If the comment boards are any indication, I would not equate a high readership with popularity. Many (probably most) of the non-contributors who post are (and continue to be) supporters of tort reform.

Drew,

Many likely most supporters of access to justice simply chose not to comment on this site because the supporters of tort "reform" who make a habit of commenting here interact and debate in such an unpleasant manner. Most of these commentators are actually paid fellows/staff from conservative think tanks.

That's a pretty incredible claim: that most people who read the site are actually supports of tort "reform."

By that rationale DMI's other blog DMI Blog is dominated by readers who are opposed our policy paper on immigration.....which is clearly not true of DMI Blog. See e.g. post http://www.dmiblog.net/archives/2007/02/what_are_the_candidates_saying_5.html

Moreover, your conclusion is further weakened by the fact that we have never gotten much traffic from overlawyered.com when they have linked to us which you would expect if there was a major overlap.

Cyrus: Go easy on Overlawyered.com. Without them, I could never find your site again.

To your credit, you allow remarks on the lawyer profession. Ted blocks all my lawyer loving remarks for some reason.

At least, you let them through. You still refuse to reply if you support bringing the great benefits of torts to your criminal cult enterprise. So far, you have stonewalled the question of eliminating all unconscionable, outrageous, self-dealt common law lawyer and judge immunities.

Cyrus: Scroll down. Look to the right. You have a disclaimer. Why do you need one? You afraid of frivolous litigation?

"Most of these commentators are actually paid fellows/staff from conservative think tanks"

How extraordinary ? Other than Ted , there is perhaps nobody here , who is a member of any conservative think tank,and chose to leave a comment , supporting tort reform.And it is definitely not an " all or none scenario" of supporting civil justice and supporting tort reform , with many positions orthogonal to both sides. Peoples opinions are shaped by their own life experinces which leads to their default position in a debate ,and it is quite naive to say that all of them are paid conservative talking heads.

Cyrus makes some basic mathematical mistakes in assuming that Overlawyered's readership has not grown since 2001.

We could quintuple our page-hits if we also buried all of our posts under the fold. I'm more than 0.1% of your readership all by myself just because I have to make multiple hits just to read anything.

PageRank says Overlawyered is a 7, while TortDeform is only a 5--which is the same PageRank score as Lagniappe, my unserious vanity blog that gets 100-200 hits a day. Even my girlfriend's personal blog has a PageRank of 6.

Bloglines says that Overlawyered has twenty times as many subscribers to its RSS feed.

Technorati says that we have ten times as many links to our site.

Google says that we have twenty times as many links to our site.

Alexa says Overlawyered has between six and fifteen times as many readers as TortDeform.

And we had over 2000 subscribers to our mailing list, which reduced our page hits considerably.

But if you want to believe that you have as many readers as Overlawyered does, feel free to delude yourself.

Incidentally, we don't tout our larger readership as a reason to read Overlawyered over Bizarro Overlawyered. Rather, we tout all the awards the site has won, the fact that we honestly address the issues, that we don't make basic mistakes of law when performing analyses, that we do more than cut and paste AP articles, that we don't reprint thoughtless screeds from Daily Kos, and that we don't allow persistent trollers who only want to talk about their pet crackpot theories to monopolize our comment boards.

Ted on Overlawyered and Director of the AEI (tort reform project) also trolls Wikipedia, and attacks editors who disagree with him, with a dishonesty and ferocity that is unparalled to anything I have ever seen.

If he, as Director of AEI, is representative of that group, then I have had confirmed everything I suspected.

I also find it interesting that the "tort reformers" have found that phrase distateful, and now it is "civil justice". What a crock.

Cyrus: Why do you oppose access to the courts and justice by the adverse third party victims of lawyer carelessness?

Not only do you stonewall this question, refusing to just reply, yes or no, you support bringing the benefits of torts to the lawyer and judge profession?

But, you also characterize loving lawyer correction as, "debate in such an unpleasant manner." That is unfair.

I am a civilian that only wants to help your land piracy business start to obey the law. I have no affiliation with corporate funded think tanks. Corporations are getting ripped off after review of the result of all that thinking.

Ted: "... we don't allow persistent trollers who only want to talk about their pet crackpot theories to monopolize our comment boards."

That would be me. To call a theory crackpot is not an adequate rebuttal nor lawyerly. I think name calling demeans Ted. If he did that in court, the judge would rejoinder it, settling the puzzled mind of the jury as to verdict.

Will one of the land pirates tell me why they should be allowed to self-deal themselves unconscionable immunities no one else has?

This is the real test of the tort reformer. Will he support claims against lawyers and judges by the innumerable victims of their carelessness?

The rest is hot wind and pro-corporate welfare, client rent seeking, and special privilege chasing.

Here, Geoffrey Hazard, a top land pirate, supports ending the equity obstacle to legal malpractice claims by the adverse third party. An old man, he did so over 10 years ago, in several venues.

http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/lpl/downloads/journaldec95.pdf

A chapter he wrote:

Triangular Lawyer Relationships: An Exploratory Analysis, 1 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 15 (1987)

Ted, is Geoffrey Hazard a crackpot?

http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/ghazard/cv.pdf

He led an elite lawyer organization, the ALI, and propelled The Restatement (Third) of the Law of Lawyering. They write the rough drafts of the laws for judges and legislatures.

Why will no land pirate reply to the simple proposal to end the equity obstacle to legal malpractice by injured adverse third parties? A simple yes or no.

Cyrus: Care to correct your post with actual statistics, instead of your misleading and inaccurate estimates?

Dr. David Behar, if you had shown any sign about listening to reason about this topic, I'd be happy to explain the obvious differences between Hazard's analysis and your proposal to allow losing litigants to relitigate their cases by suing the winning attorney. Since you haven't, and persist in the silly "land pirate" rhetoric, I'd rather not waste my time, even if less serious websites continue to give you a platform.

I doubt "Leo" could identify a single dishonest thing I've ever said. But I suspect if "Leo" identified his or her true identity, I could identify several dishonest things he or she said, beginning with the false sock-puppet identity "Leo."

Sorry Ted, you can't falsely accuse one of sock-puppetry here. And that, for starters, was one false statement. Let;'s put it this way. I haven't heard anything true out of your mouth. Instead, everything I have seen you say has been gross distortion and mischaracterization.
Cheers, Ted.

Why was the phrase "tort reform" changed to "civil justice"??

Did the term "tort reform" carry with it too much baggage?

Ted: Hazard's proposal is entirely neutral. Plaintiffs could sue for a frivolous defense. The winner of a verdict could sue a loser. A loser of a verdict could sue the winner if lawyer carelessness caused an injury.

Do you support Hazard's 20 year old, mainstream call for the end of privity as an obsolete obstacle to legal malpractice claim by adverse third parties? Simple question that no one will answer here.

By any objective measure an outsider can apply, Overlawyered has significantly more traffic than this site. That's not at all surprising given how long Overlawyered has been around, and the amount of money that supports its operations. Overlawyered also reaches out to subjects beyond "tort reform", further expanding its reach.

Weblogs are difficult to assess in terms of popularity because they have lots of return visitors. There are third party statistics aggregators such as Alexa, TrafficEstimate.com and Compete.com which can help cut through the traffic hype. A crude reading of those statistics (and crude is all that's really possible) suggests that Overlawyered generates ten times the overall "traffic" on the basis of four times the number of unique visitors per month.

Anybody who tries to use PageRank as a measure of traffic volume, to put it mildly, doesn't know the first thing about how to measure traffic volume. PageRank is a measure of link popularity, including whether you have links from major authority sites - you know, like AEI's or the Manhattan Institute's. For some reason, sites like Overlawyered tend to get that type of link, while sites like this do not.

In simple terms, the more "authority" links you have the higher your rank. PageRank is often associated with traffic, but there are many sites with little to no PageRank whose traffic leaves OverLawyered (and other popular blogs) in the dust. The Volokh Conspiracy has traffic levels and numbers of unique visitors which vastly outstrip Overlawyered's. Despite its lower PageRank, InstaPundit has enormous traffic as compared to either Overlawyered or Volokh.

I found this post because it is successful "link bait". It creates a conflict between this site and a more popular (no offense) weblog, and other bloggers love to link to this type of post. Overlawyered is in many senses a pioneer of linkbaiting, posting controvercial interpretations of events in the legal world in order to try to generate attention and readership. It's no surprise that lots of blogs link to linkbait - and make no mistake, but that Overlaywered knows this. To the extent that's not enough, a quick Google search reveals that Ted spends several hours per day surfing blogs and posting on often contentious subjects, almost always including links back to Overlawyered or Point of Law. (Does Ted ever post without adding a backlink to one of his sites?) That will of course create backlinks as measured by the search engines, and I'm sure Ted's confrontational style generates clicks to his sites from people who wonder, "Just who is this guy?"

The Wikipedia comment above is a bit troubling. If Ted is visiting sites like the Wikipedia to add links to his own sites, and to skew the content in favor of his employers, that may be in violation of the Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules. Ted's being a paid advocate for these issues of itself raises conflict of interest issues. A quick check shows that Ted likes to pepper articles with links to "Point of Law" and "Overlawyered", as well as articles from their "think tank" sponsors. That degree of self-interest, to my eye, constitutes both self-interested editing and self-promotion.

Another measure of this would be the ratio of edits Ted makes to subjects where he has no pecuniary interest, and those where he is paid to advocate a particular point of view. Looking at his editing history to the extent that I care to wade through it, it appears that his contributions come exclusively in the form of editing articles in which he has a pecuniary interest and getting into personal conflicts with other editors. That's unfortunate.

Ted: OK. Let's try this tiny step, first.

Do you agree with Hazard that transactional lawyers owe some duty of care to third parties that are not heirs nor third party beneficiaries? If their carelessness injures such a third party, not an heir nor a third party beneficiary, then that third party should have standing to sue the careless lawyer in legal malpractice if a transactional lawyering expert attest to the merit of the claim?

Any other land pirate wish to agree with this modest Hazard idea?

Or, do all land pirates, even those advocating tort reform, refuse to allow the great benefits of torts to help improve and regulate their criminal cult enterprise when lawyer carelessness injures innocent people?

I don't know how much narrower this question can get. Just answer it for transactional lawyers, and any duty to other parties, not heirs nor beneficiaries.

Man. These simply yes, or no questions are hard to get replied when it comes to lawyer accountability to others.

Why will no land pirate reply to the simple proposal to end the equity obstacle to legal malpractice by injured adverse third parties? A simple yes or no.

Because to the extent anybody can figure out what you're proposing, it's a really really stupid proposal, and also because you're incapable of putting together coherent arguments so that people can figure out what you're talking about, instead spouting nonsense buzzwords about "criminal cult conspiracy" and "land pirate."

Ted: Hazard's proposal is entirely neutral. Plaintiffs could sue for a frivolous defense. The winner of a verdict could sue a loser. A loser of a verdict could sue the winner if lawyer carelessness caused an injury.

As posted in the very link you cite, he's talking about transactional work, not litigation. Your inability to understand the different issues raised by these very different practice areas speaks volumes.

Oops. Didn't read Ted's post where he responded to Insanity Clause before I submitted my previous comment. To respond to SC's 8:41 PM comment:

1. Since tort reformers want to limit the scope of torts generally, why would we adopt your proposal to expand the scope of torts in transactional work? If indeed non-lawyers are more vulnerable than lawyers, then we should be increasing protection to non-lawyers, not creating new theories of liability for lawyers.

2. Who exactly are third parties who are not third party beneficiaries who are injured by "lawyer carelessness"? Given your demonstrated confusion on all legal subjects, I'm afraid you're going to have to be more concrete before anybody can begin to answer you. There are a lot of practical problems with making lawyers liable to heirs for malpractice, but at least conceptually, it makes sense. Same with, say, making a lawyer liable to the other side for negligent misrepresentation in a business transaction. But you're not talking about either of those, and your vague comments make no sense.

Alex: How would you like to try to debate Ted on policy substance instead of personal lawyer gotcha?

You demean yourself, your position, your profession, as does Ted, when you cannot handle the policy argument, and devolve to personal lawyer jackass gotcha. I have done no research on any of the people here. I have no doubt I would feel entirely bored and disappointed after exhaustive days of finding nothing of interest.

The land pirates subscribe to the medieval maxim of "clean hands." However, it is called a "tu quoque" argument, and has no validity in formal logic. You geniuses would know that if law school cult indoctrination had not eradicated your high school education.

There are many many false statements in Alex's anonymous hit-and-run comment, not least that there is "amount of money that supports Overlawyered's operations". Overlawyered is entirely supported by reader contributions, and has no think-tank sponsors; I wrote for Overlawyered long before I went against my pecuniary interest by taking a paycut to work for a thinktank. I'm not going to respond to the rest of the lies propounded by someone who doesn't have the courage to give his or her real identity.

David: You signed a contract of adhesion with a credit card company. The parties are unequal in bargaining power. The contract contains an unconscionable hold harmless clause unjustly pledging all your assets to cover the mistakes of the credit card company. Then, during your dispute, you find out the arbitration is to take place in Fallujah, Iraq, as stipulated in the telephone book font of the agreement.

These are unjust deviations from professional standards of due care of the drafter of the credit card contract of adhesion owed to the adverse third party, the credit card holder. The latter is not an heir, is not a third party beneficiary. The credit card holder is the adverse third party discussed by Hazard.

You lose your claim against the credit card company. You lose a leg from a suicide bombing in Fallujah returning from your mandatory arbitration hearing.

Do you believe you should be able to sue the lawyer of the credit card company for legal malpractice in writing an unconscionable, outrageous, injurious contract, and to recover for your injuries in the form of the value of all your assets forfeited by the hold harmless clause and the loss of a leg?

That is a simple yes or no question. Should the credit card holder be able to sue the lawyer who drafted the credit card contract for legal malpractice that resulted in measurable, visible injuries? Yes or no?

I do not find your personal attacks persuasive nor lawyerly. They show frustration in the traverse upon traverse. A bright, classy guy like you should be able to handle this specific from of lawyer frustration better.

I want to develop legislation to end this self-dealt immunity and to bring the full benefits of torts to the lawyer profession. Later, we can argue about the lawsuit being a product, subject to strict liability. The lawsuit is a product, like a toaster, and meets all criteria for the application of strict liability.

But, we are having trouble with the basics so far and must take tiny steps. Lawyers want to sue all others, but not to be sued by any others. That is the unjust bottom line of my experience here.

I believe in the benefits of torts. I have seen no evidence that tort reform is anything but a Trojan Horse that distracts the productive public from the real path to slowing down the out of control lawyer. You and Ted want tort reform to avoid full liability for the misconduct of your profession. After enormous energy and money are expended, you get full reform, the cost of the lawyer rent seeking might decrease by a 1/6th if lucky. I want 5/6th reduction, and torts is the surest path.

If the lawyer refuses to subject himself to full, ordinary tort liability, then self-help becomes intellectually and morally justified. This tort liability approach is for the welfare of the lawyer.

SC asks: "Do you believe you should be able to sue the lawyer of the credit card company for legal malpractice in writing an unconscionable, outrageous, injurious contract, and to recover for your injuries in the form of the value of all your assets forfeited by the hold harmless clause and the loss of a leg?"

Leaving aside the absurdity of the scenario, no, I don't. You haven't described "lawyer carelessness," let alone "malpractice." Nor would anything the lawyer did be the proximate cause of any injury. Either questionable contractual clauses are enforceable or they aren't; if they are, it can't be 'malpractice.' If they're not, then they're harmless.

Consider this: what if it turned out that the CEO drafted his own contract, without hiring a lawyer? If the company sued you and you lost the suit, could you then file another suit against the company for... for what? For I-don't-like-the-contract? The contract being problematic is a defense in the lawsuit, not grounds for another suit.

And no, that's not what Hazard is talking about. Hazard is talking about, e.g., a lawyer negotiating a transaction who negligently misrepresents facts to the other party -- not a lawyer drafting a document which may be used in some future transaction with some unknown person at some unknown date, which the person who signs later decides he doesn't like.

David: The president of the credit card company does not have expressly enumerated duties that the lawyer does in the UCC, in the Rules of Conduct, in the maxims of equity, in his oath of license, and finally in professional custom, according to an expert in credit card contract drafting, signing a certificate of merit.

I suggest that you, 1) want to close the court door to the unequal victim of lawyer misconduct, 2) do not believe a jury can regulate the lawyer, 3) want immunity for the lawyer no one else has had for a century.

As to proximity and to privity. I am a random pedestrian. The brakes on a car fail, prematurely according to an expert in car brake duration. I am hurt by the product of a company with which I have never had privity. Explain why the jury gets the brake case and not the case of the amputatee victim of lawyer misconduct who was sent to Fallujah for the arbitration hearing.