Fighting Words in the Bluegrass State

Posted by wlansden | Filed under ,
By James Bowden

True story: since 1891, the Kentucky State Constitution has required all Members of the General Assembly, Officers, and members of the bar to take an oath that includes a statement that, “since the adoption of the present [Kentucky State] Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending.”

Apparently, in the twilight of the nineteenth century Kentucky was concerned about its growing reputation as the “Wow, That Escalated Quickly” state.  Legislative machinations are now afoot to amend the State Constitution to remove the language.  However, I wonder if eliminating the last vestige of an attempt to suppress a dispute resolution problem that harkens to the days of yore is really worth the trouble.  After all, it’s no secret that a few of the founding fathers weren’t above settling their problems from twenty paces; and a particularly famous Tennessean was allegedly quite fond of pistols at dawn (goes great with grits and red-eye gravy!).  I’m afraid that Kentucky may be losing a colorful part of its heritage if it goes through with stripping the oath of the “no dueling” rep.  In any case, is it really worth the time and effort of a Constitutional amendment?

Attorneys in Kentucky: what do you think?  Also, as a practical matter, how many attorneys make it through the oath without laughing?  My guess is about one in five.

Currently rated 4.8 by 4 people

  • Currently 4.75/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Pro Bono Could Cost You

Posted by wlansden | Filed under ,

Brian Malcom

No good deed goes unpunished, especially those done in violation of copyright law.  Copyrights & Campaigns posted about this very subject last week.  

Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson led a defense team for a graduate student at the university pro bono.  The student was ordered to pay $675,000 for unlawfully downloading 30 songs on the Internet.  (Yes, that is $22,500 per song).  Here's hoping he really likes the songs. 

A while ago, the plaintiffs in the case filed a motion to compel seeking evidence regarding the posting of seven songs to a public website.  The federal district judge granted the motion to compel in June 2009.  The plaintiffs then filed a motion for costs and fees under Rule 37.  The motion for costs and fees is available here.  No opposition was filed. 

Last week, the judge also ordered the defendant and his attorney, Professor Nesson, to pay the costs and attorneys fees for the motion to compel filed by the plaintiffs.  Professor Nesson apparently posted some songs at issue in the case on his blog, with a public link for anyone to download the songs. 

The Lessons: 

  1. If you find yourself in a lawsuit concerning illegal downloading or distribution of copyrighted material, do not -- I repeat, do not -- post a link for everyone and their cousin to download the material for free;
  2. Respond to motions that seek to tax costs and fees against you and your client; and 
  3. Pro bono can cost you. 

Currently rated 5.0 by 4 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Practical Drafting Tips for Corporate Lawyers [Including an Attempt at Humor]

Posted by wlansden | Filed under , ,

By James Bowden 

Here are a few drafting tips that I’ve learned the hard way: 

“Due to” Always Means Money Owed – If the recession has affected a registrant’s financial position, “overall revenue decreased because of prevailing economic conditions.” Leave “due to” for promissory notes and the like. 

Define Terms and Use Them – It is best practice to write out the full “the 2010 Annual Report to Shareholders on Form 10-K (the “Annual Report”) as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 15, 2010” the first time the terms are used in each document. After that, writing the full description in detail is too cumbersome in a document that refers repetitively to the Annual Report and the SEC, especially since 10-K and proxy season dictates that emails to my spouse routinely refer to the Annual Report and the SEC (“I’m going to be a bit late – we’ve got to get the Annual Report to the SEC”). 

When Drafting Board Minutes, Stay Out of the Weeds - If you are drafting minutes to a meeting in which two engineers and a software executive on the Board of Directors get hot and wonky discussing the compatibility of a potential acquisition’s patented technology with the Company’s product line in endless and graphic detail, “A thorough discussion of the potential benefits of a strategic partnership ensued.” That is all. 

Triple Check People’s Names – Want to offend an executive officer who is very proud of their Scandinavian heritage? Pretend you are a customs agent at Ellis Island circa 1907 when you draft a document requiring their signature. Bonus points for feigning shock that “Bjerke” is a proper noun after granting the hapless exec an involuntary name change (“Since when is Sarah Burke our CFO?”).

 Plain Language is a Badge of Honor – Keep it direct and legible. Annihilate all unnecessary adjectives; eliminate superfluous SAT words with extreme prejudice. Leave “Whereas, the party of the first part heretofore dost transfer all dower and curtesy thereto to the party of the second part” in the nineteenth century where it belongs. The SEC has requested that I mention the benefits of justifying left. 

Replace-All Has Been Disabled – A friend of mine once told me that the fact* that the blender is always broken was the best lesson he learned in bartending school (“I’m sorry – I could spend 10 minutes making a sticky mess of the bar and ignoring other patrons while I make you a frozen daiquiri that you will not tip me for, but unfortunately the blender is broken. Can I get you a rum and coke instead?”). Similarly, it is a fact* that the “Replace-all” feature in your word-processing program has been disabled. That is, of course, unless you want to change every “unit” in your document into “membership interests,” including those in the Membership Interested States of America. It is also a fact* that reply-all has been disabled on your email.  

If you have any other drafting tips, please leave them in the comments section for my benefit. Please.

Currently rated 5.0 by 4 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

So, What Have We Learned? Part I

Posted by wlansden | Filed under ,

So what have we learned in our first year blogging at the YLB?  Here is our totally opinionated list, derived specifically from our experience with this blog only:

For Part I, here are the dos:

  • DO have as many contributors as possible.  In addition to having articles coming from a variety of people, it helps to have a number of people involved in the editing and “managing.”  We, after all, have day jobs.
  • DO create recurring “themes” which can be used for articles on similar topics or forms.  Sometimes it is easier to “see” an article in a news story or experience in the form of something we have done before.
  • Do get people involved, who want to do it.  It is no use having a practice group leader “suggest” that someone write an article or participate in the blog.  People need to want to do it!
  • DO employ the grammar-police.  Like most writing, it is impossible for one person to catch all the mistakes and typos.  With more casual writing like this, it can be easier to make gaffes. 

Currently rated 4.0 by 2 people

  • Currently 4/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Happy Anniversary to Us!

Posted by wlansden | Filed under

The Young Lawyers Blog is one year old, which, obviously, makes it our blogiversary today!

Thanks for hanging in there with us. 

We’re working on a list of what we have learned with this blog this year.

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Expert Witness Tips from Vinny Gambini

Posted by wlansden | Filed under ,
By Eileen Burkhalter Smith

I was reminded this weekend, by Mona Lisa Vito, no less, about what can happen when an expert witness is hostile—your expert witness.  As is universally recognized, expert witnesses should be treated differently than fact witnesses—even if they are on your side.

In a recent trial, I saw counsel (for the other side, lucky for me) struggling with her expert witness.  Though the expert was saying everything technically as anticipated, it was clear that the expert did not think much of the party for which he was testifying.  The expert was testifying for the plaintiff, but made several derogatory comments about the plaintiff’s behavior in a slip and fall action.  The expert went so far as to state that the precautions that he thought should have been taken were akin to “idiot-proofing.”  Not only did this comment get a chuckle from everyone, including the jury, but the Judge picked it up as well—using the same phrase in side comments during the jury charge.

The expert was well-seasoned and clearly not interested in the subtle clues that my opponent was using to get him back on track.  In my opinion, the expert’s attitude really hurt my opponent’s case.  I would be willing to bet that his throw-away comment was the only thing the jury remembered from all of the experts!

Vinny Gambini knew when his expert was hostile, and immediately asked the Judge to allow him to treat her as such.  I am not sure my opponent needed to take that step, but I wonder if leading questions could have kept him a bit more tongue-tied?

Currently rated 4.5 by 2 people

  • Currently 4.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Free Speech and Facebook

Posted by wlansden | Filed under
By Brian Malcom
 
A federal magistrate judge in Florida ruled that a high school student has a constitutional right to criticize her teacher on the web.  A former Florida high school student was suspended after she set up a Facebook page to criticize her teacher.  The Facebook page was titled, "Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I've ever met."  CNN reports 
that the student wrote things like, "To those select students who have had the displeasure of having Ms. Sarah Phelps, or simply knowing her and her insane antics: Here is the place to express your feelings of hatred."
 
Free Speech and Facebook came together in the judge's determination that the student had a constitutional right to express her views through the social media site.  The judge found that the student's speech online was protected speech.  Important to the judge's determination that speech was protected was that the speech was published off-campus, was not lewd, vulgar, threatening, or advocating illegal or dangerous behavior.  The student did not use school computers to post the criticisms. 
 
Apparently, the student was suspended for three days for cyberbullying of a staff member.  In a fit of overreaction, the principal also removed the AP student from her advanced classes and assigned her to regular classes.  (Can you do that?)  The suit seeks to wipe the student's record clean of the suspension and nominal damages.
 
Score one for expressing your opinion on Web 2.0.  Still, I would not recommend railing against your law firm on the web anytime soon.

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Adventure in Legal Advertising: YouTube for Attorneys

Posted by wlansden | Filed under ,

By James Bowden

Do you need an attorney, and are more familiar and comfortable with online dating sites than the common law firm website?  Are you a practicing attorney who wishes for a way to use your charismatic personality and your rakish good looks to woo clients?  Have no fear, LegalTube is here!

LegalTube is apparently the natural evolution of legal advertising in the information age.  According to the ABA’s Business Law Today:

The site is intended to mimic that initial conversation for a prospective client—learning about the lawyer's personal style, experience, areas of expertise, and answers to general queries. As opposed to a standard directory where only certain text information is available, lawyers participating in LegalTube can not only give virtual tours of their offices, but also give viewers insight into their firm, their personality, and their background.

I don’t know about all of that, but the website does feature the three worst-delivered lawyer jokes in history.  Also included is an honestly entertaining “webisode reality series” called “Law After Dark,” which is really just a series of hilarious/sad clips from the Jefferson County Alabama (Birmingham) Circuit Court.  Fun game: juxtaposing the instructions concerning appropriate courtroom attire in the “Shorts?” clip with the treatment given to the defendant wearing the Hooters t-shirt in the “Nice hair” clip, planning wardrobe for upcoming hearing in Jefferson County appropriately.

Overall, I don’t know how well the site functions as a business development tool, and I somehow doubt that its existence will improve a client’s ability to select their ideal attorney – but the limited content available certainly is entertaining.  It should keep you chortling for at least a .2.

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Hearsay: Strange Things Are Afoot

Posted by wlansden | Filed under , , ,
By Eileen Burkhalter Smith

I can’t get enough of this situation in IllinoisThe legislature passed a law in 2008, to allow into evidence hearsay statements from witnesses who were murdered in the trials about the murders.

The law has been called the “Drew Peterson Law” because it is being immediately used by the prosecution in an attempt to introduce 15 hearsay statements that Kathleen Savio, Mr. Peterson’s third wife, allegedly made to people about her ex-husband, prior to her death in 2004.  Currently, an Illinois court is determining the trustworthiness of these 15 statements and will make a decision about whether they are admissible in Mr. Peterson’s trial relating to Ms. Savio’s 2004 death.  The Court has already kept out one of the statements (purportedly made to a pastor) and is considering the others.

The law creates a hearsay exception for statements “offered against a party that has killed the declarant . . . intending to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding.”  725 ILCS 5/115-10.6.

Obviously, this is creating heated debate on both sides, and is requiring the airing of much of the evidence before the trial itself.  Many of the legal documents in this matter are available here.

Who knew hearsay could be such a hot topic?

Currently rated 4.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 4/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Hanging Up a Shingle With Style

Posted by wlansden | Filed under , ,
By James Bowden

Recent law school grads throwing your hat in the ring as sole practitioners, the bar has been set.  Portland, Oregon’s newest law office features a Cornell Law Graduate with an interesting take on specialization versus general practice, an innovative fee structure, and an ambitiously nontraditional office layout.

Starting out without the support of a law firm staffed with experienced attorneys and the existing client base that they serve is a tough way to get started in the practice of law – but it is still a way to get started.  I really do admire Mr. Kaplon-Olson’s pluck and entrepreneurialism, too.  Here is a shameless personal story - my spouse is currently in business school, and she and her classmates are facing a lack of available jobs that is akin to that of law students.  Their response to adversity is inspiring – they are starting their own businesses.  The entrepreneurial spirit is something that I found lacking in law school, and something from which I think that we would have benefited greatly.

So my hat is off to Mr. Kaplon-Olson for breaking the mold and striking out on his own, and to all the entrepreneurs out there, too.

Currently rated 5.0 by 2 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5