ABA MIDYEAR MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
Subpoena limits
Lawyers seek protection
Concern over the issuance of subpoe nas requiring criminal
defense lawyers to
testify against their clients prompted the ABA's House of
Delegates to approve a resolution calling for judicial approval
before subpoenas are issued.
The proposal was introduced by the ABA's Criminal Justice
Section at the
midyear meeting. It also urges courts to determine whether
subpoenas are neces
sary by ensuring that the information
sought is not protected by attorney-client privilege, is
relevant to a grand jury investigation and can be gotten no
other
way. The court also is asked to make certain that the subpoena
is not issued to harass the attorney, witness or client.
When a subpoena is issued, the judge's ex parte findings should
have no bearing on
subsequent proceedings, the resolution advised.
The ABA will urge state and federal authorities to implement
these principles.
The "[s]hocking incidence of grand jury subpoenas to
attorneys
. . . erodes
Bacon: The trust between attorney and client is being
eroded.
the basic relationship of trust between the attorney and
client," said Judge Sylvia Bacon, of the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia, and a member of the Criminal Justice
Section.
But not everyone thinks the rules are necessary, or that defense
lawyers have
been deluged with subpoenas. Stephen Trott, assistant attorney
general in the criminal division of the Justice Depart ment,
questioned the statistics. Of 147 subpoenas issued between August
and December, only 13 were of trial lawyers, he said. The Justice
Department already has subpoena guidelines, and the ABA's proposal
would create "useless, unpro ductive work" for judges, he said.
In other action, the House approved Criminal Justice Section
proposals that:
Support federal legislation to help law enforcement agencies
combat money
laundering, or transactions designed to conceal criminally
derived property. But the ABA opposes legislation backing a new
crime of money laundering that does not contain the requirement
that the of fense be committed intentionally and knowingly.
Support an amendment to the Feder al Rules of Criminal
Procedures that calls for an equal number of peremptory chal lenges
for prosecution and defense in single-defendant criminal
trials.
Urge that turning prisons and jails private get no consideration
until com
plex constitutional, statutory and con
tractual issues are resolved.
?Faye A. Silas
Punitive damages Survey finds they're rare
Punitive damages are awarded infre
quently, even less so in large amounts,
according to preliminary findings of a new American Bar
Foundation study.
Stephen Daniels, ABF project direc tor, examined all
compensatory and puni tive awards in two dozen "reliable" jury
verdict reporters from 1981 through 1983, with some 1984 cases
included.
Appellate, settled and judge-disposed cases were not
included.
Here are some preliminary findings: Cobb County, Ga., juries
gave puni
tive awards in 21.6 percent of cases in which plaintiffs
recovered?the highest level for the courts studied. By
contrast,
juries in Cook County (Chicago), 111., awarded punitive damages
in only 2.2 percent of these cases. For most jurisdic tions
studied, jurors gave punitive awards in about 13 percent of
cases.
Cook County's median award for verdicts with a punitive
component was $52,500 for 1982-83. There were 30 ver dicts over $1
million and eight million
Daniels: Median awards don't show a dramatic surge.
dollar punitive awards.
New York City had a median jury award of $100,000, but only had
two million-dollar punitive awards for 1981 1983.
Los Angeles County had a median
jury award of $69,000 for 1981-83. It had 78 million-dollar
verdicts, of which 21 included million-dollar punitive awards.
San Diego County had a median jury award of $50,000 for 1981-83,
but for those with punitive damages, the median was $248,000. No
million-dollar awards were given for punitive damages. There were
six million-dollar verdicts.
Average total awards have increased
tremendously in the last few years, Dan iels said. But 87
percent of the cases in
Cook County for 1982-83 that he tabulat ed produced awards lower
than the aver age. A better measurement, he thinks, is
the median. The median awards don't reveal a dramatic surge, he
said. Most punitive damage awards are small
in amount and involve cases of personal violence, contract,
fraud, false arrest and
insurance conflict, such as bad faith, Dan
iels said. Punitive damages were not awarded often in products
liability and antitrust cases, he said.
Daniels' findings and conclusions may surprise insurers and
manufacturers.
Many have cited punitive damages in particular, rising
compensatory damages in general and the cost of legal services
as
causing skyrocketing premiums, in creased losses and cuts in
insurance cov
erage. Insurers and manufacturers often say
that just one large punitive damage ver dict can be devastating,
Daniels said. But he stressed that these few large awards also skew
the picture. Doctors and hospi tals mainly fear pain and suffering
awards, not punitive awards, he said.
?Cheryl Frank
April 1, 1986 . Volume 72 21
This content downloaded from 188.72.126.89 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014
07:48:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
Article Contentsp. 21
Issue Table of ContentsABA Journal, Vol. 72, No. 4 (April 1,
1986), pp. 1-40, 43-110, 113-120Front MatterPresident's Page: Quo
vadis Model Rules? [pp. 8-8]Letters [pp. 10, 12, 15]Correction: IN
THE SUPREME COURT: The Abortion Cases [pp. 15-15]LawScope:
NewsIntercircuit panel: 'Jr. Supreme Court' opposed [pp.
17-17]Minorities in law: Spurs to participation urged [pp.
18-19]Bid for equality: Ban aid in bias cases: ABA [pp.
19-19]Bitter medicine: AMA tort changes opposed [pp. 20-20]Subpoena
limits: Lawyers seek protection [pp. 21-21]Punitive damages: Survey
finds they're rare [pp. 21-21]Scrambled issue: Dish owners demand
access [pp. 22-22]Suing lawyers: Malpractice targets profiled [pp.
25-25]Getting its due(s) Calif. bar loses budget power [pp.
26-27]Law services cut: But will Gramm-Rudman fly? [pp. 27-27]Big
firms: Small clients see advantages [pp. 28-28]'Yuppie tax': Health
clubs fight levy [pp. 28-28]Formula bonuses: An incentive for
associates [pp. 31-31]Alien search: Churches allege U.S. spying
[pp. 31-31]Military benefit: Medical injury suits win OK [pp.
32-32]Foreigner ban: Suits hit government criteria [pp. 32-33]Empty
love nests: Apartment prize in divorces [pp. 33-33]College sacked:
Football coach keeps his job [pp. 35-35]Settling disputes: Law
firms get into ADR act [pp. 37-37]
At Issue: Is law a profession or a business? [pp. 38,
40]LawPoll: Lawyer advertising is on the rise [pp. 44-45]Better Off
Never Born? [pp. 46-49]The "Baby Doe" Cases [pp. 50-53]Stop Playing
Hide and Seek With Your Documents [pp. 54-56]The President's Lawyer
[pp. 58-61]LITIGATIONHow to Make a Complex Case Come Alive for a
Jury [pp. 62-66]
A Tax Letter to a Small-Business Client [pp. 68-69]Books for
LawyersReview: untitled [pp. 70-70]Review: untitled [pp.
70-70]Review: untitled [pp. 70, 72]Review: untitled [pp. 74,
80]Noted in Brief [pp. 80-80]
Supreme Court Preview [pp. 83-83]Supreme Court ReportSection
1983: no liability for simple negligence [pp. 84-86, 88-89]
What's New [pp. 90-95]Your FinancesWhat to look for in a stock
prospectus [pp. 96-96]
Persuasive WritingThe definitive word on definitions [pp.
98-98]
Computer Corner [pp. 100-100]Inside ABANews Update [pp. 102,
104, 106-107]Correction: NEWS UPDATE [pp. 106-106]
Must Reading [pp. 108-108]Legal Aids [pp. 110, 113]INSIDE
ABAPUBLIC SERVICE PROFILES [pp. 114-114]EVENTS [pp. 115-115]
War Stories [pp. 120-120]Back Matter
