My pal, Leo Mulvihill of the Fishtown Lawyers, writes an occasional post at the Puddle about male attire. I enjoy his posts, largely because I like Leo and he’s got a bit of a throwback sensibility about clothing. He gets it, though most new lawyers don’t.

I can’t blame new lawyers for lacking much sensitivity to sartorial splendor, as it came on me via the back door as well. Back in 1981, the time rolled around to put on one’s interview suit and smile for the lawyers so they would think well of you. I signed up for a few interviews, and they went fine in a neutral sort of way, but I failed to get a second interview. Continue reading →

In light of the spotlight on police militarization following publication of Radley Balko’s Rise of the Warrior Cop, there has been a good deal of discussion generated, even within the ranks of the police.  At Police State USA, a retired Cincinnati police lieutenant offers his perspective.

The post begins:

This past week I was over on Officer.com trying to convince some hot-headed, patriot-hating young cops that the Constitution is actually the law of the land. I failed. One of them refers to open carriers as “attention whores.” Continue reading →

There was no parade down virtual main street to announce the news, which comes as no surprise. After all, a thousand blog posts, marketeers, phony conventions dedicated to the Future of the New Normal of #Reinvent Law, where hungry early adopters filled empty days singing Hosanna whenever an iToy was mentioned, never considered the possibility that it wouldn’t work out. It had to, they thought.

As Carolyn Elefant posts at My Shingle, it didn’t have to.

According to the 2013 ABA Legal Technology Survey, virtual law practices are on the decline, Continue reading →

Via Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar, this brilliant juxtaposition of two front pages:

Surely this was just a typo:

When this is actually what was going on: Continue reading →

The First Rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. The First Rule of Policing, on the other hand, is make it home for dinner. Surprisingly, that was the primary argument offered by Delaware County, Ohio, Sheriff Russ Martin when debating Radley Balko* on John Stossel’s television show.

When questioned as to the virtue of SWAT raids to carry out police functions that didn’t intrinsically require such aggressive shows of force, Sheriff Martin’s response was that it is far safer to use a SWAT team to capture Continue reading →

Forget the fact that this involves something that has been discussed at length, if not ad nauseam. The idea is new to the incoming president of the Amerian Bar Association, and therefore, well, new. So what if others have pondered, discussed, argued about it for years before it came onto the radar of the very important officials who think of themselves as Leaders.

Via the ABA Journal:

Accepting the presidential gavel today at the gathering of the ABA House of Delegates, new ABA President James Silkenat of New York laid Continue reading →

From the outside, it’s quite possible, maybe even likely, that libertarian sensibilities would cause us to feel sympathetic toward Alfred Anaya.  After all, he wasn’t personally doing the evil the law sought to prevent, but selling something that was in great demand. Isn’t that the American way?

Anaya was an artist of sorts, and his artistry was in the creation of traps. He began as a star installer of stereo systems, and took enormous pride in his ability to conceal his work. HIs skill morphed Continue reading →

Via Walter Olson at Overlawyered, a decision out of Florida’s First District Court of Appeals in Parrish v. Cummins Power South holding that it does not violate a litigant’s constitutional rights for lawyers to use Latin. You can’t make this stuff up.

Parris, a pro se (to which Wally observes, “oh dear, there we go doing it ourselves”) plaintiff whose complaint was dismissed on the bases of res judicata and collateral estoppel, raised the damning claim:

A main focus of this appeal is Parris’s contention that the company (and presumably its lawyers) “chose to dredge up these esoteric terms from a dead language Continue reading →

In the aftermath of Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement that the Department of Justice will change its charging mechanics slightly by omitting the quantity of drugs involved in order to circumvent mandatory minimums in certain drug prosecutions, the internet has done what it does best: create mass confusion and reflect common misunderstanding.

At Popehat, Ken White provides a clear, if lengthy, explanation of the mechanics of charging. Yet, the comments to the post Continue reading →

Judge Shira Scheindlin’s opinion in Floyd v. City of New York could not have come as a surprise to anyone remotely knowledgeable about law, but her handling of the delicate intersection between law and politics was about as masterful as a judge can get

I emphasize at the outset, as I have throughout the litigation, that this case is not about the effectiveness of stop and frisk in deterring or combating crime. This Court’s mandate is solely to judge the constitutionality of police behavior, not its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool. Continue reading →