Lawyers, Legislators, and Loopholes

29 Dec 2010

2 Comments

A couple of weeks ago, I ran across this story about California’s new “Brett Studebaker Law”.

Brett Studebaker was a 19 year old man, who attended his friend’s birthday party on a so-called “party bus” in Burlingame, California.

As in most American jurisdictions, the legal drinking age in California is 21.

After riding around in a “party bus”, and consuming alcohol until his Blood Alcohol  Concentration was at least 0.23, he got back into his own car, drove it into a soundwall, bounced off, hit another vehicle and died.

His family has been pushing this new law, which is being promoted as necessary to close a “loophole”, that allows organizers of these “party buses” to close a blind eye to underage drinkers who bring their own alcohol aboard.

I am less than impressed.

More

By: Franco Tarulli Category: Courts Tags: , , , , , , ,

Merry Christmas!

24 Dec 2010

0 Comment

Thank you all for reading, and a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Until next post, some thoughts on the reason for the season:

8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And, see, the angel of the Lord came on them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10 And the angel said to them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11 For to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. 12 And this shall be a sign to you; You shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Luke 2:8-14

By: Franco Tarulli Category: Uncategorized

The Ridicule of Litigants in Family Court

19 Dec 2010

0 Comment

This story appeared recently in the Globe and Mail, and Alice Woolley commented on it at Legal Ethics Forum a few days ago.

Her post summarizes the situation:

A family court judge in Ontario recently “turned to ridicule” to deal with feuding spouses.  Noting that reason had failed to impress the litigants, he tried mockery instead.  Noting that the ex-wife’s attempt to run down her ex with a van was a “telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart” and starting his judgment “Paging Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud” the judge derided the conduct of the parties.  He ultimately awarded the wife custody of their daughter, but only $1/month in spousal support.  The story is here.  The judgment is here.  While I admire the style and rhetorical flourish, I can’t myself endorse this as a strategy, even if effective.  It seems to me inconsistent with judicial office.  I’m not condemning him – I can imagine the frustration.  But it doesn’t seem appropriate nonetheless.

There is no question in my mind that as amusing as the decision is to read, the manner in which it is written is entirely improper.

More

By: Franco Tarulli Category: Courts, Judges, Judicial conduct Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The High Cost of Legal Services

6 Dec 2010

0 Comment

The Chief Justice Lance S.G. Finch, of British Columbia’s Supreme Court, spoke at a meeting of that Province’s branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

His speech discussed the high cost of legal services, and the implications of that on the ability of the legal profession to remain self-governing into the future.

The premise of the talk was that legal fees are out of the reach of the average consumer, and have been allowed to remain that way artificially, largely because of the way that the current system of lawyer education and licensing creates barriers to entry into the business of legal advocacy and advice.

Is that really the problem?

More

By: Franco Tarulli Category: Lawyers, Legal fees Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Canadian Bar Association FAQ includes some Social Media advice

5 Dec 2010

0 Comment

The Canadian Bar Association recently published a FAQ which addresses, among other things, ethical best practices for lawyers using social media. The FAQ provides links to this information at Question 17.

The social media advice is not exactly new – it dates to 2008 – but it does provide some guidance.

I tend to question some of the advice – particularly advice about using encryption for all confidential client information transmitted over the internet. I’m not sure that’s always practical.

What might be better would be to ensure that the client understands the risks involved with any means of communication, and to obtain informed consent.

The remainder of the FAQ provides a quick reference for some of the more common inquiries about keeping and preserving client confidences.

Hat tip: Slaw.ca

By: Franco Tarulli Category: Conduct, Lawyers Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,