At Above The Law, Davit Lat has been painstakingly scrutinizing the hottest issue in lawyer courtroom attire.  The politically androgynous Ann Althouse not only weighs in, but provides the intimate details of her own experience.  Even the ABA Journal considers it significant enough to be worthy of an article.  What critical question gave rise to this high-powered attention?

Whether it’s appropriate for “lady lawyers” to wear peep-toe shoes in court.

This may be the most banal, absurd and embarrassing “issue” to ever hit the blawgosphere.  Who cares?  There has never been a discussion less worthy of the profession than women’s footwear. 

I’m not entirely sure what makes a shoe “peep-toe,” and I don’t care to know.  Unless someone comes into court with a reasonable facsimile of Ronald McDonald’s big red clown shoes, I wouldn’t know what someone had on their feet if you paid me.  I believe it’s safe to say that most men, Lat excluded, would say the same thing.  Your shoes are not my concern.  No, really.  Men just don’t care.  We don’t notice.  We don’t look.  We don’t care. 

The issue of appropriate dress in court is a worthy one to the extent that inappropriate dress becomes a distraction.  No lawyer wants people thinking about her looking strange or weird rather than paying attention to the sounds emanating from her mouth.  Once you’re past the distraction issue, however, it doesn’t matter one iota.  Do peep-toe shoes distract from your arguments?  I assure you that they do not, unless they are bright red and hugely oversized. 

What does concern me, and concern me greatly, is that anyone would put this much effort into something so utterly meaningless.

Defendant in capital case to woman lawyer:  Did you work on your summation last night to keep me from losing and facing execution?

Woman defense lawyer:  I planned to, but I ran out of time after I spent the evening trying to decide between the beige peep-toes or the black pumps.

Judge: Will the defendant please rise?

When a lawyer stands in the trench aside a defendant, the lawyer is a professional with responsibilities that transcend gender.  It’s all about the client, the person who has put their life in your hands.  Notably, not your feet.  Your fashion sense is not on trial, no matter how important you think it may be that the shoes match the bag.  In the well, you are a lawyer, not a male or female lawyer.  No jury, to my knowledge, has ever returned a verdict influenced by the sight of toes.  Or lack thereof.

But what of the judge?  My thought is that any judge influenced in the performance of his or her duty by a lawyer’s shoes should be immediately and permanently removed from the bench.  Lat (of course) puts his mad former AUSA skills to work, and investigates this critical aspect thoroughly.

One of the judges who dissented, lodging her opposition to a litigatrix sporting peep-toe shoes in court, was Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw (9th Cir.):

My view is that if you have a question about the appropriateness of your attire, don’t risk it. Women appearing in court should never wear anything that draws attention to their anatomy over the merits of their case. You just never know how your audience — judges, jurors, clients or senior partners — will react. It’s better to play it safe in formal settings and save the peep-toes for after hours.

But don’t get the wrong impression about Judge Wardlaw, who is fierce and fabulous (see my earlier interview of her). She is not some fashion fuddy-duddy. Although she recommends against lawyers wearing peep-toes to court, she owns many pairs of herself, which she happily wears in chambers.

Shoot me now.  This is what a 9th Circuit judge thinks about?  And they wonder why it’s the most reversed circuit in the nation?  And this is a system with the authority to impose the death penalty?

David Packman, long known around here as Packratt, did something that all of us can admire.  He took his personal experience, the anger and frustration that comes from being the unwitting victim of police abuse, and turned it around to positive use by creating Injustice Everywhere and The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project (NPMSRP),

Amazingly, given all the lawprofs desperately searching for something meaningful to write about in their quest to tenure and world hegemony, and all the think tanks dedicated to canceling each other out, no one ever put together an comprehensive database of police misconduct until David came along.

Since beginning the NPMSRP, David has become the toast of the nation, featured on every news show from 60 Minutes to Nightline and a highly desired and well-paid speaker at bar associations, learned conferences and tea parties.  Nah, just kidding.  Everyone who cares has been more than happy to enjoy the benefits of David’s labor of love, but he’s otherwise left to fend for himself.  He had a gig with a national not-for-profit, but they screwed him and never paid up.  For the price of a speaker fee, David could live for a year. But who fund David Packman when you can spend an hour listening to David Boies.

In the meantime, David lost his job. That’s happens, you know. And he hasn’t had an easy time finding a new one.  And you know what comes next.

Outage

August 7th, 2010

Sorry for the inconvenience but our internet access finally got cut. Since the eviction hearing is in just three days we’looking into some sort of mobile option, if that’s not too expensive, because it doesn’t make sense to pay for another month of access we won’t be here to use.

so, sorry about the interruption, we’ll be back online as soon as possible.

thank you!

BTW, doing this on a cellphone really sucks.

Isn’t that a hoot?  He’s apologizing for being evicted, losing internet access and not posting enough to satisfy others.  After all, it’s not like David’s kids need to eat or have a roof over their heads.

David Packman is one of those fellows who has given enormously of himself, taking personal risk for the things he writes about and establishing a level of credibility that is beyond reproach.  The blawgosphere has been all too happy to enjoy the benefits of his labors, with most assuming that someone, like David, who has achieved a significant level of respectability on the internet must be in demand, must be enjoying the wealth and fame that comes hand in hand with helping others.

Guess what?  There’s no riches to be had for the good one does on the internet.  In fact, there’s always somebody who’s rarin’ to go after you and show that you’re a worthless waste of humanity.  Not even glory, boys and girls.  But David’s a computer guy, and he’s got some skills.  How about one of you successful entrepreneurs out in the Seattle area, looking hard for new people to staff your burgeoning business, give David a hard look.

And how about doing it now.  Tomorrow, he’ll be evicted.

Update:  In case I was unclear, David will be continuing his blog and the NPMSRP despite his situation.  And he could use as much support as we can muster for him.  Donations of any amount will be enormously helpful and appreciated.  Make a donation to the cause, you cheap, selfish bastards.  Give it up.

A stiff sentence?  Nope, the second rule of policing.  While the first is get home for dinner, the second rule is protect the pension.  Todd Zywicki (of Volokh Conspiracy fame) and Ellen Norcross write in the Daily News, it’s a sweet deal.  Not only do New York police officers’ pensions vest after 20 years, but they get to crank up the pension machine in their three final years on the job via overtime.  Then there’s cost of living increases.  And many have side businesses as well.  It’s really sweet.

Don’t blame the officers. New York’s pension rules make it pay more to retire than to work. And the horrible habits here are a window on a national pension picture that’s looking more disastrous by the day.

Really, don’t blame the officers.  That’s the deal available to them, and who can blame them for taking full advantage of it?  Like you wouldn’t do it if you had the chance.  Consider hitting age 45 at 150% of your salary, plus full health care for you and your family, including dental, for life.  You would have to be nuts not to love it.  To want it.  Take take it. 

The problem is that society can’t afford it. 

These and other sweeteners are part of the reason why the city’s annual pension payout has increased 900% since 2000. And that’s before health care benefits are included. For every dollar police officers contribute to their retirement, taxpayers contribute nine. Mayor Bloomberg’s office warns that if one thing pushes New York City into bankruptcy again – 35 years after the last time – it will be pensions.

But loopholes and gamesmanship aren’t the only reason why public pension systems nationwide face massive funding shortfalls. They are the result of a perfect storm of flawed accounting, which fueled unrealistic employee demands that were then underfunded by politicians. In plans across the country, during booming years of the late 1990s, many workers were promised retirement payouts that were “too good to be true” and, thus, impossible to make good on.

The miscalculation is massive. Technically estimated at $452 billion as a result of flawed accounting, the real unfunded pension obligation in state pension plans is closer to $3 trillion.

The origination of such sweet, and secure, pensions made sense, given low public employee salaries, shorter life-spans, and the need for inducements to fill jobs that were otherwise not terribly attractive.  It was easy for our elected officials to keep labor peace by giving away deals that would be paid for in the future, somewhere down the line when they would be long gone from office, a hero with a bridge named after him, and some new guy to pay the tab.  And the public didn’t exactly protest, buying into the whole “we work hard and deserve our pensions” propaganda, because, you know, nobody outside the public sector works hard.  The rest of us sit home all day eating bon-bons while public employees provide excellent customer service.

But that was then.  This is now, and the same benefits, once gained, can never be taken away.  They only get sweeter.  That’s the nature of Unionization, always more, even to the point of sucking the last drop of blood out of the rock.  Now we find the the pensions are underfunded and underperforming.  The deal is done and the money is due, with more coming due every day, and the piggy bank is empty.  Uh oh.

According to the New York Times, Colorado has a bit of a shortfall already, and they’ve decided to do something about it.

Earlier this year, in an act of rare political courage, a bipartisan coalition of state legislators passed a pension overhaul bill. Among other things, the bill reduced the raise that people who are already retired get in their pension checks each year.

This sort of thing just isn’t done. States have asked current workers to contribute more, tweaked the formula for future hires or banned them from the pension plan altogether. But this was apparently the first time that state legislators had forced current retirees to share the pain.

Whether this will work has yet to be seen.  After all, it’s a contract, and changing the terms afterward is generally frowned upon.  But it can’t happen in New York anyway, as protection of pension rights is a matter of the state Constitution.

The alternatives in this scenario are bleak.

First is a federal bailout. But even if we can afford another trillion dollar plus bailout – a big “if” – should the citizens of the rest of the country foot the bill for the gold-plated pensions of Connecticut and Illinois retirees? And what reward does that provide for states that have acted responsibly?

Or states could end up simply defaulting on some or all of their debts. This hasn’t happened since the Great Depression. But 25 years ago, we didn’t expect General Motors to file bankruptcy – until excessive retirement benefits and escalating wages finally killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Worried?  You should be.  Zywicki proposes that public sector unions cooperate in pension reforms rather than “leading us all off a fiscal cliff.”  Because unions care deeply about the public giving blood to fund their hard fought pension victories. 

Lest anyone feel that this is somehow unfair, bear in mind that you could have taken the police exam instead of the bar exam.  And if that doesn’t make you feel foolish, consider that after you retired from the job at age 45, you could always double dip in some other public sector job.  So roll up your sleeves and get to work, as we’ve got bills to pay.

In the 1960s, Buddhist monks engaged in self immolation (called Bonzo) as a means of protest.  It was dramatic.  The image was horrific and people took notice.  The downside was that it was a one-shot deal.

Via ATL, we learned that an unemployed law school graduate, Ethan Haines, has gone on a hunger strike.  Not to end war.  Not to end human suffering.  His is a higher calling. 

My name is Ethan Haines. I stand in place of countless law students and recent graduates who have been disillusioned by law school employment statistics, commercial school rankings, and antiquated career counseling programs. I designated myself class representative since these students are not able to come forward themselves, for fear that vocalizing their concerns will negatively affect their careers.

On August 5, 2010, I began a hunger strike to bring awareness to the concerns of my classmates, as detailed in the Notice I forwarded to law school administrators at ten of the nation\’s top law schools.

This website will chronicle my hunger strike, dealings with law school administrators, and feature personal stories from law students and recent law graduates. This will not be an easy feat, but I am committed to inspiring change because you deserve to have your stories told and your concerns addressed.

“Being the change I want to see…”

Ethan Haines

J.D. Class Representative

Inspiring change is a worthy thing to do.  Certainly, law schools have done far less than they could to promote transparency and honesty in those whose money supports the critical scholarship of lawprofs and serves as a profit center for the Academies’ less monied disciplines, like animal husbandry.  As those of us who observe the phenomenon of new lawyers entering the profession are well aware, this is no way to get rich.

But I don’t get the sense that Ethan understands what he’s getting himself into.  He’s got a blog and inviting stories of other recent law grads of their misery and deception. He’s twitting about his hunger strike.  He’s sent “notice” to ten law schools demanding that they meet his two conditions:

(1) Agree to comply with Law School Transparency’s (LST) employment disclosure request or state whether it anticipates declining their request. Provide written confirmation of your intent to comply with LST’s request.

(2) Agree to audit your career counseling programs for effectiveness, resourcefulness, and accuracy. Provide written confirmation of your intent to comply with this request.

 
Well, okay.  Not quite stop the war, but it’s something.  Yet there’s no real indication that Ethan gets the point of a hunger strike. 

Ethan, it’s about dying.  It’s about not eating ever again unless your demands are met.  It’s about depriving yourself of food until you reach the point that you starve to death.  Starve.  Not just get really, really hungry.  Not just become uncomfortable.  Not just get so light headed that you can’t play with your game cube.  Dying.

Are you really prepared to die for the cause, Ethan?

Let’s agree that things are pretty bad for law school grads, especially those who went to law school for all the wrong reasons and were so taken by the law porn and promise of wealth and fame.  It’s incredibly dishonest, and takes advantage of young students and ignorant parents who harbor the inexplicable belief that their little baby, out of all the law students on the student loan line, will be the one to get the brass ring and pull down $160k and a corner office at Biglaw.

Nasty, lying law schools.  We got it.  We’re with you.

But is this really worth dying for?

Let me offer an alternative plan.  If you really don’t mind going hungry, how about taking that very expensive and otherwise unusable education and putting it to work for other people who are hungry.  You know, some sort of hungry helping hungry protest.  There are literally millions of Americans in desperate need of legal assistance, both in criminal and civil arenas, who could really use your help. 

A lot of these people, like you today, are hungry.  The only difference is that they aren’t hungry by choice.  They just don’t have anything to eat.  There are no Cheetos in the cupboard whispering, “Ethan, eat me, eat me.” 

If you really think that transparency in law school careers is worth your life, then make a statement and do something big.  Huge.  Death is death, Ethan, and if your plan is to die for your cause, then do it right.

But if you really aren’t in it for eternity, as I suspect you aren’t, then maybe you could accomplish more by cutting the nonsense and putting your efforts into something meaningful.  As long as you’re going to be hungry anyway, don’t waste it.

It seems like it’s only been a day since Elena Kagan was sworn in as the 112th justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, but she never stood a chance.  Before her first question, first vote, her first opinion, her first dissent, she’s already busy freeing criminals to rape your daughters and pillage your village. 

As those of us disinclined to believe that every defendant deserves the death penalty aren’t necessarily huge fans of Justice Kagan, any more than we were of Justice Sotomayor, who we learned was an avowed lefty crim-symp only after our hopes of winning in the Second Circuit were crushed under her wise Latina heel, we might be surprised to learn how little we know.

Via Doug Berman , I was schooled by the tolerant and wise Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences.

I do not expect anyone nominated by the present administration to be a positive force in criminal law, but I am more concerned about Justice Kagan than Justice Sotomayor. The latter’s experience as a deputy district attorney and trial judge assured us that she had looked evil in the face and knew how bad violent criminals really are. A career spent in the ivory tower provides no such assurance. It is too easy to be blase about crime and wring your hands over the poor, unfortunate torturer-rapist-murderer when you only read the facts in a transcript or opinion and then go home to your safe, leafy neighborhood.

Suddenly, Justice Sotomayor is looking pretty good compared to the pointy-headed Kagan?  Who knew that she was going from zero to hero in the eyes of those who look for “a positive force.”  May the force be with you, Sonia.

A commenter, calling him/herself “Cal. Prosecutor,” no doubt as an affront to positive forces everywhere, raised some points in response to Scheidegger’s learned speculation.

Kent, did your concern extend to CJ Roberts? He never served as a trial judge and the closest he came to being a prosecutor was serving as special assistant to AG William French Smith.

Justice Scalia has spent considerable time in multiple ivory towers, also never served as a trial judge, and the closest he came to looking evil in the face was when he supported Nixon’s claim to ownership of certain infamous tapes while serving with the Office of Legal Counsel for the Justice Dept.

Justice Thomas was never a trial judge and while he worked with in the Missouri AG’s Office, I understand that it was in the tax division.

Justice Kennedy took over his father’s private law firm and was chiefly known in Sacramento as an effective lobbyist, giver of lavish parties and drafting a state initiative on spending before going to the 9th Circuit.

I certainly would agree with you that we should have more Supreme Court Justices that had actually served in the trenches of criminal law, like Alito, Sotomayor or O’Connor. Perhaps then we would not see such ivory tower opinions like the much-lamented (by us prosecutors, anyway) Crawford case where Justice Scalia infamously “[left] for another day any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of testimonial.” You may recall that Justice O’Connor (a former prosecutor) had a great deal to say in her dissent about that rather airy detail.

Until that day comes, I hope that you will permit an observation that your apprehension appears driven more by ideology than any lack of experience in looking evil in the face.

Ideology?  Rapist lover.  Pillager sympathizer.  Bleeding heart liberal prosecutor.  And Scheidegger, as would any concerned pedagogue faced with such tripe, slowly typed out the obvious retort.

It is the combination of left-wing ideology and ivory tower background that has me most concerned. Sotomayor’s real-world experience may moderate the pro-defendant leanings that generally come with a left-leaning orientation. An ivory-tower background is far less of a concern with conservative nominees because they (generally) do not have a pro-defendant leaning in need of moderating.

It’s not about ideology, you moron.  It’s about being pro-defendant.  It’s about being evil.  Real world experience can moderate that pro-defendant left-leaner.  After all, once a judge has stared evil in the eyes, they know that defendants are evil, evil, evil, and we need law to make sure that evil defendants can never prevail to commit evil again. And again and again.  Because that’s what evil does, and pro-defendant left-leaners are standing beside their evil compatriots, if only in spirit, and relish in their rapes and pillages (wiping the foam off lips with long, pointed tongue).

Some might find Scheidegger’s rhetoric absurd and silly, the mindless ranting of a neocon so blind with simplistic, knee-jerk, ideological rage that he sounds just a wee bit like a lunatic.  But not me.  Neither Scheidegger, nor his combat in arms, Bill Otis, are fools.  Indeed, they are both smart and focused, and know how to put a pre-emptive agenda to damn good use. 

By castigating Elena Kagan in advance of her getting the final fitting on her new robe, they hope to push her to “moderate” any inclination she might have toward decisions that might favor the defense to prove that she’s not just another pro-defendant left-leaning pointed-headed justice.  They already know that she’s hardly the new William O. Douglas, and now they’re fighting to see how far she can be pushed.

Oddly, I agree with Kent in many respects, about the need for justices who have real experience in the trenches, but not just sucking on the government teat.   Justices who represented human beings when they were real lawyers, who stood in the well while some half-awake political hack demonstrated that he hadn’t read a decision since law school, and made clear that it wouldnt alter his decision if he had.  How about justices who can project the real world significance of the things they decide, like the new professionalism of police (tasers in place of the barbaric blackjacks, brass knuckles and the storied rubber hose), or furtive gestures and totality of the circumstances.

If Kent’s view troubles you, consider how persuasive the view of those who favor individual rights and freedoms might come off to the “kiss a cop” crowd.  At least Scheidegger plays the manipulation game with purpose.  We should take notes from the professor.

I remember watching a movie, the name of which is lost to me but I bet someone out there will know, where the opening shows Jews and Arabs joined together in a common bond, their mutual love of blond haired shiksas.

From the Jack Bruce-like mind of Dan Hull comes a concept well past its best-eaten-by date, Universal Affront. 

I look to the day when Everyone is at last Offended by Everything and we all can live in unity, agreement and harmony.

—George M. Wallace,
Renaissance Man and Lawyer,
Pasadena, California

No, the other George Wallace, better known as the Fool in the Forest. Not so foolish now, is he?

Think about it.

And he didn’t even have to wear a strange costume to make a statement.

You will not be seeing Phil Ochs in concert at a theater near you.

In my first year of practice, I was a member of the American Bar Association.  That’s because membership was free to brand new lawyers.  After that, you had to pay. My membership lapsed.  It had no relevance to my world.  Given Biglaw layoffs and small firm hunger, the ABA had an opportunity to become relevant to the world of solo and small firms. 

It tried.  At the 2010 Annual Meeting, it put on a conference to offer us something it thought would matter, 10 Ways To Build A Perfect Practice And Career.

Watch 10 of the most dynamic speakers in the legal community describe how to boost your bottom line and manage your career in these tough economic times.

It failed. As Brian Tannebaum noted at My Law License, the only thing missing from this “perfect practice and career” extravaganza was real lawyers with perfect practice and careers.  Whether the speaker were dynamic, I dunno, but the ten chosen to speak offered a sad mix.

Four (4) of the 10 appear, and I say “appear,” to be actual practicing lawyers.

Listen, the 6 salespeople may sell very important products. They may be respected sales people who formally practiced law.

But the ABA couldn’t find 10 practicing lawyers to speak to lawyers about building a successful practice?

Some of these dynamic speakers fall under the ABA Journal’s ignominious Legal Rebel rubric, a shameful confusion of people who prefer iPads to legal pads, for whom practicing law holds only the vaguest meaning.  Some are just shills for their marketing services, people who turned to selling snake oil when the practice of law failed miserably.  And that’s who the ABA promotes to teach real lawyers how to have the “perfect practice.”

I’ve struggled with trying to understand what could possibly go through the collective heads of decision-makers at the ABA, a once venerable, if unbearably stuffy, association.  Are they so disconnected from reality that they believe the shills?  Do they have such utter contempt for anyone outside of Biglaw that they don’t care what sort of tripe they promote to solos? 

A comment to Brian’s post by Jennifer Rose may provide a clue.

The ABA definitely has been seduced by a throng of professional legal marketers who’ve found a venue for shilling their services. One even sent out a bulletin last fall:

“I’m so excited to announce that the American Bar Association has called on Alexis to whip small and solo law firm owners into shape by giving her 3 different sessions this year at the ABA National Small and Solo Law Firm Conference in L.A.”

Not only is it evident that the ABA couldn’t find ten practicing lawyers who’ve built the perfect practice, the single ABA entity speciously dedicated to serving general practice, solo and small firm lawyers has stacked its officer ladder with only a single solo practitioner – filling the rest of the ranks with two military lawyers, a lawyer in a larger firm, and giving the nomination for its secretary to a judge.

The name, American Bar Association, retains some cache, some of the glitter from when it strived to reflect the highest ideal of a noble profession.  But the gang in charge is clueless.  It’s easy to fool clueless people with shiny objects.  All the marketing scammers need do to seduce the clueless is pass their shiny solutions under their noses and tell them how they would be thrilled to pay their own way to speak at the Annual Meeting.   Nobody in charge gave much thought to how people who wouldn’t know the perfect practice if it bit them in the ass are going to teach others how to achieve it.  They were seduced.

The bright side is that the attendees of this presentation immediately set to work creating the “perfect practice” by employing the lessons learned from the ABA.  It was captured on video to be used as an enticement to new and struggling lawyers. 

Welcome to the future of law, ABA Style.

They don’t call him Walloping Wally Olson for nothing, you know.  Via Law.com :

Aviation lawyer and seasoned pilot Arthur Alan Wolk knows quite a bit about the stratosphere and the troposphere, but he may have learned something new this week about the blogosphere when a federal judge tossed out his libel suit against the bloggers at Overlawyered.com.

As U.S. District Judge Mary A. McLaughlin sees it, a blog is legally the same as any other “mass media,” meaning that any libel lawsuit filed against a blog in Pennsylvania must make its way to court within one year.

According to Wolk, as repeated in Judge McLaughlin’s decision, he’s the “most prominent aviation lawyer in the country.”  That doesn’t say much for aviation lawyers.  It seems that Ted Frank, Walter Olson’s evil twin, posted a story about a case of Wolk’s on April 8, 2007.  Wolk happened to find out about the post sometime in April, 2009.  He became very angry.  Grrrr.

The problem is that the statute of limitations was one year.  Memo to Wolk:  Read Overlawyered daily.  I do.

Wolk tried to get around the statute via the Discovery Rule, that the time doesn’t accrue until the alleged defamation is discovered.  No dice, Judge McLaughlin ruled.

The court is not aware of any case in which the discovery rule has been applied to postpone the accrual of a cause of action based upon the publication of a defamatory statement contained in a book or newspaper or other mass medium.

That’s right.  We a mass medium. 

“Not all cases are worthy of the discovery rule. Worthy cases are those pertaining to hard-to-discern injuries,” McLaughlin wrote.

“If the rule is intended for hard-to-discern injuries, it would be at odds with a cause of action based upon a defamatory statement disseminated through a mass medium, like a website, and received by tens of thousands of readers,” McLaughlin wrote.

But Wolk’s lawyer, Paul Rosen, did not take the loss gracefully.

“Unlike mass media print defamation claims, where the publication is pervasive for a short time, but soon becomes yesterday’s news, the Internet is a different animal,” Rosen said.

“In cases such as Mr. Wolk’s, involving a blog that is relatively obscure, but which published a false statement that may appear on any Google type search, the discovery rule is of particular importance,” Rosen said.

In the scheme of the blawgosphere, Overlawyered is anything but “relatively obscure.”  Indeed, it’s not only been around for a long time, extremely well known and well-regarded, but it’s a favorite read of most lawyers with internet access and half a brain.

And lest anyone be overly concerned, chances are slim that this loss on statute of limitations grounds does Wolk any harm, as his likelihood of prevailing on the merits was even slimmer.

Congratulations to Walter, Ted and all the elves in the backroom at Overlawyered.

H/T The vacationing Turk, who just can’t let go of his iPhone.

Judy Scheindlin was once a real judge, sitting in the Family Court in Manhattan.  She was a tough, no-nonsense judge with an edge to her, and she managed to pull it off.  But when she got a gig on TV as America’s bitchiest judge, where it was part of her schtick to crack wise and nasty in every case, she became a caricature that fed the viewers’ angst and frustration with what they perceived as our absurd system.  Judge Judy knew who was lying before they even opened their mouth.  Judge Judy could smell a faker across the courtroom.  Judge Judy was a TV character.

Via Bad Lawyer, Washington Judge Judith Eiler, on the other hand, doesn’t just play judge on TV.  By channeling the other Judge Judy, Eiler ended up in trouble.  For the third time. 

Judge Judith Eiler doesn’t suffer fools lightly. Even before today’s state Supreme Court decision to suspend her for five days on account of rudeness, the judge had twice felt the velvet glove of reprimand come down on her wrist.

In 2005, she was scolded for being too sarcastic and whistling at clients and lawyers to get their attention. Yet she vowed to continue practicing her “straightforward, plain-talking” approach to jurisprudence.

Last year, the Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended a 90-day suspension without pay for “a pattern or practice of rude, impatient, undignified, and intimidating treatment.” Again, Eiler was unmoved.

“If I wanted people to love me, I wouldn’t have chosen to be a judge,” she told KIRO-TV. “I don’t sugarcoat stuff…I don’t use a lot of gobbledygook.”

And what did Judge Eiler do that was so awful as to compel her suspension?

“Statements by a judge implying that a litigant is an ‘idiot’ or ‘stupid’ and the rendering of other derisive comments about persons who are before the judge is not conduct that engenders respect for the judiciary or provides confidence in the impartiality of the justice system,” wrote Justice Gerry Alexander, in an unsuccessful effort to argue for a longer suspension.

Nowhere in the judges’ handbook does it require jurists to employ sugarcoating or gobbledygook in the performance of their duties.  But when you put on a robe, part of the deal is that you exercise discretion and hold that sharp tongue.  It’s not that judges don’t think that people are idiots, but they can’t say it.  They just can’t.

The problem, of course, is that Judge Judy is unbelievably popular, maybe even one of the best things to happen to the legal system, as far as the public is concerned, in a long time.  People love to watch Judge Judy jump to baseless conclusions and rip people’s lungs out through their nose.  Swift, brutal justice.  How fun!  Unless you happen to be the one whose nostrils are at stake.

Does Judy Scheindlin serve as a role model for real judges who both agree with her “take no prisoners” approach and, as it happens, see the power of the robe as an opportunity to vent their spleen?  No one says that any judge has to suffer fools lightly, but that doesn’t mean that they can use their authority to abuse the litigants or lawyers before them.  

If a 90 day suspension last year, following her 2005 discipline, didn’t serve to clue Judge Eiler in that her behavior on the bench was unacceptable, it’s pretty likely that a five day suspension now isn’t going to do it.  There is nothing that sends the message that the legal system couldn’t care less about its own integrity, or the dignity of the people it serves, than a judge with an intemperate mouth.  As Eiler had made clear that she will spew again, this sanction seems absurd.

Want to be able to speak your mind freely and without constraint?  Become a blawger.  Want to be given the authority to make decisions that affect other human being’s lives, show some judicial temperament.  If you can’t do it, don’t wear the robe.  We already have a Judge Judy, and we don’t need a Judge Eiler.  Take off the robe.