2010 was a simpler time, as there was only ONE place worth advertising: the phone book! This might have been my last year advertising in "the yellow pages." And I no longer advertise anywhere -- I've always found it distasteful, hence the simple, straightforward approach to my yellow pages ad. But I liked this old ad; it always reminded me of Van Halen's Diver Down album cover.
Enjoy "Secrets" from Diver Down, and re-live the 80s:
Jeff Winger, a nontraditional student at the fictional GreendaleCommunity College, was always in
search of the easy A. He just needed to
replace his fake bachelor’s degree so he could get readmitted to the Colorado
Bar and return to the practice of law. (He
had, apparently, legitimately completed law school and passed the bar – just without
going to college first. This is theoretically possible in real-life, as law school is, in reality, nothing more than an associate’s degree: it can be completed in two years and, although you need a bachelor’s
degree, it can be in anything – including majors like “puppetry.”)
In one of the show’s best exchanges, a professor at Greendale,
whom Winger once successfully defended in a drunk-driving case, said to Winger: “I
thought you had a bachelor’s from Columbia.”Winger replied: “And now I have to get one
from America; and
it can’t be an email attachment.”
As has happened often in the years since Community first
debuted, the absurdity of “higher education” has proven Community to be
prescient. Read this College Fix article
about a UC San Diego professor who gave everyone As just for showing up! No kidding.
There was no homework, and everyone got an A. If you haven’t heard, there are movements
called “equity” and, in this case, “decolonization.” These things supposedly justify giving
everyone a trophy or, in this case, an A. Things like effort and merit are not recognized.
But if you don’t want to read the article, just watch
Community’s Professor Whitman.He liked
to handout As, too—and long before the real-life UCSD professor did.Unreal.Absolutely unreal.You want an
A?“No tests, no papers.Just live in the moment.”
Law
schools are falling all over themselves to copy Yale by withdrawing from the US
News law school rankings.As I explained earlier,
they are not actually “withdrawing”; rather, they are just not going to submit
data anymore.And of course, they will
still get ranked.(If refusing to submit
data meant being removed from the premier list of law schools, they would all keep submitting
data.)This move of not submitting data
has been done before—most notably, by my alma mater, Marquette Law, in the
1990s. (See MU L. Rev. p. 310.)So this is a well-beaten path that leads
nowhere new.
In
any case, law schools are just following their strong urge to copy Yale.(Yale and Harvard grads run, and teach at, virtually
every law school in the country.)But
rather than admitting this, the law schools are instead virtue signaling. They are rushing to get their
statements out, proclaiming to the world how morally awesome they are!But in some cases, these schools might be rushing
just a little too fast.
Take
UC-Irvine’s Austen Parish, who recently issued this statement, claiming the
moral high ground over the dastardly US News: “Collectively we have determined
that continuing to participate in the U.S. News rankings is not consistent with
our founding ideals.”
The WSJ recently reported that Yale, and then Harvard, withdrew from the US News law school rankings.
My initial reaction was, of course
Harvard is going to copy Yale.They’ve
been chasing Yale ever since those rankings came out.They didn’t have the guts to withdraw first, but
they quickly jumped on Yale’s bandwagon.A Harvard spokesperson said that his school had been “deliberating the
move for several months.” At best, that’s
typical academic navel-gazing; more likely, Harvard was waiting for its law-school superior, Yale, to pull the trigger first.
My second reaction was
that these schools aren’t actually withdrawing; they’re just not cooperating
with the US News.Marquette Law did this
many years ago, i.e., it stopped cooperating and submitting data, and the school
still got ranked.And the WSJ later
confirmed in a follow-up article that, of course, Harvard and Yale will still
get ranked.So these two institutions aren’t even doing anything novel; they certainly are not ground-breakers or trend-setters.In reality, they’re walking a path beaten
long ago by Marquette Law. (Note: post-rebellion, under new "leadership," MU has since rejoined the US News fold.) And that already-beaten path leads absolutely nowhere new.
Anyway, why did Y. and H. decide to stop cooperating?Here’s
the part of the original WSJ article that caught my eye:
The judge in Racine County who allegedly threatened a lawyer with contempt for not having his shirt's top button buttoned (see here) has also issued special court-approved drinking mugs, according to this short story in the ABA Journal.
What kind of soft, liberal nonsense is that? Any hard-liner worth his salt would prohibit in-court hydration entirely! I remember a "professor" at MU Law many years ago when I brought out my plastic water bottle in class. He asked, "What are you going to do if you get thirsty in court? Pull out a water bottle?" I replied, "Um, yes?"
He didn't find it humorous. But neither did I. Nor did he offer a better alternative to the time-tested H2O in a bottle. He was indeed a hard-liner. (He was also lazy. Who gives a commercially available, multiple choice final in law school? If you don't want to grade issue-spotter questions, at least make up your own multiple choice.)
In any case, I don't practice in Racine so I don't have one of those special, court-approved mugs. And for you out-of-county lawyers who also lack the court-approved drinkware, but may be venturing into Judge Gene Gasiorkiewicz's court room in the future, The Legal Watchdog has obtained "inside information" that he will also permit you to drink out of a Van Halen mug.
As a
criminal defense lawyer, judicial bias is a subject of great interest to
me. In 2019, I published a law review
article titled Combating Judicial Misconduct: A Stoic Approach. (You can find all of my law review publications, organized
by topic, here.) In that article, I
described how judges can be incompetent, hostile, biased, and in some cases
flat-out unhinged. I also provided
strategies for combating such misconduct, including the defense motion to
recuse the offending judge. I have filed
such motions in the past, and I included a sample motion in the article for
criminal defense lawyers to adapt and use in their own cases.
While
I have no reason to believe he ever read my article, I was very interested to
learn that another defense attorney, Christopher Carson, recently filed his own
motion to recuse a criminal court judge.
Carson alleges in his motion
that Racine, Wisconsin trial-court
jurist Eugene A. Gasiorkiewicz conducted himself so poorly in the courtroom that
it constituted judicial bias against the defense, thus requiring recusal.
The entertaining facts alleged by Carson in his motion
include these. In front of a packed
courtroom—i.e., “lawyers, defendants, members of the public and court staff”—the
judge became “emotionally triggered” and publicly lambasted Carson
for not buttoning the top button of his dress shirt. However, Carson
“could not comply with the Court’s novel interpretation of the lawyer’s dress
code” because, possibly due to recent weight gain, “his shirt’s collar was too
small for buttoning at the top, given the melancholy thickness of [his]
neck.” After yelling at Carson,
the judge then allegedly threatened him with a contempt finding should
he ever repeat this fashion misstep.
Check out my newest article, The Daubert Double Standard, now in print at the Michigan State Law Review. Daubert has been an absolute disaster for the defense. The now decade-plus old law was supposed to make it tougher to use so-called expert testimony at trial. But the actual outcome was easy to predict: with regard to the state's evidence, nothing has changed. The courts simply rubberstamp any pseudo-expert the state tries to use. Worse yet, the courts impose the high Daubert hurdle on the defense, thus turning Daubert into a pro-state double standard. In my study of all appellate and SCOW cases in roughly the first decade of Daubert, the state is 134-0 against the defense.
You can find the article here. You can find all of my articles here. You can read the abstract for the article after the jump. And for more on Daubert, see my U. Illinois L. Rev. Online article, Daubert Strategies for the Criminal Defense Bar.
When I was employed in the corporate world as a cost
accountant, I sometimes had work that was interesting on a theoretical level,
and sometimes even enjoyable on a practical level. But the worst part of those corporate gigs
was that there wasn’t enough actual work to fill most days. The result was a bunch of make-work,
particularly inter-departmental meetings and special projects dominated by
corporate lingo about stakeholders, internal customers, thinking outside of the
box, and driving the business. The exact
language changes over time, of course, so that consultants can keep selling
their schemes to corporate management.
(You can learn about that scam in this wonderful book.) But the make-work was enough to make me sick
to my stomach or put me to sleep—depending on my mood on any given day.
On the other hand, one of the best things about being a
self-employed criminal defense lawyer is that every bit of the work has real
meaning. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t do it
because I don’t have to do it. Some days
require 12 or even 14 hours of work. On
other days, there’s very little work to do.
And when that’s the case, I don’t have to create any make-work to look
busy. Instead, I can write, take a nap,
watch TV, or (rarely) do something healthy like go for a walk. (I really should do more of that, my doctor
tells me.)
I’ve written before how the word “misinformation” is used to
justify silencing (or at least discrediting) speech that the Left doesn’t
like. (See here and here.) As if we needed another example, consider the
former Mayor of New York, the freedom-hating, BLM-loving Bill de Blasio.
This article reports that de Blasio was criticizing “vaccine
misinformation, which he called a national disease.”As an example of such “misinformation,” the
article cited one Ms. Green, another politician, who tweeted that the virus “is
not dangerous for non-obese people and those under 65.”For that tweet, she faced consequences from twitter.
But interestingly, the CDC says that obesity is a
huge factor in virus-related hospitalizations and deaths.Similarly, the CDC says there is also a
strong correlation between age and outcomes, with those over 65 facing dramatically greater health risks—at least 65 times that of 18-29-year-olds.
So was Ms. Green’s statement really “misinformation”?
In one of my favorite movies (Back to School), Dean
Martin, dean of the fictional Thornton Melon School of Business, gives a speech
during the groundbreaking ceremony at the site of the school’s future, state-of-the-art building. He said:
The business of America
is business.And the business of an educational
institution such as ours is to create young minds that understand that the
business of America
is the kind of business that it actually is.
Perhaps acknowledging the nonsensical nature of what he’s
spewing, Dean Martin concludes: “Whatever it is that I have said here today . .
.”The Dean’s circle speak then provokes
a humorous, headshaking response from Thornton Melon.
Judge Bruce Schroeder’s scolding of the prosecutor during
the Ritttenhouse trial drew a great deal of media attention. Unfortunately, media outlets were less
interested in discussing the underlying problem that caused the judge’s eruption.
The underlying problem is a common one.Prosecutors frequently—some, routinely—will comment
on defendants’ post-arrest, post-Miranda silence.In the Rittenhouse trial, the prosecutor did
this in two ways.FIRST, he asked
Rittenhouse on cross-exam to admit that this is the first time he’s chosen to
talk about the incident, thus implying that he had declined to talk to
police upon his arrest.SECOND, because the state
has to go first at the trial, the prosecutor also got Rittenhouse to admit that
he had the “benefit” of listening to the state’s witnesses and seeing the
state’s video evidence before finally talking about the incident.
Check out my recently published article, Disorderly Conduct: An Investigation into Police and Prosecutor Practices. I wrote the article in response to some pretty outlandish claims by law professors about how the police are allegedly using the disorderly conduct statute. You can read my article's abstract after the jump. You can also read my Q&A / interview about the article at the Kenosha County Eye. And you can find the article itself on the LMU website. All of my articles, organized by topic, are available on the articles page of my website. Enjoy!