Friday, October 15, 2004

Just A Suggestion If you are a 3L and you're emailing me your resume and writing sample hoping to land a job at my firm, don't do it by cc'ing me along with 100 other alumni of our law school on an email sent to someone else. Just a little tip for you. File under The Legal Profession. 7:09:48 PM

	Thursday, September 16, 2004

Jumping The Shark I had high hopes for The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari. But, by 30 pages in, I realized the book had "jumped the shark." Let's look at it. A Harvard trained lawyer, one of the country's best known trial attorneys, throws in the towel, sells all his worldly goods and treks off to India on a spiritual odyssey, only to return as a wise prophet from the Himalayas. Yeah, I can identify with that. Me, my visions are more down to earth, like Laura Palmer's psychiatrist in Twin Peaks. One of the country's best trial attorneys throws in the towel, sells all his worldly goods and treks off to Hawaii on a spiritual odyssey, only to stay there and operate a successful macadamia nut farm. File under The Legal Profession. 11:15:39 PM

	Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Serendipity ser·en·dip·i·ty NOUN 1. The faculty of making fortunate discoveries by accident. 2. The fact or occurrence of such discoveries. 3. An instance of making such a discovery. I stopped by Borders on my way home today and came across a book, The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari. It tells the story of Julian Mantle, a lawyer forced to confront the spiritual crisis of his out-of-balance life after suffering a massive heart attack. It looks like an interesting read; maybe it'll give me some inspiration to chuck this rat race and live like a human being again. Yeah, I can almost remember living like that. File under The Legal Profession. 9:43:39 PM

	Wednesday, July 07, 2004

Mixed Messages This is way too typical. It's a memo which is the inevitable product of the legal profession's obsession with the billable hour: Monday [July 5th] is a firm holiday, but do not feel discouraged from coming to the office if there are any projects you are working on where you feel you need to spend time here on Monday. There will more than likely be lots of associates around, in and out throughout the day. So you should feel welcomed to come in and work if you need to. If you do not, have a fantastic long weekend, or let me know if you'd like some more assignments if you're not being kept busy enough. File under The Legal Profession. 11:44:16 PM

	Monday, June 14, 2004

The Supremes Punt There's nothing like sidestepping a thorny legal issue by invoking a technicality. That's especially true when you have to make up the technicality to begin with. The United States Supreme Court in Elk Grove Unified School District vs. Newdow did just that. The Court's opinion avoided deciding the issue of whether or not the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was constitutionally impermissible. Instead, it decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to prosecute the lawsuit to begin with because he lacked standing: In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded of family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff's claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. I don't agree with this reasoning. It seems to me that the "prudent course" taken by the Supreme Court was to avoid deciding an issue sure to evoke the public's passions, both pro and con. Not all of the Justices agreed with Justice Stevens, who authored the Court's opinion. Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Justice O'Connor and Justice Thomas, while concurring in the judgment, dissented from the Court's ruling. All three wrote opinions. Of the three, the one I agree with is the Chief Justice's. Chief Justice Rehnquist came out swinging from the very beginning of his opinion: The Court today erects a novel prudential standing principle in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. I dissent from that ruling. On the merits, I conclude that the Elk Grove Unified School District (School District) policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Chief Justice rejected the majority's standing decision, and correctly so, because this case presented a federal question that transcended the family law issue to a far greater extent than the cases cited in the majority opinion. He also pointed out the deference that the Supreme Court has traditionally given to regional courts of appeals in matters involving the interpretation of state law. Clearly the Ninth Circuit was in a far better position to interpret California law. Finally, the Chief Justice takes a parting shot at the majority's opinion: Although the Court may have succeeded in confining this novel principle almost narrowly enough to be, like the proverbial excursion ticket--good for this day only--our doctrine of prudential standing should be governed by general principles, rather than ad hoc improvisations. Ouch! The Chief Justice then moves on to discuss the history of the Pledge of Allegiance and the historical attitude of the Nation's leaders, from George Washington's first inauguration on April 30, 1789 to Lincoln's second inaugural address to Wilson's appearance before Congress in April 1917 to request a declaration of war against Germany to Franklin Roosevelt to Dwight Eisenhower. He cites numerous examples, including the Supreme Court Marshal's opening proclamation which concludes with "God save the United States and this honorable Court" to demonstrate that our national culture allows public recognition of our religious history and character. He concludes that the phrase "under God" does not convert its recital into a "religious exercise," but rather, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the flag and the Republic. The phrase "under God" is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact [that] "From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God. . . . [P]articipants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church." Sooner or later the Court will have to confront this issue head on. Hopefully, Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion is a preview of what the Court's decision will be. If it is not, then we should drag the Declaration of Independence, our founding document that references certain unalienable rights with which we are endowed  by our Creator, out of the National Archives and into the street to be trampled upon. A copy of the Court's opinion, as well as the opinions filed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor and Justice Thomas can be found at Cornell's Legal Information Institute website. File under The Legal Profession. 11:35:17 PM

	Friday, June 04, 2004

Burning Bridges One associate at a San Diego law firm decided to go out in style: In what appeared to be a farewell e-mail last week, a Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker associate wrote that he hoped the "smoke from any bridges I burn today [may] be seen far and wide." Evans' message said he was moving on to become a "trophy husband," a decision that was "quite easy" to make and "a step up from my current situation." The message offered a nod to Paul Hastings, and cited "wonderful friendships" made at the firm. But then Evans -- or someone at his desk -- went negative. "I am no longer comfortable working for a group largely populated by gossips, backstabbers and Napoleonic personalities," the message said. "In fact, I dare say that I would rather be dressed up like a pinata and beaten than remain with this group any longer." I guess he won't be using them as a reference. File under The Legal Profession. 8:54:42 AM

	Thursday, March 25, 2004

Basking In The Glory Well, at the close of plaintiff's case this morning I moved to dismiss all counts against my client. Legal argument went on for about 2-1/2 hours after which the judge indicated that he'd render his decision after lunch. The judge granted my motion. Damn I'm good! Never even had to put my client on the stand or even put a single document into evidence. Anyway, that gave me a little time to surf around the internet and come up with a few tidbits offered for your amusement. First off, speaking of defendants, it looks like Martha Stewart is already taking care of the domestic help for her soon to be new digs: We know from Martha Stewart's TV show and magazine that she likes to plan ahead, so this story doesn't seem so far-fetched. According to my sources, Stewart, who is convinced she will definitely be sent to Danbury Correctional Institution in Danbury, Conn., is taking no chances on her prison stay. She has apparently sought out and found an inmate who is already incarcerated there and willing to work for her. This woman, who is serving time for embezzlement, is supposed to be Martha's eyes and ears, sort of a glorified assistant, during what could be a 16-month run in the big house, sources said. You'd never see this in Iraq when Saddam was running things. America, what a country! Then we have the folks at PETA at it again with their campaign against KFC. Next thing you know they'll be after my Boston Chicken. And finally, we have this gem from the BBC: Violinists in a German orchestra are suing for a pay rise on the grounds that they play many more notes per concert than their colleagues. The 16 violinists at the Beethoven Orchestra in Bonn say they work much harder than their fellow musicians. The violinists say they should receive an extra £60 per rehearsal or performance from their employer, the city of Bonn, to reflect the "extra notes" they have to read and play. It reminds me of the Emperor's comment to Mozart in Amadeus: "Too many notes." Well, my wife and I are going to enjoy a nice bottle of Veuve Clicquot to celebrate. 'Night all! File under The Legal Profession. 8:08:52 PM