Every once on a while, the same old argument arises to do away with the bar exam because it’s a poor test of the skills needed to practice law and it reduces the number of lawyers, thereby increasing the cost of representation and leaves many without access to representation. This time, Ilya Somin at VC has latched onto a study that appeared in an ABA Journal article to pursue his belief in deregulation of the legal profession.

An important new study by Washington University (St. Louis) legal scholar Kyle Rozema finds that bar exam requirements massively reduce the number of lawyers. While some might cheer that result, the main effect is to increase the cost and reduce the availability of legal services. Lack of access to affordable legal representation is a serious problem in our legal system, particularly for the poor and lower middle class.

Continue reading →

It passed the House judiciary committee by a unanimous 26-0 vote. For the math challenged, that means both the Republican majority and Democrat minority on the committee agreed. With each other. But the most shocking part is that it was about in rem asset forfeiture, the debacle born in the heat of the crack epidemic and mafia war to, as its marketing spiel went, “take the profit out of crime.”

Back then, the promise was that it would only be used against mobsters and drug kingpins, so ordinary folk wouldn’t get too bothered by its near-total lack of due process and its presumption that assets were criminal until proven otherwise. Since then, we’ve come to appreciate that it’s used against anyone with loot to snatch, which then inures to the benefit of the thieving cops who snatch it. Continue reading →

As every lawyer is brutally aware, the judge on a case holds extraordinary power in making or breaking the case. From slow-walking rulings to the usual “denied” from the bench without even pretending to glance at the papers, there are a thousand little decisions that spell the difference between dismissal/acquittal and conviction. Much as some of us hope for fair, smart and reasonable judges, we know only too well that some judges fall short. And then there’s United States District Judge Aileen Cannon.

Her name may be familiar to many. Judge Cannon heard Trump’s challenge to the government’s classified-documents investigation, appointed a special master to review the documents, and temporarily barred the Justice Department from using those records in its investigation. That much-maligned decision was later reversed by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit consisting of three conservative judges: two Trump appointees and the G.W. Bush–appointed Chief Judge William Pryor. They wrote that her decision violated “clear” law and that her approach “would be a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations” and “violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations.”

Continue reading →

He’s been through a lot of lawyers and has not proven to be a delightful client. Yet, Donald Trump is now the defendant and, like any defendant, has a constitutional right to a defense. That, of course, doesn’t mean any particular lawyer has a responsibility to be the one to defend him.

Would you do it? Continue reading →

Berkeley law dean Erwin Chemerinsky is viewed as one of the smartest and more reasonable of progressive academics, lending him an air of credibility that often credits his position without engaging in too much scrutiny of his argument. In other words, if Chemerinsky is for something, the reasons why don’t really matter. But they do matter, and Chemerinky’s op-ed on Congress compelling the Supreme Court to create and subject itself to a code of ethics flops.

This is not to say that the justices of the Supreme Court should not be bound by an ethical code or should be able to engage in conduct that is, or appears  to be, improper. Of course they should be ethical. The problem, however, is twofold. First, can Congress seize control over the Supreme Court by imposing a code of ethics that could dictate the outcome of its ruling? Second, if such a code were crafted, is there any mechanism by which it could be enforced? Continue reading →

What if I compiled a list of groups with whom I disagree? What if I labeled them “hate groups”? No one would care, because nobody in media turns to SJ for the “official” list of hate groups, as if that ends the discussion about whether a group is good, bad or otherwise. Instead, they turn to the Southern Poverty Law Center which, for many years under the guidance of now-ousted founder Morris Dees, put together a legitimate and circumspect list of groups promoting hate, at least to the extent hate fit their definition.

The SPLC, like the once-respected ACLU, has used its legacy credibility to burn not only hate groups, but any group whose purpose conflicts with what the current crop of SPLC savants deem correct. They’ve now included “Moms for Liberty” within that ambit. Continue reading →

The indictment is devastating. Whether it can be proven remains to be seen as with any criminal prosecution, but anyone suggesting the charges are either trivial or insubstantial is blowing smoke. But Trump, together with his lawyers and lovers, are doing their best to mount a public relations defense to make him appear neither as guilty nor as ignorant as he comes off. The efforts involve a three prong attack.

(1) But what about . . . ? Continue reading →

As Damon Linker writes, there is always some degree of taint when a politician of one side is proscuted by the other. As David French writes, no politician, no matter how high or mighty, should be treated better than or worse than any other citizen. What’s Trump got to say? Send money!!!.

His political advisers had been preparing for weeks to exploit the federal indictment for full effect. His team has come to view federal law enforcement actions against him as a core part of its fund-raising strategy. Online fund-raising — which has long been the lifeblood of Mr. Trump’s political operation because high-end Republican donors largely shun him — has dried up for all Republican candidates over the past several years, including Mr. Trump. Continue reading →

At Techdirt, Mike Masnick has received a flurry of press releases in response to YouTube’s decision not to moderate election misinformation.

Judging by the number of very angry press releases that landed in my inbox this past Friday, you’d think that YouTube had decided to personally burn down democracy. You see, that day the company announced an update to its approach to moderating election misinformation, effectively saying that it would no longer try to police most such misinformation regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 election: Continue reading →

Whether it’s Sam Bankman-Fried or George Santos, law is often crafted in the wake of people we despise, or at least for whom we hold little sympathy. Magistrate Judge Anne Shields (EDNY) ordered that the names of the sureties for Santos’ release be made public. The order has been sealed in order to allow Santos an opportunity to appeal the decision to the district court.

ORDER: For the reasons contained in the attached Order, the motions to unseal the identities of the Suretors who signed the Bond for Defendant’s pretrial release, filed herein at Docket Entries 13 and 14, are granted. To allow Defendant to appeal this ruling to the District Court, the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain the attached decision and all previously sealed documents, including the Bond, under seal. Any appeal of this Order must be filed by noon on Friday, June 9, 2023. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 6/6/2023.

Continue reading →