Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

If you’re like me, at least once in your life you’ve received a mailed “Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement.” In many instances, you aren’t required to do anything to get the so-called ‘benefits’ of the class action settlement.

However, as a bar-card carrying member of the tribe, I read the notice legalese, especially the part about how much the class action lawyers are getting paid.

Let me never be one to begrudge a lawyer’s payday — so long as the plaintiffs get genuine value consistent with the lawyers’ time and risk. Unfortunately, I’ve yet to receive a notice where the proposed remedy has been worth more than John Garner’s “bucket of warm spit.”

The reality is that too often, the class actions aren’t sensible. They don’t fix real client problems. And they don’t provide meaningful value. Indeed, the only ones making out are the lawyers.

Notably, there are exceptions. For example, there’s at least one class action lawyer calling out colleagues for filing what he terms, “lawyer’s cases.”  With unvarnished candor, he declares, “Stupid class action lawsuits filed by feckless lawyers are a disgrace.” See “Why ‘Class Action Attorney Fees’ Are Such Dirty Words.”

The foot-long.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Spitoon1928Women.jpgThe rules judges and lawyers follow are supposed to govern the class action system. These rules say a class action settlement may not be approved unless it’s “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” 

In view of my own spittoon kicking experiences, I was happy to hear those rules were getting enforced thanks to last Friday’s 7th Circuit Appeals Court Opinion torpedoing the class action lawyers in the case of the foot-long Subway sandwich that wasn’t. In the words of Appeals Court Judge Diane Sykes, “Because the settlement yields fees for class counsel and “zero benefits for the class,” the class should not have been certified and the settlement should not have been approved.” The lower court was reversed.

The sub squabble sprang from a 2013 Facebook post by Australian Matt Corby whose tape measure indicated his Subway sandwich fell short of a foot-long. That was enough to get the class action bar interested. Or as the Court put it, “It went viral. Class-action litigation soon followed.”

Judge Sykes added, “In their haste to file suit, however, the lawyers neglected to consider whether the claims had any merit. They did not. Early discovery established that Subway’s unbaked bread sticks are uniform, and the baked rolls rarely fall short of 12 inches.”

For claimants’ counsel, however, no matter if there hadn’t been a compensable injury. They sandwiched in another claim instead — one for injunctive relief. And so they reached a settlement approved by the lower court.

In sum, the settlement required Subway’s 4-year implementation of steps to ensure as much as practicable that its foot-longs be at least a foot-long while at the same time acknowledging that notwithstanding such steps, chances were that natural baking variability would make such uniformity unattainable.

The size of the fees.

For plaintiffs’ lawyers, though, the heart of the hoagie was the parties’ agreement to cap class counsel fees at over half a million simoleons — $525,000.00 to be exact. It wasn’t the size of the sandwich in the fight but the size of the fees in the grinder that mattered. See “Lawsuit over Subway ‘footlong’ subs was a ‘racket’ benefiting only lawyers, judge says.”

Theodore Frank, a member of the class and as director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Class Action Fairness, a “professional objector to hollow class action settlements,” objected to the settlement on grounds it provided no meat to class members and only fed the lawyers.

Frank has a history of objecting to settlements that only benefit the lawyers and not the class, including a case relied on by the Court, In re Walgreen Co. Stockholder Litig., 832 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2016).

Citing Walgreen, the Court reversed. “A class action that “seeks only worthless benefits for the class” and “yields [only] fees for class counsel” is “no better than a racket” and “should be dismissed out of hand.” Id. at 724. That’s an apt description of this case.”

In an interview Friday, Theodore Frank declared, “It’s a great win for us and it’s an important principle that lawyers can’t bring class actions just to benefit themselves. They have actual duties to class members and when they structure litigation and settlements without any benefit to the class, courts shouldn’t tolerate that.” See “7th Circuit Says ‘Utterly Worthless’ Subway Footlong Settlement Has No Meat.”

So add the Subway case to the ignoble annals of cases like the too much ice Starbucks class action; the Jimmy Johns missing sprouts class action; the no berries in the Cap’n Crunch Crunchberry complaint and the no fruit in the Froot Loops litigation. And as I wait for the first solar eclipse eyeglass class action, there’s little doubt my expectations for more of the same will be met.

______________________________________

Credits: Out in Aber, Boxing Day 2009, by David Jones at Flickr; Spitoon1928Women.jpg at Wikimedia Commons, public domain; Matt Corby Facebook post; Guy dressed as a Subway sandwich, 2014 04 03, by booledozer at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; A foot long for lunch, by Gordon Flood at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; Subway sandwiches & salads, by Chris Harrison at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; Waiting patiently, by Quinn Dombrowski at Creative Commons Attribution.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Yogi2.JPG/246px-Yogi2.JPGAnticipating Arizona’s 66% solar eclipse tomorrow — sans ISO-approved glasses — I was thinking about Yogi Berra’s, “You can observe a lot by watching.”

Unfortunately, I won’t be outside watching. In lieu of eye damage1 or a pinhole camera, instead I’ll observe the path of totality on TV or online.

A week out, I was wrong to believe I could readily pick up a pair of eclipse glasses at my local retailer. What was I thinking? The early bird gets a worm and solar eclipse glasses.

No matter. It’s not like I haven’t seen my share of Hollywood solar eclipses. Apocalypto remains a fave.

 

Known unknowns.

 

While not rising to the level of a Yogi Berra malapropism, this past week also found me reflecting on another almost ‘Yogi-ism.’ It was former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld’s memorable obviousness:

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

I thought of Rumsfeld when courtesy of our friendly state bar’s press office, I learned that a young lawyer had just been disbarred. He’d been practicing all of 6 years. What a lot of toil and treasure wasted I thought — hardly time to get an ROI.

I never met the lawyer. But I do know he was active on social media, seemingly the consummate modern-day lawyer marketer. He even officed in his own name-identified building.

There’s no point mentioning his name or discussing his case’s merits. My sole reason in raising the disbarment is that it highlights another of life’s most important truths — besides not staring at the sun. Lawyer, baker or candlestick maker, most of us don’t know as much as we think we do.

It’s an unfortunate truth that tends to be ignored, especially among some of the legal profession’s newest practitioners. Faced with paying down horrendous tuition loans, circumspection becomes an unaffordable luxury. And having survived law school and passed the bar exam, too many lawyers suffer from illusory superiority.

About the same time I read about the disbarment, the article, “Common Mistakes When Starting a Law Practice” arrived in my inbox. Disbarment wasn’t listed as one of the “common mistakes.” Overspending, incompetency and several others were. But since suspension and disbarment are always possible consequences of going it alone, mentioning those sanctions was perhaps deemed superfluous.

However, what I did think deserved mentioning but wasn’t was Rumsfeld’s succinct knowledge-gap admonition, “There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

_____________________________________________________________

1Never ones to disappoint, rest assured there’ll be lawyers geared up to file product liability lawsuits for anyone claiming retinal damage from uncertified eclipse glasses. Others will hope to sign aggrieved employees ready to tag employers for injured eyeball fallout after attending ill-advised company hosted eclipse-viewing parties at work.

Credits: Yogi Berra, by Google Man at Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons Attribution.

Read Full Post »

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/William_Wordsworth.jpg/172px-William_Wordsworth.jpg

William Wordsworth

Wordsworth decried “getting and spending,” calling it “a sordid boon” that lays waste to our self and clouds our wonder of the physical world. “We have given our hearts away” he complains in “The World Is Too Much with Us.”

I memorized that poem in college. And I still find more encouragement in that English Romantic’s bleak sonnet than in the dark comedy I saw last weekend that traipses across similar anti-materialism terrain.

As the credits rolled up at the end of Beatriz at Dinner, I didn’t know whether to run or reach for a razor blade. “Critical praise = a depressing movie,” I once declared. Well this riff on healing vs. destroying called Beatriz at Dinner has been heaped with critical praise. Quick, pass the critics their Prozac.

Led by Salma Hayek, Connie Britton and John Lithgow, the cast is admittedly praiseworthy. Even the minor characters are uniformly excellent although I do tire of the trope of the ethically challenged attorney that always predictably pops up in tales of depraved material excess. This time, the lawyer is Alex played by Jay Duplass who finagles a real estate deal for mega-rich property developer Doug Strutt played by the uber-talented Lithgow.

But the good gal vs. bad guys story with Hayek as the Mexican immigrant and empathetic earth mother massage-therapy-healing Beatriz — contradictorily massages the message right out of you. I doubt that’s what the writer or the director intended.

Indeed, I think Beatriz at Dinner is meant as a sociopolitical commentary on class division and healing not hurting. One commentator even sees it as a take on innocuous questions that he calls a “gateway to casual racism.” While that commentator makes some telling points about hypocrisy, false perceptions, and how “wealth and status don’t overpower racial discrimination,” he’s too overwrought for my taste. See “Why Dark Comedy ‘Beatriz at Dinner’ Is So Cathartic for POC Audiences.” [To my insurance defense lawyers, POC here does not mean proof of claim but people of color. Who knew?]

Years ago, I had a guy try to hand me the keys to his Beemer in front of a tony Ritz-Carlton. Had I not been running late to a meeting in the hotel, I might have simply said thanks and left him with his mouth open when instead of parking the sports car like he mistakenly assumed, I’d have peeled rubber down the Coast Highway on a fast spin. And besides, these days who really thinks wealth and status don’t overpower grace and manners? Money still doesn’t buy class.

No spoiler alert necessary here. But I disagree further with the aforementioned commentator who additionally opines that the film indicts “white supremacy.” At the same time, he also asserts that this implausible sapo-de-otro-pozo [frog from the other well] story is “empowering.” It’s empowering alright — but only if by that you mean knowing how your story is going to end.

This weekend, on the other hand, I saw The Big Sick. It’s also a film about cultural differences. It relates the real life courtship of Kumail Nanjiani and his now-wife, Emily Gordon. But by contrast to Beatriz, it’s indeed a comedy. It’s full of pathos, humor, and romance. There’s terrific acting, too, by Kumail Nanjiani, Zoe Kazan and the actress that never disappoints, the inimitable Holly Hunter.

And no lawyers or the profession’s reputation were harmed in the making of this movie. In fact, there are no lawyers in it.

The movie is fun, funny and in point of fact empowering of the spirit. Moreover, unlike Beatriz at Dinner, you feel good walking out of the cineplex.

______________________________________

Credits: William Wordsworth, public domain, at Wikimedia Commons; Beatriz at Dinner poster, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53897899; Montclair Film by “Amy Gallatin / Montclair Film” at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; Swallowed in the Sea, by KellyB at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; The Big Sick, By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53943370

Read Full Post »

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that government, in this instance, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) may not refuse to register potentially offensive names under a law against registering trademarks likely to disparage people or groups.

The case, Matal v. Tam, strengthens the case against state bar associations seeking to further trample lawyer First Amendment rights via ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). For more about the ABA’s misguided decision “to discipline lawyers who engage in politically incorrect speech,” see “The ABA’s Control Over What Lawyers Say Around the Water Cooler.”

The Nevada Bar, for one, has petitioned its state supreme court to adopt a new lawyer speech code to punish Nevada attorneys for what newly weaponized lawyer disciplinary authorities subjectively deem “derogatory,” “demeaning,” or “harmful” speech“related to the practice of law.” Matal v. Tam renders the viewpoint discrimination enshrined by such a proposed rule presumptively unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, how much ultimate weight state supreme courts give to Matal v. Tam on such matters will depend on the jurists’ ability to temper the agenda-driven viewpoint of lawyers as sui generis ‘special snowflakes.’ Under this rubric, lawyers are expected to unreservedly pay for their ‘privilege’ with constraints on their Constitutional rights not visited upon any other profession.

Whether as agents of the state, i.e., ‘officers of the court,’ or as “public citizens” as the ABA Report describes them, lawyers are expected to tolerate the continued erosion of their rights, especially with respect to the First Amendment. See here, here, here and here and additionally, The Intersection of Free Speech and the Legal Profession; Constraints on Lawyers’ First Amendment Rights. It’s way past time for lawyers to say “Enough!”

Matal v. Tam.

In 2011, Simon Tam, the founding member of the Asian-American dance-rock band, The Slants, tried to register the band’s name with the PTO. His application was denied based on a federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” 15 U. S. C. §1052(a).

Tam characterized his trademark registration as an attempt to reclaim a slur and use it as “a badge of pride.” Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

Student free speech.

Writing today at “The Legal Watchdog,” notable Wisconsin defense attorney Michael Cicchini trenchantly points out at “Free speech: A message for public universities (and their students) how Matal v. Tam should help curb free speech constraints currently the rage among do-gooding bureaucrats at public universities. Quoting from the opinion, Cicchini illustrates how There is no hate-speech exception to the First Amendment;”  “You can’t suppress speech you don’t agree with;” and “You should be thankful that you can’t suppress speech you don’t agree with.” His entire post bears reading.

Finally, some have inanely suggested the case is one for folks on the Right to applaud, e.g., “Today in Conservative Media: Applause for a Free Speech Victory at the Supreme Court.” To which, I rejoin, when did the U.S. Constitution and specifically, our fundamental rights become the exclusive purview or calling of one side of the political spectrum?

__________________________________________________________________

Photo credits: Seal of the U.S. Supreme Court, by DonkeyHotey at Flickr Attribution; “sad emoticon,” by shamaasa  at Flickr Attribution; “Resusci-Annie’s Children Remark On the Effectiveness of the First Amendment,” by John Scalzi at Flickr Attribution.

 

Read Full Post »

Last month, an Arizona psychic was at a restaurant having lunch when a car crashed through the window, threw him up in the air, and pinned him against a wall. “I didn’t foresee it happening,” joked injured psychic Blair Robertson after the accident. See “Arizona psychic injured when he ‘didn’t foresee’ car crash.”

Whether or not you believe in clairvoyance, you don’t need psychic powers to foresee that state bars without fail welcome their own collisions with the liberty interests of their members. It’s integral to the “do-gooder” mentality endemic among the “moral busybodies” running state bar associations.

“Those who torment us for our own good,” said C.S. Lewis, “will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” 

Do-gooders.

https://lawmrh.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/travel-tourism-18.jpg?w=1000&h=The latest do-gooder intrusion comes from a surprising quarter, the State Bar of Nevada. At one time, the Nevada Bar could be characterized by a laissez-faire attitude consistent with Nevadans’ strong independent, libertarian streak. But oh, how times have changed.

Last year, in a misguided effort grounded on anecdotal conjecture about supposed prevalent substance abuse and mental health problems among Nevada’s lawyers, Nevada’s Bar Governors petitioned the high court for another mandatory hour of annual continuing legal education in substance abuse prevention and mental health.

Continuing legal education has never been proven it makes lawyers more competent or ethical. Just the same, the Nevada Bar thought an hour of mandatory substance abuse/mental health CLE would help make lawyers abstemious and healthy-minded.

And not satisfied with only that moral meddlesomeness, the board next appointed a task force to study whether Nevada lawyers should pay more to practice by following the Oregon Bar’s improvident model of forced professional liability insurance. Oregon’s insurance mandate currently compels lawyers to pay a hefty $3,500.00 annually for the merest nominal coverage.

https://lawmrh.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/people-16688.jpg?w=163&h=155At Revenge of the Do-Gooderin The American Thinker, Scott Boerman explained what animates the do-gooder is “a great desire to cure humanity’s ills and imperfections with solutions that invariably focus on controlling other people’s property and productivity. Not to be confused with real volunteers and philanthropists — who use their own skills and wealth to directly help a favored cause — the do-gooder uses only his brain to decide precisely what everyone else what should do with their abilities and wealth. And because the do-gooder is so confident that his plans are good for humanity, he strives to impose his will with a stick, be it regulatory, monetary, or via public brow-beating.”  

An unconstitutional speech code.

Nevada’s Bar, however, may have finally reached the apex of do-gooding thanks to a petition filed May 8th asking the state supreme court to adopt the new ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) which amends Nevada Rule 8.4 by adding an entirely new subsection (g). It reads:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status related to the practice of lawThis paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16.  This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.

No jurisdiction has yet adopted the ABA 8.4 (g) model rule concoction passed last fall. Nevada hopes to be first.

Meanwhile, the amendment hits Boerman’s do-gooder regulatory, monetary and public brow-beating trifecta. Violations mean notoriety. Regulatory sanctions impact a lawyer’s ability to earn a living.

Academics like UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh and South Texas College of Law Professor Josh Blackman have weighed in against the proposed rule on constitutional grounds. The Attorneys General of Texas and South Carolina have also officially opined that a court would likely conclude ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) not only amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on the free speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom of association of attorneys but it’s also unconstitutionally overbroad and void for vagueness. See Opinion No. KP-0123, Attorney General of Texas and 14 South Carolina Attorney General Opinion.

Other commentators contend that by only proscribing speech that is derogatory, demeaning, or harmful toward members of certain designated classes, the Rule is an unconstitutional content-based speech restriction. Others argue attorney conscience rights are also adversely implicated.

Professor Blackman further raises separation of powers problems when bar disciplinary authorities lacking the “boundless discretion over all aspects of an attorney’s life” nevertheless attempt to regulate conduct beyond their legal power or authority.

More bar complaints.

But the real upshot is heightened lawyer liability when state bar disciplinary police are given unprecedented new powers to punish lawyers for conduct not directly connected with what ethical rule 8.4 already prohibits, which is misconduct while representing a client or implicating fitness to practice or prejudicing the administration of justice. The new rule enlarges the scope to include social conferences, bar association activities and private speech far removed from providing actual legal services.

As Professor Blackman further wrote in The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics about Model Rule 8.4(g):

“Lectures and debates hosted by bar associations that offer Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits are necessarily held “in connection with the practice of law.” Lawyers are required to attend such classes to maintain their law licenses. It is not difficult to imagine how certain topics could reasonably be found by attendees to be “derogatory or demeaning” on the basis of one of the eleven protected classes in Rule 8.4(g).

Blackman lists sample topics chosen as he says for their “deliberate provocativeness” where a lawyer attendee might subject herself to discipline since the speaker “reasonably should know” that someone at the event could find the remarks disparaging towards one of the eleven protected groups.” Here are a few:

“● Race—A speaker discusses “mismatch theory,” and contends that race based affirmative action should be banned because it hurts minority students by placing them in education settings where they have a lower chance of success.
● Gender—A speaker argues that women should not be eligible for combat duty in the military, and should continue to be excluded from the selective service requirements.
● Religion—A speaker states that the owners of a for-profit corporation who request a religious exemption from the contraceptive mandate are bigoted and misogynistic.
● National Origin—A speaker contends that the plenary power doctrine permits the government to exclude aliens from certain countries that are deemed dangerous.
● Ethnicity—A speaker states that Korematsu v. United States sas correctly decided, and that during times of war, the President should be able to exclude individuals based on their ethnicity.
● Sexual Orientation—A speaker contends that Obergefell v. Hodges was incorrectly decided, and that the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit classifications on the basis of sexual orientation.”

All of which means an amended Nevada Rule 8.4 will unwisely empower a mandatory bar to extend existing lawyer First Amendment encroachments upon new terrains of unconstitutional discipline.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Nevada Supreme Court invites written comment from the bench, bar, and public regarding the proposed amendments. The Hearing date is July 17, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., Supreme Court Courtroom, 408 East Clark Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101. The Comment deadline is July 5, 2017, at 5:00 p.m., Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, 201 South Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada 89701.


Photo Credits: “Psychic,” by The She-Creature at Flickr Attribution;  “Satisfaction,” by Walter Kramer at Flickr Attribution; “aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh,” by Marco Boscolo at Flickr Attribution;”Tread Upon Now What?” by John Eisenschenk at Flickr Attribution; “kindness, persuasion, punishment,” by Meagan Fisher at Flickr Attribution.

Read Full Post »

Longtime readers know I like movies. They’re fun as a stand-alone proposition.

But movie-going is almost essential when Arizona’s solar-intensifying sprummer has come, gone, and Satan’s excessive heat warning says it’s 109 outside. Overnight it ‘cools down’ to the high 90’s.

So when outdoor activity partners with heat stroke, getting out often means movies. This weekend, it was Wonder Woman — highly enjoyable and big fun. Although I enjoy all genres, there’s nothing like a well done action film.

As some of you know, I’ve also seen my share of movies featuring lawyer protagonists. Admittedly, it’s been a while since there was one I liked. The Lincoln Lawyer is perhaps the last one I thought entertaining — but that was 6 years ago.

It’s not like I rush to see movies featuring lawyers. Quite the opposite. I think most are to be avoided. 2014’s The Judge was awful.

Nearly always they get the law and the ethics wrong. For instance, I missed last year’s The Whole Truth, starring that latter-day Olivier, the wooden thespian known as Keanu Reeves. I’m sorry to say I finally caught it online.

Of The Whole Truth, movie critic Rex Reed said, “A guaranteed cure for insomnia, an abomination called The Whole Truth is a courtroom movie that looks like a colorized version of an old Perry Mason TV show, starring Renée Zellweger’s new face and Keanu Reeves, who has the charisma and animated visual appeal of a mud fence.” Keanu plays that over-used movie stereotype, the ethically challenged criminal defense lawyer.

And why always an ethically challenged defense lawyer? Why not an amoral ERISA or corrupt water rights lawyer? In truth it’s probably because ERISA and water rights lawyers would have to arm-wrestle to avoid the title of most boring field of practice.

In any event, Keanu’s much better as pup-loving legendary hitman John Wick not as a lawyer. Just the same, I admit to liking his turn as the lawyer son of Satan in The Devil’s Advocate.

Recliner movie watching.

Glenn Whipp amusingly reported this past Friday that theater chains have “decided that the best way to sell tickets is to replicate moviegoers’ living rooms.” See “When moviegoers treat theaters like living rooms — texting, talking, even diaper changing happens.”

It’s true. Recliners have arrived at the cineplex, including the one in our neighborhood. I’m not sure, however, that Wonder Woman was better because my feet were up. The Whole Truth, on the other hand, is a different matter. The recliner would’ve meant In dormis delicto.

Fortunately, the movie-going pleasure of Wonder Woman was mostly unmarred unlike other recent movie experiences involving serial chatterboxes and obsessive texters. Save for a movie patron twice checking his cellphone two rows in front, we escaped Glenn Whipp’s exponentially worse experience with the in-the-theater toddler diaper-changing mother. “Because,” as Whipp explained, “that’s what those adjustable armrests are for, right?”

And that Bill Kilgore is not the smell of napalm in the morning.

________________________________

Photo Credits: Empty cinema movie theater, by Iwan Gabovitch  at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; First movie of the year, recliner chair theater, by stupid systemus at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution.

Read Full Post »

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Domenico_Fetti_-_Portrait_of_a_Scholar_-_WGA07862.jpg/446px-Domenico_Fetti_-_Portrait_of_a_Scholar_-_WGA07862.jpg“Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.”  I thought of Gandhi’s quote when I read about Tom Winston, who at 73 graduates from the University of Tennessee Law School this month. Retired and having concluded there’s “only so much golf you can play,” he decided to attend law school at age 70.

Besides having a resilient and hungry mind, Winston also benefited from something unique to the Volunteer State. Tennesseans 65 years and older can attend any state public institution of higher learning tuition-free. Winston says he’s “surprised more people haven’t taken advantage of it.”

His parting advice is to, “Enjoy the magic of learning all over again.” See “Stat Of The Week: Extreme ‘Non-Trad’ Law Student”

Speaking of free learning, below are the latest links to free continuing legal education programs, both scheduled and on-demand. As always, there are no warranties of continued availability, content quality, or creditworthiness in your jurisdiction.

 

FREE CLE

K & L Gates

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/GAINSBOROUGH%2C_Thomas_-_Johann_Christian_Fischer_%281780%29.jpg/152px-GAINSBOROUGH%2C_Thomas_-_Johann_Christian_Fischer_%281780%29.jpg

Legal Professional Privilege

On Demand

Credit: One Hour Ethics

Competition and Consumer Law Update

On Demand

Credit: One Hour General Credit

A Practical Guide to Representing Victims of Sexual Cyber Harassment Ethically and Effectively (Part 1)

On Demand

Credit: 1.5 Hour Ethics

Register Now

The Honest Lawyer

On Demand

Credit: One Hour Ethics

_____________________________________________________________________________

Thompson Coburn LLP

Multijurisdictional Issues Stateside and International Privacy Concerns When Traveling

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Begins at 12:00 PM Central Time

Credit: One Hour Ethics

_______________________________________________________________________

Lawyernomics by AVVO

View on-demand webinars

View upcoming Webinars

_______________________________________________________________________

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Workshop_of_Pieter_Coecke_van_Aelst%2C_the_elder_-_Saint_Jerome_in_His_Study_-_Walters_37256.jpg/320px-Workshop_of_Pieter_Coecke_van_Aelst%2C_the_elder_-_Saint_Jerome_in_His_Study_-_Walters_37256.jpg

Law Pay

Ethical Considerations in Drafting Contracts

“This webinar examines a variety of contract drafting scenarios and the ethical questions that they present.”

Thursday, May 24, 2017
3:00 PM Central, 4:00 PM Eastern, 2:00 PM Mountain, 1:00 PM Pacific
Credit: One Hour
_______________________________________________________________________

Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP (BSKB)

Complimentary Webinar Presented by BSKB and WIPR – The Halo Effect: Walking the Willfulness Tightrope

“Register for free on the webinar registration page. Virginia CLE credit is pending, and can be used to seek CLE credit in other jurisdictions.”

_________________________________________________________________________

DLA Piper

CLE webinar: preparing for margining

Credit: One Hour General

_________________________________________________________________________

Legal Advantage

Free CLE – Best Practices in Patent Illustration

Wednesday, June 07, 2017 – 12 PM EDT

Credit: One Hour General

__________________________________________________________________________
Credits: Portrait of a Scholar, by Domenico Fetti at Wikimedia Commons, public domain; Portrait of Johann Christian Fischer by Thomas Gainsborough at Wikimedia Commons, public domain; St. Jerome in his Study, by Pieter Coecke van Aelst at Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »