What a treat. Joe Harnett, longtime radio host of “The Old BallGame“,
has a website by that name that is constantly refreshed with new
lore and literature about baseball — with audio versions of many fine
short stories, comic routines, managerial rants and more. This week,
he added readings of 20 baseball-related poems by our Honored Guest
buddy ed markowski.
Joe says:
“To my ear, there is something about the Haiku and baseball
that seems to fit so very well. Listen and maybe you’ll agree.
I picked out about 20 that I loved and they are here just for you.”
Concur.
Most of the selections already appear on our f/k/a Baseball Haiku page.
But hearing them so well rendered orally adds a great new dimension. (The
only thing we’d do differently is to leave out the Asian sounds — Ed’s poetry
and the game sounds are All-American.)
You can click directly to hear Cut One Cut One and Cut Two Cut Two (of the four original cuts).
Here are three winners from ed that I had never seen
before, which Joe presents at The Old Ballgame:
April rain
my grandson practices
his infield chatter
Seattle sunset
Ichiro sends one
toward the Sea of Japanfirst baseman’s autograph
my grandson says,
“i’m the luckiest kid in the world”ed markowski, The Old BallGame (April 2006)
April 12, 2006
markowski: in your ear & “at the ballgame”
Comments Off on markowski: in your ear & “at the ballgame”
contingent serendipity (no conspiracy)
Walter Olson is absolutely correct [this time]: there appears to be a
Contingency-fee-o-rama going on. In addition to his kind pointer to
our series last week, Walter notes that “Anyone interested in the
ethical, practical and philosophical case for and against the lawyers’
contingency fee (or contingent fee; usage varies) should be sure to
check out” the new Featured Discussion at Point of Law (since April 10),
which “pits George Mason lawprof Alex Tabarrok, who’s generally sup-
portive of contingency fees, against Jim Copland of the Manhattan Institute,
who’s critical.”
For Walter’s own views, see Chapter Two of his 1991
book The Litigation Explosion, pdf-posted at Point of Law.
Tabarrok and Copland agree that there are legitimate (and helpful) uses for
contingency fee arrangements. They differ on what consititutes an abuse
of contingency fee and what (if anything) to do about it. We’ve criticized a
well-known study co-authored by Tabarrok here, for elevating the results
that he posits from economic theory over the reality that is before our eyes
on how lawyers and clients act. Copland seems to do a bit of that, too.
Nonetheless, I tend to agree with Jim’s statement:
“Lester [Brickman]’s study, importantly, looks at the top quartile
of contingency fee lawyers. Some of those lawyers are indeed
getting paid handsomely for risk, luck, or performance. Others
are exploiting the information imbalance between plaintiffs and
lawyers to get extra cash based on the absence of price compe-
tition over fees. But among the lawyers not in the top quartile,
a lot are doing worse than hourly lawyers. They’re often less
skilled, in courtroom work, in preparation, in case screening, or
even in advertising strategy. Still, they stick around chasing the
big payoffs, at least as long as they can. The absence of price
competition over contingency fees leads directly to more contin-
gency fee lawyers — and more lawsuits and cost to society.”
On a related note, Moe Levine left this Comment yesterday, in
response to our contingency fee analysis:
. . . saying that no firm has been willing to budge from the statutory
maximums . . .
Which is just as likely to be evidence that the statutory maximums
are too low
Second, show me any other business that charges less than the
statutory maxmiums–look at cable tv, credit cards, etc. etc.
I sure hope the p/i bar has better arguments than this for charging so much
to each injured client (no matter how large or winnable the case may be). In
part, I replied to Moe:
I’m still of the opinion that lawyers have higher ethical and fiduciary duties
to clients to avoid charging excessive or unreasonable fees than do cable
tv companies or “any other business” to their customers.
taking up
the holy man’s chant. . .
croaking frogs
the first snowfall
doesn’t hide it…
dog poop
the katydid–
even while they sell him
singing
the world today!
even while blossom viewing
a little thief
Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue
Comments Off on contingent serendipity (no conspiracy)
contingency fee serendipity
Walter Olson is absolutely correct [this time]: there appears to be a
Contingency-fee-o-rama going on. In addition to his kind pointer to
our series last week, Walter notes that “Anyone interested in the
ethical, practical and philosophical case for and against the lawyers’
contingency fee (or contingent fee; usage varies) should be sure to
check out” the new Featured Discussion at Point of Law (since April 10),
which “pits George Mason lawprof Alex Tabarrok, who’s generally sup-
portive of contingency fees, against Jim Copland of the Manhattan Institute,
who’s critical.”
For Walter’s own views, see Chapter Two of his 1991
book The Litigation Explosion, pdf-posted at Point of Law.
Tabarrok and Copland agree that there are legitimate (and helpful) uses for
contingency fee arrangements. They differ on what consititutes an abuse
of contingency fee and what (if anything) to do about it. We’ve criticized a
well-known study co-authored by Tabarrok here, for elevating the results
that he posits from economic theory over the reality that is before our eyes
on how lawyers and clients act. Copland seems to do a bit of that, too.
Nonetheless, I tend to agree with Jim’s statement:
“Lester [Brickman]’s study, importantly, looks at the top quartile
of contingency fee lawyers. Some of those lawyers are indeed
getting paid handsomely for risk, luck, or performance. Others
are exploiting the information imbalance between plaintiffs and
lawyers to get extra cash based on the absence of price compe-
tition over fees. But among the lawyers not in the top quartile,
a lot are doing worse than hourly lawyers. They’re often less
skilled, in courtroom work, in preparation, in case screening, or
even in advertising strategy. Still, they stick around chasing the
big payoffs, at least as long as they can. The absence of price
competition over contingency fees leads directly to more contin-
gency fee lawyers — and more lawsuits and cost to society.”
On a related note, Moe Levine left this Comment yesterday, in response
to our contingency fee analysis:
. . . saying that no firm has been willing to budge from the statutory
maximums . . .
Which is just as likely to be evidence that the statutory maximums
are too low
Second, show me any other business that charges less than the
statutory maxmiums–look at cable tv, credit cards, etc. etc.
I sure hope the p/i bar has better arguments than this for charging so much
to each injured client (no matter how large or winnable the case may be). In
part, I replied to Moe:
If you’re this Moe Levine, I sure hope you are not teaching lawyers
that we have no more ethical and fiduciary duties to clients to charge
reasonable fees than cable tv companies or “any other business” have
to their customers. Such an attitude needs no further comment from me.
taking up
the holy man’s chant. . .
croaking frogs
Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue
Comments Off on contingency fee serendipity