While much of the discussion surrounding the parody video by Daniel Muessig was about how awesome/awful the video was, a snarky secondary issue arose from its content: Finally, someone understands what criminals want from their lawyer.

Mark Draughn, the WindyPundit, left this comment:

I do have to admire how unapologetic the ad is. I once offended a criminal defense lawyer when I offhandedly described his job as something like “Helping criminals get away with crimes.”  I understand why he objected to that characterization, because that’s not quite what he’s selling, but if I were the client (and I more or less did the crime), then that’s pretty much what I’d be looking to buy.

At Walter Olson’s Overlawyered, a commenter named David Smith wrote: Continue reading →

Having hung around with lawyers for more than 30 years, there is one thing I can assert with confidence: we’re not that interesting.  Sure, we amuse ourselves, but there is a reason why nobody thinks our “why did the chicken cross the road” joke is funny.*

Yet, in the Age of Kardashian, that doesn’t stop lawyers from fulfilling their dream of becoming a star.  First, Jamie Casino, of the most awesome lawyer commercial of January, was signed to do a reality show. No concept yet, but flaming sledgehammer. That’s a draw, right?

Now, the Connecticut Law Tribune announces another one: Continue reading →

Among the many things we take for granted as we travel through life is that the places we travel through actually exist. Obviously, they exist physically, land, trees, road, but that they exist legally. After all, every tiny inch of dirt from sea to shining see has to be governed by someone, right?

Years ago, I awoke to find that someone had parked a backhoe on the corner of my property. When I mentioned something about it in a very loud voice, the explanation was that they didn’t realize it was anyone’s property.  I responded, in an even louder voice, by asking if they really thought there was free-floating land in New York that wasn’t owned by somebody, still waiting to be claimed.

There is a ribbon of highway, a part of Route 301 in Florida, consisting of a grand total of 1,260 feet, that is owned by the city of Hampton.  That 1,260 feet of highway is Hampton’s ATM, Continue reading →

The opening line of the Daily Californian editorial was shocking:

The prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses across the country has reached the point where the need for sweeping institutional reform is undeniable.

If it’s undeniable, then it must be so, and yet the evidence of it appears to be largely relegated to baseless statistical claims of vague and undefined offenses.  I’ve looked. I’ve asked.  There is empty rhetoric up the ying-yang, but no substance behind it.  And from that, it’s now so prevalent that it’s undeniable? Continue reading →

The post by Jonathan Adler at the WaPo Conspiracy did little more than point to another WaPo post.  Under other circumstances, that wouldn’t be surprising, as newspapers internally cross-promote all the time. But this was the remnants of the once vaunted Volokh Conspiracy, and while pointing at the writing of others was nothing new, this one was special:

Prosecutorial misconduct is a serious problem. Because prosecutors are largely immune from suit for their actions, some prosecutors take liberties, tolerate false testimony, suppress exculpatory evidence, and engage in selective prosecutions. Fortunately, we have writers like Radley Balko, who focus on these issues. His latest discusses the disturbing reaction of prosecutors to judges who criticize their conduct.

Did Adler just discover prosecutorial misconduct?  Did he just decide to take ownership of Balko (note the “we” in there)?  Does he think the readers of VC were oblivious to Brady violations, or oblivious to the writings of non-lawyers like Radley? Continue reading →

Not that it’s more than a bit self-interested, but the New York Times has an editorial celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the watershed decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. It’s entitled. It was a huge win, both for the Times and for the freedom of the press, which endures today:

The ruling was revolutionary, because the court for the first time rejected virtually any attempt to squelch criticism of public officials — even if false — as antithetical to “the central meaning of the First Amendment.” Today, our understanding of freedom of the press comes in large part from the Sullivan case. Its core observations and principles remain unchallenged, even as the Internet has turned everyone into a worldwide publisher — capable of calling public officials instantly to account for their actions, and also of ruining reputations with the click of a mouse.

From the mainstream media to the wackiest person with a keyboard, the right to criticize public officials endures, much to their consternation, unless done with malice.  Since the courts haven’t been particularly cooperative in silencing those who reveal, real or imagined, government excess and malfeasance, government has used its fiat to accomplish what the court won’t. Continue reading →

I may be off a bit on the timing, but it was soon after the Supreme Court held the federal Sentencing Guidelines constitutional that I argued in the Southern District of New York that the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity — then 100 to 1 — was arbitrary and capricious.  Back then, crack was the stuff of myths, a super powerful, incredibly addictive drug that made people go crazy and violent. Powdered coke, on the other hand, made people attractive at Studio 54.

When I first learned of crack, I had no clue what it was. I had a client explain it to me, and then run me through the way it was made.  In essence, it was the cocaine version of a red wine reduction sauce, coke mixed with a filler like baby laxative, then cooked down to a more concentrated rock, which could be smoked. The delivery method was different, but it was still just coke.

So I challenged the crack guidelines, believing they made no sense at all and were just the by-product of media hysteria surrounding the drug. Continue reading →

In a comment to my recent post about the cellphone/smartphone cases coming before the Supreme Court, Wurie and Riley, which I believe are huge and potentially paradigm shifting cases that the Supremes are ill-prepared to handle (and notably, moved the goal posts when they recast the issue presented), Pvine raised a very troubling point:

In light of recent Supreme Court decisions (see Fernandez for a very recent example), I don’t believe that the majority of the Court still adheres to the Warrant Preference Rule. As has been stated time and time again (especially in the last decade), the ultimate requirement of the 4A is reasonableness. The break hasn’t been definitively made between the Warrant Clause & the Reasonableness Clause, but I believe the Court is really close to severing those ties.

Scary as his (he could be a she) observations may be, he has a good point. Continue reading →

The irony is that those who are passionate have great difficulty in understanding why it’s not good enough because they don’t go the next step and apply critical thinking to the efficacy of raw passion.  After all, they keep hearing important people tell them that all they need to be a raving success is to be passionate. And they are. Even Apple says so:

Apple’s Your Verse ad campaign poses an odd and maybe cynical offer to us. Don’t pay attention to the call of law, business, or medicine. Be a poet. Be a creator. Contribute your verse. What are we on American Idol? Or as Monty Python put it maybe all we want to do is sing. Apple panders to the look at me right now world. The film is about free thinkers. Maybe that is the same as being a poet.

The point was made most effectively in a humor magazine article, I believe Cracked (but can’t find it, so if you know what I’m referring to, please help me out with the link. Edit: this is it, thanks to Aaron Williamson) where a person comes to the aid of someone badly injured, announcing that they are there to save the day.  The injured person asks, “so you’re a doctor?”  The good Samaritan responds, “no, but I’m deeply passionate about medicine.” Continue reading →

Jacob Gershman at the WSJ LawBlog provides the timeline for Dewey & LeBoeuf’s slide into the toilet of financial ruin, which started shortly after the 2007 merger of the two firms, Dewey Ballantine and LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae.  As the indictment suggests, it was doomed from the start.  That can happen. Biglaw is no more immune from the vicissitudes of finance and profitability than anyone else, as much as that may shock some young bucks who are absolutely certain that it’s where God would go for representation.

That it didn’t turn out as well as some thought isn’t a big deal. That the management of Dewey was no less arrogant about it than any two-bit swindler who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else, on the other hand, is quite an indictment.  From the New York Times:

Four men, who were charged by New York prosecutors on Thursday with orchestrating a nearly four-year scheme to manipulate the firm’s books to keep it afloat during the financial crisis, talked openly in emails about “fake income,” “accounting tricks” and their ability to fool the firm’s “clueless auditor,” the prosecutors said. Continue reading →