January 30th, 2014

But I Didn’t Write That Stuff on My Website!

Passing-the-Baton-600x400

Have you passed off your ethics and reputation to someone else lately?

The orthopedist was on the witness stand last week. He was well credentialed as defendant’s expert: top schools, top training, top position.

And then came plaintiff’s cross examination. The issue was the relationship between disc bulges and disc herniations. The doctor said there was a difference. And that bulges were the result of degeneration, otherwise known as the aging process.

(Some doctors are (in)famous for calling everything degeneration, because, you know, we start to degenerate when we are born.)

Then plaintiff’s attorney, Harlan Wittenstein, posed a general question to the doctor about bulges and herniations being the same. He denied it.

But Wittenstein, a seasoned trial attorney, just happened to have, oddly enough, a 24 x 36 blow up of the doctor’s web page where that assertion existed.  He got it into evidence as a prior inconsistent statement. This was the website language:

A herniated disc, also called a bulging disc, ruptured disc or slipped disc, occurs when the inner core of the spinal disc pushes out through the outer layer of the disc.

Herniation describes an abnormality of the intervertebral disc that is also known as a “slipped,” “ruptured” or “bulging” disc.

The doctor kept saying, and I paraphrase here since I don’t have the transcript, ‘I see that its in my website, but its not true.  I didn’t write it.  Someone else writes the content.’

You know what happens when you outsource your marketing? Your ethics and reputation get outsourced also. And this applies to everyone, not just lawyers.

 

January 28th, 2014

Pete Seeger, 1919 — 2014

Pete SeegerThe first time I saw Pete Seeger sing was in a driving rain storm. It was in Albany, 1981, and I was part of a university crowd marching downtown to protest the  Springboks —  the national rugby team of apartheid South Africa.

The skies opened up on us during the march. But there was Pete, banjo in hand, with supporters holding umbrellas over his head, singing. Through the eyes of a 21-year-old college student, he looked old even back then. This was the scene, as recorded by the New York Times:

ALBANY, Sept. 22— After a day of Federal court decisions, a bombing of the sponsor’s headquarters, arrests of radicals and mobilization of the city’s police force, the touring South African Springboks rugby team played a rain-drenched match tonight on a floodlighted field in Albany’s outskirts.

While the players scrummed and kicked in the mud, the shouts of 1,000 demonstrators confined to a knoll 100 yards away reached the field, which was surrounded by the police. Pete Seeger led the protesters in the African song ”Wimowey” and a local minister said, ”This will go down as one of the blackest Tuesdays in American history.”

I’m not going to sit here and say I agreed with every position that he stood for over the course of his 94 years. I can’t say that about anyone. But when a man stands up to the House Un-American Activities Committee because they are afraid of his music, it’s hard not to appreciate his strength of conviction in the First Amendment. He reportedly had this to say in 1955:

I am not going to answer any questions as to my association, my philosophical or religious beliefs or my political beliefs, or how I voted in any election, or any of these private affairs. I think these are very improper questions for any American to be asked, especially under such compulsion as this.”

You can actually see the testimony on Seeger’s own website.

But that doesn’t mean he was unwilling to tell this most un-American of committees a little bit about himself. He offered instead to sing the songs that the committee mentioned. They refused. He was blacklisted. He was indicted. He was convicted.

And the conviction was overturned, though not on First Amendment grounds, which were not even discussed. Today, that is the way most would have looked at the refusals to testify.

This is a fuller part of the inquisition before the committee:

MR. TAVENNER: The same occasion, yes, sir. I have before me a photostatic copy of a page from the June 1, 1949, issue of the Daily Worker, and in a column entitled “Town Talk” there is found this statement: The first performance of a new song, “If I Had a Hammer,” on the theme of the Foley Square trial of the Communist leaders, will he given at a testimonial dinner for the 12 on Friday night at St. Nicholas Arena. . . .Among those on hand for the singing will be . . . Pete Seeger, and Lee Hays-and others whose names are mentioned. Did you take part in that performance?

MR. SEEGER: I shall he glad to answer about the song, sir, and I am not interested in carrying on the line of questioning about where I have sung any songs.

MR. TAVENNER: I ask a direction.

CHAIRMAN WALTER: You may not he interested, but we are, however. I direct you to answer. You can answer that question.

MR. SEEGER: I feel these questions are improper, sir, and I feel they are immoral to ask any American this kind of question.

MR. TAVENNER: Have you finished your answer?

MR. SEEGER: Yes, sir.

MR. TAVENNER: I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask that it be marked “Seeger exhibit No.4,” for identification only, and to be made a part of the Committee files.

MR. SEEGER: I am sorry you are not interested in the song. It is a good song.

MR. TAVENNER: Did you hear Mr. George Hall’s testimony yesterday in which he stated that, as an actor, the special contribution that he was expected to make to the Communist Party was to use his talents by entertaining at Communist Party functions? Did you hear that testimony?

MR. SEEGER: I didn’t hear it, no.

MR. TAVENNER: It is a fact that he so testified. I want to know whether or not you were engaged in a similar type of service to the Communist Party in entertaining at these features.

(Witness consulted with counsel.)

MR. SEEGER: I have sung for Americans of every political persuasion, and I am proud that I never refuse to sing to an audience, no matter what religion or color of their skin, or situation in life. I have sung in hobo jungles, and I have sung for the Rockefellers, and I am proud that I have never refused to sing for anybody. That is the only answer I can give along that line.

I’m not going to write a full blown obituary for a 94-year-old man with a full life in the public eye. You can read any number of them circulating on the web in news reports. But this is a law blog, so I choose the legal angle. And from my standpoint, that means using words and symbols in order to argue a point.

PeteSeegerBanjoInscriptionAbove any one particular political position he held was the pursuit of non-violence and that people should talk to each other. The inscription on his banjo read:

This machine surrounds hate and forces it to surrender.

Back in 1979, the late Harry Chapin — one of many, many singer-songwriters he influenced — wrote a tribute to Seeger called Old Folkie, that you can find on YouTube, that starts like this:

He’s the man with the banjo and the 12-string guitar.
And he’s singing us the songs that tell us who we are.
When you look in his eyes you know that somebody’s in there.
Yeah, he knows where we’re going and where we been
And how the fog is gettin’ thicker where the future should begin.
When you look at his life you know that he’s really been there.

Americans of all stripes have much to be grateful for in the Seeger lessons. Because free speech affects all of us, regardless of political bent. It’s worth repeating, from his 1954 testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee:

 I have sung for Americans of every political persuasion, and I am proud that I never refuse to sing to an audience, no matter what religion or color of their skin, or situation in life. I have sung in hobo jungles, and I have sung for the Rockefellers, and I am proud that I have never refused to sing for anybody.

 

January 24th, 2014

Justin Bieber Sued By Lamborghini for Defamation

Bieber-YellowLamboghini

Bieber and his yellow Lamboghini

Canadian singer Justin Bieber, arrested yesterday for drag racing a yellow Lamborghini against a red Ferrari, was sued this morning in a Florida federal court for defamation. Bieber, and 19-year-old Def Jam recording artist Khalil Sharieff, had been racing their high end sports cars 55 mph in a 30 mph zone.

Lamborghini spokesman Marcello Gandini said the company, which brought the action based on trade libel (disparagement of product), was furious that Bieber had recklessly besmirched its brand. “Really? Driving 55 in a 30 zone? That’s what he does with our cars?”

The legal filing focuses its attention on the damage done to the corporate reputation. According to Gandini, young Lamborghini drivers, apparently unaware that even expert drivers have trouble controlling the super cars,  have a sterling reputation of crashing their high-powered vehicles in even the most basic of driving maneuvers. Like this. And this. And this.

But “racing” a Lamborghini at 55 mph won’t even get the car out of second gear, said Gandini, and such modest driving impugns the reputation of the company for creating exciting and dangerous vehicles.

Bieber’s attorney, S. Greenfield Healey, defended his client’s conduct. “That street has speed bumps. The idea of racing a low-clearance high-end sports car on such a street is perfectly consistent with the conduct of other Lamborghini drivers, and therefore Lamborghini’s reputation was not injured. But the company’s failure to warn on the issue of racing this car over speed bumps may have implications in our counter suit.”

JustinBieberCadillacEscaladeBieber, terrified that his own reputation would be ruined by this incident, and coming right on the heels of last week’s accusation of egging a neighbor’s house, asked the police to also arrest him for drunk driving, smoking pot, using prescription drugs, and most importably, resisting arrest. According to the police report, he said, “I need some street cred.”

WPTV in Miami reports that Bieber was released on bail and proceeded to climb on top of a black Cadillac Escalade to wave to his fans. Then he got behind the wheel to drive off while texting.

(hat tip, Steve Eschenbacher, @Rabid-Sanity)

 

 

 

January 23rd, 2014

Hillary Clinton Swears In Rob Greenstein

Hillary Clinton swears in Rob Greenstein as Town of New Castle Supervisor

Hillary Clinton swears in Rob Greenstein as Town of New Castle Supervisor, January 22, 2014. Photo Credit: Gary Murphy, Hudson Valley Reporter

Several years back, the good folks at Above the Law had some fun with advertisements being run by a friend of mine, Rob Greenstein. His firm Greenstein & Milbauer was gently mocked by writer Kashmir Hill for having Spanish speaking squirrels to appeal to their Spanish speaking target audience.

But if that was the only thing written about Greenstein, it would leave a poor impression of him. He’s also spent a great deal of time fighting for civil justice issues before our Legislature as part of the Board of Directors and Executive Committee of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association — time that isn’t billed to any client and doesn’t come back in the form of a fee in any other way.

And for those that think trial lawyers are somehow anti-business, you might also want to know that he ran on a platform of the revitalization of New Castle’s downtown business districts and the need for a Chamber of Commerce, which he succeeded in starting up a year ago.

When Greenstein thought things weren’t going quite right in the Town of New Castle, where he lives, he ran for the office of Town Supervisor. And won on the tickets of both the Republican and Independence parties.

I think it’s fair to say that the renumeration he receives from that public service position will not be as great as that which he can earn as an attorney (though the headaches that come with it, might be).

Last night he was inaugurated, and a pretty famous resident of the Town of New Castle (hamlet of Chappaqua) stepped up to swear him in.  You can see the video of Secretary Hillary Clinton swearing him in in this local news broadcast.  If you listen carefully, you will hear Clinton respond that “fair is fair” when Greenstein mentions that, because she was honored by doing the swearing in here, that such an honor would be returned one day.

Also sworn in by Clinton were Lisa Katz as Deputy Supervisor, Adam Brodsky as Town Councilman and Noah Sorkin as Town Justice. More details at Inside Chappaqua.

I’ve spent quite a few posts in this blog needling personal injury lawyers that did things I thought were unacceptable. So it’s nice when I can turn the spotlight on someone who has done quite well indeed.

For those that want to see Clinton in a purely local event — she did write “It Takes A Village,” after all —  or see the Greenstein swearing in its entirety, the full video is here, which is easily fast-forwardable.

 

January 16th, 2014

Will Video Testimony Be Misleading? (The Future of Law?)

Apple Insider Image

Apple Insider image of how the patent would work to morph past images in with the present ones for transmission.

Video testimony has been held by many to be a big improvement over a paper transcript. You can see facial expressions, assess the tone of voice, and evaluate delays in answering. Bill Gates learned that lesson years ago with his much-maligned video deposition with the “long pauses before [he] answered the simplest of queries…[and] the hint of contempt in his voice.”

But the “what you see is what you get” belief that we have in video may change, if the testimony is electronically transmitted.  Video testimony in the coming years might not be quite as reliable as we’d like to think.

Will it be our eyes that are deceiving us? No. It may be technology. Is this the future of law?

As per Apple Insider, in discussing a new patent issued today regarding video transmission over low-bandwidth, we may be in for a subtle but significant change. This is the problem that Apple seeks to fix:

Currently, video communication over cellular data is spotty in many areas due to bandwidth restrictions and existing wireless technology. In some cases, features like Apple’s FaceTime are nearly unusable due to dropped frames, extremely low-resolution images and poor audio quality.

How does Apple want to deal with that? By taking sample frames from the call that had been used previously and morphing them into the live conversation, to give the illusion of a constant video stream. In other words — and this is the part that would interest lawyers and judges — the visual cues from the speakers’ faces may not match with the words that are actually being used.

Again, as per Apple Insider:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday published an Apple invention that replaces frames dropped during a low-bandwidth FaceTime call with pre-recorded or doctored images, thereby creating the illusion of a seamless feed.

Sometimes we see problems in movies and shows where the “sound is off” — as a fraction of a second misalignment messes with our brains. But in the Apple solution, they will simply morph old frames in so that it becomes seamless. The facial expressions you see might be for a different set of words that were previously used.

Is this a problem today? No. Will it be in five years? Check back with me then.