When I was recently writing a brief on a complex and nuanced constitutional issue, I couldn’t help but think how much faster and better “Cameron” could have done the job. Cameron is the (for now) fictional A.I. from the outstanding but short-lived Sarah Connor Chronicles. Within mere seconds she could have read and understood every statute, court opinion, and law review article ever written on the issue. And in just a few minutes more she could have assimilated the relevant sources into a persuasive legal brief that would have put even my best writing to shame. For now, Cameron is fictional. But two other robots named
RAVIN are real. And here’s a newsflash: ROSS
and RAVIN are not coming for lawyer jobs; rather, they’ve already taken them.
Saturday, February 25, 2017
The Irreverent Lawyer just wrote about the current bill in
that would turn their bloated and pricey state bar from a mandatory organization into a
voluntary one. One of the problems with
these mandatory bars, he explains, is that they have an inherent conflict of
interest. And by separating the lawyer
regulation function from the trade association function (in which membership would become
voluntary) the conflict of interest disappears. That is, a voluntary bar, separated from the lawyer regulation function, would no
longer be torn between serving the general public and working on behalf of its
membership. But in Wisconsin,
the lawyer regulation function (OLR) is already separate from the mandatory
bar (although the bar seems to keep its fingers, to some extent, in the lawyer regulation pie). So given its separation from the OLR, why does the Wisconsin State Bar
consistently work with the OLR and against its own membership? The bar does claim to also work for
its dues-paying membership, so it does operate under an obvious conflict of
interest. Yet, given its supposed independence
from the OLR, it seems that the Wisconsin State Bar’s conflict of interest is
Friday, February 24, 2017
I recently got an email from the Wisconsin Law Foundation (an arm of the state bar) signed by the bar’s president. The bar is seeking donations so it can host three separate send-offs to honor its retiring executive director (E.D.). Donations correspond to increasingly hierarchical titles. For example, a $250 donation buys me the title of American Counselor, whereas $1,000 buys me the far more prestigious title of English Barrister. (The titles of “landed gentry” and “aristocrat” are apparently not available.) Donors’ names, along with their newly acquired titles, will appear on the party invites for all to see. From what I can tell, the donations fund the three retirement parties and these parties, in turn, “will focus on raising support for the good work of the Law Foundation.” So I’m not sure if the bar will hit up the party-goers for additional donations or if there will be some sort of raffle — the email isn’t entirely clear. Equally unclear is how much we lawyers have been paying the E.D. for his years of “service” that the bar is so eager to celebrate.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Dana Heyde at Goodreads wrote: “This book prompted me to engage in yet another round of discussions about Avery and the injustice of the legal system. [Cicchini] made dull laws fascinating to discuss, and I would recommend it to everyone who thinks they could never be wrongfully accused of a crime and then convicted of it.”
Also read the earlier reviews from Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews.
A common trend among law schools was to hire professors who had very little or no experience practicing law, but who had graduated from elite law schools. Then the trend became hiring JDs who also had a PhD — preferably in the field of economics. Then the trend became hiring candidates with PhDs only. That’s right: law professors who never went to law school. And unfortunately, the lower ranked schools, in a desperate attempt to keep up their peer-reputation scores in the US News law school rankings, followed suit and copied the trend. In a 2012 essay titled Three Rules for Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers, I argued that these fourth-tier schools should instead go in the opposite direction of the elites:
Friday, February 17, 2017
I've also changed the blog's font color to make it darker and, hopefully, easier to read. And now the hyperlinks and blog titles won't go dim once you've clicked on them. As for finding specific posts, scroll down and in the right-hand column you'll find a gadget that lets you filter posts by subject matter, e.g., criminal law, free speech, state bar, etc. If you're viewing The Dog on your phone and can't see the right-hand column, scroll to the bottom and click "web version," and all of these features will appear out of nowhere.
Finally, don't forget about Knightly's reading list at the bottom of the right-hand column. There you'll find links to all sorts of chocolately cookie goodness, including The Dog's longtime friends The Irreverent Lawyer (bar news and first amendment) and Life Sentences (criminal law and sentencing), as well as newcomers On Point (Wisconsin criminal law case summaries) and The College Fix (free speech on campus).
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Donald Trump recently criticized a federal judge by calling him a “so-called judge” and arguing that the judge’s suspension of Trump’s executive order put the country at risk. So of course, the Wisconsin State Bar’s “52-member Board of Governors” had to swing into action and adopt “a unified statement” to protect the federal judiciary from the impact of free speech. Personally, I have no opinion as to whether Trump’s criticism is accurate, but I have serious problems with our state bar — an organization that we Wisconsin lawyers are forced to join and fund — making this so-called unified statement.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
here. The government's lawyer is trying to sell the same nonsense to the Seventh Circuit that the agents sold to Dassey in their interrogation, e.g., "they were just after 'the truth' your honors." The lawyer also claims there were not even implied promises of leniency made to Dassey. (I guess promising Dassey that he wouldn't be arrested if he agreed to confess doesn't count as a direct or even implied promise of leniency.) If you go to Netflix and watch episode three of Making a Murderer, you can see part of the interrogation as well as Larry White's explanation of how the interrogators' repeated directives to "tell us the truth" really meant "tell us what we want to hear." (And, to guide Dassey in the right direction, they even told him what, specifically, they wanted to hear.)
Monday, February 13, 2017
I don't care much (or at all) for the NFL, and I didn't have much of an opinion on Tom Brady until the super bowl when he threw that pick-six. The impressive thing was that, after he threw it, he dove to try to stop the much more athletic defensive player from scoring. As a viewer, I genuinely appreciated the effort. And even though Brady didn't come close to stopping the touchdown -- he looked well out of his depth trying tackle a superior athlete -- he did go on to win the super bowl MVP (again) by leading the biggest comeback in the game's history.
Despite not being a fan of Brady's until (oddly) that pick-six, I had been routing for him in his fight against Roger Goodell in the deflate-gate fiasco. And there was good reason to do so, as there was certainly a lot of evidence on Brady's side. Granted, a Brady win in court would not have been like an indigent defendant winning a criminal jury trial. Rather, a Brady win in court would have been more like "the man" sticking it to "THE MAN." But still . . .
Anyway, Brady did beat Roger but only temporarily -- or so it seemed. It turns out that Brady got the last laugh in the end. Despite serving a four-game suspension earlier this year, he won the super bowl. He won the MVP in the super bowl. Roger was forced to praise him in public and present him with his trophies. And then Brady got to run this post-game commercial.
I recently received a mailing from Jon P. Axelrod who is running for state bar president. He provides a bullet-point list of some things he wants to accomplish. I have an opinion on three of those things. First, Axelrod wants to “provid[e] money to forgive student loans” to encourage law school graduates to practice in “underserved areas of
Wisconsin.” I’m not sure where this money would come from,
but this debt-forgiveness frolic had better not be funded by our bar dues. As the Irreverent Lawyer has shown us, Wisconsin’s
state bar bureaucracy is already one of the most expensive in the country. Also, there’s simply no need to encourage new
lawyers to take jobs. There is a glut of
lawyers in Wisconsin already, and
they’re scrambling to find work. Only 64 percent of UW grads and 62 percent of MU grads from the class of 2015 found
long-term, full-time legal jobs.
Sunday, February 12, 2017
My forthcoming book, “Convicting Avery: The Bizarre Laws and Broken System behind Making a Murderer,” recently received two great reviews.
Publishers Weekly writes: “Cicchini convincingly demonstrates that the Kafkaesque criminal justice in Avery’s case was not an anomaly, and his work is an accessible entree into the debate over how defendants’ rights should be protected.”
Kirkus Reviews writes: “Overall, Cicchini makes his case clearly. . . . [Convicting Avery] will engage fans of the series and readers who wonder if prosecutors really do cut corners in their campaigns against serious criminals.”
The book will be released on April 4th, and can be pre-ordered on amazon.com.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
here to read my latest column at the Wisconsin Law Journal, which is an excerpt from the chapter titled "Weird Science" in my forthcoming book Convicting Avery. (The book will be published by Prometheus Books on April 4th, and is available for pre-order here.)