On September 17, the U.S. Tax Court, in Dynamo Holdings LP v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. No. 9 (Sept. 17, 2014), held that a taxpayer could use predictive coding, over the objection of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to identify relevant electronically stored information (ESI) for production. This is the first Tax Court case to address the use of predictive coding in response to a discovery request.
* New York court authorizes service over Facebook. Finally, a reason to use Google Plus. [Slate]
* Texas struck down the statute banning upskirt photos. The decision is more interesting than the sound-bite press it’s getting. [Popehat]
* Some PR advice may be privileged. Which is good because the law needs to incentivize companies trying to cover up possible legal liabilities. It might be more nuanced than that, but still. [Corporate Counsel]
* In the wake of the passing of Tommy Boggs, a profile on his power within Patton Boggs, including details of the final year leading up to its merger. [National Law Journal]
* On choosing a criminal defense lawyer and why you might not want some reformed prosecutor. [Katz Justice]
* The Senate confirmed Gordon Tanner as general counsel to the Air Force. This is noteworthy because it reflects just how quickly the country has progressed from affirmative witch hunts, to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” to confirming a gay man as the top lawyer for a branch of the Armed Forces. [Washington Blade]
* A 49er fan is suing the NFL for $50 million for a policy that limited ticket sales to customers in Seahawks territory. Based on the season so far, he luckily won’t have to worry about the 49ers in the playoffs this year. [ESPN]
* Speaking of football, South Park ran an ad limited to D.C. during the Washington-Eagles game. See Eric Cartman school Dan Snyder on trademark law, after the jump…. [SB Nation]
- 7th Circuit, Andrew Cuomo, Benchslaps, Biglaw, Blogging, Erwin Chemerinsky, Fast Food, Gay, Gay Marriage, In-House Counsel, Law Professors, Mergers and Acquisitions, Morning Docket, New York Times, Police, Politics, Richard Posner, SCOTUS, Sports, Supreme Court, Tim Wu
* Judge Posner dished out a whole lot of benchslaps at yesterday’s Seventh Circuit arguments over Indiana and Wisconsin’s bans on same-sex marriage. [BuzzFeed]
* Major U.S. and Canadian law firms chow down on Burger King’s whopper of a deal with Tim Hortons. [Am Law Daily]
* A recent Delaware court ruling on attorney-client privilege might allow in-house lawyers to speak more freely about wrongdoing at their companies, according to Professor Steven Davidoff Solomon. [DealBook / New York Times]
* The corruption trial of former Virginia governor continues; yesterday Bob McDonnell’s sister took the stand. [Washington Post]
* A favorable evidentiary ruling for Aaron Hernandez. [Fox Sports]
* And good news for Zephyr Teachout and Tim Wu, the two law professors running for governor and lieutenant governor of New York: the Times dissed their opponent, Andrew Cuomo, with a non-endorsement. [New York Times]
Remember the “affluenza” kid? His name is Ethan Couch and the teenager went on an alcohol-fueled joyride after a party in the mansion his parents had bought for him. The joyride resulted in the death of 4 people and the injury of multiple others as alcohol-fueled joyrides are wont to do. Except Couch avoided the fate of pretty much any other person who might kill 4 people on the back of a clinical psychologist’s expert opinion that Couch suffered from a mental condition that he coined as “affluenza” — basically as a rich, privileged tool, the kid couldn’t be held responsible for his actions.
Most people found this ridiculous. Elie went so far as to call for the parents to be jailed. Which has a certain Nancy Grace-style emotional appeal, but also kind of feeds the argument that this kid himself should continue to remain shielded from the consequences of his actions. It also fans the flames of the same parent-policing logic that ends with people getting arrested for letting their kids play outside. But in any event, the fact that a juvenile system judge with a reputation for harsh punishments for poor, black kids — she sent a 14-year-old black kid to jail for 10 years for punching a kid who fell and hit his head resulting in his death — sent a 16-year-old, rich, white kid willfully driving drunk to a country club rehab facility — conveniently paid for mostly by taxpayers — exposed everything wrong with privilege in America.
Now the case raises another debate about privilege. One of the victims who survived the accident is suing and wants to see exactly how this clinical psychologist came to his groundbreaking diagnosis that rich kids don’t have to go to jail, and Couch’s lawyers are fighting that disclosure tooth and nail….
You sometimes hear Biglaw litigators complain about courts not publishing enough opinions about discovery issues. Discovery (especially e-discovery) is such a major — and majorly expensive — part of the complex litigation in which large firms specialize, but there aren’t that many decisions on the books over such nuts-and-bolts issues as responsiveness, privilege, and work-product doctrines.
So it’s noteworthy that the Massachusetts Appeals Court just issued an opinion featuring extended discussion of the work-product doctrine. Some Boston Biglaw litigators will surely welcome the additional guidance on this subject.
But not all of Boston Biglaw will be pleased by this decision. Certainly not the major firm that could wind up getting hit with sanctions as a result….
“Siri? How do I commit a massive breach of my professional and ethical obligations?”
I say “allegedly” not to suggest there’s any question over whether the partner owned the trolling company, but because the partner claims he had no involvement in the decision to sue his firm’s most prominent tech client. Even if he didn’t, it hardly sounds kosher.
Whatever his precise role, he might have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for that meddling privilege log…
Let me regale you with two recent examples of lawyers disclosing client confidences. There’s a lesson tucked into each.
First: An acquaintance sent me the résumé of, and asked me to speak to, a young lawyer. The idea was to give some general career advice, rather than necessarily to hire the person.
I’m a pushover, so I agreed to have a cup of coffee with the relatively new lawyer. Over coffee, he (or she, but I’ll use the masculine) explained that what he liked least about the job he’d just left (which was identified on his résumé) was being asked to do unethical things. My curiosity piqued, I asked for an example. He explained that he’d been asked to draft a contract that committed his employer to violating the law as part of the contractual relationship. (Think along the lines of, “We will ship the illegal weapons to you in New York.”) My young acquaintance said that he’d gone to the general counsel, who had instructed him to draft whatever contract the business wanted. The earnest young lawyer had solved the ethical problem by drafting a contract that, when read carefully, would prohibit the illegal conduct. (Think: “Under no circumstance will any weapons of any type be shipped pursuant to this contract.”)
I’m afraid I won’t be recommending this person for any jobs. . . .
Quote of the Day: If a Lawyer Speaks at a Public Meeting and There’s No One There to Hear Him, Does He Make a Sound?By Staci Zaretsky
As the superior court aptly observed, “The fact that the meeting occurs in a public place does not destroy the privilege, if no one hears the conversation.”
– Associate Justice Robert J. Lynn of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, in an opinion upholding the existence of the attorney-client privilege, despite the fact that an attorney discussed confidential information with his clients at a meeting that was open to the public.