Fresh off his campaign contribution scandal, New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. had an epiphany.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office will no longer seek bail for most misdemeanor and violation cases, DA Cy Vance Jr. said Tuesday.

“O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!” Whether this means what it seems to mean has yet to be seen, but assuming good faith on Cy’s part, and wiggle words like “most” misdemeanors, this is certainly a wonderful, if not miraculous, policy shift. But why? Continue reading →

Jordan Peterson may have made a career out of refusing to use made-up personal pronouns, but the demand that others use each individual’s choice of pronoun hasn’t fallen by the wayside in fits of laughter over the silliness of the self-indulgent. In fact, the New York Times is back on the case.

Using an analogy that only xe could endure. Barnard English prof Jennifer Finney Boylan throws out the underhanded pitch.

Mrs. Sonny Bono, Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Donald J. Trump walk into a bar. Assuming you’re the bartender, by what names will you address them? Continue reading →

In a guest op-ed in The Daily Princetonian, Allison Berger reveals that the due process provided a student for an honor code violation significantly exceeds that provided for a Title IX violation. As she succinctly describes it, it’s unfair.

“Fairness.” It was the word at the heart of the arguments made in favor of Honor Code reform during December’s campaign. In announcing the referenda, the campaign sponsors wrote, “Most importantly, we need a fair system … we’re proposing four, common-sense reforms that will lead to greater fairness and academic integrity.”

Given the campaign’s emphasis on fairness and the student body’s overwhelming support for Honor Code reform, it may come as a troubling surprise to many that the existing Honor system is in fact far fairer and offers far stronger due process protections than another campus disciplinary process: investigation and adjudication of sexual misconduct cases through the Title IX Coordinator. Indeed, Princeton’s Title IX proceedings offer less procedural fairness and fewer due process protections than the Honor system does in five key areas.

Continue reading →

There is no criminal defense lawyer who hasn’t enjoyed the anger of their client’s family. Whether spouse, parent or child, someone will scream at you for their perceived view that you’ve failed them, whether by not doing what they believe you ought to do, not getting their loved one out, not winning the unwinnable case. The list goes on, and the experience is part of the job.

It’s not their fault they’re angry. It is their fault that they lash out at the lawyer, but they have to find some target for their ire, and better the lawyer than, say, screaming at the judge during a hearing. Just as we take our clients as we find them, we take their families as well.

Except in the Pink Ghetto, where Staci Zaretsky informs us that “No, sexual harassment is not part of being a female criminal defense lawyer.” As a general proposition, that’s obviously correct. But is this sexual harassment? Continue reading →

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Tennessee lawprof Glenn Reynolds, best known as the @Instapundit, offers a modest proposal in response to the Ninth Circuit’s sudden judicial shortfall.

Chief Justice John Roberts wants to do something about sexual harassment by federal judges. In his 2017 Report on the Federal Judiciary, the chief justice announced a plan to evaluate whether current standards and procedures “are adequate to ensure an exemplary workplace.”

He mentioned no names, but the report came out less than two weeks after Judge Alex Kozinski retired from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after former clerks accused him of inappropriate behavior.

Continue reading →

It started with DNA. Suddenly, there was a way to identify the person who was accused of rape years, decades later. And the calls to eliminate the Statute of Limitations for these newly-identified defendants emerged. Even though DNA was by no means conclusive, and it would be essentially impossible to defend against such accusations, there was at least a sound argument.

And then there were the children. Who could blame the children for remaining silent when they or their families were threatened? Connecticut went with these.

Connecticut’s five year statute of limitations for criminal prosecution is one of the shortest in the country, but there are exceptions, including aggravated sexual assault of a minor and first-degree sexual assault when force or the threat of force is used and the victim is under 16 or the victim is under age 13 and the offender is more than two years older. Those charges are Class A felonies, the most serious of crimes, and there is no criminal statute of limitations for them.

Connecticut law also makes an exception for sexual assault cases in which an alleged offender’s identity is established through DNA. In those cases, there is no statute of limitations.

Continue reading →

Words will be murdered to pretend that virtue signalling in Valentino would make up for the fact that Hollywood elites were putting on a show. Load up on adjectives and, for the intellectually weak but unduly passionate, it will make them feel brave and fierce even though they did nothing but go to a gala awards show.

Tonight, you will see just such an experiment as myself and hundreds of women from the Time’s Up movement will reject colorful gowns for black ones on the Golden Globes’ red carpet and at related events across the country. Wearing black is not all we will be doing. We will be doing away with the old spoken codes in favor of communicating boldly and directly: What we are wearing is not a statement of fashion. It is a statement of action. It is a direct message of resistance. Black because we are powerful when we stand together with all women across industry lines. Black because we’re starting over, resetting the standard. Black because we’re done being silenced and we’re done with the silencers. Tonight is not a mourning. Tonight is an awakening.

Plunging necklines and gaudy jewelry, because even women in black need to look chic. Or as a lesser light of feminism explained, “Reminds me of the initial mockery of the pink pussy hats that ended up being so iconic.” Me too! It was empty symbolism that insipid people embraced because it was so much easier than hard work. Continue reading →

If you believe the narrative, then the solution seems obvious. The problem arises when the narrative isn’t real, so the solution doesn’t work.

In the fall, in meetings with potential clients in the San Francisco Bay Area, I became aware of a dangerous trend: Employers are turning to techniques that “mask” the gender of the candidates they interview — removing names from résumés and altering voices on phone calls, for example — with the hope that this will offer a quick fix to diversity failures.

These gender-masking tools and the related trend of “blind hiring” have recently been chronicled in The New York Times and Wired, and discussed at tech conferences. One head of talent at a major financial services company told me she’s getting up to five pitches a week for tools that can mask applicants’ gender. My team is regularly told by potential clients in the Fortune 100 that they are already using tools to obscure gender in hiring. Yelp has tried using a voice disguiser on initial interview calls to hide applicants’ gender.

There aren’t enough women in tech. Strip job applicants of gender and have them compete for jobs solely on qualifications. Surely that will eliminate bias. Or not. Continue reading →

When I was a law student and baby lawyer, scrounging to afford three (store brand) fish sticks a day for dinner, more senior lawyers were often kind to me by paying for meals or a beer when they invited me out to dinner. I made no bones about being poor. It’s no shame to be poor, as Reb Tevye explained. But it’s no honor, either.

In time, it was my turn to take others out to dinner, to buy the drinks, and I did so remembering the kindness others showed me. In serial twits, a young woman explained a very different view, one that reflected a significant shift in perspective. Continue reading →

In the beginning, it’s all fun. After all, they call it social media for a reason, right? It’s supposed to be social, and social means you’re supposed to engage, interact, discuss and, on occasion, argue. There’s nothing wrong with arguing, except maybe to lawyers if we’re not being paid to do so.

And in the beginning it is. And was. But it’s not so much over time. The same arguments repeat themselves all the time, as each new person arrives on the internet and assumes that nobody, but nobody, ever thought of something before. This is bad enough, but it gets worse.

Then there is the Dunning-Kruger brigade, which can be as loud and persistent as it is ignorant, if not totally batshit crazy. And now, there is the added #metoo-ers, for whom every word is a matter of navigating a minefield of hurtz, lest one use banal language or express a basic thought that makes them explode in outrage.

Who needs this crap? Continue reading →