I’m on record as thinking that it’s inappropriate to blame Sarah Palin or any other source of fiery political rhetoric for the horrific shooting that took place in Tucson on Saturday. I said it in real time as facts were coming to light; I said it on Twitter.
There are any number of reasons why psychos like Jared Lee Loughner try to kill people. I don’t think political rhetoric is a useful reason to focus on. The long view of history shows that crazy people will twist any number of words into an excuse for violence.
You can’t talk to crazy. You can’t reason with crazy. You can’t know what crazy will do to your words. I mean, people have used the words of Jesus Christ (a hippie pacifist who hung out with prostitutes and lepers) as a call to violence, bigotry, and hate. If Jesus can’t craft an ironclad message that defies misinterpretation, how can we say that Sarah Palin somehow created a culture of violence? Sorry, but I refuse to live in a world where the rhetorical skills of Sarah Palin explain anything.
Instead, I’d like to blame a much more obvious culprit…
* Law students: when filling out end-of-semester course evaluations, refrain from telling the professor that she “is kinda hot” but needs to “[l]ose a few pounds.” [PrawfsBlawg]
* Speaking of hotties, Elizabeth Wurtzel actually likes Sarah Palin, and (accurately) observes: “The Democrats are total morons for not finding their own hot mama before the Republicans.” [The Atlantic]
* Five Michigan Supreme Court benchslap their former colleague, Elizabeth Weaver — who secretly recorded private court deliberations and is now releasing transcripts. [WSJ Law Blog]
* Advice from Asian-American attorneys: a report on the recent NAPABA convention. [Law Riot]
Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell may not be a witch, but she won’t be mistaken for a legal scholar either. In last night’s debate, when asked by moderator Nancy Karibjanian to name a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees, O’Donnell came up empty. After Karibjanian noted the important responsibility that senators have to vote on appointments to the Supreme Court, this exchange ensued:
KARIBJANIAN: What opinions of late that have come from our high court do you most object to?
O’DONNELL: Oh, gosh, um…. Give me a specific one, I’m sorry.
KARIBJANIAN: Actually, I can’t, because I need you to tell me which ones you object to.
O’DONNELL: Um, I’m very sorry…. Right off the top of my head, I know that there are a lot. I’ll put it up on my website, I promise you.
Maybe this Mama Grizzly needs to crawl back to the den and curl up with some slip opinions?
But wait! We offer a defense of O’Donnell, who partially redeemed her initial flub, plus video — after the jump.
Earlier this year, David Kernell, 22, was found guilty of hacking into Sarah Palin’s Yahoo! account and posting some of her emails on the Internetz. The Palins were pleased by his conviction.
One of the places where Palin’s correspondence wound up was the (enter-at-your-own-risk) message forum 4chan.org. During the course of the April felony trial, 4chan founder Christopher “Moot” Poole was called to testify. The Smoking Gun dug up and posted the transcript from the testimony yesterday. Federal prosecutor Mark Krotoski asked Poole to explain how 4chan operates and how it keeps track of its users. He also asked him to explain some “Internet speak.”
The testimony is a handy guide for those of you who get confused by the slang used in online comments sections. How does one define a “lurker,” “troll,” or a “b-tard”?
Arthur Culvahouse, chairman of O’Melveny & Myers, was in charge of vetting Sarah Palin and has been taking some heat.
But Culvahouse has more to worry about than the National Enquirer. Culvahouse is locked in a high-stakes political battle to keep his chairmanship at O’Melveny. O’Melveny’s policy committee, which recommends the chairperson subject to ratification by the full partnership, failed to select a clear winner over the past few weeks.
If you are considering a virtual law practice, you know that many of today’s solo firms started that way. But why are established, multi-attorney law firms going virtual?
Many small firms are successfully moving part—or even all—of their practice to a virtual setting. This even includes multi-jurisdictional practice spanning several states and practice areas, although solo and small partnerships are still the largest adopters of virtual law.
Can you do the same? The new article Mobile in Practice, Virtual by Design from author Jared Correia, Esq., explores how mobile technology bring real-life benefits to a small law firm. Read this new article—the next in Thomson Reuters’ Independent Thinking series for small firms—to explore how a mobile practice:
Reduces malpractice risk
Enables you to gather the best attorneys to fit the firm, regardless of each person’s geographic location
Leverages mobile devices and cloud technology to enable on-the-spot client and prospect communication
Transitioning in-house is something many (if not most) firm lawyers find themselves considering at some point. For many, it’s the first step in their career that isn’t simply a function of picking the best option available based on a ranking system.
Unknown territory feels high-risk, and can have the effect of steering many of us towards the well-greased channels into large, established companies.
For those who may be open to something more entrepreneurial, there is far less information available. No recruiter is calling every week with offers and details.
In sponsorship with Betterment, ATL and David Lat will moderate a panel about life in-house and we’ll hear from GCs at Birchbox, Gawker Media, Squarespace, Bonobos, and Betterment. Drinks, snacks, networking, and a great time guaranteed. Invite your colleagues, but RSVP fast, as space is limited.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org.
It’s that time of year again when JDs are starting to apply for 2L summer jobs and 2L summers are deciding which practice area to focus on.
For those JDs with an interest in potentially lateraling to or transferring to Asia in the future, please feel free to reach out to Kinney for advice on firm choices, interviewing and practice choices, relating to future marketability in Asia, or for a general discussion on your particular Asia markets of interest. This is of course a free of cost service for those who some years in the future may be our future industry contacts or perhaps even clients.
For some years now Kinney’s Asia head, Evan Jowers, has been formally advising Harvard Law students with such questions, as the Asia expert in Harvard Law’s “Ask The Experts Market Program” each summer and fall, with podcasts and scheduled phone calls. This has been an enjoyable and productive experience for all involved.