I know that law school starts for some schools tomorrow, and for others on next Monday. The first day of any semester is always the most important because it determines who you’ll end up sitting next to.
I know you’re probably over-eager to be a superstar, but take my advice: Find a seat near the back of the class. We all have off days, and on those days, it’s nice not to be four feet away from the professor. He or she can easily tell if you’re goofing off or just out of it, and will therefore call on you.
It’s also nice to sit near the back so you can see what other people are doing on their laptops. One girl I had in several classes did nothing except for surf TMZ and Perez Hilton. Another person spent a lot of time perusing Match.com. And half of the class spent at least part of the time using Facebook. Being in the back means that (a) you can see them goof off, and (b) they can’t see you do it.
You’ll also want to try to find a seat somewhat near the aisle. Some people take an inordinately long amount of time to pack up and get out of class, and you don’t want to be stuck waiting for them. If you’re one of those people, don’t sit near the aisle and hold everyone up.
Try not to sit next to anyone you find yourself attracted to. You don’t need that kind of distraction. And while you’re at it, make yourself this promise right now: “I don’t care how hot or rich my fellow law students are, I will not date them or sleep with them.” It will save you and everyone else a lot of drama and hassle. Think of how uncomfortable it will be if you nail the person you’re sitting next to, break up, and then have to sit next to them for the rest of the semester.
You know what I wore on my first day of class? Jeans and a t-shirt along with a pair of nice shoes. Don’t over think your first day wardrobe. It’s law school, not a fashion show. If you’re a guy and you show up in a suit, everyone will think you’re a d-bag. If you’re a girl and you show up in a short skirt and/or a tight blouse, everyone will think you’re a slut. Yes, it matters (to some extent) what your classmates think of you. But it matters more what they think of your legal ability than your fashion sense. And for God’s sake, don’t worry about impressing the prof. You’re paying hundreds of dollars for every hour you’re in class – he or she should therefore worry about impressing you.
As for trying to impress everyone with your class prep? Don’t bother. Here’s how it works: If you see someone who obviously spent less time than you preparing for class, that person is an idiot for not taking law school seriously. If you see someone who obviously spent more time than you preparing for class, then that person is an idiot for taking so long to “get it.” Don’t worry about impressing anyone. Especially since everyone is going to either (a) lie to you or (b) refuse to tell you about how they did on the final exam anyway.
My last and most important tips are these: Don’t show up late on the first day, and make sure your cell phone is off or on silent. You really don’t want to show up late or have your cell phone go off in class. If you do both on the first day, you may as well drop out.
Utah State University officials long tolerated "a culture of drug and alcohol abuse" at a fraternity house where a teenage freshman pledge died of alcohol poisoning after an alleged hazing last fall, his family claims in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Logan's 1st District Court.
The Sigma Nu fraternity chapter had long been the scene of misconduct, including an alcohol-related suicide by hanging, underage drinking, arson, thefts, vandalism, false fire alarms and assaults, contend lawyers representing the teen's parents, Jane and George Starks, of Salt Lake City.
Here's the rest of the article.
Isn't the whole point of joining a fraternity to become part of a culture of drug and alcohol abuse?
My name is Justinian Lane, and I've been a fan of LegalReader.com for many years. When I saw a few months ago that John's interest in the site had waned, I offered to take it over. The two of us procrastinated taking it any further, but he's now officially passed the torch to me and I'm proud to be pick up where he left off.
If you have comments, suggestions, etc. for me, I'd love to hear them. My plans are to continue this site as an irreverent blog focused mainly on the law, and as John said, "Other Fancy Stuff."
It will take me a little bit of time to learn the ins-and-outs of Moveable Type, but I anticipate adding goodies to this blog like a Google Reader widget, etc.
I plan on keeping all of the content on this site, but if there's anything here you really love, you might want to make a backup copy "just in case." Some of the ads and the "I plan on voting for Obama" button will go away, though. (Although the latter may come back in 2011.)
I'd like to personally thank John for the hard work he put into this, and hope to continue providing the fine content he did.
[I first published this 6 years ago, in 2003. I thought I would bump it back to the top of the list.]
Tomorrow (Sunday) is the annual Gay Pride Parade down Market Street in my home town, San Francisco. I moved here nine years ago to attend law school. That June, my then-girlfriend and I went to see the Parade for the first time.
I think we were hoping to see outrageous behaviour from people dressed in leather and various acts of public indecency, just for the thrill factor. What we saw instead warmed my heart.
For example, I saw a large contingent of gay San Francisco Police officers -- men and women -- marching proudly down Market Street, in uniform, some riding in official police vehicles with lights flashing and sirens wailing to excite the crowd. Better yet, I saw tens of thousands of San Franciscans leap to their feet to loudly cheer their gay policemen and policewomen. In fact, the official, uniformed folk - police and firefighters, etc. - got some of the most animated applause of the day.
Just forty short years ago, the police were beating the crap out of people for being gay at Stonewall. Today, gay policemen (and women) are cheered in the streets by the general public, gay and straight alike. That's progress, as the Supreme Court finally saw this week in Lawrence v. Texas.
It's a big week for Gay Pride. I hope (and fully expect) that Sunday will be one hell of a party. Congratulations!!!
I'd never thought about this before. Is it a racist conspiracy? My cat is black, and I'm certain that if he liked Gummy Bears he would be pissed off about it too.
One of the most momentous and least-discussed topics in the presidential campaign is the likely departure in the next four years of as many as three of the more liberal justices on a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court.
When the subject of judicial appointments was raised during Wednesday's debate, Democrat Barack Obama observed that Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, "probably hangs in the balance" on the outcome of the election.
Obama, who supports the ruling, and Republican John McCain, who wants it overturned, then took pains to deny that they would use the case as a "litmus test" in choosing a future justice - denials that their own words appear to contradict.
As McCain put it, he doesn't believe anyone who backs Roe vs. Wade "would be part of those qualifications" he will require for judicial nominees, such as "a history of strict adherence to the Constitution." Obama, for his part, has said he favors nominees who support the constitutional right of privacy, the legal underpinning of the 1973 ruling.
But abortion is only one of many issues in which the court's moderate-to-liberal bloc of four justices has joined with the moderately conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy to form a precarious majority - one that would probably be undone by a McCain appointee.
In a closely watched trial involving conflicting marijuana laws, a jury on Tuesday convicted the owner of a Morro Bay medical marijuana dispensary on five counts of violating federal drug laws.
Charles Lynch, 46, was found guilty of distributing more than 100 kilos of marijuana, some of it to people considered minors under federal law.
Lynch, flanked by his defense attorneys, hung his head and grimaced as the verdicts were read in a Los Angeles courtroom. He could be sentenced to a minimum of five years in federal prison or as many as 85.
Cultivating, using and selling doctor-prescribed medical marijuana are allowed in some instances under California law. But they are outlawed entirely under federal law, which supersedes those of the states.
This guy RULES!!! I was gonna write about this myself, but The Smoking Gun has already done it better than I could, so why bother?
JUNE 5--A technology billionaire was a drug fiend who trafficked in cocaine, Ecstasy, and methamphetamine, spiked the drinks of business associates and employees, hired prostitutes for himself and others, and maintained several narcotics dens, including one in an underground lair at his Los Angeles mansion, prosecutors charge. In a remarkable federal indictment unsealed today in Los Angeles, Broadcom co-founder Henry T. Nicholas III is portrayed as an out-of-control wild man who scored drug caches for Super Bowl parties and rock festivals and had his dealer invoice him for these illicit purchases. A copy of the felony drug conspiracy indictment against Nicholas, who is reportedly worth about $2 billion, can be found below. The 48-year-old Nicholas, who was charged with securities fraud in a separate U.S. District Court case, allegedly "used threats of physical violence and death and payments of money to attempt to conceal his unlawful conduct," according to the indictment.
The lawyer who was hit with sanctions for failing to rein in a foul-mouthed client is now asking a federal judge for permission to drop the client and begging for the sanctions imposed on him to be lifted.
The Feb. 29 decision by U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno in GMAC Bank v. HTFC Corp. imposed sanctions of more than $29,000 on attorney Joseph R. Ziccardi of Chicago and his client, Aaron Wider, whose alleged misconduct included dropping 73 "F-bombs" during his deposition. The ruling created a sensation in the blogosphere as a slew of commentators linked to the decision as the latest example of a litigant gone wild.
Robreno found that Wider, the chief executive officer of HTFC, engaged in "hostile, uncivil, and vulgar conduct, which persisted throughout the nearly 12 hours of deposition testimony."
Wider used the word "fuck" or variations of it 73 times during the deposition, Robreno noted, and the video shows that his lawyer at one point "snickered" at his client's conduct.
[F]irst argues that his “right to due process and right to confront witnesses” was violated because the state did not produce the [sex toys] that were the subject of the July 23 and August 2 orders....
Tyrrell contends that the trial court erred in failing to let him show the victim a dildo lineup.
If that doesn't violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, which guarantees a criminal defendant the right "to be confronted with the [dildos] against him," we don't know what does.
Got time to kill? How Appealing recently pointed me to Bryan Garner's interviews with eight-out-of-nine sitting Supreme Court justices regarding their tips on written and oral advocacy. I found them fascinating and enlightening listening.
Among the most surprising things: Justice Scalia was asked who he thought was the greatest Supreme Court justice in terms of opinion writing. He identified Justice Robert H. Jackson as his favorite, and named Justice Jackson's eloquent dissenting opinion in Korematsu v. United States, 321 U.S. 760 as a particular favorite. This took me by surprise because . . . . First, Justice Jackson was very "liberal," at least in terms of championing individual rights. Second, the dissent Justice Scalia mentions as his favorite can almost be read as a screed against the current Bush Administration's attempts to circumvent the Constitution in support of the "war on terror." Not quite what I would have expected from Justice Scalia . . . .
A Florida lawyer has been charged with assault for over-vigorously shaking the hand of a fellow attorney. Kathy Brewer Rentas, 49, shook the hand of Assistant US Attorney Jennifer Keene so hard her arm was nearly ripped out of its socket, a court official said.
Moments before, Ms Keene successfully prosecuted Ms Brewer Rentas' husband.
Anthony Rentas was accused of violating the terms of a probation order for supplying cocaine, and sentenced to 90 days of house arrest.
After the hearing in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Mrs Brewer Rentas insisted on shaking the prosecuting lawyer's hand. In shaking it, she nearly floored Ms Keene with the vigour of her hand-action.
"With Keene in hand, Brewer made an upward, then a quick downward motion and pulled Keene toward the ground moving her forward, almost causing Keene to fall to the ground," said a court security officer.
Alicia Valle, a spokeswoman for the US Attorney's Office, said assaulting a federal officer was a serious matter and that Mrs Brewer Rentas would be prosecuted "vigorously".
"As a member of the bar, she should know better," she said.
Mrs Brewer Rentas was freed on Friday on $100,000 (£50,000) bail, after spending a night in solitary confinement, and ordered to undergo psychological examination. She was also ordered to stay away from Mrs Keene, and faces up to a year in prison if convicted of assault.
Mrs Brewer Rentas says she did not intend to cause any harm.
A Las Vegas personal injury lawyer known for his colorful commercials failed to show up last week to defend a client accused of murder, telling a prosecutor he was on sabbatical out of state.
Glen Lerner left a voice mail with a county prosecutor saying he wouldn’t return to defend the client, and "if the judge wants to sanction me, she can sanction me," the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.
Law professor Martin Geer of the University of Nevada told the newspaper that the judge overseeing the case could hold Lerner in civil or criminal contempt of court for missing the trial. “It's an outrageous thing to do," he said. "A lot of judges would have issued a warrant for his arrest immediately,” he said. “I've seen it happen when someone is late."
Lerner, who calls himself the Heavy Hitter, told the Review-Journal in an earlier article that he is in Pennsylvania writing a book and re-examining his life. "I've been living the life of a rock star for so long," he said.
He said he had tried to reach a deal with the prosecutor in the murder case, and when it didn’t work out, he asked for more time to prepare for trial. "I'd rather be sanctioned than railroad my guy into accepting 25 years in prison," he said.
Loyal Law Blog readers will remember the controversy surrounding Burt Neuborne, the NYU law professor who was awarded $3.1 million by a federal judge for his work administering a $1.25 billion settlement between Swiss banks and Holocaust survivors. A number of Holocaust survivors and lawyers thought he asked for too much money for what should’ve been pro bono work; Neuborne, and Judge Frederic Block, felt the award was justified. (Neuborne had also received a $4.4 million fee in an earlier Holocaust lawsuit.)
Neuborne’s back in court asking for $299,419 in interest to cover the two years during which his fee was delayed by objections from the survivors. If approved, the interest would be paid out of the survivors’ settlement fund. Here’s the NY Sun story, and Law Blog background on the fee flap.
Said a leading protestor of Neuborne’s initial fee request, David Mermelstein from a suburb of Miami, Fla., said: “Shocking is not the word for it. Disgusting is not the word for it. Chutzpah is too nice a word to say about the thing. After getting $3 million, to have the guts to ask for interest?” Another survivor, Leo Rechter of Queens, told the Sun: “He’s setting a precedent on greed.”
A Chicago lawyer who is being criticized, along with his law firm, in an anonymous Internet blog supposedly authored by a fellow attorney has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who can provide him with the identity of "Troll Tracker."
The anonymous blogger, who claims to be "just a lawyer; interested in patent cases but not interested in publicity," has criticized Raymond Niro and his 30-lawyer IP boutique, Niro Scavone Haller & Niro, for representing clients who own patents but don't necessarily make products. Instead, the firm earns licensing fees from users of the patented technology—and potentially sues users if they don't pay up, explains the Chicago Tribune.
Although Troll Tracker claims a First Amendment right to criticize the firm anonymously on the blog, Niro says the blogger should take responsibility for his or her views. Plus, he points out, knowing the identity and affiliations of the blogger likely would affect the way that readers perceive the Troll Tracker's critique.
IN the last two decades, as working schedules became flexible, and even accounting firms, of all places, embraced the mantra of work-life balance (at least on paper), there was one unbending, tradition-bound profession: the law.
That is why it is so remarkable to watch the legal world racing — metaphorical black robes flapping — to catch up.
Over the last few years and, most strikingly, the last few months, law firms have been forced to rethink longstanding ways of doing business, if they are to remain fully competitive.
As chronicled by my colleague Alex Williams in the Sunday Styles section earlier this month, lawyers are overworked, depressed and leaving.
Less obvious, but potentially more dramatic, are the signs that their firms are finally becoming serious about slowing the stampede for the door. So far the change — which includes taking fresh looks at the billable hour, schedules and partnership tracks — is mostly at the smaller firms. But even some of the larger, more hidebound employers are taking notice.
PORTLAND, Maine -- A felony charge against a former women's boxing champion from South Portland was dropped when the alleged victim showed up in court too drunk to testify.
The prosecutor said she was reluctantly dropping the elevated aggravated assault charge against Margie Dunson, who could have faced up to 20 years in prison. Instead, she will not have to do any additional jail time.
Dunson, 57, who held the world welterweight title in 1977 and 1978, was accused of stabbing John Jackson in the chest during an argument while they were drinking and watching the Super Bowl last year at Dunson's home.
District Attorney Stephanie Anderson said Jackson appeared drunk when he arrived at the Cumberland County Courthouse, and a test revealed that his alcohol content was 0.12 percent, which is above the legal limit for driving.
A judge has ruled that the Santa Barbara News-Press committed flagrant violations of federal labor laws when it fired eight journalists for engaging in union activities, and he ordered that the newspaper rehire the former employees.
Evidence presented during a 17-day hearing last summer shows "the News-Press' widespread, general disregard for the fundamental rights of the employees," Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol wrote in a 75-page decision issued last week.
Kocol ruled in a case brought by the National Labor Relations Board, which accused the paper of retaliating against employees who planned to join a division of the Teamsters union.
"This decision really is all-encompassing; it's everything we wanted it to be," said Melinda Burns, who worked for the paper for 21 years before she was fired in October 2006.
"It's a clean sweep," union attorney Ira L. Gottlieb said.
Attorneys for the News-Press and its publisher, Wendy McCaw, said Monday that they were "extremely disappointed" with the ruling and that the paper "will exhaust all possible appeals and fully expects to achieve justice through that appellate process. The matter as a whole is in its infancy." McCaw referred requests for an interview to her attorneys.
Nonetheless, some observers who have objected to McCaw's handling of the newspaper she bought in 2000 were quick to applaud Kocol's ruling.
"I don't know whether there's going to be an immediate practical effect, but the psychic impact of this and the symbolic impact is enormous," said Lou Cannon, the longtime Washington political columnist and Reagan biographer who lives outside Santa Barbara.
"You had all of these people who were really fine journalists and they were just thrown out in the street for no reason."
Happy New Year to unions and journalists everywhere! Details here from the Los Angeles Times. My earlier posts about this dispute are here and here.
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — One of the biggest capital punishment cases to come before the U.S. Supreme Court in a generation was put together largely by a young, fresh-out-of-law-school member of Kentucky's overworked and underpaid corps of public defenders.
David Barron, 29, filed an appeal on behalf of two Kentucky death row inmates, arguing that the three-drug cocktail used in lethal injections across the country can cause excruciating pain, and thus amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
After three years of long hours on Barron's part, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case on Jan. 7.
"I can't believe I've got a case before the Supreme Court and I'm not even 30 years old," Barron said.
This is the first time in more than a century that the high court will address the legality of a method of execution. Thirty-six states use lethal injection, and executions across the U.S. have come to a halt in the meantime.
Barron, an assistant public defender, arrived in Kentucky in 2004, just over a year out of law school, to represent some of the worst of the worst — death row inmates. He was admitted to the Kentucky bar in July of that year, and filed his lethal-injection challenge the following September, employing a strategy he had tested out in other jurisdictions.
Details here from Brett Barrouquere of the Associated Press.
He used to be one of them. Now an attorney, he's dedicated to helping drug addicts and skid row residents.
Legal aid lawyer Louis Rafti was leading a group of law students on a tour of skid row when he saw it in the corner of a homeless shelter.
The cot. The very one, he could swear it was, that he had slept on during his last night on the row a few years before.
Rafti froze. He didn't say a word, but a sense of wonder overwhelmed him.
Wonder that he did not have a crack pipe in his hand. Or a needle in his arm. That he had a home, a job, a life.
These days, Rafti is a pugnacious housing rights lawyer for the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, known for his take-no-prisoners advocacy on behalf of the poor and disabled.
What many of his clients and colleagues don't know is that until six years ago, Rafti was a homeless cocaine addict. He contracted HIV from dirty needles. He watched friends die. He would get cleaned up, only to relapse and return to the streets.
Now, at age 49, dressed in sensible shoes and a dark polo shirt, he is back on the streets of skid row -- this time as a lawyer for the kind of person he once was.
