Denise Howell is a seasoned appellate and intellectual property litigator based in Los Angeles. Denise writes one of the first and most popular law-related blogs, Bag and Baggage, coined the term "blawg" and helped pioneer podcasting for lawyers. Microcontent obsessed since 2001, she is frequently quoted in the media on legal issues involving intellectual property and technology law. "Sound Policy" is Denise's show at IT Conversations, and it's also what she hopes results from the briefs she submits to court. Email Denise at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Dennis Kennedy is a computer lawyer and legal technology expert based in St. Louis, Missouri. An award-winning author, a frequent speaker and a widely-read blogger, he has more than 300 publications on legal, technology and Internet topics, many of which are collected in his e-books. Dennis has been described as someone who knows almost every rock song in existence and, more importantly, how they apply to technology and law. Email Dennis at his gmail address.
Tom Mighell is Senior Counsel and Litigation Technology Support Coordinator at Cowles & Thompson in Dallas. He has published the Internet Legal Research Weekly newsletter since 2000 and blogged about the Internet and legal technology at Inter Alia since August of 2002. With Tom's singing, Ernie on guitar and Dennis' encylopedic knowledge of rock music, we may have the beginnings of a good band, if this whole blog thing doesn't work out. Email Tom at email@example.com.
Marty Schwimmer left a partnership in the largest trademark practice in the world and founded Schwimmer Mitchell, a full-service IP micro-boutique in Westchester County, New York, where he represents owners of famous and not yet famous trademarks. He founded The Trademark Blog, the first IP law blog and the one with the most pictures. He is the first to come in and the last to leave in his firm. Email Marty at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Ernest Svenson practices law with a mid-sized law firm in New Orleans, specializing in business-related lawsuits. Most of his practice takes place in federal court, especially the Eastern District. He is best known for his weblog Ernie the Attorney, which he started as an experiment. Like many experiments it got out of control. Nevertheless, he continues to practice law and, occasionally,
to seek enlightenment. Email Ernest at email@example.com.
About this blog
Between Lawyers provides just-in-time group commentary on the issues
raised when technology, culture and the law intersect. We take you
behind the firewalls and conference room doors to show you how
experienced lawyers deal with these issues and help you prepare for
the new challenges we all face. For more, see our introductory post.
Looking for something to read this weekend? Look no further -- check out Nexus, a "Journal of Opinion" from Chapman University School of Law. The current issue is titled How are Blogs Affecting the Legal World?, and it contains 12 articles from law professors and law blog lumiaries alike. Included is Blog You (PDF File), an article from BL's very own Denise Howell.
The Yale Law Journal is looking for submissions on topics "both contentious and suitable to thorough and engaging discussion." If you have something in mind you'd better get a move on, the deadline is August 1.
While that bit of information is interesting in its own right, perhaps more interesting is the way I know about it: YLJ went out of its way to thank blawger Sean Sirrine, and ask him once again to help get the word out about the opportunity (which he did). Just another example of blawgs throwing a courtyard bazaar at the ivory tower and fostering a culture of participatory law. I can't think of a more effective way to engage those who might have something intriguing to say.
Just out this week, Socialtext Open: "Socialtext Open is released under a standard open source license, and contains all of Socialtext's enterprise grade code aside from enterprise management and enterprise integration tools."
Wikis at work,
BEA, IBM, Oracle, SAP Ramp SOA Spec Efforts: "The group also has setup what they call a 'vendor-neutral Web site, designed as a wiki' they will use to collaborate, communicate and gain feedback from developers. There's a place for news, white papers, public specifications and access to information on early deployments."
Chief Justice John Roberts recently told a group of people in Huntington Beach, California that he was not in favor of cameras being allowed in the U.S. Supreme Court. "We don't have oral arguments to show people, the public, how we function," he told the audience. Well, let's stop here and talk about the audience for a second. In case you couldn't guess, the audience was not a bunch of high school students or some civic group. The audience was composed of federal judges and their spouses.
Obviously, the Supreme Court doesn't have oral arguments to show people how the court functions. Even a guided tour through the various chambers wouldn't exactly show the public, or lawyers, how the court functions. So, that statement is basically a rah-rah red herring.
Judges, when they talk amongst themselves (and they do this a lot), strongly oppose cameras in the courtroom. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. What's going on is judges are doing the cost-benefit analysis in a way that reflects their sensibilities. They realize that a lot of attorneys play to the cameras and to popular sentiment, and they rightly fear that this will diminish the sanctimony of court proceedings.
But, it's not the cameras that cause the problem (i.e. guns don't kill people etc). It's something else: namely our innate desire for attention, which many of us express in really goofball ways. So, yes, having cameras in the courtroom will exacerbate this problem. First question: is there anything that could minimize the problem of attention-hounding lawyers, if and when cameras are allowed in the courtroom? Second, and more important question: what might be the short-term, and long-term benefits of having cameras in the courtroom? I agree it won't exactly show us how the court functions, but it may show us a lot of other useful things. Maybe it will show us how some things don't function as well as they should. Maybe it will allow us to see for ourselves (not filtered through a reporter's descripition) that certain attorneys are ill-prepared or brazen or stellar or [fill-in adjective].
But, regardless of whether we can reach a consensus on whether cameras in the courtroom might be useful, there is something else to consider.
Cameras in the courtroom are inevitable. Why? Because each succeeding generation expects more transparency and openess, especially from government institutions. This has been a long-running and powerful trend. Nationally, and internationally. So when Justice Roberts says that he and his fellow justices see themselves as "trustees of an extremely valuable institution," he is trying to preserve a tradition that over time will lack the resonance that it now has. If you want to receive applause for saying that cameras will never be allowed in the courtroom then make sure you are speaking to other judges. If you say that to other groups of people you'll find the applause is less enthusiastic. Eventually, there will be no applause outside of the judicial sect for this sort of statement.
In 1996, Justice David Souter told a congressional panel, "The day you see a camera come into our courtroom it's going to roll over my dead body." I don't think that will happen in a literal sense, but it actually could if Justice Souter chose to be buried on the steps leading up to the Supreme Court.
Eventually Justice Souter will pass away. This is an inevitability. And it's virtually inevitable that somewhere in the future there will be a generation of people who will expect to be able to see images of what happens in our public courtrooms, especially the United States Supreme Court. Yes, free speech and transparency are messy things that cause all kinds of problems, but they also have tremendous social force. I completely understand Justice Roberts' viewpoint, and to some extent I agree with it. But, regardless of who among us now agrees with it, the truth is that viewpoint has a limited life-span.
I'm not big on fighting things that are inevitable. I'm more inclined to say: so if it's coming, then how can we create a better transition? But then I'm also not someone who gets invited to talk to judicial groups a lot either.
Must-read (and Must-Think-About) Blogging from Denise Howell
"Have Aeron Will Travel" is a must-read blog post from Between Lawyers' own Denise Howell. I don't think you'll find a better-written and more savvy post on the practice of law this year, making its subject especially ironic. Let me say simply and clearly that there is no one more respected in the world of law-related blogging than Denise Howell (see lifetime achievement award comments here).
I'll have more to say on this subject later after I give it some more thought, but I'm simply flummoxed by the decision Denise discusses in the post. Jeaneane Sessum has some comments that represent a good starting point to think about the issues raised in Denise's post.
A firm cannot prosper without keeping its best people and the best people will always have choices which they will exercise based on their drive for self actualization. The Managing Partners who understand this and manage accordingly will be judged as our profession's greatest heroes.
I'll simply echo Steve Nipper's question about the consequences, especially the unintended ones, of continuing to apply Law 1.0 concepts in an evolving Law 2.0 world, especially when it comes to attracting and retaining talent. How many law students interviewing with Reed Smith this fall will ask a question about Denise? How many of them will be satisfied with the answers they get?
As I said, I'm flummoxed by Reed Smith's decision-making process. After 20+ years of practicing law, however, I do have my own ways to read the tea leaves in this decision and it definitely raises some interesting questions and speculation that will probably be discussed at the firm in the coming days. I'll probably talk about those on my own blog at some point soon.
It will be our pleasure to hold down the fort at the Between Lawyers blog while Denise takes a well-earned break. Buon viaggio, Denise.
So let's say that I wanted the best of both worlds - all the advantages of a micro-firm (autonomy, low overhead, flexibility), and all the advantages of a large firm (collegiality, cost-sharing, marketing heft).
And let's assume that there are people I want to practice with, however they don't live within commuting distance of me.
So how would a virtual law firm be organized?
How would the conflict issues be handled?
How would the professional liability issues be handled?
How would such an entity hold itself out to the public?
The United States Copyright Code (Rappable Rhyming Version)
U.S. statutes often lack any rhythm and meter, making them difficult to read, let alone understand or memorize. Yehuda Berlinger's The United States Copyright Code, in Verse addresses the problem and might give you an enjoyable way to learn about the basics of copyright law.
A little caveat, however:
You can do a lot worse
than learning copyright by verse,
but please be sure to think twice
before acting without a lawyer's advice