Welcome to Monday and a day for fools. Here are some news items to get the first week of the baseball season started.

– A law professor provided perhaps the best explanation of what happened last week at the Supreme Court.

– Should detained immigrants have a right to counsel?

– Colorado prosecutors weigh seeking the death penalty for accused movie-theater murderer.

– Utah opens courtrooms to television and radio coverage.

Welcome to a Monday on which we continue to give thanks to those who fought to protect the freedom we hold so dear. Here are some news items to get the week started.

– Will Kirk Douglas play this London fraud defendant in the movie?

– Warning: This post is rated X (as we used to say before NC-17).

– Mr. Mayor, are you recording this call?

– In Detroit, a convicted murderer may get the chance to clear his name after 23 years.

Asked: Our weekly question to the In-House community

Ever wonder why general counsel fire outside firms?

A U.K-based market research firm put that question to a couple thousand in-house attorneys in 45 different countries. Out of the top five answers, three centered on the cost-to-value ratio and the other two focused on lack of client maintenance — one, particularly, on client maintenance when a key contact leaves the firm. The top reasons were published in American Lawyer:

• “They were doing a bad job: no results and a lot of invoices.”

• “Poor service. Lots of delay. When challenged, they were completely up front and just said [they] don’t have enough resources, which is pretty astonishing for an international law firm.”

• “It has to do with quality and price. We paid thirty or forty thousand euros, more or less for nothing. So, they had to go.”

•”The main client relationship [partner] left the firm. I find that often when partners leave, those firms neglect to contact clients to say we still want your business and we have signed a new relationship manager. They tend not to correspond with you. Yet the partner who leaves always contacts you from the new firm.”

•”There was a severe lack of relationship between what the bills were and what the value delivered was.”

So, here’s our question for you:

What are the main reasons you would fire outside counsel or have fired outside counsel in the past?

Leave a comment below or email me.

Need to Know:

• Telecom’s group general counsel quit.
• More shake-ups in News Corp.’s legal department.
• The University of California, Irvine School of Law will open an in-house counsel certificate program next summer.
• The former associate general counsel at GlaxoSmithKline talked about being acquitted of criminal charges last year.
• Everything’s bigger in Texas: general counsel compensation is up 11 percent in the Lone Star State.
• General counsels are increasingly sought out by CEOs for advice.
• Follow us on Twitter for In-House news and discussion: @TDRInHouse
• Want the latest on who’s been hired, fired or moving and shaking in between? Head to our Movers and Shakers page to find out.
• For networking events and other happenings this week in Maryland, check out our calendar of events.
• Get the very latest updates from our law reporters on Twitter: @TDRKristi, @Steve_Lash
• Check out The Daily Record on Facebook.

Welcome to Monday, a day on which two movies immediately come to mind. And let’s not forget the roundup. Here are some news items to get your week started.

– A New York Times obituary recalls the Pentagon Papers case.

– DNA evidence reaches a milestone.

– How has the BP oil spill affected class-action litigation?

– Detroit newspaper continues battle to get public records on parolees and probationers.

On the set of "Whirlwind" at DLA Piper's Baltimore office. (Photo courtesy of DLA Piper.)

Hollywood is back in Baltimore.

Clayton LeBouef, an actor from “The Wire,” filmed scenes from his new movie, called “Whirlwind,” at DLA Piper’s Baltimore office last week in the main reception area.

On “The Wire,” LeBouef played Orlando, a front man who ran a strip club for the Barksdale drug organization. LeBouef is also known for his role as Col. George Barnfather in “Homicide: Life on the Street.”

DLA Piper’s glass office building has been a Hollywood hot spot in recent years. Julia Louis-Dreyfus’s HBO comedy, “Veep,” shot several scenes for its pilot episode at the building. Several scenes in the 2005 movie “Syriana,” starring George Clooney, also were filmed at The Marbury Building at 6225 Smith Ave.

The recent movie shoot at DLA Piper is just one of a number of Charm City’s recent forays into the film industry. In addition to “Veep,” the HBO movie “Game Change,” about John McCain’s and Sarah Palin’s 2008 bid for the presidency and vice presidency, was filmed in Baltimore. (Both “Game Change” and “Veep” won awards at Sunday’s Emmys.)

The Netflix show “House of Cards,” starring Kevin Spacey has also been around town, filming at a sound stage in Edgewood, as well as in the city in places like the Peabody Institute in Mount Vernon.

All are part of an effort by Maryland to boost the film industry in the state.

Asked: Our weekly question to the In-House community

A new survey found 90 percent of in-house counsels found useful computer coding used to sort through legal documents. Of the 24 attorneys surveyed, however, the results were mixed as to how much money using such coding saved their companies.

The predictive coding technology uses specific case searches to find legal documents related to litigation. Many said the coding was helpful in that it sped up the process of reviewing documents and was helpful in big cases when sorting through thousands of documents.

Many general counsels were worried the technology would replace human review and were concerned how the courts viewed using this technology. About 27 percent said they were not sure how much the technology saved the company, but another 27 percent thought it saved more than $500,000. Another 27 percent thought the technology saved between $25,000 and $250,000. About 18 percent thought it saved between $250,000 and $500,000.

So, here’s our question for you:

Do you use predictive coding at your in-house jobs? If so, how much does it save your company?

Leave a comment below or email me.

Need to Know:

Read the rest of this entry »

For many journalists, making the transition into a law career is an easy, if not common one.

That is, unless you are disgraced former reporter Stephen Glass.

Glass made waves in the media world in 1998 after it was discovered that 42 of the articles he had written for The New Republic in two years were fabricated or partially fabricated. (The saga is chronicled in the movie, “Shattered Glass,” starring Hayden Christensen in a role that portrays Glass as savvy and manipulative.)

Glass, however, turned to the law after being collectively shunned by the journalism world. Glass had been taking night classes at Georgetown Law while working for The New Republic and started day classes after the scandal broke. He later passed the New York bar exam, but when he applied for his law license he found out it would be rejected on moral grounds and withdrew.

Glass eventually moved to California and applied for his law license there in 2009. His request was denied, which he appealed in a closed trial. The judge ruled in favor of Glass and his opponents appealed to the California Supreme Court, where the case was opened in December. No hearing date has been set.

In the meantime, Glass found work at a California law firm, and Paul Zuckerman, the trial lawyer who hired Glass, wants to eventually make him a partner. Zuckerman, who has a history of substance abuse, said he wanted to give Glass a second chance.

According to an article on TheRecord.com, though, law professors are divided on whether Glass, with his reputation, should be able to become a lawyer.

“What grates me is the idea that he is not honorable enough for journalism, so let the lawyers have him,” a New York University law professor told the publication. “Why should the legal system bear the risk?”

Apologies in advance for the ALL CAPS to come, but I was forwarded a press release that makes me want to SCREAM.

Seems there is a company based in Oklahoma that has created GripeAtMe.com, which is pretty much what it sounds like. You pay money TO YELL at a complete stranger about whatever you want. If you can complain about it, a “complaint specialist” will listen. (Yup, a COMPLAINT SPECIALIST.)

One of their sample calls is from a man who asks why women tend to “get more” in divorce and custody cases. His theory? The women’s liberation movement. Bet they didn’t teach you THAT in law school.

But wait — there’s more! You can also ask the specialist to take the opposite view of yours. That’s right, you can pay to ARGUE with a COMPLETE STRANGER.

The website offers a few suggested subject areas, including culture and “go green” (quotation marks are theirs, not mine).

“Sometimes, it is nice to have someone there just to listen while you decompress about all that life has handed to you,” the site states.

Thanks, but I have those people already. They’re called FRIENDS AND FAMILY. I’d rather spend the $10 on beer with them than calling you.

I’ve received a phone call once or twice from an interview subject asking to omit a background detail from a story.

Whether the detail remains or gets cut often depends on how it relates to the story as a whole. But, in general, a story about someone involved in criminal proceedings includes some reference to his or her criminal record, even if it is only to say there is no record.

Which brings us to a Massachusetts courtroom Wednesday, where Joanna Snyder appeared for a scheduling hearing in a drug case. Snyder asked the judge to order a Salem News reporter to stop writing about her.

It seems the stories would include “details about Snyder’s long criminal history,” details “that upset her and her 19-year-old daughter, who recently had a baby.”

The judge told Snyder people upset with a newspaper story usually write a letter to the editor.

“I have no authority to control the press,” the judge said.

News of the court hearing was reported in the Salem News by Julie Manganis — the same Julie Manganis who wrote the other stories about Snyder. And somehow I don’t think Wednesday’s story on Snyder will be Manganis’ last.

(HT: Romenesko)

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?