This week, a Texas campaign ad and a Pennsylvania death penalty appeal each illustrate what happens when lawyers lose sight of for what — and whom — they claim to be working.
Wendy Davis, in the final throes of her Texas gubernatorial race against Attorney General Greg Abbott, launched a controversial campaign ad a few days ago. The ad accuses Abbott of “siding with a corporation over a rape victim,” spotlighting a 1998 Supreme Court of Texas case brought by a woman seeking damages from a vacuum manufacturer after a door-to-door salesman of the vacuums allegedly raped her in her home. A background check should have revealed that the man had a criminal history. Abbott was then a justice on the Texas court. He dissented from the majority’s decision in favor of the woman. Davis’s ad ignited heated debate, with even her supporters questioning the propriety of the ad. Abbott’s campaign called the ad “despicable.”
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, the United States Supreme Court on Monday issued a highly unusual order in a Pennsylvania death penalty case. The Court asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Disciplinary Board to investigate and take appropriate actions against Marc Bookman, an attorney who filed a petition for review of Michael Eric Ballard’s death sentence. Ballard slaughtered four people in 2010: his former girlfriend, her father, her grandfather, and a neighbor who tried to help the family when he heard screams coming from the home. Ballard was sentenced to death in 2011. In November 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the sentence. On June 23 of this year, SCOTUS denied Bookman’s petition to review Ballard’s case, but the Court then ordered Bookman to file additional responses about his relationship to Ballard. Apparently not satisfied by Bookman’s replies, the Court referred the case to the state disciplinary authority.
So, what’s the problem in either of these situations? Why the controversy? And what do they have in common?
As a law professor, if a judge issues a ruling that you don’t entirely embrace, there’s a couple ways to deal with it. You could limit yourself to carefully explaining your well-thought-out objections to the judge’s reasoning. Or you could spice up your arguments by baselessly asserting that state judges who went to “non-elite” schools are just biased against smart people like you.
This guy opted for the latter.
Last week I got denounced for disrespecting state judges and I didn’t even say they weren’t competent. So to all the bar associations out there, if you want to flex your outrage, let me offer this law professor as the real target….
* With all the fire-breathing over the humanitarian crisis at the Mexican border, Texas Judge Clay Jenkins stands out for being reasonable. “I don’t feel like we have to solve the border crisis for a terrified child to be shown some compassion.” Why don’t we hear about more people like Judge Jenkins? This article suggests there’s a deeper problem with the media. [Dallas Observer]
* I’ve been beating the drum that the Obamacare cases aren’t bound for SCOTUS because the D.C. Circuit will reverse Halbig en banc. The contrary view is that the Supreme Court may not let the lack of a real circuit split stand in its way. [Constitutional Accountability Center]
* Outrage over the government’s school lunch health standards have Republicans fighting back at the state level. Remember, we need fatass kids because… freedom! [National Journal]
* The Second Circuit approved antibiotics in animal feed for animals that aren’t even sick. Enjoy your superbugs! [Kitchenette / Jezebel]
* Judge allegedly fell asleep during a child rape case. It’s not like it’s an important case or anything. [Gawker]
Sanctimonious attorneys bemoan the decline of civility in the legal practice. The “shark” mentality has eroded the quiet dignity of the second oldest profession (someone had to represent the first prostitute at her arraignment). It’s all a bit overblown — a callback to a halcyon time that never quite was.
And now comes another attorney accused of threatening to violate someone in a most uncomfortable way. Except this time it wasn’t in a one-on-one conversation, but for all the world to see on Facebook….
* So we all know University of Texas Law admits politically-connected students with bad grades and scores. But did you know they let in someone with a 128 on the LSAT? ONE. TWENTY. EIGHT. [Watchdog.org]
* Do we even need the Supreme Court? Well, that’s one way to get RBG to retire. [Huffington Post]
* Seriously, the Boston Public School system is eliminating its history department. [Lawyers, Guns & Money]
* Yesterday I talked about a devastating takedown of the latest National Review article contending that sexual assault is no big deal. Perhaps I crowned a champion too soon, because this is an even better whipping of that article. [Concurring Opinions]
* Wait, ID laws ultimately suppress voter turnout? What a surprise! [Election Law Blog]
* The last word in the death penalty debate after the jump… [The Onion]
* “Mr. Owl, how many permits do you need to complete a simple LNG export transaction?” “Well, let’s see… A-one. A-two-hoo. A-three. Three.” [Breaking Energy]
* Defamation laws in Europe are way out of whack. For example when gorgeous model Anara Atanes took to Twitter to rip the manager of France’s World Cup team for leaving her boyfriend at home, he sued her. And he might win. [IT-Lex]
* Tips for getting over feeling like an imposter. Surprised drinking isn’t on there. [Corporette]
* “The Parties Do Not Need a Judge; They Need a Rather Stern Kindergarten Teacher” [Lowering the Bar]
* An interesting question: with judges of all political philosophies striking down gay marriage bans across the country, won’t there be some judge who bucks the trend? [Constitutional Accountability Center]
* A.J. Delgado, like many conservative activists, became a lawyer before realizing that making warrantless and patently offensive statements on TV is a viable career. And you don’t need to bill hourly. Her new article on how rape is a figment of feminists’ imagination is appalling. This article kicks the hell out of it. [Slate]
* The parade of businesses suing over online reviews continues. [Oregonian]
I used to watch a lot of televised golf. The Masters, the U.S. Open, the twee British one, that other last one. All the big tournaments, I watched. And I watched because Tiger Woods laid waste to an entire generation of golfers. Previously, golf had been an impenetrable bore to me. I was aware of who the best golfers were and I was also aware that every time I tuned in, they probably weren’t going to win. Golf was random like that, too difficult a sport for one man to dominate. Nicklaus had been the previous generational talent, but even his dominance meant that he won well less than half the tournaments he entered. Something inside of me hated this.
I don’t watch golf as much anymore because it’s reverted back to its random, boring self. Who wins this week will be a total crapshoot. Crapshoot, by the way, was an ancient sport that pit one white guy versus another white guy and each white guy had to defecate into a small white hole hundreds of yards away from his anus. Crapshoot. It was like golf and it was totally impossible to play and/or watch. Anyway.
I mention all of this because crime in the sports world has often resembled Tiger-less golf in its randomness. There has never been any way to predict who would rape whom and who would murder whom else. Total crapshoot. This week has brought us a bit of a referendum on this topic with one athlete dominating his field while another preaches randomness.
In one corner, Aaron Hernandez, who am become death, destroyer of worlds. In the other, Darren Sharper…
In an essay for Thought Catalog called “I Had an Affair with My Hero, A Philosopher Who’s Famous For Being ‘Moral,’” an anonymous graduate student describes her soured romance with a prominent professor from another university and how she learned that he initially hid his history of pursuing other young women. Shortly thereafter, her friend started a campaign to crowd-fund expenses for legal action. They created the pseudonym “Lisbeth” for the essay’s author. Under the heading “Help us sue the school protecting a known rapist,” the fundraiser’s description now reads, “I’m Emma Sloan, Yale 2010. My dear friend is suing the professor who tried to rape her and the university for knowingly protecting him. Thanks to donations from our generous supporters, she can afford the $7000 retainer for a forensic psychiatrist.”
The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on the case. Many within the academic community have joined the fray, whether to champion Lisbeth’s cause, attach it to broader gender equality concerns, express doubts, or simply gossip.
Title IX obligates schools that receive federal funds to address sexual violence or harassment on their campuses. To pursue a grievance or official complaint, the person need not herself be the victim of the alleged discrimination. Someone who claims to be the actual victim of a Title IX violation has the additional right to pursue her claim in private litigation against the university. If she can show that the school was deliberately indifferent despite actual knowledge of the misconduct, she can win injunctive relief or money damages for her injuries. Yale’s Title IX coordinator, Stephanie Spangler, is investigating Lisbeth’s claims.
So, where exactly did this professor’s alleged conduct pass from merely smarmy to worthy of legal sanction?
* When you think of professions likely to be menaced by armed maniacs, you don’t think of veterinarians. You’d be wrong. [Legal Juice]
* Robert Ambrogi talks with Bryan Garner about the latest edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, including the fact that three new terms coined by David Lat made this edition. Let’s start the campaign for Appellageddon and SCOTocaplypse for next time around! [Robert Ambrogi's LawSites]
* The ABA has appointed an all-star panel to study law school financing. By “all-star” they mean “all the people responsible for the status quo.” That’s how you do “reform,” guys. [Lawyers, Guns & Money]
* A photo essay of people breaking the stupid laws on the books in various states. [The Phoblographer]
* Law professors making a difference in the real world. Specifically, pushing the anti-smoking message. [PR Log]
* A Seattle attorney pleads to 5 counts of third-degree rape to avoid trial over attacks on a series of massage therapists. He says he’s just a sex addict. The government says he was “kicking in doors, and pulling knives on them.” That sounds pretty extreme for a sex addiction. [Seattle Times]
* Judge sentences rapist to 45-days and community service… working in a rape crisis center. Because the victim was “promiscuous.” How could anyone be this tone-deaf? Oh, it’s in Texas? Never mind. [CNN]
* California lawyers now must promise to be courteous. Play nice, kids. [LA Times]
* Finally, it’s time to wish a happy birthday to Winston & Strawn’s Jonathan Amoona, who was on the 2014 Forbes 30 Under 30 list. I guess he won’t be anymore. His 30th birthday invitation went out to the managing partner and a bunch of the top rainmakers, which isn’t toolish at all. The invite is available after the jump….
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.
Things have changed recently in Korea – a few of our US and UK client firms are looking, very selectively, for a lateral US associate hire. Until just recently, there was not much hiring like this going on in Korea, since US and UK firms started opening offices there. We have already placed two US associates in Korea in the past month at top firms. Most of the hiring partners we work with in Korea do not actively work with other recruiters.
If you are a Korean fluent US associate in London, New York or another major US market, 2nd to 6th year, at a top 20 firm, with cap markets or M&A focus (or mix), or project finance background, and you are interested in lateraling to Korea to a top US or UK firm, please feel free to reach out to us at firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com. Our head of Asia, Evan Jowers, was just in Korea recently, and Evan and Robert Kinney will be in Korea in a few weeks. We are in the process of helping several firms open new offices in Korea (a number of which are interviewing our partner level candidates) and also helping existing offices there fill openings.
Professor Joel P. Trachtman has developed a unique, practical guide to help lawyers analyze, argue, and write effectively.
The Tools of Argument: How the Best Lawyers Think, Argue, and Win is a highly readable 200-page book, available for about $10 in paperback or e-book. Chapters focus on foundational principles in legal argument: procedure, interpretation of contracts and statutes, use of evidence, and more. The material covered is taught only implicitly in law school. Yet, when up-and-coming attorneys master these straightforward tools, they will think and argue like the best lawyers.
For most attorneys, time spent managing the books is a necessary evil at best. Yet it is undeniably a crucial aspect of running a successful practice. With that in mind, we invite you to view or download a free webinar by Above the Law and our friends at Clio to learn how to better manage your finances.
Take this opportunity to learn what it takes to streamline your accounting and get the most out of your time. The webinar agenda:
● The basics of accounting for lawyers.
● How legal accounting differs from regular accounting.
● Report and reconciliation issues surrounding trust accounts.
● How to pick and integrate the best accounting tools for your practice.
● Steps to prepare your tax return for your firm’s income.
Do not miss this crucial chance to optimize your accounting practices. Save time and get back to billing!