Jane Jarvis, the long-time organist for the New York Mets at Shea Stadium, died last week at age 94. Shea Stadium's Queen of Melody inspired fans over the course of 15 years, and her playing, oddly enough, held lessons for lawyers. Stay with me here. I have a point this time.

Those of my age that grew up spending times watching the Mets at Shea remember her playing for the fans, and the fans responding, and Jarvis tinkling the ivories back at us. It was like an exuberant conversation during her 1964-1979 tenure as she kept us entertained between innings and during other breaks. Anyone who spent time at the now-gone ball yard remembers Jarvis doing Meet the Mets on the Thomas organ.

Ultimately she was replaced by over-amplified canned music (and a thousand other distractions of the modern ball park). But canned music, of course, can't respond to the fans. Her playing was personal. She could see and hear what was going on, and speed up, slow down and modify on the fly. Live music is like that.

So where does the law come in to this? Lawyers often used canned materials too. We borrow briefs and memos from others for use.

But here is the important part: Too many lawyers, it seems, borrow the brief and don't actually read it. They don't make it personal to the actual facts of the case. The writing doesn't crackle with originality and pertinence, because oft times it is neither.

I once read a brief that was filled with "this honorable court" and "respectfully" this and "respectfully" that, and behind all the obsequious writing was garbage. I always figured that if one wanted to be respectful to the court, one would tailor the brief to the actual facts and points that needed to be made. The writer would make it easy on the eyes instead of forcing the judge (or clerk) to go burrowing through the darn thing trying to figure out what the actual point is.

Other briefs I've seen over the years have clearly been filled with cut-and-paste from other briefs, or straight out of WestLaw. It's pure laziness and the message that the judge no doubt receives is, "If the lawyer didn't care, why should I?"

There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with a form book, of course. If you are doing something for the first time it's good to see how someone else did it. The mistakes are in believing that this the only way to do it, or that the form shouldn't be changed at all. The mistake is in ignoring your audience.

Jarvis used sheet music to get her songs down when learning them. But then she adapted each song, just as the lawyer must adapt each and every argument (if, that is, you actually want to communicate a point to the judge)

Jarvis was a virtuoso when it came to the organ and the crowd. And that was because she didn't sit back and rely on the forms she started with.

A 2008 article in the Daily News described Jarvis's experience this way:

When it comes to music and the Mets, Jarvis once wrote the book. "I made all the decisions," she says. She had a song for when the Mets trotted to their positions, and a song for when they smacked a homer, and then there was the Mexican Hat Dance to get things going when the home team really needed it during the seventh-inning stretch. An entire generation of Met fans came to identify the team's championship run in 1969 with her lilting keyboard work.

Rest in peace.

(P.S. Pitchers and catchers report in 17 days. I think Jarvis would want me to mention that)

Updated:

• New York Times obituary
• Recalling a Meeting With the Pied Piper of Shea (NYT)
  

Labels: Baseball, Legal Writing, Odds and Ends

Anne Reed, Wisconsin lawyer and creator of the wonderful Deliberations blog about juries, is calling it quits with respect to the law firm (Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC) she's been at for 28 years. She moves on now to be the Executive Director of the Wisconsin Humane Society (where her mug shot already graces its front page).

Anne had a great perspective on juries and the selection process, on studies about how people (and groups) think and many a tip on how to approach the actual trial of a case. It's clear that the legal blogosphere loses a terrific voice as she closes down Deliberations.

I'm likely not the first, and certainly won't be the last, to wish her all the best in her new endeavor. I'm also probably not the only one to wonder if she will blog about the experience of morphing from a career in law to a new area.

And if any lawyers wondering about how to go about blogging are reading this, this is what happens if you blog well. From her firm bio, which is likely about to disappear:

Anne writes about juries and jury selection in her Web blog, Deliberations, which is listed in the ABA Journal's selection in 2007 of the top legal blogs. Because of her work in this area, Anne has been quoted in the ABA Journal, the National Law Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Lawyers USA and the Wisconsin Law Journal, among others.

On a final note, our dog Tucker was rescued by a humane group similar to the one Anne is going to work for.

He is, to say the least, grateful that people such as Anne exist in this world, or he would still be wandering the streets and garbage dumps of the place of his birth. Instead he gets to chase squirrels and endlessly sniff the personal parts of every resident and visitor to cross our threshold.

And that makes him happy.

Anne, Tucker wishes you all the best.

Labels: Odds and Ends

I love the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It's utterly over-the-top arguments have lead it to the conclusion that the success of Apple is due to trial lawyers.

Apple, you see, became the latest company to tell the Chamber of Commerce to go crap in a hat when it came to its stance on climate change. Apple quit. But according to the chamber, they weren't told by Apple to take that proverbial long walk of the short pier because its position on global warming was out of touch with science and the opinions of the vast majority of people. No, it couldn't be that.

According to the chamber, Apple must have quit the organization because of the trial lawyers. I kid you not.

In Friday's Washington Post the chamber said its critics were organized by "our normal adversaries-- trial lawyers, activist unions [and] environmental extremists."

Chamber COO David Chavern went on to write in his letter, that "[I]nterest groups are looking for public leverage to force us to do things against the best interests of the business community..."

You see, according to the chamber, Apple, one of the most successful consumer businesses on the planet, doesn't really know what is in its best interests. Apple, according to the chamber, is being pressured by trial lawyers. We're responsible for Apple being what it is today.

It's nice to see such a feather in the cap of the trial lawyers. Usually we must be satisfied knowing only that there are safer playgrounds, safer cars, safer drugs, and safer consumer items of all kinds as a result of lawyers holding companies accountable for what they make.

But now we get to add in Apple's success. Cool. I can live with that.

h/t Legal Reader
--------------------------------------
See also:

• The Chamber and Climate Change Debacle: Ignoring the First Rule of Holes (NRDC):

  ...it is clear that the US Chamber is worried about the impact of the controversy over their climate position, but it isn't worried enough to have an honest discussion with its members as to what's going on. Instead, the Chamber is firing wildly at its traditional scapegoats - lawyers, unions and environmentalists - and blaming the troubles on them. But what the Chamber is burying here is that it has created this mess for itself, and the companies that have quit the chamber and criticized it have done so of their own accord. (more)

• Chamber: They Just Hate Us Because We're Awesome (Mother Jones):

  The US Chamber of Commerce has had a very rough week. Mother Jones exposed their inflated membership numbers, forcing the Chamber to shrink its tally by 90 percent. Following a series of high-profile departures by members who opposed the leadership's position on climate change, a group of liberal NGOs has organized a "Stop the Chambe"" campaign, and the San Francisco Chamber is publicly divorcing them. The Chamber is so beleagured that it is now painting itself as the victim of—wait for it—a "corporate campaign." (more)

• Chamber fires back at climate critics (Politico):

  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce fired back at critics on Thursday, after a series of defections by member companies angry over the business lobby's opposition to climate change legislation."The only regrets we have is that we maybe have not always used the right language," Chamber CEO Tom Donohue told reporters. "We don't have regrets about our position, and we don’t intend to change it." (more)

Labels: Odds and Ends

In my blog roll off to the right under "Legally Humorous" sits a link to Say What?, a little Texas law blog from US District Court Judge Jerry Buchmeyer, who died Monday at 76.

But I didn't add him to my blog roll and RSS feed to read about Texas law. I tuned in because he had a great collection of trial and deposition snippets that, when you read them, were sure to lift your day. And to warn you about engaging the mouth before engaging the brain.

Oddly enough, though he died Monday, he has a post dated today (reprised from 2001). So somewhere up in the Great Beyond, Judge Buchmeyer must be laughing a little. And as long as Judge Buchmeyer continues to post, I'll continue to keep him in my blog roll.

One sample from the blog looks like this:

Q. Do you know how much money?

A. No, not specifically.

Q. You recall testifying as to a seven or $800,000 figure concerning Roseneath yesterday?

A. Whatever the record said.

Q. You recall discussing a seven or $800,000 contribution to GRI by Roseneath?

A. And I said whatever the record said.

Q. You don't recall that right now?

A. I said whatever the record said.

Q. That's not responsive. Do you recall?

A. Read my lips.

Q. Read mine. Do you recall?

A. Look at me again, read them real careful.

Q. And read my lips carefully -

Mr. Butler (wisely): All right. Gentlemen, I guess that's about enough of this.

It's easy to watch an hour disappear just roaming through his archives reading some of the transcripts that people had sent him over the years.

You can read some of the obituaries, that focus on his judge-life as opposed to his blog-life, here:

WSJ Law Blog;
ABA Journal;
Box Turtle Bulletin;
Tex Parte Blog;
Pegasus News;
Legal Blog Watch

Labels: Odds and Ends

Yesterday was September 11th, and once again I elected not to write anything on the subject of the attack on our nation.

But I have written about the day after, in the form of a tribute to Ken Feinberg, who was the Special Master for the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund:

The Days After September 11th -- A Tribute To An Attorney

Feinberg subsequently was selected to be the "pay czar" for federal bailout money:

Ken Feinberg: The New Human Punching Bag

Labels: Odds and Ends

Over at the WSJ Law Blog is a little post by Ashby Jones of a restaurant going cashless for security reasons. Credit cards only. He ponders whether this is legal given that greenbacks are legal tender "for all debts public and private."

The law on this, from Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, is: “United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.”

After a little analysis, he (sort of) concludes that as a private business they have a right to reject cash and not to do business with the cash-only patron, much the way a taxi driver might refuse all $100 bills.

But what of the government? When I went for a marriage license 10 years back, I was faced with NYC's Marriage Bureau refusing to take cash. They absurdly insisted that I go to a bank and get a money order. They wouldn't even accept credit cards.

I thought back then that this couldn't possibly be legal, but with marital bliss upon me and a fiancee next to me, I wasn't really in the mood to pick a fight.

But Jones' post made me wonder if this rule had changed over the last 10 years, so I went to the NYC Marriage Bureau page and checked. And I found:

Fee
The fee for a Marriage License is $35 by credit card or money order payable to the City Clerk.

So now they accept credit cards. But still not actual cash, despite it being "legal tender for all debts public and private."

Can that possibly be legal?

Labels: Odds and Ends

Bronx Justice Joseph Dawson went off on a rant, the Daily News reports. He was sick of people showing up in his courtroom dressed like slobs. (He's not the only judge to do this.) The News quotes him saying to criminal defendants:

"Your client comes up in a T-shirt and sweatpants, chewing gum? This court deserves more respect than that."

And to another:

"I'm not saying you have to wear a suit. You don't. Just wear something appropriate."

Now this blog gets a fair amount of hits for people looking for information on what to wear to court, as a result of this piece I did on a lawyer wearing an ascot to court. But I've never addressed the client version, so here goes:

It boils down to one rule, and one rule only: Wear the clothes you would wear to a house of worship. No slob clothes, no heavy jewelry, and ladies, no plunging necklines.

Lawyers and other professionals who routinely wear suits are expected to wear suits, like it or not. But many folks don't have suits, or if they do, they own only one; the one they wear to funerals. And you shouldn't wear the funeral suit because you will look just as comfortable as you would at a funeral.

If you are there to testify or make any kind of appearance then you want people listening to your words, not distracting jurors or the judge. Unless you want to lose, of course.

And if you are there to support a family member then you don't want to do something that makes the jury think poorly of your family member. If you dress in the church clothes, you can't go wrong.
--------------------------------
Another view: Lawyer Fashionista: Haute Bronx (Greenfield):

Judge Dawson's expectation that defendants consider the fact that they are going to court when they select their attire in the morning hardly strikes me as much of a stretch. Even in the Bronx, consideration of the day's events should guide one's choices. However, when one's Sunday Best on the Concourse is either the best they can do, or a casual reflection of a cultural distinction, perhaps it would be wise to spend less time concerned with the questionable merit of halter tops or droopy pantaloons and appreciate the fact that the defendants have appeared as required by law, turned off their cellphones so as to avoid disruption and kept their hands to their sides.

Labels: Odds and Ends

It's funny how one can be in the news without actually being in the news. As mentioned earlier today, the New York Times ran a story about "Sotomayor & Associates" and the fact that she didn't have any actual associates. I wrote that story up back on June 4th, and it's laid mostly dormant since then.

But when the Times failed to credit me with having found this item as they furthered the investigation, other bloggers took notice and the issue of journalistic ethics reared its head.

To my new readers (at least for a day), I welcome you. If you want to know more of the types of stuff I write about here, and whether this obscure little blog should be part of your RSS feed, you can skim this "best of" piece.

Welcome to readers of those that follow (and my thanks to their authors for the inbound links). I'll update this later with further links should the story be of interest to others:

• Glenn Reynolds @ Instapundit

• Scott Greenfield @ Simple Justice with a long and gracious post (Credit is a Two Way Street) that includes this lede:

  Judge Richard Posner recently suggested an extreme solution to the potential death of the newspaper. Using the argument that there's no reason to buy the cow when you can get the milk for free, Posner urged the expansion of copyright law to "bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent." In other words, burn blogs to save newspapers.
  
  But this assumes, as Posner does, that its only blogs that free-ride off the newsgathering efforts of "legitimate" media. While this is certainly the predominant flow, it's not always the case, as was clear today when the New York Times published a story about Sonia Sotomayor's foray into private practice under the name "Sotomayor and Associates." It was a wonderful piece of investigative journalism, but for one detail. The news was unearthed not by the Times, but by blawger Eric Turkewitz at New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog...[more]

• Prof David Wgner @ Ninomania:

  Did Sotomayor violate a well-established bar rule in calling her solo practice in 1983-6 "Sotomayor & Associates" when evidence suggests it was just herself helping family and friends via a home practice?

• John Steele @ Legal Ethics Forum:

  A solo cannot describe his or her practice with the phrase "and Associates" if in fact there are no associates there. It's false and misleading. [more]

• Jim Lindgren @ Volokh Conspiracy: A multi-state look at the use of "and Associates" in the name of a solo practice

• William Dyer @ Beldarblog: ...it doesn't take a sophisticated legal analysis for anyone, lawyer or layman, to recognize that claiming to be "Sotomayor & Associates" — when you really don't have any associates — is stupid and misleading [more at "Sotomayor & Associates" ... meh, who cares?]

• DRJ @ Patterico's Pontifications:

  Like Beldar, Turkewitz thinks this was a minor mistake but he offers some good advice that I doubt Sonia Sotomayor or the White House will take [more at Sotomayor & Associates]

• Walter Olson @ Point of Law:

  ...the nominee called her very small practice "Sotomayor & Associates" even though it had no lawyers but herself. That would appear to be an infraction, if a minor one, of the relevant New York ethical rules.

• Mark Draughn @ WindyPundit:

  Even if he got the idea from Turkewitz's' blog, he probably considers the idea public property because the primary source for the blog post---Sotomeyor's questionnaire---is available to anyone, and Turkewitz doesn't have any ownership of the story just because he wrote about it first. [Much more at On the Ethics of Sourcing For Bloggers and Journalists]

[New Sotomayor tag added for easy access to all Sotomayor posts]

Labels: Odds and Ends, Sotomayor

You have to admire the mettle of the man. Kenneth Feinberg is stepping into a new role that comes with this one thankless guarantee: No matter what he does people will hate him.

The President called and he answered the call. But the role that he fills is one of overseeing executive compensation for companies that had been bailed out by the government, to see that taxpayer money isn't wasted on overpaying executives.

Is that easy? Of course not. Many revile the policy and the whole concept of such stringent government oversight. And that means, as the government's delegated front man on the issue, that he will suffer the slings and arrows of angry people. People will yell that he allowed too much compensation for greedy execs while others will scream that it was not enough to woo talented people. He's gonna get it coming and going.

His job will be utterly thankless.

When he stepped into his role as Special Master of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund he also had problems. Some thought it unfair that the families of high income executives received vastly more than those from more humble positions. And others said the families of the high earners didn't get their due because their earnings were so high. As I said previously, I thought he was an extraodianry public servant.

This time, though, he won't have the back-drop of a nation under attack. He has a recession. I expect he will hear much more in the way of hardball assaults since the raw emotion and immediacy of September 11th won't be with us. He's certainly got guts to stick his body into the path of the flailing assaults he will no doubt see.

But in the deep background there is this to consider: Feinberg was picked both by the very conservative team of John Ashcroft and George Bush as well as the present administration. So there are people out there, on both sides of the aisle, who see Feinberg as a fair man that will do his best with integrity. And that ain't bad.

Elsewhere: D.C. Lawyer Kenneth Feinberg to Serve as Pay Czar (Elefant @ Law.com Legal Blog Watch)

Labels: Odds and Ends

Let me briefly summarize the state of New York's government.

As I write, the Senate is in disarray due to a coup. The Republicans were ousted in the last election after holding that chamber for 40 years. Eight months later two Democrats allegedly switch sides and dump their party in the name of "reform" but no one can decide if the vote was legal. And they are actually fighting over who has the keys to the Senate chamber.

Our governor was ousted in a prostitution scandal. Our new governor has approval ratings so low you need a shovel to find them, largely due to his fiasco in trying to replace Senator Clinton.

Our judiciary has sued the governor and the legislature because they haven't had pay raises since the days of the flood.

So the only thing left to do is make fun of New Jersey.

Labels: Odds and Ends

On the front page of the New York Times today is a story on Skadden giving lawyers a year off if they want it, and they still pick up 1/3 of their pay. For the lawyer they profiled, that meant $80,000 to go have a good time. (see: $80,000 for a Year Off? She'll Take It!)

Now some folks may balk at leaving the working world for a year, afraid of what might await them when they return. Since I happen to have taken a year off back in '88-'89 to travel (see: It was 20 Years Ago Today...), I've got something to say on the subject. And a little advice.

Do it!!!!!!!!

And, unlike the subject of the Times piece, who wonders about the do-gooder legal projects she can engage in in other parts of the world during her year away, actually working is not part of the requirement.

If there is no spouse, kids or mortgage that you need to worry about -- no keys that you need to take with you -- it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see and experience things that you will never get a chance to see and experience again. When you don't have to worry about the clock or calendar ticking, you get a chance to linger and look in ways you otherwise could not.

All you need are a passport, imagination and money. And Skadden is providing the money.

Labels: Odds and Ends

It's enough to make you vomit. The proliferation of marketers who will do anything in the spirit of Internet marketing.

So late last night a plane crashes in Montana killing 17 14 people. Horrible by any standard.

I Googled "Montana Plane Crash" as part of my continuing look at lawyers and marketing on the web and found a Google Adword link that looks like this (pdf version/MontanaPlaneCrashSearch.pdf):

Montana Plane Crash
Who's fault is it? Give us your
opinion and get an iPhone
www.nkthen.biz/Survey/polls

There are 17 dead people and grieving families and someone is running a contest to win an iPhone? Please, say it ain't so. I click and go to the website (/MontanaPlaneCrashiPhone.pdf):

MONTANA PLANE CRASH
Montana plane crash kills 17, including children

Montana Plane Crash - Who is at Fault?
Tell Us What You Think
and win an iPhone!

The Pilot and Crew! It is just an Accident!

So I went to the home page for the domain (http://www.nkthen.biz/), and found it to be pitching Internet marketing services like this (/JosephThenWebMarketing.pdf):

Discover How You Can Generate
An Avalanche of Traffic to Your Website in Just 3 Weeks!

Established Internet Marketer Spills Out Everything in Traffic Generation and How YOU can Get the Traffic you Want!

The author of the book and owner of the site is Joseph Then.

So thank you Joe, for your invaluable contributions to society. The bereaved will no doubt be grateful to you.

Labels: Marketing, Odds and Ends

Oprah is big. I know this because my media maven wife tells me so. She has, like, a jillion fans and even more money. I've never actually seen her strut her stuff on her show, but a jillion fans (and even more money) can't really be wrong, can they?

So I was flattered when Harpo Productions, Oprah's production company, contacted me. It seems that one of her regular segments is with a Dr. Mehmet Oz, and he wanted to do a piece on medical mistakes.

So enter stage right, me. Well, not exactly me, and if you've seen me on TV you'd know why. No, they wanted to use some of the images from my website for the show. I have a series of x-rays in my office that show various bits of surgical equipment left behind after surgery.

And by golly those kind of images would look nice on a show about medical mistakes since TV is, after all, a visual medium. And they wanted to use my images.

Of course! I said. And who wouldn't? And even though Oprah has said jillion dollars, I volunteered that I didn't want any of it for the use of the x-rays. A simple thank you would be nice. I would help with what was likely to be a valuable piece for a big audience and all would be right with the world.

But Oprah had a problem, it seems, with the "thank you" part. Or at least her legal team did. I asked that my firm receive proper credit for the use of the images so others would know their source, and if the segment or films appeared on the web, a link back to the my site where the films were found.

No sirree, they said. No link. No link? I've dished out, and received, more than I can count. They told me it was "standard" not to link. That, of course, is complete nonsense, as you can see from sites such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, among others. Oprah offered up an "end credit," those scrolly things that roll by at the end that no one ever sees, or on web versions an unlinked url.

OK, I said not wanting to be too much of a pain, because while the link was nice it really wasn't that big a deal to me. It would still be fun to write about being kinda, sorta, almost on Oprah. My x-rays would have their 15 nano-seconds of fame and I know that they would like that. And I would have helped Dr. Oz spread the word about real medical problems and mistakes and yada, yada, yada.

But even that seemed to be a problem for Oprah. Because part of the license agreement was this wonderful little bit that I'll summarize: We (Oprah) get to use your x-rays. And you (Turkewitz) get to surrender your First Amendment rights to discuss that fact. In other words, I get to pay them to use my material. Not with cash, but with good old fashioned rights. What a deal!

Here is the actual language, paragraph eight, from the license agreement that they wanted me to sign:

Licensor acknowledges and agrees that it shall not and cannot use Harpo's name or logos or Ms. Winfrey's name, voice, picture or likeness for any advertising or promotional purposes without first obtaining the written permission of Harpo relating to the Material. Specifically, Licensor agrees not to use Harpo's name or trademarks, Ms. Winfrey's name or likeness, or a quote from Ms. Winfrey or the Program on Licensor's website, in any Licensor-related publication, in connection with the marketing or advertising of Licensor or in connection with any book, blog, or other publication, product or service (including digital transmissions such as the internet or other on-line computer communication services) relating to Licensor. Further, Licensor hereby agrees not to use the phrase "As seen on Oprah", or similar statements, in any promotional or advertising material it creates or on its website.

OK, so they want to use my stuff and they don't want me to talk about it or even mention Oprah's holy name or use her image.

But there was one last avenue to explore -- because after all, this would have been fun -- and that last avenue was the part about obtaining written permission. So I told them I had every intention of blogging about it. Great! They said, what did you want to write? Umm, since the show hasn't aired, how could I possibly know? Does Oprah review a book that she hasn't yet read?

And that, my friends, was the end of that. Over several weeks and a couple dozen emails with three different people from Harpo working on this little project, they successfully overlawyered the issue to death. I know what you're thinking, her career will probably hit the skids as a result.

Now I don't mind being played for a fool, but that's only if the foolster happens to be my offspring, and I'm even willing to bend that rule if the foolster is merely a friend of the offspring. I'm game to ask why the chicken and all manner of other critters crossed the road, and to laugh at assorted knock, knock jokes, though I generally draw the line at the 9th iteration.

But I don't really care to be played for a fool by Oprah, no matter how big a shot she may be.

The licensing agreement, never signed, is here: /Oprah-Harpo.pdf

Labels: Odds and Ends

When I saw that quote at PrawfsBlawg I couldn't believe it was real. But there it was staring at me in all its bizarre glory from prof Eric Johnson (via ABAJournal):

"Associates at big law firms are perfectly suited to unionize. They are overworked and underpaid. And partners utterly depend on them. If associates actually used their latent collective bargaining power, it seems to me they could extract huge concessions from partners."

I haven't visited the issue of BigLaw salaries in awhile. After all, with associates being laid off by the thousands it didn't seem right to rub it in. What they need are tips on interviewing or resume writing, and here is a law professor stating that they should unionize to demand more?

Two years ago I noted that starting associates were starting at $160,000, plus giant bonuses, and lots of holiday swag, and then went on to $180K, and were thus clobbering the salaries of New York state judges who remained stuck at $136K and federal judges who were getting $162K (without a juicy bonus). (And last year former Chief Judge Judith Kaye finally brought a lawsuit over the fact that NY judges were actually going backwards, since they don't even get a cost of living increase.)

And starting associates, of course, can't even do much. The first year of practicing law might as well be called an apprenticeship. Who would trust a first year with any real project for a big corporate client unless there was significant (read "time-intensive") oversight? Pretty much the same is true for many second years. How many first or second year "litigators," for example, are trusted to take the deposition of anyone higher than a mail clerk?

Back in December 2007 Scott Greenfield wrote:

First year associates are near useless as lawyers. They are incapable of producing useful legal work, and at best churn out wasteful hours of memos stating the obvious at great length in order to produce the requisite number of hours. Sure, they think they're doing a bang-up job, but that's only because they have no clue of the utility of their efforts.

Still, somebody is paying for this time. Hour by hour, there is a client being billed somewhere for some kid to carry a briefcase around the hallway. It must be just fine with Biglaw clients to pay some top partner $1000+ an hour on top of a posse of kids following her around, nipping at her heels, fetching coffee and taking notes, so that every hour of actual legal work ends up costing the Biglaw clients $3,750.

BigLaw was getting the BigBucks because General Counsels figured no one would ever blame them for losing a case if they paid top dollar.

And what happened to BigLaw with the oodles of money and perks they were throwing around? A big-time contraction. Their clients, it seems, decided that in a Great Recession it might be wise to watch the bottom line, and shelling out piles of dough to BigLaw so they could bill out young associates at ridiculous hourly rates no longer seemed like such a hot idea.

And Johnson thinks they are underpaid? If by underpaid he meant outrageously overpaid, he might have a point, though that point is likely lost on those lining up for unemployment. I'm guessing there aren't too many judges, for example, who would think a first year associate that still has his or her job at BigLaw is underpaid. Nor any of the millions in jeopardy of losing homes to foreclosure. Does there exist some constitutional right to be paid $200+K per year while still being carried in a Snugli?

BigLaw, it seems, had overpaid its associates in a big, bad way while those firms suckled at the beautiful towers of corporate giants. But now reality is setting in, the teat's been covered, and associates are being told in 50 different ways to leave. If they were underpaid, why are so many desperate to hold on to those positions?

It would be a fairly safe theory to say that one reason for the massive contraction in BigLaw today is that they had overpaid for the legal talent they hired and were too late to realize it. Many of us -- the practitioners of law as opposed to the ivory towerists -- had already known that. It sure is an odd time to suggest to BigLaw associates terrified of discharge that this would be a good time to put the screws to the boss and demand more money.

The safe cocoon of academia must feel very nice. End rant.

Update! OK, that rant felt good. But I just noticed that the bit was written in February 2008, not 2009. D'oh! Nevertheless, the fact remains that BigLaw associates aren't exactly an exploited class working under treacherous conditions, though I suppose heart disease from long stressful hours and and take-out food could be a dangerous workplace environment. Of course, they'd get that anyway if they hung their own shingles.

Labels: Odds and Ends

My household now has a second blogger, as Mrs. NYPILB stakes out her own small corner of the interwebs. Her subject? Both the traditional and digital media industry that she worked in as an executive for over 10 years, and where she has been head-hunting (a/k/a recruiting) and resume writing for many more.

While her business may be media, out-of-work lawyers take note: Interview techniques and resume writing styles cross boundaries. So here are a couple of worthy posts from her nascent site, Let's Talk Turkey Media Blog, for the BigLaw associate who just hit the unemployment line:

Some Interview Doozies and Don't-zies (8 Interview Tips) (2/27/09)

Labels: Odds and Ends

A big Happy Mother's Day to Mrs. NYPILB. Yes, I know what you're thinking; this isn't the day that Hallmark and the florists have decided should be a generic, randomly selected, Mother's Day.

No, this day is more important. It's the day she did a lot of hard work to bring our first into the world. (Happy Birthday, Sweet Pea!)

Why people insist on using the Hallmark day is beyond me, when actual birth days are vastly more significant.

For Mother's Day Mrs. NYPILB got a few chocolate-dipped strawberries I made this morning, while the kid got the party over the weekend. Perhaps the Mrs. could have done better than a few strawberries, but she married me.

Labels: Odds and Ends

The question came to me from my brother via email, and I confess not to know the answer. But the question sure is intriguing.

Yankee superstar Alex Rodriguez admitted today that he used steroids in 2001-2003 while playing for the Texas Rangers. In one of those years, 2003 he took the MVP title. He said at the time:

"It means the world to me...I'm so proud. It really is a validation to all the hard work and dedication."

Right. Validation for hard work. OK. Moving on to the ramifications.

Those titles usually carry big, fat bonuses with them. A-Roid picked up a $500,000 bonus after he won the award getting six first place votes from the Baseball Writers Association, which decides such titles, among his 240-vote total. And in second place was Carlos Delgado with five first place votes among his 190-vote total. I think it's fair to say that A-Roid would not have received those votes if the writers knew he was getting a little chemical help.

Delgado, it seems, has a very credible claim he was cheated out of the MVP award which, depending on the nature of his contract, could have been worth a small fortune for the win. But it's not just bonus money at stake; he probably would have received larger future contracts. There's a lot of money in being #1.

So can Delgado bring a successful suit? Anyone with an answer?

Some sites covering the story:

• What To Make Of A-Rod's Admission That He Used Steroids (Fan IQ Blog)

  Well, rather then take the long, lawsuit-infested road to eventual full discovery that he did in fact use steroids, Alex Rodriguez today just decided to openly admit he used PEDs for three years as a Texas Ranger. And thankfully he didn't say that he accidentally "ingested" something.

• A-Rod's Confession Is Solid Move (MLB Fanhouse)

  But regardless of the forthcoming repercussions -- and there will be plenty -- A-Rod's confession on national television will go down in history as a well orchestrated public relations move. I'm serious.

• How do you punish A-Rod? (Dallas Morning News)

  How do you do anything to admitted steroid user Alex Rodriguez? It's no wonder he came clean. There is absolutely nothing that Major League Baseball will do.

• ARoid: Alex Rodriguez Confesses to Steroid Use but Leak of 2003 Test May Have Been Criminal (Findlaw)

  Over the weekend, New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez was identified as having tested positive for steroid use in 2003. Today, he admitted to using performance enhancing drugs from 2001 to 2003. While the highest paid player in baseball history may suffer permanent damage to his legacy, the leak of his positive test in 2003 may have been a crime.

• Playing Defense Against A-Rod's Incomplete Contract (Dan Hoffman @ Concurring Opinions)

  Sometimes it's tough to find a legal angle on the latest micro-scandal. Not so with the revelations that the hated Yankee slugger Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003.

• MLB Great Debates: Is Alex Rodriguez's Admitted Use of Steroids a Big Deal? (MLB Outsider)

  Fans seem to feel that cheating somehow belittles the accomplishments of past greats whose numbers no longer hold up. But when exactly did cheating in baseball start?

• Alex Rodriguez admits to using steroids: Slugger injects truth, says it was 'very stupid' (Phil Rogers @ Chicago Tribune)

  Rodriguez does not appear to face any MLB sanctions or federal prosecution for steroids. Prosecutors might press him to reveal the source of his drugs; they have gone after distributors more than users.

  
  

Labels: Odds and Ends

Ever wonder where shows like The People's Court find their subjects? Well, the answer is here: They troll through small claims court looking for filings. (OK, you can learn that at Wikipedia, but stay with me on this one.)

I brought suit a few weeks ago in small claims court, only the 2nd time I've needed to do that in 20 years of solo practice. I paid an expert money for a review, and he never did the review. He didn't say yes to my case, he didn't say no, he simply put the retainer in his pocket, the records some where else, and then ignored me when I called to find out what was going on.

So I finally got his attention with a suit. (If I have to do this only once very 10 years, then I'll count myself lucky.)

Enter, stage right in today's mail, a letter from The People's Court asking if the two sides would like to have Judge Marilyn Milian arbitrate our case. Lawyer v. Expert.

What do we get if we agree?

1. If I win then they guarantee payment, meaning I wouldn't have to go through any collection proceedings to satisfy a judgment.

2. If I lose, they still pay me $250 for my time.

3. No waiting time in real court, as they set up a real date and time; and

4. Travel expenses.

What they don't guarantee is that anyone appearing on such a show will be free of gratuitous humiliation that any judge wishes to dish out. Now I don't know if that is the style of the show as I haven't seen it, but if a show isn't entertaining then the ratings go kaflooie and it drops off the air. And, frankly, I don't feel like being anyone's entertainment unless they are under the age of 10 and share my last name.

Why would any rationale person subject themselves to a TV court? It's not something I can figure out.

Thanks, but I'll pass. And besides, if it isn't with Judge Wapner it doesn't count.

Labels: Odds and Ends

I'm irritated. The web site claims that orders "are usually shipped the same day." But it took them five days to ship mine. Since this is ink for my printer, that matters.

Over the last 20 years I have done everything as an attorney from answering the phones and filing papers, to taking verdicts and arguing appeals. I've also taken care of my office equipment, which inclues the utterly mundane act of ordering ink.

InkJet Superstore has ink. So I ordered it. But when I got an email five days after placing the order that it had just shipped, I was steamed.


I tried to call, but the customer service number was no longer working.
I tried to email, but there was no email address on the site.
I tried "live chat" and got a human, claiming to be named "Jane." Ah ha! So let's see what happened to my ink:


info: Please wait for a site operator to respond.
info: You are now chatting with 'Jane'

Jane: Hi! How can I help you?
you: I ordered my stuff 5 days ago. Why did it take 5 days to ship?
Jane: I do apologise for that delay. Could you tell me your order number so I cna look it up?
you: 683089
Jane: And what is your name please?
you: Eric Turkewitz
Jane: We experienced a severe delay during the weeks from Dec. 29 to January 10th, this is why your order shipped fiveive days later. I apologise for this inconvenience.
you: Your website says:
you: Orders placed before 3pm PST are usually shipped the same day. (Monday - Friday).
you: I tried to call, by the way, and the customer service number on the website has been disconnected.
Jane: Yes, but as I said, we went thourgh a very big, unforseen, delay. Which is why we couldn't ship a lot of orders within due time.
Jane: Our phone system is down at the moment, we're trying to solve it.
you: What was the delay?
Jane: We had our anual inventory recount opnthe last week of December, which resulted in a huge delay of orders from that week and the week after it
you: If this was an annual recount, why was it "unforeseen?"
Jane: Because we don't prevent how many orders we will have delayed
you: ??? (That didn't seem to make sense)
Jane: The delayed was expected, but we didn't know it was going to be such a delay. Is there anything else you need us to do for you???
you: If you knew there was a big delay, why didn't you at least send the stuff to me by next day delivery instead of ground service?
Jane: I'm sorry for the inconveniece, but we weren't able to do that at the time.
you: That's not a very good answer to an unhappy customer
Jane: I apologise for this problem I really understand your situation.
you: Saying you have delays due to an annual recount and apologizing for me not sending me the stuff pronto, doesn't really answer any question that I had
you: Your site says 100% satisfaction guaranteed. As you might guess, I am not satisfied
Jane: What you can do, if you wish, is return the items for a full refund, when you receive them.
you: Where were these goods shipped from?
Jane: Form Bell, CA, 90201
you: Great, so it will take another 5 days to reach New York?
Jane: Yes.
you: Will you be letting your boss know that s/he has lost the business of a customer, not just because of the initial delay, but because the company then caused further delay by shipping it via ground?
Jane: I will. We always report this issued to our boss. I'm sorry for this inconvenience.
you: By the way, you said you couldn't ship the stuff to me via air after the delay. Why not?
Jane: We can't change the shipping method a package once the order is shipped.
you: But it only shipped today. You knew many days ago you were having long delays. So why wasn't it switched before it was sent?
you: I mean, really, is that any way to treat customers? To make them bear the brunt of your delays?
Jane: This was an unusual situation, I'm so sorry about this.
you: You've already apologized. I'm not looking for another one. I want to know why steps weren't taken to immediately rectify the foul-up. Because if the company can't rectify foul-ups in such a simple manner, there seems to be little reason to trust the company in the future.
you: Hello?
info: Your chat transcript will be sent to [xxxx [at]Turkewitzlaw[dot]com] at the end of your chat.

So there you have it. Delays by the company, and the hope that lots of "I'm sorries" will somehow make the goods appear at my office quicker. I never did get a decent answer as to why an annual recount was unforeseen or why the company didn't ship delayed items by air to make sure the customers got their goods with as little delay as possible.

OK, you've each been warned about this company.

Labels: Odds and Ends

Avvo, the lawyer rating service, says it has "no concern" over a convicted New York sex offender, whose license was suspended last week. Steven J. Lever, a former Kirkland & Ellis associate, was the subject of a sharply divided opinion from New York's Appellate Division, First Department, with a three judge majority suspending him for three years over the dissent of two others that sought to have him disbarred. The lawyer plead guilty in September 2005 to sex offense charges related to soliciting sex over the internet from what he believed to be a 13-year old girl. (See: Sex Offender Keeps Law License)

The Avvo opinion on Lever gives their definition of "no concern" as follows "We have not found any instances of professional misconduct for this lawyer." (Pdf version here: Avvo-Lever.pdf)

Avvo also says it has found "no misconduct" regarding the lawyer, with the definition of "no misconduct" being exactly the same as "no concern:"

"We have not found any instances of professional misconduct for this lawyer."

Avvo has been oft criticized for its ratings because the subjective nature of lawyering isn't truly amendable to any rating system. Avvo had contended that, while the subjective part was difficult, the objective part of rating attorneys by looking for misconduct actions was something it could do.

While I wouldn't expect last week's disciplinary decision to be reported in just one week, the actual criminal action against him was resolved three years ago. And Avvo missed it. (There are also zero comments by others on the Avvo site related to this lawyer.) If it is Avvo's policy not to research crimes committed by attorneys (and I'm guessing that based on the fact that they didn't report this sex crime conviction), then even its limited value of analyzing objective data is a failure.

Avvo thus apparently fails not only with the subjective rating system, which defies quantitative analysis, but also with the limited objective analysis of data that it aspires to. Because if you don't find the data, the analysis isn't worth squat. Garbage in, garbage out.

See also on Avvo:

• Avvo: My chat with Paul (Simple Justice, 6/27/07)
• Avvo Responds to Lawsuit and Critics (WSJ Law Blog, 6/29/07)
• Avvo Rating System: Thanks, But I'll Pass (3/2/08)
• Why AVVO Will Hurt Lawyers (Build a Solo Practice, 1/7/09), with more links at Lawyer Rating System Endorsed by WSJ - Does This Make You Feel Better? (12/27/07)
  

And previously regarding Lever:

• Just How Much Moral Turpitude is Too Much? (Simple Justice)
• Attorney Caught in Internet Sex Sting Suspended From Practice for 3 Years (NYLJ)
• A Tale of Two Lawyers (Maryland Injury Law Blog)
• Lawyer Who Sought Sex with 13-Year-Old Suspended (Village Voice)
  

Labels: Odds and Ends

I didn't want to get down in the muck and politic for votes in the ABA Blawg 100 vanity contest, but the China Law Blog has apparently been stuffing the ballot box in the "regional" category that we're both in. And L.A. Legal Pad is right there in the mix.

I know that personal injury law fans won't let this outrage stand, me being in second place and all that, but if you were on the fence as to who to vote for, or how many times to vote, then here are the Top 10 Reasons To Vote For the NY PI Law Blog.

(The South Florida Lawyers Blog and the Texas-based Tex Parte Blog are also nominated in the regional category, but either they haven't figured out how to stuff the ballot box, or inspire their readership, leaving them in the dust.)

10. I'm offering everyone world peace if I win. Plus a toaster. China Law Blog is offering everyone a half-eaten, food-poisoned, jelly donut, sent to you on a slow boat from you-know-where;

9. I heard that L.A. Legal Pad spent $150,000 for its wardrobe. Do you really want to support that kind of spending?

8. That's my dog Tucker. A vote for me is a vote for the puppy. Do you want to say no to that face?

7. Tucker can bark Alice's Restaurant. In four part harmony. With feeling;

6. I'm only 21% evil, far below the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's 65% evil limit for my kind;

5. Jewish lawyers in New York are rare. Please support the species;

4. Rumor has it the China Law Blog is employing child labor to vote, in clear violation of local employment and election laws;

3. New York has better Chinese food;

2. We got the Empire State Building; L.A. has smog. China has worse smog

And the #1 reason to vote for the NY PI Blog:

1. If you can't trust Paris for an unbiased opinion of law blogs, who can you trust?

You can vote at this link.


(Graphic credit: Dan Turkewitz)

Labels: Odds and Ends

Last year when the ABA put together their list of the top 100 law blogs, personal injury lawyers were noticeably absent. I was sharply critical of the ABA for ignoring this entire field of law. Part of my rant looked like this:

It's not a question of one blog being picked over another since this is, after all, just another vanity contest that small niche blogs don't have a shot of winning. No, the significant thing is that the vaunted American Bar Association simply doesn't think that this field of law is relevant. The decision to ignore a vast segment of the law speaks volumes about the organization.

This year, however, there are two included, mine and Drug and Device Law. Half of the "honorees" in last year's 100 are gone, replaced by 50 new ones.

Drug and Device, which discusses the field from the defense side and focuses on personal injury cases that tend toward having hundreds or thousands of claimants, is in the niche category that didn't exist last year. The ABA description is:

From the pharmaceutical and medical-device product liability litigation corner of the blogosphere, there's no beating this defense-oriented blog. Seasoned defense lawyers Jim Beck of Philadelphia and Mark Herrmann of Chicago, along with authoritative guest contributors, pick apart rulings and explore issues common to this niche practice.

Those guys have stiff competition when you see the niche category with 15 entrants -- tough competition because they want people to vote. No matter what happens, they come out smelling like a rose.

I, on the other hand, have thin competition with only five entrants in the regional category. My description looks like this:

Aside from thoughtful posts on New York tort law and insights into tort litigation in general, Eric Turkewitz also gets props for punking the blogosphere. On April 1 he posted a story contending that the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in a fantasy baseball case -- and that fantasy-baseball-player Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr. had recused themselves while Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also players in this fantasy story, declined to do so.

Alas, in the early voting I am fighting for last, not first. That means that the small category is a curse and not a blessing if you're heading for the basement, as it sets me up for big-time abuse from others. Like my family. So please do me a favor in this utterly meaningless vanity contest, and throw me a vote so I don't come in last.

You can find the whole list here. And remember, it's all very subjective, both as to quality and category. Voting ends January 2nd.

Labels: Odds and Ends

Turkey time is always an interesting time around the Turkewitz household. Always has been and always will be given the easy play on the name.

But that won't stop us from throwing the football around tomorrow in our annual game, called...wait for it...The Turkey Bowl.

It's also a good time to remember that Ben Franklin wanted the wild turkey as the national bird, due to its courage. I suspect my childhood would have been a bit different this time of year if he had prevailed. He wrote in a letter to his daughter, comparing the turkey with the bald eagle:

For the Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America . . . He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on.

But instead, we gobble them up this time of year, which might be good for us but not so good for the actual turkeys.

May the day be a happy and peaceful one for all. It's a good time to remember those who have less, and if you are reading this then you have a computer and that means there are billions of people who have less.

Labels: Odds and Ends

Shea Stadium is being demolished as we speak. A new stadium is ready to go for the New York Mets, with Citibank having bought the naming rights for 20 years for $20 million per year.

The new stadium's name, Citi Field, could be worse, of course, but that isn't the reason for this brief post. It seems two NYC councilmen don't think Citibank ought to have their name on a field given the Citi bailout and the fact that this naming nonsense is now being paid for with our tax dollars. And Citibank has no plans on pulling out of the deal.

Their councilmens' solution? Call it Citi/Taxpayer Field, which is of course a dumb name but makes a good point.

My own suggestion for a name -- since I don't really want my tax dollars to go for promoting Citibank by wasting it on a baseball field, and big corporations aren't likely to be stepping up to the plate with piles of money for naming rights any time soon -- is to name it for the one man who wore the uniforms of all four big league teams to play in New York: The immortal Casey Stengel. ("Good pitching will always stop good hitting, and vice versa.")

Citi Field should be out and Stengel Field should be in.

Unless, of course, someone out there has a better name?

Labels: Odds and Ends

So there I was reading the paper in court this morning and I saw this great story on the front page of the New York Times about the Santa Monica police busting people for exercising on the median of a popular roadway (Where the Traffic Median Is a No-Pilates Zone).

Why are the health nuts congregating there? From the Times:

The ocean view, the air and for some the architectural spectacle have transformed the area into a huge outdoor gym rimmed by multimillion-dollar homes.

And how much time and effort are being spent on this little project? Back to the Times:

Since the patrols began, the city has issued eight citations for the flouting of the median law -- the fine is $158 -- and has given warnings, which are generally heeded, to about 600 people a month.

Of course, not everyone feels like complying with the orders of the cops, no matter how many of them patrol the area, so that means legal challenges. And more costs.

Now the last time I checked, we had two wars going. Our economy is in the stinker. State governments from sea to shining sea are facing massive cutbacks due to a sudden drop in tax receipts.

And the the good folks out in Santa Monica are busting folks for acting healthy.

Labels: Odds and Ends

Right on the heels of Barney, the White House dog, biting biting Reuters reporter Jon Decker, we now find he may have the perfect defense lawyer.

Guide dog Skeeter Jones now has earned a law degree Juris Dogtor. I'll try to reach out to Barney, carefully, for an updated interview on the ramifications for the species, and of Skeeter defending him.

Meanwhile, while one wag thinks you'd be barking up the wrong tree if you hired Skeeter, the paw firm of Barker and Meowsky has already made him an offer.

What will become of Skeeter and Barney? Stay tuned.

Labels: Odds and Ends

You know this blogging is a funny thing. You really can publish whatever you want and have it seen almost anywhere in the world.

So I've now been quoted in India. That's right, India. I've traveled there, as you can see from the 20-year old picture at left. And had a great time in a wonderful country. But I can honestly tell you I never expected my little blog on personal injury law to pop up in one of their papers.

And the quote comes in an editorial, of all things, in the highly-regarded Economic Times of India. (I just made that highly-regarded thing up, I didn't actually know squat about it until I looked on Wikipedia and found it to be the second largest financial paper in the world.) The editorial dealt with my legal analysis of the gripping story of First Pooch Barney taking a bite out of Reuters reporter Jon Decker. Somehow, though, they missed Barney's own account of the incident.

And so as I close out my second year of blogging, I would like to welcome all those readers from India who have an interest in New York personal injury law. Both of you. And don't forget to add me to your RSS feed.

Labels: Odds and Ends

As readers know, presidential pooch Barney took a bite out of Reuters' reporter Jon Decker yesterday. The NYPILB caught up with the First Dog for this exclusive interview covering the incident, life in the White House, and the prospect of being sued:

NYPILB: Dog, what happened?

Barney: Please. It's Barney. Save your familiarities. I'm still in the White House, you know. I'm not some common mutt on the street.

NYPLIB: My apologies. Barney, what happened?

Barney: You think it's easy living in this prison? I snapped, OK?

NYPILB: Someone take away your doggie treats?

Barney: Oh sure, be a smartass. It's bad enough that The Master has been walking around caged up in here because McCain didn't want to see him and he's grumpy because people don't like him anymore. He says this place is worse than Gitmo. And I got these yahoos from the media crawling all over me with their cutchy, cutchy coo stuff like I'm a baby.

NYPILB: Don't you have protection from them?

Barney: I did until yesterday. My Sheppards have been reassigned to the incoming puppy. They gave me a fist bump and were gone.

NYPILB: Incoming puppy?

Barney: Yeah, word is the new dog in town is already being trained.

NYPILB: How does that make you feel?

Barney: Like biting.

NYPILB: I heard you've done this before.

Barney: I need to keep myself amused. We get these tourists coming through the Rose Garden, traipsing on my turf. Don't you humans have noses? I clearly marked it. You think Saddam was the only one to have active chemical weapons?

NYPILB: But he didn't.

Barney: They should have sent me over. I could have sniffed them out.

NYPILB: Are you worried about being sued?

Barney: In order to serve me with the papers, they have to catch me first. I'm small, but I can move when I have to. And besides, it would be a frivolous suit!

NYPILB: But Dog, you've bitten before. You've got what lawyers call a "vicious propensity."

Barney: What did I tell you about that? You think this is American Idol?

NYPILB: Sorry. Barney, you've bitten before.

Barney: Would it be OK if I water boarded them instead? And besides, I thought they were terrorists.

NYPILB: In the Rose Garden?

Barney: 9/11!!!

NYPILB: Huh?

Barney: Rudy Giuliani likes to visit me. He said that was a defense to everything.

NYPILB: And where is Rudy now? Preparing his inaugural address, is he?

Barney: Again with the sass mouth. Look, the guy was coming after me. He bent down and made a grab. Am I supposed to let every Tom, Dick and Harry stroke my fur? I don't think so! A dog's gotta defend himself. By now the whole world's seen the video. He's 6 feet tall, I'm 1'-4" on a good day. How can I reach his hand unless he's coming down after me?

NYPILB: Barney, first you said you bit Decker because you snapped. Then you said you bite to amuse yourself. Then terrorists and now self defense. What gives?

Barney: I have a constitutional right to self-defense!

NYPILB: Where does the constitution say that?

Barney: The Second Amendment.

NYPILB: That deals with arms. We're talking teeth.

Barney: Yeah, that's what you think. In District of Columbia v. Heller Justice Scalia wrote that "The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right." Woof!

NYPILB: I didn't know you were a constitutional scholar. Does it trouble you that they just made that "inherent right" stuff up, and that it isn't part of the text?

Barney: You new to politics? Folks make stuff up all the time.

NYPILB: I notice that you didn't answer the question about the multiple and contradictory defenses that you have raised.

Barney: Well, I have a book in progress. Millie cashed in, so why can't I? My agent at William Morris is already working on the talk show and college campus circuits. I need to try out some lines to see what works.

NYPILB: Aren't you afraid folks will see these conflicting things in print?

Barney: Nah. Your audience is too small. OK, I gotta go. Literally. I suggest you get out of my way.

Labels: Odds and Ends