The Securities and Exchange Commission along with frustrated and defrauded shareholders of Bank Of America (past and present) await a Federal Court's ruling on a $150 million consent judgment stemming from an investigation of B of A's multi-billion dollar losses and bonuses cover-up. The single issue being litigated: concealment. That's right. Despite heavy handed SEC regulations and the plethora of alleged "safeguards" in place, the B of A's of the financial world somehow forget to disclose material information to shareholders. What's material? How about $15 billion in losses. Marginal. Right?
But you see, one must understand the sophisticated circuitry of a publicly traded company's financial smokescreen (e.g. magic - now you see it, now you don't).
If B of A didn't:
1. hide $15 billion in losses,
2. fire their former general counsel Timothy Mayopoulos for advising against the Merrill merger,
3. hide 7-figure bonus checks, and
4. ask, beg, and steal for $20 billion palm-grease in bailout funds in January 2009 to mitigate losses from the Merrill transaction...
...how could they have possibly successfully dooped shareholders into voting for the merger??
You see, the smokescreen was all necessary, because $50 billion is a lot of money to pay for a failing publicly traded investment bank, never mind paying $50 Bils for the additional 1 -4 above. After all, that's $50 Billion in OUR money that subsidized a FAILED merger. :)
So what's the remedy? Independent disclosure counsel? Independent compensation counsel? I thought Sarbanes Oxley took care of that? I thought it already costs $3-5 million to setup compliance measures, and several million a year after that to maintain safeguards.
But I suppose justice will be served --B of A may actually have to pay [drum roll] $150 million to shareholders and the big bad SEC. This is a beautiful microcosm of a much larger grand deception. Now, who's in for some insider trading? Anybody?
SEC Complaint filed against Bank of America Corp.: http://www.nylj.com/nylawyer/adgifs/decisions/011310sec_complaint2.pdf
NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's Complaint filed against Bank of America for Concealment: http://www.nylj.com/nylawyer/adgifs/decisions/020510complaint.pdf
Friday, February 19, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Cold-Blooded Killer Defends a Fetus?
Scott Roeder from Wichita, Kansas, walks into a church and shoots an abortion doctor, Dr. George Tiller, in the head, killing him. His defense: protecting the unborn; or as he proffers, "Defense of Others". Defense of Others is a principle within criminal statutes that allows a person to justifiably use force upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justify deadly force.
Defense of Others generally allows one to use that amount of force which one sincerely and reasonably believes is necessary to help another in danger. However, Kansas's Defense of Others Statute parallels Self-Defense principles. This means that under Kansas law, even if you acted wrongfully in defending the other, your belief that force was required must have been reasonable. Reasonbleness is determined by the facts surrounding the situation.
Ex: If Bob pulled the trigger on Barney the purple dinosaur and raised the defense of another flag, Bob better have reasonably believed that Barney had his finger on the trigger of a loaded glock with the safety off, pointed directly at the head of his dancing child co-star. Death of another was imminent, therefore, using deadly force to defend another was justifiable. But in reality, Bob had no idea that on this episode of Barney and Friends, Barney was taking his clan to Scottsdale Gun Club for practice shooting, and was actually just demonstrating proper shooting form. But as long as Bob can convince the jury that his belief of imminent death upon the child co-star seemed reasonable, Bob may be able to dodge a 1st Degree Murder conviction and receive Voluntary Manslaughter(this is significantly simplified).
Scott Roeder killed Dr. George Tiller and is on trial on charges of 1st Degree Murder. Looking at Mr. Abortion Doctor Killer's (a.k.a. Scott Roeder's) defense, one would posit, that an abortion doctor in church is not a serious imminent threat justifying a shot in the head. But I don't know...maybe after the sermon this church had some interesting worship rituals, who knows. But on the facts, no serious imminent threat was present. However, Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert is going to allow the defense to present evidence of Defense of Others, i.e., that Scott had the unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed justifying deadly force against Dr. Tiller because Dr. Tiller imminently going to kill another. In quite technical terms, that's wack! There are serious issues there.
In Scott's trial, this creates an opportunity for jurors to find him guilty of voluntary manslaughter instead of 1st Degree Murder. This could be the difference between 5 years in prison and a mandatory life sentence. That's huge. Not to mention the high profile abortion issue.
Under Kansas law, and in many states, 1st Degree Murder is the intentional and premeditated killing of another human being (yes dogs are excluded). Whereas, voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing without premeditation, under circumstances of adequate provocation or other circumstances justifying deadly force. For example, a circumstance where a husband walks in on his wife "co-mingling" with the UPS man, upon which husband smashes a ceramic bedroom lamp on UPS man's head killing him instantly.
So was Scott Roeder's killing intentional and premeditated, or was it reasonably justified by provocation or some other justification?
Scott Roeder vigorously opposed Dr. Tiller's abortions for quite some time. Perhaps his subscription to "Prayer and Action News" magazine which advocates
"justifiable homicide" may say otherwise(?) Or better yet, Scott's participation in the Operation Rescue website, featuring "Tiller Watch". Hmmmm, clearly he never premeditated this one, right?
Would a reasonable person believe this was a premeditated abortion-doctor killing, or that Dr. Tiller was about to kill an innocent fetus and Scott had no choice but to take him out because he was an imminent threat to "another". Maybe there's some case law out there saying that a fetus qualifies as "another", and that attending church is an imminent threat justifying death.
The irony in all of this: Scott's get-away car was sporting a "Jesus fish".
Let's hope Kansas's judicial system comes out with the right result.
[THIS IS NOT A PERSPECTIVE ON ABORTION, BUT RATHER, A PERSPECTIVE ON THE KANSAS CRIMINAL COURTS AND THE TRIAL OF SCOTT ROEDER.]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126299947435522493.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5#articleTabs%3Darticle
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1899143,00.html
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1673642.html
Defense of Others generally allows one to use that amount of force which one sincerely and reasonably believes is necessary to help another in danger. However, Kansas's Defense of Others Statute parallels Self-Defense principles. This means that under Kansas law, even if you acted wrongfully in defending the other, your belief that force was required must have been reasonable. Reasonbleness is determined by the facts surrounding the situation.
Ex: If Bob pulled the trigger on Barney the purple dinosaur and raised the defense of another flag, Bob better have reasonably believed that Barney had his finger on the trigger of a loaded glock with the safety off, pointed directly at the head of his dancing child co-star. Death of another was imminent, therefore, using deadly force to defend another was justifiable. But in reality, Bob had no idea that on this episode of Barney and Friends, Barney was taking his clan to Scottsdale Gun Club for practice shooting, and was actually just demonstrating proper shooting form. But as long as Bob can convince the jury that his belief of imminent death upon the child co-star seemed reasonable, Bob may be able to dodge a 1st Degree Murder conviction and receive Voluntary Manslaughter(this is significantly simplified).
Scott Roeder killed Dr. George Tiller and is on trial on charges of 1st Degree Murder. Looking at Mr. Abortion Doctor Killer's (a.k.a. Scott Roeder's) defense, one would posit, that an abortion doctor in church is not a serious imminent threat justifying a shot in the head. But I don't know...maybe after the sermon this church had some interesting worship rituals, who knows. But on the facts, no serious imminent threat was present. However, Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert is going to allow the defense to present evidence of Defense of Others, i.e., that Scott had the unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed justifying deadly force against Dr. Tiller because Dr. Tiller imminently going to kill another. In quite technical terms, that's wack! There are serious issues there.
In Scott's trial, this creates an opportunity for jurors to find him guilty of voluntary manslaughter instead of 1st Degree Murder. This could be the difference between 5 years in prison and a mandatory life sentence. That's huge. Not to mention the high profile abortion issue.
Under Kansas law, and in many states, 1st Degree Murder is the intentional and premeditated killing of another human being (yes dogs are excluded). Whereas, voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing without premeditation, under circumstances of adequate provocation or other circumstances justifying deadly force. For example, a circumstance where a husband walks in on his wife "co-mingling" with the UPS man, upon which husband smashes a ceramic bedroom lamp on UPS man's head killing him instantly.
So was Scott Roeder's killing intentional and premeditated, or was it reasonably justified by provocation or some other justification?
Scott Roeder vigorously opposed Dr. Tiller's abortions for quite some time. Perhaps his subscription to "Prayer and Action News" magazine which advocates
"justifiable homicide" may say otherwise(?) Or better yet, Scott's participation in the Operation Rescue website, featuring "Tiller Watch". Hmmmm, clearly he never premeditated this one, right?
Would a reasonable person believe this was a premeditated abortion-doctor killing, or that Dr. Tiller was about to kill an innocent fetus and Scott had no choice but to take him out because he was an imminent threat to "another". Maybe there's some case law out there saying that a fetus qualifies as "another", and that attending church is an imminent threat justifying death.
The irony in all of this: Scott's get-away car was sporting a "Jesus fish".
Let's hope Kansas's judicial system comes out with the right result.
[THIS IS NOT A PERSPECTIVE ON ABORTION, BUT RATHER, A PERSPECTIVE ON THE KANSAS CRIMINAL COURTS AND THE TRIAL OF SCOTT ROEDER.]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126299947435522493.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5#articleTabs%3Darticle
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1899143,00.html
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1673642.html
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Cultural Insensitivity At Its Finest
A person that comprehends and respects another's culture, is a person that will gain the respect and understanding from the other. It's that simple. But this discussion warrants additional context. Showing such respect is particularly important when you are the leader of a country, namely, the President of the U.S.A. Additionally, cultural awareness is particularly important when you are the President of a country that is internationally notorious for being uncultured. How about this war we are in? And not to belabor the point, but we are also under a new era of presidency; a presidency that is charged with undoing many international blunders of a forsaken previous hegemony; a country that is viewed internationally as hypocritical for its treatment of detainees, ego-centric, and quickly losing ground as a super-power.
Given the context, it is not only reasonable, but applaudable for our President to show respect and understanding to another global leader. Cultural affinity and sophistication are two good reasons why President Barak Obama chose to bow to the Japanese Emperor Akihito. Yet, to the world's dismay and unsurprisingly so, certain neo-conservtatives could not stomach such tolerance to an important American ally. So they had to ruin it by vomiting their vile political pus all over it.
Let's take, for example, comments from an obviously intelligent neo-con, Mr. William Kristol, a leader and founder of many neo-con think-tanks. As a frequent commentator on radioactive Fox News, he stated on air: "I don't know why President Obama thought that was appropriate. Maybe he thought it would play well in Japan. But it's not appropriate for an American president to bow to a foreign one."
There you have it--Plain and simple. Obama didn't bow in prostration or put brown, er, more brown on his nose. He bowed out of respect and affinity. A gesture so common and expected in most Asian cultures that even martial arts opponents bow to each other just prior to beating the other into submission. And who else to speak such ignorance than Mr. Kristol, a leader of the neo-con political movement.
Let's review some of his more intelligent and memorable epitaphs:
1. "There is no health care crisis."
2. A war in Iraq "could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East."
3. Saddam was "past the finish line" in developing nuclear weapons. "He's got weapons of mass destruction." [anecdote - there were no WMD].
Think-tank? I can't square this dichotomy...it requires thinking, doesn't it?? I suppose in their minds, our President shouldn't be bowing. He should be turned around and bending over.
Here are 2 Yahoo articles on this discussion:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091116/pl_afp/japanusdiplomacyasiaobama
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091120/pl_afp/usjapandiplomacyroyalscustoms_20091120005649
Given the context, it is not only reasonable, but applaudable for our President to show respect and understanding to another global leader. Cultural affinity and sophistication are two good reasons why President Barak Obama chose to bow to the Japanese Emperor Akihito. Yet, to the world's dismay and unsurprisingly so, certain neo-conservtatives could not stomach such tolerance to an important American ally. So they had to ruin it by vomiting their vile political pus all over it.
Let's take, for example, comments from an obviously intelligent neo-con, Mr. William Kristol, a leader and founder of many neo-con think-tanks. As a frequent commentator on radioactive Fox News, he stated on air: "I don't know why President Obama thought that was appropriate. Maybe he thought it would play well in Japan. But it's not appropriate for an American president to bow to a foreign one."
There you have it--Plain and simple. Obama didn't bow in prostration or put brown, er, more brown on his nose. He bowed out of respect and affinity. A gesture so common and expected in most Asian cultures that even martial arts opponents bow to each other just prior to beating the other into submission. And who else to speak such ignorance than Mr. Kristol, a leader of the neo-con political movement.
Let's review some of his more intelligent and memorable epitaphs:
1. "There is no health care crisis."
2. A war in Iraq "could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East."
3. Saddam was "past the finish line" in developing nuclear weapons. "He's got weapons of mass destruction." [anecdote - there were no WMD].
Think-tank? I can't square this dichotomy...it requires thinking, doesn't it?? I suppose in their minds, our President shouldn't be bowing. He should be turned around and bending over.
Here are 2 Yahoo articles on this discussion:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091116/pl_afp/japanusdiplomacyasiaobama
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091120/pl_afp/usjapandiplomacyroyalscustoms_20091120005649
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Objective Reporting via Editorials, the New Source of News
Here's is a sample I pulled, and as Levar Burton would say “but you don’t have to take my word for it…” [-ta dan tun-] The objective reports will be obvious, compared to the articles laden with obvious political, religious, and social distortions. Keep in mind the primary goal for news reporting (should be) is to inform, not to convince. BTW, this only takes a few minutes, yet drives home an important principle: the need for objective reporting. TIP: depending on your browser, you may be able to right click each link and select "open in new tab". This will make panning between articles for comparison much easier.
Sample reports:
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/06/nidal-malik-hasan-fort-hood-shooting1
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110601978.html
6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8347501.stm
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Legal Secretary Req's: "...required to perform sexually for us."
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)