Just a few days ago, I wrote about DoNotPay’s offer to allow its robot lawyer take over a Supreme Court argument. A few things have happened in the meantime.
All in Quick Hits
Just a few days ago, I wrote about DoNotPay’s offer to allow its robot lawyer take over a Supreme Court argument. A few things have happened in the meantime.
I hope everyone is planning a restful and warm holiday. I may or may not be blogging more this year (that’s always a spur-of-the-moment decision), so in the meantime, I’ll leave you with a few little stocking stuffers/nuggets of coal (depending on your perspective).
Hello readers! It has been awhile, hasn’t it? I hit three years and then promptly disappeared.
Hopefully I’ll be blogging more frequently now that the midterms are over and were not nearly as eventful as 2020 (for which we all should be grateful), but to tide you over in the meantime, some quick hits:
Above The Law has reported the case of a now-former Dentons associate in Illinois, who was assigned a document review project. In pop culture, document review has been portrayed as punitive, or potentially simple enough for a high school student to handle (sadly I could not find the clip from “Clueless” where Cher had to highlight telephone conversations occurring on September 3).
First, greetings from the Covid Penalty Box. The plague finally hit my household last week, and I’m in time out for a bit. I’m feeling okay enough, but I am not 100%. The good(?) news is I was supposed to be on vacation this week so my calendar was already clear. Sigh.
Anyway, I am working a little bit this week (to make up for the work I couldn’t do while actively sick last week) and I have found I have the attention span of a banana, which I suppose is to be expected. Needless to say, I am not the last set of eyes on anything this week (except for my incessant boredom tweeting, and I guess this blog entry, but hey, if I mess this up you all will let me know).
So, when I came across this story in Above The Law, I added “don’t send any work-related group texts” to my mental list of what not to do this week.
Late last week, I wrote about the case of Nathan DeLadurantey, who received a public reprimand for offensive personality involving harassment of a subordinate lawyer.
A reader alerted me to the fact that the decision (which I linked to) appeared to be gone from the Supreme Court Website, and, in fact it is. I checked the court website and learned that as of July 2, the Court withdrew the opinion and will issue a revised one “in due course.” While I have seen courts reconsider or clarify opinions (and they can do so sua sponte) I’ve never seen one withdrawn and removed from the website.
Bloomberg Law is reporting that Vrdolyak Law Group, based in Illinois, has been sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for secretly recording employee phone calls and and meetings without permission, and then concealing their efforts.
Now, Illinois has some pretty stringent eavesdropping laws and is a two-party consent state, which means that absent particular circumstances, all parties to a conversation need to consent to recording it. So the particular course of action may not be available to aggrieved employees in other states, but hearing about this suit got me wondering—is it ethical to surveil your employees in such fashion?
The folks at the Monroe H. Freedman Institute for Legal Ethics at Hofstra University’s Deane School of Law have invited me and a fantastic panel of others—including Michael Teter, the 65 Project’s executive director—to have that conversation at a Zoom event, “Holding Trump’s Lawyers Accountable.”
A quick reminder from our friends at the State Bar of Wisconsin: it is pretty much always scamming season and attorneys are not at all immune. The Inside Track newsletter this week offers some practical tips for recognizing and avoiding trust account scams.
I recently recorded a podcast for Legal Talk Today, and discussed Rudy Giuliani’s future and the limits of zealous advocacy. (Loyal readers will recognize some of this.)
I’m writing this at 4:30 pm the Friday before Memorial Day. Throughout the day, I’ve received multiple communications, from multiple agencies and entities, telling me bad things about my clients.
By now, just about every lawyer has received multiple forwards of the Lawyer Zoom Cat video. For those of you not so lucky, a Texas lawyer accidentally appeared at Zoom court with a filter activated that turned him into a talking cat.
The Wisconsin State Bar Standing Committee on Professional Ethics (of which I am a member) recently approved Formal Opinion EF-21-01, which clarifies when you can threaten someone with criminal prosecution to gain advantage in a civil manner.
I remember at the end of the George W. Bush administration, some comedians said that the Obama administration would put them out of business, what with Obama’s lack of propensity for scandal or gaffes. While of course that didn’t happen (the comedy world survived Obama’s tan suits and fancy mustard just fine), I’ve been asked (once) whether I am worried I won’t have blog fodder after all of the ridiculous election and Trump-related litigation is over.
All eyes are on the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which is set to hear arguments in one of the Trump Campaign’s voting lawsuits today. Enter Rudy Giuliani, who has applied for pro hac vice admission despite his last federal court appearance being before some lawyers were born.
However, it looks like Rudy may have some problems right out of the gate, in addition to all of his other problems.
Typically, courts redo their Web sites and it’s not for the best. They don’t display right on a mobile device and I end up not being able to find anything regardless of where I am. But credit where it’s due.
Under normal circumstances I'd be in Chicago right now, checked into the Hotel Palomar, hanging out with my nerd friends from the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers at the Annual Meeting. This blog would be quiet but I’d be annoying everyone on Facebook with out-of-context giddy snippets from the conference.
Instead, it's Yet Another Zoom.
Todd Banks’ valiant attempt to invalidate Al Johnson’s Restaurant’s Goats on the Roof trade dress as “demeaning to goats” (chronicled here in December) has ended not with a bang, or a whimper, or even with a fish fry, but with a denial of a cert petition.