Just two short items by way of follow up from pieces I’ve written about in the past here.
First, I’ve written several different posts about the saga down in Florida that appeared to be one of the first big disputes – post the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the North Carolina Board of Dentistry case – in which the rise of technology and alternative methods of delivering legal services to consumers would be pitted against traditional bar regulation with antitrust law issues serving as the rules of engagement. You can read each of those older posts at the links above and this one right here too.
If you haven’t read any of those earlier posts, or don’t know the reference to the Florida litigation, TIKD is an app that you can put on your phone to use to resolve speeding tickets and similar moving violations without ever having to go to court yourself. It arranges the retention of a lawyer for you and even provides you with a financial guarantee on cost and a promise to pay court fines for you if unsuccessful. The company behind the app filed an antitrust lawsuit against The Florida Bar and a Florida law firm (The Ticket Clinic) challenging allegedly conspiratorial conduct designed to damage TIKD’s business operations. I’ve focused so much on the dispute and what its ramifications might be that it would be a pretty big cop out not to mention the fact that the federal district court in Florida issued a 1-page order earlier this month granting the Florida Bar’s motion to dismiss the antitrust claims against it.
It is a classically unsatisfying order for an outsider to litigation to read because it offers no insight into its rationale other than to say it ruled that way based on the “reasons stated at the motions hearing.” Having followed the events, I would think the reasons have to be a belief that, despite the fact that the Florida Bar regulators include market participants, the regulations they are enforcing are clearly delineated and emanate directly from the Florida Supreme Court. Assuming there will be an appeal, then there may be more discussion of how this shook out, but, for now, it appears that TIKD’s shot at the regulatory framework in Florida ended up being full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.
Going much back further into the archives, you will find a couple of posts expressing frustration and outrage with a particular Wisconsin lawyer who became infamous (at least for a while) with the release of Netflix’s Making a Murderer documentary. You can read my original thoughts on the awfulness that was Len Kachinsky’s way of practicing law here and here.
His was a name I was never hoping to run across again so it was quite a roller coaster of emotions to simultaneously learn that Kachinsky had been arrested and charged with stalking but to simultaneously learn he had been acquitted of the charge. The roller coaster ride went even lower though at the moment the words I was reading about his employment situation fully engulfed me … he had become a municipal judge in Wisconsin.
WT actual F Wisconsin? Are y’all not even trying? How can that guy have failed upward into a position in your judiciary? How is he allowed to preside over any case about any thing? That’s just a travesty.