Courts

The Maximum Security Courthouse

One of the best things about being licensed in multiple jurisdictions is the opportunity to observe emerging trends. The opportunity to see trends obviously applies to the development of case law and judicial attitudes.

One less obvious opportunity is to see changes in courthouse security. What I’ve seen is more than a little disheartening. More

Update no. 2: Legal Ethics Hero Greg Adler, and the Bay Area Towing Scam

My previous posts on this story can be found here and here.

On January 7, 2011, the perpetrators of the scheme were sentenced, and legal ethics hero Greg Adler received some well-deserved commendation.

The elephant in the room, however, remains the conduct of Commissioner Saldivar. Until his involvement in this unfortunate matter is fully investigated, the matter cannot be considered closed.

What constitutes legal authority? Some thoughts on foreign sources of law

Stephen Gillers at Legal Ethics Forum posted a very interesting note about an excerpt from a talk that United States Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito gave concerning the citation of philosophy in legal journals.

Justice Alito was critical of the practice. Mr. Gillers rightly asks what the problem is, and concludes, again rightly in my opinion, that there is nothing wrong with it.

I would even go a step further.

More

Bad Lawyering vs. Bad Judging

The Appellant’s brief in support of its Motion for Rehearing or Certification to the Supreme Court in the decision of the United States Fifth District Court of Appeals, in Marion v. Orlando Paint and Rehabilitation surely does counsel no credit.

That said, it does a Court no credit when its practice is to dismiss cases on their merits without issuing reasons.

More

In-house counsel and the loss of solicitor-client privilege: Update

In July of last year, I wrote about the case of Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc. et al, 09 Div. 4373 (SAS), where a Magistrate Judge of the Southern District of the United States Federal Court found that Gucci’s communications with its in-house counsel were not privileged because his status with the relevant bar was inactive.

At the time, I stated that the opinion was deeply flawed, and ought to be appealed.

Fortunately, the decision has been appealed, and Southern District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin held that Gucci was entitled to assume its communications with in-house counsel were privileged, absent indications to the contrary.

This is a far better reasoned result, and one which better squares with the expectations of real-world clients.