Add RSS RSS

Non-Sequiturs: 10.25.07

threesome threeway Above the Law blog.jpg* Professor Eugene Volokh wonders: Does engaging in a three-way with a current client and the client’s girlfriend count as having sex “with a current client” — a practice forbidden by state bar rules? [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Professor Ann Bartow wonders: Why call it “law porn”? [Feminist Law Professors via Blawg Review]

* Paralegal of the Day? [TPM Muckraker]

* A way for that Cleary Gottlieb Glamour editor to earn some extra cash on the side? [City Room]

* “Law school grads: burnt by the job search process? A journalist wants to hear about it.” [JD Underground]

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by FIRST | Permalink Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:31 PM

FIrsty first first first!!

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:31 PM

Honestly, only a lawyer would even ask

Same room client, all 3 naked, pleasuring GF while GF pleasures client sure SOUNDS LIKE a violation of the rule against attorney-client sex.

But your honor, the rule says nothing about 3-way sex.....

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:35 PM

In all fairness, it is a very awkwardly written rule that really seems to be intended to carve out finger-cuffing. I think they got it right.

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:55 PM

What if the client is referred to as Unroch's girlfriend but Unroch never got far enough to realize that said client HAS A PENIS. Is that an ethical breach or just really dumb?

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:36 PM

it wouldn't be so bad except he practices "elder law"

avatar
6 Posted by AGWWG | Permalink Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:41 PM

Paging Loyola 2L & Cumberland 3L!

Oh yeah, Asian Girls With White Guys

avatar
7 Posted by Towelie | Permalink Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:34 PM

I have no idea what's goin on.

avatar
8 Posted by Dumbledore | Permalink Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:34 PM

S&C settled with Aaron Charney. Tis a glorious day for us all. Holla!

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, October 25, 2007 11:59 PM

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1193303031128

Back to work, Lat

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 26, 2007 12:07 AM

Exactly. It's time for the important things... like where are the recently finished Supreme Court clerks working?

avatar
11 Posted by anonymous | Permalink Friday, October 26, 2007 8:38 AM

I find this picture highly offensive. shame on you, Lat.

avatar
12 Posted by Towelie | Permalink Friday, October 26, 2007 8:50 AM

Hey 8:38, wanna get high?

avatar
13 Posted by Anon | Permalink Friday, October 26, 2007 8:55 AM

Of course it violates the rule. That is almost as dumb as this question (from a frat guy at the prestigious University of Miami...

http://media.www.thehurricaneonline.com/media/storage/paper479/news/2007/03/27/DearV/Can-Gay.Affairs.Be.Hidden.From.My.Girlfriend-2793395.shtml?refsource=collegeheadlines&reffeature=nationalstoriestab

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 26, 2007 9:34 AM

I really appreciate the picture. :)

I also like the commentary at VC about the judges making sure that their finger-cuffing orgies don't make them gay.

avatar
15 Posted by onan | Permalink Friday, October 26, 2007 9:39 AM

Aiiiigh! That picture!!1 My eyes! The goggles -- they do nothing!!!

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 26, 2007 9:39 AM

Great pic and post, but what the heck is "finger-cuffing"? As in holding the wrists of another?

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 26, 2007 9:46 AM

I'm confused...why's the guy in the back doing the other guy? Should he be on the other side of the picture?

avatar
18 Posted by bobo | Permalink Friday, October 26, 2007 9:59 AM

I just made that pic my desktop background and urbandictionaried "fingercuff". uh-oh, here come the techpolice hey HEY whowuhd

DON'T TAZE ME BRO

avatar
19 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 26, 2007 10:15 AM

Lat, I see you've taken my suggestion about posting more homoerotic images along with your posts. Excellent call. However, actual photos of hot men are preferred. Thank you.

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 26, 2007 10:21 AM

Did you really need to include that picture, Lat? Please use better judgment in the future.

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 26, 2007 11:11 AM

Which one of them is Asian?

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, October 26, 2007 11:40 AM

NSFW!!!

Post Your Comment