Lessons from an errant email. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

First, some background. My dad hated squirrels. It wasn’t simple dislike. It wasn’t contempt. No, this was an irrational, unadulterated, white-hot hatred. He took it very, very personally when he saw one of the furry little critters running along a large cedar fence we had in the backyard. So much so that eventually a fully loaded BB rifle took up permanent residence behind the radiator in our kitchen. You would be amazed how quickly a man in his late 60’s, upon seeing a squirrel, could drop a cup of coffee, sprint to the radiator, grab the rifle, pump it, open the window, crouch, draw a bead and squeeze off one or more shots whenever a squirrel violated the perimeter.

Fast forward. I live in a near west suburb of Chicago. This suburb, like lots of suburbs in the area is surrounded by Forest Preserves and wooded areas. Consequently, we get our share of wildlife. Deer occasionally wander through the neighborhood. Every now and again a fox will be seen sprinting between yards. And of course raccoons. Christ, do we have raccoons. They’ve grown so fat from the garbage they have consumed they no longer possess the “fight or flight” reaction when cornered by headlights. Now they just turn around, lower their heads and look at you disapprovingly. Once when I interrupted a raccoon eating a crust of bread near my garage I thought I heard him sigh.

Two weeks ago however, there was a new development. Coyotes. More precisely four coyotes that chased a German Shepherd puppy into a house and continued clawing at the door trying to get in. The news account detailed how the dog’s owner had to shoot two of the varmints with a BB gun to scare them off. When I read the story I immediately thought of my dad and how much he would have enjoyed a delivery option – where the animals actually come to your door. Oh yes. He would have relished that.

So I fired off an email to my siblings, telling them about the coyotes and reminding them that dad, ever the trendsetter, was shooting creatures in the backyard years before it became newsworthy. I didn’t catch that I included a client who shared a first name with one of my brothers.

I spoke to that client today and he mentioned that he had gotten the email. I fell all over myself, blabbering away, embarrassed beyond belief, when I heard him laughing.

“No need to apologize,” he said, still laughing. “I thought it was great. That email was the first time I thought of you as halfway human[his exact words, ouch] and not some boring lawyer. It made me think of my dad and how much I miss him, and how differently I would treat him if he were still here.”

That’s an eye-opener. I thought I did a pretty good job of making sure clients knew I was more than the stereotypical stuff shirt lawyer. I learned today I have more work to do.

Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.