So this is pretty cool:

But wait! There’s more:

Truthfully, I always kinda assumed that all these “Top Lawyer” things were paid advertising. But I assure you people, I am too cheap to pay for something like this. And while I’d like to be all “eh, whatever, this is bullshit” about this (which I totally would be if I hadn’t been voted in), I have to admit that a little external validation is nice every now and then. especially when it’s other lawyers doing the voting. It’s also good to see my friend and colleague Garry Adams listed, because the man is probably the smartest lawyer I know, and he works his tuckus off. 

In sum, I deem this poll to be “not bullshit” for the time being. Ask me again about it next year.

In other news, I argued this case at the Kentucky Supreme Court last month. I damn near died of stress, but I think it came off pretty well. We’ll see what happens.

What else? I have an awesome new assistant. We have two race discrimination trials coming up next month. Teaching a CLE on police liability. A little music, a little theatre, a little travel in the immediate future. Probably some other stuff too. Life is never boring.

peppersprayingcop:

“OK where’s that guy going? I’m just gonna go ahead and follow himAAUUAGHAGAHAGHGGHGHGHHHHHHHHHHHHH”

I don’t like to wax too political on here, because there are bloggers that do that a lot better. Like, all of them. But this touches on a legal issue, so I’d like to take a crack at it.

This has been all over social media the last two days: Newt: Fire the janitors, hire kids to clean schools.

I had to check this because I was sure the headlines were taking things out of context. They’re really not. The legal issue is a familiar one: getting rid of unions. It is also a little unusual in that it appears to also call for repeal of child labor laws that have been in place for 100 years or so. But I’m nothing if not open-minded, and if I can put my teenage son to work, hey, maybe that’s not such a bad thing. He’d make a great coal miner/minor.

I get what Gingrich is saying here, and it’s a good message at its core, but it is pitifully misguided and reactionary. He’s saying “schools are failing, so we need to do what the WWII generation did, and make our kids work whatever menial jobs they can to learn a better work ethic.”

Even though that sounds good, there are some pretty serious problems with this argument.

First: no matter how much you want to turn back the clock, we are not living in the late 19th/early 20th century. Things are very, very different now, both home and abroad. I, for one, don’t want to go back. I like progress. I like my computers and my cell phones and my ATMs and my penicillin. If anything, I want to go forward to the amazing year 1996, when we will have Robocops, or to 2045, where humankind will become the Borg.

But even if you hate progress, this yearning for some gilded age of American awesomeness is futile because a) it was probably never really like that to begin with, and b) America is truly unlikely to return to a manufacturing-/agrarian-/wild-wild-West-based economy. You’ve got to accept at some point that the shit that worked in the past is not necessarily going to work in the future.

Second, the American work ethic is not the problem. Gingrich doesn’t get that, because he (and just about everyone in control) has no idea whatsoever what it’s like to be poor in 21st century America. Perhaps for a brief period in post-WWII America, people could work their asses off in a factory and live the American dream. The evil unions of today, decried by Gingrich and his ilk, were actually pretty helpful in ensuring that people who were working their asses off got pensions, a decent wage, reasonably safe working conditions, etc. (Oh, and the evil social welfare programs that were instituted around the same time didn’t hurt either.)

Today you can work your ass off in the U.S. and wind up with diddly-squat. This is so well-documented at this point that it almost seems redundant to argue. But people still seem to think that laziness is the problem, and more work is the cure. How many people do you know who work two jobs and can’t make ends meet? Or work 100 hours a week, make ends meet, but never see their families? Or who can’t get a job no matter how many times/places they apply? Surely we can do better.

Third, Gingrich appears to argue that since the schools are failing, we should abolish janitors’ unions and put more people to work. I’m having a tough time getting my head around that one, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t address the basic premise that, um, SCHOOLS ARE FAILING. By the way, I totally agree with Newt on that one. But how in the hell do you intend to fix it? By taking jobs from unionized adults and giving them to kids? Does not compute. That’s like focusing on the splinter in your neighbor’s eye and ignoring the beam in your own. I mean, if this were some half-assed voucher program argument, I could understand it a little better. But for god’s sake, man - offer us a program to FIX THE FUCKING SCHOOLS.

It’s an attractive point that Gingrich makes, because it makes good sense on a basic level, at least according to what we Americans have been taught. Work harder, you get rewarded. Makes sense in theory. But not in practice. At least not anymore. That’s precisely why the 99-percenters out there are all riled up.

Plus, Gingrich’s argument allows his generation to totally abdicate responsibility, while preemptively blaming the up-and-comers (i.e. school children) for not taking enough responsibility for a completely unsound American infrastructure. Also very attractive, since no one really wants to take responsibility for this mess we’re in.

How about this as a more basic proposition: 

WORK SMARTER.

I mean, if you have to have a really facile solution to cover all the fantastically complicated problems of American society, that one comes close. it’s definitely better than “Work Harder.” People work hard and still get fucked. People who work smart tend not to, at least not so badly. Think about the genesis of new wealth in this country. It does not come from working 90-hour weeks. It comes from ideas. Hell, a 90-hour week doesn’t guarantee basic economic stability anymore, not even for lawyers. 

Ideas drive the future. Ideas create jobs. Ideas create wealth. Brow sweat is an important component of making those ideas work, for sure. But brow sweat alone is not going to do it. You’ve got to be able to generate new ideas, and build on old ideas. Build a better mousetrap. Cure cancer. Power a combustion engine with a Tic-Tac. Whatever. Persistent, robotic work - even if you are great at what you do, show up on time every day, work 100-hour weeks, etc. - is not going to help a lot in the grand scheme of things. It might put food on your table. Maybe. But American ingenuity is the only long-term solution for this mess.

Of course, the problem with this approach is that America is full of morons. And it is undeniably difficult to generate new ideas if you are, in fact, a moron. It stands to reason that if we can produce more non-morons, we would likely generate more ideas. And logically, better resources for schools and families with children will likely result in more non-morons. Therefore if Gingrich - or anyone - has a solution for failing schools, failing teachers, or failing kids, then I’m all ears. But the solution is not simply to work more. We’ve tried that.

Archetypal characters and stories exist for a reason.

Say, hypothetically, that you’ve got a couple of cops that do some bad stuff together and then they cover it up. Let’s say they…oh, I dunno..killed someone. Someone who wasn’t threatening them. And then let’s say they all coordinate their stories to make it look like they were being threatened. 

And let’s say there are no non-cop eyewitnesses, because the only non-cop involved is now non-living. Hypothetically.

Now let’s say, for example, a federal court decides that since the cop-witnesses all agree on their story, and they were the only eyewitnesses, that the case of how the non-cop died shouldn’t even go to trial. Ever. 

If you feel like this offends some basic notion of justice that you have buried way down deep within you, that may be a good sign.

And if you recognize what’s going on in this picture, you may very well be overqualified for the federal judiciary. Theoretically. Hypothetically. Perhaps.

What sanctuary do wounded civil rights lawyers have? What refuge from the cold, unfeeling world?

Turns out, watching South Park and eating your girlfriend’s Reese’s cups works OK.

I am still here, but using FB and Twitter more than anything else these days. Mostly because of being slammed at work, and travel, and excuses excuses. The problem is, I sit down with the intention of writing a quick little blurb on this thing and end up writing for hours and obsessing over the finished product. I am a bad blogger.

Anyway, all I wanted to say was that this is one of those work weeks where the work days have two phases. Phase 1 is the normal-business-hours cat herding that most lawyers have to do. Letters, phone calls, chest-thumping, etc. The more sinister phase 2 happens after 6:00ish and is marked by a lot of research, writing, coffee, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. Lots of written stuff due in the next couple of weeks. Plus this week: moving, a gig, a film premiere (at a real-live movie theatre with seats and popcorn and everything), and more. Never a dull moment.

There are, however, dull blog posts. Umm, let me think of something more interesting to write and I’ll be back later. 

I am writing this on my Droid while loitering at a charge station in the O’Hare airport. I will be gone for a couple of weeks on a tour of England and (mostly) Scotland with the lovely and talented singer/songwriter Brigid Kaelin. She is much better at this blogging thing than I am, so follow our European exploits at http://brigidkaelin.blogspot.com/. I’ll be doing my best to Facebook and tweet details from the road (and practice a little law along the way) but no promises. I ain’t got foreign technology figured out yet, folks.

Oh, and if the rapture really does happen while I’m gone…um, I guess I’ll see you all when I get back.

In anticipation of my England/Scotland/Ireland trip next month, I have started work on a follow-up to Elizabeth Gilbert’s bestseller “Eat, Pray, Love.” The working title is “Drink, Eat, Drink” but nothing is set in stone just yet.

What’s this? A First Amendment SCOTUS decision today, and I’m off to argue a First Amendment case tomorrow? Thanks, guys. I didn’t have enough to think about already.

geekygirl502:

“if you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on tv telling you how to do your shit, then you deserve it.” - frank zappa

Why is it that conventional wisdom holds that there are too many “frivolous” lawsuits, but not that there are too many botched police raids?

And I don’t mean just “whoops, wrong house” kind of botched. I mean “whoops, we killed some kids/dogs/grandparents.”

Full disclosure: because of a couple of cases that happened to fall in my lap over the last couple of years, I have become totally preoccupied with the overmilitarization of local police forces. And people, it’s serious. For comprehensive background info, check out Radley Balko’s excellent treatise on the subject. We’re talking about rural sheriff’s departments with sub-machine guns, tanks, bomb robots, cruiser jets, you name it. We’re talking Tootie and Muldoon with access to surplus Pentagon firepower. We’re talking Barney Fife with a hydrogen bomb. And we’re talking platoons of highly-armed, highly-adrenalized masked men storming private homes and businesses to put a stop to evils such as domestic violence, routine drug offenses, and dangerous dogs. You know, stuff that regular patrol officers used to handle just fine.

Nobody really pays much attention to this. Maybe because people want to identify with authority figures? Maybe because they just want to ignore it? Maybe because it happened gradually over the last four decades, and not all at once? Well, maybe not so gradually. Balko reports that in 1972, there were only a few hundred paramilitary police raids per year. By 2001, the number was up to over 40,000.

Okay, I know. There’s no substantive connection between frivolous lawsuits and police abuse (except we plaintiffs’ lawyers always catch hell when we sue police). But it just occurred to me that way. I mean, don’t you think the media, and the general public, ought to be more focused on people getting killed in their own homes by small armies than, you know, hot coffee in the genitals?

But still, people don’t pay much attention to it. Why? Well, I’m gonna do my part to keep you internet people informed. Each week for a while, I’ll try to present both a story about a lawsuit that seems to be genuinely frivolous, and a story about a botched (read: horribly, horribly botched) police raid. I am curious as to which well will be the first to dry up.

First: the infamous “lost pants” saga! I’m sure you guys remember this one. An administrative law judge loses his pants, and sues an immigrant-family-owned dry cleaner. I hate this case. It makes members of my profession look bad. Really bad. Notice he was not represented by counsel. The thing is, if what he says is true, the guy would have been perfectly justified in filing suit against his dry cleaner - in small claims court. Instead, he uses a federal statute to club a small business over the head simply because he can. Worse still, he doesn’t settle the case even with an offer of $12,000.00 on the table. For a pair of pants.

Now let’s look at Aiyana Jones, the most recent SWAT-related death case of which I’m aware. The story of this seven-year-old girl killed by a police whose automatic weapon went off during a raid is too heartbreaking to recount fully here, but I encourage you to do your own research if you don’t know about it. Based on what I know, it was likely SWAT protocol to have assault rifles in the ready position upon entering the home. This, along with the use of flash grenades, battering rams, armored vehicles, etc., is pretty standard practice. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people often get hurt under these circumstances. Luckily, this one was captured on film.

As I write this, I realize there is in fact a common thread in these two stories. There’s probably a proverb for this, but I can’t think of it right off. If you give a guy a weapon, expect him to use it. For Roy Pearson, his weapon was his knowledge of the law. Turned out to be a pretty dangerous weapon; he ruined his own career and, presumably, the finances of the Chungs. I know lawyers, judges, and police officers, as well as friends and family members of those folks, who use their superior access to the legal system to gain advantages that most folks wouldn’t bother with. Parking tickets are wiped out. Domestic Violence Orders are obtained to get a leg up in divorce proceedings. Yapping dogs become the subject of criminal warrants. A normal tiff with a business owner becomes the subject of a consumer protection lawsuit. You get the picture. And all those military surplus items that Barney Miller and the boys have access to? You can bet they’re going to be used.

Now, how many of you knew about the dry cleaning guy, but not Aiyana Jones? Be honest.

Now that I employ (or at least contribute to the employment of) several people, y’know what I’d like to think I wouldn’t ever do? Terminate someone because they had to be absent due to health problems. I know, I know…never say never. But really. Who honestly thinks that’s okay?

Don’t answer that.