Anti-abortion group must pay legal fees(Thomas More Law Center)

SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE ^ | June 20, 2002

[nickcarraway]

Anti-abortion group must pay legal fees

UNION-TRIBUNE

A judge has ordered an anti-abortion group to pay $77,835 in legal fees that Planned Parenthood incurred while fighting a lawsuit that would have required counselors to tell women that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer.

The Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thomas More Law Center filed the suit on behalf of three California women. Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager dismissed the suit in March, saying it infringed upon Planned Parenthood's free-speech rights.

The judge also said there was little likelihood the lawsuit would succeed. Last week, he ordered the Thomas More Center to pay the legal fees.

Planned Parenthood officials, here and elsewhere in the country, say there is no connection between abortions and breast cancer. In its lawsuit, the Michigan group says there is evidence of such a link.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[nickcarraway]

ping

[Psalm 73]

"it infringed upon Planned Parenthood's free-speech rights."

But we are not permitted our free-speech rights on public property in front of "clinics".

"The judge also said there was little likelihood the lawsuit would succeed...ordered the Thomas More Center to pay the legal fees."

Sooo, now the Libs are FOR tort reform?

How can any sane person not see the double-standard here? It's mind-boggling!!

[ArGee]

How can any sane person not see the double-standard here? It's mind-boggling!!

Is it your impression that the libs are sane people?

Is it your impression that sane people are running this country?

I'll have what you're drinking. ;)

Shalom.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager dismissed the suit in March, saying it infringed upon Planned Parenthood's free-speech rights.

Including the right to lie? This judge is either an idiot or is in someone's pockets.

[Catspaw]

Ouch! The decision to make them pay legal fees is going to be appealed, isn't it?

[jaso]

You can appeal, but any additional costs will be added to the bill. Not likely they can win if the judge tossed the case. The evidence for a abortion-breast cancer link must not be very strong. Need to pick your battle better, it'll be a real kick in the teeth to have pay that money to Planned Parenthood.

[Vladiator]

What does it matter" Dominoe's Pizza money is going to pay for it anyway.

[Catspaw]

An appeal is probably fruitless, but if they are being funded by a deep-pockets sponsor, they may still appeal it. $77K is a chunk of change.

[Catspaw]

So who pays the legal fees? The law firm or their clients?

[rth_sr]

Lawyers would not be held responsible for a claim they were requested to bring on behalf of their clients. The client would pay fees. No hint of malpractice here. In order to prevail on a malpractice claim, the client would have to demonstrate they were harmed by services of lawyer. Unlikely in light of judge's finding in this case. Just a poor dicesion by a liberal judge.

[FreeTally]

I predicted it long ago, and was scolded all over the place here.

I remeber, as I shared your opinion.

Most of Saundra's factual water here on FR was carried by Dr. Brian Kopp on the statistical data, which wasn't great - and his method of presentation left a lot to be desired.

Nope! And when one asked for clarification of a discrepancy, we were told, "you just don't know what you are talking about".

Legal water here was carried by Notwithstanding, who is not a lawyer.

But he is a paralegal working for the firm that was on the case. He must be an expert, right? ;-)

The statute they sued under calls for fees.

And I specifically told Notwithstanding that they must have gotten bad legal advice to persue this case on those grounds, as I believe you did as well.

[FreeTally]

No hint of malpractice here. In order to prevail on a malpractice claim, the client would have to demonstrate they were harmed by services of lawyer.

Say what? The point of the case was to compel an "industry"(as sick as that sounds, PP is one) to speak of studies that are not accepted by the leading medical associations, and that are not actual scientific studies. If the legal team advised them to forward a case based upon this, and made them think there was a fair chance they could win(and knowing that the loser pays court costs), then the clients were harmed by the legal team.

I hope the legal team had them sign a waiver for malpractice claims(if thats possible).

Ths would have set horrible precedent, as I say every time, that would undoubtedly be used by Handgun Control to make gun dealers speak of their studies too. Not to mention the environmentalist wackos and all their pet issues.

[Catspaw]

Usually it's the client who bring the malpractice claim (as a nervous friend of mine told me as he paid his malpractice insurance bill--late, of course)--and sanctions are yet another matter entirely. Both could still happen.

I do hope none of the plaintiffs have any income or property that can be attached or it's a one-way road to bankruptcy court.

[Polycarp]

one_particular_harbour; FreeTally:

Most of Saundra's factual water here on FR was carried by Dr. Brian Kopp on the statistical data, which wasn't great

OPH, FT
---you are both full of horse manure.

jaso

The evidence for a abortion-breast cancer link must not be very strong

These studies look awefully strong to me.

Currently 28 of 37 Studies Show an Induced Abortion Increases Risk of Breast Cancer

Other Half of Studies

---Polycarp