Somebody likes The Honorable Catherine Lhamon. Bet you didn’t even know you could die from sexual harassment, but it must be true or you couldn’t be a survivor. Continue reading
On the one hand, Indiana lawprof Bill Henderson has been a tenacious proponent of changing the way law schools teach law, On the other hand, he’s fallen under the spell of shiny magic bullets, whether technological or systemic (as in, futurist crackpot Richard Susskind’s “the end of lawyers”). Once on the slippery slope of “why not,” ignoring the damn good reasons why not, it’s hard not to slide to the bottom. That doesn’t mean he’s totally wrong.
According to the recently released government Economic Census data, lawyers disproportionately represent business rather than people.
The work of lawyers is increasingly the work of businesses rather than people. This conclusion flows from recently released Economic Census data, which is the U.S. Government’s “official five-year measure of American business and the economy.”
For the two most recent years (2007 and 2012), the Economic Census data includes an analysis called Revenues/Receipts by Class of Customer for Selected Industries. The chart below compares these two years for Offices of Lawyers (NAICS 541110). Continue reading
Imagine if Congress returned from summer camp, everybody hugged and kissed, apologized for all the mean things they’ve said about the other team, and agreed to rid our nation of the scourge of tens of thousands of criminal laws and replace them all with one:
It shall be a crime to engage in wrongful conduct, as determined by the facts and circumstances.
Crazy, obviously. But in a very real way, it’s what they’ve been doing for decades now, and are continuing to do on the federal and state level by the crafting of vague and overly broad laws, laws that lack the degree of clarity to meet the requirements of the Constitution. And yet, courts uphold them.
A twit from Clio’s “lawyer-in-residence” (whatever that means), Joshua Lenon, was an eye-catcher:
‘The average mental state of lawyers is depressed.’ Belief expressed at #
It’s carefully worded to show that, while it was said, it wasn’t that Josh bought it. But still, it was said at a conference with a hashtag. This “group,” if that’s what it can be called, offers its slogan: Authentic Necessary Collaboration. That may mean something to you. It doesn’t to me, but then, what do I know? I’m just a lawyer.
Our goal is to help shape the future in terms of how people work and how our legal system functions. This means improving the lives of both lawyers and consumers of legal services. We want to create a community of lawyers that are dedicated to practicing law with authenticity and courage. The community will support one another in creating a society in which law is used for good of all, focused on what justice is and what it means to be just. Wellness, mental, physical, and emotional health plays a core part of each member’s identity not only as a lawyer but as human. One way of doing this is to facilitate safe spaces — such as an unconference to talk about what it means to be a human and a lawyer.
We value community, collaboration, commitment to self-care.
When something isn’t working the way you think it should, find something different. And few will argue that bail (or bond, as some refer to it instead) isn’t broken, keeping innocent people in jail pending trial for their inability to pay. This has myriad impacts, most notable among them being guilty pleas to crimes that never occurred or weren’t committed by a defendant because it gets him out now rather than sitting in the can for the next year and a half awaiting a trial that will never happen.
So why impose bail? You can’t let people arrested not appear for court in the future. That would subvert the system and reduce the majesty of the law to a farce. (For the sarcasm impaired, that was sarcasm). Under some bail regimes,* it’s also for the safety of the community, since a presumptively innocent defendant might be cut loose, re-offend and ruin a night’s sleep for the judge who let him out, causing the judge’s worst picture to appear on the front page of a tabloid and all dinner invitations to be rescinded. No judge wants to suffer such humiliation. And why take the chance, just to cut some likely mutt a break by adhering to the law.
The solution most adored is the one least subjective, and that provides the most plausible deniability to those involved, so if the shit hits the fan, the defendant who’s cut loose goes out and murders a white family, has sex with their dog, calls police mean names and then snorts crack, it won’t be the judge’s fault. Blame the algorithm! Continue reading
Criminal defense attorneys say it (often in vain, often too late) to defendants and targets of criminal investigations. Litigators say it to their angry clients. When a lawyer says “shut up,” that doesn’t mean you should never talk about your case again. It means that you shouldn’t talk to police without your lawyer, because the police don’t have your best interests at heart. It means you shouldn’t talk to your pals about your case, because one of them may be trying to work off an arrest and may repeat what you say to the cops. They may even be wearing a wire. It means that everything you say may be used against you – criminally or civilly – and so now, in recognition of your human frailty, you should only say things in carefully controlled circumstances after the benefit of the advice of someone who knows what is going on.
You get it, right? You’ve heard it, over and over, and you don’t need to hear it again. Sure, some n00b will get internet access and have to learn it for the first time, but for you old-timers, we’re boring you. Got it.
So then comes the wrinkle: Continue reading
Hemlines go up. Hemlines go down. So too, apparently, does the Constitution in the rhetoric of the deeply passionate. To celebrate Constitution Day, Drake Law School in Des Moines, Iowa, is hosting a speech entitled “Guns, Speech, and Sex: The Rise of Constitutional Extremism.”
“In recent years, the Constitution has become an article of faith in the worst possible sense,” Franks said. “It is increasingly invoked to justify irrational and destructive agendas in a way that strongly resembles the way religious extremists use the Bible to advance fundamentalist views. This constitutional extremism occurs on both ends of the political spectrum: in the Right’s obsessive focus on the Second Amendment and the Left’s equally obsessive focus on the First. Though their targets are different, constitutional extremism on both the Right and Left is united in the privileging of the powerful.”
Rarely has anything so monumentally idiotic been said, no less at a law school on a day designated to honor the Constitution. But the coined phrase, “constitutional extremism,” is catchy. Rhetoric like this allows the weak-minded to rationalize why no rules should impair their achieving whatever goals they deem vital, at whatever the cost.
As for the “Left’s equally obsessive focus on the First,” that smacks of disingenuousness. These “First Amendment absolutists,” another catchy phrase enjoyed by the intellectually challenged, are hardly progressive. Continue reading
The executive who oversaw this group of rogue employees, Carrie Tolstedt, conveniently announced plans to retire over the summer and, according to Fortune, is being paid $124.6 million on the way out.
To put that in context, the penalty levied against Wells Fargo was $185 million. Somebody in the C-Suite went without an appetizer at lunch to cover that unanticipated cost.
The head honcho, John Stumpf, in an interview given to the San Francisco Chronicle, said:
“I don’t want anyone ever offering a product to someone when they don’t know what the benefit is, or the customer doesn’t understand it, or doesn’t want it, or doesn’t need it.”
In a stunning announcement, Ohio State lawprof Michelle Alexander, whose book, The New Jim Crow, has had an enormous influence on the impact of race in the criminal justice system, has resigned her position and joined Union Theological Seminary.
Law, policy and advocacy have been my world for more than 20 years, and my singular passion for 10 of those years has been finding ways to awaken people to the racial dimensions of mass incarceration and help them see it for the human rights nightmare that it is.
And yet I now feel compelled to change course. I am walking away from the law. I’ve resigned my position as a law professor at Ohio State University, and I’ve decided to teach and study at a seminary.
The “why” isn’t easily explained. Continue reading
Many years ago, we were sent out on a civil jury trial to a Part* that made my co-counsel mutter, “oh fuck, no.” The judge, whose name eludes me now,*** apparently had two issues. First, she was a dolt. Second, she couldn’t speak adequate English. This would have been hilarious, had it not been for the fact that real people’s lives were involved.
Daily during trial, the judge would say something that would evoke, from all counsel on all sides, a response of “what?” The judge would repeat herself, somewhat testily. So again, counsel would ask “what?” The third time she would start screaming at everyone, which reinforced the point that speaking loudly in a foreign language does not make it more comprehensible. The judge was female and Hispanic. This didn’t make trial any easier.
Afterward, I asked a buddy who was on the party screening committee how it was possible they ran a judge who couldn’t speak English, not to mention was a dolt (did I mention that?). He explained that they needed a judge with her immutable attributes to round out their dedication to diversity, and she was the only one who licked enough envelopes at the local Democratic Club for the job. Yes, that is the primary qualification to be nominated, and whoever is nominated by the Democrats in Manhattan wins, because reasons.**
While some would argue that this proposed law impairs the right to contract, it’s not really true. Contracts on the internet are characterized by “adhesion,” meaning that you don’t get an option to negotiate terms, as you would in a person to person contract negotiation. You can take it or leave it, and if you “need” what they’re selling*, then you take it. More to the point, no one reads them, anyway, and no one knows what they’re giving away.
Both houses of Congress have now passed bills prohibiting contracts that preclude individuals from, or penalize them for, making negative reviews. Both the Senate’s and House’s versions offer protection:
(b) Invalidity Of Contracts That Impede Consumer Reviews.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a provision of a form contract is void from the inception of such contract if such provision—
(A) prohibits or restricts the ability of an individual who is a party to the form contract to engage in a covered communication;
(B) imposes a penalty or fee against an individual who is a party to the form contract for engaging in a covered communication; or
She led the townswomen carrying pitchforks and torches to burn down Judge Aaron Persky’s bench for not having destroyed Brock Turner’s life. But after Stanford shrew, Michelle Dauber, was called to account for the inconsistency of hating whom she wanted to hate despite not hating whom she didn’t, Dauber found herself in a conundrum. How to have it both ways?
When ex-Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner became a registered sex offender for life last Tuesday, he joined a nationwide list of registered sex criminals that has grown dramatically in recent years to more than 800,000.
Even some who have denounced Turner’s six-month jail sentence as too lenient for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman question whether he should spend his life with the stigma and onerous restrictions of a registered sex offender.
Denounced as too lenient? Well, that’s rather harmless. After all, I thought it was too lenient. Ken White thought it was too lenient. Michelle Dauber? She wanted him executed, then castrated, then executed again, this time with the judge, and his little dog too. Continue reading