Ferrari announced that it is recalling 1,248 of its recently introduced 458 Italias (303 of which are in the US) due to a risk that the glue securing a wheel arch lining and heat shield will melt and ignite.  Since the 458's release, there have been five reports of fires from customers in the US, France, Switzerland, and China.  The fix simply replaces the glue with metal rivets.  The 570-horsepower, 202-mph 458 replaces Ferrari's highly regarded F430.  The article also mentions that some owners repaired the vehicles for this problem prior to the recall and may be eligible for reimbursement from Ferrari.  What are the company’s obligations toward these reimbursements?

There are many career options for non-practicing licensed attorneys. (See for example, 300+ Things You Can Do With A Law Degree.) Although non-lawyers working in these careers are not obligated to adhere to lawyer disciplinary rules, licensed attorneys are. To their great surprise, the non-practicing lawyers might find themselves subject to disciplinary action for conduct in careers outside of the practice of law.

An Example From The Federal Government

Politics is a popular career for non-practicing licensed attorneys. Often times it is a natural step to move from practicing law to making law.

At the Federal level, all Representatives must abide by the House Ethics Rules. Those who are lawyers must also, answer to their licensing State Bar. Bar Associations have sanctioned lawyer-politicians for actions committed while serving in government offices. Most notable:

• Former President Richard Nixon was disbarred from New York in 1976 for obstruction of justice related to the Watergate scandal.
• Former Vice President Spiro Agnew, having pleaded no contest to charges of bribery and tax evasion, was disbarred in 1974 from Maryland, the state he had previously served as governor.
• Former President Clinton received a 5-year suspension from the Arkansas State Bar for false statements he made in the matter with Ms. Lewinsky.

What Is The Basis For Sanctions?

We can consider the current situation of Congressman Charles Rangel, who has been charged in Congress with, among other things, underreporting taxes. Congressman Wrangel's conduct could be sanctionable under New York Rule 8.04, which reads, in part,

A lawyer… shall not:
      · · ·
(b) engage in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

Comment 2 to Rule 8.04 states,

Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for illegal conduct that indicates lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Violations involving violence, dishonesty, fraud, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are illustrative of illegal conduct that reflects adversely on fitness to practice law… A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.

Sanctions could be based on the same facts as the House Ethics Committee's allegations. For example, Congressman Rangel's alleged…

… failure to report rental income related to Punta Cana on his Federal income tax returns [is alleged to have] violated the Internal Revenue Code. (Statement Of Alleged Violation (SAV), ¶ 245, see ¶ 119-133 of the SAV for details regarding the Punta Cana rental)

Congressman Rangel responded formally to the Ethics Committee that he:

… acknowledged publicly, prior to the establishment of the Investigative Subcommittee, that his tax returns omitted rental income derived from his investment in the Punta Cana resort located in the Dominican Republic and that he had filed amendments and paid additional taxes. Congressman Rangel [advised that he] has done everything within his power to fulfill his legal obligations in this regard, and to the best of his knowledge, nothing further is required. (Statement p. 20)

He also stated on the House Floor:

The fact that there was negligence on the part of the person that for 20 years did it and the fact that I signed it, does not really give an excuse as to why I should not apologize to this body for not paying the attention to it that I should have paid to it. (Address 03:02:33)

Have Lawyers Been Sanctioned For Violating The Internal Revenue Code?

Lawyers have been sanction for violating the Internal Revenue Code. For example:

Aaron Bertel, a lawyer in New York State, received a three-year suspension for conspiracy to defraud the United States and the Internal Revenue Service and for filing fraudulent income tax returns. (268 A.D.2d 112, 706 N.Y.S2d 101)

Marie Klarman, a lawyer in New York State, received a one-year probation for knowingly filing a false personal income tax return in which she deducted mortgage interest that she was not entitled to deduct. (Klarman paid the additional taxes she owed.) (22 A.D.3d 953, 802 N.Y.S.2d 267)

Alberto Pirro, Jr., a lawyer in New York State, received a three-year suspension for several counts of tax evasion and tax fraud. (Pirro had an otherwise unblemished record, accepted full responsibility, and noted that the tax returns were prepared by a CPA.) (305 A.D.2d 22, 759 N.Y.S.2d 527)

Bonnie Strunk, a lawyer in New York State, was disbarred based on her felony tax conviction (Criminal Tax Fraud in the Fourth Degree, a class E felony, for failing to file her 2008 personal income tax return while having a tax liability in excess of $3,000).

A Warning for Non-Practicing Licensed Attorneys

Even if a lawyer is not engaged in the practice of law, he is still answerable to the entire criminal law. And, his conduct must not reflect adversely on his character or fitness to practice law, even if the conduct is not criminal. To the extent that a lawyer's character and fitness are called into question, he may find himself stripped of his law license, even if his non-lawyer counterparts would otherwise suffer no consequences.

Bruce A. Campbell is the managing director in the law firm of Campbell & Chadwick, P.C. He has defended lawyers and other professionals on a variety of malpractice and other tort claims for more than 25 years. He has published more than 50 articles and authors a blog about legal ethics. Mr. Campbell may be reached by email or at 972-277-8585.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision yesterday (.pdf) in Stauffer v. Brooks Bros., Inc. will impact numerous other similar "fall marking" suits across the country (see Reuters feed here).The dispute concerned a patent attorney's accusation that Brooks Brook Brothers was selling "Adjustolox" bow ties that were marked as patented.  However, the patent expired in the 1950s.  Stauffer commenced a qui tam action under 35 U.S.C. sec. 292 alleging that Brooks Brothers had falsely marked its bow ties.  Brooks Brothers argued that Stauffer had no standing to file the suit because he was not harmed by the erroneous information.  The district court agreed.
 
The federal appeals court reversed that ruling and remanded the matter to the district court.  The Federal Circuit ruled the law did not require Stauffer to be injured by the false marking, but quoted the statute as providing that "any person may sue for the penalty."
 
Several "false marking" cases had been stayed pending resolution of this matter.  Upon learning of this decision, those cases commenced by the Public Patent Foundation will now go forward against several large corporations.  The penalties in false marking cases can be substantial.  The Federal Circuit late last year held that the fine for claiming a nonexistent or expired patent was $500 per device sold.  That type of penalty can add up quickly based on a seemingly technical error and violation of a statute.  A person like Stauffer, who inexplicably admitted to wearing a bow tie almost every day, could find a small goldmine in his closet.  Half the monetary penalty goes to the person who instituted the suit and the other half goes to the United States government.

What are your thoughts?  Should procedures for expired be reviewed and revised?

Litigators tend to be type-A, highly-stressed sort of people.  The omission of a document in discovery is usually a source of a great deal of activity and is considered important.  Many of our clients are fighting over their livelihoods, or payments for work they did.  And they may (or may not) be entitled to recover.  We generally entered this profession because we enjoy a good argument and a good puzzle, but sometimes we lose a bit of perspective.

A little over six years ago, on Labor Day, I learned a second cousin of mine serving in the Illinois National Guard had been killed in Iraq.  At the time, I was in a mini-feud with an attorney over the scheduling of depositions; who was going to go first; which office would have the depositions – you know the entire scheme.  And it seemed very important until I received that telephone call.  Two weeks later (as Hurricane Ivan was bearing down on Alabama), we learned the funeral would be that Friday.  Having finally gotten everyone locked in for depositions on Friday, I informed my family I could not attend the funeral of our fallen cousin – one of a group of kids we called the “midget mafia” and who my grandparents babysat regularly.  I still regret that decision.  As a result of Hurricane Ivan, the other attorneys’ office did not have power that Friday, and (strangely enough) he refused to go forward with the depositions in my home (where I did have power).  Rather than attend and take an important deposition, I pointlessly missed the funeral and accomplished nothing that day in the office.

I write this as we approach the sixth anniversary of his death (and of Hurricane Ivan, for that matter), and I hope that I have learned some perspective from that event.  Being an attorney is an honorable profession, and our clients rely on us for ardent advocacy.  And we provide that advocacy.  But this profession, nor any other, should not be allowed to completely consume our lives.  Depositions can and should be rescheduled when appropriate.

At the Annual Meeting this year in San Diego, Judge Karon Bowdre will be presenting “The Amazing Juristas,” regarding the juggling act we all perform – some of us with more success than others.  I hope all of you – young lawyers and more seasoned lawyers – will attend both the DRI 2010 Annual Meeting (.pdf) and the session.  It is simply too easy to lose perspective of our entire lives as we engage in daily battles with the other side, and hopefully, Judge Bowdre’s thoughts will help us regain or maintain the proper perspective.

It should come as no surprise that the federal judiciary is calling for greater security due to threats from people who have been denied Social Security disability benefits.  Dissatisfaction with the judiciary, and resulting threats against judges, their families, and their staffs is a real and growing problem.  The level of dissatisfaction and the related growing level of threats is attributable in large part to the availability of internet websites and blogs that are created and fueled by unhappy litigants.  Even a brief scan of the internet will produce dozens of single issue sites in which writers are encouraging disobedience toward judicial orders and violence against judges. 

Another significant reason for increasing hostility toward judges is unjust criticism from the other branches of government.  Hardly a day passes that a senator, congressman, governor or mayor is not lambasting a judicial opinion on cable news or on the internet.  While freedom of speech certainly gives anyone the right to criticize judicial decisions, the public criticism from elected officials is growing increasingly personal, and is frequently uninformed and unsupported by the facts of a particular case.  Judicial ethical canons prohibit judges from reacting to these attacks, so the public usually hears only one side.

Every bar association at every level (including state and local) must give consideration to creating active committees to scrutinize judicial criticism and to react when criticism of judges goes beyond the bounds of fair comment.  These committees should also be actively involved with the Chamber of Commerce, judicial associations, and local subdivisions of government to make certain that our courthouses are safe for the judges, their staffs, and the lawyers and consumers who visit the courts.  If we in the  organized bar do not step up and begin responding to unfair and uninformed criticism of the judiciary, then threats against judges on all levels will continue to escalate, and well-intentioned people will cease to want to work in the judiciary.  More importantly, the public will lose confidence in an important branch of government that relies upon public obedience to its orders.

Technology has created a new avenue for identifying potential juror misconduct.  I read a recent article about a juror who commented on Facebook that it was going to be fun to tell the defendant he was guilty.  The problem was that the evidence had not concluded.  She updated her Facebook status with the comment during a break in the trial.  Whether you are a criminal or civil trial lawyer you know a juror is supposed to wait until they have heard all the evidence before making up their mind.  However, all trial lawyers have heard the jury consultants say that as a practical matter most jurors make up their minds by the end of the opening statement.
 
In the case of this juror, the update was found by a member of the defense lawyer's staff who was reviewing juror Facebook pages when he ran across the update.  When the judge in the case was advised of the update, the judge replaced the Facebooking juror with one of the alternates on the case.
 
Now, was it really misconduct for the juror to post her feelings on Facebook?  Under current standards there is no question that it was.  However, are we putting form over substance?  If most jurors make up their minds by the close of evidence where was the harm?  Was it making up her mind too soon or in telling folks that she had made her decision?  Given what the juror posted, was it a reflection of how the entire jury panel felt and should the defendant not have gotten a mistrial?
 
As a practical matter, you can bet my staff will be reviewing juror Facebook pages during my future trials.

DRI Immediate Past President, Marc E. Williams recently provided commentary on PointofLaw.com regarding tax breaks for trial lawyers.  Read the full text below:

Marc Williams of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, the immediate past president of DRI, writes us:

When the American Association for Justice looked over their agenda for the Obama administration, they not only saw the opportunities to overturn the Bush successes at tort reform, but also to deliver a direct financial benefit for their members. While the AAJ has historically focused their political muscle on enlarging the opportunities for plaintiffs in personal injury litigation to succeed, the leadership decided that the time was ripe to bring something home that would benefit all of its members, regardless of the size or type of case they handled: a tax break.

What they proposed was a seemingly simple amendment to the tax code to allow lawyers to deduct the expenses incurred in litigation in the year in which they were incurred. What could be so controversial about that? After all, the tax code allows most small businesses to deduct business expenses in the year where they are incurred, so why not apply that simple rule to lawyers? As AAJ Senior VP of Public Affairs Linda Lipsen stated:

The tax legislation will treat the trial attorney profession like every other small business in this country, allowing them to deduct their expenses in the year incurred. Currently, trial attorneys pay all case costs from their own pocket when representing Americans that cannot afford exorbitant hourly fees. These attorneys must wait to deduct their expenses until the case concludes. This legislation will allow the IRS to treat this profession as every other small business.
AAJ Press Release, August 8, 2009.

Like a lot of things that come from PR specialists in this age of spin, what is most significant from the AAJ's position is what is missing. But to understand the ramifications of the tax proposal, we first need to understand how litigation in America is financed. Unlike most of the Western world, the United States allows litigants and lawyers to enter into agreements for contingency fees, whereby the lawyer takes a percentage of the recovery as a fee, rather than being paid for the work being done, as it is being done. These contingency fees are intended to provide access to justice for those who cannot afford to pay a lawyer to represent them. Since the client is not capable of paying for the lawyers' time, the lawyer must also arrange for some way to cover the expenses of litigation. In today's high stakes world of class actions, mass torts, and highly technical litigation, the expenses associated with bringing a case to trial can be staggering. It is not uncommon for the costs of document handling, trial exhibits, court reporters and expert witnesses to run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even the simple cases can result in huge expenses. In a single plaintiff case that I tried a few years back, the plaintiffs' lawyer ran up expenses approaching a million dollars.

How are these expenses handled in modern litigation? In most states, the lawyer is permitted to front these expenses and then deduct them from the settlement or verdict at the conclusion of the case. The savvy plaintiff's lawyer will take his percentage of the recovery (set out in the contract with the client) before the expenses are deducted. Thus, in a $100,000 settlement of a case with $10,000 in expenses and a 33% contingency fee, the plaintiff's lawyer will first deduct a fee of $33,000, followed by the expenses of $10,000. The plaintiff collects the remaining $57,000.

So getting back to the AAJ and their "trial lawyers are just like the barber shop down the street" analogy - it should be obvious by now that unlike Floyd the Barber, the expenses that the trial lawyer seeks to deduct are usually reimbursed out of settlement proceeds at the end of the case. When Floyd deducts expenses for scissors, razors and the like, he is not going to get reimbursed for them down the road. So it is a bit disingenuous to compare the local trial lawyer to a typical small businessman. In fact, the only time under the current system that the trial lawyer is going to be able to deduct the expenses associated with litigation is if the case is not successful and the client recovers nothing. Under current law, the IRS treats the expenses paid by the trial lawyer as loans subject to reimbursement. If the case is unsuccessful, the loans are treated like bad debts that can be deducted.

Under the AAJ proposal, trial lawyer could deduct the expenses as they are incurred, regardless of when the case is resolved. Presumably, when the case is resolved and the expenses are reimbursed, the lawyer would then be required to claim that as income, which would be taxed, but the principal advantage to the trial lawyer of the proposed change would be to spread the risk associated with the expense of the litigation over time. The effect of this advantage may not be obvious, as some may argue that the proposal is just delaying the payment of the tax for a short time and that the value in that delay is not significant. But if that is the case, why has the AAJ made this such an important part of their legislative agenda? The answer requires an understanding of the interplay of a trial lawyer's capital and the risk of litigation.

The modern American contingency fee lawyers are very entrepreneurial in their approach to litigation. They recognize that the money spent on a single case may reap benefits many years down the road. Especially in the areas of mass torts and class actions, the plaintiffs' bar may toil in courtrooms for years before finally turning the tide in favor of their clients. For instance, while plaintiffs' verdicts in tobacco cases are common these days, it was not too long ago that the tobacco industry could boast of never having lost a jury trial in a smoking and health case. But trial lawyers kept pushing the claims, hoping that societal opinions about tobacco companies would change as more documents became public about what the defendants knew about the risks of smoking. Eventually, the tide turned and those lawyers who had fronted the cost of pursuing the tobacco industry reaped huge profits for taking on that risk. Some of that money was plowed back into future litigation as capital to front expenses for new cases against other industries.

Today, these entrepreneurial lawyers will pool their capital resources in syndicate-like fashion to finance litigation. After identifying the target for their litigation, they will divide responsibility for the preparation of the cases, realizing that it may take time to successfully recover money from the defendants. For instance, this money is committed to the compilation of documentary evidence, preparation of expert witnesses and retention of public relations consultants to drive public opinion against the defendant. They are taking an inherently scarce commodity, capital, and committing it to a scenario that carries with it a certain amount of risk. As with any investment, they evaluate that risk to determine whether they want to commit that capital. Part of the risk for that capital is that it may be years before that capital is recovered. But if the AAJ legislation is passed, those expenditures would be deducted in the year incurred, which would allow the syndicate to recoup some of that capital each year. The benefit is two-fold. Not only could that money then be used to finance other risky litigation, but the tax break would reduce the risk to the lawyer on the underlying case. Thus, the tax change would relieve the lawyer of some of the risk of commitment of that capital, freeing the lawyer to invest in more litigation, as part of the risk is now being borne by the government. This makes the government a partner with the lawyer in the litigation, a prospect that most taxpayers are likely to oppose.

This tax break would also be of value to the small case practitioner. Most AAJ members are solo practitioners or practice in small firms. Handling litigation can be very lucrative, but capital must be kept on hand to finance the litigation that might not get to trial or to resolution for several years. Any assistance in providing relief from having to commit capital for such a long time for the multitude of cases in the lawyer's office would be a welcome change.

The Joint Tax Committee of the 110th Congress values the AAJ proposal at $1.57 billion over ten years. For that reason, many members of Congress have questioned the value of this tax break. When it appeared that the legislation was not likely to be passed in this Congress, AAJ decided to take a different approach. John Bowman, the Director of Federal Regulations for AAJ stated that a regulatory change from the Treasury Department could be forthcoming that would allow plaintiffs' lawyers to deduct expenses in the year in which they were incurred. It is assumed that this regulatory change would be issued as a revenue ruling, which is a statement from the IRS as to how certain facts are to be interpreted in light of the tax code. Revenue rulings do not require Congressional approval, but are intended to reflect the IRS interpretation of existing law. It should be noted, however, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco has interpreted existing laws to allow the deduction of litigation expenses in the year when they are incurred. Boccardo v. Commissioner, 56 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 1995). None of the other ten circuit courts of appeals have followed this decision. The AAJ proposal would make the Boccardorule the law of the land.

It is no surprise that the AAJ has made this proposal a priority. Current AAJ Vice President Mary Alice McLarty has openly acknowledged that the organization has seen a serious drop in membership. As a past-President of DRI, the organization representing the other side of litigation, I can attest to the need to provide tangible benefits to the membership. And while DRI has not suffered from the same membership losses as AAJ, it is evident that righting their ship requires a plan that would provide benefits to as many members as possible. But for those of us who believe that the expansion of litigation is not necessarily a good thing, we do not believe that the government should be involved in fixing the trial lawyers' problems with their membership. Letting the risk associated with litigation stay with the lawyer who is bringing the case seems to have worked to their benefit so far; no change seems necessary to this observer.

The fate of climate change litigation now rests in the hands of the United States Supreme Court. Electric utilities, having suffered a surprising defeat at the hands of the Second Circuit last year in American Electric Power Co. Inc. et al. vs. State of Connecticut, 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2009), rehearing denied (2d Cir. March 5, 2010) filed a petition for certiorari (.pdf) with the nation’s highest court on August 2, 2010 seeking reversal of the Second Circuit’s opinion reinstating the plaintiffs' federal common law nuisance claims against the utilities for allegedly contributing to global warming. In their cert petition, American Electric, Duke Power, Xcel Energy and Southern Company argue that such a cause of action should not be implied under the common law and that these are political issues that are best left to the Congress to decide.

The utilities' arguments found support from a surprising quarter last week when the Obama Administration weighed in on the side of the Petitioners. In an amicus brief (.pdf) filed on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority on August 24, U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued that the issue should not be resolved through the court system and asks that the matter be remanded to the Second Circuit so that the court can consider the Administration’s recent proposals that greenhouse gases be regulated under the federal Clean Air Act.

The Supreme Court will decide during the coming term whether to accept the case. Notwithstanding the Solicitor General's support and the generally pro-business attitude of the court, the Court's willingness to wade back into the climate change debate is far from certain, particularly given the sharp divide that was evident in the Court's seminal Massachusetts v. EPA opinion. One factor that might potentially influence the court’s attitude is that Justice Sotomayor sat on the Second Circuit panel that heard the American Electric case (but was appointed to the Supreme Court before it was decided).

Climate change litigation has enjoyed a roller coaster ride in the year since American Electric was decided by the Second Circuit last September. A few weeks later, the Fifth Circuit ruled in Comer v. Murphy Oil that federal district court had erred in dismissing claims by Gulf property owners who claimed that the defendants' emissions had increased the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina. Although the full Fifth Circuit subsequently agreed to hear en banc rehearing of Comer, so many of the justices recused themselves due to conflicts of interest that the court was left without a quorum. As the order granting rehearing had the effect of vacating the panel opinion, the dismissal of the appeal reinstated the District Court’s original opinion.
 
The Ninth Circuit is also now considering these issues in Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil Oil Corp., a case in which a federal district court in San Francisco dismissed a climate change suit brought by Eskimo villagers who claim that emissions from oil, energy and utility companies have caused Arctic sea ice to recede, threatening their village. In contrast to the opinions of the Second and Fifth Circuits, the California District Court adopted the view that it should not entertain jurisdiction as the public nuisance claims present a non-justiciable political question that should be decided by Congress, not the courts.

Meanwhile, the issue of insurance coverage for climate change claims is moving to the fore. On August 2, 2010, the Virginia Supreme Court announced  that it would agree to hear the insured’s appeal of a state trial court’s ruling AES was not entitled to coverage for the Kivalina plaintiff’s claims on the basis that they failed to seek recovery on account of an "occurrence" as the allegations of climate change were the foreseeable result of the insured's routine discharge of millions of tons of carbon dioxide over the years. Waiting in the wings is the all important issue of whether such claims also involve the discharge of a "pollutant".

"I hear the train a comin’; It’s rolling round the bend..."

Johnny Cash didn’t listen to his mama when he was told to always be a good boy, and don’t ever play with guns.  Instead as the song goes, he shot a man just to see him die, and as a result, spent some time in Folsom Prison wishing he had listened to his mama.

If you own a business that deals with the public, listen to your mama now as the ADA train is coming down the track in the form of extensive changes to Title III of the American’s With Disabilities Act (ADA).  Find out what you will need to do to comply with this new set of rules and guidelines.

Those businesses affected by this Act, defined as “places of public accommodation” and “commercial facilities” include over five million private establishments, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, convention centers, retail stores, shopping centers, dry cleaners, laundromats, pharmacies, doctors' offices, hospitals, museums, libraries, parks, zoos, amusement parks, private schools, day care centers, health spas, and bowling alleys.  Odds are, if you are open to the public, you will need to identify and comply with the new rule as it takes effect in the near future.

These changes include the adoption of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design which provides for revised design standards that are focused on fully implementing the Architectural Barriers Act and associated guidelines published by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.  These changes will require modifications to existing property and buildings.

The new rule further defines what a “service animal” is, and what accommodations need to be made by a business in welcoming guests with service animals, and also in dealing with guests who claim that their pet python or iguana is a service animal.  This is a positive step in assisting businesses in dealing with this issue.

In the era of mobility devices, additional guidance is given as to what a business must do as it respects both traditional mobility devices, such as walkers and wheelchairs, and other more modern devices such as Segways.  The rule requires that a business provide full accommodation to the more traditional devices, and provides guidance as to what extent accommodation is required for other mobility devices.
 
Additionally the new rule requires the implementation of new procedures for businesses when providing reservations to individuals with disabilities, new requirements for ticket sales to events providing accessible seating to those with disabilities, and also guidelines as to the release and pricing of those tickets.  Under auxiliary aids and services, businesses are charged with the responsibility of making sure that those with disabilities are not denied any services or are treated any differently than other individuals when it comes to effective communication with those covered by the act, including the use of interpreters, public telephones, voicemail, and other situations.

These changes will generally be effective within six months after issuance of the rule with a safe harbor provision that may appy that would extend the time for compliance for up to 18 months.

It seems to me that the auto manufacturers have decided the overall cost is simply lower when the recall is voluntary than when the alleged problem comes down to a forced recall.  By "cost", I'm not talking about simply the cost of recalling the cars, which of course is not insignificant.  I just think the overall bottom line is simply helped when it is done voluntarily.  It looks better all the way around - to consumers who see what looks like a proactive company (and thus may become repeat customers), and even ultimately to jurors who see the same thing should it get that far.  It tends to soften the company's image a bit in my estimation - to humanize the image of the "faceless corporation".   I'm sure they also save on attorney fees and the costs of fighting the recalls.  Ultimately companies (especially those that are publicly-traded entities) have to focus on the bottom line, and what's good for the company.  Here, it just sounds like the general consensus is that this path helps the company more.  Plus they get more control over the voluntary recalls (scope, time, etc.), so there's that element as well. 
 
I'm not saying there isn't any degree of altruism involved, because I know these companies are made up of people who do care.  I'm just saying that this brand of altruism happens to coincide with what is judged as best for the bottom line.  Maybe it's just the modern brand of capitalism?