Paul L. Caron
Dean





Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Trial Begins in Law Prof Authors' Suit v. West

Rudovsky Book I previously blogged (links below) the lawsuit by David Rudovsky (Penn) and Leonard N. Sosnov (Widener) against West, claiming that they were falsely identified as the authors of a poorly researched “sham” supplement to their treatise, Pennsylvania Practice: Criminal Procedure Law, Commentary and Forms. The authors stopped working on the treatise when West cut their annual pay from $5,000 to $2,500 each.

In today's Legal Intelligencer, Trial Opens in Profs' Defamation Case Against West:

In a case that offers a rare glimpse behind the scenes in the world of legal treatise publishing, a federal court jury began hearing testimony Monday in a defamation suit brought by two law professors against West Publishing. ...

[A] lawyer for West told the eight-member jury that although West was "not proud" of the first version of the update, it quickly cured the problem — first by informing subscribers by letter that the professors did no work on the flawed update, and by issuing a new version of the update four months later, at no cost to subscribers, that included extensive case updates. ...

Rudovsky testified Monday that he was "shocked" when he learned that West went forward in December 2008 and published a pocket part that still carried his and Sosnov's names as authors — even though they had done no work and received no pay. "I was stunned, and when I began to think about it somewhat angry and somewhat humiliated," Rudovsky testified. He said he worried that anyone who received the pocket part and paid about $50 for it would potentially associate the professors with "a sham product."

Prior TaxProf Blog coverage:

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/12/trial-begins.html

Legal Education | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef0148c6c7f87d970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Trial Begins in Law Prof Authors' Suit v. West:

Comments