Slice of Life

David Wins!

Rock Art Brewery Wins Trade Mark Dispute

Score one for the little guy.

No Idea

102.  Ordinarily, failure to perform a contractual obligation by the time specified in the contract is a nonmaterial breach of the agreement; that is, it permits the aggrieved party to recover damages caused by the breach, but is not so serious (material or total) that the aggrieved party is excued from performing, and that party may not properly regard the contract as terminated.  So long as the "late" party tenders performance within a reasonable time, the breach is cured, and if the aggrieved party refused to perform, the "late" party may obtain specific performance.  This situation is reversed if "time is of the essence."  Where time is of the essence of the contract, late performance is a total breach, and the aggrieved party is excused from performance.  Time is of the essence of the contract when the agreement explicity so states.  Merely establishing a date for performance is not sufficient to make time of the essence; there must be some additional language (such as "time is of the essence" or "this agreement null and void if performance not tendered upon the date specified," etc.) indicating that timely performance will be critical.

103.  Generally, the seller in a land sale transaction need not actually possess marketable title until the time for closing, when he is called upon to convey the property to the buyer.  Thus, a defect in title existing at the time of formation but which is discovered afterward and which the seller has a reasonable chance of remedying does not give the buyer any cause for rescission prior to the date set for closing.  However, there is a modern trend to grant the purchaser a right of immediate rescission if it appears unlikely that the seller will be able to cure her title problems.

104.  Modernly, the bases upon which a defendant may argue with some hope of succeess that his intentional killing was without malice because of factors in mitigation are generally (1) adequate provocation - "heat of passion," and (2) "imperfect" defenses, i.e., where the defendant has acted honestly but unreasonably under circumstances that, had he been acting reasonably, would have provided a complete defense to any criminal homicide charge (e.g., honest but unreasonable belief that deadly force must be used in self-defense).  The Model Penal Code test for legal insanity provides that a homicide is exused if, at the time of committing it, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality (or wrongfulness) of his conduct, or conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

105.  Even where there is no actual threat of deadly force against a defendant, if there reasonably appears to be such a threat, and the defendant honestly believes that he must defend himself with deadly force, a resulting homicide is justified, and there is no crime.

106.  The best defense to a cause of action in nuisance is to show that it is not a nuisance.  If only 1 person in 1,000 is affected by the vapor, the plant is not interfering with a right of the public at large.

107.  A minor can affirm his contract for the full amount or a lesser sum.

108.  The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause protects against arbitrary and irrational federal government action.   The courts are very deferntial to Congress where there is any possible relation between the law and the national economy.

109.  When a fundamental right is infringed, the government has the burden of proof to show that the infringement is necessary to advance a compelling government interest.  The Supreme Court has recognized that thereis a fundamental right to live with the members of your own family.

110.  Government regulations that discriminate against the content of speech must be necessary to advance a compelling government interest.

111.  For impeachment purposes, the FRE permit evidence of the conviction of any felony (or any misdemeanor which discredits honesty or veracity).  Thus, only if the prior conviction for vehicular manslaughter was a felony, would it be admissible since this offense does not per se discredity honesty.  Also, a witness cannot be impeached before testifying.  Finally, past crimes may be used to show anything except disposition to commit a present crime or wrong, thus the evidence could not be used to show propensity for drunkenness.

112.  Federal Rule 806 allos the impeachment of a hearsay declarant.  Mmmkay.

113.  Underthe Federal Rules of Evidence there are no specific privilege provisions.  F.R.E. 501 provides that the privilege of a witness shall be governed by the principles of common law as they may be interpreted by the courts.  Under the common law, the client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent other persons from disclosing any confidential communications between herself and her attorney.  Communications in the course of preliminary discussion with a view to employing the lawyer are privileged even though the employment is in the long run not accepted by the attorney.

114.  The "shelter rule" provides that any successor in interest to a person protected by teh recording act is similarly protected.

115.  A donee grantee of property is not protected by the recording act, which operates in favor only of subsequent purchasers.  In absence of the recording act, title to the property is determined by the common law, which holds, "first in time, first in right."

116.  The recording act does not protect a donee of property.  There's an echo in here.

117.  Arson is the burning of the dwelling house of another with malice.  Any slight burning-type damage to teh structure is sufficient to constitute arson, but mere blackening by smoke or discoloration by heat is not "burning" for arson purposes.

118.  At common law, burglary was defined as the trespassor breaking and entering of the dwelling of another, during the nighttime, with the intent to commit a felony therein.  Again at common law, "breaking" meant that the defendant created a breach or opening; if the defendant merely took advantage of an opening left by the occupants, such as an unlocked, ajar door or window, there was no "breaking."

119.  To recover for defamation, a public figure must demonstrate that a media defendant published a statement with knowledge of its falisty or reckless disregard for its truth or falsity.

120.  A unilateral offer is accepted by performance, not a promise to return.

121.  A pre-existing duty renders a subsequent promise legal superfluous.

122.  No idea.

123.  In almost all jurisdictions, a third party beneficiary's rights under the contract do not vest until he either learns of the contract, changes his position in reliance, or brings suit to enforce it.

124.  When a government enacts an affirmative action program designed to assist women, racial minorities, aliens, or any other suspect or quasi-suspect class, the best argument to support that program is evidence that the employer involved has engaged in past intentional discrimination against the program beneficiaries.

125.  State and local governments may discriminate against aliens when deciding who may exercise rights involving the democratic process and discretionary public policy.  As a general rule, state or local government regulations which intentionally discriminate against aliens will be struck down unless necessary to advance a compelling government interest.  However, when the government discrimination against aliens involves the right to participate in the processes of government (voting, holding elective office, etc.) or to hold positions where broad public policy was executed or formulated (police officers, elementary and secondary public school teachers, probation officers, etc.) then the discrimination against aliens will be allowed because it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

126.  A law that applies to named individuals or an easily ascertainable group in a manner that inflicts a punishment without a judicial trial is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

Murder was the Case that They Gave Me

76.  When an out-of-court statement is offered to show its effect on the person who hears (or reads) that statement, the statement (assuming it is offered for a relevant purpose) will be admissible because it is not hearsay.

77.  Statements of party opponents are admissions and are treated as nonhearsay under FRE 801(d).  A statement of physical or mental condition under FRE 803(3) made to non-physicians must relate to an existing emotional, physical or mental condition.

78.  Although the two parties to a contract ostensibly give the requisite mutual assent, where the assent of one party is arrived at by a misrepresentation as to a material term by the other pary, the contract will not be enforced.

79.  A minor may avoid his contractual obligation by taking the appropriate steps to disaffirm the contract.  The minor may avoid the effects of the contract by setting up his minority as a defense in the action brought by the adult.  The fact that the contract is executory simplifies the matter of avoidance, but even a contract that has been partially performed (such as where the minor has received goods in the course of the transaction) may be disaffirmed, although the minor then may be ordered to return anything that remains of what he received.

80.  Where the parties to a written contract intend that writing to be the final and complete expression of their agreement, it is said to be an "integrated" contract.  The effect of integration is that the parol evidence rule will bar the admission of evidence of any contemporaneous or earlier agreements between the parties that vary or contradict the terms in the writing.  Where there was an error in transcribing the terms of the agreement, the court will hear parol evidence as to the actual agreement and will reform the writing to accurately reflect that agreement and enforce it accordingly.

81.  The general rule is that a unilateral mistake will not justify rescission of the contract, but rescission may be available where the non-mistaken party knew or reasonably should have known of the mistake and took advantage of teh aggrieved party's error.

82.  The Supremacy Clause prohibits the state or local governments from directly regulating or taxing the federal government without the federal government's consent.

83.  Any state or local law which is in direct conflict with a valid federal law will be struck down as a violation of the Supremacy Clause.

84.  The competency of a child-witness is measured at the time of the occurrence or event which he is called to testify about, and not at time of trial.  There is no rule which excludes a child of any specified age from testifying but in each case the test is whether the witness has intelligence enough to perceive and recollect, and whether he is old enough to understand the duty to tell the truth.

85.  Under FRE 411, evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible on the issue of whether he acted negligently or with fault.  However, the rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance when offered for another purpose, such as proof of ownership or control of the vehicle.  Look for a stipulation of ownership of the vehicle.

86.  An existing violation of zoning ordinances is treated as rendering title to the affected property unmarketable.  A change in zoning which occurs during the period after formation of the contract of sale but before escrow closing does not affect marketability of title, but may involve frustratino of purpose.  Every contract for the sale of real property contains an implied covenant that marketable title will be conveyed (absent a contractual provision to the contrary).

87.  In order for a provocation to be sufficient to mitigage an intentional killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter, it must be objectively reasonable, that is, it must be such as would cause a reasonable person to lose normal self-control and engage in homicidal behavior.  Modernly, there is a trend towards giving consideration in the reasonable provocation analysis to any particular circumstances surrounding the defendant which might fairly affect how a reasonable person would behave.  The defendant's individual moral idiosyncrasies, and such voluntarily-induced handicaps such as intoxication, are still ignored in determine the mitigating effect of the victim's conduct.

88.  A homicide is justified as self-defense if the victim engages in a wrongful, deadly attack and the defendant's use of deadly force is necessary to ward off that attack.  Even where there is no actual threat of deadly force against a defendant, if there reasonably appears to be such a threat, and the defendant honestly believes that he must defend himself with deadly force, a resulting homicide is justified, and there is no crime.  As Snoop Dogg once said, "Murder was the case that they gave me."

89.  In the majority of jurisdictions, the measure of damages for misrepresentation is measured by the benefit of the bargain theory.  Damages measured by the difference between the value of the property being purchased if its condition was as represented and its value with defects.  Watch out for fair market value versus what buyer paid.

90.  The seller of property is liable for personal injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the land at the time of transfer if he is aware of the conditions and fails to disclose them.  If the seller fails to disclose the condition, he remains liable until the buyer has a reasonable period of time to discover and repair the defects.  However, if the seller actively conceals the condition, he remains liable until the buyer actually discovers the condition and has a reasonable period of time to repair it.  In other words, if the seller actively conceals the condition, he bears the risk that the buyer may negligently fail to discover the defect.

91.  Although courts are sometimes reluctant to grant relief for unilateral mistakes, relief is almost always granted when the other party is aware of the mistake.

92.  UCC 2-209 makes enforceable a modification requested in good faith.

93.  UCC 2-609 permits a party to suspend performance when there are reasonable grounds for insecurity and to withhold performance pending receipt of assurances of perofrmance by the other party.

94.  A guaranty promise need not be in writing when the promisor makes it "mainly for his own economic advantage."  This is the "main purpose" exception to the Statute of Frauds.

95.  A promise not supported by bargained for exchange is not enforceable.

96.  A state or local regtulation may not discriminate or unduly burden interstate commerce.

97.  A state or local regulation is valid if it is rationally related to the health, safety and general welfare of its residents and does not violate any rights secured by the Constitution.

98.  The right to procedural due process cannot be asserted against a private actor.  Even if private actor licensed by city or state, not enough.

99.  FRE 403 allows the judge to exclue, in her discretion, otherwise relevant evidence if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of 1) unfair prejudice, 2) confusion of the issue, 3) misleading the jury, 4) undue delay, or 5) needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

100.  Investigation of bias is always permissible on cross examination, and the witness' relationship to the defendant would tend to prove bias.

101.  A criminal defendant may introduce evidence of his character that is inconsistent with the charged offense, thus placing his character at issue.

Banging the Mailman

26.  Where, following an assignment, the involved parties (especially the original party not involved in the assignment) agree that the assignee shall be substituted in the original contract for the assignor, a novation, or new agreement, has been formed.

27.  U.S. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is divided into two categories:  (1) cases from a Federal Court of Appeals which have been certified by that court for Supreme Court review; and (2) all other cases from the Court of Appeals or the highest court of any State which are brought to the Supreme Court through a request for certiorari.

28.  Evidence of other crimes may be introduced to show just about anything but predisposition to commit the present crime or wrong.  A defendant in a criminal case may introduce evidence of a victim's bad character to prove probable conduct (i.e., victim's violent character to show defendant acted in self-defense).  Under the Federal Rules, a record of a prior felony conviction is admissible, unless based on a plea of nolo contendre.

29.  Evidence of past crimes are admissible to show a common scheme or plan.  MIMIC rule:  motive intent, mistake, identity, common scheme or plan.  Past crimes may not be introduced to show a predisposition to commit the present crime.

30.  Character evidence is generally limited to opinion and reputation evidence; the Federal Rules only allow specific acts on cross-examination.

31.  Acquisition of title to real property via adverse possession is not a "conveyance" within the operation of the recording act, and thus that act does not benefit a subsequent (to the perfection of adverse possession) purchaser of the same property.

32.  Every possessory interest in land is bound by an equitable covenant burdening that land.  No fucking idea what they're talking about.

33.  Where a defendant intends to kill (a positive component element of malice) and does kill the victim, the homicide may be mitigated from murder to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant was moved to act by an objectively reasonable and subjectively-felt provocation (i.e., the negative component element of malice, absence of mitigation, is not present).  Historically, when one spouse observes the other spouse banging the mailman, this has been regarded as a sufficient provocation to mitigate if the observing spouse kills the other spouse or lover (or both!)

34.  Where the defendant is provoked into killing, and the provocation is one which the law regards as reasonable (meaning one which would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control), the homicide is mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.

35.  Even if a sufficient provocation exists to mitigate the intentional killing of the provoker, the intentional killing of an innocent third party is not subject to the same mitigation, and if no other justifying, excusing, or mitigating factor is present, the homicide of that third party is murder.

36.  Premeditation and deliberate action can be accomplished in a short period of time.

37.  Person owes a duty of reasonable care if his acts place another at risk of greater peril than she would have otherwise faced.  Cop making drunk driver switch places with passenger who is more shitfaced, because that happens a lot.

38.  If offer proposes a bilateral contract, the only way to effectively accept it would be by a return promise.  On the other hand, if the offer proposed a unilateral contract, the only way to effectively accept it would be by rendering the performance requested.  UCC scenario for contract for the shipment of goods is different:  offer to buy goods may be accepted by communicating a return promise (as in a common law bilateral contract) OR by performance, i.e., shipment of the goods (as in a common law unilateral contract).

39.  There are four basic contract formation moves and it is important to know when each becomes effective.  three of the basic moves - offer, rejection, and revocation - are effective on receipt.  the fourth basic move - acceptance - is effective on dispatch. 

40.  Whether a particular communication is an offer depends on the intent of the parties.  However, this intent is usually determined by an objective standard, i.e., what would a reasonable person standing in the position of the recipient of the communication interpret those words to signify.

41.  Once a contract has been formed, both parties have an obligation to do something.  A unilateral mistake, i.e., where only one of the parties is mistaken, is no defense to formation unless the other party knew or should have known of the mistake.

42.  General guiding principle of contract damages is to protect the expectation interest of the aggrieved party.  Damages are said to place the injured party in the position she would have occupied had the contract been performed.  Where an employee is wrongfully denied employment, the standard measure of damages is the wages she would have been paid under the contract, less any wages she earns or could have earned in substitute employment.  An aggrieved party is requried to mitigate her damages, i.e., to take reasonable steps to avoid losses.  In an employment situation, this requires teh employee to look for and accept "comparable employment."

43.  Congress has the power to regulate the channels, facilities and instrumentalities of interstate commerce and all activities which might have a substantial econommic impact on the national economy.  The federal government may not regulate for the promotion of the general welfare.  Article I of the Constitution provides that Congress may tax or spend to promote the general welfare, but not to engage in pure regulation unaccompanied by a taxing or spending component of the legislation.

44.  A tax is a valid exercise of Congress' power to raise revenue for the general welfare.  A federal tax is valid so long as it was either intended to raise revenue or actually results in revenue being raised.  A federal tax is invalid if it operates solely to punish or regulate the conduct of those subject to the tax.

45.  Although "other crimes" evidence is admissible to show motive under the MIMIC rule, there is always great danger of prejudice.  Prejudice is very high where other crimes are the same as the charged offense.

46.  The Statute of Frauds requires that a contract for the sale of real property be evidenced by a writing, signed by the party to be charged thereby, and containing all the essential terms of the transaction, such as identification of the parties, a description of the property, and the terms and conditions of the deal.  Exception to the Statute of Fraud's requirement that contracts for the sale of land be evidenced by a writing where there has been a part performance of an oral land sale contract.

47.  Where a special relationship creates a duty to aid another in peril, there is an increase in criminal liability if you fuck up.

48.  Respondeat superior - employer liable for negligent acts of its employees committed during the scope of employment.  Flilght attendant who overserves passenger, passenger punches another.  Employer is vicariously liable.

49.  One cannot assume the risk unless he knows the specific risk he faces and agrees to encounter it.

50.  Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects only testimonial evidence, not physical evidence.  Courts have ruled that providing a voice sample is not testimonial evidence and thus not subject to protection under the Fifth Amendment.

It's Worth a Shot

Can Marijuana Rescue California's Economy

Who Talks Like This?

Sometimes I amaze myself at what a total douchebag I sound like when I'm writing legal crap.  Here's an excerpt from an e-mail today.  Yes, an e-mail:

"If you would like me to effectuate service of process by more formal means, please let me know."

Effectuate.  Effectuate service of process.  Embarassing.

Dorky Legal Post

My new boss just strolled into my office, cut in front of my computer screen, took a pen off my desk and started asking me questions about a matter that predated my tenure here.  So after saying "I don't know" about a half a dozen times, he bolts.

But he stole my pen.

Apparently my new boss doesn't like me.  When we got the news about the big change at the top of the chain of command my immediate supervisor announces during the meeting, "Don't worry, no one's job will change - well, maybe yours will, Rich."  (uncomfortable laughter)

This whole pen deal really has me creased.

A couple of nights ago I had somewhat of a revelation regarding what it is all about to be a lawyer.  Fairly deep shit, at least for my standards, but really it's all about problem solving.  Oftentimes complex and intricate problems that have dozens of unexpected twists and turns as a particular case develops.  Oddly, my favorite course in law school was Secured Transactions.  An absolute bear of a class that everyone dreaded that just so happened to coincide with me giving up on trying to get good grades so I protested by not reading a single page for any one of my classes, except one I really liked.  I pretty much just said "fuck it."  For the first three semesters of law school I read and read and outlined until I was blue in the face.  Was in two different study groups and read the cheat sheets and more outlines until I was even bluer in the face.  My classmates thought I was suicidal during our first set of exams, which I found and continue to find hilarious, but I completely maxed out.  Chasing the big dream.  Well after three semesters I quit.  I wanted to learn and didn't turn into a complete jerkoff, but at the same time I don't remember very many Thursday nights when I didn't get absolutely shit-canned.  (One Thursday night I did stay in, and thank god because apparently it ended with my usual group of suspects in a cop chase down backroads.  I don't do good in those types of deals.)

So anyway, not really sure where I was going with that.  Secured Transactions.  Bitch of a class, hard as hell.  But for some reason it made sense to me.  I've been told that I am a "linear thinker," which apparently is the opposite of creative.  Fine by me, I suck at creativity.  But the best law students are those that are creative and and can see every aspect of a complex problem.  I, on the other hand, was a master at memorizing the names of cases (gets you absolute shit on exams, trust me).  Secured Transactions deals with I can't even remember what statute it is, but one or more portions of the Uniform Commercial Code, I think.  UCC, right?  Anyway.  A business goes into business, and in order to get equipment and funds it has to give something up to the lenders who provide the equipment and funds, usually by allowing the creditor to secure some type of lein against the property it is giving to the debtor.  Well, businesses go downhill and the creditors want their money back, but it gets tricky when you have dozens if not hundreds of creditors standing in line screaming "Me!  Me!  Me!"  The UCC attempts to sort all this out, by saying okay, you are Creditor #1 and you get this much money.  Creditor #2, you stand over here and you get this much money.  And on an on.  My favorite part of the class was the section on reposession and how repo outfits would show up in the middle of the night to sequester some trucks or backhoes or some other shit and the owner would pop out of the garage with a shotgun and start blowing shit up.  Funny.

In any event, there is a definitive maze to Secured Transactions.  A definite starting point and end point, and as I taught myself this class in the week or so before the exam, it was just very clear to me.  I pissed off a ton of people when they heard I got an 'A' in that class.  Fuck 'em.

It only took about 5 years of practicing law for me to kind of figure out what it's all about, but hey, better late than never I suppose.  I kind of like it now.  Thank god.

Time for a little recon mission involving my pen.  This could be really funny or uncomfortable.

Pray, but Keep on Sowin'

Did you miss me?  Well I'm back, and boy do I have a lot to say.

First off, that horrible smell in the air is thousands of newly minted law school grads shitting themselves as the pending bar exam is just around the corner.  Don't worry, kids, your chances of passing are just over 50%, and as I'm sure you've heard a thousands times, "you'll always have your degree."  Whatever the fuck that means.  Seriously don't fret.  Idiots like me passing on the first try is proof positive that it can be done.

In the past few days I have sent out about 20 or so resumes to various corners of the U.S.  Interesting jobs.  Cool jobs.  Jobs I'm pretty sure I would be good at and like.  Just putting out some feelers, that's all.  It's almost like a lottery to me:  search stuff online, tweak my standard cover letter and ship it off with a fresh resume.  It's a hell of a lot more fun when there is an actual, real job to fall back on, one I genuinely enjoy.  Didn't sleep for shit last night and spent some time reminiscing about a year ago, when I would have simply made myself a sandwich, cracked a brew and watched The Big Lebowski until I corked off on the couch.  Damn, unemployment was so friggin' cool.

Anyway, the new and improved job search and bar examinations reminds me of a conversation I had with my father, in or around February or March of 2001.  I was in my last year of law school and was having a hell of a time landing a job.  I was carpet bombing places with resumes and cover letters, getting interviews left and right, but coming up bones in terms of actual job offers.  It was extremely frustrating.  And I think I interviewed great back then, too, because I never got really keyed up or nervous for interviews, just went in more or less with a "fuck it" attitude and more than anything was just real.  Right around March/April, a month or so before graduation, most soon-to-be law school grads are locked and loaded with jobs.  I wasn't.  It was frustrating because you look back on the 3 years of hard work and wonder what it is going to amount to, what all the late nights and study sessions and stress was all for.  Clearly my dad sensed my mood at the time, and one afternoon we sat down and had a talk.

For the life of me I can't remember what he was doing in Portland, but I remember clear as day we had our talk in my old apartment, on the couch.  There was some general "it's all going to work out" crap and the usual filler that accompanies these types of conversations, but he told me a story about a friend of his in the Air Force when he was stationed in South Korea back in the day.  It's hard to imagine what it's like for young men in their early 20s to be living in a foreign place, essentially light years away from their loved ones.  My father was actually in South Korea when I was born.  (Nice to see he didn't shoot a blank before hopping on the plane.)  It was obviously tough for these guys, and I'm sure they were homesick and scared and counting the days until they could come home just like anyone in their positions would.  From what my dad tells me they talked about their families and homes quite a bit:  favorite meals their mothers would cook, holidays marked by large family gatherings, girlfriends and wives.  All the things that defined their lives.  My dad had this friend over there who was from the midwest.  Iowa, I think.  Grew up on a farm.  He farmed.  His father farmed.  His father's father farmed.  It was hard as hell work, and their livlihood continually banked on the success of their crops.  So each year, when the family would till the fields and plant their crops, they had a saying that they would repeat to one another, almost like their own motto or fight song:  Pray, but keep on sowin'.

The idea is that you can believe in something with all of your heart and will.  You can obsess about it.  Will it with all of your might.  You can get on your knees and cry and waive your fists in the air.  But, your belief must be coupled with action.  Consistent, definitive, and meaningful action.  You can pray - pray every morning, all day, and every night - but if you don't get off your ass and work those fields, you can forget about it.  Each and every day, working as hard or harder than the last.  Believing, but working.  Working hard.  Working with conviction.  Pray, but keep on sowin'.

The message from my dad was simple:  look, you're going to get a job, so don't worry about it too much.  Just keep doing what you're doing.  Get those resumes out there.  Go to interviews.  Be yourself.  Don't get down.  Pray, but keep on sowin'.

Within a couple of weeks I received and accepted a job offer.  More than 5 years later I still remember that conversation I had with my dad like it was yesterday.

Don't Mess with Texas

If I did not think that this was worth 3 minutes of your time, I wouldn't post this link here and strongly encourage you to watch.  There is an attorney in Texas by the name of Joe Jamail, and from what I understand, he is one bad mother fucker.  I first learned about Joe in my first year of law school, I can't exactly remember what the subject was but I think it was a section about limiting damages in jury trials, and how Texas is so fucked up with their jury verdicts and attorneys like big Joe just absolutely rake it in by taking their cut off the final judgment.

I almost have a hard time believing that the excerpt from this deposition is real, because the conduct of the attorneys is so over-the-top and unethical that I'm amazed any lawyer worth his salt would act like this in a deposition, let alone one that was being videotaped.  I'll have to admit though, calling the deponent a "dumb son of a bitch" cracked my shit up, as did the portion where it appeared they were going to exchange blows.

Ahh, Texas.

My Kind of Law Student

I'm always campaigning for more down-to-earth witty people in this world, who occasionally and sometimes frequently use profanity, but holy shit do we need an influx of these people in the legal world.  And soon.

I was pleased to discover today not only the blog of South Carolina 1L but also that he has linked me on his.  Clearly this is a guy I would have hung out with back in my law school days, thrown down a drink or more anywhere from 2 to 5 nights a week, mocked the over-serious heads-up-their-asses condescending wannabees in my class, and maybe cracked a book if we ever felt guilty.  Good stuff.  I'm adding him to my arsenal and encourage you to read his blog daily.  See, there are cool people out there in the legal profession.  Really.