It seemed like a fun idea to take the family to dinner at the Chelsea restaurant of celebrity chef Masaharu Morimoto.  My kids had watched him on Iron Chef, and since my son was in town (who damn near had a stroke when Wolfgang Puck came out to ask him how he enjoyed his meal at Spago), the time seemed right.  I had been there before, courtesy of my pal Brian Cuban, and enjoyed it. So why not?

We had the tasting menu, a pricey proposition at $135 per person that was to consist of eight courses.  The meal was hit and miss, with some courses being fabulous and others peculiar and even unpleasant. Oh well, different strokes, though a dab of sorbet in a shot glass is not a course. But what was neither acceptable nor forgivable was the service.  The wait staff was pleasant and enthusiastic, but did not understand what service meant at that level.

There were basic mistakes, water glasses that were not refilled until I had to beg someone to do so. Busboys trying to take away plates while people at the table were still eating. Or taking three of four plates, and never returning for the fourth. A butt shoved in my face while serving the table next to us, so close that I could see the fillings in my neighbor’s teeth. And a tray touching my nose as the waiter bent over the unclothed table to faux fuss over the way the plate was turned. Continue reading →

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 opinion in Hall v. Florida contained those words I long to see: Alito, J., dissenting.  There is no better assurance that the right decision was reached.  The case involved Florida’s rule establishing an absolute cutoff for execution under Atkins v. Virginia of IQ of 70 or below.

While Atkins held it unconstitutional to execute a mentally retarded person, it neglected to define the phrase. Florida fixed it at a specific number, refusing to consider the margin of error, because the words “standard deviation” mean something different to lawyers.  Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority:

Florida’s rule disregards established medical practice in two interrelated ways. It takes an IQ score as final and conclusive evidence of a defendant’s intellectual capacity, when experts in the field would consider other evidence.  It also relies on a purportedly scientific measurement of the defendant’s abilities, his IQ score, while refusing to recognize that the score is, on its own terms, imprecise…. Continue reading →

At Hercules and the Umpire, Judge Kopf raises the peculiar and sad story of Randall Rader, formerly Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, after some self-promoting snitch at Weil Gotshal used a personal email from the court to market himself.  The WSJ summarizes the nastiness:

The judge sent the email in March to Edward Reines, a patent lawyer at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP in Silicon Valley. The email, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, described a recent conversation in which another judge purportedly told Judge Rader that Mr. Reines was “IMPRESSIVE in every way.” In the email, Judge Rader said: “I was really proud to be your friend,” and encouraged Mr. Reines “to let others see this message.” He signed the note “Your friend for life, rrr.”

Neither knowing Judge Rader nor having any interest in the federal circuit whatsoever, this news didn’t warrant a moment’s thought the first time ’round.  And the “Your friend for life” part was just kinda creepy, more in keeping with a junior high crush than a missive from a judge.  Without knowing Judge Rader, I can’t begin to explain why those words were chosen. BFFs?  Not right. Continue reading →

Even when it’s beyond dispute that a police officer had no choice but to defend himself from deadly force, someone will question why.  Why did they have to shoot that many times?  The Supreme Court has now given a conclusive answer to the question: Because they can.

In Plumhoff v. Rickard, a quasi-unanimous Court rejected the claim that excessive force was used when Donald Rickard was shot. From the syllabus:

Donald Rickard led police officers on a high-speed car chase that came to a temporary halt when Rickard spun out into a parking lot. Rickard resumed maneuvering his car, and as he continued to use the accelerator even though his bumper was flush against a patrol car, an officer fired three shots into Rickard’s car. Rickard managed to drive away, almost hitting an officer in the process. Officers fired 12 more shots as Rickard sped away, striking him and his passenger, both of whom died from some combination of gunshot wounds and injuries suffered when the car eventually crashed.

Continue reading →

While sympathy isn’t strong for travelers who need to show their vast wealth to airport baggage handlers with Louis Vuitton luggage, complaining that it needs to be treated with love, musicians have long suffered a far more serious indignity.  Ever since the classic, United Breaks Guitars, it’s been beyond question that musical instruments should not be checked.

U.S. Airways, however, is more concerned for your safety, because terrorists play violins.  From the Indy Star:

“Zach and I were on our way to meet up with our bassist, Ranaan Meyer, to play at the Artosphere Arts and Nature Festival,” said Kendall. “We were making our connection on US Airways out of Charlotte, N.C., to Fayetteville, Ark., when we were stopped as we entered the plane by the captain and his stewards.”

The crew told the musicians that the FAA would fine the airline if they were found not to have complied with FAA regulations, which, according to the captain, said Kendall, prohibited musical instruments to be carried on the plane.

Continue reading →

Not that there is any shortage of videos showing violence perpetrated by police against a person for no good reason, but few show an actual, honest-to-God execution.*  This one does.

Via the Free Thought Project, the backstory is that the dead man (whose name isn’t given) wielded hedge trimmers and was “alleged to have attempted to burglarize a Salinas, CA home and then expose himself to the person inside.”

The justification, published in the Monterey Herald, came before the police knew there was a video:

The Herald quoted Salinas police Cmdr. Vince Maiorana as saying that the man was initially unresponsive when police tried to approach him about the alleged attempted break-in, then began to act strangely. Continue reading →

Unlike my buddy Josh Blackman, it doesn’t strike me as a huge victory that the 1st Circuit reaffirmed the right to record police in the public performance of their duties. So while we can find something positive to say about the decision in Gericke v. Begin, it’s more in the Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead mode than anything new. Yeah, a right we possess remains a right we possess. Woo hoo! Well, it could have gone the other way too, so that’s something to celebrate.

But the opinion, after reaffirming what was already the law, put a lot more effort into the caveat:

This is not to say, however, that an individual’s exercise of the right to film a traffic stop cannot be limited.

Boom. There it is, the grand right in a few black letters, and then the lengthy explanation detailing how to circumvent and eliminate it. Thanks for the roadmap, bro. Continue reading →

Following the horrific mass murder by Elliot Rodgers in Isla Vista, California, and his rant of hatred toward women, discussion erupted about how most mass murderers were male, and therefore the “issue” wasn’t guns, or mental illness, but gender.  This had been raised before, but gained little traction. Because of the express misogyny this time, and the connection was easier to see, it was different.

A discussion on twitter ensued, where some people who are otherwise deeply concerned with such issues as civil rights but who had turned into censors because men were mass murderers.  The discussion ended quickly, when the idea that correlation does not prove causation, post hoc ergo propter hoc, was wholly unfamiliar. When logical fallacies become the basis for a discussion, it’s time for me to leave.* Continue reading →

In one of his occasional literary forays not involving four-letter words, my buddy Marc Randazza gets in touch with his inner Luddite at the Legal Satyricon and has an epiphany.

Perhaps I sound like a neo-Luddite, but I think the time has come for a little bit of retrograde thinking when it comes to technology. We are in a bad relationship with a mistress made of silicon, and maybe it is time to break up with her.

Is this technology really making our lives better? I remember being a young man who spent a lot of time at the beach and not a lot of time working. AT&T had an ad campaign that said “Have you ever sent a fax from the beach? You will.” It was presented to us as a promise. It was presented to us as a gift, that we would be able to spend more time at the beach, because we could work from anywhere and we would be freed from our desks and chairs and monitors.

Both promises and curses come wrapped in the same bow. Like Marco, I too remember that ad campaign, and had a similar reaction.  Why would I want to fax from the beach?  Fax. What a quaint concept. But I digress. Continue reading →

Josh Blackman, who attends the future of the new normal of reinvent law-type conferences, brought this back:

I recently attended the excellent CodeX FutureLaw 2014 Conference, which for the first time, had a solid discussion on the implications of legal ethic to potential innovations in the law. Serving as the bearer of bad news from the ABA was Will Hornsby.

Will summarizes the ABA’s position on UPL–in short, this is an issue for the states, not the ABA to decide.

Two fundamental regulatory obstacles limit online legal service models – the unauthorized practice of law and the ability to capitalize legal services. What we all need to realize clearly and at the beginning of this conversation is that the practice of law and the rules and laws that pertain to these issues are regulated in the US at the state level. This is the difference between the US and the UK and Australia.

Continue reading →