A few days ago, Ed at Blawgreview sent me a link to another of the new genre of Lawyer scam websites, this mutt called Best Attorneys Online. Why call it that? Because Lawyers So Lousy And Desperate For Business That They Will Pay Some Yutz Like Me For A Listing On My Internet Scam Website would not be a big draw, Sadly, before I posted about this new scam, largely because so much of my time this week has been eaten up with fighting another marketing scam, the backlinks comment scheme, Bob Ambrogi beat me to it. The website claims to be
“an independent authority on the best attorneys at law,” and went to say:
The independent authority evaluates each attorney at law based several identified factors depending on the field of expertise. An assigned experienced research team reviews case history and firm expertise on the targeted field of practice taking into account specialized state variances on the legal issues. The team analyzes information provided by each firm, and compares that against the market of lawyers throughout the state. Once the evaluation is complete, the team compiles the overall data, and assigns each firm a ranking.
So far so good. I decided to check…
After all, what’s honesty when there’s a buck to be made. And it’s not like we’re lawyers. Oops. we are lawyers. Never mind.
Over at Concurring Opinions, lawprof Danielle Citron is still pounding the pavement in her quest to turn the free speech issue of online “harassment” (defined as anything that makes some woman feel bad) into a feminist issue. As much as I admire her tenacity, horses across the nation are complaining about the resultant shortage of straw.
This time, the Denver University Law Review has sponsored a symposium to debate the issue. Unfortunately, the trick is to have a debate amongst sycophants, carefully vetting the participants to make sure that no one gets in the door who isn’t wholly wedded to the gender shift. It’s an important lesson for law students, that if you want to win an argument, make sure that nobody who disagrees is around. Smart move, Danielle.
In the meantime, the very nasty, and yet remarkably dubious, trial in the media of 30 year old John Albert Gardner III is proceeding at ABC’s Good Morning America. Gardner is accused of raping and murdering 17 year old Chelsea King, a horrific crime and one which, if he’s proven guilty, surely merits the fullest outrage our system can provide. The piece by Mike Von Fremd, et al., naturally starts out with questions by John Walsh, never one to let proof of guilt precede condemnation, like “Why was this animal out on the streets?” But it gets worse from there.
Former San Diego County District Attorney Paul Pfingst was slightly more objective.
“I am of the view that people who do harm to teenage girls should go to Gitmo and stay there for the rest of their lives and be waterboarded,” he said.
My comment was that as a parent I would want the most extreme punishment for a rapist killer. The way it was phrased was intended to be so over the top that it would be immediately recognized as hyperbole.
I went on to say that it would be wrong to have a criminal justice system that acted based upon the emotions of the moment. . My point was that anger cannot overwhelm our need to follow the legal processes. I went on to point out that so far we didn’t know a single piece of evidence. Only leaks and rumors. And that he is presumed innocent.
I have long since given up trying to seek corrections from the press.
Nothing like taking the 10 seconds of a quote that leaves the ugliest misimpression, eh Mike? While this serves as a reminder that speaking to the press carries grave risks, it also reminds us that the internet is an unforgiving place, where one out-of-context quote will be repeated enough to wrongly smear someone forever. Even Doug Berman, in his post on the Gardner case, perpetuates Pfingst’s quote. After all, GMA would never lie.
And finally, via Walter Olson at Overlawyered, a truly interesting Reason TV interview with a remarkably youthful looking Eugene Volokh. The best part comes at the end, when Eugene does a rousing rendition of the Phil Ochs classic, Outside of a Small Circle of Friends, accompanied by 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski on the ocarina.