Staff Attorneys, Law Clerks, and other Pant Loads

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/us/29bar.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=supreme%20court%20&st=cse, the Paper of record had this illuminating article on the dramatic fall off in the case load of the US Supremes. One of the reasons given in the Times piece for the halving of the case load is the effect that court law clerks have on the non-selection of cases for review. Now I have no opinion on whether the Supremes are shirking their duties or not--but, I nodded in recognition at the observation concerning the role of the law clerk. Law clerks for the most part are in my experience law geeks. For instance, the picture to the right. I have no idea who this guy is, but if you google "law geek" his picture is on page one. And let's face it, he really looks the part.

Law clerks, and in Your Home Town, staff attorneys (don't fret it's a synonym) are these weasels who for the most part have never handled a real legal matter or paid a phone bill or any other invoice in their short, pathetic, loveless lives. Yet these baby monsters are delegated the important role of moving paper around the court's chambers and making recommendations about a myriad of issues from scheduling to whether or not a person should die. Cool, huh?

So, get this, these recent law school graduates often run court rooms and write the decisions issued by the Judge you elect and pay to be Judge. Here, in Your Home Town there is a Court of Appeals Judge who is, (in the language of twenty years ago) educable mentally retarded. This Judge Italianname is routinely re-elected and the cogently-written decisions that are issued in his name are written entirely by recent law school graduates. Is this a great world or what?

That the case load of the US Supremes is also a product of this great system is--well, let's just say, a little chilling.

The Polanski Petition

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/browbeat/ Hilarious deconstruction.

Wasting the best minds of our generation...

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/10/01/scalia-we-are-devoting-too-many-of-our-best-minds-to-lawyering/?mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB

Finally, 'Nino and I agree about something.

Forensic Evidence, not in Texas

The secessionist bastard to the right is the Govenor of Texas and one of the people who bears direct responsibility for the murder of Cameron Todd Willingham. A commission looking into the execution of Willingham was set to hear from the forensic expert who was highly critical of the "forensic" evidence relied on to prosecute Willingham in the so-called arson murder of his three children. The Govenor who actually had the evidence of Willingham's innocence but ordered the execution anyway--fired the comission chair and two commission members two days before the hearing on the bogus scientific evidence used against Willingham. Perry's new chairman canceled the hearing, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/us/01brfs-GOVERNORFIRE_BRF.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=gov%20perry&st=cse

Govenor Rick Perry is an immoral pig.

Prosecutor Lies

According to news reports: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/pivotal-player-in-polansk_n_305772.html, the Polanski prosecutor lied when he told a French documentary that he had an ex parte commucnication with the sentencing Judge in the Polanski rape case, and that he, the Prosecutor encouraged the Judge to put the screws to Polanski despite a plea deal.

My first reaction to this report is a big so what, because prosecutorial misconduct of any kind is not relevant to the real story--the march of the Hollywood apologists.

On reflection, as an attorney you see the reason why the rules governing professional conduct require lawyers in public office not to act in ways that bring discredit on the profession; i.e. carrying on ex parte communications with a sentencing Judge, lying about professional acts to the media--this kind of stuff brings discredit on lawyers in the most direct way and more importantly undermines trust in the "just us" system. So, now you have one of the major actors, the prosecutor, in a symbolically important rape case undermining the faith one could have had in the fairness with which Polanski was treated at the time of his rape conviction. In actuality it's ridiculous, Polanski was treated more than fairly, but the sheer fact that the prosecutor admits to a lie gives wind to the bogus arguments of the apologists.

At the end of the day, this lawyer needs a good smack.

Rape Apologists

Jeffrey Toobin, perhaps the most rational legal commentator on CNN last night--made the point that if Hollywood wanted to confirm the stereotype that it is out of touch with mainstream values, the petition in support of the rapist Roman Polanski, is just the demonstration.

Roman Polanski is a great artist. The Pianist, is a great film and Polanski directed and participated in the creation of many great cinematic masterpieces. He is also a child rapist--he admits it. According to press reports his arrest was prompted by a taunt in court papers filed by his lawyers: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/09/29/2009-09-29_roman_polanskis_lawyer_caught_das_attention_when_he_claimed_us_wasnt_trying_to_n.html

So how is it that we can ignore the crimes of persons like Polanski, in fact how do we rationalize honoring him and going so far to make such a person out to be a victim?

This is precisely the same thing that occurred here in our Home Town, in Our Home State and around the country when I began to represent victims of rape and incest against the family members who raped and covered-up the crimes. Other family members rode to the rescue, attacked the victim, extolled the perpetrator. The same thing happened in the priest sex abuse scandals. A dear friend of mine, in fact my God Father, a sainted man in my view--related to me the story of an accusation against a priest in his parish. My God father's first response was an attack on the character of the mother of the victim.

Could it be that our values, religious, aesthetic, familial override our integrity? At bottom, it is a matter of what we have invested in our relationships, and with whom we identify. Oh, for the record, what Polanski did, the Grand Jury testimony summarized here: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/roman-polanski/Story?id=8705958&page=1

A letter to the Supreme Court

There is no easy--real, apology.

I violated the rules that require all lawyers to be good and honest businessmen. Those rules exist to protect clients from lawyers who are not good businessmen from becoming lawyers who will not only neglect client matters but worse, steal the client money. When I and my secretary paid personal bills out of my trust account I did recognize that it was a short step to using the trust account when the assets in the account belong to the client. When I became unable to pay creditors and when I did not seek to resolve creditor claims through compromise or bankruptcy I created and continued the illusion that I was trustworthy when I was not.

I accept the consequences of my actions and my failure to take appropriate actions. While I personally dread every aspect of this process should the Supreme Court sustain the recommendation of suspension I accept that consequence as being a product of my actions, alone.

I apologize.

On the road, today and tomorrow . . .

Tying up loose ends on Big Dennis' case. And of course, my Oral Argument at the Supremes over my proposed suspension is Wed.

In the interim: consider: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/

Depositions, Shmedreposition. . .

I was in WhiteBean, Our Home State defending a manufacturer of supermarket jello salad. Big Dennis, a former employee claims he hurt his back at work lifting jello cubes and as a result Big Dennis will never work again.

Big Dennis is a sweetheart, a 31 year old childlike, dark-complexion, hairy giant of a man who is in all likelihood, autistic--maybe, developmentally-delayed. I don't know--but, I deposed Big Dennis over the summer at his lawyer's office. While deposing Big Dennis was difficult, I've experienced witnesses fully in possession of intellect and educational achievement that have made less sense. The rules of civil procedure govern "discovery"--how you get information and how depositions of parties and witnesses. The rule relating to depositions provides that a person may review the transcript of the questions the lawyer asked and the answers he gave and make changes to the testimony as long as in each instance of a change the witness indicate why he is making the change. Generally speaking, most witnesses "waive" the right to do this--and those witnesses who preserve their rights will usually only make cursory changes, correcting spellings, mis-translations by the court reporter, although the rule does not limit the witness in any way as to the substance of changes they are entitled to make.

In Big Dennis' case I received 24 lengthy hand written changes: the changes frequently began with "Even though I said this, this is wrong..." The hand writing did not resemble the signature and because of information I had developed from Big Dennis, I concluded that what I received must have come from Big Dennis' Mom who according to other persons involved in the case--had involved herself in all aspects. I confronted opposing counsel about the Mother's self-involvement in the case and instead of agreeing to withdraw the changes argued with me that she was "only helping, Big Dennis." My motion to strike Mom's "testimonial changes" is pending before the court. We are set to begin trial on Tuesday Morning in the White Bean County Courthouse.

Yesterday I deposed Mom. Mrs. Pieceofwork has been married four times; she has the employment history of a vagrant; and, she freely acknowledged that she, not Big Dennis filled out he paperwork to initiate Big Dennis' injury claim; she, not Dennis provided the medical and injury history to the physicians who treated Big Dennis; she, not Dennis responded to the other "written discovery:" interrogatories and requests for production of documents; and, finally, she, not Dennis changed the deposition testimony as I suspected. At one point she described watching Dennis park his truck after work on the day that she says he injured himself--and, I asked her whether she also took the driver's license test for Big Dennis. I had accumulated every record I could get on Big Dennis' prior medical history and lo and behold, neither Big Dennis or his mother, disclosed ongoing treatment for the same medical condition claimed in the case pre-existing for many years prior to the injury and within weeks of the date of the so-called lifting incident. Furthermore neither Big Dennis or his mother disclosed two accidents injuring the back that pre-existed the claimed injury in this case.

Yesterday afternoon I drove out to a medical building to depose the orthopedist who treated Big Dennis. An expert witness in an injury case makes two important aspects of the Plaintiff's case: the expert provides a description of the condition that he finds upon examination; and the expert provides and opinion within a "reasonable degree of certainty" that the condition was caused by the injury. In this case Big Dennis' medical condition was caused by lifting at work.

Now I've had this happen a number of times in my career and if you're the lawyer proposing the witness this is an awful sensation. The lawyer, a veteran guy with an Andy Griffith North Carolina drawl tried to finesse the non-disclosed prior injuries and accidents but his expert wasn't biting. The doctor refused to related the condition to the claimed lifting incident. In the parlance of injury lawyers--this is called, "the doctor went south."

Case over.

On the road, today . . .

I was on the road, today, representing a client in a farflung court house in Our State. Lot's of fun, blogging resumes, tomorrow.