As the market for legal jobs (other than bankruptcy of course) continues to gloom, lawyers are busy contemplating creative solutions to increase their practice's profitability. Many firms are restructuring their compensation schedules for associate's pay and partner distributions. Some are trying to figure out if they still want those entry-level associates that were deferred and are receiving a stipend.
But some despondent lawyers are simply trying to take advantage of the increasing supply of legal "talent". Tightening legal job market = sweeping layoffs = large demand for legal employment + large supply of candidates = cheap fun for some leveraged lawyers. In particular, an Illinois immigration attorney in need an extra hand and perhaps other body parts, placed a classy advertisement on Craigslist to find exactly what he was looking for. He was quite candid about his desires. Most legal job seekers would not be searching for a job in the "Adult Gigs" section of Craigslist, but that's precisely where this lawyer placed the ad. Most legal job seekers also would stop in their tracks after reading peculiar language in an ad such as this: (But then again, it was the adult gig section, so maybe most job seekers browsing this section would apply-- like this candidate did).
"Loop law firm looking to hire am [sic] energetic woman for their open secretary/legal assistant position. Duties will include general secretarial work, some paralegal work and additional duties for two lawyers in the firm. No experience required, training will be provided. Generous annual salary and benefits will be provided, including medical, dental, life, disability, 401(k) etc. If interested, please send current resume and a few pictures along with a description of your physical features, including measurements. We look forward to meeting you." [emphasis added]
I struggle to understand the logic-- adult gig as a legal sec or legal sec looking for adult gig?
I suppose there's nothing wrong with this advertisement. Attractive lawyers and secretaries can be found (and are often desired) in the most prominent law firms throughout the country. That is certainly not an astounding revelation. But asking for a description of your physical features and measurements---really? This is where I ask: "Are you kidding me?"
But why should he stop there? After all, this lawyer was looking for real talent, and talented legal secretaries must be comfortable handling various positions. Thus, he did what any talent recruiter would do, and followed up with an email to the responding candidate. In addition to the photo and measurements requirements, his job description email to the candidate required the candidate to perform sexually for the attorney. Because as he put it, prior secs were "unable to handle the sexual aspects of the job". What aspects? How about this rather concise checklist: "required to have sexual interaction with me and my partner, sometimes together sometimes separate". We all know he meant recording the partner meeting minutes with a smile.
The lawyer initially denied his involvement with the ad, stating that someone maliciously placed the ad. He later admitted to the ad and the email followup--both of which were traced back to his pc at his office. The job candidate complained, which resulted in a smack in face for "Conduct prejudicial to the Administration of Justice and Misrepresentation to the ARDC
in the Course of a Disciplinary Investigation". Nice.
Not exactly the kind of genius recruiting strategy you would want to explain to the disciplinary committee. At least he'll be able to find himself a strong defense within the Professional Code: candor to the tribunal.
Read the complaint filed with the Illinois Disciplinary Commission; Count III.
The https://www.iardc.org/09CH0053CM.html
As an aside, apparently some legal secretaries are also unemployed Adult Giggers.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Texas traffice violation: $204 for not speaking English!
Leaving a car door open too long (Oregon), leaving a sheep in the cab of your truck without a chaperone (Montana), shooting live game from a moving automobile (Tennessee), failure to stop on a dime, failure to tap the breaks at least 5 times consecutively prior to making a right turn, ah what the heck, you Hispanic people don't speak English so here's one for that too. Seriously, a $204 civil traffic citation for not speaking English. Its happened in Dallas, TX to at least 39 drivers. This may come as a surprise to you, but not speaking English while driving is actually not an offense in Dallas. But nevertheless, some officers handed out the citation despite the presence of their more experience supervisors. This was only uncovered after a formal complaint and investigation took place. Needless to say, the complainant is retaining counsel--small lady.
A police chief in Dallas when questioned about the incident responded: "I was surprised and stunned that that would happen, particularly in the city of Dallas,"
Oh really? Why? Because TX is not red-neck enough or because it's only about 19 miles from the Mexico border? (ok, more like 22 miles).
What's next, driving-while-brown? Wait we have that now, thanks to the Federal Statute under U.S. Immigration Custom Enforcement's (I.C.E.) section 287(g) that allows civil traffic stops to turn traffic stops into visa interviews. Awesome!
Read the story: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/DN-citations_23met.ART.State.Edition2.4bac015.html?nTar=OPUR
A police chief in Dallas when questioned about the incident responded: "I was surprised and stunned that that would happen, particularly in the city of Dallas,"
Oh really? Why? Because TX is not red-neck enough or because it's only about 19 miles from the Mexico border? (ok, more like 22 miles).
What's next, driving-while-brown? Wait we have that now, thanks to the Federal Statute under U.S. Immigration Custom Enforcement's (I.C.E.) section 287(g) that allows civil traffic stops to turn traffic stops into visa interviews. Awesome!
Read the story: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/DN-citations_23met.ART.State.Edition2.4bac015.html?nTar=OPUR
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Scalia thinks lawyers aren't a productive part of society.
"Why isn’t she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?...I mean lawyers, after all, don’t produce anything."
What do you expect from a judge that is a literalist? Think of the most traditional lawyering job you can think of, may I suggest a prosecutor. What does a prosecutor do? Bring charges on behalf of the people (the feds, a state, city, county, or other municipality), and facilitate the application of a penal code against the alleged wrong doer. In a nutshell, prosecutors stand in the shoes of the people they represent, and facilitate the adversarial process to reach a just conclusion (obviously this is an ideal, often tainted by political pressures inherent in our public adjudicatory process). Is this not productive for society? Even the most primitive and ancient societies had some concept of a penal system through which charges were brought against the accused, a fact finding process would take place, and ultimately the guilty would pay the price. Perhaps not in the Salem witch trial. But you see my point. Even in this iconic traditional lawyering job, a prosecutor is arguably doing something quite productive for society.
How about lawyers in other areas of legal practice: accident injury, and medical malpractice ; real estate; securities; mergers and acquisitions; civil rights; trust and estate planning; patent, copyright, trademark, trade secrets; etc. What do these guys do? Of course each area of legal practice may be bifurcated into two discrete categories of practice, transactional and litigation, which can generally cross all areas of law. Transactional and litigation practices can be found within all areas of legal practice. Here, Scalia points directly to litigation and states that it offers no semblance of productivity to society. So let's address that directly. We can easily supplant the example of the prosecutor from above with any of the listed practice areas with litigation components, again, that includes almost all areas of practice. At the most rudimentary level, the job of a prosecutor and most litigators is essentially the same. So if you can buy into the view that prosecutors facilitate critical elements of society (e.g. the penal system), then similarly, all litigators facilitate the adjudication and settlement of some essential component of society found in each area of legal practice--- the injured receive compensation; buyers can buy in full confidence; businesses can raise capital and investors can mitigate risk; etc.
Examining the productivity of transactional lawyers is even easier. Transactional lawyers simply facilitate the exchange of bargains and mitigate risks in each area of legal practice. Let's just keep it that simple. Assuming this is true, the wheels of a productive society would slow if not completely halt if people could neither make proper bargains nor live free from risks. Take for example, primacy of contract.
Scalia's remark is quite awkward and damaging to our profession, and even himself (hello--he is a judge!) The only difference between building a car and being a lawyer is that our airbags are built to resist financial impact.
Article: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/10/01/scalia-we-are-devoting-too-many-of-our-best-minds-to-lawyering/
What do you expect from a judge that is a literalist? Think of the most traditional lawyering job you can think of, may I suggest a prosecutor. What does a prosecutor do? Bring charges on behalf of the people (the feds, a state, city, county, or other municipality), and facilitate the application of a penal code against the alleged wrong doer. In a nutshell, prosecutors stand in the shoes of the people they represent, and facilitate the adversarial process to reach a just conclusion (obviously this is an ideal, often tainted by political pressures inherent in our public adjudicatory process). Is this not productive for society? Even the most primitive and ancient societies had some concept of a penal system through which charges were brought against the accused, a fact finding process would take place, and ultimately the guilty would pay the price. Perhaps not in the Salem witch trial. But you see my point. Even in this iconic traditional lawyering job, a prosecutor is arguably doing something quite productive for society.
How about lawyers in other areas of legal practice: accident injury, and medical malpractice ; real estate; securities; mergers and acquisitions; civil rights; trust and estate planning; patent, copyright, trademark, trade secrets; etc. What do these guys do? Of course each area of legal practice may be bifurcated into two discrete categories of practice, transactional and litigation, which can generally cross all areas of law. Transactional and litigation practices can be found within all areas of legal practice. Here, Scalia points directly to litigation and states that it offers no semblance of productivity to society. So let's address that directly. We can easily supplant the example of the prosecutor from above with any of the listed practice areas with litigation components, again, that includes almost all areas of practice. At the most rudimentary level, the job of a prosecutor and most litigators is essentially the same. So if you can buy into the view that prosecutors facilitate critical elements of society (e.g. the penal system), then similarly, all litigators facilitate the adjudication and settlement of some essential component of society found in each area of legal practice--- the injured receive compensation; buyers can buy in full confidence; businesses can raise capital and investors can mitigate risk; etc.
Examining the productivity of transactional lawyers is even easier. Transactional lawyers simply facilitate the exchange of bargains and mitigate risks in each area of legal practice. Let's just keep it that simple. Assuming this is true, the wheels of a productive society would slow if not completely halt if people could neither make proper bargains nor live free from risks. Take for example, primacy of contract.
Scalia's remark is quite awkward and damaging to our profession, and even himself (hello--he is a judge!) The only difference between building a car and being a lawyer is that our airbags are built to resist financial impact.
Article: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/10/01/scalia-we-are-devoting-too-many-of-our-best-minds-to-lawyering/
Monday, September 28, 2009
ABA's Answer to Shoddy Legal Job Market: "Architecture"
As a national association representing the legal profession, the ABA should provide objective views and rationale answers to obvious and known contemporaneous issues in the profession--namely, the job slump. That's really not a hard premise to swallow. Having accepted that statement, I find it deceptive and even unethical for the ABA to assert that "As Traditional Legal Jobs Dry Up, Students Can Mold Unique Careers" (BTW that is actually the name of the article...no I am not joking). Knowing that reporters and writers for journals often desire a certain mood in their writing, I expected this to be sarcasm. But after re-reading the title and completing the 12 line article, I could not have been more wrong, the ABA was SERIOUS.
Read this excerpt from the article --"Meg Reuter, assistant dean for career planning at New York Law School, is among those who see the bright side. 'American law schools now produce more graduates than there are traditional lawyering positions,' Reuter told the National Law Journal. 'There is more opportunity to secure an alternative legal job, which often can be better renumerated.'"--
I wonder if Meg knows that "renumeration" is defined as "compensation for services rendered", and if so, does she know that "alternative legal job" hardly EVER means better pay. Like most recent law grads, whenever I hear the words "alternative" and "job", I see an image of a flame-thrower and my law school diploma. Also, choosing "opportunities" for alternative legal jobs is a decision that many make before coming to law school. Often the decision to take on an alternative legal job in a downward sloping job market is not an opportunity at all, but instead a cost.
As an aside, I noticed that NYLS is not exactly a highly acclaimed law school (T4?), and considering that they exist in perhaps the most highly competitive legal environments in the US (Manhattan, NY) Meg's career planning office must be entirely about alternative legal jobs. Just a thought.
Perhaps the cherry of the entire article is Meg's insightful and highly analytical framework for recent law grads in the job market, QUOTE: --"Said Reuter, 'When you decide what type of lawyer you want to be, you will be more attractive to the employers at the kind of jobs you want.'"-- Type of lawyer? How about an employed lawyer?
Article: http://www.abajournal.com/news/a_traditional_legal_jobs_dry_up_students_can_mold_unique_careers
Read this excerpt from the article --"Meg Reuter, assistant dean for career planning at New York Law School, is among those who see the bright side. 'American law schools now produce more graduates than there are traditional lawyering positions,' Reuter told the National Law Journal. 'There is more opportunity to secure an alternative legal job, which often can be better renumerated.'"--
I wonder if Meg knows that "renumeration" is defined as "compensation for services rendered", and if so, does she know that "alternative legal job" hardly EVER means better pay. Like most recent law grads, whenever I hear the words "alternative" and "job", I see an image of a flame-thrower and my law school diploma. Also, choosing "opportunities" for alternative legal jobs is a decision that many make before coming to law school. Often the decision to take on an alternative legal job in a downward sloping job market is not an opportunity at all, but instead a cost.
As an aside, I noticed that NYLS is not exactly a highly acclaimed law school (T4?), and considering that they exist in perhaps the most highly competitive legal environments in the US (Manhattan, NY) Meg's career planning office must be entirely about alternative legal jobs. Just a thought.
Perhaps the cherry of the entire article is Meg's insightful and highly analytical framework for recent law grads in the job market, QUOTE: --"Said Reuter, 'When you decide what type of lawyer you want to be, you will be more attractive to the employers at the kind of jobs you want.'"-- Type of lawyer? How about an employed lawyer?
Article: http://www.abajournal.com/news/a_traditional_legal_jobs_dry_up_students_can_mold_unique_careers
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Create Your Own Intelligence: Bush-era Techniques Were Super Good.
So apparently the CIA's much criticized interrogation techniques do in fact yield really good information. Of course they do---they produce the intelligence required for Bush's henchmen to walk the beaten path of governance by self-interest and subterfuge (i.e. WD-40, I mean, WMD?).
You see, hindsight is 20-20, and formerly classified CIA reports are golden for this reason. We can get a glimpse of the raw, mostly unedited, pathetic and hypocritical governance that we sometimes call a democratic republic. Absolute control over the dissemination of information (information is really a good euphemism here for intelligence) becomes a ruling party's most powerful weapon against its own people. How else can the public's perspective and the political thought-process be manipulated to conform with self-interested rulers? After all, information brought us the War in Iraq.
Enough sentiments, here's an interesting thought: What IF a thorough psychoanalysis of detainees revealed that our CIA's interrogation techniques are actually counterproductive? A scientific paper published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences details the enhanced techniques our agents use in producing...creating...extrapolating information from detainees.
The conclusion is simple: CIA techniques are damaging to the truth. But who's looking for the truth? It's information we are after, and if we can essentially plant the information we want--it doesn't get much better than that.
Yahoo Article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_cia_interrogation_study
You see, hindsight is 20-20, and formerly classified CIA reports are golden for this reason. We can get a glimpse of the raw, mostly unedited, pathetic and hypocritical governance that we sometimes call a democratic republic. Absolute control over the dissemination of information (information is really a good euphemism here for intelligence) becomes a ruling party's most powerful weapon against its own people. How else can the public's perspective and the political thought-process be manipulated to conform with self-interested rulers? After all, information brought us the War in Iraq.
Enough sentiments, here's an interesting thought: What IF a thorough psychoanalysis of detainees revealed that our CIA's interrogation techniques are actually counterproductive? A scientific paper published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences details the enhanced techniques our agents use in producing...creating...extrapolating information from detainees.
The conclusion is simple: CIA techniques are damaging to the truth. But who's looking for the truth? It's information we are after, and if we can essentially plant the information we want--it doesn't get much better than that.
Yahoo Article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_cia_interrogation_study
Friday, September 4, 2009
Gilbert, AZ Parents "Fear" Exposure to Obama's Message!!!
Parents of Gilbert, AZ public high schoolers fear exposure to Obama's education address will corrupt their children. I couldn't help this blog...I think you know what's coming.
Are you kidding me? The main concern seems to be fear of exposure to partisan politics, because the speech might be perceived as political speech, and it may "coach" students into favoring a particular political flavor.
Let's address the issue directly, and just assume Obama's education reform speech WILL be 100% political. And the problem is...? Exposure to politics and the political process is precisely what the young adult demographic needs. Unfortunately, teens are not exposed to the political process early enough to gain an interest or relate the PROCESS to their lives. As a result, this demographic is slow in developing a taste for politics, and is silent on many issues that directly affect them or will affect them.
Parents that fear their children may form a biased political opinion need to understand what their children in public schools are already being exposed to. Perhaps they would then realize that political speech should be the least of their concern. High school is a social institution, where students develop a taste for an array of social influences. Does politics exist in a vacuum independent of this social institution? Besides, most high schoolers are capable of developing their own interests and opinions on political issues, regardless of the slant being portrayed. But the initial spark must occur during formal education for young adults to comprehend and appreciate the political process. It's a this point in their education that they should gain an appreciation for how this country functions.
Besides, Obama's address is about EDUCATION, maybe that's why it seems so out of place in Arizona (we are one of the lowest ranked states in education). I think parents are afraid kids may learn something from Obama. Just imagine if they heard such a speech one year ago, they would have learned that "nuclear" is pronounced "new-cle-er" and not "nuke-Q-ler" [just listen to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hORaebYWDwk]
So when precisely should young-adults be exposed to politics?? Wait, wait... I know...when they impregnate or become pregnant from their first sexual experience they can wait a few years until they are old enough to vote on abortion issues. At least then political issues will become relevant.
Here's the article. http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2009/09/03/20090903gr-obama0905.html
Here's a sample of what Obama is most likely to say: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/10/Taking-on-Education/
Are you kidding me? The main concern seems to be fear of exposure to partisan politics, because the speech might be perceived as political speech, and it may "coach" students into favoring a particular political flavor.
Let's address the issue directly, and just assume Obama's education reform speech WILL be 100% political. And the problem is...? Exposure to politics and the political process is precisely what the young adult demographic needs. Unfortunately, teens are not exposed to the political process early enough to gain an interest or relate the PROCESS to their lives. As a result, this demographic is slow in developing a taste for politics, and is silent on many issues that directly affect them or will affect them.
Parents that fear their children may form a biased political opinion need to understand what their children in public schools are already being exposed to. Perhaps they would then realize that political speech should be the least of their concern. High school is a social institution, where students develop a taste for an array of social influences. Does politics exist in a vacuum independent of this social institution? Besides, most high schoolers are capable of developing their own interests and opinions on political issues, regardless of the slant being portrayed. But the initial spark must occur during formal education for young adults to comprehend and appreciate the political process. It's a this point in their education that they should gain an appreciation for how this country functions.
Besides, Obama's address is about EDUCATION, maybe that's why it seems so out of place in Arizona (we are one of the lowest ranked states in education). I think parents are afraid kids may learn something from Obama. Just imagine if they heard such a speech one year ago, they would have learned that "nuclear" is pronounced "new-cle-er" and not "nuke-Q-ler" [just listen to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hORaebYWDwk]
So when precisely should young-adults be exposed to politics?? Wait, wait... I know...when they impregnate or become pregnant from their first sexual experience they can wait a few years until they are old enough to vote on abortion issues. At least then political issues will become relevant.
Here's the article. http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2009/09/03/20090903gr-obama0905.html
Here's a sample of what Obama is most likely to say: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/10/Taking-on-Education/
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Advising Start-Ups, and Creating Opportunities
Start-ups have a lot on their plate. Troubleshooting each and every issue, from technical to market feasibility to legal, presents an issue too profound to address alone. It's no wonder that nearly 90% fail in their first year of existence, and nearly 75-80% fail in year 2 or 3.
The Technology Ventures Services Group is one of the only academic and practical providers of business, legal, and technical consulting, all under one roof that's not going to cost clients FAT coin (sometime is FREE!).
You can read more about what the TVSG does and how you can get involved here.
The link is also a shameless plug about my experiences and accomplishments with the TVSG. Yes, that's my pic in the link. Just read it.
http://www.law.asu.edu/?id=1938
The Technology Ventures Services Group is one of the only academic and practical providers of business, legal, and technical consulting, all under one roof that's not going to cost clients FAT coin (sometime is FREE!).
You can read more about what the TVSG does and how you can get involved here.
The link is also a shameless plug about my experiences and accomplishments with the TVSG. Yes, that's my pic in the link. Just read it.
http://www.law.asu.edu/?id=1938
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The "Clear and Convincing" Fraud by Lawyers
High-dollar law suits magnetize the devil in some lawyers. I suppose the $39 billion plaintiffs sought from Dole was no exception. US lawyers, mostly from Texas and California flocked to Nicaragua to recruit injured plaintiffs, associate with local lawyers, and setup in-house sperm labs. Seriously, in-house sperm labs.
The claims centered around Dole's use of the pesticide DBCP and the sterility it may have caused to thousands of banana crop workers. Although many, of the claims were legitimate, outright fraud undermined many of the plaintiff's claims. What kind of fraud? Well, ask Juan J. Dominguez, a personal-injury lawyer from now under criminal investigation for his actions. He paid "captains" to find plaintiffs, setup a sterility lab in his law office, and was even awarded damages for people that were later determined to have never been employed at the plantation. A recent Superior Court of California case dismissed a series of DBCP claims based on clear and convincing evidence of fraud by plaintiffs and their lawyers.
Because lawyers jeopardized the integrity of so many claims, many legitimate claims were dismissed. Sterile workers could have had some recovery but for greedy lawyers. What happened to the Professional Code of Conduct that these lawyers swear to? Lawyers are constantly confronted with ethical dilemmas, which is why the bar in each state has a separate set of rules regulating the practice of law. Prohibitions on soliciting clients, collecting fees for referrals, frivolous law suits, tampering with evidence, etc. etc. are all specifically addressed.
But the professional code is nothing for some lawyers who will do anything to collect a hefty fee. Unfortunately, such events taint the integrity of our profession. The impact such impropriety has on the public's perspective of our profession is devastating. Would all lawyers behave in this manner if given the chance? Is fraud in litigation the way cases of this magnitude are won? Do lawyers represent causes, or their own financial interests? The Dole DBCP fraud cases make these questions hard to answer.
To the legal professional, these conflicts are an inherent part of providing legal services--similar to those conflicts that arise in other professions. To the lay person, this IS the profession.
Read the article in WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125061508138340501.html
Case opinion: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-Dole_Chaney_ruling.pdf
The claims centered around Dole's use of the pesticide DBCP and the sterility it may have caused to thousands of banana crop workers. Although many, of the claims were legitimate, outright fraud undermined many of the plaintiff's claims. What kind of fraud? Well, ask Juan J. Dominguez, a personal-injury lawyer from now under criminal investigation for his actions. He paid "captains" to find plaintiffs, setup a sterility lab in his law office, and was even awarded damages for people that were later determined to have never been employed at the plantation. A recent Superior Court of California case dismissed a series of DBCP claims based on clear and convincing evidence of fraud by plaintiffs and their lawyers.
Because lawyers jeopardized the integrity of so many claims, many legitimate claims were dismissed. Sterile workers could have had some recovery but for greedy lawyers. What happened to the Professional Code of Conduct that these lawyers swear to? Lawyers are constantly confronted with ethical dilemmas, which is why the bar in each state has a separate set of rules regulating the practice of law. Prohibitions on soliciting clients, collecting fees for referrals, frivolous law suits, tampering with evidence, etc. etc. are all specifically addressed.
But the professional code is nothing for some lawyers who will do anything to collect a hefty fee. Unfortunately, such events taint the integrity of our profession. The impact such impropriety has on the public's perspective of our profession is devastating. Would all lawyers behave in this manner if given the chance? Is fraud in litigation the way cases of this magnitude are won? Do lawyers represent causes, or their own financial interests? The Dole DBCP fraud cases make these questions hard to answer.
To the legal professional, these conflicts are an inherent part of providing legal services--similar to those conflicts that arise in other professions. To the lay person, this IS the profession.
Read the article in WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125061508138340501.html
Case opinion: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-Dole_Chaney_ruling.pdf
Friday, May 22, 2009
So Sue Me for Blogging (?)
It's nothing new: what you say can hurt you. But it seems that the prevalence of social media is sparking more litigation now than ever. According to a recent WSJ article, there were 106 civil lawsuits against blog-type users, resulting in $17.5 M in damages against them. Social media makes being sued almost too easy. Think about the most obvious legal feet you can trip over: copyright infringement, trademark infringement, defamation, and libel. Posting someone else's videos on YouTube, uploading copied pics on Facebook, making rash comments on Twitter, these online activities have become ubiquitous.
What most social media participants tend to neglect are the very thin protections (if any) they have. If you post a video or image that's infringing, at least you may be afforded an opportunity to take it down before a suit or injunction occurs. But, making comments that you would only otherwise make on a bathroom stall which can now be made on a public forum reaching thousands in an instance can be dangerous stuff. It's pretty hard to unring a bell, don't you think?
What most social media participants tend to neglect are the very thin protections (if any) they have. If you post a video or image that's infringing, at least you may be afforded an opportunity to take it down before a suit or injunction occurs. But, making comments that you would only otherwise make on a bathroom stall which can now be made on a public forum reaching thousands in an instance can be dangerous stuff. It's pretty hard to unring a bell, don't you think?
Saturday, May 16, 2009
ASU's OBAMA Commencement
Here's a highlight of our commencement with the President Obama:
You can read a transcript of his quite captivating commencement speech here:
http://www.asuchallenges.com/commencement2009/obama.asp
Commencement 2009 from ASUF Admin on Vimeo.
You can read a transcript of his quite captivating commencement speech here:
http://www.asuchallenges.com/commencement2009/obama.asp
Who Regulates the Regulators?
"The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation."
That's a direct quote from the SEC's "How the SEC protects Investors" webpage. Arguably, the single most important element for sustaining this mission is fairness. How does the SEC sustain fairness? By maintaining market efficiency and transparency through public-disclosure. The dissemination of market information is critical to fair dealing and fraud protection in any market. But it's of particular importance in the securities market because this information is often the sole factor for the public to rely upon. For example, I can't exactly call up management at Google, AIG, Citibank, or GM and say "hey guys, so tell me, is there anything that could go wrong this quarter or any long-term debt obligations you guys wanna tell me about? I got about a mil riding on you?" The SEC mandated Form 10-K easily disposes of such matters, allowing investors a fair chance to invest w/o blind reliance. Undisclosed risks would pollute the essential risk-return relationship trading markets are known for.
Ask yourself, if there are measures in place to check disclosure, protect investors, maintain fairness, and efficiency, why does the public get dooped so frequently??? Is it the analysts? Let's not forget, Enron was mysteriously rated as a top pick by analysts across the board only weeks prior to their earnings recalculation announcement, when their shares fell from $90 to .50 cents. When do the turds actually start hitting the fan?
Let me sprinkle some more pepper on this well done issue: Today's WSJ reports "Insider Trading Probe at SEC". Ok so a few guys that were supposed to be our watchdogs ate the steak. What's that got to do with you and me. How about regulators using information for personal profit, not public protection. Even worse, how about the public relying on a false sense of protection? Partial protection is like having breaks that work once in while-- would you feel comfortable doing 65 mph knowing you could "sometimes" rely on your breaks?
Quote from WSJ: The SEC has "'essentially no compliance system' to detect potential insider trading. It said the agency didn't conduct spot checks on trading and the various offices that received trading reports didn't share information."
Additionally: "Any trades employees make have to be reported to the agency's director of personnel within five business days. The report said the SEC doesn't have someone in that position but that there is an associate executive director in Human Resources. It said several SEC employees were unfamiliar with the rules or misunderstood them."
My point is this: How can we rely on financial policing by persons who act in self-interest and don't even have the means to protect us? That's not to say the SEC is to blame for every financial fallout, but then again...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124241028545124563.html#mod=testMod
That's a direct quote from the SEC's "How the SEC protects Investors" webpage. Arguably, the single most important element for sustaining this mission is fairness. How does the SEC sustain fairness? By maintaining market efficiency and transparency through public-disclosure. The dissemination of market information is critical to fair dealing and fraud protection in any market. But it's of particular importance in the securities market because this information is often the sole factor for the public to rely upon. For example, I can't exactly call up management at Google, AIG, Citibank, or GM and say "hey guys, so tell me, is there anything that could go wrong this quarter or any long-term debt obligations you guys wanna tell me about? I got about a mil riding on you?" The SEC mandated Form 10-K easily disposes of such matters, allowing investors a fair chance to invest w/o blind reliance. Undisclosed risks would pollute the essential risk-return relationship trading markets are known for.
Ask yourself, if there are measures in place to check disclosure, protect investors, maintain fairness, and efficiency, why does the public get dooped so frequently??? Is it the analysts? Let's not forget, Enron was mysteriously rated as a top pick by analysts across the board only weeks prior to their earnings recalculation announcement, when their shares fell from $90 to .50 cents. When do the turds actually start hitting the fan?
Let me sprinkle some more pepper on this well done issue: Today's WSJ reports "Insider Trading Probe at SEC". Ok so a few guys that were supposed to be our watchdogs ate the steak. What's that got to do with you and me. How about regulators using information for personal profit, not public protection. Even worse, how about the public relying on a false sense of protection? Partial protection is like having breaks that work once in while-- would you feel comfortable doing 65 mph knowing you could "sometimes" rely on your breaks?
Quote from WSJ: The SEC has "'essentially no compliance system' to detect potential insider trading. It said the agency didn't conduct spot checks on trading and the various offices that received trading reports didn't share information."
Additionally: "Any trades employees make have to be reported to the agency's director of personnel within five business days. The report said the SEC doesn't have someone in that position but that there is an associate executive director in Human Resources. It said several SEC employees were unfamiliar with the rules or misunderstood them."
My point is this: How can we rely on financial policing by persons who act in self-interest and don't even have the means to protect us? That's not to say the SEC is to blame for every financial fallout, but then again...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124241028545124563.html#mod=testMod
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)