Interesting post from GW’s Jonathan Turley Monday on the health care arguments before the Supreme Court. While all eyes are on Justice Kennedy, Turley urges us to think of it as a “court of two,” with one additional complication:

As I have previously noted, it is not simply Justice Kennedy but Justice Scalia that will be the focus of attention in these oral arguments. In order to support the states, Scalia will have to distinguish past statements embracing broad interpretations of federal jurisdiction. For all intents and purposes, this could be an argument before a court of two with the parties striving to lock in both Scalia and Kennedy.

It is a closer case because of the refusal of Justice Kagan to recuse herself. I have previously said that I believe there are strong arguments to be made for such recusal by Kagan. If the Administration prevails, her participation will always be viewed in history as problematic by many.

While Turley says both sides present compelling arguments, he views this as a watershed moment for the Constitution’s system of enumerated and reserved powers – one that could ”leave few things as protected by federalism by expanding Congress’ enumerated powers to an unprecedented scope.”

Memo to managing partner: You know that clause in the employment contract that bars your associates from notifying clients when they leave the firm? And then imposes a 43.56 percent lien on any fee for work the lawyer performs for your former clients? If only it were ethical. Or at least, enforceable…

If you love our sister blog, Generation JD, now’s your chance to show it. And I do mean NOW.  The ABA Journal is compiling its annual list of 100 Best Law Blogs and is taking nominations through Sept. 9. As in Friday, or (more to the point) tomorrow.

Here’s what the ABA says it is looking for:

• We’re only interested in blawgs in which the author is recognizable as a lawyer or law student in the vast majority of his or her posts.
• The blawg should be written with an audience of lawyers or law students—rather than potential clients or potential law students—in mind.
• The majority of the blawg’s content should be unique to the blawg and not cross-posted or cut and pasted from other publications.
• We are not interested in blawgs that more or less exist to promote the author’s products and services.

And what about On the Record? Well, thank you so much for asking (she said, blushing), but half of our bloggers are journalists rather than lawyers. That means we wouldn’t meet the first of those four criteria. I think you’ll agree, though, that Generation JD is on all fours (har).

So show some blawg love today: Click here to nominate Generation JD.  You will need its URL, which is http://thedailyrecord.com/generationjd/

Many thanks!

P.S. Talk about your generation gap: Of the three lawyers on The Daily Record’s editorial staff, two of them (JDs 1983 and 1991) got the “all fours” reference. The third (JD 2006) had never heard the expression.

From the Associated Press comes this tale of a lawyer from College Park who is apparently so tough he can handle sparking wires on a rain-soaked road without killing himself.

I don’t mean to make light of lawyers behaving badly in general, or the charges against Richard Bialczak in particular, because if even half of the other allegations against him are true, his case is no laughing matter.

Still, it did make me wonder if a guy with such a special skill isn’t in the wrong profession. I mean, ”Immunity to Electric Shock” would look great on a resume or the firm’s webpage – and there’s a father-son team in Vietnam who “have been of great help in repairing and managing the town electric system, say the people in Ngoc Son village” — but when would you ever use it as a lawyer? Settlement negotiations, maybe?

That, in turn, made me wonder what superhuman skills might actually come in handy for attorneys. ESP? X-ray vision? Jedi mind tricks? The Bene Gesserit “Voice” from Dune?

If you could pick one special power, what would it be and how would you use it in the practice of law?

And no, it’s not enough to say “For good, not evil.” We’re all officers of the court here, after all.

Attorneys: How have the events of Sept. 11, 2001, affected your legal practice? Post a short note below, or contact legal affairs reporters Steve Lash (443-524-8162) or Andy Marso (443-524-8156).

Your responses may be reprinted in our Maryland Lawyer section.

That’s the question that had the blogosphere buzzing Tuesday evening, with tweets and blog posts wondering why a Google site search did not find “www.RipoffReport.com” — the consumer advocacy site that elevates online complaints into a civic duty. (“Many law firms and law enforcement agencies utilize Ripoff Report to aid in their investigations of business practices,” the home page says. “By filing a report, your information may aid in pursuing civil or criminal proceedings against companies engaged in wrongdoing.”)

Had Google succumbed to threats by a doctor, lawyer or business dissed in one of RR’s legions of entries ?

Relax, says Search Engine Land, which quotes an (unnamed) Google spokesperson as saying the Ripoff Report’s URL was removed at its own request.

As of 9:30 p.m., though, SEL Executive Editor Matt McGee couldn’t tell if it was done on purpose or by accident. He noted that Google warned of unauthorized changes when it liberalized its Webmaster Tools verification process last year.

Of the 11 comments on McGee’s site as of 9:30, just four had ventured a guess — and not one of them thought RR had done it on purpose.

Read the rest of this entry »

As the country marks the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts notes that the four-year battle also took its toll on the federal judiciary, “tearing at the very fabric of American justice.”

In the first installment of a promised series highlighting the personal stories of judges on both sides, the AOC borrows from William Robinson Jr.’s 1941 book, Justice in Grey, to tell the tale of U.S. District Judge Andrew Magrath of South Carolina.

Magrath, who had been appointed in 1856, kept his seat for precisely one day after Abraham Lincoln was elected president in November 1860, Robinson wrote. At the end of the day, Magrath made a brief speech about his duty and the wishes of his state before tendering “the resignation of the office which I have held.”

“With that, Magrath tore off his robe and left the bench,” the AOC says. “Many who were present in his courtroom wept. Six weeks later, South Carolina seceded from the Union and declared its national independence.”

Read the rest of this entry »

You think you had a bad day at the office? From our sister paper, Missouri Lawyers Weekly, comes this photo of what used to be the law offices of Brad Barton in Joplin, Mo. Kudos to photographer Karen Elshout, who used her GPS to locate the site after the deadliest tornado in 50 years hit the town on Sunday. (Click on the image to see a larger version.)

According to this story on the Dow Jones Newswire, a disaster-modeling company has estimated insured damages for in the Joplin region alone at $1 billion to $3 billion.

Which makes it all the more important to know: Who made that desk?

Brackets, shmackets — Give me a good half-court shot with five figures on the line any day. From Georgetown Law comes this video of student Aladdin Jaloudi sinking it during Home Court 24, the annual fundraiser that pits Georgetown law professors against members of Congress. Final score: Hoya Lawyas 49, Hill’s Angels 61, Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless $415,000,  and Jaloudi, $10,000.

Not bad, for a second-year.

HT: Former Daily Record-er Richard Simon, now the web editor at GULC.

The use of Twitter in courtrooms is a topic near and dear to my heart.

Our Danny Jacobs was able to use Twitter to break the news of verdicts against ExxonMobil in Baltimore County Circuit Court, but tweeting was banned in Baltimore during then-Mayor Sheila Dixon’s corruption trials. And our “Judge on the Jury” columnist, retired Judge Dennis M. Sweeney, has written on the topic several times.

So, imagine my joy on reading this bit of news from the Associated Press: A judge in Connecticut has rejected a defense motion to ban courtroom tweets during a fatal home-invasion trial.

The defense team raised an interesting point, though. They claimed that, in a co-defendant’s trial, “sudden typing of tweets by reporters and spectators signaled to the jury what evidence observers believed was significant.”

In that other trial, the co-defendant was convicted and got the death penalty. Not that they’re blaming the tweets for that; just sayin’ what happened.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that a sudden burst of tweets could affect justice more than the gasps, laughter or any other response of spectators in the courtroom. Litigators? What say you?