On August 19th, Justice Kennedy gave an address that included an interesting passing remark about the role of blogs. Justice Kennedy was talking about how law review case comments generally come out too late to be of use to the Court (especially in the context of deciding whether to grant certiorari in a case). As a result, when Justice Kennedy asks his clerks to look to see what the law reviews have said about a particular case, there isn’t any commentary yet. Justice Kennedy adds: “I’ve found, what my clerks do now, when they have interesting cases — They read blogs.”

Justice Kennedy’s comments weren’t lost on University of Wisconsin Law Professor and noted blogger, Ann Althouse.

This means that the lawprofs who keep up high-profile blogs have disproportionate influence. You have traditional lawprofs laboring over law review articles, but these articles come out too late to discuss a case that’s pending in the Supreme Court. One answer — I’m not the first to say this* — is that law review articles should properly be about something other than the latest pending or just-decided cases, something more timeless and profound. But I think that most law professors would like to be involved in the legal developments of the day. It must be irritating to see that the lawprof bloggers have a special line to the Court.

Althouse goes to ask what I’ve always wondered, will law professors be required to blog?

This may stir up an old question that I know nags at some law professors: Will I be required to blog? Very soon after I started blogging, I heard the question is it acceptable for lawprofs to blog? and then, right after that, the question will I be required to blog? jumped up. In the minds of some non-blogging lawprofs, it preceded the question is it good for lawprofs to blog? — which seemed like a more appropriate question to me. But I can see why someone with a legal mind would ask will I be required to blog? before is it good for lawprofs to blog? It’s the same reason lawyers think what do I want the answer to be? before they try to figure out what the answer is.

Anyway, Justice Kennedy’s remark shows why it’s good for lawprofs to blog, but it would be ridiculous to require lawprofs to blog. Wouldn’t it? Or is it ridiculous to require lawprofs to write law review articles?

UCLA Law Professor and noted blogger in his own right, Stephen Bainbridge took it a step further arguing, ‘Why Blawging Ought to be Part of the Law Prof Biz.’

Citing Althouse’s comments, Bainbridge made clear that the Judges in Delaware were reading law blogs.

I have good reason to be confident that Delaware jurists also are reading those of us who toil in the corporate law blogosphere. Now the powers that be just have to figure out metrics and rewards for those of us who do so successfully.

There’s no question Bainbridge was referring to comments from his friend and LexBlog Network blogger, Francis Pileggi, that the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court is a regular reader of Pileggi’s Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog.

The practice of lawyers bringing in associate counsel who have authored treatises, law reviews, and articles to associate with on important cases is widely accepted. The reason being that such lawyers may have greater influence with trial or appellate court judges.

Well today influence is more apt to be measured by whether a lawyer publishes a blogs that’s read by judges and their clerks.

Hat tip to the Washington Times’ Culture Briefs for turning me on to this discussion.

Generally, a married person commits adultery when he or she “voluntarily has sexual intercourse with a person other than his [or her] spouse.” OCGA §16-6-19; Owens v. Owens, 247 Ga. 139, 140 (1981). Adultery includes “extramarital homosexual, as well as heterosexual, relations.” Owens v. Owens, 247 Ga. 139, 140 (1981). It is difficult to prove adultery with direct evidence and, often, the party only has circumstantial evidence. In Georgia, “[a]dultery may be proved by circumstantial evidence, but such evidence must infer as a necessary conclusion that adultery was committed.” Johnson v. Johnson, 218 Ga. 28 (1962). If the evidence can lead to more than one interpretation, it is not sufficient to prove adultery. Id.

The motor vehicle accident occurred around 1am on Stewart Road near Valentine Avenue in Pacific. Steward runs northeast and intersects State Route 167 between Algona and Sumner.

The driver of the Toyota was pronounced dead at the accident scene.

The driver of the Ford was taken to Auburn Regional medical center with minor injuries and then was arrested for investigation of Vehicular Homicide. Washington vehicle code RCW 46.61.520 states that a person can be charged with Vehicular Homicide if someone dies in a car accident and the driver was driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving recklessly or driving without regard to the safety of others.

This information is provided by Seattle Car Accident Lawyer blog, a service of The Farber Law Group. We aggressively represent victims of drunken drivers and their families. With more than 30 years experience in Washington’s wrongful death statute, we are on the victim’s side.

Contact The Farber Law Group at 1-800-244-9087 or attorney@hgfarber.com to schedule a free and confidential case evaluation. We have offices in Seattle and Bellevue to assist you.

Source:
1 dead, 1 arrested after Pacific crash
Seattlepi.com
Posted: September 6, 2010

The call I received on Friday was from a school teacher in the Cobb County School system who had received two different calls from runners. One was from a man who claimed to work with the “Marietta Injury Center”. (realize that they make a lot of these names up so don’t assume that they work for a legit business with a similar name) He advised her that he was calling to help her get medical attention. She asked if the clinic was a chiropractic office and he assured her that it was not. She then looked the clinic up on the web and realized it was a chiropractic office. That’s when she decided to call our law offices and we have advised her to continue her medical care with her primary care physician and the orthopedist suggested by the hospital.

I explained to her that these people hang around police stations and buy police reports so that they call call the driver that did not receive a traffic ticket and direct them to sleazy lawyers and doctors. They are usually paid a fee by whomever they send the case to. This practice is illegal in Georgia but, unfortunately it is very common. We have seen multiple cases where people have been approached by law office agents while in the hospital at Grady and AMC. If someone comes up to your hospital bed and tries to get you to hire a lawyer on the spot, call the State Bar of Georgia immediately as this is illegal in Georgia.

For an article detailing how this practice functions on a macro scale, read this article on a case runner from Texas.

If someone calls you on the phone after a car accident offering medical or legal referrals often with names like “Peachtree Injury Helpline” and “Atlanta Injury Referral Service” run the other direction. No one should be calling you after a car accident except the car insurance companies. Help to stamp these people out by reporting them to the State Bar of Georgia as soon as possible and if you have a serious injury, at least discuss the case with an experience Atlanta car accident lawyer.

The greatest value of mentoring, to me, was being guided in how to look at situations. A young lawyer can become intimidated by the simplest thing, usually something that should have been covered in law school (e.g. how to make proper service). A lot of what lawyers do is not that hard. But, since law school only addresses theory (because many professors don't have much practical experience, and because it's more fun to theorize about law than to discuss practical solutions to common problems), young lawyers don't really know much that can help them in the day-to-day practice of law.

But, the next crop of lawyers are in a unique position to graduate armed with practical knowledge that is completely beyond the grasp of most lawyers. I'm talking about litigation lawyers, not transactional lawyers. So, if you're a law student and you might want to litigate when you get out of school, listen up. I'm about to reveal a valuable secret that very few lawyers would tell you (even if they were aware of this in the first place).

Litigation is a battle about who can prove their version of "truth" better than their opponent. Your client, or your client's employees, are not the most reliable sources for proving what actually happened. Documents are much more reliable, mostly because they are inert objects and have no animus or bias. They say what they say, and that's it. So far nothing I've said is controversial or beyond the awareness of most lawyers.

Here comes the part you need to pay attention to.

These days most 'documents' are in digital form, and most lawyers are very uncomfortable dealing with computers, much less digital documents. There are lawyers out there, respected lawyers who are paid a lot of money, who don't read their email on a computer. They have their secretary print out the emails, which of course is insane.

More common, though, are the lawyers who simply don't use computers enough to understand the basic nature of digital information. They barely know how to navigate a common file system, and they certainly don't know that you can search files easily on any computer system. There are lawyers who don't know what the scroll bar is for, so they navigate through their email inbox by using the down arrow repeatedly. And then there are the lawyers who think that spreadsheets are just a grid to organize financial information; they don't realize that the spreadsheet calculates values for them, and so they do that manually (or have their equally tech-unsavvy secretary do it for them).

A few years ago the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to address so-called 'electronic discovery,' and lawyers dutifully read the rules. Then they assumed that they were ready to deal with discovery of electronic information. Google the phrase "e-discovery and adverse inference" to see how well some of them are doing. (Spoiler alert: not well). But it's not because they haven't read the federal rules.

Most lawyers today don't understand the nature of digital information. And they won't admit that this poses a problem for them. They think that they can be effective as litigators (not to be confused with 'trial lawyers', which is a topic for another post) simply because they're smart and know legal procedure.

But, remember what we said about documents? They matter more than witnesses in most cases, because they aren't as easily discredited. So if you do a better job than your opponent in gathering and organizing documents then you'll have an advantage. If your opponent does such a bad job that you wind up getting the court to give the jury an adverse inference instruction (e.g. tell the jury that they should assume a fact in dispute is favorable to you) then you'll win a case you might not otherwise have won.

Remember that old story about being out on a hike with a friend, and seeing a bear in the distance ready to chase you down and eat you? It makes no sense to stop and put on running shoes if you're thinking you can outrun the bear.  But you don't have to outrun the bear. If you can outrun your friend the bear won't be your problem; it'll be your friends (er, former friend) problem. That's why you take the time to put on the running shoes.

So, that's my advice to you. Go learn as much as you can about how to manage digital documents using a computer. Get a scanner (the Fujitsu ScanSnap 1500) and get comfortable with scanning. Get a copy of Adobe Acrobat (student versions are about half the cost of what the rest of us pay), and learn how to manipulate PDFs. Sure, none of this will make you a great lawyer by itself. It will, however, give you an edge over even very experienced lawyers.

That kind of edge is hard to come by, and in the case of digital information it won't last. In a few years there will be lots of people in the legal profession who understand digital information. But until that happens, you can put yourself ahead of the pack. If you're willing to stop and spend the time (and maybe money) to learn a valuable skill, that is.

The sexual abuse victim in Zaruba sued for being molested as a child. The Defendant previously had pleaded guilty criminally to the reduced offense of “aggravated sexual battery”.

The victim having a criminal guilty plea by the accused is invaluable to a successful civil suit. Otherwise, the sexual abuse alleged stands to be a hotly disputed core issue at civil trial.

During jury selection, the Court appropriately permitted Plaintiff’s lawyer, Mr. Waterman, to ask whether prospective jurors would believe an assistant principal over a student because of his status. Mr. Waterman also appropriately was allowed to ask prospective jurors in the Gagnon brain injury case whether they likewise would believe a doctor over the patient based on his status.

By the end of the trial’s first day, a fine jury comprised by 2 men and 7 women was impaneled by the parties and their lawyers. But 2 of those jurors in Gagnon were alternates, who ultimately would not decide the brain injury victim’s fate.

Such are the findings of the American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center Survey of ABA member lawyers in private practice about the technology in use at their firms.

Why do lawyers maintain a presence on social networks?

• Professional networking (76%)
• Socializing (62%)
• Client development (42%)
• Career development (17%)
• Case investigation (6%)

What social networks do lawyers use?

• LinkedIn (83%)
• Facebook (68%)
• Plaxo (18%)
• Martindale.com Connected (4%)
• LawLink (2%)
• Twitter (2%)
• Avvo, LegalOnRamp, and LegallyMinded (1% each)

Thanks to the ABA’s Legal Technology Resource Center for the survey and its director, Catherine Sanders Reach, for the summary of the survey’s findings in Law Technology News.

Miller suffered a spinal injury which left her a paraplegic in 2008 at White Salmon Lodge when accumulated snow and ice slid off the roof on top of her while she sat reading a book outside the lodge.

Miller’s negligence lawsuit claims that the resort was aware of the snow and ice accumulation on the roof but failed to remove it causing a hazard.

The lawsuit went to the jury on Friday after a three-week trial.

Civil law provides that an injured person is eligible to receive compensation for damages if a reasonable person had negligent behavior which resulted in the injury. Negligence lawsuits against property owners can include but may not be limited to injuries due to failure to secure a swimming pool, failure to provide proper lighting, failure to clean up wet floors, failure to repair sidewalks, etc. The injured person can seek compensation for medical costs, property, loss of income and for pain and suffering.

This information is provided by Washington Injury Attorney blog, a service of The Farber Law Group. We represent people who have been seriously injured injured due to the negligence of property owners.

Contact The Farber Law Group at 1-800-244-9087 or attorney@hgfarber.com to schedule a free and confidential case evaluation. We have offices in Seattle and Bellevue to assist you.

Source:
The Bellingham Herald
Ferndale woman sues from Mt. Baker Ski Area
Posted: September 05, 2010

That all changed last week when Scott was indicted by a federal grand jury on 62 counts of wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering in connection with this operation. Yesterday, things changed even more in this case, when the Boston U.S. Attorney’s Office charged (separately) a former Bank of America Corp. branch manager and a Virginia-based real estate recruiter with wire fraud in this unfolding federal case. The case alleges that Scott masterminded and led a long-running mortgage fraud scheme to convert at least 50 buildings (usually three-deckers) into about 170 condos in some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. Some units sold at market prices, but almost none were made habitable. More than 100 of the properties eventually went into foreclosure. Aside from defrauding investors, almost all of those properties ended up being abandoned and blighted, resulting in even further deterioration of the communities they were located in. The case is being prosecuted in U.S. District Court in Boston (federal court,) and not Massachusetts state Superior court, due to the interstate nature of the alleged bank fraud involved. Scott is scheduled to appear before a federal judge Sept. 13, but federal court officials have not yet set an appearance date for Fowler or Samuels.

Arthur Samuels, a former manager at Bank of America’s Fields Corner branch in Dorchester, and Jerrold Fowler, of Norfolk, Virginia, were both charged yesterday in U.S. District Court in Boston with wire fraud (this charge applies because almost all of the electronic and physical transactions occurred over state lines.) Jerrold Fowler was charged for his alleged role as a recruiter for investors — many of them out of state — who participated in the alleged scheme to defraud lenders. Previously, in the indictment handed down last week against Michael David Scott, federal prosecutors said Scott worked with “associates,’’ but at the time the Grand Jury heard the evidence against him, those “associates” were not identified. It seems apparent now that these “associates” were, at the least, Arthur Samuels and Jerrold Fowler. Samuels’s role, inside Bank of America, allegedly involved manufacturing false documents to support the fraudulent loan applications involved. According to an FBI affidavit filed in the case, Scott, Fowler, Samuels, and others in the ring paid people to purchase condominiums, promised the buyers that they didn’t have to invest in the sale, represented that the mortgage payments would be paid for by tenants, and told buyers that they would share in the profits when the properties were eventually resold. The criminal complaint also alleged the group falsely inflated purchase prices, incorrectly said buyers would live in the homes, and falsely claimed inflated investors assets to qualify for the mortgages granted.

As a Boston white collar criminal defense lawyer, I can assure you that Samuel’s and Scott’s legal problems are not limited to the U.S. Attorney’s office only. Aside from these federal criminal charges against them, Samuels and Scott were also sued civilly in the last year by Bank of America in Suffolk Superior Court for their alleged roles in defrauding the lender of $1.5 million, as part of this “inside job.” That civil case is still pending, and Bank of America officials declined to comment on that case.