Category Archives: Odds and Ends

 

July 7th, 2009

Welcome New Visitors: (NYT on Sotomayor & Associates, And On Failing to Credit Story Source)

It’s funny how one can be in the news without actually being in the news. As mentioned earlier today, the New York Times ran a story about “Sotomayor & Associates” and the fact that she didn’t have any actual associates. I wrote that story up back on June 4th, and it’s laid mostly dormant since then.

But when the Times failed to credit me with having found this item as they furthered the investigation, other bloggers took notice and the issue of journalistic ethics reared its head.

To my new readers (at least for a day), I welcome you. If you want to know more of the types of stuff I write about here, and whether this obscure little blog should be part of your RSS feed, you can skim this “best of” piece.

Welcome to readers of those that follow (and my thanks to their authors for the inbound links). I’ll update this later with further links should the story be of interest to others:

  • Scott Greenfield @ Simple Justice with a long and gracious post (Credit is a Two Way Street) that includes this lede:

    Judge Richard Posner recently suggested an extreme solution to the potential death of the newspaper. Using the argument that there’s no reason to buy the cow when you can get the milk for free, Posner urged the expansion of copyright law to “bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent.” In other words, burn blogs to save newspapers.

    But this assumes, as Posner does, that its only blogs that free-ride off the newsgathering efforts of “legitimate” media. While this is certainly the predominant flow, it’s not always the case, as was clear today when the New York Times published a story about Sonia Sotomayor’s foray into private practice under the name “Sotomayor and Associates.” It was a wonderful piece of investigative journalism, but for one detail. The news was unearthed not by the Times, but by blawger Eric Turkewitz at New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog…[more]

  • Prof David Wgner @ Ninomania:

    Did Sotomayor violate a well-established bar rule in calling her solo practice in 1983-6 “Sotomayor & Associates” when evidence suggests it was just herself helping family and friends via a home practice?

  • John Steele @ Legal Ethics Forum:

    A solo cannot describe his or her practice with the phrase “and Associates” if in fact there are no associates there. It’s false and misleading. [more]

  • Jim Lindgren @ Volokh Conspiracy: A multi-state look at the use of “and Associates” in the name of a solo practice
  • Walter Olson @ Point of Law:

    …the nominee called her very small practice “Sotomayor & Associates” even though it had no lawyers but herself. That would appear to be an infraction, if a minor one, of the relevant New York ethical rules.

  • Mark Draughn @ WindyPundit:

    Even if he got the idea from Turkewitz’s’ blog, he probably considers the idea public property because the primary source for the blog post—Sotomeyor’s questionnaire—is available to anyone, and Turkewitz doesn’t have any ownership of the story just because he wrote about it first. [Much more at On the Ethics of Sourcing For Bloggers and Journalists]

[New Sotomayor tag added for easy access to all Sotomayor posts]

Links to this post:

blawg review #220
welcome to blawg review #220, rounding up some highlights of the past week from around the legal blogosphere. it’s my second time hosting it here at overlawyered, a blog that as its name implies maintains a certain critical distance …

posted by Walter Olson @ July 13, 2009 3:40 AM

sonia sotomayor “and associates”
[i’ve edited to make this tighter.] story here and here. eric turkewitz, a new york lawyer/blawger, broke the story. [then professor alberto bernabe, of the john marshall school of law, blogged about it.] …
posted by John Steele @ July 07, 2009 2:48 PM

 

June 11th, 2009

Ken Feinberg: The New Human Punching Bag

You have to admire the mettle of the man. Kenneth Feinberg is stepping into a new role that comes with this one thankless guarantee: No matter what he does people will hate him.

The President called and he answered the call. But the role that he fills is one of overseeing executive compensation for companies that had been bailed out by the government, to see that taxpayer money isn’t wasted on overpaying executives.

Is that easy? Of course not. Many revile the policy and the whole concept of such stringent government oversight. And that means, as the government’s delegated front man on the issue, that he will suffer the slings and arrows of angry people. People will yell that he allowed too much compensation for greedy execs while others will scream that it was not enough to woo talented people. He’s gonna get it coming and going.

His job will be utterly thankless.

When he stepped into his role as Special Master of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund he also had problems. Some thought it unfair that the families of high income executives received vastly more than those from more humble positions. And others said the families of the high earners didn’t get their due because their earnings were so high. As I said previously, I thought he was an extraodianry public servant.

This time, though, he won’t have the back-drop of a nation under attack. He has a recession. I expect he will hear much more in the way of hardball assaults since the raw emotion and immediacy of September 11th won’t be with us. He’s certainly got guts to stick his body into the path of the flailing assaults he will no doubt see.

But in the deep background there is this to consider: Feinberg was picked both by the very conservative team of John Ashcroft and George Bush as well as the present administration. So there are people out there, on both sides of the aisle, who see Feinberg as a fair man that will do his best with integrity. And that ain’t bad.

Elsewhere: D.C. Lawyer Kenneth Feinberg to Serve as Pay Czar (Elefant @ Law.com Legal Blog Watch)

 

June 10th, 2009

New York’s Extraordinary Government

Let me briefly summarize the state of New York’s government.

As I write, the Senate is in disarray due to a coup. The Republicans were ousted in the last election after holding that chamber for 40 years. Eight months later two Democrats allegedly switch sides and dump their party in the name of “reform” but no one can decide if the vote was legal. And they are actually fighting over who has the keys to the Senate chamber.

Our governor was ousted in a prostitution scandal. Our new governor has approval ratings so low you need a shovel to find them, largely due to his fiasco in trying to replace Senator Clinton.

Our judiciary has sued the governor and the legislature because they haven’t had pay raises since the days of the flood.

So the only thing left to do is make fun of New Jersey.

 

April 13th, 2009

Lawyers Taking A Year Off?


On the front page of the New York Times today is a story on Skadden giving lawyers a year off if they want it, and they still pick up 1/3 of their pay. For the lawyer they profiled, that meant $80,000 to go have a good time. (see: $80,000 for a Year Off? She’ll Take It!)

Now some folks may balk at leaving the working world for a year, afraid of what might await them when they return. Since I happen to have taken a year off back in ’88-’89 to travel (see: It was 20 Years Ago Today…), I’ve got something to say on the subject. And a little advice.

Do it!!!!!!!!

And, unlike the subject of the Times piece, who wonders about the do-gooder legal projects she can engage in in other parts of the world during her year away, actually working is not part of the requirement.

If there is no spouse, kids or mortgage that you need to worry about — no keys that you need to take with you — it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see and experience things that you will never get a chance to see and experience again. When you don’t have to worry about the clock or calendar ticking, you get a chance to linger and look in ways you otherwise could not.

All you need are a passport, imagination and money. And Skadden is providing the money.

 

March 23rd, 2009

A Deadly Plane Crash Turns Into An Instant "Win an iPhone" Contest

It’s enough to make you vomit. The proliferation of marketers who will do anything in the spirit of Internet marketing.

So late last night a plane crashes in Montana killing 17 14 people. Horrible by any standard.

I Googled “Montana Plane Crash” as part of my continuing look at lawyers and marketing on the web and found a Google Adword link that looks like this (pdf version/MontanaPlaneCrashSearch.pdf):

Montana Plane Crash
Who’s fault is it? Give us your
opinion and get an iPhone
www.nkthen.biz/Survey/polls

There are 17 dead people and grieving families and someone is running a contest to win an iPhone? Please, say it ain’t so. I click and go to the website (/MontanaPlaneCrashiPhone.pdf):

MONTANA PLANE CRASH
Montana plane crash kills 17, including children

Montana Plane Crash – Who is at Fault?
Tell Us What You Think
and win an iPhone!

The Pilot and Crew! It is just an Accident!

So I went to the home page for the domain (http://www.nkthen.biz/), and found it to be pitching Internet marketing services like this (/JosephThenWebMarketing.pdf):

Discover How You Can Generate
An Avalanche of Traffic to Your Website in Just 3 Weeks!

Established Internet Marketer Spills Out Everything in Traffic Generation and How YOU can Get the Traffic you Want!

The author of the book and owner of the site is Joseph Then.

So thank you Joe, for your invaluable contributions to society. The bereaved will no doubt be grateful to you.