lawrocket 3 #1 May 17, 2003 SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A lawyer who generated international publicity by seeking to ban Oreo cookies in California said on Thursday he would withdraw his suit, explaining the news coverage had made people aware of the health risks of eating one of America's favorite snacks. But British-born attorney Stephen Joseph was criticized in legal circles for possibly abusing the U.S. courts system. Joseph filed a lawsuit against Kraft Foods Inc on May 5, seeking a ban on Oreos, citing a provision of the California civil code that holds manufacturers liable for products if not "known to be unsafe by the ordinary consumer." He argued the public did not know the cookies, like thousands of consumer products, have trans fat -- hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils -- which health experts say are best avoided. After media outlets far and wide reported the story, Joseph stood down, saying in a statement; "The factual and legal basis for the lawsuit when it was filed was that the American people did not know about trans fat. "After three days of incredible national publicity, everyone in America knows about trans fats ... The factual and legal basis for the lawsuit has totally disappeared." A leading scientist in researching trans fat said the Oreo lawsuit succeeded in getting more publicity than years of serious academic study. "This suit is sort of the first time there has been ... a tremendous amount of publicity," said Mary Enig, who has warned of the dangers of trans fatty acids for two decades. "It's been difficult to get the message out." Some experts said that if designed as a publicity stunt, Joseph's action could prompt sanction against him. "This is not a legitimate use of the courts," said Philip Howard, vice chairman of New York law firm Covington & Burling who advocates major reform of the U.S. lawsuit culture. "Bringing your claim that has no business in the courts that is really a regulatory or legislative issue is itself inappropriate," he said. "Doing so simply to gain publicity and then withdrawing that claim is probably, or at least arguably, a violation of professional ethics." John Montgomery, executive officer of the Marin County Superior Court said any slap on the wrist would likely come from the State Bar of California, which keeps its investigations confidential. Joseph defended his actions. "No money was ever requested in the lawsuit. There is no greed factor," he said. - taken from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=10&u=/nm/20030516/od_nm/food_oreos_dc Comment 1: This attorney got out before he got hit with a big costs bill! Comment 2: Notice that he was criticized in legal circles. It's shysters like this who get all the press. That .01 percent of us lawyers who are decent human beings really resent the rest of attorneys who give us a bad name. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #2 May 18, 2003 The legal profession has sunk to a new low! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #3 May 18, 2003 Quote"After three days of incredible national publicity, everyone in America knows about trans fats ... We also now know that the Brits (at least one) can be stupidly litigious too. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
