Ostensibly exploring the practice of law before the internet. Heck, before good highways for that matter.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Would the ABA please gete over its "Big Law" Obsession? And over itself too?
Anyhow, this, no doubt, is something that only matters to lawyers, and quite frankly only to a tiny number of lawyers at that, but the ABA needs to get over its obsession with "Big Law." At the same time, "Big Law" needs to get over itself, and so does the ABA.
Now, no doubt many non lawyers, upon hearing that term, would wonder what "Big Law" even is.
Well, Big Law is a term that legal commentators, within the legal community, have tagged on Super Sized East Coast law firms. Like many Super Sized East Coast things, they're irrelevant to people in the country otherwise, but those who are located there are seemingly so fascinated with them, that they can't grasp the irrelevance. Think of it like New York City. . . a vast metropolis that has passed its importance long ago, but doesn't realize it. And think of the ABA, in these regards, as a The New York Times, a once great public organ which is now a local newspaper, but which still believes that it speaks to the world, rather than wrap fish in Queens.
The ABA is constantly obsessed with what's going on in Big Law. Members of the ABA can subscribe to some email lists which supposedly will inform you in on this or that, and one of the things you are going to see constant commentary on is Big Law. Some big partnership back east will be laying people off, or the starting salaries of Big Law associates will be lower this year than last.
Well, so what? It doesn't matter to most lawyer, or most clients. Indeed, it doesn't matter to most "big time" lawyers.
But the commentary on it is so constant that other legal venues have picked it up. The legal Blawgs are full of "Big Law."
A dirty little secret of all of this is that a lot of Big Law commentary isn't about Big Law at all, but just regular old firms. If all the people who claim Big Law angst really worked for law firms employing the same number of people who lived in the Ottoman Empire, there would be no lawyers left employed by anyone else. I suspect that people who Blawg have, in their minds, converted their former occupation in a mid sized Mid Western firm to Big Law.
And maybe they should have, because much of the commentary and angst expressed about Big Law is really just stuff about general law. Big Law seems mostly distinguished from regular old law by its size, salary, locations, and probably the deluded corporate desire of big corporations to make sure that they they hire big.
For the most part, Big Law doesn't matter. Even the really big firms in big cities that handle lots and lots of important stuff in most places seemingly don't qualify as Big Law. So lawyers in a the Denver firm of Big, Huge, Giant and Titanic, which might have an office up in Casper and down in Albuquerque, don't count. And certainly that century old firm downtown employing ten or twenty lawyers doesn't count either.
Frankly, except to the ABA, for most of us, Big Law doesn't count. I don't care what some white shoe firm in New York does. It doesn't matter to me. Shoot, chances are good that I'll have a higher career total number of trials than most of them do, if I don't already. I'll never make the money their lawyers do, but I've never paid New York rent nor have I had to live in a place so undesirable as New York. I win.
But the ABA looses. It should just ignore the Big Law firms this year and focus on what most real lawyers do.
And while the ABA is at it, it can dump social activism for the year. I don't care, and nobody else does, on what the shining lights at the ABA think about gun control, or any such thing. Frankly, just because we're lawyers doesn't make us experts on social issues of any kind, and lawyers have been on both sides of every issue that ever was. The fact that the ABA feels itself compelled to bother with issues is one of the reasons that its becoming increasingly irrelevant to real lawyers.
Indeed, if the ABA wants to make itself relevant, it ought to go back to its century old roots and focus on practice standards. It could do that by working towards making legal education more rigorous and less frequent. As shocking as it may sound, it would be doing the law a favor if it advocated for fewer people to go to, and get through, law school. And it should do something about the fact that in an increasing number of American states bar applicants aren't tested on their state's own laws. If they want to be really bold, they could argue that judges should never be elected to office and ought to go off the bench when they hit 70, even if their Federal judges. I don't see the ABA making any of those arguments soon, however.
At the same time, we'll we're at it, perhaps everyone can just get over the Ivy League law schools. Yawn.
Tuesday, January 19, 1915. Air raid. Neon lights.
The first major air raid (there had been a prior raid) on Britain occurred when Zeppelins attacked Great Yarmouth and King's Lynn. The raid killed twenty people.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Lex Anteinternet: Islamic Violence, Islamic Silence and Western Rela...
Postscript III
For the first time, I've heard a really good explanation, but a noted religion writer, on the topic of this type of violence and Islam.
Of note, according to this author, who seemed very well informed indeed, such violence is in fact not sanctioned by Islam, even if Islam's history and texts have some violent aspects. A partial reason is that there's no authority that has authorized it, which can authorize it. Indeed, there would appear to be no authority which can in fact authorize it.
Additionally, it appears that the violence has in fact turned off a large segment of the Islamic population everywhere, to such an extent in fact that the religion is loosing a significant number of adherents in some areas, including Iran, where those abandoning the faith are either completely abandoning any faith, or are converting to Christianity.
Why Downton "Abbey"? The destroyed British abbeys
Valle Crucis Abbey, Wales. It was closed by King Henry VII in 1537 and leased to a private owner. It's now protected by the Welsh government
Lincluden Abbey, Scotland. Still a ruin today.
Sweetheart Abbey, Scotland.
Iona Abbey, Scotland. This site has been partially rebuilt in recent years by the Church of Scotland.
Glastonbury Abbey, England.
Sunday Morning Scense: Churches of the West: St. John in the Wilderness Cathedral, Denver Color...
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men: Lex Antein...
Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men: Lex Antein...: I've been bumping up this thread from time to time: Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: $40/barrel? : A couple of we...
And Now the U.S. Supreme Court: Lex Anteinternet: Today In Wyoming's History: Federal Court rules on same gender marriage
Lex Anteinternet: Today In Wyoming's History: Judge Skavdahl rules o...: A few days ago I wrote a post here about the history of marriage . Last Friday, one of the three Federal judges in Wyoming struck down Wyomi.
Of interest on this topic, the Wyoming Legislature is in session and there are presently two bills in the legislature seeking to afford protection to those who have moral objections to same gender marriage.So the topic is on the legislature's mind. After the decision by Governor Mead to not appeal Judge Skavdahl's ruling in the Federal District Court for Wyoming he, that is Governor Mead, took quite a bit of heat from some of his fellow Republicans for that decision. Indeed, some of the criticism was very pointed, causing Mead to actually have to defend his decision. Now, with the U.S. Supreme Court having indicated it will take this issue up, and with the legislature in session, it's going to be inevitable, in my view, that Mead will receive pressure to submit an amicus brief in the Supreme Court action, or he'll really see revived heat about his failure to appeal, which in turn means that we have no real standing to get into this suit if we wish to. My guess is that the Supreme Court would take amicus briefs (why not?) and that the State will take that action.
As a final prediction on this, I think there's probably close to 0% chance that the utlimate ruling will be accurately reported on or grasped by the public, although some group will have a huge reaction no matter what.
For people who support same gender marriage, if they win (again, I doubt they will) the result will legally achieve what they're seeking, but that won't equate with social acceptance, at least not immediately. The results of Roe v. Wade are less accepted now than they were in 1973. The nature of the debate just changes at that point, which is what will become apparently pretty quickly.
But if that same group looses, and I think it will, it won't be for the reason that most opponents of same gender marriage would argue for. That is, the Court is extraordinary unlikely to rule that as a matter of natural law, marriage must be between different genders, which is what the real argument there amounts to. That isn't going to happen.
Rather, the far more likely result will simply be that definition of marriage should be a matter of state law, and that the Court doesn't want to get into an argument about who can marry, how many people you can marry, what marriages a state must recognize as valid, what age you can marry, or any of that. That's the court's traditional position, and I suspect it'll be its position here.
Lex Anteinternet: Islamic Violence, Islamic Silence and Western Rela...
Lex Anteinternet: Islamic Violence, Islamic Silence and Western Rela...: This past week the world has been witness to another outrage committed by those who claim devotion to Islam. If this event were unique, a ...Of note, on this matter, in the past week protests, some pretty heated, have broken out in Pakistan, Algeria and Jordon.
Protesting violence in the name of Islam? No.
Protesting Charlie Hedbo's post assault cover showing a crying Mohammed.
Most would think this a pretty innocuous cartoon, perhaps even slightly reverent, but Muslim crowds have not in those locations, demonstrating the nature of the problem here.
Even more demonstrative, the paper, which in my view is not at all admirable in general, as I made clear in my Je ne suis pas Charlie post, attacked Christianity and the Catholic church viciously in the same issue, and proclaimed itself to be atheist. Taking pride in that status, it took vicarious credit for the large crowds that came out in Paris, perhaps failing to understand that sympathy for victims, which in this case is perceived as the French Republic as much as anything else, does not really equate to sympathy with the papers crude cartoons and sometimes crude text.
But was there a violent Christian or Catholic reaction? No, not at all.
There was a reaction, with even the Pope commenting, but of note it tended to once again find sympathy with the victims and also plead for all Faiths to be treated with respect. This too highlights the nature of the problem the West faces here. In the West, most agree with the Christian view of turning the other cheek. In Islam, it seems that a large percentage of the faithful do not agree with that view at all. As that's the case, this problem can't be regarded as minor, or isolated.
Sunday, January 17, 1915. Messing around in Arabia.
Ottoman stragglers were rounded up by the Russians at Sarikamish.
The Arab houses of Āl Rashīd and Āl Saʻūd fought the Battle of Jarrab north of Al Majma'ah. Āl Rashīd prevailed. Pre war civil servant and wartime British military advisor William Shakespear, a close friend of Ibn Saud, was killed, resulting in diminished British influence over the House of Saud.
African American radical Lucy Parsons led an unemployed march of 10,000 workers in Chicago. The event would result in a program for the unemployed.
Last edition:
Saturday, January 16, 1915. Cape Evans.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Saturday, January 16, 1915. Cape Evans.
While the rest of the world was fighting tooth and nail with each other, the Ross Sea Party established a shore base at Cape Evans, Antarctica, in support of the Imperial Trans Antarctic Expedition.
Greek King Constantine created the Order of George, named after his father, in honor of Greek citizens who had given exceptional public service to Greece. In 1973 it was succeeded by the Order of Honour.
Last edition:
Friday, January 15, 1915. Thinking about Gallipoli and Solidarity Forever.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
And while we were watching Paris. . .
This is in the news, but not like Paris, no doubt because it's activities are principally in Africa, rather than somewhere else.
Just thought you'd want to know.
Today In Wyoming's History: Update: Today In Wyoming's History: January 14
Friday, January 15, 1915. Thinking about Gallipoli and Solidarity Forever.
The British War Council approved plans to open a new front by landing Allied troops on the Gallipoli Peninsula.
The blame for what would ultimately prove to be an Allied disaster is often placed at Churchill's feet, but in fact the concept was first suggested by an aging Royal Navy commander who was suffering from the onset of Alzheimer's.
There's a lesson in there.
The French submarine Saphir was sunk with the loss of 27 of her crew.
The submarines Saphir and Curie, fallen gloriously in battle, are brought to the agenda of the Naval Army. In his affliction of having seen succumb such valiant servants of the country, the commander-in-chief reminds everyone how proud the army should be to have in its ranks officers and crews capable of heroic actions such as those that were accomplished by these valourous ships whose names will remain in maritime legends. Honour and glory to the officers and crews of the Saphir and Curie, they have truly earned it from the Fatherland.
Augustin Boué de Lapeyrère, admiral of the French navy.
British Home Secretary Herbert Samuel proposed British support for Zionism and a Jewish state in Palestine, in The Future of Palestine.
FWIW, Samuel was himself Jewish and perhaps sympathetic to his coreligious, who endured terrible oppression in some quarters of Europe. Of course, that was going to get worse in the future.When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run,There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun;Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one,But the union makes us strong.Chorus:Solidarity forever!Solidarity forever!Solidarity forever!For the union makes us strong.Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite,Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might?Is there anything left to us but to organize and fight?For the union makes us strong.ChorusIt is we who plowed the prairies; built the cities where they trade;Dug the mines and built the workshops, endless miles of railroad laid;Now we stand outcast and starving ’midst the wonders we have made;But the union makes us strong.ChorusAll the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.While the union makes us strong.ChorusThey have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learnThat the union makes us strong.ChorusIn our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold,Greater than the might of armies, multiplied a thousand-fold.We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the oldFor the union makes us strong.
A familiar package was patented.
Last edition:
Wednesday, January 13, 1915. The Avezzano Earthquake.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Protection is sometimes not needed until it is. A bill to protect the clergy
Today, however, I'm commenting on something that goes the other way, that being a bill that's in the legislature which would protect a person from suit who will not preside over a same gender marriage. The Tribune editorialized in opposition to this bill the other day.
That editorial was extremely telling, really, as it shows the mindset of those who just don't grasp this issue. Starting off with the claim that there are no worries, as the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects anyone in that position, it then goes on to express the view that the bill is just sour grapes as a Federal judge forced this on the state, and that same gender unions are good for marriage overall. So, in one fell swoop the editorial actually states the fears that this bill seeks to address, those being that: 1) the Federal courts can make something that was never conceived of as being legal the law overnight, and 2) if you don't agree with this change you ought to, so you have no legitimate complaint anyhow.
Beyond that, this is the first inkling of a concern by those who backed this change (as the Tribune did) that its likely be extremely temporary. The elephant in the room on this issue is that that U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it yet, but is likely to do so in the next two terms, and when it does, it's probable that the ruling will either uphold prior state laws or the Court will hold that the entire issue doesn't belong in Federal court at all, and remand all of it to the states. In that case, the local ruling would basically evaporate overnight and it would become a state issue. Nobody really knows what the Wyoming Supreme Court would do with this issue, but its pretty certain that the legislature would not be in favor of any changes in the reading of the law.
So what about the first point in the editorial. Is the Tribune right?
Well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. We need to also keep in mind that there's a bill also pending in the legislature which would prohibit discrimination based upon a person's orientation. People everywhere in the US tend to already think that this is the law, and most people aren't in favor of any kind of real discrimination, but that actually isn't the law. Chances are that it will be, either legislatively our through court action in the foreseeable future.
For most people, that actually won't matter, but there are a collection of people for whom this creates a moral crisis. And its one that isn't often understood and is unfairly dismissed by those who don't look at it.
To start with, its very clearly a problem for ministers of most monotheistic religions that hold the long established theology of their faiths. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all regard the conduct that this surrounds as sinful, and none of them regard marriages between same gender couples as valid. Now, before somebody seeks to correct me, I do concede of course that there are present examples of individuals in Judaism and Christianity, including their ministers, who hold the opposite view, but they are all reformist in some manner. That is, in order to take that view, they have to qualify or reinterpret part of what was very long held doctrine.
Now this post isn't intended to be a theology treatise, which I'm not qualified to attempt to do in depth anyhow, but rather to note the next item, which is that Conservative and Orthodox Jewish Rabbis, Muslim mullahs, and ministers in the Catholic, Orthodox and some Protestant denominations hold the view that same gender unions cannot be regarded as marriages and that they cannot perform them. Indeed, they'd regard preforming them as an immoral act with enormous personal consequences.
Beyond that, members of these various faiths, at least in some cases, also hold the views that cooperating in such unions is itself a species of religious fraud, as it gives evidence that they, as loyal members of their faiths, disagree with the faith. Frankly, the average person in most faiths seems able to ignore big chunks of it if they're average members, but for those who are serious about their faiths, this can present a very real problem if they're asked to participate in some fashion, which can include everything from simply attending to being asked to provide some sort of service, like photographs or a cake.
Because so many people have very casual views about everything in this area, the fact that this can in fact create a moral crisis is lost to many people. Indeed, many people are pretty comfortable with a judge ordering a priest or rabbi to do something, as they feel "well, he doesn't have to believe. . but what's the harm. . .". And a larger group yet is very comfortable with the idea, for example, that a Jewish bakery can be ordered to provide a cake, as to not do so would be "mean", or that a Catholic flower shop can be ordered to provide flowers, as to not do so is hateful.
But if any of those individuals feel otherwise, and they stick to their guns, the full sanction of the law could impact them, as it already has in some states where the law has changed, in so far as laymen are concerned.
And, as touched on earlier, this is already a present problem, at least on a theoretical basis, for those who hold clerk positions. If a young Muslim woman is working in a county clerk's office and is asked to issue a marriage license, can she get canned if she refuses and it has to go to another clerk? What if a Greek Orthodox judge decides that he doesn't want to preside over civil unions in his courthouse? Is that the end for him?
It could be.
The Tribune, which has sued more than once when it feels its Constitutional rights are being trampled upon, feels that the 1st Amendment neatly solves all of this. The 1st Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.All the 1st Amendment really says, of course, regarding religions is that no U.S. state was to go down the same road that England, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, or Denmark had, and make a certain religion the state religion. Indeed, of significance to this discussion, in each of those instances the establishment of a state religion came about when the state acted to overthrow the religions establishment of the country and get it to do something it wasn't going to do voluntarily, so in essence the state acted to tell the established church what to do.
The First Amendment has been interpreted, of course, to allow "the free exercise" of any faith, and the Tribune's thought is that as this is the case, everyone is protected. And the Tribune might be 100% correct. Having said that, the states in fact do already restrict the free exercise of religion and always have. While I'm not advocating for a change in this particular aspect of state law (although that's coming about through court action anyhow) one such example is in that marriages are limited to one spouse a piece. What are sometimes referred to as "fundamentalist Mormons" believe that one man should be able to have multiple wives. Muslims believe that one man can have up to seven wives, although their faith doesn't mandate that they do so. Other examples could be found.
It's safe to say, in any event, that sooner or later some priest, rabbi or mullah would get sued for refusing to preside over a same gender union. And some flower shop, bakery, caterer, or banquet hall would as well. It'd be inevitable. Maybe the First Amendment would operate to protect them, it probably would, but to be concerned that it might not, or to feel that added protection might be in order, isn't unreasonable.
The truth of the matter is that Americans have sort of a dual religiosity and the United States is a fairly religious nation. But part of that is that there's sort of a widely held civil religion that's relativistic and which holds tolerance of everything and being nice to everyone as a primary virtue, without looking at any one topic too deeply. For the thousands, and maybe millions, who also take the tenants of their faiths seriously, however, there are lines they cannot cross. For most Americans, up until now, that's mattered little, although again there are tens of thousands and maybe millions who have actually do face trials of one kind or another of this type everyday, where things that they'd reject have crept into civil life over the decades. But what we've seen recently has come as a court made, in part, revolution and has placed these conflicts squarely in issue. The early history, indeed over half of our history, was marked by extremely deep religious bigotry in which certainly Catholicism and Judaism were deeply despised, and even Puritans could find themselves facing the death penalty for passing over a colonial boundary (giving us a rare early example of women being executed in what would become the United States). Without some protection for those who hold deeply held believes that do not square with civil trends, we face returning, to some degree, to that era in a more minor way, with the enforces of the civil religion oppressing the holders of other religious views.
Now, of course, the bill might not actually be effective. But some protection is at least worth affording.
Today In Wyoming's History: January 13 Updated
Mid Week At Work. The docks.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Wednesday, January 13, 1915. The Avezzano Earthquake.
The British in Egypt received intelligence information that the Ottomans were planning a raid on the Suez Canal and moving troops accordingly.
The First Battle of Artois ended with France unable to restore battlefield momentum on their side.
An earthquake in Avezzano, Italy, killed over 30,000 people.
The HMS Viknor struck a mine in the North Atlantic and sunk. The U-31 went missing.
Last edition:
Movies In History: Monuments Men
Monday, January 12, 2015
Tuesday, January 12, 1915. Congress says no to women voting.
LLB, LLM, JD, oh my!
JDs became the US norm, indeed absolute, at some point in the late 1950s, as the bodies that concerned themselves with law, such as the ABA, pressed for that to be the universal degree. While already mentioned, there was a certain pitiful aspect to this in that the profession's bodies felt cheated that physicians had doctorates and lawyers didn't, which is a rather odd concern. At the same time, the same bodies pressed for the elimination of "reading the law" or admission to the bar by people without JDs, which of course raised their importance. At some point by the 1970s the old practice of allowing people to simply take the bar had died off, and in most, but not all states, a person is required to have a JD from an ABA approved law school before being admitted to the bar.