Richard Faulk. "The Insolence of Office: Exposing the Politics of Perception in Copenhagen" Andrews Litigation Reporter 30.11 (2009).  Read More »

Richard Faulk. "The First "Official" Draft of the Copenhagen Agreement: Blanks, Brackets, Chewing Gum, and Baling Wire" Andrews Litigation Reporter 30.11 (2009).  Read More »

Richard Faulk. "The "Climategate" Controversy: A Tree Falls in the Forest -- But Is Copenhagen Listening?" Andrews Litigation Reporter  30.11 (2009).

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

         – William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V, Scene 5  Read More »

Richard Faulk. "Negotiating With Someone Else's Money: Shifting the Responsibility for Climate Change Funding" Andrews Litigation Reporter 30.11 (2009).  Read More »

Richard Faulk. "COPENHAGEN’S DISAPPOINTING DÉNOUEMENT: ANATOMY OF A FAILED CONVOCATION" Andrews Litigation Reporter 30.11 (2009).  Read More »

Richard Faulk. "Bringing Diplomacy to a Boil: Options for Agreements in Copenhagen" Andrews Litigation Reporter 30.11 (2009).  Read More »

It should come as no surprise that the next application of nuisance law would be climate change litigation. After all, the Second Circuit and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal have drawn their lines in the sand on this issue and with the Copenhagen fiasco, carbon litigation is surely in our future. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial highlights the issue fairly well: climate change is a Global issue and one that needs to be addressed legislatively, not through the courts.

NuisanceLaw.com will cover these developments and bring you current material in this area. We are pleased to bring you first-hand reports from Copenhagen by Rick Faulk, a current contributor to NuisanceLaw.com. His first of several reports will appear here on January 1, 2010.  Read More »

The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) has just published its annual list of “Judicial Hellholes” and, no surprise, California is on the “Watch” list. This is no surprise because the California judiciary has abdicated its gatekeeper responsibility.

There are likely any number of reasons for this “recognition” of the California judicial system, but let’s look at one major reason-- public nuisance litigation.

Public nuisance, as misapplied by the plaintiffs’ bar, would neuter the long-standing law of product liability. Plaintiffs, unable to identify which manufacturer’s product caused the alleged harm, try to cast a wide net of public nuisance to snare any company that manufactured, distributed, promoted or sold the product, regardless of how many decades ago and regardless of whether it was defective, claiming these entities substantially contributed to creating and maintaining a public nuisance. In at least one instance, a California Court of Appeals agreed with this mottled thinking and has allowed a public nuisance claim to proceed against companies some of which last manufactured lead pigment 50+ years ago. Surprisingly, the California Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.  Read More »

Richard O. Faulk, Chair of the Litigation Section at Gardere Wynn Sewell, LLP, and a frequent contributor to numerous publications and to NuisanceLaw.com, spoke to judges from across the nation at the Third Annual Judicial Symposium hosted by Northwestern Law School. Here is his presentation.  Read More »

Though California has so far escaped from the potentially corruptive influence of contingency-fee agreements between private lawyers and public prosecutors, other states have not been so fortunate.

The Wall Street Journal has published several editorials blasting the unseemly state practice of hiring outside lawyers to sue private companies on a contingency fee basis --and how the trial bar returns the favor with campaign donations to state office holders. The Journal revealed that Oklahoma's attorney general had entered into agreements with private firms to sue tobacco companies and later big-name poultry companies.

Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry turned down a bill that would have shed light on these deals. According to the Journal, Oklahoma's Private Attorney Retention Sunshine Act would have required state agents to use open, competitive bidding for any legal work of more than $5,000. On contracts worth $500,000 or more the governor would have to sign off. It would also have required contingency lawyers to submit a list of hours and expenses, payment for which could not exceed a mere $1,000 an hour.  Read More »