November 23rd, 2009

Anne Reed, Editor of Deliberations, Moves On (New Job and Blog Bites The Dust)

Anne Reed, Wisconsin lawyer and creator of the wonderful Deliberations blog about juries, is calling it quits with respect to the law firm (Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC) she’s been at for 28 years. She moves on now to be the Executive Director of the Wisconsin Humane Society (where her mug shot already graces its front page).

Anne had a great perspective on juries and the selection process, on studies about how people (and groups) think and many a tip on how to approach the actual trial of a case. It’s clear that the legal blogosphere loses a terrific voice as she closes down Deliberations.

I’m likely not the first, and certainly won’t be the last, to wish her all the best in her new endeavor. I’m also probably not the only one to wonder if she will blog about the experience of morphing from a career in law to a new area.

And if any lawyers wondering about how to go about blogging are reading this, this is what happens if you blog well. From her firm bio, which is likely about to disappear:

Anne writes about juries and jury selection in her Web blog, Deliberations, which is listed in the ABA Journal’s selection in 2007 of the top legal blogs. Because of her work in this area, Anne has been quoted in the ABA Journal, the National Law Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Lawyers USA and the Wisconsin Law Journal, among others.

On a final note, our dog Tucker was rescued by a humane group similar to the one Anne is going to work for.

He is, to say the least, grateful that people such as Anne exist in this world, or he would still be wandering the streets and garbage dumps of the place of his birth. Instead he gets to chase squirrels and endlessly sniff the personal parts of every resident and visitor to cross our threshold.

And that makes him happy.

Anne, Tucker wishes you all the best.

Links to this post:

Around the web, November 30
Dangers work both ways? Third-party litigation finance proposed for the defense side [Longstreth, American Lawyer] Related: “Investing in Lawsuits: ‘Litigation Financing’ and the Consumer Protection Imperative” [Leichty/Thomason, WLF, …

posted by Walter Olson @ November 30, 2009 6:44 AM

November 24 roundup
“California’s Largest Cities and Counties Spent More Than $500 Million in Litigation Costs in Two Years” [CACALA]; Violence Policy Center blames handgun carry permits for offenses that include … strangulation? …

posted by Walter Olson @ November 24, 2009 8:45 AM

October 19th, 2009

Chamber of Commerce Credits Apple’s Success to Trial Lawyers

I love the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It’s utterly over-the-top arguments have lead it to the conclusion that the success of Apple is due to trial lawyers.

Apple, you see, became the latest company to tell the Chamber of Commerce to go crap in a hat when it came to its stance on climate change. Apple quit. But according to the chamber, they weren’t told by Apple to take that proverbial long walk of the short pier because its position on global warming was out of touch with science and the opinions of the vast majority of people. No, it couldn’t be that.

According to the chamber, Apple must have quit the organization because of the trial lawyers. I kid you not.

In Friday’s Washington Post the chamber said its critics were organized by “our normal adversaries– trial lawyers, activist unions [and] environmental extremists.”

Chamber COO David Chavern went on to write in his letter, that “[I]nterest groups are looking for public leverage to force us to do things against the best interests of the business community…”

You see, according to the chamber, Apple, one of the most successful consumer businesses on the planet, doesn’t really know what is in its best interests. Apple, according to the chamber, is being pressured by trial lawyers. We’re responsible for Apple being what it is today.

It’s nice to see such a feather in the cap of the trial lawyers. Usually we must be satisfied knowing only that there are safer playgrounds, safer cars, safer drugs, and safer consumer items of all kinds as a result of lawyers holding companies accountable for what they make.

But now we get to add in Apple’s success. Cool. I can live with that.

h/t Legal Reader
————————————–
See also:

The Chamber and Climate Change Debacle: Ignoring the First Rule of Holes (NRDC):

…it is clear that the US Chamber is worried about the impact of the controversy over their climate position, but it isn’t worried enough to have an honest discussion with its members as to what’s going on. Instead, the Chamber is firing wildly at its traditional scapegoats – lawyers, unions and environmentalists – and blaming the troubles on them. But what the Chamber is burying here is that it has created this mess for itself, and the companies that have quit the chamber and criticized it have done so of their own accord. (more)

Chamber: They Just Hate Us Because We’re Awesome (Mother Jones):

The US Chamber of Commerce has had a very rough week. Mother Jones exposed their inflated membership numbers, forcing the Chamber to shrink its tally by 90 percent. Following a series of high-profile departures by members who opposed the leadership’s position on climate change, a group of liberal NGOs has organized a “Stop the Chambe”” campaign, and the San Francisco Chamber is publicly divorcing them. The Chamber is so beleagured that it is now painting itself as the victim of—wait for it—a “corporate campaign.” (more)

Chamber fires back at climate critics (Politico):

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce fired back at critics on Thursday, after a series of defections by member companies angry over the business lobby’s opposition to climate change legislation.”The only regrets we have is that we maybe have not always used the right language,” Chamber CEO Tom Donohue told reporters. “We don’t have regrets about our position, and we don’t intend to change it.” (more)

September 23rd, 2009

Judge and Blogger, Jerry Buchmeyer, is Dead at 76

In my blog roll off to the right under “Legally Humorous” sits a link to Say What?, a little Texas law blog from US District Court Judge Jerry Buchmeyer, who died Monday at 76.

But I didn’t add him to my blog roll and RSS feed to read about Texas law. I tuned in because he had a great collection of trial and deposition snippets that, when you read them, were sure to lift your day. And to warn you about engaging the mouth before engaging the brain.

Oddly enough, though he died Monday, he has a post dated today (reprised from 2001). So somewhere up in the Great Beyond, Judge Buchmeyer must be laughing a little. And as long as Judge Buchmeyer continues to post, I’ll continue to keep him in my blog roll.

One sample from the blog looks like this:

Q. Do you know how much money?

A. No, not specifically.

Q. You recall testifying as to a seven or $800,000 figure concerning Roseneath yesterday?

A. Whatever the record said.

Q. You recall discussing a seven or $800,000 contribution to GRI by Roseneath?

A. And I said whatever the record said.

Q. You don’t recall that right now?

A. I said whatever the record said.

Q. That’s not responsive. Do you recall?

A. Read my lips.

Q. Read mine. Do you recall?

A. Look at me again, read them real careful.

Q. And read my lips carefully –

Mr. Butler (wisely): All right. Gentlemen, I guess that’s about enough of this.

It’s easy to watch an hour disappear just roaming through his archives reading some of the transcripts that people had sent him over the years.

You can read some of the obituaries, that focus on his judge-life as opposed to his blog-life, here:

WSJ Law Blog;
ABA Journal;
Box Turtle Bulletin;
Tex Parte Blog;
Pegasus News;
Legal Blog Watch

September 11th, 2009

Does "No Cash" Rule of NYC Marriage Bureau Violate Federal Law?

Over at the WSJ Law Blog is a little post by Ashby Jones of a restaurant going cashless for security reasons. Credit cards only. He ponders whether this is legal given that greenbacks are legal tender “for all debts public and private.”

The law on this, from Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, is: “United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.”

After a little analysis, he (sort of) concludes that as a private business they have a right to reject cash and not to do business with the cash-only patron, much the way a taxi driver might refuse all $100 bills.

But what of the government? When I went for a marriage license 10 years back, I was faced with NYC’s Marriage Bureau refusing to take cash. They absurdly insisted that I go to a bank and get a money order. They wouldn’t even accept credit cards.

I thought back then that this couldn’t possibly be legal, but with marital bliss upon me and a fiancee next to me, I wasn’t really in the mood to pick a fight.

But Jones’ post made me wonder if this rule had changed over the last 10 years, so I went to the NYC Marriage Bureau page and checked. And I found:

Fee
The fee for a Marriage License is $35 by credit card or money order payable to the City Clerk.

So now they accept credit cards. But still not actual cash, despite it being “legal tender for all debts public and private.”

Can that possibly be legal?

July 30th, 2009

What to Wear to Court (Client Edition)

Bronx Justice Joseph Dawson went off on a rant, the Daily News reports. He was sick of people showing up in his courtroom dressed like slobs. (He’s not the only judge to do this.) The News quotes him saying to criminal defendants:

“Your client comes up in a T-shirt and sweatpants, chewing gum? This court deserves more respect than that.”

And to another:

“I’m not saying you have to wear a suit. You don’t. Just wear something appropriate.”

Now this blog gets a fair amount of hits for people looking for information on what to wear to court, as a result of this piece I did on a lawyer wearing an ascot to court. But I’ve never addressed the client version, so here goes:

It boils down to one rule, and one rule only: Wear the clothes you would wear to a house of worship. No slob clothes, no heavy jewelry, and ladies, no plunging necklines.

Lawyers and other professionals who routinely wear suits are expected to wear suits, like it or not. But many folks don’t have suits, or if they do, they own only one; the one they wear to funerals. And you shouldn’t wear the funeral suit because you will look just as comfortable as you would at a funeral.

If you are there to testify or make any kind of appearance then you want people listening to your words, not distracting jurors or the judge. Unless you want to lose, of course.

And if you are there to support a family member then you don’t want to do something that makes the jury think poorly of your family member. If you dress in the church clothes, you can’t go wrong.
——————————–
Another view: Lawyer Fashionista: Haute Bronx (Greenfield):

Judge Dawson’s expectation that defendants consider the fact that they are going to court when they select their attire in the morning hardly strikes me as much of a stretch. Even in the Bronx, consideration of the day’s events should guide one’s choices. However, when one’s Sunday Best on the Concourse is either the best they can do, or a casual reflection of a cultural distinction, perhaps it would be wise to spend less time concerned with the questionable merit of halter tops or droopy pantaloons and appreciate the fact that the defendants have appeared as required by law, turned off their cellphones so as to avoid disruption and kept their hands to their sides.