When you think of George Hamilton, if at all, you think of the walking precautionary example for artificial tanning. Maybe you think of Tom Hagen’s replacement as the Corleone Family lawyer in Godfather III (if you acknowledge that the movie exists). But there was a time in the 60s when George Hamilton was the bee’s knees and hob-knobbing with the rich and powerful.
And because he was an actor, Lyndon Johnson thought Hamilton was “running around with a bunch of homosexuals,” so the White House set the U.S. Supreme Court and — ironically — J. Edgar Hoover on the case of digging into George Hamilton’s private life. It’s like a “Stars — They’re Just Like Us” feature for the current administration — see, government spied on its people just as much in the 60s as it does today. It’s just back then knowing gay people made you “a potential terrorist” instead of “Bravo’s demographic.”
Thanks to a FOIA request at the heart of an Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision, this is all finally coming to light…
In case you haven’t heard, over the weekend a whole bunch of celebrities got hacked and nude photos of them leaked onto the internet. Let me just start out by saying that hacking into a celebrity’s phone and stealing her nude photos is just a horrible thing. It’s not a funny joke. It’s not something hackers should be high fiving over. Celebrities have the right to live private lives like everyone else and they have the right to take and keep private photos. On top of the embarrassment of having their private photos available to their parents and all of their fans and every pervert with an internet connection, it could seriously damage their careers. This should be another big warning slap in the face to everyone who stores private or confidential things on the internet, especially lawyers.
What lessons can lawyers learn from this unfortunate episode?
* Latter-day Dan Fielding seems to have used his office to meet the ladies: alleged to have had an affair with and then impregnate a woman he prosecuted. When she raised the issue with his wife, he filed a motion to revoke her probation. This is all terrible, but the weirdest part was having to have her defense counsel in the bedroom the whole time. [Lexington Herald-Leader]
* Woman shot a guy because he didn’t ejaculate enough. The most dreaded words in that neighborhood must be, “Omar’s not comin’ yo.” [Detroit Free Press]
* What caused the child immigration crisis at the border? Turns out it was Free Slurpee Day. Who knew? [CNBC]
* Overcommunication is a virtue. Did you hear that? Overcommunication is a good thing. It really is. You should overcommunicate. It’s good. [What About Clients?]
* Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III thinks the criminal justice system is just super. As far as innocent people going to jail, them’s the breaks. [Wrongful Convictions Blog]
* A guy’s guide to lawyerly fashion. It misses my personal pet peeve: use collar stays! Seriously, how do people not know this? [Attorney at Work]
* There were a record number of data breaches in New York last year. The problem is the persistent use of 12345 as a password. [Information Law Group]
* Squire Patton Boggs has announced the new leadership structure of its lobbying and public policy practice. It’s really no surprise that the head honchos of the group hail from the Patton Boggs side of the recent merger. [Politico]
* “It’s funny how the Supreme Court reaches down and picks this case.” The most important digital privacy case of our time just happened to be filed by Stanford Law’s SCOTUS Litigation Clinic. Awesome. [San Jose Mercury News]
* If you’re caught on camera sleeping during a Yankees/Red Sox game, you can probably expect abuse from ESPN announcers. If you call someone an “unintelligent fatty” as an announcer, you can probably expect a $10M defamation suit. [New York Post]
It would be hard to overstate the importance of Riley v. California. Now data on cell phones (and, hopefully soon, other electronic media) requires a search warrant for law enforcement to get access to it during an arrest (generally — check your individual situation; exceptions may apply).
It’s so hard to overstate the importance of Riley that I don’t think a single media outlet has done it yet (which is really saying something in light of the current state of Supreme Court coverage).
As you may dimly remember from the criminal procedure class you took in law school, the “search incident to arrest” doctrine is a little screwy and subject to abuse. The general rule is that police can search things on your person or in the area of your arrest to make sure you don’t destroy evidence or hurt them, but nothing else. Later cases have held that the area you can reach while you’re being arrested (where you could destroy evidence or find something to hurt the police) includes the entire interior area of your car, regardless of how far you can reach or how wedged under the seat cushions that currency counterfeiting machine is.
This body of law is a lovely example of how pro-law enforcement results drive any reasonable understanding of how a test should be applied. Reading these cases in law school is a formatively disheartening experience (“really, that’s the kind of junk judges come up with? Why have laws at all?” etc.).
Riley, though, draws a line around your phone. Sure — the police can look into your pocket to see if that square box is a cell phone or a detonating device, and they can look in the back of your van to see if you could have reached a butterfly knife if you had a 20-foot arm span — but they can’t look inside the phone without first getting a warrant.
Of course, the Court could have decided this in a few ways. It could have written a very narrow doctrinal opinion. Or it could have issued a deeply divided set of opinions where there isn’t a clear statement about the development of the law as much as a resolution of one case. But, instead, the Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by the Chief Justice, which was a celebration of the importance of electronic privacy and recognizes that we’re in a new world — and need new rules to handle it….
Radack represents Edward Snowden, and in her dealings with him she has abandoned WiFi — it’s too insecure — and used burner phones and two laptops (one of which is encrypted). She accepts only cash payments and will discuss his case only in person.
As Lincoln said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
It’s a familiar enough idea. You see it in both Macbeth and the genesis story of just about every Marvel supervillan. It’s true, I think, not just of people but also of institutions. Like governments.
Just about every time I go to federal court for a sentencing hearing — where it seems the AUSA is fighting for each additional month in prison like it will take a point off his mortgage — I think about this quote from Nietzsche:
I store my files on the cloud. Whenever you store your confidential stuff on someone else’s computers, you have to be wary of two things: security and privacy. A few weeks ago, I wrote this article about how to beef up your security, so today, I am going to talk about privacy.
The general consensus is that lawyers can use cloud computing. The ABA has put together this map that explains ethics opinions on the use of cloud computing by state. To sum it up, about 20 or so state bars have issued opinions that storing data in the cloud does not per se violate a lawyer’s duty of confidentiality, but you have to use reasonable care in storing your docs online.
There’s a movie on Netflix streaming right now called “Terms and Conditions May Apply.” It’s a scary documentary about how we agree to give away access to our data in the fine print of all of the internet services we use from email to social media. So, how does that relate to confidentiality of client files we store on the cloud?
Over the course of the past few years, law school personnel have found it especially difficult to keep their students’ personal information private. In April 2012, someone at Baylor Law School sent out an email containing a trove of admissions data — from names, to grades, to LSAT scores — to every student admitted to the Class of 2015. In March 2014, Loyola Law School in Los Angeles sent out an email with a heap of financial information for the entire graduating class — up to and including Social Security numbers and loan amounts — to some members of the Class of 2014.
Today, we’ve got another email screw-up for you, and this is one of the juiciest and most prestigious accidental data dumps we’ve seen yet. Someone at a T14 law school “inadvertently” sent out every piece of vital information possible about its clerkship applicants — from GPA, to class rank, to work experience, to recommenders, right down to where their girlfriends live — to everyone on its clerkship listserv.
If you’d like to see how you stack up against elite law students, now you can. We’ve got all the data…
Ed. note: The Asia Chronicles column is authored by Kinney Recruiting. Kinney has made more placements of U.S. associates, counsels and partners in Asia than any other recruiting firm in each of the past seven years. You can reach them by email: email@example.com.
Please note that Evan Jowers and Robert Kinney are still in Hong Kong and will stay FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS WEEK. We still have a handful of available slots for meetings with our Asia Chronicles fans. If we have not been in touch lately, reach out and let us know when we could meet! There is no need for an agenda at all. Most of our in-person meetings on these trips are with folks who understand that improving a legal practice through lateral hiring is an information-driven process that takes time to handle correctly.
Regarding trends in lateral US associate hiring in Hong Kong, we of course keep much of what we know off of this blog. Based on placement revenue, though, Kinney is having one of our most successful years ever in Asia. We are helping a number of our law firm clients with M&A, fund formation, cap markets, project finance, FCPA and disputes openings. These are very specific needs in many cases, so a conversation with us before jumping in may be helpful. As always, we like to be sure to get the maximum number of interviews per submission, using a well-informed, highly targeted, and selective approach, taking into account short, medium and long-term career aims.
Making a well informed decision during a job search is easier said than done – the information we provide comes from 10 years of being the market leader in US attorney placements at the top tier firms in Asia. There is no substitute for having known a hiring partner since he/she was an associate or for having helped a partner grow his or her practice from zip to zooming, and this is happily where we stand today – with years of background information on just about every relevant person in all the markets we serve, and most especially in Hong Kong/China/Greater Asia. So get in touch and get a download from us this week if we can fit it in, or soon in any case!
The legal industry is being disrupted at every level by technological advances. While legal tech entrepreneurs and innovators are racing to create a more efficient and productive future, there is widespread indifference on the part of attorneys toward these emerging technologies.
When the LexisNexis Cloud Technology Survey results were reported earlier this year, it showed that attorneys were starting to peer less skeptically into the future, and slowly but surely leaning more toward all the benefits the law cloud has to offer.
Because let’s face it, plenty of attorneys are perhaps a bit too comfortable with their “system” of practice management, which may or may not include neon highlighters, sticky notes, dog-eared file folders, and a word processing program that was last updated when the term “raise the roof” was still de rigueur.