Latest Stories

* Florida State QB Jameis Winston is still in a heap of legal trouble and it turns out his best legal move might just be to drop out. It’d save him the trouble of getting demolished by Mississippi State. [Sports Illustrated]

* A follow-up on the Yale Law/Colombia Prostitution/Secret Service/Obama scandal. An amateur poet was hot on this story from the start and sent cryptic verse about it to a Yale student paper way back in the day. [Ivy Gate Blog]

* Ron Swanson explains lawyers. Best line, “The man who kills me will know.” [Legal Cheek]

* Remember when the Texas Supreme Court cited Walter from Big Lebowski? Now we have the proper citation form for the occasion. [The Legal Satyricon]

* Perdue has settled two lawsuits against it over the use of the phrase “humanely raised.” Apparently its chickens were “not that.” [Salon]

* One lawyer explains why it’s high time we eliminate this holiday. [Katz Justice]

The latest batch of presidential papers from the Clinton Administration, recently released to the public, contain some fun nuggets for law nerds. We’ve mentioned a few of them already — e.g., the time that a pre-robescent Elena Kagan, then a White House staffer, dropped the f-bomb in a memo to White House counsel Jack Quinn. Another just came to light today: as reported by Tony Mauro, a pre-robescent John Roberts, then in private practice at Hogan & Hartson, came close to representing President Clinton in the U.S. Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones.

The papers contain other interesting tidbits too — and some are sad rather than salacious. For example, there’s the story of how a brilliant and distinguished circuit judge came thisclose to landing a seat on the Supreme Court, until health problems derailed his nomination….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “How Health Concerns Dashed A Judge’s Supreme Court Dreams”

Scott Turow

My years as a prosecutor were an extraordinary education in the negative capacity of humanity. You’re like a proctologist — looking at human beings through the wrong end.

Scott Turow — former federal prosecutor, current Dentons partner, and critically acclaimed, bestselling novelist — at an interesting panel at this past weekend’s New Yorker Festival. The panel, moderated by Jeffrey Toobin, focused on writing about murder. Turow’s latest novel, Identical (affiliate link), is about a re-investigation of a murder many years after the fact.


Everything about 22 Reasons Why Going to Law School Is the Best Decision You’ll Ever Make is sublime. The article touches the face of God by slapping Him and then giving Him the finger. Imagine a defense of law school so bereft of substance that it actually exposes the cynical lie driving the law school-industrial complex. Truly a work of beauty.

Presumably trying to newsjack the success of How To Get Away With Murder (inaccurate though it may be), the venerable Huffington Post unleashed these 22 Reasons Why Going to Law School Is the Best Decision You’ll Ever Make upon the world. If we were trying, I’m pretty sure we can come up with 165K+ why it’s a bad one.

The story is written by Madison Rutherford, a senior in Journalism at San Francisco State. What does she know about the value of a law degree? Not much actually. And she’s graciously offered to show us how little she knows about law school in reader-friendly listicle format!

Join us then, as we review all 22 terrible reasons to go to law school….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Another Stupid Defense Of Law School From HuffPo”

Here’s the rule: Make it perfect; then send it to me.

(Yeah, yeah: That’s a slight overstatement, and there might be occasional exceptions to the rule. But let’s explain the rule first, for the benefit of the slow students. We’ll teach the exceptions to the advanced students next semester.)

The old guy — the curmudgeon who’s heading up the team — has been playing this game for decades. He’s been marking up crappy drafts since before you were born. He’s been receiving bad drafts at 6:30 p.m. on Friday (“so that you can have the weekend to look at it”) since God was young. That crotchety old coot really, really, really is not interested in seeing more bad work. (Put yourself in his shoes for a minute: Why would he possibly want to see your appalling first draft?)

Make it perfect; then give it to him. Why should he bother looking at anything other than your best work?

That’s the rule. Here’s a corollary . . .

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Make It Perfect; Then Send It To Me”

This series of posts is on seeking redress against a Chinese company that owes you money or has wronged you. Part I was on Hague Convention service of process on a Chinese company and jurisdiction. This post is on how to conduct discovery against a Chinese company.

Once you have served a Chinese company in a U.S. lawsuit, it will be bound by the court’s normal discovery rules. China, however, prohibits depositions on its soil, even if the deponent consents. In its declaration on accession to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, China stated it would not be bound by those provisions granting consular officers the right to oversee depositions. In 1989, China allowed a deposition in U.S. v. Leung Tak Lun, et al., 944 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1991), but advised that its grant of authority for that particular deposition should not be considered precedent, and it has not permitted a deposition since. Conducting a deposition in China may lead to arrest or expulsion. Even a telephonic deposition of a witness in China likely violates Chinese law, and would not be a good idea for anyone planning to go to China.

The easiest way to depose a China‐based witness will usually be to have that witness go to the United States or to Hong Kong for deposition…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “How To Sue A China Company (Part 2)”

The source of the Supreme Court’s tech problems?

Ed. note: In honor of Columbus Day (and Canadian Thanksgiving), Above the Law will be on a reduced publication schedule today. We will be back in full force tomorrow.

* The Supreme Court’s new Term is off to a great start: Thanks to a copy machine’s error, we almost missed the surprise cert denials in the gay marriage cases. What kind of screw-ups will this week bring us? [National Law Journal]

* On the other hand, in what’s considered an unsurprising move following its cert denials en masse, the Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriage to begin in Idaho. Congrats to the Gem State. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Jenner & Block’s data privacy practice is making waves in an “uncharted but lucrative field,” and its leader thinks that the “Internet of Things” will help heat up her work soon. [Capital Business / Washington Post]

* A future Law & Order: SVU episode? Sanford Rubenstein, a personal injury and civil rights lawyer who’s been described as “[f]lashy, brash and always camera-ready,” is now being accused of rape. [ABC News]

* Yale Law’s most interesting student goes to all of his classes, but never has to study or take any of his finals. It’s not because he’s lucky — it’s because he’s a 93-year-old course auditor. [New Haven Register]

After the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petitions for certiorari in several leading same-sex marriage cases this week, media coverage exploded with headlines like “Legal Argument Over Gay Marriage Is All But Over.”  Advocates of LGBT rights seemed to view all future court action as a mere victory lap.  Sarah Warbelow, the legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, told the press, “It’s really hard to imagine the Supreme Court would have allowed thousands of same-sex couples to get married, including in some very conservative areas like Utah, and then turn around and say, ‘Just kidding, there’s nothing wrong with state bans.'”

Warbelow deserves some slack for her sanguine interpretation of this week’s news.  After all, she has a cause to promote.  And as a general rule, when SCOTUS declines to hear a case on a particular question, one might reasonably assume that they aren’t concerned with correcting the lower court’s treatment of the issue.  But this is hardly a routine legal matter.  Nothing emanating from First Street this week made the fate of same-sex marriage in America certain.  So, why are so many other observers acting as though the Court just handed the LGBT community a gift box of equal rights, neatly wrapped in denied cert petitions?  Why is there so much denial about what these cert denials mean?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “SCOTUS Denies Cert, World Denies Uncertainty”

Buck up, Professor. Your hero Nietzsche always says, ‘That which does not kill us makes us stronger.’

* Remember that whole Brian Leiter kerfuffle? Well he’s gone. The world (of philosophy rankings) was not ready for one as beautiful as thee. [Daily Nous]

* Before They Were Famous: Newly released documents reveal a pre-SCOTUS Justice Kagan writing memos admitting that she “really f**ked up” and “God, do I feel like an idiot.” At least she understood how she made her 1L class feel when she was a professor. [Josh Blackman's Blog]

* A lawsuit over who owns the word “how.” Can’t make this up. [Chronicle of Higher Education]

* How do we know that driverless cars are going to be wonderful for human society? Because they will be absolutely horrible for lawyers and insurers. [Legal Funding Central]

* This guy explains what everyone should understand before going to law school by walking through his decision to not to go to law school despite gaining admission to some T14 heavies. He gives ATL a shout. We hear you buddy, congratulations on your decision. [Chronicle Vitae]

* A Delaware attorney sued for allegedly aiding and abetting a fraudulent emerald salvage operation. Kind of “X marks the disbarment.” [Delaware Online]

* Exxon won an arbitration and got $1.6B from cash-strapped Venezuela, but wanted $14.7B. Poor Exxon, they face so many struggles. [Bloomberg h/t Breaking Energy]

* The D.C. Bar Association is hosting a “Go Formal For Justice” event to raise money for its many programs to help, directly or indirectly, the indigent. [D.C. Bar Foundation]

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from the ATL Career Center’s team of expert contributors. Today, Megan Grandinetti challenges busy lawyers to practice positivity.

A few years ago, I was buried in work and traveling for business. I ran into a friend of mine on a train in Philly, and he spent the next hour listening to (a) how many hours I worked, (b) how much I hated what I was working on, and (c) how the people at my Biglaw firm had zero regard for my personal life (wait a second, WHAT personal life?). I remember being fairly detached and casual as I was talking about all of this (I did NOT burst into tears, per usual), but years later, my friend told me that after that conversation, he had put me on “suicide watch.”

About a year after the suicide watch train incident, I realized that I had become a person that I didn’t recognize: a whiny, angry, sad person who only saw the negative in everything. I decided to do a 40-day challenge, during which I gave up complaining. That’s right, I stopped complaining for 40 days.

Continue reading at the ATL Career Center…

To have all of this happen in such a safe and nice community, it’s just very shocking.

– Rena Karle of Abeles & Karle PLLC, a law firm located in Volusia County, Florida, commenting on a bizarre break-in that occurred at the office. Items stolen ranged from computer towers and monitors to Halloween candy and a Bible. Karle also noted that the floor, walls, and ceilings were covered in “some kind of white sticky goo.” Damages as a result of the break-in at the law firm have been assessed at $100,000 to $150,000 thus far.

In December, Steven Wise, founder and president of the Nonhuman Rights Project, filed writs of habeas corpus on behalf of four chimpanzees he believed were wrongfully detained. Some scoffed at the idea — quips like “the law is going to the apes” or something about “appeals” and “banana peels” — but the facts were pretty bleak. One of the chimps, Tommy, is 26 years old and allegedly reduced to a life in “solitary confinement in a small, dank, cement cage in a cavernous dark shed” in upstate New York. Can you imagine more horrific conditions than upstate New York?

Seriously though, Tommy’s life sounds awful and a New York judge agreed. While admitting that he was unable to grant the order since, you know, the law doesn’t talk about chimps, Judge Joseph Sise conceded that Wise made a compelling argument. Yesterday, a five-member appellate panel heard Tommy’s case and depending on how they rule, they might just make a monkey out of Judge Sise. Is New York on the brink of a revolution in animal law?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Appeals Court Hears Chimpanzee Rights Case”

Page 11 of 17971...789101112131415...1797