Victoria's Secret lawsuit is not so bad. If you doubt it just ask its CEO.

Steve Lombardi
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 335
Visit Steve Lombardi on FacebookVisit Steve Lombardi on LinkedInVisit Steve Lombardi on TwitterVisit Steve Lombardi on Avvo
Posted by Steve LombardiJune 25, 2008 11:47 AM

If you haven’t yet read the Complaint from the Victoria Secret "thong" lawsuit, you should.. I think this young lawyer means well, but his judgment is not yet ready for the practice of law. Of course the pundits will have a hay day with this one and the late night talk shows are provided with what they need for a good humorous monologue. But realistically non-lawyers have to ask if there is something wrong with the legal system.

Realistically there isn’t anything wrong with the court system. There is with this lawsuit but not with the legal system. First let’s put our young lawyer in perspective. We were all young and inexperience early in our careers. We all made mistakes that in hindsight looked pretty stupid. We learned and moved on to rewarding careers. But there was a time when we had few clients and cases and were hungry to learn how to litigate. There was that time in our professional lives when we saw injustice in every case, in most client interviews and we were eagerly awaiting the opportunity to apply what we had learned in law school to a real client.

Law schools don’t teach law students about how to identify a “serious damage case”. They teach all about the law concerning liability, but when it comes to damages they barely scratch the surface. From his interview this young lawyer is quick to hone in on the liability issues of product liability litigation. Product liability litigation sounds sexy to say, but hiring experts and coming up with the money it takes to litigate one is an enormous undertaking. But in this set of facts the damages issue is not there and sooner or later he’ll get around to realizing the fourth element of any tort case, damages.

Now let’s examine the actual “wrong” and see if it’s really as far out as at first blush we might think. If we honestly look at what this young lawyer is doing it’s not all that far fetched from what the Consumer Products Safety Commission does with toys. Small objects that can come loose and be a choking hazard for children can be a serious problem. Of course in this instance Mrs. Patterson isn’t young, inexperienced and this decorative object isn’t a choking hazard to her. (Okay, I’m not going there, this is a serious piece.) So stepping back from the embarrassing aspects of our thoughts, they being a thong and our minds going to a naked Mrs. Patterson putting on a thong and the object flying off into her eye, and wondering did she fall over holding her eye? When we get by the nakedness issues and how embarrassing it is to talk about it and we look instead at what this really is about, then it can become a more serious discussion. So let’s look and all get over the laugh.

There are those that watch this and say, hey let’s turn this into a windfall and line our pockets. This is the kind of launch that Madison Avenue dreams about . It’s there Super Bowl of fact patterns from which hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising revenue will be made. I’m sure the powers that be in manufacturing, pharmaceutical, tobacco and toys have already contacted Madison Avenue to come up with a publicity campaign designed to further poison the jury pool of America so that people with good cases will have a harder time obtaining fair treatment. Google alone is selling $6.1 billion in ads this year.

"This year, Google will sell $6.1 billion in ads, nearly double what it sold last year, according to Anthony Noto, an analyst at Goldman Sachs . That is more advertising than is sold by any newspaper chain, magazine publisher or television network. By next year, Mr. Noto said, he expects Google to have advertising revenue of $9.5 billion. That would place it fourth among American media companies in total ad sales after Viacom , the News Corporation and the Walt Disney Company , but ahead of giants including NBC Universal and Time Warner."

And make no mistake about it the powers-that-be at Victoria’s Secret love every bit of this attention. They couldn’t buy this kind of advertising. While watching sales perk up they are fondling each other with excitement.

Legally Underpinnings - But let us change the fact pattern somewhat and see if it changes your perspective about the legal underpinnings of this law suit. What if instead the same woman was in a store and while contemplating the purchase and examining the piece of underwear the same piece of metal broke off and flew off. And you being a customer of that same store were struck in the eye and blinded by the metal object. If you earned your living using both eyes and now were out of a $100,000.00 per year salary, would it still have the same humor to it? Or what if the person being blinded were your 4 year old daughter who was with Daddy buying Mommy a present for Valentine’s Day? Would you still be angry if Mommy were the one bringing the law suit against Victoria ’s Secret for her 4 year old being now blind in one eye? There is a side of me that can’t totally blame the young lawyer. His law suit does have somewhat of a meritorious and engaging legal point.

The explanation for this lawyer's "enthusiasm" and the resulting lawsuit is pretty simple. Law schools teach men and women how to "think like a lawyer". After law school, good mentoring by a practicing trial lawyer in the first five years of practice can teach them “how to practice law". Ten years into the practice the difference between a lawyer who received good mentoring and one who did not becomes pretty obvious. Perhaps the law firm where he works needs to rein in his "enthusiasm" a wee bit. The senior partners, assuming there are any might want to exercise closer mentoring of this young and eager lawyer. I think he means well, but to anyone watching the TV interview it should be obvious that as a practicing trial lawyer his judgment is not yet fully developed.

There is nothing wrong with our legal system. What there is in this instance is a lack of good mentoring in a Los Angeles law firm. So criticize the law firm all you want but leave the legal system and the majority of the trial bar out of it. ©

7 Comments

Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Bill Low
Posted by Bill Low
June 25, 2008 10:34 PM

The author is more accurate than he knows. When we agressively apply the law to those in the legal profession it creates the ultimate reform. In Texas Low v Henry upheld sanctions against a lawyer who filed a nonmeritorious suit against a couple of Doctors. Our Supreme Court stood the overeager lawyer on his head and those who protested most were members of the insurance defense bar who complained of oppertunity cost.

Steve Lombardi
Posted by Steve Lombardi
June 26, 2008 10:25 AM

That's an interesting twist. I'll have to read that case. In this case it seems better mentoring would probably help. The video unfortunately seems almost like bad comedy.

Freehawk
Posted by Freehawk
June 26, 2008 2:57 PM

A young lawyer who sounds articulate, but really talks in cliches and says nothing. Fairly media savvy, though, gave a good interview. Nothing lawsuit. That lady was just so happy to be on the Today Show. Wonder what the b roll looks like?

Steve Lombardi
Posted by Steve Lombardi
June 26, 2008 5:16 PM

Sounding articulate, while talking in clichés and saying nothing is an indication to the more experienced attorneys that the inexperienced attorney perhaps shouldn't be giving the interview. Once again we're back to good mentoring. And yes the woman looked like she was out of breath from the experience of being on MSNBC. The question remaining to be answered is whether the young man was himself being used for the sake of free publicity. Stories like this coming out of California have a certain Madison Avenue feel to them. Having practiced law for 27 years I have to wonder if a publicity agent didn’t suggest this “lawsuit” for the sake of an advertising campaign. Now if there were evidence of that being the case, the next question to answer is who directed such a charade and why? The video interview is so comical that it seems almost like comedic art mimicking life itself. So I guess we are back to asking; if it seems so unreal and funny why would a more experienced lawyer allow the firm name to be associated with it? I’m not sure I could come up with a more comic set of facts. And from a legal liability standpoint, is the solution for VS to include warnings of an eye hazard printed on the g-string? “All consumers should be aware of the eye injury hazard while putting on or removing this garment. When wearing this g-string please wear eye protection.” Okay so here is Craig Ferguson, Jay Leon or Dave on late night with a sexy model wearing a VS g-string, a VS push up bra and Safety Goggles from Northern Tool. Conan would probably come out and do his monologue wearing it. Filing the suit was one thing but giving the interview tended to show just how inexperienced this young lawyer really is.

Tony corpuz
Posted by Tony corpuz
July 02, 2008 10:13 PM

the young man on the news is actually my uncle now he just finished law school and assuming he is part of a law firm the firm might have assigned him this case not to his choice offcourse. Now I haven't seen my uncle jason buccat in months to know the details of this situation but to find him on the news like this was probably a mistake. The only mistake of most court cases is takeing it public. As a joke this lawsuit sounds it seems they have a hard case and if there sufficient evidence then there might be no way of stopping there "victory" ; and I qoute this cause there might be a settlement instead a fight. If my uncle did choose this case than I wish to slap sense Into him for making it public.
On a side note personally this horrible family I'm part of is happy to see "a big shot lawyer of a son" to take a big case like this.

Steve Lombardi
Posted by Steve Lombardi
July 03, 2008 9:49 AM

Tony: I invite Jason Buccat to post any comment he believes is appropriate. If he did we may think differently about this suit, but I doubt it. Most people won't see this case as anything more than a humorous adventure by an inexperienced lawyer. And there are others who will use this case as an opportunity to further deform the rights of the seriously injured. How your uncle received the case is anyone's guess; and as lawyers we don't like to guess. If the client was seriously injured it didn't show in the interview. She was smiling and appeared quite happy and normal. You can be proud of your uncle and at the same time not like this law suit. In my original post I was careful to point out that what seems to be missing is good mentoring. And I stick by that statement.

Tony Corpuz
Posted by Tony Corpuz
July 22, 2008 9:38 AM

I thank you for that response Mr. Lambardi. I hope the best for my dear uncle in his future. Never thought publicity was a factor in his head. Now I'm no lawyer and my experience comes from knowing from wrong, my only concern do think asking for a radical amount of compensation is wrong? I.e. An amount being higher than the cost of medical bills and time away from work. Also another question for not an answer but an opinion, if the "thong" was the wrong size and was put on with force increaseing stress on the design, does she deserve compensation still? I would like to note that wearing it only a second time can cause such a malfunction on elastic/metal design. On top that does it make a difference in the timing cause this lady waited almost a year to take action? Please excuse me for make a late response and the questions I have. I like the discussion of any situation or case and it intrigues me to see the outcomes. I would also thank anyone/everyone in advance to whom answer my questions. As I said I'm not a lawyer and think our America is taken advantage and Justice can be taken too far. One last thank you to everyone reading the post. P.S. Please excuse any typeing errors this was done me phone.

Tony: No problem with the timing of your response. Even though you're not a lawyer you could some day be a juror and thinking about these issues is very important should that day ever come when you sit as a juror. I would agree there are many questions not yet answered that need further exploration. Nice to see you doing the analysis. Steve Lombardi

Comments for this article are closed.

Subscribe to InjuryBoard Des Moines

InjuryBoard Des Moines RSS Feeds

Keep up with the latest updates using your favorite RSS reader

Injury Board Des Moines is brought to you by The Lombardi Law Firm

Legal Assistance Center

More Info
The Lombardi Law Firm (866) 735-1102 Ext 335 www.lombardilaw.com/
google
Personal Injury Lawyers Serving: Ames, Ankeny, Boone, Clive, Des Moines, Grinnell, Jefferson, Leon, Marshalltown, Newton, Osceola, Oskaloosa, Ottumwa, Urbandalte, West Des Moines, Winterset
4200 Corporate DriveSuite 112, West Des Moines, Iowa 50266 [ Show Map ]
Better Business Bureau Accredited Business Confidential

Your question will be referred to an attorney near you. If your question is of a legal nature, then by submitting this form you agree you are not forming a formal attorney / client relationship. Read our full privacy policy.

Looking for an InjuryBoard attorney closer to home? Click here.

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Enter your email address if you would like to receive email notifications when comments are made on this post.

Email address