My priorities today were badly skewed. I spent the entire sunny part of the day
indoors working on weblog matters, and most of that time fretting over the Valentine
Divorce Lawyer. It was almost sunset when I first realized that today is the
birthday of a lawyer I’d much prefer thinking and talking about: Abraham Lincoln.
A year ago, I wrote asking how Abe Lincoln, Esq. would have defined the fiduciary
duties of a lawyer when setting fees, and stated:
I’m afraid that many lawyers never consider fiduciary principles in the
context of fees. That oversight goes a long way toward explaining how
the legal profession managed to squander the goodwill that was its legacy
from honest Abraham Lincoln.
That post led to one of my favorite pieces on this weblog, “A Lincolnesque Law Practice?“,
which describes Mr. Lincoln’s practice and concludes with some of his advice to young
lawyers, including:
“The leading rule for the lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is
diligence.“
you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser — in fees,
expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of
being a good man. There will still be business enough.”
belief [that lawyers are dishonest] — resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your
own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a
lawyer. Choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which you
do, in advance, consent to be a knave.”
Those posts were soon followed by Lawyer Lincoln Was a Bargain and, during the 2004
election campaign, ATLA, Lincoln and Tort Reform. I’m glad I remembered to take some
time and space for Lawyer Abe Lincoln today. The public would have a lot more respect
for his profession if today’s lawyers stopped more frequently to think about his example —
diligence, competence, honesty, and fees that are professional, not princely.
February 12, 2005
don’t forget Lawyer Abe
the valentine-divorce lawyer
from the desk of ethicalEsq (ret.):
which is giving away a Free Divorce for Valentine’s Day. It’s a mildly amusing
stunt by K-Rock’s “Damn Morning Show” crew.
Naturally, this excerpt from the news story interested me most (AP/Newsday,
by William Kates, Feb. 12, 2005):
The free divorce will be handled by lawyer Brad Margolis. A divorce
without custody issues, where both husband and wife want to split and
agree on how to divide their assets, costs at least $1,390 – about $1,000
in legal fees and $390 in state filing costs, he said.
“That’s a lot of money for a paper-pushing exercise. In a lot of these cases,
people just want to make legal something that is already done,” Margolis
said, noting the national divorce rate is over 50 percent.
My first reaction was, “you’re darn right it’s a lot of money for paper-pushing!”
Based on my quaint belief that lawyers must act as fiduciaries for their clients
when advising them on a course of action and when setting fees, my second
reaction was the question: “Shouldn’t a lawyer tell clients that they can find forms
right here to use for an uncontested divorce in New York State, along with step-by-
step guidance?” Sure, some folks will prefer to let the lawyer handle the paperwork,
but others might be very pleased to do it themselves, and should be given the choice.
My interest piqued, I decided to head over to the website of Brad S. Margolis, J.D.
And, guess what I learned? Margolis really does think that $1000 is a lot of money
to pay for an uncontested divorce. Indeed, his fee for an uncontested divorce is not
“The approximate retail value of Uncontested Divorce is $1,000.00.”
I guess they mean Margolis can get it for you wholesale at his law office — a 62.5%
discount. Margolis’ divorce fee agreement states that his hourly fee (for purposes of
drawing down a retainer) is $158.00 per hour. [That rate will sound low to many readers,
but recall that Margolis practices in central NYS, where lawyer income, like the whole
economy, is depressed.] At that hourly rate, Margolis would be paid for about 2.4 hours
under the $375 flat fee — a generous allotment of time.
In addition, he offers telephone consultations at the rate of $25 per half-hour,
so a savvy shopper might save time and money by dealing with lawyer
Margolis by phone.
WKRL-FM and Brad Margolis have received a lot of publicity for this low-cost contest.
I hope Program Director Scott Petibone and Brad Margolis will let the public and
the winners know that the prize is worth a lot less than advertised. It’s not too late
for you to tell them what you think of their cheatin’ hearts. Write to
K-Rock at iwantadivorce@krock.com
Brad S. Margolis at brad@cnylawoffice.com
2600 Oneida Street
Utica, NY 13501
Office: (315) 733-ATTY (2889)
Fax: (315) 735-2558
toll free within NY State
1-800-953-debt (3328)
update (Feb. 14, 2005): Carolyn Elefant discusses this post at My Shingle,
and touched off quite a debate (partially by incorrectly stating my position).
Part of the discussion can be found here, where Eugene Lee and I go back
and forth on lawyer-fiduciares and the obligation to disclose options.
update II (Feb. 16, midnite): Lawyer Brad S. Margolis contacted me twice this
evening. In his first email, he noted “I am not getting anything for this promotion,
In fact I am even paying 100 percent of the filing fees out of my own pocket.”
On the issue of his flat fee for uncontested divorces, Margolis stated:
“Yes my online fees are less than my in office fees, that is to make legal
fees affordable to people who are lucky to have money for food. . . .
“As and for what the cost of an uncontested Divorce is I believe that
the figure quoted is not incorrect and online prices which you should
know are far less than in office cases. Just a matter of common sense,
which apparently you lacked in your biased appraisal of my actions.
When I responded with more questions, he wrote back and clarified that “in
many cases I do charge that fee for an uncontested divorce. [Y]es I do discount
my web services as I find the overhead of the web office much lower than the
high priced rent I must factor in to some of my offices.”
I wrote back to say I can’t imagine how the cost of clients attracted online can
be so significantly lower as to warrant the difference between $1000 and $375.
I also noted that I continue to believe that $1000 is too much for what Margolis
himself called the “paper-pushing” of an uncontested divorce. Readers will
have to decide for themselves whether “The approximate retail value of
Uncontested Divorce is $1,000.00.”
If you want a real legal bargain, let me suggest a copy of The Only Good Lawyer
(A John Francis Cuddy Mystery), by Jeremiah Healy (1998) — it’s available for as little
as $0.01 at the amazon.com marketplace (was $23.00 retail!).
Didn’t I just promise yesterday to deliver less heat, more haiku? Here are a few
divorce-haiku moments from D.C. haijin-lawyer, Roberta Beary, whose own
love story ended happily last Fall:
no longer married
only their shadows touch
. . . graduation day
waiting room–
the ex-wife
looks past me
custody hearing
seeing his arms cross
i uncross mine
family picnic
the new wife’s rump
bigger than mine
by Roberta Beary, from A New Resonance 2: Emerging Voices in English-Language Haiku
“custody hearing” from pocket change; “family picnic” from modern haiku 34-3
by dagosan:
laughing alone
at the Sunday funnies
— both of us
[Nov. 14, 2004]
RIP with a smile: Johnny Carson was a man who knew a lot about divorce; here’s a little repartee between Johnny and Rodney Dangerfield about a star-crossed couple:
Rodney Dangerfield: “Johnny, how long have you and Ed McMahon been together?”
Johnny: “I guess it’s been about ten years now.”
Rodney Dangerfield: “Wow, that is a long time…any children?”
Johnny: “It’s not that we haven’t TRIED!!!”
A Fool in the Forest, by George M. Wallace. We could not agree more.
“tinyredcheck” If you’re still absolutely certain that Wanita Renea Young was absolutely wrong
to go to court after the infamous Durango Cookie Caper, I hope you’ll read this ABC report on her
Good Morning America appearance today, and this hometown article “Two sides to every cookie,”
Durango Herald, Feb. 12, 200). I hope our cookie curmudgeon post earlier this week softened
you up a little. This being America, it’s not at all surprising that Mrs.Young and her family have
been the target of hate mail, harassing phone calls and even death threats. while the recklessly-
thoughtful young ladies are celebrities and still getting donations to pay their court damages.
Here’s just one of many interesting facts from the articles: “Young said her home is in an
extremely rural area, and Ostergaard and Zellitti had to climb over two fences, walk
through a pasture filled with livestock and crawl across an open ditch to get to her home.
Once there, Young said the girls went to a secluded back door and knocked.”
As a mediator, who worked hard for years to solve disputes without litigation, I would have
much preferred that both sides of the Cookie Dispute work this out — perhaps using the Small
Claims mediation services available in Colorado. However, having served as a lawyer for
hundreds of children, and having lived with a few, I know far too well that young people
often do very stupid things with very good intent. The girls here — and remember they are
18 years old — have yet to show that they understand in any way that their judgment was
very poor. Good intentions are not enough; acting with common sense and awareness of
the needs and feelings of others is also necessary. Like Mrs. Young, I’m sorry that Taylor
and Lindsey have learned the wrong lesson, thanks to people with axes to grind or with no
patience for hearing all the circumstances.
“tinyredcheck” By the way, how many people do you know who would readily eat home-
baked cookies left anonymously on their porch? Do you remember why homemade
food is no longer considered a Halloween treat?.
Comments Off on the valentine-divorce lawyer
February 11, 2005
relaxing at the frog pond
Your humble editor apologizes for having far too much punditry and far
too little haiku at the top of this weblog the past two days. Please let me
make it up to you with more selections from the latest edition of frogpond:
First, a pair from Tuscon, by Jason Sanford Brown, the generous
editor of the new online haiku journal, roadrunner:
I listen
through the rain
to her
killing the spider again my son
And, next, a trio from Carolyn Hall in San Francisco:
spring longing
the man
in the three-quarter moon
waiting for you
the wind
kicks up a bit
“Act Now!”
she orders
the Buns of Steel video
[from the rengay “The Magician’s Hat”]
from frogpond XXVIII: 1
Comments Off on relaxing at the frog pond
flea markets
Tim Sandefur of Freespace is “absolutely, completely, totally ” certain that the following sentence
is wrong:
“Markets are not the product of Mother Nature. They are embedded in institutions
and are at root political creations.”
The line comes from the thoughtful piece “Social Security and Antitrust,” written by (my friend and
former boss) Bert Foer, president of the American Antitrust Institute. Bert states that free markets
can only continue to exist if government helps construct a social safetynet, which keeps the public
from rebelling against the insecurities that are inherent in a pure capitalist system — social protection
helps avoid economic protectionism.
I’d try to summarize Tim’s logic, and his tale of inflation in China, but there really is no
logic — there’s only the ideologue’s certainty that he alone has the truth and that everything in the
universe (including every historic vignette and non sequitur) somehow proves he’s absolutely correct.
Tim’s right that supply and demand existed before governments. But, free, competitive capitalist
markets — the kind Bert is talking about, and Tim so avidly seeks — did not. Human beings have not
always had free entry into the marketplace to buy and sell goods (and, of course, many still do not).
Before governments helped delineate and enforce necessary rights and rules of fairplay, the person
or clan or tribe with the most power dictated how trade would be carried out, where, and by whom.
Tim might insist “but people always had the urge to trade and the right to do so, from Nature,” but
“having” a right and exercising it freely are quite different things — as is having an urge and having a
functioning marketplace. Bert Foer is correct that a free market doesn’t just happen and isn’t inevitable
or perpetual. It takes governments to keep them working. Admitting that government — and some limits
on unrestrained capitalism — are needed to have a working free market is a blasphemy against Tim’s
libertarian religion. So, he’ll keep creating strawmen for his god to slay, and keep rejecting reasonable
dialogue with people he is absolutely certain are just plain wrong. How sad and unproductive. Tim’s
lucky to live in a land where the government will protect his right to spew such nonsense. Or, maybe he is
large, powerful and rich enough not to need the government’s help.
Update (7 PM): Want a headache? Read Timothy Sandefur’s reply to this post.
Despite Tim’s misdirection, Bert Foer is not saying that all economic rules and all
market forces are the product of government institutions. Foer instead points out
that free markets don’t spring up naturally on their own, but need help from governments
to thrive (especially, if they are to be tolerated in a society where the popular vote exists).
Sandefur thinks he can rebut Foer and reality by asking a non-responsive question
(“what about inflation in China in the 1940’s?”), and then chastise us for not
following him through his Looking Glass. (By the way, China’s inability to control
inflation in the 1940’s does not prove that free markets arise naturally. And, our limits
on free speech — i.e., like falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater — do not mean
that free speech does not exist; it does mean that the body politic can endorse a
broad freedom from censorship without doing unnecessary harm to itself.)
“ekg F” Sorry, Tim, defining every right in absolutes is adolescent. Whining, and fantasizing
about other worlds in which macho supermen need no help from anyone, won’t convert the
unpersuaded. Taxes pay for the infra-structure that makes it possible for the marketplace
and you to work and have a comfortable life. You may hate government, but it can and
does help to secure a marketplace that is as free as possible, in a society that values all its
members, and stability, and its future.
Dear Frequent Visitor: I promise this is the last post in which I will smack my head
against the brickwall of Sandefurian Libertarianism. I’m going to save my breath for
actual two-way conversation.
in a sake cup
a flea
swimming! swimming!
a flea jumps
in the laughing Buddha’s
mouth
after plastering
the gate with fleas
the dog runs off
thrown together–
thin mosquitoes, thin fleas
thin children
Comments Off on flea markets
just ing-ing around
Before a zealous reader draws my attention to the mistake, I want to admit that
Prof. Martin Grace and I were using the term “gerund” sloppily yesterday. Because
this confusion appears widespread, even among the educated class, I thought I’d
attempt a brief explication.
Gerund: 1. In Latin, a noun derived from a verb and having all case forms except
the nominative. 2. In other languages, a verbal noun analogous to the Latin
gerund, such as the English form ending in -ing when used as a noun, as in
singing in We admired the choir’s singing.
A particple is “A form of a verb that in some languages, such as English, can function
independently as an adjective.”
As is noted in Wikipedia:
The term “gerund” is sometimes used incorrectly to mean any word
ending with “ing”. For example:
- Jane was swimming in the sea. (“swimming” is a participle verb)
Compare:
- John enjoys eating a good meal. (“eating” is a gerund)
- John is eating a good meal. (“eating” is a participle verb)
Here are some usage differences noted in Wikipedia (find examples here):
- Gerundive phrases can be topicalised (i.e. moved to the front of a sentence)
whereas participle verb phrases cannot
Gerundive phrases can be preceded by genitive phrases (possessive terms
such as his, her, their), whereas participle verb phrases cannot
The pronoun it can be substituted for a gerundive phrase, but not for a
participle verb phrase:
An example you can surely relate to, if you’ve read this far, is my usage of thephrase “discussing grammar”:
– David is discussing grammar on his weblog. (a present participle)
– Discussing grammar on a weblog is tedious. (a gerund)
Without in any way endorsing the use of the word “blog” as a noun or verb,
here’s an example using the phrase “blogging at home”:
– Martin was blogging at home last night. (a participle verb phrase)
– Blogging at home at night can be tedious. (a gerundive phrase)
If you want to try your hand at distinguishing gerundive from participle
phrases, I suggest working with 19 “walking” haiku from Issa (translated,
naturally, by English professor David G. Lanoue, who I’m sure knows all
about gerunds). Here’s a sampler:
bloated flea
are you walking it off?
up a tree
is my wrinkled hand
bad for walking?
first firefly
tired of walking
my wrinkled arm
the flea jumps
a clear sky
at high noon…
walking out alone
Kobyashi Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue
Bonus stuff that I learned doing this post. (thanks, again, wikipedia)
Derivation may occur without any change of form, for example telephone (noun)
and to telephone (verb) [or, “blog” (noun) and the equally revolting “to blog” (verb)].
This is known as conversion. Some linguists consider that when a word’s syntactic
category is changed without any change of form, a null morpheme is being affixed.
as vacuum clean from vacuum cleaner, or by removing what is mistakenly thought to be an affix,
as pea from the earlier English plural pease. 2. The process of forming words in this way. See
Note at baby-sit.
“tinyredcheck” retronyms and backronyms are interesting and fun, but you can look them up
yourself for extra credit and entertainment.
Comments Off on just ing-ing around
February 10, 2005
antitrust: the video (and textbook)
When film buffs hear “Antitrust: the Movie,” they probably think of the 2001 flick,
starring Ryan Phillippe, Claire Forlani, and Tim Robbins. Well, expand your mind and your
book shelf for another antitrust video, with a more realistic plot and plenty of heroes — Antitrust the
Documentary. The new video will be made for tv and for classrooms, and made possible by an award
of $496,000 granted as part of the Vitamin Cases Consumer Settlement Fund (Judicial Council Coordination
Proceeding No. 4076 Master File No. 301803, San Francisco County; approved September 8, 2004).
A California court has awarded to the American Antitrust Institute a grant of nearly
half-million dollars to educate California consumers and businesses about the benefits
of the antitrust laws, including the production of a half-hour documentary video for a
television audience and educational materials for high school classrooms.1 The video
will present stories about several actual antitrust cases, demonstrating the harm to
consumers and ways in which the federal government, state government, and private
attorneys brought relief.
A blue ribbon panel of attorneys, economists, and educators in California will advise
on the cases to be presented and a diverse “project team” will provide continuing advice
on quality and tone of the film and other materials.
AAI has selected The Filmmakers Collaborative in
San Francisco to produce and distribute the video. In addition, the video will be modified
for use within a high school curriculum.
The AAI, in conjunction with Street Law, Inc., and the Constitutional Rights Foundation,
will develop and distribute teaching and text materials, and train teachers in California so
that an antitrust section can be inserted into various social science curricula.
With his usual flair for understatement, AAI President Bert Foer explained further:
“Although antitrust may sound like an esoteric and painfully dry topic, it is actually full of drama
with important economic and political implications that often escape public attention. Our film and
materials will be objectively presented, colorful and provocative. They should stimulate a great deal
of interest about the need for promoting and protecting competition in our economy.”
Our Prof. Yabut wonders just what the folks at Von Mises Institute (see Antitrust: The Case for Repeal),
the Competitive Enterprise Institute , and the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism [f/k/a. Center for
the Moral Defense of Capitalism] will have to say about this. Perhaps, they’ll be pleadin’ “Mamas, don’t let
your babies grow up to be antitrust lawyers.”
If you’d like to learn right now about the benefits of antitrust for consumers, go to the annotated links in AAI’s
Guide to Antitrust Resources on the Web. (We suggest the EU brochure.) Click here to learn about other
projects funded through the Vitamin Case Settlement Fund.
While you have AAI and Bert Foer on your mind, I suggest reading his op/ed piece on
Social Security and Antitrust (FTC:WATCH, Jan. 31, 2005). Bert summarizes:
“We seem to have made the choice to place more stress on the individual
by putting the individual ever more at risk within the economic sphere,
while reducing the role of the safety net. How much more stress will people
accept before they rebel against the very idea of free markets? Protect or
protectionism: that is the question.”
the thief
is just as he is…
hazy moon
first frost–
flower sellers in a row
hitting their bells
Kobyashi Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue
As a 
the pond’s frozen
On one of those eerie, northeast, all-gray, winter days (with the tv
weather weenies trying to explain why last night’s forecasted foot
of snow turned into half an inch), I am very pleased that the newest
edition of frogpond, the Haiku Society of America’s journal, just plopped
onto my desk. Here are a few haiku from frogpond, penned by some of
f/k/a‘s good friends:
winter seclusion
a pinch of cumin
a few whole cloves
his quiet funeral—
a man who did
most of the talking
anniversary
her diamond band
missing a chip
from frogpond XXVIII: 1
by dagosan:
wondering where
they go in winter —
pond frogs and children
[Feb.9, 2005]
Snoop-Dog Parents Get a Hearing in Seattle: There was a lot of disappointment
back in December, when the Washington Supreme Court issued its silly decision
criminalizing a parent’s eavesdropping on a minor child’s telephone conversation.
have decided that a minor child has no expectation of privacy vis-a-vis a parent, and was
outside the Washington eavesdropping statute. Instead, the Washington State legislature
has to act in order to decriminalize parents doing what parents should do. A Seattle Times article
today tells of two bills filed to fix the problem. One would merely let parents eavesdrop without
committing a crime, the other would also allow the information gained to be used as evidence.
A local ACLU spokesperson said they support the former but not the
later bill. Some legislators, including the Judicial Committee chairwoman,
are unhappy with depriving minors of their so-called right to privacy without
meeting a “very high burden.” That’s the kind of knee-jerk rights-talk that
gives liberals a bad name. And, makes a lot of them ineffective parents.
The article points out that “Washington is one of 11 states that requires
consent from all parties involved before a conversation may be intercepted
or recorded. The other states are California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Robert L. Jamieson, Jr. says we should add
“Parents who do not snoop become moot” to the biblical maxim on sparing the rod.
(via Overlawyered.com)
names for lawyers at his Underground weblog.
Many of the posts will, therefore, be pointers to articles by Sheppard lawyers, focusing
on the antitrust and competition activities of DOJ and FTC. I’m still hoping that its editor,
Bob Doyle, will put the “we” back in front of “blog,” and have written him with my plea. (Bob
was a merger maven and lover of language at the FTC, when I was also employed there.) The
weblog, which was officially launched today, has a good review of California’s Proposition 64.
(via Ambrogi)
complaints — this time, using un-explained acronyms and checking email during an in-person
conversation. Thanks, Mon/Mom! Like many other annoying traits that we see too often on
this planet in the Third Millennium, the cause seems to be the belief that so many people have
that they (and what goes on in their own minds) are at the very center of everyone else’s universe.
Which reminds me: Why do so many newspaper websites fail to say where — in what
City and/or State — the newspaper is published?
February 9, 2005
table scraps
wipers wiping
slush from the windshield–
radio love song
eviction notice–
a moth ricochets
in the lampshade
Alice Frampton from The Heron’s Nest – a haikai journal
“eviction notice” (March 2004); “wipers wiping” (May 2002)
Your one-breath pundit has been hyperventilating elsewhere lately and,
you might want to catch the debate, repartee, invective, and occasional
insights related to the following posts:
and his take on Cookie Donor Suits and the Tort-Reformer-in Chief.
and a post on the informal pleading style that is allowed in small claims court, which
asks plaintiff to describe the factual basis of the claim, but does not require that a
particular cause of action be specified.
for a lawyer’s services, when experience or technology, makes the task
Comments Off on table scraps
February 8, 2005
not even the sparrow stirs
thick clouds lowering…
brown eyes of horses blinking
through the whirling snow
Deep snow
on the white church dome–
not even the sparrow stirs
Ice crystals in the pines–
the dark half of the moon
faintly visible
South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Feb. 3, 2005:
Two boys accused of threatening a classmate by making violent drawings of stick figures will
avoid felony prosecution by joining a counseling program, officials said.
The boys, ages 9 and 10, are set to take part in a five- to seven-month intervention plan that
includes anti-aggression and anti-bullying counseling, said Robin Arnold, a Marion County
supervisor for the state attorney’s office.
With the criminal charges dropped, the boys are free to return to school.
The boys’ parents will also participate in the counseling.
Sidenote: I wish commentators, would be a little more precise when they attack
the boys were arrested because they “drew stick figure drawings that were
considered by school authorities to be violent.” The arrests were because the
drawings were deemed to be specific threats, aimed at and shown to, a specific
classmate — putting the child in fear of death.
Other commentators seem to think it was important that the boys were “special
education” students. As is repeated in the article linked above, the malady of at
least one of the boys was Attention Deficit Disorder — hopefully, not a reason to
use a lesser standard when assessing the risk to others posed by the boys.
“tinyredcheck” A very good result: “The Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
of Israel declared an effective cease-fire here today in the four-year low-intensity war known
as the intifada. Mr. Abbas said the two sides “have agreed to cease all acts of violence against
all Palestinians and Israelis everywhere.” (NYT article, Feb. 8, 2005)
“eschewSN” Eschew Jargon: Monica Bay’s advice for tech vendors dealing with tech journalists is
good for almost every situation where technology is being hawked to lawyers — or to any other members
of the non-techie public:
“Don’t use jargon! If you want to communicate, use plain English. Save the acronyms
for one-upsmanship games with your competitors — journalists don’t want to have to
refer to their vendor-speak translation devices to understand your pitches. You have
a short amount of time to capture journalist’s fancy, don’t squander it. Key words to
avoid: solution, robust, mission-critical, -centric, strategic, deploy, enterprise, initiative,
value-added, form factor.”
See our own war of words against jargon: here, there, everywhere. (find the eschew obfuscation bumper-
sticker here at cafepress.com)
Comments Off on not even the sparrow stirs
February 7, 2005
the get-well card
piano practice
in the room above me
my father shouting
“snowflakeS”
his death notice . . .
the get-well card
still in my briefcase
snowbound
reading out loud
to an empty room
credits: “piano practice” Woodnotes #31
“tinyredcheck” I recommend reading the op/ed piece in today’s New York TImes, by Brandeis history
professor, David Hackett Fischer, the author of “Liberty and Freedom: A Visual History
of America’s Founding Ideas.” Prof. Fischer notes that historically the words liberty
and freedom have different origins: “liberty meant privileges of independence; freedom
referred to rights of belonging.” The piece concludes:
“The catch, of course, is that people become more truly free only when the
central ideas are respected: liberty as the rights of individual independence,
freedom in the rights of collective belonging. Many on the right and left
continue to call for one idea without the other, but the strongest ground is
in the center, where they come together.
“People across the globe will continue to create new combinations of liberty
and freedom, with an inexhaustible fertility of invention. These visions are
profoundly different from one another, but they are all part of one great
historical process that is more open and free than any one idea of liberty
or freedom has ever been, or even wished to be.”
Ann Althouse asked a very good question yesterday, “who cares about feminism?”,
in a post that wonders whether the Janet Jackson Super Bowl episode was about sexism
or prudishness. She takes feminists to task for giving up on the sexual predation issue
back when they gave Clinton a pass over Paula Jones. (via Prof. B) I continue to believe
that the test of one’s principles is whether you apply them to yourself and your allies, not
whether you use them to club your enemies.
Super Bowl XXXIX. Steve?
Comments Off on the get-well card
February 6, 2005
hum in place of words
crackling beach fire —
we hum in place of words
we can’t recall
dwindling fire —
our conversation shifts
to death
starry starry night —
unfinished art school paintings
in the dumpster
“crackling beach fire” (Dec. 2004); “dwindling fire” (Oct. 2004);
“starry starry night” (March 2004)
by dagosan:
at the sink
squinting at sunrise
and saturday’s dishes
[Feb.6, 2005]
Prof. B. keeps asking for it . . .
but the f/k/a gang is still free-riding over at Bainbridge’s place,
despite Steve’s cute-pet-ploy.
in the Illinois State of the State speech this week. It reminds
us that Ill. favorite son Sen. Barack Obama has not yet responded
to our many requests (beginning Aug. 4, 2004) for his position
on tort reform. Maybe Rick Klau will ask him again on Monday.
No surprise: The NYC smoking ban has not hurt bars and
Comments Off on hum in place of words
February 5, 2005
pit-bully pulpit
The legal Guard Dogs of Dignity are straining at their leashes again down in Florida. You can read the next
chapter in their attack on the Pit Bill logo of Fort Lauderdale lawyers Pape & Chandler, in the Florida State Bar’s
Initial Brief to the Florida Supreme Court (Case Nos: SC04-40/SC04-41).
decision in Florida Bar v. John Pape and Marc Chandler, along with the original Bar complaint,
and P&C’s comprehensive Memorandum of Law , can be found here. The Referee and ruled that
neither the 1 (800) PITBULL number, nor P&C’s logo are deceptive or otherwise violative of the Rules
Regulating the Florida Bar; he also held that the State’s lawyer advertising rules are unconstitutional
restrictions on commercial speech as applied here by The Florida Bar.
Before you read the highlights of FBA’s case, please note that this is a b&w version of the logo in question:
As we discuss here, FBA is represented by famed appellate Tallahassee lawyer Barry Richard. But all of
Richard’s talents could not turn this sow’s ear (horse’s rear?) of a case into a winner.
Here are excerpts from their brief that make the main points argued by Richard and FBA:
number 800-PIT-BULL provides the consumer with nothing of informational value and is
designed to convey the idea that the lawyer engages in tactics that are considered unprofessional
and that are prohibited in practice. Because such tactics are prohibited, the suggestion that the
lawyer can engage in them is inherently misleading in violation of Rule 4-7.2(b)(4). Moreover, the
use of reference to a pit bull is intended to describe or characterize the lawyer’s services in violation
Rule 4-7.2(b)(3).
“tinyredcheck” There is no constitutional prohibition on regulating commercial speech that is more likely to deceive the public than inform it. The possibility of deception in using pit bulls in lawyer advertising is selfevident.
(emphasis added)
Take another look at that logo and tell me what is “self-evident” about the intent of the advertising lawyers or the effects of the image on the public. I’m not convinced that the pit bull logo injures consumers in any way. Wasting scarce bar counsel resources on this matter — and the appeal — on the other hand, surely means that more important disciplinary matters are being shortchanged.
update (Feb. 22, 2005): You can find Pape & Chandler’s Answer Brief here.
not much afternoon left–
his dog runs loose
ahead of him
letting
the dog out–
the stars in
the first snowfall
doesn’t hide it…
dog poop
mother dog
blocks with her butt…
snowball
by dagosan:
sunset tints
the cloudbank pink —
avoiding yellow snow
[Feb.5, 2005]
Speaking of lawyer ethics. take a peek at this article from February’s Washington
Lawyer, which “reviews the most popular of [website] disclaimers and discusses
the ways in which they may be featured on a law firm’s web site for maximum effect.”
(Thwarting Ethical Violations With Web Site Disclaimers, by Walter A. Effross )
My favorite passage:
These disclaimers can be taken to unusual and somewhat amusing lengths.
For instance, the terms-and-conditions page of one firm, whose site provides
a panoply of pages on its practice groups, lawyers, and publications, nonetheless
insists that the site is intended only to provide “general information to law students
and others who are considering a career at [the firm] or are interested in the firm.”
Similarly, another firm claims that “[t]his website is primarily intended for use by
law school students considering a career at our firm.”
the cookie curmudgeon checks in
Somebody needs to register a cautionary dissent to the tongue-clucking that is going on over the
$930 judgment entered this week against two young Colorado women who wanted to surprise their
neighbors with fresh-baked cookies. (see Walter, more Walter, and Fedster; MIPTC; Denver Post story;
ABC/GMA) In case you missed it, their gesture of neighborliness triggered a serious anxiety attack in
one lucky beneficiary, Wanita Renea Young, 49, and she sued the pair in small claims court for medical
bills. For more background, read the full account given in their local newspaper, Durango Herald, “
Friendly gesture ends in court” (Feb. 5, 2005).
I guess it’s up to skepticalEsq to try to bring a little balance to the story.
— click here for the rest of this story, which concludes, after making some darn good points:
Suggesting that this episode means no one should act kindly toward neighbors or strangers, or that doing so in a thought-full, thought-through manner raises unacceptable risks of being sued, is simply asinine. Almost any case can be made to sound like a miscarriage of justice, or a symbol of what’s wrong with our society or legal system, if you leave out enough facts. I have little hope for the main-stream media, but I wish my weblawg colleagues would try a little harder to present cases in a fair manner.
“the rice cake man
is next door!”
the child announces
stomping and singing
my child’s rice cakes
my child’s rice cakes…
all in a row
on rice cake and jelly…
katydid!
February 4, 2005
haiku circus
We interrupt this occasionally too-serious weblog — and our crusade against the
5-7-5 haiku myth — to point you to Haiku Circus, by Ken Sakamoto, “A comic strip
that combines drawings with haiku poetry (5-7-5 syllables).”
logo/magnet and more at cafepress.com
On the FAQ page, comic-haijin Sakamoto says:
Q: Is this really traditional haiku poetry?
A: It’s pop culture haiku. I break a few rules, but the syllables are still there.
We won’t let his syllable obsession keep us from smiling at Ken’s wit, sharing in
his frequent haiku moments, or wondering just what he’s smokin‘.
the little monkey
chews on a pipe . . .
autumn dusk
translated by D.G. Lanoue
Comments Off on haiku circus