Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Day: June 15, 2007”

Sue the reviewer

June 15, 2007

Courtesy a couple of attorneys who feel offended on and essentially on that basis have launched a lawsuit, we have introduction to a web site that reviews the work of them and their colleagues - Avvo, which is based in Seattle.

Avvo is an online database providing background information on attorneys - including in Seattle and some other metro areas - and ratings, which the firm says is "based on a proprietary mathematical model applied equally to each lawyer to analyze information Avvo has about them, including their experience, disciplinary sanctions and professional achievements."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Seattle attorneys John Henry Browne and Alan Wenokur, who think the system underrated them (and, in the process, misrepresented them).

We're not keen to get into the validity of the mathematical formula involved, or the data fed into it. Inevitably, it is based on a series of assumptions and selected information; most such efforts (and we've worked on a few in other arenas, notably that of public affairs influence) wind up being subjective in one way or another - that is, opinion.

If Browne, Wenokur or other attorneys can isolate libelous assertions of fact, that would be one thing: The law of libel could apply. Short of that, they're arguing in essence that no one should be able to express an opinion about professional performance. The leap from there is almost absent: Why then should expressions of opinion about consumer matters of any sort (consumer reports and testing) or even opinion about people in the public sphere - whether public officials or not - be immune from lawsuit? (God help the Willamette Week at Portland and its recent ratings of legislators.) Will movie reviewers be targeted next? If not, why not - movies which critics "disparage" can, after all, suffer loss in ticket sales. (Or at least an attorney could argue that they have.)

Avvo's blog has drawn a number of comments on the suit. We found this one of the most pertinent, from a business owner who has hired a number of attorneys over the years: "There seems to be an attitude of entitlement and arrogance…yes your private little ‘clubby’ world is coming to an end…the Internet is going to change the way lawyers do business just like it has changed many other industries (insurance, real estate, etc.). The notion that information about sanctions and disciplinary actions should hidden from consumers is outrageous. The notion that clients can’t provide feedback on the service they receive because lawyers will claim disparagement is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to silence them."

Courts traditionally have upheld expression of opinion as highly protected speech, and we suspect they will again here. If not . . . watch out.

Turning off the spigot

June 15, 2007

And so it begins: There may be any number of people out there who will be blaming Idaho Water Director Dave Tuthill and maybe Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter too, but no one person or any small group of people are to blame for the water turnoffs Tuthill ordered on Friday.

It was what had to happen, under Idaho law and given the water rights that various people have.

The curtailment ordered at the moment is less than had been expected; some later negotiations reduced the figure somewhat. What did happen is significant enough: "The curtailment orders affect ground water rights bearing priority dates junior to December 9, 1990 for the Blue Lakes call and junior to February 13, 1977 for the Clear Springs call. This includes approximately 591 ground water rights for approximately 16,638 acres of irrigation, and commercial, industrial, municipal, non-exempt domestic and stockwater and other consumptive uses."

Tuthill's comment carried a note of sadness: “Curtailment is a last resort, but we are obligated under Idaho law to follow through with enforcement when mitigation is not provided. We are more interested in water solutions than water confrontations. Unfortunately, the parties involved so far have not presented an acceptable solution to get through 2007, so I have no choice but to issue these curtailment orders.”

Maybe these curtailments will shock some negotiated settlements out of stakeholders. (Tuthill presumably hopes it will.) But we're suspecting that the shock treatment on Idaho's overallocation of Snake River water has just begun.

OR SB 329: Moving along

June 15, 2007

By way of update on our recent post on Oregon Senate Bill 329, which marks out a path for sweeping health care reform: This morning it has cleared the Joint Ways & Means Committee, a significant stop.

To be sure, both lead co-sponsors, Senators Alan Bates, D-Ashland, and Ben Westlund, D-Tumalo, are members and in the majority. But the overall tenor of the session boded well for floor results, which could come next week.

Just two members of the committee, both Republicans, voted against; all Democrats and most Republicans on the two-chamber panel voted in favor. The major expressed concern during the brief committee debate actually had to do with another bill: Senate Bill 27, the proposal by the Archimedes Movement and former Governor John Kitzhaber (signed on to by 13 senators and 12 representatives), which is still in the midst of intensive negotiations. (Thoese were underway this morning, Bates reported.) Senator Jackie Winters, R-Salem, said she was concerned that both pass - that 329, which sets up a statewide board and a string of general policies, would not be enough to do the job without passage of 27.

Bates and Westlund said that negotiations on 27 are moving apace. Bates pledged to push it as hard as he could; Westlund said the differences between 329 and 27 were only about an inch apart (as he demonstrated with his fingers). They evidently concern, primarily, whether waivers or a change in law should be sought from Congress to amend Oregon's uses of some federal medical pass-through money.

There were no other substantial stated criticisms in the committee. Sounds that, if the process continue as they did this morning, these two bills - together potentially of enormous impact - could be passed in the next 10 days or so.