Some proof that Wednesday night’s law blogger party at Cloud wasn’t a total sausagefest.
Left to right: Laura I. Appleman, of Willamette; Usha Rodrigues, of the University of Georgia; and Rose Cuison Villazor, of SMU.
Trivia: Laura Appleman, a transplanted New Yorker, lives with her husband in Salem, Oregon (but makes regular trips up to Portland, which she enjoys). Usha Rodrigues’s first name is pronounced OO-shuh, and she’s the former editor-in-chief of the Virginia Law Review. Rose Villazor is Filipino-American (and so is her husband, who’s also a lawyer).
This is a continuation of our earlier photo post, Legal Bloggers + Law Professors = One Bitchin’ Party. You can access that post, which includes some background about the festivities, by clicking here.
Our remaining party photos, plus trivia, appear after the jump.
Last night, in Washington, DC, the coolest place to be was Cloud. This restaurant, bar and lounge, located on Dupont Circle, hosted a fantastic party of law professors and legal bloggers. Morton’s after the Oscars ain’t got nothing on this scene.
The festivities were co-sponsored by two
fiercely competitive legal academic blogs: Concurring Opinions and PrawfsBlawg. Because of the big AALS annual meeting here in D.C., many law professors — and leading legal bloggers — were in attendance.
(Note to Dan Markel: In the preceding paragraph, we listed Concurring Opinions before PrawfsBlawg based solely on alphabetical order. We realize, of course, that PrawfsBlawg existed well before Concurring Opinions. And that, like, half of Concurring Opinions traffic comes from Google searches for nude photos of Jennifer Aniston. So we intend no disrespect to PrawfsBlawg.)
We took several pictures of legal geniuses lubricating their intellectual gears with alcoholic beverages. The first batch of our photographs appears after the jump.
Professor Laura Appleman, who teaches at Willamette University College of Law and blogs at Legal Ethics Forum, has just written a fascinating and fun piece about the Anna Nicole Smith saga. Appleman examines the relationship between Smith and her attorney-cum-paramour, Howard K. Stern, from a legal ethics perspective.
Even those of you whose recollections of legal ethics are fuzzy have probably thought there was something fishy about Stern’s conduct. Well, you thought right. Appleman offers a laundry list of legal ethics rules that Stern may have violated.
We commend the entire piece to you. But those of you who sitting for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam on November 4 will especially appreciate this excerpt:
[H]ere’s our first problem: Assuming, as we are, that our fictional lawyer is sleeping with his fictional client, that said fictional lawyer has allegedly impregnated said client, and that there are some competing paternity claims, what is the best course for the lawyer to pursue?
Is it (a) withdraw from the representation of the client and advise her to seek objective counsel; (b) withdraw from the representation and engage counsel of his own to litigate the paternity claim; (c) withdraw from the representation, engage his own counsel, and appoint a guardian pro tem for the child; or (d) all of the above, while also retaining complete confidentiality of the client’s information, including any client information that affects his personal interests?
Apparently, Stern instead chose (e) continued representation of the client, failure to retain counsel for himself or the child, and disregard for the confidentiality of the client’s information. Stern, an overachiever, decided to accomplish this last goal in most dramatic fashion by outing himself as the putative father on “Larry King Live.” And although there is no specific Rule 1.6 prohibition on “Larry King Live” appearances (not even in the Comments—trust me, I looked), I think we can safely assume that flaunting your client’s secrets on national television is verboten.
And you thought WE were snarky…
(Disclosure: We went to law school with Appleman. And yes, she was hilarious back then, too.)
Please Don’t Squeeze the Client [Law.com]