– The federal judge who ruled Microsoft was “a monopoly” died Saturday.

– The New York Times has a profile of the federal judge in the morning-after pill case.

– The problem with a new state law in Florida that speeds up the execution process.

– A Tennessee judge is reminding female lawyers of appropriate courtroom attire. (HT: Above the Law)

U.S. District Court Judge Paul W. Grimm

It’s one thing to hear lawyers talk about the “CSI effect,” where jurors expect to see prosecutors present the high-tech evidence that regularly cracks cases on television.

It’s another thing to hear one of the foremost authorities on evidence and discovery say it.

“It’s more powerful than a great opening statement or a tear-inducing closing,” U.S. District Court Judge Paul W. Grimm told a packed seminar during the Maryland State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting in Ocean City.

The Criminal Law and Practice Section’s panel mixed a discussion of the newest technologies with references to Popeye, Mr. Peabody and several utterances of the phrase “if you are of a certain age.”

Those of a certain age could recall where prosecutors needed someone on the witness stand to identify the suspect as the person who committed the crime.

Now, “cell phones are the new, best way to solve crimes,” said Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger. The first three questions investigators ask a suspect is for his name, if he has a cellphone and if he always has his cellphone on him, he added.

Shellenberger described a case where four people were convicted in connection with a murder based on a suspect’s cellphone address book and recent calls. Surveillance cameras helped corroborate the defendants were at the scene of a crime.

In another case, Baltimore County prosecutors were able to obtain a murder conviction by mapping the victim’s and defendant’s cellphone “pings” to cell phone towers to prove they were in the same location at the same time.

“Technology not only solved the crime, it proved the crime,” he said.

Shellenberger also discussed how investigators are using Facebook, YouTube and other forms of social media to catch sexual predators and burglars.

Defense attorneys, of course, have access to the same technology. Lawyers for the Duke lacrosse players accused several years ago of sexually assaulting a woman at a party were able to use social media to prove their clients were not at the location of the assault at the time it took place, said Andrew D. Levy, of Brown Goldstein & Levy LLP in Baltimore.

Perhaps the bigger challenge for prosecutors is authenticating social media evidence. Levy cited a Court of Appeals decision overturning a murder conviction because prosecutors did not authenticate composite video surveillance used a bar. (The bartender could verify the equipment was installed but no one adequately explained how the composite images were produced, Levy said.)

The state’s top court in another case said there was a higher level of authentication required for social media because it is “published for all to see” and not sent directly to another person. (The case, Griffin v. State, was the topic of much discussion and confusion by lawyers and judges in attendance.)

Grimm said an advisory committee for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure he is serving on will meet later this year to review if any changes are needed to reflect new technologies.

The answer is pretty clear, but Grimm cautioned not to expect wholesale changes to the Rules because of how much technology might advance in the next few years.

“When was the last time you heard about MySpace?” Grimm asked.

Shanmugam was encouraged.

“Someone held out!” he recalled to laughter during a panel session at the Maryland State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting. “Then I realized it was Maryland.”

Shanmugam was gracious in defeat Thursday as he provided the lawyers and judges in Ocean City with his perspective on Maryland v. King, which reinstated the state law permitting police to collect DNA samples from people arrested on charges of committing or attempting to commit a violent crime.

“I think this is a case we will look back on in 10 or 15 years and say, That was the case from this term that had the largest impact,” said Shanmugam, a partner at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington.

As Shanmugam was doing research for his case, he discovered the Supreme Court had never decided on the constitutionality of fingerprinting, let alone DNA testing. (He also found that since the Maryland law’s adoption, there were 20 cases where a suspect was arrested and not convicted but DNA led to the prosecution of another crime.)

Both sides agreed there was a search in the case: Shanmugam’s strategy was to argue to that DNA is different from a fingerprint when it comes to a search.

“DNA testing is not used for identification, it’s simply to show that someone committed a crime,” he said, an argument championed by Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent.

Shanmugam called the oral argument “fascinating.”

“It felt like one of those relatively few cases where the decision is in doubt during the argument,” he said.

(Also in attendance at oral arguments and Thursday’s panel were Court of Appeals Judges Glenn T. Harrell Jr. and Mary Ellen Barbera, with the latter introducing herself to Shanmugam after the discussion ended.)

The majority, Shanmugam said, placed weight on the fact King had been arrested previously, meaning King had “lost some some expectation of privacy.”

The narrowness of the reasoning was deliberate, Shanmugam added.

“The court is mindful of the fact one of the major issues it will deal with [in the future] is the Fourth Amendment and emerging technologies, particularly used by law enforcement,” he said.

That’s why Justice Samuel A. Alito called the Maryland v. King “one of the most important criminal procedure cases in the last 10 years,” Shanmugam said.

“I’m now the guy who lost the most important criminal procedure case in the last 10 years,” he added with a smile.

Del. Jon Cardin, D-Baltimore County

The legal issues surrounding voter referendums are as nuanced as the signatures that often come under scrutiny during court battles over the petitions.

John Henry Smith, for example, can sign and print his name on a petition and it would be counted. But if he were to sign “Jack Smith” and print “J. H. Smith,” the signature wouldn’t be permitted.

It’s why Del. Jon Cardin, D-Baltimore County, wants to make easier the signature requirement for referendum, despite the objections of Democratic leadership in the General Assembly.

“Predictability is important in this process for petitioners and government,” Cardin said during the Administrative Law Section’s panel discussion at the Maryland State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting in Ocean City. “If you create a system that creates certainty, we are doing the right thing in terms of public policy no matter your politics.”

Cardin, who chairs an election law subcommittee in the House of Delegates, said legislation to reform the petition process was not passed in the General Assembly this year because of the “volatile nature” of the session (including the gun control and death penalty bills) and because Democratic leaders felt it would be too partisan to pass such legislation so close to next year’s election.

Speaking of the 2014 election, the primary was moved up to June in part to accommodate a federal law that requires ballots to be finalized 45 days before an election so they can be sent to military personnel overseas. (The September date was too close to November’s general election.)

The legal timeline to appeal a ballot question moves at a breakneck pace by legal standards. A case can go from a circuit court to the Court of Appeals in 30 days, members of the panel said.

But “can” does not mean “will,” especially at the trial court level. How much evidence is admissible at trial varies from judge to judge, with some allowing very little evidence and others allowing six months of discovery, the panelists said.

One thing most judges don’t want to do, according to Francis J. Collins, is go through tens of thousands of signatures that might be contested.

“Form takes over substance,” said Collins, of Kahn, Smith & Collins P.A. in Baltimore. “Circuit court judges and clerks don’t have the time.”

A final fun fact from the panel: Maryland is one of two states that solely have a referendum, meaning voters cannot adopt new laws, only repeal laws passed by the legislature.

Jabez LeBret of Get Noticed Get Found Inc., which helps law firms with marketing strategies, discussed how attorneys can maximize their presence online.

LaBret, who co-wrote the book “Online Law Practice Strategies,” spoke to an overflowing room of attorneys Thursday in Ocean City.

Here is a list of recommendations LaBret made to attorneys during the presentation:

• Keywords are essential.
• Make sure to beef up Google+ local pages. Google has likely already created pages for your law firm, but attorneys should add pictures and additional information about the firm.
• Clean up online directory listings by adding a website URL, address, phone number and name. Some directories are free, some are paid, but there are a lot of them. “This is a marathon,” LeBret said. “This is not a sprint. This is not something you should do over a weekend.”
• A Facebook page is not a replacement for a personal website. “Never put all your eggs in a basket with a system you don’t control,” LeBret said.
• Don’t make up profiles in order to give your firm good reviews.
• Don’t pay for reviews or respond to reviews.
• Add a 60 second introduction video on your website.
• Blog about four times a month about local topics, between 250 and 600 words per blog post. “It makes you look human when you’re blogging about the things going on around you,” LeBret said.
• Send a press release once every eight weeks. “We don’t care if any one reads the press release, we are doing this for the search engines,” LeBret said.
• Social media is must. It is not an effective tool for attracting new clients but essential for search engine ranking.
• Social media pages are for providing information, not advertising.
• Put your law firm’s phone number in the upper right-hand corner of the website. “If I want to contact you to give you money, don’t make me work for it,” LeBret said.
• Put a disclaimer on every page of the website, including blogs.
• Do not use clients’ names in blogs.
• Don’t sign three year contracts with tech companies.

The festivities kick off in a bit with the Young Lawyers’ Section Happy Hour (co-sponsored by The Daily Record). Check out the website the rest of the week for stories and blog posts about the annual meeting.

You can also can follow me and Kristi on Twitter and look for the #MSBAOC hashtag.

And, if you’re heading “downy ocean,” be sure to stop by our booth at the Clarion. Two words: Prize. Wheel.

– As online privacy dominates the news, Ron Miller of the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog has details on a new Maryland Rule concerning personal information and court records.

– Why some lawsuits over Obamacare will come from the health care legislation’s supporters.

– “A Cuyahoga County prosecutor was fired this week after he admitted posing as a woman in a Facebook chat with an accused killer’s alibi witnesses in an attempt to persuade them to change their testimony.” (HT: Above the Law)

– Steve Martin and his banjo (HT: Lowering the Bar)

– Chewbacca and his light-saber cane

Last week, The Washington Post wrote about White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler’s stylish designer shoes, something other news organizations have written about previously.

The Post story received criticism in the legal community and Debbie Hines, founder of LegalSpeaks.com, called for the newspaper to apologize to Ruemmler. In her column, Hines contended Ruemmler should be known for her career accomplishments and not for the style of her footwear.

So here’s our question for you:

What did you think about the article on the White House counsel’s shoes?

Leave a comment below or email me.

Need to Know:

• A former official in the Department of Treasury was named co-general counsel at JPMorgan Chase.
• President Barack Obama plans to nominate a former Lockheed Martin general counsel as head of the FBI.
• The former general counsel of the Motion Picture Association of America will become the leader of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.
• Marriott’s general counsel will join a law firm in Atlanta.
• A former executive director and general counsel of the Major League Baseball umpires union passed away.

Follow us on Twitter for In-House news and discussion: @TDRInHouse

• Want the latest on who’s been hired, fired or moving and shaking? 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, @TDRBeth.
• Check out The Daily Record on Facebook.In-

– How much is one’s image worth?

– New Jersey, like Maryland, recalls retired judges.

– Veterans courts thrive in Minnesota.

– Trial could determine if something is rotten at Apple.

The pro bono work of general counsels is under debate in Arizona.

The state’s supreme court is considering a law that limits the pro bono work in-house counsel can do in the state. General counsels can perform legal work in Arizona even if they are not licensed in the state, but state laws restrict corporate attorneys from representing third parties in pro bono cases. In order to do so, they have to go through another certification process.

The Association of Corporate Counsel is urging the court to change the rules and the petition by the state’s bar association is pending in court.

So here’s our question for you:

Do you think general counsels registered but not licensed in a state should be able to do pro bono work in that state without restrictions?

Leave a comment below or email me.

Need to Know:

• A Sidley Austin lawyer will be the Legal Services Corp.’s new general counsel.
• Minnesota companies auctioned off lunch with their general counsels for charity.
• Saab’s former general counsel was arrested along with other executives as part of a tax fraud investigation.
• A Colorado general counsel is in trouble for using the company credit card for golf outings.
• The Washington Post wrote an article about the White House counsel’s shoes.
• Motorola Solutions named a new general counsel.
• Corning Inc. named a new general counsel.

Follow us on Twitter for In-House news and discussion: @TDRInHouse

• Want the latest on who’s been hired, fired or moving and shaking? 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, @TDRBeth.
• Check out The Daily Record on Facebook.In-