April 30, 2013
Cops Ordered to Return Pot or Face Contempt
With new marijuana laws coming into effect in some states, police officers won't be tasked as often with seizing small amounts of pot from citizens. But in an unusual case making the news this week from Washington state, police are actually being asked -- well, ordered -- to give some back.
A municipal court judge in Tacoma, Wash., has ordered police -- twice -- to return a small amount of marijuana seized during a traffic stop last year, threatening them with a contempt finding if they don't comply. And though the quantity of marijuana at issue is small, the case points to larger issues involving conflicts between state and federal laws regarding the drug.
Joseph L. Robertson had a small amount of marijuana confiscated during a traffic stop in May 2012 and was charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession. The charges were dropped in December, after Washington state voted to legalize small amounts of marijuana. Robertson then asked for his pot back, providing proof of medical authorization. The police refused, and Tacoma Municipal Court Judge Jack Emery issued an order on February 28 compelling them to return the drugs. The police did not comply, and the marijuana remains at the Pierce County Sheriff's Department.
At a hearing last week, Emery threatened the police with a contempt order if they didn't return the marijuana to Robertson within seven days. "Appeal or comply,"the judge told an assistant city attorney, according to the Tacoma News Tribune. "Or next week, show up, and I would advise you to bring counsel." A hearing is set for Thursday.
Emery called the case a "quagmire," due to conflicting state and federal laws regarding marijuana. A spokesman for the Pierce County Sheriff's office told KIRO Radio's Andrew Walsh Show that the office was concerned about violating federal law by returning the drugs to Robertson. "It's not that we don't want to give him back his drugs. We just don't want to be in trouble with the federal government," spokesman Ed Troyer said.
The sheriff's office indicated that it would, however, turn over the pot to the Tacoma city police. “It's Tacoma's case," Troyer said, according to the the News Tribune. "If they want it, they can come and get it." The police can now follow Emery's order and do just that, or appeal to a higher court -- or face a contempt order at this week's hearing.
April 30, 2013 | Permalink
| Comments (2)
April 18, 2013
Dentist-Opera Singer Gets Bad Review on Bid to Dismiss Class Action
The New York Law Journal has a report this week about developments in a proposed class action against a Manhattan dentist who required patients to sign a confidentiality agreement in which they promised not to publish negative commentary about her and to assign her a copyright over any such commentary. A federal judge in New York has firmly rejected a motion to dismiss the case, which will now proceed against Dr. Stacy Makhnevich (who is described on her website as a "dentist, artist and opera singer").
The case made news when it was filed in late 2011 by Makhnevich's former patient Robert Lee, who was dissatisfied with the dental office's failure to submit reimbursement forms to his insurance company. A day after Lee posted negative reviews of Makhnevich on websites, including Yelp and DoctorBase, Makhnevich sent him a letter stating that he had violated the terms of the "Mutual Agreement to Maintain Privacy" that he had signed before treatment. Makhnevich threatened to sue Lee for $100,000 in damages, claiming copyright infringement, breach of contract and defamation. She later sent Lee invoices charging him $100 a day for copyright infringement.
With the backing of consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, Lee sued Makhnevich for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and other patients, arguing that the confidentiality agreement was unconscionable and that his online comments were protected as fair use under the Copyright Act. The case put the spotlight on such "privacy agreements" and a company called Medical Justice that marketed the agreements to doctors and dentists. Medical Justice "retired" the contract just after the suit was filed.
Though the agreement wasn't exclusive to Makhnevich, other aspects of her practice seem somewhat unique. On her website, which includes a number of glamorous headshots, Makhnevich is described as "a talented and imaginative dentist and an opera singer who is driven by an incredible passion for self-expression through art." She specializes in working with singers, artists and musicians, particularly those who experience dental problems related to playing wind instruments. "Although Stacy Makhnevich loves to express her vision through art of dentistry, she is also adept at creating opera scenes and readily communicates the vision of her clientele," the website states. The headline of a Forbes piece about Lee's suit described Makhnevich as a "Dentist to the Stars."
In the latest development in the class action, U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty issued a sharply worded order rejecting Makhnevich's argument that the case should be dismissed because there was no "actual controversy" between the parties. "Defendants created the controversy with Lee by attempting to enforce the agreement, which they extracted as a condition for getting dental treatment," Crotty wrote. "Further, under the totality of circumstances, the controversy is sufficiently 'real' and 'immediate.' Defendants cannot pretend now that their notices to Lee were 'just kidding,' or that Lee lacked any reasonable apprehension of liability."
April 18, 2013 | Permalink
| Comments (3)
April 15, 2013
Judge Issues Contempt Finding and Fine -- Against Himself -- Over Cellphone Disruption
Here's a reminder that judges aren't above the rules of courtroom decorum -- or immune from embarrassing technological snafus. Michigan Judge Raymond Voet held himself in contempt on Friday and paid a $25 fine after his new smartphone made its presence known during a jury trial in his courtroom.
As the prosecutor made his closing arguments, Voet's phone started asking for voice commands. "I'm guessing I bumped it. It started talking really loud, saying 'I can't understand you. Say something like Mom,'" Voet said, according to the Ionia County, Mich., Sentinel Standard. "My face got as red as a beet."
Voet is a stickler when it comes to disturbances of this type, and has a posted policy in his courtroom warning that disruptions caused by electronic devices will result in the confiscation of the items, a contempt of court finding and a $25 fine. The Associated Press reports that Voet has enforced the rule against police officers, attorneys, witnesses, spectators and friends over the years -- and now he can add himself to the list. He paid the fine during a trial recess.
"Judges are humans," Voet said. "They're not above the rules. I broke the rule and I have to live by it."
The incident also goes to show that humans sometimes have difficulty adjusting to different forms of technology. Voet was a longtime BlackBerry user and had recently switched to a Windows-based phone -- hence his confusion over the touchscreen and voice commands. "That's an excuse, but I don't take those excuses from anyone else," he said.
We're guessing that in order to avoid becoming a repeat offender -- and making more national news -- the judge may have spent part of the weekend studying the manual for his new cellphone.
April 15, 2013 | Permalink
| Comments (8)
April 11, 2013
Will Spanx Case Make Design Patents a Fashion Trend?
The escalating patent battle between shapewear makers Spanx and Yummie Tummie over body-slimming camisoles has sparked discussion about what it and similar cases may mean for the future of design patents in the fashion industry. The dispute has proven to be quite alluring to news outlets and bloggers, inspiring a wide range of punny headlines such as "Battle of the Bulge", "Girdlegate 2013" and "Spanx Tells Yummie Tummie to 'Put Your Big Girl Panties On and Deal With It'!"
In short, shapewear industry giant Spanx filed a request for declaratory judgment in federal court in Atlanta in March, in response to a cease and desist letter sent in January by the Yummie Tummie shapewear brand, which claimed that Spanx's designs infringe Yummie Tummie's patents for three-panel slimming camisoles. Last week, Yummie Tummie filed a patent infringement suit against Spanx in New York. In the meantime, Yummie Tummie founder (and reality TV personality) Heather Thomson posted an open letter on the Yummie Tummie website to billionaire Spanx founder Sara Blakely, tried to start a Twitter campaign (#shameonyouspanx) and told Women's Wear Daily that Blakely should be "ready for war."
Forbes ran an interesting piece on Wednesday calling the Spanx-Yummie Tummie dispute "Fashion's 'Apple vs. Samsung'." Just as the Apple-Samsung case put a spotlight on design patents in the technology industry, Forbes' Clare O'Connor writes, the shapewear battle could help the fashion world realize the potential for design patents as a tool for intellectual property protection. In part because the timeline of patent cases can often exceed the short lifespan of fashion trends, patent infringement claims haven't been the go-to method for protecting fashion designs. "For clothes and accessories with longer shelf lives like handbags, sunglasses and lingerie, though, the design patent is a useful tool," O'Connor writes. She also notes that fashion brands "can now ask not just for a judge to step into their design patent dispute, but the U.S. Patent Office, thanks to November's America Invents Act."
The Forbes piece and other coverage of the shapewear dispute link it to another recent high-profile case that illustrates the potential for design patent enforcement in the fashion industry: the lawsuit brought last fall by yoga-wear company Lululemon Athletica against Calvin Klein over alleged infringement of design patents for Lululemon's "Astro Pant." The case ended with a confidential settlement. Whether or not that's the direction that Spanx and Yummie Tummie are headed, it will be interesting to see which other apparel companies will decide to step into the design patent litigation ring.
April 11, 2013 | Permalink
| Comments (2)
April 10, 2013
'Breastaurant' Trademarked by Bikinis Eatery
Watch out, Hooters. Texas restaurant chain Bikinis Sports Bar & Grill can now officially call itself "America's ONLY Breastaurant®." Bikinis founder and CEO Doug Guller announced in a recent press release that "Breastaurant® is now a Registered Trademark through the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the Department of Commerce." It's a signal of a growing industry -- and it's not the first time that the restaurants formerly known as breastaurants have made news over intellectual property-related issues.
The breastaurant term has been used to describe establishments that offer food, drink and, most importantly, waitresses in smaller-than-average uniforms. Among them: the Tilted Kilt Pub & Eatery, which has a Celtic theme and waitresses called Tilted Kilt Girls® who sport tartan bra-tops and tiny kilts. The Twin Peaks chain -- slogan: "Eats. Drinks. Scenic Views" -- offers a mountain lodge atmosphere with female wait staff dressed in what might be best described as "sexy lumberjack" attire, and which promises patrons that, "Twin Peaks is about you, because YOU'RE THE MAN!" New York-based Canz has a roadhouse vibe, with waitresses in tight black tank tops and knee socks. At Bikinis, the servers wear cut-off shorts and -- well, you've guessed it already. And, of course, there's Hooters.
Bikinis' website explains Guller's moment of inspiration for his restaurant concept, which occurred while he was sitting in a bar during a vacation to Australia in 2001. After being approached by an attractive server offering beer, Guller found that "Life suddenly made sense to him. He thought to himself, 'This is a nearly perfect combination: relaxing, drinking, sports, girls, service ... plus great food.'" The formula appears to be working just fine for Bikinis and its competitors. An ABC News story from 2012 reported that the restaurant category has grown to a billion-dollar industry that is proving virtually recession-proof.
As profits have grown, so has intellectual property litigation. Hooters brought a trade secret case in 2011, after a former Hooters vice president left to help develop Twin Peaks, allegedly taking "sensitive business information" and documents with him. The parties ultimately settled. Twin Peaks itself initiated a trade dress suit in 2010 against Arkansas-based Grand Tetons LLC, which was opening a similar restaurant called Northern Exposure. As Fayetteville, Ark.'s ABC 4029TV reported at the time, "The lawsuit does not mention Hooters, the restaurant known for its bar food and scantily clad waitresses, nor does it mention the TV shows with which Twin Peaks and Northern Exposure share a name."
Back in 2005, Hooters failed in its own effort to bring a trade dress suit against Florida restaurant chain WingHouse, with claims predominantly based on its concept of the "iconic Hooters Girl." The case made it to the Eleventh Circuit, where a panel affirmed a district court decision that provides an entertaining read, given its legal analysis of skimpy waitress uniforms. The district court said that Hooters admitted in its suit that "the Hooters Girl's predominant function is to provide vicarious sexual recreation, to titillate, entice, and arouse male customers' fantasies." This "essential functionality" disqualifies the Hooters Girl from trade dress protection, the court held.
The breastaurant wars are likely to continue, and it remains to be seen whether Bikinis will be compelled to enforce its new trademark. In the meantime, founder Guller has been busy with other ventures. As Legal Blog Watch reported last July, Guller bought the abandoned Texas town of Bankersmith on Craigslist and renamed it Bikinis, Texas. Actualy, there's some disagreement about whether the purchased land ever really qualified as a "town" and about exactly how the Craigslist deal went down, but, all that aside, Guller has plans that include a potential reality show. "We hope the television show introduces the Bikinis brand to a much wider audience," he told the Austin Business Journal. "We don't think we've even scratched the surface yet."
April 10, 2013 | Permalink
| Comments (8)
April 08, 2013
Suing With the Stars: The Trump-Maher Feud and Other Celebrity Lawsuits
Donald Trump announced last week that he is dropping his $5 million lawsuit against comedian Bill Maher over Maher's statement on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno that he would donate $5 million to a charity of Trump's choice if Trump could prove that he was not "the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan." The joke was a reference to an offer that Trump -- a supporter of the so-called "birther" movement -- made to President Barack Obama last fall to donate $5 million to charity if Obama would release his college transcripts.
Trump produced his birth certificate and sued Maher for $5 million, saying that Maher didn't honor his end of the bargain. The spat escalated with Maher's incredulous response on his TV show, Real Time with Bill Maher, in which he said Trump needed to learn "what a joke is and what a contract is" and that the legal system is "not a toy for rich idiots to play with." As The Am Law Daily reported ("Comic Maher Goes Ape Over Cooley-Repped Trump's Simian Sex Suit"), Maher also took some comic shots at Trump's lawyer, Cooley's Scott Balber, showing a letter from Balber and saying, "Look at the lawyer's signature -- it just kind of trails off, as if to say, 'I'm too embarrassed to even finish this.'"
Trump has now "temporarily withdrawn" the suit, saying he may amend and refile it at a later date. Inspired by the (possible?) resolution of the dispute, Flavorwire compiled an interesting list of lawsuits brought by celebrities against other celebrities over the years. Below are a few of the notable Hollywood legal battles.
Cary Grant vs. Chevy Chase
In a 1980 lawsuit, also sparked by a talk-show appearance, silver-screen giant Cary Grant sued comedian-actor Chevy Chase over a joke Chase told on Tom Snyder's Tomorrow show. Chase said of Grant: "I understand he was a homo. He was brilliant. What a gal!" Grant filed a $10 million slander suit against Chase, which settled out of court. Grant's daughter, Jennifer Grant, addressed rumors that her father was gay in her 2011 memoir about him: "Dad somewhat enjoyed being called gay. He said it made women want to prove the assertion wrong."
Quentin Tarantino vs. Alan Ball
Their houses may be bigger, but celebrities apparently squabble with their neighbors just like the rest of us. Flavorwire cites several Hollywood-neighbor legal battles (including Wes Craven vs. Pauly Shore; and Jim Belushi vs. Julie Newmar) -- the most colorful being the 2011 fight between two Academy Award-winning writer-directors, Quentin Tarantino and Alan Ball, over some very vocal exotic birds. Tarantino sued Ball over the noise from an outdoor aviary on Ball's property, alleging that Ball's pet macaws emitted "blood-curdling screams at random intervals" throughout the day and that the "obnoxious, pteradactyl-like screams" disturbed Tarantino's ability to work in his home. Tarantino's complaint opened with a literary flourish in the form of a quote from Goethe: "He is the happiest, be he king or peasant, who finds peace in his home." Tarantino''s peace was presumably restored by an agreement with Ball, as the case settled out of court.
Gore Vidal vs. Truman Capote
In an earlier writerly match-up, Gore Vidal filed a million-dollar libel suit against Truman Capote over a 1975 Playgirl interview in which Capote said that Vidal had been thrown out of a 1961 White House party honoring Princess Lee Radziwill because of his drunken behavior. Radziwill earned the ire of her former friend Capote by taking Vidal's side in the dispute, and mutual friends and eyewitnesses including George Plimpton were caught in the crossfire. In a 1979 People magazine story, Plimpton said of Vidal and Capote's fight, "I don't know what division the feud should be in. I don't want to say flyweight -- maybe bantamweight. I wish they'd go back to having tea at the Plaza."
Capote and Vidal settled the legal matter, but the feud was a a lifelong one, inspiring some of the most colorful put-downs on record. Said Capote of Vidal: "I'm always sad about Gore -- very sad that he has to breathe every day." Recalling Capote in a 2008 interview, Vidal said: "Capote I truly loathed. The way you might loathe an animal. A filthy animal that has found its way into the house."
April 8, 2013 | Permalink
| Comments (1)
April 04, 2013
Judge Admits to Sex in Chambers, Racy Text Messages
The latest in the salacious saga of Michigan Judge Wade McCree has been making the law blog rounds this week (via Jonathan Turley, Above the Law), with the release of McCree's answer to the state Judicial Tenure Commission's complaint against him over a series of alleged ethics violations related to his sexual relationship with a complaining witness in a child support case. McCree, who allegedly impregnated the woman, Geniene La'Shay Mott, admitted in his answer to the complaint that he "made the unfortunate decision to engage in a sexual relationship with Ms. Mott and also admits that on a few occasions, the relationship took place in his chambers."
McCree allegedly sent text messages to Mott from the bench, including a much-reported text cited in the complaint, which read: "C'mon, U'r talking about the 'docket from hell, 'filled w/tatted up, overweight, half-ass English speaking, gap tooth skank hoes ... and then you walk in." McCree states in his answer that the message "was sent in an effort to flatter Ms. Mott and was not intended to demean any person who had appeared in [McCree's] courtroom." Jonathan Turley writes: "I cannot imagine anyone feeling demeaned by a judge calling them "tatted up, overweight, half-ass English speaking, gap tooth skank hoes." In McCree's world, that appears to be terms of endearment." The complaint and answer include a number of other text messages and emails of note, none of them particularly printable.
In case you missed it, McCree received a public censure in 2012 over a shirtless cellphone photo that he sent to a female court employee. Specifically, he was reprimanded by the Judicial Tenure Commission for his "flippant manner" in responding to media questions about the photo, which the commission said "brought shame and obloquy to the judiciary. For example, when discussing the digital image of him he said, 'There is no shame in my game.'"
McCree had some more to say about the photo incident in his answer to the latest pending complaint, contending that "the image was no more 'nude' than the photos of Olympic swimmers Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte which appeared in the media worldwide on an almost daily basis during the summer of 2012." He also stated that the female deputy "attested to the fact that she ... retained the image as inspiration to motivate her to improve her workouts and eating habits."
The continuing revelations about McCree's antics have earned him Above the Law's "Judge of the Day" title numerous times thus far, with ATL suggesting that "he's crossing into Judge of the Decade status." Stay tuned for the next chapter.
For more stories on judges in trouble, see "The Hot Seat," our roundup of ALM coverage.
April 4, 2013 | Permalink
| Comments (4)
April 03, 2013
ReDigi's Loss Fuels IP Fight Over Digital Resales
A significant copyright decision this week has lawyers, bloggers and commentators speculating about the future of the first sale doctrine in the digital age. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Sullivan has granted summary judgment in favor of Capitol Records in its infringement suit against online digital music reseller ReDigi, which bills itself as "The World's First Pre-Owned Digital Marketplace." Sullivan rejected ReDigi's first sale defense, holding that the defense "is limited to material items, like records, that the copyright owner put into the stream of commerce" and finding that, in reselling digital music, ReDigi is "distributing reproductions of the copyrighted code embedded in new material objects, namely, the ReDigi server in Arizona and its users' hard drives." Sullivan wrote that the first sale defense "does not cover this any more than it covered the sale of cassette recordings of vinyl records in a bygone era."
On the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Deeplinks Blog, EFF's Corynne McSherry writes that what is "particularly frustrating" about the ruling is that "the court reached that decision despite the fact that Redigi went out of its way to prevent actual harm to any copyright owner." The method by which ReDigi transfers ownership of the digital music files was a point of contention in the suit, with ReDigi at one point comparing the process to a train, bringing a file from one destination to another, and the judge himself during oral argument likening it to a Star Trek "transporter." In an article about the ruling on the Publishers Weekly website, James Grimmelmann explores the issue, writing that "the Internet is both a transporter and a cloning machine. Unfortunately, copyright law is firmly, thoroughly convinced that technologies can only be one or the other."
TIME Tech correspondent Matt Peckham, in an opinion piece on that site, discusses another challenge to the resale of digital content: the fact that it is "perma-new" and doesn't deteriorate over time in the manner of most used goods offered for resale. But Peckham argues that "'Newness,' 'sameness' and 'valued' aren't always the same things, and even where they are, it's surely not incumbent on consumers who buy a digital object to protect the copyright owner's market by sacrificing a time-honored practice like being able to resell it, is it?"
At the start of his order, Judge Sullivan noted that the court was not taking on such policy questions. "Because this is a court of law and not a congressional subcommittee or technology blog, the issues are narrow, technical, and purely legal," he wrote. Sullivan concluded that ReDigi was asking for "judicial amendment of the Copyright Act to reach its desired policy outcome," and declined to provide it, writing that "here, the Court cannot of its own accord condone the wholesale application of the first sale defense to the digital sphere, particularly when Congress itself has declined to take that step."
Attorney Aaron Sanders, who has written extensively about the case on his blog, offers a counter to that position in a post today analyzing the decision. "Isn't it just as fair to say that, in ruling against ReDigi, the court has significantly expanded copyright, and only Congress should be allowed to do that?" Sanders writes. "In any case pitting two sets of entrenched interests, like this one, there is going to be a policy winner and a policy loser -- the landscape of copyright law will be altered one way or the other."
ReDigi is still facing damages and is likely to appeal. Sullivan's order gives the parties until April 12 to present their position on the next steps in the case. Of course, the varied and complex issues involved in the resale of digital goods will not soon be resolved. Much of the coverage of the ruling draws connections to the high-profile patents issued to Amazon and, most recently, to Apple, that involve methods for resale and transfer of digital content. As Chris Morran writes at the Consumerist blog, "It's inevitable that widespread digital reselling will someday be allowed, though we only have the murkiest picture of what it may look like."
April 3, 2013 | Permalink
| Comments (1)
April 02, 2013
A Standing Controversy at the Supreme Court
In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court same-sex marriage arguments, a post by law professor Dale Carpenter on The Volokh Conspiracy blog has been making the rounds on Twitter and in the legal blogosphere. Carpenter discusses what he calls "The Real Standing Problem in the Marriage Cases," the phenomenon witnessed last week when those hoping for a seat inside the courtroom for the historic oral arguments waited in line for several cold days and nights -- or, in many cases, paid other individuals hundreds or even thousands of dollars to wait in their places. Carpenter describes his experience of being in line for the arguments and watching as people eventually arrived to relieve their paid line-sitters and, in some instances, invited their friends to join them, pushing back even more people who had been waiting all night.
In a compelling commentary in favor of allowing cameras in the Supreme Court, The National Law Journal's veteran Supreme Court correspondent Tony Mauro described the line outside the court before the arguments as "more befitting of a music hall or an Apple store on the eve of the release of a new iPhone." He argues that, "The notion that spectators have to camp out or spend money to see a public institution do public business is offensive. It is the direct result of the court's arrogant and stubborn refusal to allow cameras to record and broadcast its proceedings."
Mauro also wrote a piece on the "more literal standing issue" for the NLJ's Supreme Court Brief, quoting Carpenter and other attorneys who were disturbed by the situation at last week's arguments. Some argued that using paid stand-ins in the line for the general public was one thing, but paying someone to hold a place in the separate line for members of the Supreme Court bar was more "unseemly," in the words of Alan Morrison, associate dean of The George Washington University Law School. After waiting in that bar-members line starting at 2:15 a.m., only to be pushed back by lawyers who jumped in ahead with their companions hours later, Carpenter missed out on a seat inside the courtroom for the DOMA arguments last Wednesday.
In a timely post published on April 1st, Rick Hasen of the Election Law Blog offered a tongue-in-cheek solution in the form of a faux U.S. Supreme Court press release announcing two new policies for high-profile cases at the high court. Under one of the rules, offenders "will be sent to the Chief Justice's office by the Supreme Court police for a stern talking-to. Parents of line cutters may be called." The other rule provides for the dissemination of wristbands "generally following procedures for the distribution of Bruce Springsteen floor admission" and the creation of a new "pit area" for Supreme Court oral arguments.
"The Court does not plan on changing its policy barring the use of cameras at argument," the supposed press release concludes. Even on April Fool's' Day.
For more on the court's real-life policy regarding the bar line, and lawyers' response to the policy, see "Tough standing issues in an exclusive line for lawyers" [subscriber-access, Supreme Court Brief].
April 2, 2013 | Permalink
| Comments (0)
April 01, 2013
A Fond Farewell and a Quick Hello
Law.com and Legal Blog Watch are bidding a very fond farewell to Bruce Carton, the wise and witty voice of LBW for the past 3 1/2 years, and we wish him the best in his many exciting endeavors. Since I will be blogging here at LBW, I wanted to offer a brief introduction. I've been an editor with Law.com for close to 10 years, and, during a stint in Washington, D.C., I covered the colorful side of U.S. Supreme Court arguments in an "Inside the High Court" series that I originated. I have a degree from Harvard Law School, and live just north of San Francisco with a lawyer-husband and two preschoolers who -- if their current keen negotiating skills are any indication -- may just grow up to be lawyers, too.
Legal Blog Watch will continue to strive to round up some of the most interesting content from the legal blogosphere. We welcome your suggestions about topics and features you'd like to see covered here. Don't hesitate to reach out in the comments or contact me directly at LNewby@alm.com.
April 1, 2013 | Permalink
| Comments (5)