Anyone who knows me is very aware of the close bonds (aka “obsession”) I have with my two dogs, Dexter and Luca. When I first meet someone, it is virtually impossible to avoid their introduction in our conversation. The dog whisperer, Cesar Millan, would shake his head at me and wag his finger in a disapproving manner.

Milan has often said Americans humanize dogs to a point that is detrimental to the dogs’ well-being. His logic: dogs are animals and require three things in a particular order — exercise, discipline and affection (but only after the first two are accomplished). While I understand his methodology, I find myself at odds with it often.

Back in March, NPR and the New York Times covered Yale Law School’s three-day trial period with Monty, a certified therapy dog offered to students for 30-minute sessions at the law library. Using a dog for stress relief does not surprise me in the least. I, for one, would definitely have felt less anxious answering a cold call in my property class if my feet were curled around Dexter’s or Luca’s warm and fuzzy bodies. When I had a bad day at work or school, the first “person” I would turn to was Dexter or Luca (not in any particular order).

Yale’s program is not the first to employ dogs in the practice of stress reduction or rehabilitation. Numerous programs across the country take advantage of dogs for therapy in nursing homes, mental institutions, and prisons. The International Association of Assistance Dog Partners provides extensive information as to what assistance dogs can provide for humans inflicted with debilitating mental or even physical disabilities. But a fairly new scenario involving a dog as emotional support has sparked a legal debate.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

As an English literature major, someone who wants to be reincarnated as Bryan Garner, and a kid who spent recess in with the teacher (not because I was in trouble, but because it was safer), I have a soft spot for the The Bluebook. For the non-lawyers among you, The Bluebook is the primary citation format for legal writing, beginning in law school. It contains formulae for the citation of everything from dictionaries to novels to the World Wide Web. It is now in its 19th edition, having started from humble beginnings in 1926.

The Bluebook is not the only citation scheme out there, though it is probably still the most popular. Its major competitor, ALWD (pronounced “Allwood”), has been gaining ground in law schools in recent years. Back in 2000 when I started at the University of Colorado School of Law, our legal writing department taught us exclusively from ALWD. I found this to be irritating in 2001 when I had to shell out cash (I was a poor law student, after all) to buy a Bluebook, as it was the citation format mandated for moot court. I found this to be even more irritating when I started practicing and realized that the Bluebook was the norm, and I learned a different form. In the past few years, though, I’ve come to love it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

About five years ago I created a “technology chart” of all of the Maryland circuit and district courts.

The chart, intended as a handy reference, outlined what technology (digital presenters, DVD players, etc.) the courts had, the process for lawfully getting technology past security, and the rules on cell phones. Back then, the courts were fragmented, and had various policies regarding cell phones. Some courts banned them outright. Some courts banned phones capable of taking pictures.

The rise of smartphones has made those rules unbearable to the bar. Lawyers depend more and more on their cell phones. In the beginning, it was nice to have a cell phone so we could contact our clients and find out why they were not at court when we told them to be there. Once we were able to access e-mails through our phones, they were useful to contact the office for emergency trial research, and to communicate with experts to let them know their testimony was going to be earlier or later than expected.

Now, phones with access to the Internet allow us to perform instantaneous research on potential jurors, to find caselaw through Westlaw or Lexis, and to check our calendars for conflicts when selecting trial dates. If I had to choose between having a legal pad or my phone at court, I would choose my phone every time.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I’m a “play-it-safe” guy.

Mom (a non-lawyer) always said that the law is very black and white. What she didn’t know, and what I learned at law school, is that the legal battlefield is over the vast no-man’s land of gray, solidly between the black and white.

In order to avoid the gray, it is best to cling as tightly as possible to the black and white. Essentially, we should all follow the rules whenever possible. Failure to follow the rules oftentimes creates that battlefield.

Here is one example. Our firm handled an appeal recently where the issue was whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury. Plaintiff’s counsel requested an instruction, and the judge refused the request.

The appeal should be solely about that issue. But a preliminary question is whether plaintiff’s counsel properly preserved the issue for appeal. In the trial court, both sides submitted their jury instructions. The judge reviewed them, and counsel discussed them with the judge in chambers and off the record. Plaintiff’s counsel objected to the omission of his requested jury instruction but, as I mentioned, there was no court reporter recording that discussion.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Sometimes, it seems like there isn’t room for much creativity in the legal profession. You have to be right—not creative—because you are fighting for the rights and interests of other people. People who are paying you.

But the truth is, practicing law does require you to be creative. Just not in the traditional, artistic sense. Although you wouldn’t know it to see some attorneys’ handwritten edits, or handwriting, for that matter.

To practice law well, you have to be able to make connections, comparisons, and, sometimes, to think outside the box. And these are all abilities that require creativity.

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article on “What Makes Kids Creative.” It starts off with an example of a fourth-grader tasked with creating a board game to play with a friend. The little boy froze. He
couldn’t think of anything. Ultimately, the teacher gave the boy permission to instead make flashcards with right and wrong answers.

The law doesn’t have right and wrong answers. And sometimes (admit it) we freeze too.

So what does the article recommend? What makes kids creative? Ask yourself questions, the article suggests. Brainstorm. And don’t judge your ideas. Invent spontaneous lyrics and dances.

Now a lawyer should probably refrain from inventing a spontaneous song or dance when asked a freeze-inducing question by a judge in court. But brainstorming is a good way to get things started in the privacy of your own office—even if you’re working on your sixth set of discovery requests.

As for me? I’m going home to invent a spontaneous dance with my kids before I get started on those discovery requests.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Over the summer, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that it had no idea what a text message was.

The case is City of Ontario v. Quon, and the issue was “simply” whether the police department has the right to read personal text messages from an employee using a work page.

(In this case, a pager capable of sending text messages which, honestly, I had never heard of. Are people still using pagers?)

The transcript is a fascinating read. Here are some nuggets from the bench:

• Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™