« January 2005 |
Main
| March 2005 »
February 28, 2005
HOW NOT TO BE A @#%$!! PLAGIARIST
The fastest path to writerly self-destruction -- be it a brief or a blog posting -- is to label someone else's work as your own.
Even with the advent of Creative Commons, a "nonprofit that offers a flexible copyright for creative work," basically creating an open-source environment for art of all kinds, it's amazing how many people are sloppy or even scurrilous about tucking someone else's work anonymously into their own.
J. Craig Williams, a former reporter turned litigator, offers this guide to legal writers keen to watchdog their own behavior:
"If you're going to copy someone else's work, provide credit. What's the format? Try this one out: Who, What, Where and When. List the author, the title of the author's work, the location (easy to do on the Web with hyperlinks) and when the work was published. That information should pass even the toughest muster. Sometimes, blogging is original ideas. Sometimes, it's commentary on someone else's ideas or news source. When you comment or copy, cite. It's that simple."
And when mistakes are made, as you shuffle papers and notes and e-mails and text files? Broadcast credit where credit is due, e.g., by following Williams' example from the National Law Journal. More here.
February 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
NOW THAT I'VE FIGURED OUT WHAT RSS FEEDS ARE, WHERE DO I FIND THEM?
Here, courtesy of Bob Ambrogi, is a site that catalogs corporate RSS feeds by category, including:
- Education
- Government
- Health
- News and media
- Science
- Sports
- Your feed here
Called Nooked RSS Directory, they're missing a few categories (hint: law ...), but they appear to treat corporate bloggers and mainstream media equally, so it's worth listing your firm's feed if you have one. But they just say no to personal blogs with this message:
"If you have a corporate Web site that offers RSS feeds, use this page to add them to the Nooked directory. Our focus is on corporate feeds -- please do not submit noncorporate feeds (such as those from personal weblogs) to this directory. What qualifies as a corporate RSS feed? Is the RSS feed created and published by a company? If the answer is yes, then please submit it below."
February 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
ALLEGED "PREENING BEFORE THE BLOGOSPHERIC MIRROR"
... That's my new favorite criticism for us bloggers, apparently elicited by The Volokh Conspiracy (see here). But after looking at this weekend's posts on the takings clause, elicited by Kelo v. City of New London, I gotta say this much: These Law.com bloggers are lookin good. So just keep on preening, folks:
- The Volokh Conspiracy | Orin Kerr
- Crime and Federalism
What do you think?
February 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
NEW PATENT FEES "NAKED ATTEMPT" TO FUND "TAJ MAHAL"?
Listen up, IP geeks: Bill Heinze posted a key update on new rules for patent applications fees proposed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
You have until March 30, 2005, to submit written comments, but the community's already making itself felt, according to Heinze:
"One commentator has already referred to these proposed rule changes as a 'naked attempt to gain more fees [in order] to pay the freight at the new Taj Mahal of government complexes in Alexandria.'"
What do you think? Details here.
February 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
DARWIN AWARDS FOR ATTORNEYS
In the grand tradition of the Darwin Awards comes Carolyn Elefant's latest post. In "What's Worse -- A Lying Lawyer or A Stupid, Greedy One?," Elefant tells the story of an attorney who's being disciplined for duping two colleagues into joining a fictitious law firm.
Elefant, as she is wont to do, does a little ex post facto reading-between-the-lines for the two colleagues -- and, happily for this reader, she doesn't hold back:
"Here's my real beef. If dishonesty, outside the context of an attorney-client relationship is grounds for disbarment, why isn't greed and incompetence? After all, what were those lawyers who left their jobs thinking when a former public defender claimed to have $5.2 million to start a firm? Did those lawyers think it was a wise business move to work for an attorney who offered to buy them BMWs rather than reinvesting the money back in the firm? Did the lawyers ask whether Sutherin had a business plan for further growth of the firm or office space or even a Web site? Were they at all concerned that a former public defender, who I'm assuming had no previous experience running a law firm, would be capable of launching a practice that would succeed from the start? Did they try to negotiate some kind of written employment agreement? At best, the duped attorneys were guilty of simple incompetence in failing to protect their own interests and at worst, of allowing the lure of fancy cars and high salaries to obscure their good judgment. Surely, we don't want that kind of attorney in practice any more than a dishonest one. So why weren't those attorneys subject to discipline also?"
More here.
February 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
YER HONOR, WHEN DO "STICKS AND STONES" BORDER ON "CRIMINAL ACTS"?
For the 10th time in six years, the Texas Supreme Court has reversed "an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for failing to meet the exacting requirements of that tort," writes Mike Fox. He thinks there are enough leading indicators to guess where the court's headed:
"Even assuming the truth of all that, 'callous, meddlesome, mean-spirited, officious, overbearing, and vindictive' as it would be -- it is not enough to meet the outrageous conduct standard required for intentional infliction of emotional distress . What it will take, for as long as the claim remains viable, is 'circumstances bordering on serious criminal acts.'"
Much more here.
February 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
BETTY LOU'S WILD RIDE VIA THE CREATIVE APPLICATION OF SECTION 1983
Update from Michael Cernovich on today's published opinion in Dossett v. First State Bank: "The judge remanded the case for a re-trial because the jury instruction was erroneous. Victory!"
Original post:
Once upon a time, Betty Lou Dossett worked at a bank. She was an at-will employee, or, in other words, could be fired at any time.
Then, one day, she was fired -- but not for something she did on the job. Instead, the bank fired Ms. Dossett for making public comments at a school board meeting that the school board president didn't like. Fire her, the board prez told her boss, or I'll take the school's business to another bank!
But wait, there's more -- read Michael Cernovich's post, "Poor Betty Lou," to find out how Dossett's attorney effectively sued the bank under section 1983, won her a $1.56 million jury settlement and then ended up in appeals court anyhow.
February 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
"SURVIVING SEX, DRUGS AND PETTY CRIME"
Bob Ambrogi recommends a new blog "about life, not law" by Neeraja Viswanathan.
February 28, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
February 25, 2005
VOLOKH: "BECAUSE I WRITE IN ENGLISH NOT LATIN, DAMMIT"
Of octopuses and indexes -- here, courtesy of The Volokh Conspiracy's blogfather, Eugene Volokh.
February 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
HMMM -- FILE UNDER "RADICAL SELF-HELP" OR "PROOF I AM SATAN"?
Crime & Federalism's Norm Pattis has some particularly choice turns of phrase as he expresses his outrage over a story that is on today's Law.com newswire, "Man Can Sue for Distress Over Surprise Pregnancy, but Sperm Were Hers to Keep."
In a nutshell, two doctors had a stormy affair six years ago. Now the male doctor is suing the female doctor for "calculated, profound personal betrayal," saying she secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to get pregnant.
More here.
February 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
ONLINE LITIGATION TIPS
Here, as recommended by Carolyn Elefant (and yesterday by Monica Bay).
February 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
KELO V. CITY OF NEW LONDON: WHAT IF THE CITY WANTED YOUR HOUSE?
In Kelo v. New London, J. Craig Williams wants to know, "How far does the government's power reach?"
"... Usually redevelopment is fairly easy, within some boundaries. Property is blighted, contaminated, run-down or some other problem exists. The citizens want the place cleaned up and returned to productive use. What about the case here, where the homes in the Fort Trumbull area are fine? ... New London will make more tax revenue from the development. It will also provide more shopping and potentially a public aquarium.
"Who's right? How would you want the Supreme Court to rule?"
Williams is open to comments here.
February 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
AS IN FRU-ITS OF THE DE-VIL
In a TGIF happy hour for geeky surfers, Bill Heinze introduces EEVL, the Internet Guide to Engineering, Mathematics and Computing, "an award-winning FREE service, created and run by a team of information specialists from a number of universities and institutions in the UK."
Heinze says EEVL delivers, among other services:
- Internet Resource Catalogue, of more than 200 engineering trade and scholarly journals
- Bibliographic database on Recent Advances in Manufacturing
- SearchLT database of teaching and learning resources
- Offshore Engineering Information Service
- Latest industry news in Engineering, Mathematics and Computing
More here.
February 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
LAWYER LOVE IS HARD. A GOOD MATCHING SERVICE AIN'T SIMPLE.
First came attorney directory/client matching service LegalMatch, which Matt Homann schooled in the past year.
Now comes Attorney Match, a new service launched yesterday by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell. Bob Ambrogi reports that, for $450, an attorney can list themselves on the service at Lawyers.com in three practice areas. Consumers can search by zip code and area of practice for a list of 10 attorney "matches" and then e-mail the winner.
Ambrogi's already elicited one comment from an anonymous user rating various services, including those by injuryboard.com and attorneypages.com. What's the best listings service out there? He's open to comments here.
February 25, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
February 24, 2005
KELO V. CITY OF NEW LONDON: TEXTUALISM AND THE TAKINGS CLAUSE
Day Two Update: Orin Kerr's lengthy response to Stuart Buck's response to Kerr's initial post, below.--LS
The Volokh Conspiracy's Orin Kerr has elicited what must be a record-breaking 64 comments with his challenge-cum-question on textualists and the Supremes' take on the takings clause:
"My question is, what am I missing? How can a textualist agree with the Court's current reading of the takings clause? My very quick look at the cases suggests that the Court picked up the "public use" element as a requirement for a taking back in the days when the Justices limited the legislature's authority to the "police power"; the idea is that a taking has to be a public use for it to fall within the police power. But the "police power" limitation wasn't rooted in the text of the Constitution, either. It seems to me that a good textualist would say that either the taking in Kelo was for "public use" and required compensation or was for private use and doesn't require compensation at all. Oddly, though, I can't seem to find any self-described textualists who interpret the takings clause this way."
What do you think? Add your comments here.
February 24, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
CERCLA LITIGATION, ROUND UMPTEEN
In his latest installment on Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., J. Craig Williams says that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has figured out an end-run and "Aviall gets a do-over."
See Williams' other posts:
What do you think? He's open to comments.
February 24, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
THE ULTIMATE PATENT SEARCH LINK
Bookmark this, says Bill Heinze.
February 24, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
DOES YOUR LAW FIRM NEED A CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPT?
The story of Hardison & Leone's investment in a client ombudsman, courtesy of The Common Scold. Don't miss her link round-up.
February 24, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
DO YOU GIVE GOOD AUDIO?
Bob Ambrogi has a terrific introduction to podcasting in the latest edition of Law Technology News. "Its name evokes images of some sort of sci-fi fly-fishing, but podcasting may just be the next big thing in CLE," Ambrogi writes.
Ambrogi introduces legal bloggers in a new light, including J. Craig Williams, who blogged about podcasting here and introduces another new p[law]dcast here, plus Denise Howell and Ernie Miller. In Ambrogi's opinion, the phenomenon of podcasting is particularly suited to attorneys:
"Think about all the hours you waste driving in your car, sitting on a subway or waiting at an airport. What if you could use that time to listen to up-to-the-minute and substantive broadcasts covering news from your practice area or jurisdiction? You won't hear it on NPR. You won't even find it on satellite radio. But you may someday soon get it through podcasting."
My favorite part: Ambrogi closes with a comprehensive list of podcasting directories that'll save you time as you try to find the good stuff.
February 24, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
ADD THE CALIFORNIA BAR TO THAT LIST, TOO ...
"Amen!" says The Common Scold, in response to Carolyn Elefant's post, "If We Can't Beat Them, Let's Compete With Them," in which Elefant criticizes the Illinois Bar Association for trying to shut down a legal document prep service called We The People.
With a nod to her experience with the California bar, Monica Bay writes:
"I have always been outraged about the California bar's often overzealous paranoia about "UPL" (unauthorized practice of law) -- and attacking efforts by paralegals and others to help out the underserved. (Nolo has long been a strong advocate for these types of services). Or the Texas bar establishment's attempts to run the Quicken folks outta Dodge. Of course, always under the self-righteous flag of "consumer protection." Ohhh please. Get real. Lawyers can't AFFORD to service most of these folks. Routine uncontested divorces and minor bankruptcies don't justify an hourly rate that will generate a profit. That's the real irony. Attorneys can't charge enough to make it worth their while ..."
Do you agree with Bay and Elefant? They'd welcome your comments.
February 24, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
February 23, 2005
WE THE [CLUELESS ILLINOIS BAR] PEOPLE
Carolyn Elefant delivers a sound spanking to the Illinois Bar Association for its position against a legal document prep service called We The People. In her opinion, the Illinois Bar needs to examine the scenario from both a competitive and a client perspective and get a clue.
Here's a sample from her lengthy post, "If We Can't Beat Them, Let's Compete With Them":
"... So why are lawyers threatened? The bars won't admit that lawyers want to preserve their own business. Most claim instead that document prep companies do a disservice to clients with shoddy work or improper advice. That's a significant problem. But rather than try to shut these companies down, it's our job as attorneys to persuade clients that the value that attorneys can add to living wills and bankruptcy petitions and uncontested divorces justify the added cost. Moreover, client welfare can be preserved through less onerous means such as education or consumer protection claims. Clients who believe that their cases were mishandled have sued We The People and the FTC has fined the company for deceptive advertising practices. Those efforts should be sufficient to protect clients from the inadequacies of document prep services ..."
Read the whole thing and comment here.
February 23, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
JUDICIAL SYSTEM FOR DUMMIES
Volokh Conspiracy blogfather Eugene Volokh welcomes your answer to his reader's question:
"What one book would you recommend that gives a broad overview of the American legal system? Even if I don't go to law school, I need the background just to get a better understanding of public policy."
Professor Volokh specifies that he and his reader seek "a clear, objective description of the legal system as it is. We're not looking for condemnation or praise of the system, or descriptions of the system as it ought to be. ..."
Thus far the list includes works by Barnett, McCloskey, Friedman, Abraham and a blog posting by Timothy Sandefur. Add your contribution here.
February 23, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
WILL HIGH ROADS NOT TAKEN LEAD TO MALPRACTICE?
After reading reports of the circumstances that lead a judge to vacate a criminal defendant's guilty plea, Carolyn Elefant examines the high roads not taken by two attorneys who she thinks had a clear ethical conflict:
"Many attorneys who practice criminal law believe that their malpractice exposure is minimal. After all, it's hard to show that it's more likely than not that a client would have avoided conviction but for the attorney's negligence -- if only because it's so hard to predict what juries might do. But after reading this article, "Man Deserves New Trial Because Lawyers Forced Him to Plead Guilty," Zwire.com (2/19/05), I'm thinking there may be a legal malpractice action coming for the criminal defense attorneys involved. ..."
More here.
February 23, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
IS THE EEOC TRYING ITS TEEN HARASSMENT CASES IN THE MEDIA?
Mike Fox isn't impressed by the news that the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is flying to Phoenix for a press conference on a pair of employment discrimination lawsuits involving teen workers. (Both suits involve sexual harassment of teens at fast-food franchises.)
In "Governing by Publicity? Is That a Good Use of the Justice System?" Fox writes:
"I am not totally sure what I think about this tactic, but it does make me wonder whether this is a good use of government resources (possibly, but I would bet there are better uses), whether it is fair to the defendant (no), and whether since I would normally decry a private plaintiff (or defendant, for that matter) who tried to use a lawsuit for a public relations purpose, I should think any differently just because it is a government agency (I don't see why)." More here.
Perhaps I've spent too much time cordoned off from these events as a member of the press, but IMHO government by publicity -- spin -- dates back to the origin of our species.
If there is a silver lining to this carefully managed announcement, it's that somewhere -- in Phoenix and beyond -- a few teen workers and their parents will pay attention to the allegations in these cases. Kids on the job need adult guidance in arming themselves with the tools to get themselves out of harm's way and reporting sexual harassment when it does happen. And it does happen.
February 23, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
GONZALES V. OREGON AND "THE FORGOTTEN NINTH AMENDMENT"
Now that the Supremes have agreed to weigh in on Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law allowing physician-assisted suicide (story here), Norm Pattis airs his opinion.
Pattis asks, "How did the federal government stick its nose under this tent flap?" He writes:
"The feds are pressing an interpretation of the federal Controlled Substances Act that limits the use of such substances to 'legitimate medical purpose.' Doctors who help terminally ill patients die violate that act, saith Uncle Sam. Except, of course, when the government wants to kill someone, in which case it is all right. Side note: Do death row inmates have a right to die? Read "A Devil's Advocate to Test Right to Die."
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"That's the Ninth Amendment. ..."
What do you think? Pattis is open to comments here.
February 23, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
WALKING PRO BONO TALK
Once upon a time, Andrea D. Moran and Steven I. Gottlieb formed a small law practice, the firm of Moran & Gottlieb, to be specific, in Kingston, N.Y.
One day, Moran and Gottlieb decided they wanted to help people who couldn't afford legal services. So they decided to invest in a free telephone hotline and provide an on-site weekly legal clinic at a local homeless shelter.
Sound good? Then why does Bob Ambrogi say the story, as told by Larry Fisher-Hertz of the Poughkeepsie Journal, reflects poorly on attorneys? Read on here.
February 23, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
EDD 101 FOR FREE
You don't need to beg, borrow or steal this book on EDD, "A Process of Illumination: The Practical Guide to Electronic Discovery" -- Bob Ambrogi helps you obtain a hard or soft copy here.
February 23, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
WELCOME REES MORRISON
Meet Law.com's newest blog affiliate, Law Department Management, written by Rees Morrison. Morrison is a newcomer to blogging and an old hand at extracting value from law firms via better management and cost controls, client satisfaction and technology. He is also the author of numerous books on these topics.
Morrison is currently a senior director of Hildebrandt International. Previously he was a principal at Altman Weil, Inc., and a partner of Arthur Andersen LLP, where he first experienced an open cubicle.
February 23, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
February 22, 2005
NAW, CLERKING FOR THE SUPREMES WON'T CHANGE YOUR LIFE ...
Noting that all four leading candidates to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist were Supreme Court law clerks, The Volokh Conspiracy's Orin Kerr writes, "There isn't a dud in the group."
Riffing on the short list of Bush administration favorites reported in The New York Times, Kerr picks his favorite -- guess who? -- a judge he describes as "simply outstanding":
"I've read about a half dozen [nope, read Kerr to find out -- LS] opinions in the last year, and they were all models for what an appellate opinion should be. Tight, focused, scholarly and balanced. They were beautifully written, too; the guy can make even FERC disputes seem interesting. I also saw a dash of Robert Jackson in them -- a sort of perspective that reflects a deep understanding of how this case fits into other ones. Finally, [Judge X] pulls it off without being flashy. His opinions are highly readable but don't beg for more attention. Excellent stuff."
More here.
Related coverage from Legal Times:
February 22, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
OK, CLERKING MATTERS -- BUT LAW REVIEW MIGHT NOT
In another post on the future of law review magazines, professor Orin Kerr wonders whether legal blogs -- "blawgs" -- have rendered case comments "superfluous" because they beat law reviews for speed and insight. He wonders, is writing practice for students all that's left?
"By the time case comments come out, usually about a year after the decision, it is too little, too late. Litigants, judicial clerks, and anyone else involved in the case can read the output of the blawgs online and take away whatever lessons they wish from the commentary; few are going to go hunting through Westlaw for student comments a year or two later." More here.
Kerr's elicited plenty of reader comments on The Volokh Conspiracy. Here's a sampling:
- John Steele: "Blogs will further erode the utility of case comments, but several prior developments had already rendered case comments nearly useless, imho. ..."
- Ethesis: "Legal newsletters and e-mail lists do far more to spread discussion of new cases than blawgs do. ..."
- DV: " the Web ought to be able to cut down the gap to a week or two. Why can't the editors scan the blawgs and the Court of Appeals' Web sites for noteworthy new opinions, and assign case notes to staffers on a rolling basis, posting them to the review's Web site as soon as they're ready?"
Comment here.
February 22, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
OK, WHO SAID LITIGATION SUPPORT WAS BORING?!
The Common Scold again peeks behind the scenes at the LTN awards to tell us how Latham & Watkins partners John Lynch and Mark Beckett won "Most Innovative Use of Technology in a Trial."
It's quite a story -- sounds like these Paris-based litigators got sucked into a she-said/she-said fashion design dispute over a licensing agreement and joint venture. Their solution? Producing a winning multimedia showstopper in their client's defense:
To demonstrate the designer’s standing "in a quick and memorable manner," the team used a combination of animation, magazine video footage, photographs, and the client's signature club music.
"The team also gathered, organized and digitized case data, and constructed an interactive case timeline, showing the various phases of the joint venture relationship (from "romance" to "honeymoon" to the "divorce").
As a coup de grace, the client was so impressed, she asked for a personal copy for marketing purposes!
More here.
Monica Bay also describes the results for "Most Innovative Use of Technology by a Law Firm," in which the judges selected Hogan & Hartson, specifically citing its CIO, William Gregory.
February 22, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
KOKO THE GORILLA'S FETISH LEADS EMPLOYEES TO SUE
How do you sign to a gorilla, "I" and "QUIT"?
Mike Fox has the story here.
February 22, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
FOR IP GEEKS: A WIPO TO-DO LIST
Bill Heinze kicks off the week on I/P Updates with a to-do list from the World Intellectual Property Organization:
February 22, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
RSS ADS: YEA OR NAY?
J. Craig Williams has written an excellent and educational post that describes the next frontier in sponsored editorial -- ads in RSS feeds.
Please read "Your Opinion Please: Ads In RSS Feeds? What Do You Want?" on May It Please The Court. (Thus far the Yeas have it, 2-0.)
I look forward to reading your feedback.
February 22, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
February 18, 2005
"YOU CAN LEAD A CLIENT TO THE COURTHOUSE, BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE HIM THINK"
"How many times have you heard a lawyer mutter that this would be a great profession but for the clients?" asks Norm Pattis. He continues:
"Truth be told, we lawyers are society's first line of defense against the ravages of those ravaged by mental illness. I have been begging for years for more training on how to recognize, cope with and respond to the mental-health issues that arise in so many cases. Still nothing. We are trained as lawyers to counsel the rational actor. Yet every lawyer has an intuitive grasp of the following aphorism: You can lead a client to the courthouse, but you can't make him think."
Pattis' post immediately called to mind professor Eugene Volokh's post from Thursday (see "Yet Another Ridiculous Lawsuit").
What do you think when you interact with clients like this -- that there oughta be a CLE course? Psychology class? Time to take up marathoning? Wham-O toys? Pattis is open to your ideas here.
February 18, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
WIPO UPDATE
Bill Heinze has an end-of-week update from the World Intellectual Property Organization:
February 18, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
T.G.I.FIRED ALREADY
The Common Scold has scheduled some five-second therapy for managers who hesitate to deliver a little pink slip love to employees who have earned it.
And she's bringing out the big guns: Julie Pearl of The Pearl Group, Michael Schrage of the MIT Media Lab and Bruce MacEwen, blogger of Adam Smith, Esq.
Tucked inside her scolding is a little insider advice from someone who's been on both sides and knows from personal experience that everyone can win from, as she so delicately puts it, removing even the not-so-bad apples from the orange bin.
February 18, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
DOES MOXIE MATTER?
Design eventually happens to every medium, and blogs are quickly catching up from the earliest black-on-white text presentation. Bob Ambrogi, who specializes in a couple of quick-loading, stripped-down sites himself, is impressed with two blogs he recently found that happen to be designed by the same crew.
I like both approaches -- and I speak from a blog network that reaches across the spectrum, from illustrated blogs such as May It Please The Court and The Common Scold to bare-bones Crime and Federalism. What do you think -- gussied up? Pared down? Don't care? Bob's open to comments here.
February 18, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
February 17, 2005
PROPS TO THIS LEGAL/IT GURU
The Common Scold goes behind the scenes at Law Technology News to explain how attorney Brent Kidwell won the magazine's 2004 "Champion of Technology" award.
As someone who has experienced the, um, joy that occasionally comes from melding writers with IT gurus (in newsrooms), I have to give props to Kidwell -- his task as knowledge management guru for Jenner & Block doesn't sound pretty. Editor Monica Bay writes:
"Said the judges: "Brent Kidwell was nominated based on his remarkable success in melding the expertise of the firm's technicians with its lawyers' practices so as to create a uniquely efficient "Client Driven Applied Technology" – all executed within a 12-month period."
Bay gets specific on the types of technologies Kidwell implemented -- and how:
"The resulting KM project included six components: kmSearch, kmDocket, kmDocs, kmTime, JennerNet, and Interaction -- and also included the development of an Applied Technology Group. ..."
More here.
February 17, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
BLITZ-ERED WITH LAWYERLY DERISION
I see that two of the blawgosphere's most evenhanded writers are rolling their eyes this afternoon. What riles Mike Fox and Eugene Volokh? Seems to me it's folks who they feel don't get the law.
First, Mr. Fox rolled his eyes at Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and his comments to CNN's Wolf Blitzer in "the Walmart rhubarb."
Now I see that even sanguine-in-nearly-all-circumstances Eugene Volokh is fed up, too. The good professor is not impressed that Universal Communication Systems CEO Michael J. Zwebner is suing a number of folks over a message board flame war. These defendants include, of all people, CNN's <em>Wolf Blitzer</em>, whom Zwebner accuses of failing to stop some message board yahoo from assuming Blitzer's name in public messages critical of Zwebner on RagingBull.com.
Volokh's assessment? Here's a taster:
"Appalling. First, I doubt that Blitzer even had a legal right to stop Wolfblitzzer0 from his posts; unless the posts were commercial advertising (which I doubt), Blitzer wouldn't have a right of publicity or trademark claim against Wolfblitzzer0. And I doubt Blitzer would have a libel claim (on the theory that Wolfblitzzer0 is hurting Blitzer's reputation by posting things under his name) because few readers would really think that the poster is Wolf Blitzer.
But second ..."
More here.
February 17, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
FOIA GETS A FRIEND
"The OPEN Government Act filed today to shore up the federal Freedom of Information Act would appear to include bloggers as members of the news media and thereby protect them from excessive fees for document requests. ..."
More here on Robert Ambrogi's LawSites -- and he's covering Sunshine Week too.
February 17, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT? PLEA BARGAINING
Michael Cernovich asks, "Does plea bargaining violate the Constitution?"
Cernovich says Timothy Lynch tells him, "Yes," and Timothy Sandefur answers, "No."
He's asking you to read the links and comment here.
February 17, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
THANK MATT HOMANN FOR LEGALMATCH CEO APOLOGY
Before Easongate, came Ketchumgate -- a term that I (and other bloggers) have used to describe the situation in which communications company Ketchum paid commentator and syndicated columnist Armstrong Williams with tax dollars to advocate for Bush administration policies. Williams did not disclose this payola when he appeared on television and radio to give his opinion (more here).
I bring the story up now in order to share with the Law.com community one of the many reasons I am proud to be affiliated with the bloggers listed in the left-hand margin of Legal Blog Watch. It's not that I agree with each blogger each day -- you may have already noticed that -- but that I respect them because every last one won't accept any compensation from any third party in exchange for placing content in their blogs.
That's why I'm pointing out Matt Homann's post, "LegalMatch apologizes." For those of you who don't know, Homann's been bird-dogging LegalMatch over what he calls its "deceitful telephone pitch," among other things, as hard as any consumer reporter ever went after an abusive merchant. Check out Homann's LegalMatch category, and start from the bottom, where you'll see posts like Why I'll Never Use LegalMatch, and LegalMatch Doesn't Get It, etc.
What's notable about Homann's post today is his disclosure that LegalMatch CEO Randy Williams -- the same Williams who stars in many of Homann's posts -- paid for Homann's trip to New York. Homann writes:
"Several weeks ago, I got a telephone call from Randy Wells, the LegalMatch CEO. Randy wanted to meet with me in person, and (after I was certain the purpose of the meeting was not to serve me with summons) I suggested we meet during LegalTech
New York.
(Full Disclosure Time: LegalMatch picked up the tab for my trip to NYC. I did not agree to do anything in exchange for the trip, other than meet with Randy Wells.)Randy and I had a nice conversation during dinner -- most of which was "off the record" -- and we discussed LegalMatch's reputation problem. I told Randy that, though my blog has become sort of a clearinghouse for LegalMatch comments pro and con, my only problem with his company's service was (and remained) the methods they used to entice lawyers to subscribe to their LegalMatch service.
While Randy assured me that things were changing inside LegalMatch, I suggested to him, in true ClueTrain fashion, that he needed to open a dialog with all those who seem to really hate his company, including the people who continue to leave unfavorable comments on this blog.
Randy took my advice, and has sent me the following letter that I post (unedited) in its entirety. If you have comments, feel free to leave them to this post, because I know LegalMatch is reading. Otherwise, call Randy directly. His telephone number is at the end of the letter. ..." More here.
For me, Homann's post confirms that our disclosure system works. What do you think? E-mail me.
February 17, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
WHAT YOUR TEEN'S NOT SUPPOSED TO DO AT WORK -- NO, NOT THAT
Like Mike Fox, I learned to drive at 14.
Unlike Mike Fox, however, I had no idea how many labor laws I was breaking as I scooped ice cream, cooked hot dogs and cleaned freezers before escaping into the air-conditioned comfort of Western Montana's first mall.
If you employ a teenager -- or, even better, if you have one at home who's working -- don't miss Fox's links to a recent press release issued by the Department of Labor.
And while you're at it, enjoy a rare rant from the gentlemanly Fox on what he calls "the Walmart rhubarb."
February 17, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
IF YOU'D SEEN ALIEN: RESURRECTION, YOU'D KNOW THE ANSWER
I keep mulling the concept "chimeric embryo" now that I've read Bill Heinze's post that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is examining what it means to be human. Apparently the USPTO is waiting on a National Academy of Sciences report due in April. Heinze writes:
"I don't think anyone knows in terms of crude percentages how to differentiate between humans and nonhumans," John Doll, Deputy Commissioner for Patents at the USPTO, reportedly told The Washington Post. Yet neither is the office comfortable with a "we'll know it when we see it" approach, he added: "It would be very helpful ... to have some guidance from Congress or the courts."
February 17, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
February 16, 2005
CRANKED UP: BLAWGGERS ON BLOGGERS V. JOURNOS
J. Craig Williams -- attorney and recovering journalist (here) -- listened to a "cranky" NPR report on how attack-blogs are damaging the careers of public figures and now is a tetch cranky himself with the whole discussion. Writes Williams:
"Within the blogosphere, there are opinions. But they're easy to spot. I'd say a lot easier to spot than the opinions offered to us by the gray lady gang, while they oblige us to accept their reporting as factual, when in reality, they're simply disguising their filtered opinions as facts. Between MSM journalism and blogs, I'll take blogs. I can readily see the blogger's perspective, and separate the fact from the opinion. ...
Do you really think that MSM presents news to us without also interjecting their opinion? Yes, the same is true about blogs. But, there are others out there likewise considered within the definition of journalism.
After all, if you have a legal question, who would you rather hear the answer from? A newspaper reporter who asked a lawyer? Or from a lawyer who's also a highly respected law professor?"
Earlier this week, one such law professor, Eugene Volokh, took on a similar media report from The New York Times. In the article, the editor of the Columbia Journalism Review Web site, Steve Lovelady, refers to people who publish unedited comments -- presumably bloggers -- as a "lynch mob." Volokh wrote:
"... The trouble is that here the analogy is extremely weak. What's wrong with lynch mobs? It's that the mob itself has the power to kill. They could be completely wrong, and entirely unpersuasive to reasonable people or to the rest of the public. Yet by their physical power, they can impose their will without regard to the law.
"But bloggers, or critics generally, have power only to the extent that they are persuasive. Jordan's resignation didn't come because he was afraid that bloggers will fire him. They can't fire him. I assume that to the extent the bloggers' speech led him to resign, it did so by persuading the public that he wasn't trustworthy....."
What do you think? E-mail me here.
February 16, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
GOTCHA.EDU
Blogfather Eugene Volokh, noting that University of California is not uc.edu, wants to hear your examples of URLs that "more prominent schools might have also wanted." For example, user Ted notes that Yeshiva University got yu.edu over Yale.
More here.
February 16, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
3L TO SANDER: SMELL OF SEGREGATION?
Legal Times' chat with UCLA Law professor Richard Sander is on now. Here's a sampler:
"Professor Sander, my concern is not that the numbers don't add up, but that too many people are going to take your thesis and interpret 'lack of academic credentials' to mean 'lack of academic ability,' in the same manner that most of America interprets 'the problem with urban America' to mean 'the problem with black America.' In addition, I worry that your assertions that blacks would be better served by attending schools that are, um, 'better suited' to them smells awfully like something a segregationist would appreciate. Could you please address these issues?" -- Thomas, University of Michigan Law '03
Sander: "Yes, I've been frustrated that many media reports on the article imply that I believe blacks 'can't compete' in law school. My data shows that the performance problem has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with preferences. That is to say, a white student who gets a large preference (because of alumni connections, for example) has the exact same problems in law school as a black student who gets a large preference. Conversely, blacks who pass up their 'first choice' schools to go to a less elite school have graduation and bar passage rates very similar to (or better than) comparable whites. The problem is putting any student in an environment where all his or her classmates have far higher test scores or undergraduate credentials. Trying to reduce that problem certainly doesn't mean segregating law schools in general and need not segregate any school in particular."
February 16, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
KNOW THINE ENEMY: TORT FAN'S NOD TO LIT REFORM BLOG
Bob Ambrogi writes:
"As an unabashed believer that tort lawyers wear white hats, I find much here to disagree with. But, disagree though I may, I know a thoughtful, thorough and well-executed blog when I see it, and this is one."
Have you guessed which blog he's talking about?
February 16, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack
9TH CIRCUIT REFUSES TO GET GRADE-A LONG UNDIES IN A BUNCH
J. Craig Williams sounds disappointed that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to answer whether federal courts have jurisdiction over out-of-state Internet retailers. (See Jeff Chorney's article for The Recorder here).
To Williams' irritation, we still don't know where Internet e-tailers can be sued:
"We're left to wonder what will ultimately be the law in this circuit and wanting for guidance over whether California can exercise jurisdiction over companies doing business in the state via the Internet.
"If you were on the court, how would you decide? Should L.L. Bean expect to be dragged from Maine into court here in California? "
He's open to comments here.
February 16, 2005 | Permalink
| TrackBack