is also telling children that eating Happy Meals is healthy for them, McDonald’s has done nothing wrong.

The bottom line is that this lawsuit is being used by a group of parents with a political agenda to try and change laws in a way that their state legislature won’t.  And lawsuits like this make people hate lawyers and Democrats.

Sure, I’m presuming this lawsuit was filed by Democratic parents.  I might be wrong, but I doubt it.  Democrats have been attacking fast food outlets for years, apparently hoping to make them change their menus.  The solution isn’t to sue McDonald’s, it’s to open your own competing chain that offers toys with decidedly healthy box meals.  (On a side note, I bet most kids would rather have a cheeseburger and fries with a ten-cent plastic toy than a bowl of broccoli with nicer toy.)

The lawyers behind this suit will also draw a lot of public criticism, and it will bleed over onto lawyers like me who believe that (a) parents shouldn’t kowtow to the demands of their children, and (b) restaurants have the right to serve unhealthy food.  In a worst case scenario, some enterprising legislator will use this as ammo to pass a lawsuit “reform” bill that will prevent legitimate lawsuits from going forward.