Brendan Maher emails:

I am an Illinois attorney who has checked in on your blog a few times since seeing it mentioned on Howard Bashman's "How Appealing." Although my practice tends to be more defense oriented, our firm does handle the occasional plaintiffs' case. Personally, I tend to believe that people are too litigious and I do favor some of the "tort reform" proposals floating around. I am not, however, a "tort reform" zealot, and I generally don't think the Feds should be in the tort reform business at all. I am passing along this article because I view the plaintiffs' lawyers' filing suit within 32 hours of a tragedy is the type of behavior that gives us all a bad name. There has literally been no time for a reasonable investigation and nothing more than theories as to what actually happened. While it is certainly possible that the nightclub and/or its hired security firm were negligent, filing suit so soon (and on behalf of minimally injured parties) makes the plaintiffs' lawyers look like bloodsuckers (in my humble opinion). I'd be interested in your take.

Here's the article he referred to. There are perhaps two reasons why suit was filed so quickly. First, there may have been a question of making sure that the defendants did not disperse their assets prior to suit being filed. Now, with litigation pending, hiding assets may be much more difficult. Second, if it's a class action that has been filed, as per the article, then the lawyers who filed it want their action to be certified. Often, the first one filed, or the one with the most plaintiffs attached to it, will be certified. It seems slimy in the present case, but there may be justifiable reasons for filing quickly. However, the rush to the courthouse kind of reminds me of Washington, D.C.'s John Coale, who was on a plane to Bhopal within seconds [just kidding] of the Union Carbide disaster that killed thousands.

More interesting here is the city's culpability. If the business should have been closed pursuant to court order last July, and if the City knew or should have known the club was still operating in violation of the court order, does the city have liability? Better yet, could someone -- say the victoms or their families -- seek to have the court hold the city in contempt for having failed to follow the court order? Interesting questions.