If memory serves, first-year contract law teaches that specific, factual misrepresentations are bad and legally actionable, whereas mere “puffery” (e.g., “We are the world’s best; hurry and come to us before it’s too late!”) is just bad. I even remember one law school professor wryly telling the class that daytime television ads by personal injury lawyers were “quite unsettling.” Yet, despite this anti-puffery attitude inside the classroom, law schools are among the biggest puffers when it comes to selling their own services.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Friday, August 8, 2014
|"This is delicious!"|
Lawyer ethics rules — particularly those regarding confidentiality — are supposed to protect clients. But sometimes the bureaucrats are so obsessed with giving the impression that they are protecting the public that they actually lose sight of that goal. For example, when doing research for a new law review article, I came across several articles discussing the California Bar’s “Formal Opinion 1986-87.” This opinion is now quite old, but it is so absurd that it is still being discussed and debated in legal publications as recently as 2013. In short, the opinion deals with
version of the bizarre ethics rule that prohibits an attorney from revealing any information relating to the
representation of a client. And the word
“information” includes not only confidential client communications and other secrets, but all
information, including information that is widely and publicly available. (If you are a Wisconsin
lawyer and think this is ridiculous, you might be surprised to learn that we,
along with most states, have similarly absurd rules in the form of SCRs 1.6 and
Monday, August 4, 2014
I’ve often criticized government officials for completely botching nearly every aspect of the criminal justice system. (Until my recent spate of legal education-related posts, government-bashing is pretty much what this blog has been about since I took to the keyboard with the inaugural post on judicial incompetence in 2010.) If fact, the negligence, complete ineptitude, and even intentional wrongdoing of many police, prosecutors, and judges makes for a compelling argument against the death penalty. But now there is a better argument: government officials aren’t even capable of killing someone properly.