On Firm Ground

Property Insurance For College Kids

2005-08-10T13:36:00.000-04:00

I saw a news story on t.v. about how parents need to worry about getting insurance to cover their college kid's possessions. Apparently, kids who stay in dorms will be covered by their parent's insurance, but those who take off-campus housing will need to get their own renters' insurance.

This was not a big problem when I went to college in the 1980s. Most college students didn't have computers or other expensive equipment. I'm sure there were some exceptions, but I went through my entire college career without ever buying a p.c. (let alone a laptop - did they even exist in the 1980s?).

I think the value of my possessions when I went to college was about $300.

This Story Belongs on the Overlawyered Site

2005-08-10T13:30:00.000-04:00

A guy blames Grand Theft Auto for making him shoot three police officers. He got convicted. But apparently the victims are suing the game manufacturer and two stores.

The Law Firm to Continue on Bravo

2005-08-09T14:28:00.000-04:00

The schedule is here.

The Law Firm, Episode Two: Witness to an Injustice

2005-08-09T14:00:00.000-04:00

NBC has announced that it is canceling the remaining episodes of the Law Firm (thanks to Evan Schaeffer for the link). The announcement came before I had a chance to finish and post my review of Episode Two. I include the portion of my review that I was able to finish, in memoriam:

Like millions of Americans, I watched in shock and horror as Elizabeth was fired on the second episode of The Law Firm. Olivier's survival, after calling an arbitrator's decision "bullshit" to his face, is irrefutable evidence that the producers, and not Roy Black, are calling the shots on who gets fired. Olivier is an annoying, arrogant, whiny baby but his presence creates what passes for drama on reality t.v. The decison not to fire him was a transparent ratings grab that disgusted me so much I am now rooting for the show to fail just to prove that the American viewing public isn't as base as NBC thinks it is.

There is no question that Anika should have been fired for screwing up the defense team's strategy in the Terrorist case by trying to paint the plaintiff, Brad Graves, as a dangerous man, rather than characterizing the whole incident as a silly joke that went wrong.

The main problem I had with the episode is that it sacrificed clarity for melodrama. It failed to explain the legal standards that applied to each case, focusing instead on the more salacious or sensationalist aspects of the cases.

And so we waive goodbye to another bad reality tv show. I thought that, despite its flaws, it would be a big hit. Maybe it will have a second life on Bravo, but for now, it was not meant to be.

Afterthought: It occurs to me that NBC may have pulled the plug, not just because of ratings but because of all the legal and ethical concerns that have been raised by critics of the show. Maybe they are concerned about liability.

Legal Question From a Reader

2005-08-09T10:37:00.000-04:00

Bobby has posted this question in the comments. I thought it was worthy of its own post. Feel free to opine.

I've used [PACER] to follow . . . a waste disposal company's lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (Norton Environmental vs. U.S. Army Corp)

Digression - The company wants to build a landfill near us in Canton. The Army Corps has to approve anything that affects wetlands, which this landfill does. The local congressman, a vice chairman on the House Appropriations Committee, placed provisions in appropriation bills that prohibit the Army Corps from spending federal funds to review the landfill application.

A U.S. District judge in Akron, Ohio, ruled in May that the provisions are unconstitutional - they violate the equal protection clause because they singled out Norton. The judge ordered the Army Corps to resume review of the landfill application. The Justice Department has filed an appeal with the 6th Circuit. In its argument for a stay, which I read off Pacer, the department says that the judge is basically ordering Army Corps staff to spend federal funds that have not been appropriated by Congress, opening the staff to civil penalties.

Can the judge order Congress to appropriate the money?

Really interesting question, Bobby. As I understand it, Congress has appropriated money for the Army Corps. However, it has placed a limitation on how it can spend that money. A court has determined that the limitation is unconstitutional. If that decision is upheld, the Army Corps would be free to go ahead with its review of the landfill application. I gather that the Justice Department's position is that the Army Corps should be stayed from reviewing the landfill application while the appeal is pending, because if the decision is overturned, they will have spent the money without congressional authorization, which would subject them to civil penalties.

I'm not sure if your question "Can the judge order Congress to appropriate the money?" means "does the district court judge's decision amount to an order that congress appropriate the money and, if so, is that permissible?" or "can the judge now, in light of the Justice Department's argument turn around and order congress to appropriate the money for the purpose of reviewing the landfill application?"

Courts can't order Congress to affirmatively appropriate money - all they can do is interpret the law - i.e. determining the constitutionality of congressional acts and applying them to the facts of a particular case. More than that would violate separation of powers.

Guestbook Worthless? You Decide

2005-08-05T09:23:00.000-04:00

I'm taking an informal poll

This morning I checked my email and discovered there were four new entries to my Bravenet Guestbook. When I went to read them, however, all I discovered were a bunch of entries consisting of the words "good site" followed by the person's website. I guess these people must all know each other - or there is some kind of spammer's code of conduct that I don't know about.

Anyway, my question is: should I remove the guest book since it seems to serve no other purpose than to provide spammers with a place to congregate? On the other hand, does its existence deter people from spamming directly in my comments? If so, it might be worth keeping just for that purpose.

As a follow up question - is there anyway to punish these people? Should I retaliate by spamming in their site - or encouraging my readers to spam in their sites? I think I'm above that, don't you? Should I post something on their websites to let then know how I feel about their behavior? Of course, I now I shouldn't feel so annoyed and violated - they are just minor nuisances, after all. Well, thanks for listening. I guess I mostly just wanted to vent.

No Law Firm For Me :(

2005-08-05T09:19:00.000-04:00

Well, being the electronics genius that I am, I failed miserably in my efforts to tape the Law Firm last night. It turns out that, even though your VCR prompts you to enter the channel number of the show you want to tape, you should actually enter channel 3 and set your cable box to the channel you want to tape. Apparently, this is where I went wrong. Now I know.

Fortunately, I had the good sense to anticipate my own ineptitude and asked my boyfriend to tape the show as well. So I will get to see it tonight. Stay tuned for comments.

Update: I did watch the tape and will provide commentary soon - whaddaya want? I'm busy working right now!

NYCLU Suing Over Bag Searches

2005-08-04T13:46:00.000-04:00

This story was on TV in the background as I was getting ready for work this morning. According to the expanded story on Channel 1, the NYPD's policy is to search bags "randomly" based on a mathematical formula (e.g. search every 12 or 14 people). My question is how do you search every 12 people unless they are actually in a line? New Yorkers don't stand in lines to get on subways and trains.

And anyway, as everyone in NYC knows, the police aren't really searching every 12th or 14th person. They are standing around chatting with each other and checking out women. I haven't seen a single search in any of the subway or train stations since this policy was instituted. So if you stand around for an hour without searching anyone and then you decide to search some guy with a backpack, haven't you already violated your "random search" policy by failing to search the 12th or 14th person before him and then the 12th or 14th person before that guy and so on for the previous hour? IMO, this random search policy is BS and serves no purpose other than to create the appearance that there is no racial profiling.

Anyway, predictably, the NYCLU isn't buying the no racial profiling policy and they are preparing to file a lawsuit.

Update: Lawsuit filed

Cute Story That Demonstrates the Advantages of Mediation

2005-08-04T13:30:00.000-04:00

Lemonade Stand Dispute Ends in "Merger"

New York LawyerAugust 4, 2005

By The Associated Press

SALEM, Mass. -- A dispute between two boys hawking lemonade and a rival vendor who forced police to shut down their unlicensed stand was resolved Wednesday after the mayor orchestrated what he called "a corporate merger."

Mayor Stanley Usovicz said sausage stand owner Kevin Kefalas agreed to allow Dominic Serino, 9, and Ryan Decker, 11, to operate as subcontractors under his vending license following an impromptu outdoor meeting initiated by Usovicz.

The agreement expires when school starts.

Kefalas' employee, Jarrod Crowley, reported the boys to police Saturday, saying their stand was affecting his business, which also sells lemonade. He said he didn't want the stand closed, just moved farther away.

But without a $2,200 vendor's license, the police were forced to shut it down.

Crowley said he's endured his share of icy stares since the incident.

Ryan Decker's mother, Angela, said the boys started selling their powder-based brew last summer and made a "killing" -- $130.

Sister of Law Firm Contestant Entered Her For the Show Without Her Knowledge

2005-08-04T09:30:00.001-04:00

According to Law.com article, Aileen Page's sister submitted Page's application and impersonated her through the first few rounds of the vetting process. She finally came clean when the producers asked to meet Page in person.

Page describes the show as "a complete insider's look at what lawyers do."

Her biggest gripe - not having a professional hair and make-up artist to help her look good on camera. I would probably feel the same way.

BTW, cross your fingers for me. I am having dinner with my mom tonight so I had to set my VCR to tape the show (something I haven't done since circa 1989).

Trick of the Trade: Cribbing Briefs With PACER

2005-08-04T09:30:00.000-04:00

The following tip for attorneys is featured today on Tricks of the Trade:

If you find a federal court opinion that you like (or don't like) issued within the last five or six years, use PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) and find the docket sheet for the case in question. You will then likely have access to the briefs filed by both sides that led to the opinion, allowing you to either crib their research or be forearmed with opposition research. It is like having an on-demand brief bank.

Bonus tip: If the briefs were not scanned in (and are therefore unavailable online), call the attorney who filed it -- they may be willing to email a copy to you.

Good tip. I've used PACER way to find court documents which I can then use to draft my own pleadings and briefs.

Tricks of the Trade is a fun blog by Matthew Baldwin that provides daily tips for a variety of professions.

Recently Exonerated Man Convicted of Serial Rape Was Originally Represented by Roy Black

2005-08-04T09:27:00.000-04:00

Luis Diaz, who was convicted of serial rape in 1980, was freed yesterday after DNA evidence cleared him of two of the attacks, casting doubt on the other three convictions.

According to the article, Roy Black said he was "thrilled" by the result.

Black issued the following statement: "That Luis' innocence has finally been admitted is cause for celebration, but nothing can erase the 26 years he spent in prison, in horrible condition, separated from his family."

Actor Blake's First Wife Claims He Put a Hit Out on Her

2005-08-04T00:30:00.000-04:00

According to CNN, Blake's first wife, Sondra Kerr Blake, was deposed in a civil lawsuit filed by Bonnie Lee Bakley's children against Robert Blake. She testified that she learned some time in the 1970s that Blake had put out a hit on her and her then-boyfriend, actor Steve Railsback. Allegedly, Blake had planned to make the double-murder look like a revenge-killing for Kerr Blake's and Railsback's participation in the movie Helter Skelter (about Charles Manson).

Kerr Blake said that the director of Helter Skelter told her about the plot, but she did not as him how he learned about it. Well, call me crazy, but that seems to show a surpising lack of curiosity on her part.

The CNN article pointed out that Kerr Blake did not testify about the alleged hit at Blake's murder trial.

Umm . . . no kidding. Perhaps because that would be double hearsay? And it probably wouldn't be admissible in a civil trial either.

I Really Admire This Lawyer

2005-08-03T00:22:00.000-04:00

Update:

Blogger e nonymous has chastized me in the comments for not including more information in my post about the article, so here is a brief excerpt:

Wagman has made a career out of protecting animals from abuse. While he spends about 20 percent of his time handling product liability defense and labor and employment litigation, the remainder is devoted to animal cases.

I am not a PETA freak, but I love animals and believe that we should work harder to eliminate the suffering caused by the stupidity and selfishness of humans. I admire this lawyer because he has devoted a big part of his career to fighting to protect animals who can't protect themselves.

More Blogging about The Law Firm

2005-08-02T18:40:00.000-04:00

Donald Caster at All Deliberate Speed asks some good questions about the ethics of the reality show, The Law Firm.

For example:

1. How was the client convinced to allow his case to be tried in this forum/format? (Are they really in court, or is this actually just binding arbitration?) Why would it be in the client's best interest to turn his or her case into an episode of reality TV?

As someone noted in the comments to Caster's post, the clients are convinced because they want to be on TV. Clearly this is not a real court - the judges are apparently retired judges and arbitrators. Even if the trial takes place in a "courtroom," the case is actually resolved by binding arbitration. Is it in the client's best interests? That's up to the client to decide.

2. Were there limitations on the clients' ability to decide to settle a case pre-trial? Settlement discussions don't make for very interesting TV.

I wondered the same thing. I imagine that the client must agree to try the case, not to settle it, in order to be on the show.

3. If the lawyer-contestants are judged on criteria apart from merely who wins and who loses, has NBC created a separation of interests between attorney and client (I can't think of a concrete example, but what if an attorney decided a particular argument or strategy might win for the client, but might not look great on TV--maybe it's politically unpopular or just too complicated for the inevitable editing?) If so, how is this ethical?

Also, as we saw in the first episode, winning the case doesn't mean saving your ass from being fired. What is more likely is that the contestants will elevate their desire to win the competition over their duty of loyalty to their clients.

4. NBC's website promises us a behind-the-scenes look. So the clients agreed to waive work product and attorney-client privilege? Again, how is this in their best interests?

Again, the clients must have waived the atty-client privilege as part of their agreement to be on the show. Presumably, they received legal counseling concerning the pros and cons of doing so and made the decision that they felt was in their best interests. I am assuming that, as with People's Court, the TV show covers any damages awarded against a particular party. Arguably, a client who waives the atty-client privilege in exchange for free legal representation and indemnification for any judgment is acting in his own best interests. This is true even for the party who wins the lawsuit, because the judgment is immediately and fully recoverable (unlike real life where most judgments are not fully recoverable).

However, this raises another interesting question. Roy Black blasted one of the teams for failing to seek punitive damages against the Coroner who posed as a police officer and pulled over the plaintiff for speeding. The plaintiff's team won, but did not get a big judgment. Could the plaintiff sue those lawyers for the amount of the punitive damages she should have been awarded? Since a lawyer cannot contractually limit his liability for legal malpractice, I don't see why this couldn't happen. I would hope that the TV show agreed to indemnify the contestants for any claims of legal malpractice against them.

Update: Evan Schaeffer didn't think much of the show.

Based on my quick, informal survey of the blogosphere, I seem to be in the minority in predicting the show will be a hit.

Controversial Ex-Judge Appears on The Law Firm

2005-08-02T09:30:00.000-04:00

New York Lawyer reports that a former California judge, Howard Broadman, who was once censured by the California Supreme Court for discussing cases with the media, is one of the featured judges on The Law Firm. The article requires a subscription (which is free), but I have reproduced it below for convenience:

Censured Ex-Judge Lands Reality TV Gig
New York LawyerAugust 2, 2005
By Warren LutzThe Recorder

Move over Judge Judy and make room for Judge Howard.

Judge Howard is retired Tulare County Superior Court Judge Howard Broadman, whose controversial sentencing techniques once made him the subject of his own "60 Minutes" segment — and landed him in hot water with the state's Commission on Judicial Performance and the California Supreme Court.

Broadman, 55, now acts as a judge on NBC's latest reality game show, "The Law Firm," where a dozen young attorneys participate in an elimination-style competition for $250,000.
Broadman, who works in private practice as an arbitrator and mediator, says he has no idea how he came to be a part of the show.

"They just called me up," he said. "I asked one of the people, 'How did you find me?'"
Broadman is no stranger to the national media.

In 1991, he grabbed attention when he sentenced a woman guilty of child abuse to probation only if she used Norplant, a birth control device that is implanted in a woman's arm.
He resigned from the bench in 1999, a year after being censured by the California Supreme Court for talking to the media about cases, committing willful misconduct and appearing in another judge's courtroom when an attorney he despised was testifying — just to be "an asshole," Broadman said at the time.

Producer David Garfinkle, one of the creators of "The Law Firm," said Broadman was a natural for TV.

"I had seen a story on him on "60 Minutes" years ago, and I was always kind of fascinated by him," Garfinkle said. "He's one I remembered, and we gave him a call."

Garfinkle said the show's producers were looking for unique personalities and a strong presence for the show's judges, who act as arbitrators and decide actual cases. Broadman had both qualities.

Producers also scoured mediation centers looking for retired judges. Four other judges — all formerly Los Angeles County Superior Court judges — appear on the show. "They are all different," Garfinkle said. "But Judge Broadman is quite a character."

While he's been a critic of the justice system in the past, Broadman said he isn't taking his TV role very seriously.

"It is acting, it is entertainment," he said.

He can't talk about the plots of future episodes, which feature increasingly complex cases. But he giggles when he thinks about them. "The fifth episode that I'm on, it's unbelievably creative what they do," he said.

Visalia attorney John Bianco, who tuned in to watch Broadman, said few local attorneys are surprised the judge wound up on the small screen.

"There was some talk about when he retired that he was going to do some television," Bianco said. Bianco added that he doesn't usually enjoy reality TV, but found "The Law Firm" "interesting."

More TV work may be in store for Broadman, but he won't talk specifics. "It's in negotiations," he said. "Other people have contacted me."

Whatever the future holds, he seems to be taking TV fame in stride.

In a phone interview before Thursday's premiere, Broadman could be overheard telling a neighbor, "Don't miss Channel 24 today, they came over today and filmed me at the house!"

Then he turned his attention back to the phone.

"Well-wisher shit," he explained.

The Law Firm

2005-07-29T13:30:00.000-04:00

Like Jeremy, I watched the Law Firm last night, the new reality t.v. show starring "real lawyers, trying real cases, in front of real judges."

I came in about ten minutes late, but I caught up pretty quickly. I predict the show will be a hit. As I posted before, the concept is the People's Court Meets the Apprentice. Having now seen an episode, I believe it has the qualities of each of those shows that made them hugely popular.

I agree with Jeremy that I can probably learn something from this show. I'm not as optimistic that Roy Black's comments will be particularly helpful, however. His instructions are clearly to blast each candidate about something they did wrong since that makes better t.v. than giving constructive criticism. I think I will learn more from watching the candidates and taking note of their strengths and weaknesses.

The Cases:
The cases chosen for the first episode were quirky enough to be interesting, without being outlandish. They involved legal issues that were easy enough for most lay people to grasp quickly. I imagine the complexity of the cases will increase with each episode. Since most lay people have a pretty sophisticated understanding of legal issues nowadays, this shouldn't be a problem. My one criticism is that neither of the cases was a close call on either the law or the facts, so the lawyers' skills did not determine the outcome.

The Losers:
I felt kind of bad for Jason, who made the fatal error of moving to strike the defendants' inflamatory statement in the three-legged dog case. Since Jason represented the plaintiff, the statement actually helped his case, so moving to strike it showed extremely poor judgment. However, I was just in court yesterday morning where I had to field questions fired at me by an irate judge. I discovered that, no matter how good you may be at legal research and brief writing, it is really hard to think on your feet in a courtroom setting. Of course, afterwards, I thought of a dozen better answers than I gave at the time. My experience made me more sympathetic to Jason's faux pas.

Kelly deserved to be booted. Her opening statement was really bad and she was clearly shaken by the judge's harsh comments (in reality, an arbitrator would probably never interrupt a lawyer's opening statement that many times). Nevertheless, Kelly seemed unprepared and inept - which is a lot worse than committing the occasional verbal misstep.

Other Candidates:
Regina is way too much of a control-freak and is too stressed out. She needs to chill. However, I disagreed with Roy that there was much she could have done to control her client on the stand. That guy was uncontrollable. Chris did a great job with objections and cross-examination in the arbitration. I thought Roy's criticism that he took a back seat was unjustified. However, both he and Deep screwed up by undervaluing their client's case and downplaying the egregiousness of the defendant's conduct. The guy impersonated a police officer and pulled a woman driver over, for God's sake. If that's not egregious, what is? Roy was totally right to slam them for that.

What I learned:
Taking chances and being creative can pay off - bringing the three-legged dog into the courtroom was "brilliant" as Roy Black said. Even the judge let them get away with it.

Winning the case doesn't necessarily win you the esteem of your colleagues. Both the losers were on the winning sides of their cases.

Practice your opening and closing statements before a colleague to reduce the likelihood of getting flustered on the day of trial.

Your Reactions?
I would love to get my readers' feedback on the show or my observations.

Forbes Best of the Web is Up

2005-07-29T12:35:00.000-04:00

The list segregates thousands of websites into helpful categories and provides a brief review of each site, including best and worst features.

Thanks to Jim Calloway for the pointer.

The Island Pretty Much Sucked - Some Mild Spoilers Ahead

2005-07-28T00:30:00.000-04:00

The philosophy behind The Island appears to be that if a movie contains enough implausible, death-defying, dizzying action sequences, no one will notice that the plot is an absurd rehash of any number of cheesy sci-fi movies from the 1970s. Watching this movie didn't just require me to suspend my disbelief. It required me to take my disbelief, stick it in a box, wrap it up and stick a card on it that says "Do Not Open Until Christmas."

One of Ebert's issues with the publicity surrounding the movie was that it apparently "gave away the secret" about the Island. I can assure you that, if you’ve seen any of those cheesy 1970s sci-fi movies, you can figure out "the secret" in about five minutes. I think we all know by now that whenever there is a "random" lottery in a sci-fi movie to send people to an idyllic island, well, that's never a good sign. What's really baffling is that the bad guys in the movie manage to keep the "secret" from all the really important people, despite the fact that keeping the "secret" requires the complicity of literally hundreds of people who have no incentive to do so (other than keeping their jobs). Apparently, in the future, American workers have a much more heightened sense of job loyalty than they do today.

On the positive side, Ewan McGregor does a good job portraying a 30-something year-old man with the psychological development of a teenager. Scarlett Johansson fails to convey the same innocent charm that McGregor does, but manages to look absolutely stunning, even after (1) running for miles through the desert, (2) being chased by hit-men in futuristic vehicles on a Los Angeles Freeway, (3) crashing into one side of a glass skyscraper on a flying motorcycle all the way through and out the other side, and (4) falling from the top of the skyscraper while being shot at by men in helicopters and landing in a big net that happened to be in the right place at the right time. All without a hair out of place or make-up smudged. Amazing.

The best part of the movie for me was Steve Buscemi, who is always fun to watch and has the best lines. My favorite: When asked by the innocents "what's God?" he replies "You know when you're lying in bed at night and you close your eyes and wish for something you want really badly. Well, God is the guy who ignores you." Now, that's funny.

Letter From a Reader: "Hey! Is That Legal?"

2005-07-27T00:19:00.000-04:00

I received an email from a friend who asks the eternal question "What a minute - is that legal?" Read his question and give him your thoughts:

Dear Lawgirl

This fall there'll be a limited Broadway run of The
Odd Couple with Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick.
Prime location seats were priced at $250.  The next
highest ticket price is $100.  The first day tickets
went on sale via phone and internet, sales were
astronomical.

Credit cards have been charged for the purchases, but
tickets have not been mailed out.  Recently, many
people who purchased $100 tickets have received
letters from Ticketmaster saying a mistake was made
and their tickets should have been sold for $250.
Their only option is to authorize an additional $150
charge per ticket or their purchase will be forfeited.
Complaints to Ticketmaster have gained no results.

Obviously, people are furious and suspect that the
producers have discovered that people will be
perfectly willing to buy more $250 tickets than they
expected, so they've just raised the ticket price.

Can they do this?

Dear Furious

Off the top of my head, I think the answer is "yes."

As anyone who studied for the NY Bar Exam may recall, a theater ticket is generally considered to be a "revocable license" rather than a "property right." A theater ticket permits you to sit in that theater seat on the specified night (the property) but, because it is only a license, it is revocable for any reason by the property owner.

Compare this with your apartment lease, which gives you a property right in your apartment for the period of your lease. If your landlord tries to renege on your lease, you can sue him for "specific performance" (i.e. the right to get possession of your apartment). By contrast, if the ticket seller reneges on the ticket sale, the most you can get is a refund of your money. You are not entitled to "specific performance" (i.e. the right to sit in that seat and watch the show).

I wish I had better news for the disappointed theater-goers. Hopefully, there will be enough bad publicity from this situation, the producers will change their policy.

If anyone else out there has another opinion, please make yourself known.

Love the Lawgirl

Random Searches and Racial Profiling

2005-07-26T18:50:00.000-04:00

This NY Times Editorial addresses a topic that has been floating around in the back of my mind since NYC announced it would be instituting random searches of backpacks and packages: Where, as here, the search policy has been instituted in direct response to arab terrorist concerns, how do we avoid racial profiling? Anyone who studied Con Law knows that racial profiling is unconstitutional, and yet this is the one situation where doing otherwise is arguably a pointless exercise. Maybe this seems like a callous or even racist question, but is anyone really concerned right now about non-arabs carrying backpacks or large packages? The Times editorial cautions that police should not conduct searches "in a way that does not raise fears of racial profiling - by, for example, searching every 5th or 12th person, with the exact sequence chosen at random." This suggestion, while meeting the constitutional requirements, ignores the reality that prompted the search policy to begin with. By asking police to ignore the ethnic component, are we simply tying their hands, making their jobs harder, and increasing the security risk? Moreover, are we creating a mythology that everyone knows to be false - that the searches are truly random and arabs will not be specific targets?

UPDATE: My boyfriend points out that racial profiling will likely result in a backlash by arabs and muslims, thereby increasing security risks in the long run. He thinks resources should be spent on training more bomb-sniffing dogs to patrol high-risk areas.

And, of course, as everyone knows - except apparently our elected officials - federal funds should be distributed along more rational lines so that high-risk cities get the resources they need. The blood of the next terrorist attack in New York, D.C. or any other high-risk city will be on the hands of every politician who failed to ensure that those funds were properly apportioned. At least that's my opinion.

Great Speech About Law and Justice

2005-07-23T12:06:00.000-04:00

Law is more than the words that put it on the books; law is more than any decisions that may be made from it; law is more than the particular code of it stated at any one time or in any one place or nation; more than any man, lawyer or judge, sheriff or jailer, who may represent it. True law, the code of justice, the essence of our sensations of right and wrong, is the conscience of society. It has taken thousands of years to develop, and it is the greatest, the most distinguishing quality which has evolved with mankind. None of man's temples, none of his religions, none of his weapons, his tools, his arts, his sciences, nothing else he has grown to, is so great a thing as his justice, his sense of justice. The true law is something in itself; it is the spirit of the moral nature of man; it is an existence apart, like God, and as worthy of worship as God. If we can touch God at all, where do we touch him save in the conscience? And what is the conscience of any man save his little fragment of the conscience of all men in all time?

It's from "The Oxbow Incident" by Walter Van Tilburg Clark, which I just finished reading.

How does this description compare with your view of the law? As a lawyer, do you care about justice? Do you even think about it?

More Biglaw Disfunction

2005-07-22T12:36:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine who works as a third-year associate at a large New York firm recently gave her notice. Since then, the partners have been treating her with the respect and dignity they should have been showing all along.

Now it's "can you handle this assignment?" rather than "here's the assignment - it's due Monday morning," (after which it will languish with the partner until she/he returns it with comments on Friday evening to be revised by Monday morning).

What explanation can there be for this type of pathological behavior? Why treat people like crap for years, only to start being nice to them after it is too late?

My theory is that these partners view associates merely as so much fodder to be chewed up and spat out. Like all abusers, they expect you to take the abuse, but they despise and look down on you for your passivity. There are only two ways to win their respect: (1) to survive the abuse long enough to qualify as an abuser yourself (i.e. last the seven or eight years it takes to be considered for partner) or (2) say "enough is enough!" and get out by your third or fourth year.
Any other theories out there?

More Blasts in London

2005-07-21T11:14:00.000-04:00

Bastards.

Update: Incompetent Bastards

Yay For New York!

2005-07-15T18:10:00.000-04:00

New York has passed a law authorizing direct shipment of out-of-state wine to New York consumers. It has been described in the wine industry as "the most liberal direct-shipment law in the country."

The legislation (which Pataki has been pushing for years) was prompted by this year's Supreme Court's decision striking down state restrictions on direct ordering wines from out-of-state wineries.

The Supreme Court held that states like NY either had to let all wineries sell directly to consumers or block all shipments. I'm glad to report that NY made the right choice.

Helpful List of Things Every Law Firm Associate Should Know

2005-07-15T12:45:00.000-04:00

Anonomoust first-year associate (posting under the name Stan Stankowski) provides a list of ten things new associates should know. While it is partly tongue in cheek, it is essentially accurate.

I feel I do need to add one caveat to the list, because of its gender-biased perspective. Item no. 4 warns that "Associates who are in their seventh and eighth years are not your friends. They are not anyone's friend. They are mean and devious. This is a result of being too expensive and old to lateral and a constant fear that they will not make partner, coupled with the pressure of a wife and three kids and a mortgage. It isn't their fault. Really."

Of course Stan's post seems to assume that these mean seventh and eight year associates are male and attributes at least some of their meanness to pressure from the wife and three kids.

As most junior associates quickly learn, there are many female senior associates who are even meaner and more devious as their male counter-parts, which I think can be partly explained by the fact that they don't have wives at home taking care of the three kids.

Employment Advice: Advice on Dealing with a Difficult Supervisor

2005-07-15T12:42:00.000-04:00

An employment advice columnist at nylawyer.com, Holly English, fields the question "What can I do about working for a blowhard partner?" Because nylawyer.com requires a subscription, I will reproduce the question and answer below and add my own response after that.

The Question:

What can I do about working for a blowhard partner? This guy drives me nuts. He brags constantly, is very verbose, wastes my time with his incessant chatter, has an absurdly high opinion of himself, and in general is a pompous jerk.

To his credit, he’s very smart and a great litigator, and in fact when he’s in a good mood he’s one of the few partners who actually thinks enough to hand out some compliments. But working with him is agony. He’s borderline abusive -- he gets very cranky when under pressure, and shoots the messenger when the news isn’t good, but then is all sweetness and light when he’s in a good mood. What can I do?

The Answer:

One of the most common problems I hear about is a difficult supervisor. On a daily basis it’s one of the main things that can affect a person’s opinion of their job the most, no matter what field they’re in.

You don’t include any information about whether there are other partners to work with, whether you are very deep into the area of litigation that this guy does, etc., so it’s hard to tell how much flexibility you would have to quietly shift away from him within the firm. So for now I’ll figure you’re stuck with him and suggest some coping mechanisms.

Repeat after me: it’s not you. One problem that people often have with abusive bosses is they internalize the strife and feel they are to blame, in some fashion. You have to minimize this tendency so you don’t start to feel beaten down, depressed and demoralized. Talk frequently with trusted friends, your spouse, or whomever, so that you don’t keep this stuff to yourself and lose perspective.

Figure out diplomatic and safe ways to rat on him. An abusive partner is a risk factor for the law firm. I’m not saying that anyone will necessarily do anything about the guy if they are clearly informed about his nasty behavior (especially if he’s a big business getter), but they should know. If HR is actually any help you can talk with them, on a confidential basis (but you must make sure that they can be trusted.) You may be able to discuss this with a trusted mentor; if so, make sure to link your personal concerns with those of the firm, such as: "Jim’s constant talking makes it difficult for me to get my work done, and therefore to make my billable hours." That keeps your comments on a professional level. If you’re not comfortable telling someone, like a mentor, what’s going on in a direct manner, instead drop the occasional hint, like "Well, you know Jim," with rolled eyes and a long-suffering smile, and then move on to another subject. That way you’ll get the message across that there’s a problem without being too obvious.

Learn all you can. If he’s good at his job, you can learn despite his stupid antics. Keep your eye on the ball and, in an opportunistic fashion, absorb all you can from him. And take advantage in other ways. If the guy is well connected, and can help you advance, make sure you take advantage. This is in the "silver lining" category.

Long term, if you can’t get away from him, you’ll have to leave. If you can’t avoid working with him, I strongly suggest leaving the firm. Life is short and there’s no reason to put up with such a stressful situation for too long.

Finally, my sympathies. A source of constant amazement to me is that the world is full of awful bosses, and nothing much seems to get done about them.

Lawgirl's Answer:

Dear Agonized Associate

I don't know much about your law firm, but if it is anything like most large firms, reporting a difficult partner or senior associate to an HR rep or a senior partner is about as effective as reporting to George Bush that Karl Rove leaked confidential information to a reporter.

Regardless of the lip service they pay to the principle of good employee relations, large firms could care less about the misery and suffering of junior associates. They know that most of you will be gone within a few years. Any incentive they have to enhance your job satisfaction is far outweighed by their desire to exploit your time, energy and talent as much as possible before you leave. You are expendable. Partners, on the other hand, are stuck with each other for life and they let each other get away with the most abusive and outrageous behavior.

Sorry to say, your situation sounds hopeless, especially since this abusive partner sounds as though he is one of the better of the bunch (considering he is the only one who bothers to hand out compliments - at least when he remembers to take his medication).

Your only option is to grit your teeth and bear it until you have put in your time at the large firm and are ready to move on to a healthier environment. Sorry to be so harsh but I find it's best not to sugar-coat this kind of thing.

Best of luck with your career.

Lawgirl

Ebbers Wept

2005-07-13T23:26:00.000-04:00

Apparently, he actually wept when he was sentenced. Now I feel kind of bad for him.

This is One for the the Really Stupid Lawsuits File

2005-07-13T23:20:00.000-04:00

Apparently a bunch of people in Japan are suing Tokyo's governor for insulting the French by referring to the French language as a "failed international language."

Actually, the governor had an interesting theory for why French did fail as the Lingua Franca, so to speak. He attributes its demise to the unwieldiness of the French numbering system.

Working on a Saturday

2005-07-09T08:59:00.000-04:00

So, here I am at work on a beautiful Saturday morning, when I should be home doing laundry and snuggling with my kitty. But, actually, I don't mind too much, because the case I'm working on is interesting and kind of sexy. I'm also learning an entirely new area of law (for me) - false advertising - and getting a chance to work with some of the fun people in our advertising group.

This is only the third or fourth time I've had to work on a weekend since I joined this law firm in September of last year, compared to the many times I had to work weekends at the Evil Empire.

I tell you. Not a day goes by that I don't think about how lucky I am to have escaped that life of indentured servitude. I had drinks with my two best friends from my Evil Empire days the other night - one of whom is still there. My heart went out to her as I listened to her tale of woe and I shook my head in amazement thinking about the sick, dysfunctional, insanity that passes for professionalism at a large New York law firm.

$50 Billion in Aid for Africa

2005-07-08T16:24:00.000-04:00

It was suggested on another blawg that, in light of the London attacks, security issues relating to terrorism should take global precedence over issues of poverty in Africa. I'm glad that the G-8 leaders didn't feel that way. That really would have been a victory for the terrorists.

Orin Kerr explains it all to you

2005-07-08T08:00:00.000-04:00

It's the Only Supreme Court Editorial you Need to Read. I'd say it pretty much sums up all of the commentary I've read on the subject.

Rehnquist Retiring Tomorrow?

2005-07-07T19:18:00.000-04:00

KoS reports that the rumor going around DC now is that Rehnquist will announce his retirement tomorrow.

Prosecutor gets "Dooced" For Negative Job-Blogging

2005-07-06T12:14:00.001-04:00

This is the post that got him fired.

New York Loses, London Wins

2005-07-06T08:20:00.001-04:00

But CNN Money has a positive spin. Apparently, getting the olympics is like being handed a big white elephant.

Pope's Letter to His Would-be Assassin Found

2005-07-06T08:20:00.000-04:00

The letter asked: "Why did you gun me down, when we both believe in one God?"

This seems like an ironic question coming from someone who should have known something about the history of Christianity and the Catholic Church.

Get a Glimpse into an Accused Child Abductor's Mind

2005-07-05T18:30:00.000-04:00

Update: A commentor on another blog says that the archives of Duncan's blog are infected with the trojan virus, fyi

Joseph Duncan, the guy who is accused of kidnapping Shasta Groene, has a blog called The Fifth Nail.

One of his early posts in January 2004:

I realize now who this blog is really for. It is for me. That explains why I so doggedly insist on painstakingly making entry after entry, even though I know no one is ever going to read it. Now I understand why it seems so important to me. This blog is my connection to who I am and who I am becoming. It is a way for me to connect to who I was, so I can better understand who I will become. Just like the guy in the movie The Butterfly Effect, I can't explain, so why do I even try. Because I know what I know, and that is all anyone can know.

Actually, he does seem to have quite a few readers, at least recently. He gets more comments than I do, that's for sure! Check out some of the comments to his last entries in May. Very interesting.

Other excerpts:

January 2004:

What red blooded American would stick up for a sex offender? And, what Arian blooded Nazi would stick up for a Jew? If you think there is a difference, then think again.

May 2004:

I dreamed last night about being in prison again. This time it was very realistic, and coherent (the worst kind, because I really believe I am in prison again). What was really interesting about this dream though was when another inmate asked me why I was there I told him, "To remember." And while I did not realize I was dreaming when I said it, I did somehow understand that that was the true reason for my being there. It didn't make it any less pleasant.

August 2004:

Even though the chances of a child being abducted by a stranger are less than the same child being struck by lightening, or bitten by a shark, children today are preoccupied with that fear. Fear is the beginning of isolation, confusion and hate. All governments know that the biggest threat to their power over the people is unity amongst the people. Governments throughout history have sought ways to disrupt that unity. Our government is the master of this technique. It is routine and even expected for our children to turn in their parents if they even suspect they are not conforming. Our children are taught in schools, "Do not talk to strangers, they are dangerous and want to hurt you." "If any adult makes you feel uncomfortable, run away and report them immediately." "The police are your friends."
What a great way to keep our children from learning new things and thinking for themselves. The last thing the government wants you to do is think, the first is to feel...Fear!

February 2005:

The only cure for crime is Love. Everything else is just more crime.

May 2005:

I am scared, alone, and confused, and my reaction is to strike out toward the perceived source of my misery, society. My intent is to harm society as much as I can, then die.

Thanks to TalkLeft for the link.

OMG! It's Coming! Prepare for Tropical Storm . . . Cindy!!!

2005-07-05T17:30:00.000-04:00

Cindy?

That's what we're naming tropical storms these days? What's up with that? It's not even a real name. It's a nickname. Not only that, but it's the nickname of a five-year old girl with blond ringlettes, lacey ankle socks and patent leather shoes.

What's next? Tropical Storm Snookums? Hurricane Pookie?

Sheesh. A little respect for the awesome power of nature, please.

Time's 50 Coolest Websites is up

2005-07-05T01:00:00.000-04:00

I Was Thinking About Getting my Dad an iPod for his Birthday

2005-07-04T10:10:00.000-04:00

But I've changed my mind. This article about the iPod-related murder of a teenager basically clinched it for me. Very sad.

Giving a 75 year old man an iPod would be like sending a sheep out among wolves, as far as I'm concerned.

Woman Evicted for Being Assaulted in her Apartment

2005-07-02T11:41:00.000-04:00

This is the kind of thing that gives landlords a bad name. The story has a link to the landlord's website, which in turn has an email address. Don't let me stop you if you feel like sending them an email with your opinion on their actions.

Save the Supreme Court NOW!

2005-07-01T12:59:00.000-04:00

With the O'Connor resignation a done deal, Bush may have the opportunity to appoint TWO Supreme Court justices. This is a nightmare. The call has gone out for rational Americans to mobilize and save the court from being overtaken by reactionary ideologues.

Dailykos.com has a list of things you can do to save the Supreme Court, including writing a letter to the President or - perhaps more effectively - to your Senator.

SaveTheCourt.org needs support and donations. Please help!

A recent poll shows that the vast majority of Americans do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Will the Democrats have the cajones to stand up for what their constituents want or will they screw this up, like they did the election? I'm afraid I'm not feeling too optimistic. Let's hope they surprise us.

WHOA!

2005-07-01T12:55:00.000-04:00

I know that there were rumors, but damn, I was hoping she would hold out longer - at least until we have a new president. Yikes. This is a biggie.

Here is her resignation letter:

Oops, Wrong Number

2005-07-01T12:50:00.000-04:00

This had to be embarrassing for the caller:

My telephone just rang and, when I picked up, the caller said "Hello, this is C___ B___ and I need to schedule a Barium Enema."

I tried to keep the chuckle out of my voice when I said "I'm sorry, I think you have the wrong number," but I don't think I succeeded.

Just one of those things that makes you grateful that video phones never caught on.

On the other hand, Citibank's customer service is starting to annoy me

2005-07-01T12:40:00.000-04:00

Citibank has started hawking new products and services to its customers each time they call up for assistance.

The first time it happened, I was calling to find out why a transfer had not cleared. At the end of the telephone call, the rep started to pitch me on increasing my overdraft protection. I have never used my existing $500 overdraft protection, but I thought, what the heck. Maybe it makes sense and that way I can get rid of the cushion in my checking account and move it to my savings account at Capital One, where I get 3.2% interest. However, I specifically asked the rep: "will this require a new credit check, because that can adversely affect my credit rating?" He told me that they would not need to do a new credit check, because they would just rely on the original credit check. Hmmm . . . that sounded strange, but I allowed him to transfer me to the appropriate department anyway.

When that guy came on the line, I asked again: "will this require a new credit check?" He responded: "yes, of course." So, I asked: "then why did the other guy tell me it would not require a credit check?" He said (somewhat derisively), "well, I guess he didn't know." Hmmm . . . then why didn't he just say that, I wonder. Anyway, I told him I wasn't interested and hung up.

The next time it happened, I was calling to order a new debit card, because my magnetic strip was dead. At the end of that call, the rep said: "I noticed you have an E-Z checking account, which requires you to maintain $1500 minimum balance to avoid charges. If you open a savings account, you can link that to your checking account and earn interest on that money. Would you like me to transfer you to the savings department?" After my last experience, I was skeptical, partly because I didn't think I needed to maintain a $1500 balance and partly because I knew Citibank's savings account interest was pathetic compared to Capital One's interest. But I said "okay, I'll talk to them." Of course, it turned out the whole thing was a waste of time, because I have my paychecks direct deposited, which waives the $1500 minimum balance.

So, I asked the Savings rep: "why did the other lady tell me I have to maintain a $1500 balance?" and she said, you guessed it: "Well, I guess she didn't know."

The Savings rep still tried to sell me on the savings account, but I explained to her that I get 3.2% interest at Capital One compared to the measly .55% Citibank offers. She didn't really know how to respond to that.

I don't mind that Citibank offers products and services to existing clients, but I wish they would offer training and information to their customer service reps first.

Turning Bad Customer Service into Good

2005-07-01T12:30:00.000-04:00

This morning I met my friend and former co-worker for our weekly Friday breakfast at Au Bon Pain on 49th Street between Madison and 5th. I ordered a breakfast sandwich on toast and it came out on a bagel. It took them almost fifteen minutes to correct their mistake (did they have to bake the bread from scratch? I don't know). Anyway, there were two managers hovering around making sure everyone was taken care of in the morning rush. Both of them apologized profusely and offered to comp my breakfast. Thanks to their attention to customer service, ABP did not lose a customer today. Nice job.

Procrastination pays off

2005-07-01T09:00:00.000-04:00

After my graduation in 2002, I had planned to consolidate my student loans, but I missed the deadline the first year, and then the second year. This turned out to be a boon, because the rates just kept going down and down. This year, in the face of dire predictions and warnings, I, like many others, scurried to consolidate before the June 30 deadline. I was told that my new loan will cut my monthly payments in half. This makes me very happy because my rent will double when I move to my new apartment in the fall, so the extra cash will come in handy. Yay!

Lawgirl's Guide to New York Dives and Deals

2005-06-27T08:30:00.000-04:00

In a city of $20 brunches, Flight 151 is a refreshing departure (no pun intended). The restaurant's name is presumably inspired by its kitschy flight-school decor (vintage propeller airplanes flying into clouds - that sort of thing). But the real inspiration is its $7.95 weekend brunch special, which includes home fries or steak fries, sausage or bacon, toast, and a drink. I took advantage of the build-your-own omelet option to customize a Cheddar cheese, mushroom and tomato omelet, while my boyfriend ordered the salmon and cream cheese omelet. The salmon was a bit too fishy for our tastes, but as my boyfriend said, at $7.95, he was probably being too optimistic. The breakfast sausages were delicious - the best I've tasted in New York. The food was served in generous - as opposed to coma-inducing - portions by a friendly, efficient waitress. Although our Entertainment Book coupon garnered us one free meal, the brunch is a good deal even at full price.

Lawgirl's Guide to New York Dives and Deals

2005-06-22T23:25:00.000-04:00

Tonight my boyfriend and I stumbled on the Portfolio Restaurant and Gallery after the outdoor concert we planned to attend in Madison Square Park was rained out. We were wandering around the flatiron district looking for a place to eat and discovered this little gem tucked away on 19th Street just west of 5th Avenue. I was a slightly hesitant because the place was practically deserted, but the menu looked reasonable and it was the only restaurant we encountered after walking four blocks in the downpour.

Well, I have to say it was delicious. We shared one appetizer (mussels in wine sauce), the Pizza De Palma (mozzarella, ham and arugula), and the chocolate mousse pie (yummmm). We also ordered a pint of beer and two glasses of Australian Shiraz (I won't say who had the two drinks - hic!). The homemade bread, which was served hot with olive oil, was positively addictive.

The total (including tax and tip) was about $50.00. It's definitely not a dive and maybe it doesn't quite qualify as a deal, but the prices are not bad for New York. The food tastes fresh and homemade, the atmosphere was warm and relaxed, and the service was very good. You can have an excellent, satisfying meal for a decent price surrounded by beautiful artwork.

Apparently, they deliver in the area.

Speaking of deals, even though our concert was a washout, there will be many more opportunities to hear free music at Madison Square Park this summer. Here is the schedule.

And see a more complete listing of free concerts here.

I MUST Have This Shirt

2005-06-17T17:10:00.000-04:00

That's all I have to say.

Except thanks to Daniel Drezner for the link.

Did You Know Diesel Cars Can Run on Soy Oil?

2005-06-17T14:45:00.000-04:00

This guy does.

Apparently, the mileage isn't bad, either.

Lawgirl's Guide to New York Dives and Deals

2005-06-17T12:02:00.000-04:00

New York is such a great town, but it can be mighty expensive to feed and amuse yourself. Nevertheless, the city is jam-packed with low-priced eateries and venues for those of us who don't want to drop $200 bucks on an evening's food and entertainment. Like most New Yorkers, I love to find great deals in the city and to share my discoveries with others.

To that end, I am starting a new series highlighting some the affordable dives and deals I've found in the city.

This week's cheap eatery is the Festival Restaurant, a Mexican dive (and I mean that in the nicest sense) located at 120 Rivington Street (one block from the Delancy Street station on the F-line). My boyfriend and I had dinner there this week and loved it. The bill for our meal, which consisted of Chicken mole with rice and beans, nachos with chorizo, a beer and a margarita, came to $28.00, including tip. Tortilla chips and spicy hot salsa were included. The mole was very good, the chicken was tender and moist, the chorizo nachos were delicious. I thought the margarita was a little weak. The restaurant was almost empty when we arrived at 7:30, but was filling up by the time we left an hour later. Pretty good for a Wednesday night.

After dinner, we headed over to Sin-e, at 15 Attorney Street and Stanton, where we heard a lively battle of bands (boys vs. girls). It was a fun laid-back venue, with an $8 cover and a beer/wine bar. The club entrance is around the corner from the main entrance to the bar. The cover varies between $8 and $10, so check the website. They sell earplugs for $1.00.

Animal Cruelty? No. Hypocrisy? You Decide

2005-06-17T12:00:00.000-04:00

Two PETA employees have been charged with animal cruelty for dumping the corpses of euthanized animals in trash bins near a shopping center. It's not clear from the article how the animals died, but painless euthanasia is not generally considered to be a criminal offense.

Assuming the animals were euthanized humanely, I don't think PETA or its employees are guilty of animal cruelty for desecrating the dead bodies of Fido and Felix. I do think they are guilty of breathtaking hypocrisy.

Anyone who still thinks PETA is an ethical organization should check out Penn & Teller's wonderful expose on Showtime.

Microsoft Word Ban or Who Really Cares?

2005-06-16T17:47:00.000-04:00

Microsoft joins Yahoo in capitulating to China's demand to censor the use of certain words on weblogs, including Freedom, Democracy, Human Rights, and Taiwan Independence. Many are critical, but my position is: who cares? Censoring specific words is a pointless exercise, since bloggers are experienced at circumventing such restrictions. Microsoft's agreement with China is meaningless except in the most symbolic sense.

Big Firm, Small Firm - Part Two: Client Contact

2005-06-16T13:40:00.000-04:00

This post on Blawgwisdom reminds me that I had intended this post to be first in a series comparing big firm life to small firm life. Time for a new installment.

When you are interviewing for your first law firm job, one of the issues you're expected to discuss (in order to demonstrate your thoughtful approach to the interviewing process) is client contact.

As in:

How much client contact will I have as an associate in your firm?

My clinical experience gave me the opportunity for a lot of client contact.

While I enjoy researching and writing, I recognize that client contact is one of the most important aspects of legal practice.

For low-level associates at big firms, client contact is pretty much a myth. Client contact is almost exclusively handled by partners and a few senior associates, who will take it as a personal offense if you attempt to engage in any activity that might remotely be interpreted as client contact (such as calling up a client to ask a question or clarify a point of information for a brief you are writing). Before contacting a client about anything, you must first navigate the precarious tightrope of the big firm hierarchy - you call the mid-level associate, who calls the senior associate, who calls the partner, who in some cases then has to call the billing partner. All to find out if the Senior VP of Sales for the corporate client first contacted the plaintiff in November or December of 1991.

Of course, don't even suggest calling the client until you've waded through thousands of documents to see if you can find the information there, because you never ever take up five minutes of the client's time asking a simple question if you can find the same information on your own in about five hours.

At a small firm, it's a different world. Unlike large firms, where cases are generally heavily staffed with layers of lawyers, a small firm will usually staff all but the largest cases with only one partner and one associate. This is a big adjustment for an associate transitioning from a large firm to a small firm. Suddenly, client contact is the name of the game. As long as the partners feel you are not a complete buffoon (and they would not hire you if they thought so) you will be in contact with firm clients practically before you've finished filling out your W-2 form.

Sounds wonderful, you say! After all, isn't that what we want? Weren't you just talking about the importance of client contact? Isn't signficant client contact one sign of professional advancement? Sure, that may all be true, but you will need even more skill to navigate the minefield of client relations than you did to navigate the hierarchy of a large firm. In other words, client contact is a double-edged sword.

Here are a few DOs and DON'Ts I've learned about client relations in my short career:

1. DO think of your clients as people, rather than nameless, faceless entities.

In a small firm, clients are usually individuals rather than big corporations. As an associate in a big firm, you can forget that there are individual clients behind those corporate names, because you rarely see or speak to them. In a small firm, you must jettison this attitude. Clients have feelings and can often be very emotionally invested in their cases. Soothing those feelings and reassuring them about their anxieties, while still being realistic, is part of your job. Develop a personal rapport with your client. Remember their kid's names (or their pet's names) and ask about them. Pay attention to the personal clues they give you and draw on them later. For example, a client just told me he was coming up on a big promotion in a couple of months. I scheduled a reminder to ask him about it and sent an email to the partner suggesting we send the client a gift when it goes through.

2. DO have a split personality.

On the one hand, you must make the client feel that you are 100% on his or her side. On the other hand, you must try to maintain 100% objectivity about the merits and viability of your clients' case.

3. On a similar note, DON'T create false expectations of success.

My clients sometimes want reassurance that they have a good chance of winning a motion or the case itself. I prefer to be more pessimistic than optimistic and to emphasize that litigation can be kind of a crap-shoot. Many uncontrollable factors can influence the outcome. As in life, hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

4. DO COMMUNICATE.

I am starting to believe that good communication is as important as achieving a great result. Maybe I'll change this view, but right now, my clients seem happier when they know what is going on, even if it is bad news. Remember to take advantage of the fact that communication is a two-way street (pardon the cliche). It may be obvious, but some lawyers seem to forget that the client is the best resource for developing the case. At a big firm, low-level associates will spin their wheels for hours (wasting time and the client's money) trying to develop the facts of a case. Develop a relationship with the client where you are comfortable picking up the phone and getting information directly from the horse's mouth. I say this with the caveat that, of course, you should never call the client to ask them a question you should already know the answer to.

5. DO think of them as your clients, not just the firm's clients.

Be as invested in your clients as you would if they were paying you directly for your services.

6. DO treat each client as if he/she is special, with kindness, patience and respect.

I have actually heard of lawyers telling their clients "you are not my only client. This is not my only case." Why? Don't we want to make our clients feel they are more important, not less? When speaking with a client, don't let impatience or frustration seep into your voice because you are feeling stressed and pressured. Do not be rude or brusque. You may need to explain things several times before they understand. Don't talk to them as if they are sophisticated legal thinkers, but don't condescend to them either.

7. DO be conscious of everything you write about your client.

While we have all experienced frustrating moments with clients, do not document your frustration, even in a short email to another lawyer in the firm. Whenever I am faced with this temptation, I remind myself that most of what I write on the client's behalf belongs to the client and may - in some context - be disclosed to the client. The problems that would arise in that situation would far outweigh the temporary satisfaction I would get from venting in the moment. This is sort of an unrelated point, but also be careful about criticizing a judge in a written communication to your client. What if the client relationship ends up in a fee dispute or malpractice litigation? God forbid the case ends up before the same judge, or someone who is friends with that judge. Opposing counsel would love nothing more than to waive around that memo you wrote to the client saying "Judge Smith, like most judges, is an idiot and doesn't understand the merits of your claims."

8. At some point, DO think of the client as the firm's client and not yours.

Yes, I know this rule appears to contradict Rule No. 5, but if a client starts to make your life really miserable, I think this rule supercedes. If you have an extremely difficult or even abusive client, do not get drawn into a dysfunctional relationship. As an associate, you have no power to choose or reject clients or cases. That is the Partner's call and, therefore, it is the partner's responsibility to be a buffer between you and a really difficult client. If your partner refuses to do this, you have decide if you can continue to function in that environment.

9. DON'T complain to your client.

You are there to deal with your client's problems, not the other way around. Never complain about your job or badmouth a partner, no matter how comfortable you feel talking to the client.

10. DO remember that the client will be reviewing your bills.

Be descriptive with your entries and review your descriptions using your client's eyes. How would you feel about the entry if you were the client? Of course, as an associate, you should never never write down your own time. Leave that to the partner. But if you think a client might be unhappy with a billing entry or with the amount of time spent on a project, draw the partner's attention to the entry as a potential candidate for discounting.

Stay tuned for another installment of Big Firm, Small Firm and feel free to suggest topics of interest for this series.

Thanks also to Ambivalent Ambroglio for linking to part one of the series.

Little Things that Make a Difference

2005-06-15T17:36:00.000-04:00

I am in apartment hunting mode and I recently found a blog that I have fallen in love with, called Apartment Therapy.

It has great advice and resources on home decorating. This post is about little things you can do to improve your living experience.

Some tips:

• When you wake in the morning, make your bed.
• Always leave the shower curtain pulled across, so that it can dry and not mildew.
• Use your kitchen in the morning, even if it only to have a glass of orange juice.
• Always include a thank you note with your rent.
• Don’t let your refrigerator fill up with old food. Clean it out at least once a week.
• Floss each night.
• Put all clothes away or in the laundry before going to bed each night.
• Get in bed early and read a novel for ½ hour.

Proposed New Immigration Policy

2005-06-11T10:08:00.000-04:00

Apparently four of the the cuban vintage taxi boat refugees will be permitted to stay in the U.S. When I saw the headline, I hoped it was because the government officials were so tickled by their creativity that they decided to waive the immigration laws. The real reason is far more mundane: they have valid immigration documents.

But it did give me an idea to institute a new refugee immigration policy. I think we should award legal status to a certain number of refugees each year who come up with the most creative methods of entering the country. One requirement, of course, is that physical harm to any person or animal will result in automatic disqualification.

Maybe it could be a reality TV show with callers voting on who they think should win.

Reflections of a Blogging Neophyte

2005-06-08T16:37:00.000-04:00

Daniel Solove has been blogging for about as long as I have and has already scooped my idea to do a post reflecting on the blogging experience after about one month. His list on Prawfsblog is practically identical to the one I have in my head and is a fun read (with a very cute cartoon).

Courtesy of Howard Bashman

Kentucky Lawyers Also Welcome Here

2005-06-08T12:16:00.000-04:00

In response to the decision by the Kentucky Attorneys Advertising Commission to categorize blawgs as advertisements, Evan Shaeffer has come up with a creative idea to allow Kentucky lawyers to be guest posters on his blog, which would fall into an exception to the Kentucky legal advertising rules.

More information on this issue can be found here, here, here and here.

I would also like to offer my blog to any Kentucky lawyers who wish to continue blogging until this issue is resolved.

More Evidence of John Kerry's Political Ineptness or Why the Democrats Deserved to Lose the Election

2005-06-07T15:24:00.000-04:00

The Boston Globe has this report on Kerry's military records, which Kerry recently agreed to release to the public.

Shockingly, they reveal . . .

absolutely nothing we didn't already know.

The records, which the Navy Personnel Command provided to the Globe, are mostly a duplication of what Kerry released during his 2004 campaign for president, including numerous commendations from commanding officers who later criticized Kerry's Vietnam service.
The lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions.

Yep, that's right. After refusing to release the records in response to demands by the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush . . . er . . . Truth, it turns out that the records actually contain glowing commendations from some of those very same veterans.

Why didn't Kerry just sign the privacy waiver during the election campaign, when it actually might have served some purpose? Well, I guess Kerry didn't want to make things too easy on himself and actually try to debunk some of the ridiculous accusations against him. Look, I think Kerry's Vietnam service is irrelevant to his Presidential qualifications, but his failure to respond to the Republican attacks expeditiously and effectively shows a lack of political acumen that bears directly on his competence to run an entire country.

The Globe theorizes that Kerry signed the waiver now in order to pave the way for a 2008 election bid. Good grief. I certainly hope not. If the Democrats are stupid enough to run Kerry again, they deserve everything they get, including having this guy as their next president.

OOPS!

2005-06-07T13:20:00.000-04:00

Chicago Marathon was too long by a mile.

Hypocritical Australians?

2005-06-07T13:17:00.000-04:00

If Australia can imprison someone for ten years for smuggling tropical fish, why are they complaining about a 20 year sentence for drug smuggling?

I kid the Australians.

No Australians were harmed in the making of this post.

R. Crowe - pompous, self-righteous ass? You decide.

2005-06-07T13:14:00.000-04:00

Russell Crowe has been trading insults with George Clooney over his appearance in several advertisements. Apparently, Russell thinks that a true artiste should not stoop to product endorsement (although phone-throwing is quite acceptable).

According to msnbc:

The two have had a verbal battle going on since Crowe attacked Clooney and some other stars for cashing in on their fame by appearing in ads; Clooney fired back that Crowe cashes in on his fame with his rock band. “An endorsement for products is about money. My music is from the heart,” Crowe said, reports Australia’s Northern Territory News. “But what I enjoyed, greatly, is nobody seemed to get the irony that one major franchise in George Clooney’s life is based on the work of Sammy Davis Jr., Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin [Clooney’s remake of ‘Ocean’s 11’]. Sammy, Frank and Dean were entertainers in a real sense. And Clooney climbed over their bones in order to enable him to pick up an endorsement for suits.”

The real irony? The stars to whom Crowe unfavorably compares Clooney did their own share of product endorsement, as did most stars of that era. And some of the products were a lot less benign than suits.

Prosecuting Runways?

2005-06-06T18:40:00.000-04:00

My boyfriend and I argued about whether they should have brought charges against the runaway bride.

him: yes - she committed a crime by making a false report and wasted government resources.

me: no - why waste more time and money prosecuting an obviously disturbed woman who committed a victimless crime just because the investigators have egg on their faces.

Now, investigators are complaining about the time and money expended searching for this runaway who recently surfaced after being missing for seven years.

According to one investigator: "The responsible thing to do would have been to let someone know you're OK . . . . There are going to be people expending man-hours and effort, trying to find a missing person."

Apparently, the investigators are bummed out that, in this case, the runaway committed no crime, so unlike the runaway bride, she can't be forced to repay the money they spent searching for her.

I think this is becoming ridiculous. A runaway is not going to notify the authorities of her whereabouts to save them time and money. Otherwise, what is the point of running away?

If someone is emotionally disturbed enough to run away - and even to make up stories to cover their tracks - I don't think it is helpful or sensible to prosecute them for a crime. Yes, technically, the runaway bride violated the law by filing a false report. Big deal. Let's save those prosecutions for people who actually harm other citizens by wrongfully accusing them of rape or battery or theft or murder or child abuse - and ruining their lives. Let's not prosecute people simply because they made the investigators feel like a bunch of idiots for running around looking for someone who isn't really missing.

Stupid Law Shows to Which I am Addicted

2005-06-06T12:23:00.000-04:00

I have previously written about my unhealthy addiction to Law and Order here. I have also become addicted to CSI Miami and have started watching the regular CSI show pretty often as well. These are both incredibly stupid shows. Sorry to say, I've also started watching reruns of Crossing Jordan, which is even stupider than the L&O and CSI franchises.

My newest obsession is Numbers, but that at least is justified by the cute brothers (particularly the obsessive math genius geek, who is quite adorable).

I am annoyed with myself that I continue to watch these shows, even as they vie with each other to see who can fabricate the most ridiculous plotlines. I am sucker for the trick that these shows always use to hook their viewers in - the episode always starts out with a gripping, creative opener, which inevitably devolves into a trite, formulaic piece of pseudo drama. The crimes are always solved through a combination of unlikely coincidences, absurd leaps of logic, and forensic technology that exists only in a criminologist’s fantasies.

But the thing I find most irritating is the nonsensical plot point that appears in almost every one of these episodes, apparently because it is the only thing the writers can come up with to advance the plotline.

Last night it took place in an episode of CSI Miami, where the team is investigating the murder of a plastic surgery anesthesiologist who is being sued by a patient's husband for causing the patient's untimely death on the operating table.

After the audience patiently waits for the CSI team to rule out the husband as a suspect and narrow in on the other members of the surgical team, the husband starts breathing down the investigators' necks to redo his wife's autopsy in order to find out what really happened in the operating room.

So the CSI folks decide they need to exhume the wife's body, but are informed by the DA that they don't have enough evidence for a court order. This provides the impetus for a scene involving magical computer analysis of the data from the operating room, during which the investigators discover an unexplained five minute gap between the wife's cardiac arrest and the point when the surgical team took extreme measures to start her heart up - enough to get the necessary exhumation order.

But wait a minute. I know what you're thinking. Wasn't it the husband who asked for the new autopsy in the first place? If so, why can't they just get his permission to exhume the body? Ummmm . . . well . . . obviously, that would be too easy and they would not be able waste another ten minutes trying to dazzle us with more of their forensic lab analysis voodoo, which is the whole point of the show.

Do these producers really think their viewers are this idiotic? I guess so. And I guess I am one of those idiots, since I keep tuning in hoping that this will be the episode that will actually live up to the promise of its first five minutes.

Okay. This Story Just Keeps Getting Weirder.

2005-06-04T02:14:00.000-04:00

Can we drop the Quran-abuse stories now? Expecially since most of the abuse seems to be committed by the detainees themselves.

Update: This post summarizes my feelings precisely. Money quote:

Please tell me there is not now forming in the Arab world a new call to arms: "There is one Cry Baby, and Allah is his name."

Update: After arguing this issue with my boyfriend, who usually plays Mr. Conservative to my Ms. PC (he claims he's a Moderate, but I said that calling himself a Moderate just gives the impression that he is Reasonable), I realized that my annoyance with this Quran-abuse issue is grounded in my deep-seated disgust of any religious group that elevates its "holy book" over the lives and sensibilities of other people. My involvement for several years in a Bible-based group showed me that adhering to a codified belief system simply because it is contained in a holy book leads people to lose touch with their individual consciences. Following the rules of their holy book gives them a spiritual pass when it comes to matters of conscience and morality and makes them insensitive to the suffering of others.

At least that's what I've observed.

People who are stupid enough to riot over reports of book-abuse should not be heard to complain when those reports turn out to be false.

Where Did Erica Go Wrong?

2005-06-03T18:10:00.000-04:00

Wow, I've had to sit through some really boring, annoying, even political graduation speeches, but I've never heard of people booing the speaker, throwing things, or standing up and conducting conversations with friends and family during the speech.

Apparently, people at the College of Staten Island's commencement ceremony were so offended by Erica Jong's remarks that they did all those things.

Having read the excerpts in the news article, I don't really see what the big deal was with her speech. I guess you had to be there. Is it so offensive these days to call on American students to question and challenge the status quo, even in a graduation speech? Isn't that what young people are supposed to do? I agree that a graduation speech should be inspiring, but the criticism that it was not enough of a "pep talk" seems pretty superficial.

Personally, I'm more shocked by the rudeness of the audience than by the comments themselves. Maybe a speech on manners would have been more appropriate for people who apparently prefer to be coddled rather than challenged.

Story courtesy of Instapundit, who I'm sure would disagree with everything I just wrote.

Grab Your Binoculars and Enjoy!

2005-06-03T17:41:00.000-04:00

From an email I received today:

MARS SPECTACULAR! The Red Planet is about to be spectacular!

This month and next, Earth is catching up with Mars in an encounter that will culminate in the closest approach between the two planets in recorded history. The next time Mars may come this close is in 2287. Due to the way Jupiter's gravity tugs onMars and perturbs its orbit, astronomers can only be certain that Mars has not come this close to Earth in the Last 5,000 years, but it may be as long as 60,000 years before it happens again.

The encounter will culminate on August 27th when Mars comes to within 34,649,589 miles of Earth and will be (next to the moon) the brightest object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of -2.9 and will appear 25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest 75-power magnification Mars will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye. Mars will be easy to spot. At the beginning of August it will rise in the east at10 p.m. and reach its azimuth at about 3 a.m. By the end of August, when the two planets are closest, Mars will rise at nightfall and reach its highest point in the sky at 12:30a.m. That's pretty convenient to see something that no human being has seen in recorded history.

So, mark your calendar at the beginning of August to see Mars grow progressively brighter and brighter throughout the month!

Twin Brothers Involved in Rape Case

2005-06-03T17:40:00.000-04:00

Apparently, one brother raped a nine-year old girl, while the other drove the car. The prosecutors were stumped by the DNA evidence, which could have belonged to either brother.

The defense lawyer argued this was sufficient to raise reasonable doubt.

This kind of reminds me of that old tort case, Summers v. Tice, where the plaintiff was shot simultaneously by two different hunters and could not show which bullet caused the injury.

Unfortunately, in a criminal case, the court probably can't shift the burden of proof to the defendants, as it did in Summers.

Fortunately, it does not appear to be necessary in this case, since one of the brothers finally confessed to committing the rape itself.

Curiously, the reason the rapist was finally caught was because his brother's DNA (from a subsequent crime) matched the DNA in the rape case.

Does Law and Order know about this case yet?

Is Getting Married on top of Mount Everest Like Getting Married at Sea?

2005-06-03T13:34:00.000-04:00

Or do you have to bring your own minister?

Crazy is as Crazy Does

2005-06-03T12:52:00.000-04:00

This is one of those stories where it seems to me the crime itself is evidence of insanity (at least if you define insanity as repeating the same action over and over again expecting a different result).

Why would a woman continue to bear children and then murder them because she believed she could not afford to take care of them or that having a child would drive away her male companion? Hasn't she heard of contraception? Or - in a worst-case scenario - abortion? The only reasonable explanation is that she is insane.

The fact that she hid two of the bodies in a communal freezer in the basement of her apartment building only supports this view.

What Would You Do If You Only Had One Day to Live?

2005-06-02T12:04:00.000-04:00

This is what Tommy Chong would do:

If Tommy Chong had only one day left on this planet, he’d spend it settling a score with the former U.S. Attorney General. “I’d seek revenge on first and foremost John Ashcroft, because he put me in jail for selling bongs,” Chong told Complex magazine. “I’d tell him to go [bleep] himself, but I would do it on his terms and forgive him like a good Christian, which would freak him out. I’d probably hug him.”

It made me wonder: How many of us say we would spend our last day getting closer to our loved ones, when in fact, we'd rather spend it getting even with our worst enemy?

Commentary on the Australian Terror Attack by Our Reporter in the Field

2005-06-02T12:00:00.000-04:00

A Message From My Sister Regarding the Terror Threat to the Indonesian Embassy in Australia:

By now I am sure it has come to your attention that Australia has been outed as the terrorist nation I have always suspected it is.

In case you have not been following the war on terror Aussie style - although I am sure by now “our shame” (the headlines informed me this morning) is international news - an "anthrax derivative" substance (whatever the hell that is) was sent to the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra. The pictures on the news looked like one of those terror strike drills, but this was not a test – I got that line from the commercial network news. Everyone’s using it; isn’t it clever.

People in those yellow HazMet suits you see in “Plague” movies and on “Medical Investigations” – who knew they were real – showed up; a “perimeter was established” or so I was assured by someone important – he seemed very pleased with himself, but then I suppose it was nice to prove all his hard work and practice has paid off (I’m sure terrorist response units have been concerned lately. But now that we are generating our own terrorist attacks, since the other terrorist nations were not obliging, they must feel their job security is much more certain); personnel were evacuated and scrubbed (on national television so we could all see what a good job the TRU was doing – well not us exactly, but Indonesia in the hopes they won’t bomb us); there was all ‘round pandemonium. I was briefly concerned about the crowd that was watching; after all standing around watching a terrorist attack doesn’t seem the safest way to spend your lunch hour, but then no one ever accused Australians of being as smart as, say, Iraqis. At least no one helped.

There is very little discussion about who is responsible or the reasons the Indonesians were targeted ... there is general consensus it was Australians in retaliation for what has become known worldwide as the "Corby Verdict" (see my recent email).

Although publicly condemned by the Federal government, this is likely to have little impact on the fall-out as such denials of involvement in terrorist activity are always given the dismissal they deserve. I expect therefore we have been added to America’s Terrorist Watch list as a nation supporting terrorism.

It will of course only be a matter of months before Indonesia retaliates with missile attacks. While Australia may have a more substantial military than Jakarta, it would breach international customary law to retaliate against such a sanctioned provoked response. Indonesia is fully entitled to hold the Australian government and the country at large responsible for a criminal act perpetrated by someone it is harbouring (precedent authority: USA - Clinton administration circa 1998).

Australia could avoid this by handing over the perpetrator, but they will obviously refuse to do so claiming they don’t know where he is and therefore have no way of complying. Of course this sort of rogue behaviour cannot be tolerated by the international community.

There is no precedent for a full scale military attack against Australia although strike forces could be sent in to assist aborigines in bring down the government if the Prime Minister continues to refuse to say he is sorry (see Operation Anaconda - US intervention in Afghanistan). But there can be little doubt there will be a pre-emptive strike against New Zealand also in accordance with international customary law (see USA – Bush administration circa 2003; Note: there is still some debate whether this requires a UN Security Council Resolution, but international experts generally agree even if it does it is not necessary for the Resolution to actually pass).

On a more serious note:

where did laboratory grade anthrax come from? I could be wrong but it doesn’t seem the sort of thing that should generally be just floating around the place. This may not seem to be cogent questions I realise. After all, the important questions are how much more of it is there, who has it, where will it show up next? But the question must also be asked how did someone with such questionable ideological priorities as to use perfectly good anthrax on something as lame as the Corby Verdict possibly have access to a laboratory where anthrax is available. He clearly must be a yobbo of little education, skill and emotional and mental development. So? What, did the cleaner just walk in and pocket it? Didn’t someone notice it was missing?

But really how pathetic are we if the best we can do as a terrorist nation is some guy who’s obviously listening to too much Alan Jones and John Laws (our resident middle age shock jockeys)? Even the British have the potential to recruit soccer hooligans (whose fundamentalist ideology and hatred of the infidel enemy competitor is well developed and widely known). Although the requisite lack of fundamental understanding of the cause he is fighting for is definitely present, the terrorist’s attack on the Indonesians was amateurish in its execution: for instance there was no video with him in a ski mask holding a meat pie sent to the ABC or any demands that Ms Corby be released. The most damning proof of our failure as a terrorist nation, however, is that multiple organisations have not come forward to claim responsibility for the attack.

On the up side as the situation deteriorates I will be free to contact UNHCR and resettle as a refugee in a variety of less aggressive countries like the United States or Britain where I can pursue my civil rights in peace. I know I can count on your support and sponsorship for my application.

Now THAT's What I Call Family Values!!!

2005-06-01T13:37:00.000-04:00

Instead of organizing boycotts of companies that use sex in their advertisements or donate money to gay rights organizations, why can't the AFA promote real Family Values issues, such as good table manners?

According to the CNN article, a KFC ad, which depicts people singing with their mouths full, has become "Britain's most complained about ad, with 1,671 members of the public contacting the Advertising Standards Authority."

The viewers felt that the ad "encouraged bad manners in children by making it appear funny to sing or speak while eating, and 41 of those who complained said their children had aped the ad."

Now that's an issue I can get behind.

Large Firm Exodus Continues

2005-06-01T00:46:00.000-04:00

Law.com article tells what most associates already know. As law firms continue to merge and consolidate into bigger and bigger entities, many lawyers are seeking smaller pastures.

Some Great Advice on Law School Admissions

2005-05-31T08:45:00.000-04:00

A lot of people call me up for advice about going to law school. I'm always happy to answer their questions and talk to them about their decision, but for advice on improving one's chances of getting into law school, I can't do better than Christine Hurt, who has the inside track on Law School admissions.

Check out her posts at Conglomerate.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

"Religious Respect" Irreconcilable With Christian Evangelistic Beliefs?

2005-05-27T19:15:00.000-04:00

This article about the U.S. Airforce's new campaign for Religious Respect raises a question in my mind of whether such a policy can ever be reconciled with evangelistic beliefs.

The new policy states that "Senior leaders, commanders, and supervisor at every level must be particularly sensitive to the fact that subordinates can consider your public expressions of belief systems coercive. Using your place at the podium as a platform for your personal beliefs can be perceived as misuse of office.”

Apparently, the policy is being implemented in response to complaints by non-christians that they are getting harassed by evangelistic christians.

I have a little bit of experience with evangelistic christians and I know that they interpret most efforts to curb their evangelism as being - at least - disrespectful of their religious beliefs. Any policy of Religious Respect that limits the ability of evangelistic christians to spread their beliefs will be perceived as intolerant to their religion.

Discuss.

My Aussie Sister's Commentary on the Corby Conviction

2005-05-27T19:13:00.000-04:00

An excerpt from my sister's email today:

The general situation in Australia, like the rest of the world, continues to deteriorate apace.

The only really useful thing Australia has done on the regional stage is ensure that Schapelle Corby was convicted for drug trafficking. In case you're not following this important case, Corby went into Bali with a boogie board bag full of dope. She was caught and claimed that “the baggage handlers did it” (at least she was inventive).

Then Australia did the following to ensure she was convicted: the government sent a letter to the judges stating that we did, indeed, have drug smuggling baggage handlers; the “backer” for her legal expenses made media statements about prosecution bribery; commercial television had “specials” where they asked celebrities whether she was guilty (most brilliantly a Family Court judge said the trial was the most dreadful breach of justice she’d ever seen); national newspapers ran polls on whether the public thought she was guilty (it was like 99 to 1 she wasn’t); and some law professor announced (wrongly) that in Indonesia you were guilty until proven innocent (although in his defence it was after the chief judge in the case announced to the media she hadn’t proved her innocence – not a good sign you’d agree).

Anyone at all familiar with the Indonesian justice system, judges and Australia/Indonesian relations (not to mention our Americanesque reputation in the region) would have been able to predict the response: guilty of course … although they decided not to kill her which was nice of them I thought.

As usual, internationally we have done nothing of significance at all – which is probably for the best.

Murder Charges Dropped Against Marine

2005-05-27T19:01:00.000-04:00

I have to say, I'm kind of glad.

I have been opposed to the war from the beginning, but I think if you're going to send people off to war, you shouldn't prosecute them for doing their job.

I Knew This Would Happen

2005-05-27T13:12:00.000-04:00

The other night I was watching Law & Order Criminal Intent - an episode "ripped from the headlines," as they like to say, about judge killings - when one of the regulars suggests putting out an APB for "somebody in a Tom DeLay T-shirt."

I thought "uh oh. Tom is gonna be pissed off when he hears about this."

And that's exactly what happened. (Thanks to Christine Hurt at Conglomerate for the link).

Christine Hurt says she didn't see the episode, but feels that Tom should "know that if he became a public figure that television shows that capitalize on depicting public figures would spotlight him."

I saw the episode, which started out really well, but deteriorated (as most L&O episodes do) at the end when the whole criminal scheme is spilled by the bad guy's naive co-conspirator who, of course, is tricked into confessing by the brilliant detective's ploy to pit the two defendants against each other (snore).

Anyone who has ever watched an episode of L&O would never fall for this trick. Why do they keep falling for it on the show? Maybe in L&O world, there is no t.v. show like L&O to tip you off that when the detective starts telling you all the reasons you should turn on your co-defendant, you should just shut your mouth and ask for your lawyer, because it means they can't make their case without your confession.

And more importantly, why do I keep watching this show, in all its various incarnations, when I know exactly how its going to turn out and I am NEVER surprised by the "surprise ending." sheesh. Apparently, this woman would sympathize with my inexplicable and probably unhealthy addiction.

But I digress.

This whole DeLay debacle got me wondering if anyone has ever sued L&O - no not for marketing a dangerously addictive product, but for ripping a little too close to someone's headlines. I ran a quick google search and came up empty. Anyone know the answer to that question?

I have no love for Tom DeLay and I think his attacks on the judiciary are idiotic, but even I had a cringe reaction to the DeLay comment. I thought it was juvenile and tasteless. The L&O producers explained that "This isolated piece of gritty 'cop talk' was neither a political comment nor an accusation." Hmmmm. I definitely interpreted it as a political comment that they placed in the mouth of a "gritty" cop. It was so clearly not something a gritty cop would normally say, it had to be an expression of some producer's political views. I had no problem with that part of it. I just thought the line didn't work well as dialogue and was kind of stupid.

I don't blame Tom for being mad, but I think he should have just let it go, or deflected it with a gracious, funny rebuttal. I wish more politicians handled bad publicity that way, instead of making every incident into a federal case (no pun intended).

Love the Lawgirl

The People's Court Meets the Apprentice

2005-05-26T12:03:00.000-04:00

NBC's new show, creatively dubbed "The Law Firm," will pit teams of lawyers against each other "trying real court cases with real clients, in front of real judges and juries, resulting in outcomes that are final, legal and binding for the parties."

Trial lawyer Roy Black will be playing the role of Donald Trump.

Two Women Stabbed by Crazed Shopper at Nordstrom

2005-05-26T08:16:00.000-04:00

I wasn't totally shocked to learn that this happened in the shoe section, although my first guess was the bathing suit department.

British Lawyer's Opening Statement Lasts 119 days

2005-05-26T06:29:00.000-04:00

Whew! Thank god he managed to keep within the 120 day time limit.

This was my favorite line:

"As the legal jargon rumbled on, a mountain of files has built up on the desks of the opposing legal teams so neither can see the other."

You know they just didn't want the judge to see them sleeping.

Courtesy of Alaskablawg

Big Firm - Small Firm, Part I

2005-05-21T11:57:00.000-04:00

One of my objectives in starting this blog was to give law students and those considering law school an idea of what it's like to start out in the legal profession.

To that end, I am starting this series called "Big Firm - Small Firm," in which I discuss the professional and lifestyle differences between working for the two different types of firms. My comments are based almost entirely on my own personal experiences. I don't have any concrete plans for the direction this series will take - I am starting it off-the-cuff. At this stage, I don't plan to get into any sort of in-depth or long-winded analysis of the issue. My intention, at this stage, is to keep the posts short and sweet.

I previously wrote that starting your career at a large firm has its advantages, some of which are obvious. You make more money and you receive the benefit of a prestigious name on your resume.

Another advantage is that large firms have institutionalized legal support systems that most small firms simply can't afford. At the Evil Empire, we had a 24-hour wordprocessing and proofreading department, for example, so when you were working until midnight revising a brief that needed to be filed the next day, you could drop it off in Wordprocessing and it would be ready for you when you returned to work at 7:00 am. Sounds great doesn't it?

At a small firm, the "wordprocessing department" usually consists of one or two people, plus a part-time floater who takes over at around 5:30 for a few hours as needed. Overnight wordprocessing is practically nonexistent.

Similarly, large firms have 24-hour copying departments, which allow you to leave an overnight copy job that gets delivered to you the next day. No such thing in a small firm. There is really no disadvantage here, because photocopying can easily be outsourced.

Needless to say, large firms provide these services seven days a week, whereas small firms generally shut down for the weekend, except in extenuating circumstances, such as a Monday trial.

When I worked at a large firm, everyone automatically received a card key that permitted them entry into the building during off-hours.

I have worked at my small firm since September 2004, and no one has given me a card key to get into the building, even though I know they exist and someone somewhere must have one.

The thing you have to realize is that large firms provide all these wonderful support services because they expect work to be done on a 24-hour basis, whereas small firms expect you to go home each evening and not return until the next business day.

Sometimes the lack of sophisticated support services can be frustrating in the moment when you urgently need that copy job done or that document typed up. Those small inconveniences are well worth the payback you receive for being able to leave your work at work and have a full and balanced life.

Love the lawgirl

Report From the Trenches

2005-05-21T10:59:00.000-04:00

A small-scale counter-insurgency campaign that I have been waging in my apartment has suffered some recent setbacks, due to my hectic work schedule.

A list of the most significant casualties follows:

Apparently, in my absence, a "junk-mail" bomb exploded on my dining table.

My bedroom chair was recently targeted by a "dirty-laundry" bomb. An unintended consequence of this attack is that it has virtually obliterated the pre-existing damage caused by an unsightly shoe-bomb explosion.

A particularly insidious local rebel has detonated another one of her infamous "stinky-litter-box" devices. But I believe I have the enemy in my sights and anticipate an imminent victory for my anti-terrorist forces. Hmmm . . . here she is now . . . try to act naturally, and don't be disarmed by her "look at my cute, fluffy tummy" strategy.

A scouting expedition into the kitchen reveals the most disconcerting development so far. It seems that a highly organized, dangerous cell of suicide terrorists has invaded this extremely vulnerable region. By all indications, they are an outgrowth of an earlier group that I mistakenly believed had been decimated by one of my dreaded biological weapons. I now suspect that the survivors of that attack have been laying low, developing techniques to counter-act some of the more conventional extermination technologies. I will almost certainly need to engage an outside specialist to suppress this new wave of radicals.

Lawgirl signing out.

The Idea

2005-05-19T23:49:00.000-04:00

Tonight I had one of those wonderful moments when the ephemeral Idea that has been eluding you for weeks suddenly bubbles up to the surface and you realize you have latched onto the perfect argument - the one that you know is virtually unassailable. It is a buoyant - even exhilarating moment.

For a week I have been struggling to write a motion to dismiss. I knew it made sense, intuitively; I had some good arguments; I had researched the heck out of it; I had received positive feedback on my first draft.

And yet I was struggling. There was something missing. Some connection I wasn't making.

And to make things worse, I was crushed for time. I was feeling the pressure of a hundred responsibilities bearing down on me. My deadlines had deadlines. It was a bad scene man.

I was supposed to give the partner a draft today, but was still unhappy with my product. She graciously gave me more time - until tomorrow afternoon, even offering to read it on Saturday if I couldn't get it done in time for her to look at it on Friday. I felt relieved, but I was still discouraged that the Idea I had been chasing continued to elude me.

Encouragement came in the form of an associate who stuck her head in my door and said "you won! You won your motion!" I was baffled. My motion was sitting in front of me - a half-baked, incoherent, poorly constructed creation taunting me from my computer screen as I sat despondently amidst piles of lexis printouts, digests, encyclopedias and statute books.

I stared at her blankly wondering if somehow I entered a fissure in the space-time continuum and I was witnessing a moment in the future when my sad little motion would rise victorious from it's humble origins.

"You won! You won the motion to dismiss!"

I was still perplexed. She waived a document in front of me. "It's the order from the motion you wrote on tortious interference. It was granted."

Suddenly, it was all clear to me. A motion I wrote in October of last year had been granted. I took the papers from her and read through the judge's Order. It was like my own thoughts coming back to me. My heart suddenly felt light again. It's the first time I've really "won" anything as a lawyer. And I knew it was my hard work - my research - my arguments - that had carried the day.

I smiled and turned back to my computer.

About two hours later, the Idea came.

And it was perfect.

I Ain't Dissin' Julia

2005-05-16T23:25:00.000-04:00

Professor Bainbridge (bless his soul) seems to have misconstrued my remarks about Julia Child. At first, I was prepared to let this misunderstanding slide, but now there are others who have attributed anti-Julia sentiments to me.

I want to clarify that I have no objection to putting her on the list. I merely found it remarkable that she was the only woman he thought "definitely" belonged on the list.

Even Eleanor Roosevelt and Amelia Earhart didn't make it to a list of "definites" that included Knute Rockne and Barack Obama (although, now I can't find Obama on the list - was he removed?). And, according to PB, neither Helen Keller nor Harriet Tubman even "remotely" belongs on the list??

The fact that PB's list leans heavily towards Politics, History (by which I mean historical events that the dominant culture considers to be important) and, apparently, War (see the inclusion of Chester Nimitz, Omar Bradley and Raymond Spruance) renders his list predominantly male.

And yet, because he is a "foodie" Julia makes the list, even though arguably, there are women who have contributed as much or more to society, culture, history, etc. I have no problem with acknowledging a foodie - I am no Foodist. But what about artists, writers, cultural critics, anthropologists, activists, many of whom had influenced society in significant and permanent ways. Is Julia really the only one worthy of receiving PB's "definite" nod?

The good Professor argues that my criticism is merely that his list is not PC enough. That criticism may have merit, but it is not my main point. I don't think you have to be PC to think that there has been more than one "definitely great" woman in the America. I agree (again) with Shraub, who says "maybe Childs [sic] should indeed be on the list. I'm just saying that it is pretty skewed priorities to place a woman's contributions to the culinary arts over those who were critical to racial equality, woman's suffrage, and woman's equality, respectively." I would add that contribution to the culinary arts, while important, is no more or less important that other artistic, literary, and cultural contributions.

More on Whether Lawyers Should Blog

2005-05-16T12:54:00.000-04:00

For some reason none of my trackbacks to my previous post on this issue worked (that's why I call myself Lawgirl and not Techgirl). I will try again with this post.

I notice that IBM has issued blogging guidelines for its employees and is encouraging them to blog. I am still digesting the guidelines, but so far I like them, because - for the most part - they don't look as if a lawyer wrote them.

I will have more comments on them specifically, but I also like the fact that James Snell takes a swipe at the CNN article which recommends that people blog anonymously or not at all. I read a similar article about blogging anonymously and, at the end of it, I was left wondering "what's the point?" I can't link you to that article, because for some bizarre reason, I forgot to put it in my "favorites" (can't imagine why). But the guidelines were similar to those suggested in the CNN article, such as using an anonymous blog server (does anyone do this?) and password protection. It didn't go as far as CNN's moronic suggestion to return to the age of "pen and paper" but it was pretty close.

I've been doing quite a bit of internet research lately on the subject of employee blogging and I find IBM's attitude refreshing. Because we lawyers are so risk-averse, we are often attracted to the option that appears to subject us to the least exposure. Ambivalent Imbroglio bemoans this tendency, which he feels has characterized the responses to his own question about whether he should blog as a Summer Associate.

Again - here are some of the links that take the risk-averse viewpoint:

Legal Ethics Forum

Conglomerate

TechLawGeek

As well as Cathy's response to the Legal Ethic's Forum.

Update: I forgot to include Three Years of Hell

New Update: This poor man seems almost morose about this issue. Buck up, Blogger - things will get better.

Even Newer Update: Apparently, he's not that morose - apologies if I offended.

Ambivalent Imbroglio points to this blog as an example of the type of blogging that he feels does not compromise ethics or client relations. I have only skimmed the first page, so far, but I will try to read it more carefully over the next few days. Based on my superficial review, however, I can already tell that the writer has a very different view about professional blogging than I do.

Which brings me to my own "guidelines." Without getting into all the obvious stuff about not using profanity or engaging in flame wars, I have developed a set of personal guidelines regarding blogging content that I refer to as the Four C's:

Clients - I will not blog at all about the firm's clients, regardless of whether the information would be confidential or privileged. I would not want any clients (or my employers) to stumble upon my blog and be upset about anything I have posted about them (this is a no-brainer to me).

Cases - I will not blog about any of the matters that my firm is handling, even public information. This is mainly for the same reason that I will not post about clients, but also there is too much of a risk of letting slip some strategy that an opponent could capitalize on. Also, there is a risk that readers might think I am speaking for the firm, which I am not.

Colleagues - I will not blog about my colleagues, unless I have something super-nice to say about them, and only with permission first. I think it is offensive (and stupid) to bad-mouth colleagues on the internet - plus, there is no upside to doing so. Save it for margaritas with your friends and family.

Company - For now, I am staying away from blogging about my firm, the kind of work we do, or my impressions of working there. I have also vowed not to blog on "company time." Since lawyers don't really have a concept of company time, I define this as any time before 6:30 p.m., except for one hour during the afternoon (which other people refer to as "lunch time.")

Of course, you've probably noticed that, after all my grandstanding about not wanting to be "risk-averse," these guidelines are about as risk-averse as one can get without just giving up, hitting "shut down," and reaching for that pen and paper. Well, you busted me.

At any rate, I would love to get feedback on these guidelines or any of the other points in this post, or my previous post.

Love the Lawgirl.

p.s. sorry to Ambivalent for my numerous misspellings of his name (some unintentional and some intended to be funny) I think I have it right now.

I'd Like To Order an Emergency Appropriations Act - hold the Real ID bill

2005-05-14T14:24:00.000-04:00

The ACLU has come up with a creative advertisement to publicize their campaign against the Real ID Act (see link).

They argue that the government's centralized network (which will contain all kinds of personal information) will be a prime target for identity thieves and terrorists.

To participate in the ACLU's letter-writing campaign to Congress (telling them how displeased you are with them for not removing the Real ID Act from the Bill), go to the ACLU's website

Thanks to my boyfriend for emailing me the link.

Bruce Schneier issued some dire warnings about the Act, which have elicited many comments and trackbacks. I agree with PrawfsBlawg's point that, regardless of how you feel about the Act, the bigger problem is the way it was passed.

Love the Lawgirl

Sure she could make a mean Osso Bucco, but really!

2005-05-14T12:21:00.000-04:00

Apparently there's only one woman who "definitely" belongs on a list of 100 Greatest Americans, according to Professor Bainbridge - and I guess that's because someone has to do the cooking ;)

David Schraub at the Debate Link finds the Professor's omission of Jackie Robinson debatable - not to mention Martin Luther King, Jr. Good grief! Is that even debatable? I agree with all of Schraub's points, and I'll even forgive him for not mentioning the Julia Child thing (and I'll even add him to my blogroll and my bloglines feed. Don't be jealous Professor - you're already on there).

Is it Wise and Ethical for Summer Associates (or any associates) to Blog? Finally my POV - sort of . . .

2005-05-13T23:54:00.000-04:00

I promised to address this question a couple of days ago but I've been sidetracked by a far more important and pressing question:

Is it wise and ethical for me to blog? (BTW, to clear up confusion - I am not a summer associate- I am a third year associate).

To be perfectly candid, Ambiguous what's-his-name has got me wondering (and worrying) about the implications of my blog for my own career. He has raised a number of ethical issues with respect to client confidentiality. While naturally, it's always a danger when pontificating on a particular subject that one could inadvertently reveal a client confidence. However, I intend to steer well clear of client matters on this blog, so I think the risk is reduced. I decided from the outset - as a matter of policy - not to blog about any of my cases or the clients my firm handles. To the extent I decide to blog about legal issues, I will handle them the way any lawyer would in an article for publication - as a mind-numbingly boring treatise peppered with as many idiotic hypotheticals I can think of.

I also have no intention of badmouthing or criticizing my current firm or any of its partners, associates or employees. I like my firm, enjoy working there, and would like to stay for a very long time.

I do post general criticisms about large firm practice - based on my experience at my previous firm - but I don't mention it by name or in sufficient detail for anyone to recognize it.

For now, I am blogging anonymously because I am new to the blogosphere and I'm not sure how it all works and what kind of problems will arise if and when I decide to "come out." I would like to come out at some point and hope to elicit the support of my firm (although not their interference - except if they think that something I post violates a client confidence, harms a client relationship or exposes the firm to liability).

If I do a good job with this blog, I hope that it will be an asset to the firm, although that was not my primary reason for creating it. My main reasons were (1) as an outlet for self-expression; (2) to provide information and entertainment to others; and (3) to get involved in an interesting, dynamic on-line community. So far, the experience is meeting all my goals and expectations. If I can build enough of a readership and develop enough trust with my readers, maybe some day, somewhere one of them will say "I need a lawyer - maybe I should hire that lawgirl." Who knows? It could happen.

Anyway, like the Ambrosiac Houligan (or whatever), I too seek your advice and input on the following questions:

1. Is there anything in my blog that - as a legal employer - you would find objectionable or worrying?

2. If you were my employer, do you think I have an obligation to tell you about my blog?

3. Do you think you are entitled to have input into my blog and how much?

4. What would be the best way to approach you and tell you about my blog and get your support and endorsement?

5. If you were me, would you be concerned about my employer's reaction to my blog and why?

6. Which is riskier: to tell my employer about it or to remain anonymous and avoid posting anything that will clue my employer in to who I am?

7. Am I missing anything?

Love the Lawgirl

Dabbling in Dangerous Demographic Data Dissemination

2005-05-12T23:50:00.000-04:00

In an impressive display of industriousness, at 10:37 tonight, Voloch Conspiracy managed to scoop a Law.com article dated May 13 (tomorrow) about a new database being created by "sixty major New York law firms" which will track the "race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation of each of their lawyers." According to the article, the database is a "client driven" initiative, "brokered by the New York County Lawyers' Association."

I find this somewhat perplexing.

First of all, isn't the basic information regarding law firm and partner composition already being tracked by big firms for recruitment purposes? As a second-year law student, I seem to recall reading all the diversity stats of the firms I was interviewing for . . . that is until it became too darn depressing.

What more do clients really need to know?

Apparently, they want to know how many gays, blacks and women are specifically billing to their matters. According to the article "law firms should not object to requests by their corporate clients [to] report the number of hours devoted to the clients' matters by minority lawyers."

Really? I kind of find it objectionable. Am I supposed to trust that corporate clients are so committed to feminist and anti-discrimination principles that they are going to be the diversity watchdogs for law firms? Can someone give me the empirical evidence to support that assumption?

Secondly, as someone who worked at a big firm for two years, I can tell you that none of the clients of my firm gave a rat's ass about my gender, race, or sexual orientation. Am I really supposed to believe that corporate clients are going to make decisions about what firms to hire based on the demographic make-up of a particular litigation team? I have a sneaking suspicion that anyone who cares about diversity would not have the poor taste to ask such a question. More likely, this information will be used by certain types of companies that would prefer not to have minorities, gays and women on their teams. But that's just my opinion.

Thirdly, what moral, economic or philosophical basis is there for requiring a firm to provide this type of specific information to a customer? I don't expect the telephone company to tell me the race and gender of everyone who works on my account (well, mainly that's because I can never actually get through to the phone company, but you get my point.)

I doubt that Microsoft or Verizon would bow to customer pressure to give out this type of specific information. To be honest, I have trouble believing they would expect to get it from law firms. Call me crazy, but I have a hard time believing this is a "client-driven" enterprise. Sounds like the kind of loony idea a bunch of lawyers would come up with.

And the Winner of the "Too Little Too Late" Award is . . .

2005-05-12T12:41:00.000-04:00

. . . Clarence Stower who belatedly offered to return the severed fingertip of 23-year old, Brandon Fizer, a custard shop employee who lost his fingertip in a mixing machine. Stower found Fizer's fingertip in a cup of frozen custard he purchased from the store, but refused to return it at the time, even though he knew doctors in the Emergency Room were standing by to reattach the fingertip.

Now it's too late, since (1) fingertips have to be reattached within about six hours; and (2) after absconding with the finger, Stower apparently put it in his freezer - frozen fingertips can't be reattached.

The selfishness of some people truly boggles the mind. I'll be interested to see if Fizer sues Stower and what the outcome of that litigation will be.

More Shameless Self-Promotion

2005-05-12T00:32:00.000-04:00

You know, I spent a year slaving over my Law Review Note, which remained uncited at least one year after its publication (hmmm . . . note to self to run a Lexis search tomorrow).

After blogging for a week, I've already been cited by two highly-respected and prestigious blawggers.

This time it's Walter Olsen of Point of Law remarking on my "witty and creative" use of the term Rapunzelling to describe the "practice among some big law firms of not posting profiles of their young associates for fear they'll be snapped up by recruiters."

Okay, okay, he didn't actually say "witty and creative" - those are my words - but I'm sure that's what he meant to say.

Ahhh . . . the sweet taste of instant gratification.

"The Legal Reader" Discovers an Extraordinary New Blawgging talent

2005-05-12T00:09:00.000-04:00

"John" of The Legal Reader, a true visionary of the blawgosphere, identifies a brilliant new star in the blawgging firmament.

Okay, okay. It's me.

Hugs and kisses, John.

Love the Lawgirl

Blogging for Business

2005-05-11T21:40:00.000-04:00

Here's a recent Businessweek article on the necessity of blogging in the business world today:

Go ahead and bellyache about blogs. But you cannot afford to close your eyes to them, because they're simply the most explosive outbreak in the information world since the Internet itself. And they're going to shake up just about every business -- including yours. It doesn't matter whether you're shipping paper clips, pork bellies, or videos of Britney in a bikini, blogs are a phenomenon that you cannot ignore, postpone, or delegate. Given the changes barreling down upon us, blogs are not a business elective. They're a prerequisite. (And yes, that goes for us, too)

I am riding the wave of business, marketing and technological innovation - the wave I tell you. Now if only I could figure out how to turn off this block quote function. drat.

The Big Issue of the Day: Should Summer Associates Blog?

2005-05-11T21:35:00.000-04:00

The question was posted by ambivalent imbroglio who is preparing to start his summer job at the public defender's office:

"If you're a law student with a blog, you're probably wondering how much you'll be able to say about your job on your blog. No? Well, I am. And since my class in “professional responsibility” didn't address blogging at all (I can't imagine why), I'd love to hear from lawyers, other law students, professors, whomever, about the ethics and boundaries of blawgging a summer job."

Several blawgers have weighed in, as of posting time:

Legal Ethics Forum - Don't Blog!

Cathy - Whaddya mean Don't Blog? Of course, Blog! But Blog with guidelines.

Conglomerate - Blog if you must - but assume your clients and your employer are reading.

Tech Law Geek - Don't Blog, but if you must Blog, be meaningful and be yourself

Three Years of Hell - Blog, but not about work.

I am going to give this some thought and add my two cents tomorrow.

Love the Lawgirl

New Features On My Blawg

2005-05-11T20:19:00.000-04:00

I've been messing around today with my template and have added some new features to my blawg, which are listed below.

Hopefully it's not getting too cluttered. I think that some of these features will be useful to readers.

I've been researching the whole blogging process on-line and there is a lot to learn, particularly on the subject of syndication. A week ago I had never even heard the term "RSS," which I know now stands for "Really Simple Syndication." Basically, it's a format that allows people to have updates from blogs (and other sites equipped with RSS, such as the New York Times and Yahoo) sent directly to their desktops. It's really cool. And you can do it for free.

In order to take advantage of RSS, you need to subscribe to an Aggregator, such as Bloglines.com (which is web-browser based, so you don't need to download any software). Then you go to the webpage you want to syndicate and add the "site feed" to your Blogline account. From then on, when you log into your Blogline account, it will tell what updates have been posted to your syndicated websites. You can read whatever topics interest you and ignore the rest.

RSS avoids the whole email notification process, which just clutters up your inbox unnecessarily, as well as the manual hunting around through websites looking for updates. With RSS, they come right to one location on your desktop.

I hope this explanation is somewhat clear. This is all new to me.

Anyway, I added the following items to my blawg:

1. A link to my RSS "site feed" - This lets readers know that my blawg is equipped for syndication, so they can add it to their Aggregators.

2. I have also added a traditional email subsciption box to my blawg. Theoretically, if you type in your email address, you can get emails sent to you notifying you when I have posted updates. Use this if you don't want to use Bloglines or one of the other Aggregators to have updates sent directly to your desktop. Personally, I am a Blogline convert.

3. I have added a search box that allows you to search my blawg as well as any blogs listed on Technorati (a free service that lists and rates over a million blogs).

4. I have subscribed to Blogrolling.com, a service that allows you to create a "blogroll" (a list of favorite blogs) to display on your website. My Blogroll is listed under the heading "Blogs and Blawgs I like."

5. There is a "Blogroll me" link at the bottom of my blogroll. Please click on it if you have a Blog or website and add me to your list. Let me know and I will add you to mine.

I think that's it for now. Let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Any suggestions for improving the site are appreciated.

Love the Lawgirl

p.s. Here are some blogs and websites that discuss RSS:

RSS Topics on BeSpecific, a blawg by Sabrina Pacific

Advice to the Bloglorn, by Louis C. Ambash

An article by Debbie Weil listing RSS resources

A blog about RSS

Update: An article about RSS on Law Dawg Blawg

To Be or Not to Be, That is the Question

2005-05-11T11:20:00.000-04:00

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end

When the Schiavo media frenzy was at its height, my boyfriend correctly pointed out that neither of us has a health care proxy. His eagerness to remedy that deficiency made me realize that I'm really not sure if I want to give anyone the power to pull the plug.

I kind of sympathize with what Jason Alexander said on Real Time With Bill Maher: "I've told my wife, 'hey, if I'm not bothering anyone, just put me in a corner and leave me alone.'"

Nevertheless, I recognize that putting advance medical directives in writing is a good idea, so I was happy to learn about this new site, by the American Hospital Association, which provides information and resources to assist people in preparing their own health care proxies and living wills.

Finally! I'm a Real Lawyer!

2005-05-11T10:50:00.000-04:00

At least according to this article, entitled Real Lawyers Have Blogs

One blogger (or blawger) interviewed for the article noted that keeping a blawg is "an extra discipline. . . . It's forced me to be very, very current."

I'm already starting to see that, even after one week. Blawging requires you to keep up with current legal issues and to read what other people are blawging about. It's fun and informative, but it takes up a heck of a lot of time.

She also said that blawging is "designed to be informative, but you wouldn't want the blog appearing to be construed as giving legal advice."

Ooooh no. Do not take anything I write as legal advice.

According to another blawger, one-tenth of his practice is due to his blog. "It's a very nice 10 percent," he said.

Now, I'm not saying that if you're lawyer doesn't blawg you should fire him and hire me instead, but I think the title of the article speaks for itself.

Love the Lawgirl

p.s. Also check out the article Blogging and the Bottom Line, by veteran blawger Robert Ambrogi for more information. I learned that you can subscribe to a free syndication service, such as Bloglines and Bloglet, to get blog updates sent to your desktop. I also added a link to my sidebar if you want to receive email notifications when I update my blog. I hope some of you will sign up.