LEGAL BLOG

LEGAL BLOG WATCH

The Most Taxing Podcast Ever

Jim Calloway calls it "great news for insomniacs and tax geeks alike," and it comes just in time for that most revered of days, April 15. The source of Calloway's excitement is Jack Bogdanski's announcement that he will podcast the complete Internal Revenue Code -- and he won't even charge people to listen! Home page for the project is right here, where you can already find seven IRC sections ready for downloading to your computer or MP3 player. Bogdanski should be familiar with the material, since he is a tax professor at Lewis & Clark Law School.

 

Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on April 13, 2006 at 07:29 AM | Permalink

 

Murphy's Law of Lawyering

Indianapolis lawyer Stephen Terrell recently left a firm to open his own law office. In the process, he is learning some little-known lessons about starting a practice and sharing them on his blog, Hoosier Lawyer. This week, he learned that when only one thing won't work, it's something you need. He describes the lesson this way:

 

"If you have 20 outlets and jacks in your new office, but only two are absolutely crucial to your start-up operation, it is those two -- and only those two -- which won't work."

 

Maybe we should call it the Murphy's Law of lawyering.

 

Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on April 13, 2006 at 07:15 AM | Permalink

 

Scalia's 'Proudest Thing'

Could a law blogger "have any finer friend than Justice Antonin Scalia?" asks Joseph Schuman at Law Blog. It sometimes seems that the brilliant-but-quirky jurist is to legal news what the talented-but-quirky Michael Jackson is to celebrity news -- an endless source of fodder. Speaking to law students at the University of Connecticut yesterday, Scalia said that his 2004 decision not to recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Cheney was the "proudest thing" he has done on the Court, as reported by Associated Press.

 

Given that Scalia has no doubt done many "things" of which he should be proud, his choice of this has Norm Pattis at Crime & Federalism wondering "if he's off his rocker, or if his meds need readjusting." But Pattis is even more disturbed about what he calls Scalia's "anachronistic crusade," his adherence to constitutional originalism. Says Pattis:

 

"It is difficult to take Scalia's commitment to originalist seriously. He blasts those favoring a living constitution, arguing that such folks are too free to impose their meaning on age-old terms of constitutional text. Yet the decision he makes to adhere to the words of those long-dead is just as much of a choice. Frankly, I'd choose even a bad doctor trained this century over Benjamin Rush, a famous colonial physician. So would Scalia."

 

Hmmm, maybe we should see what Michael Jackson thinks.

 

Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on April 13, 2006 at 06:54 AM | Permalink

 

Mentioning the Unmentionable

In the annals of American jurisprudence, yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court to allow citation to unpublished opinions in federal courts may warrant little more than a footnote -- but at least it will be a citeable footnote. Among bloggers and legal commentators, however, the decision drew greater notice. Legal Times writer Tony Mauro wrote:

 

"The justices' vote represents a major milestone in the long-running debate over unpublished opinions, the sometimes-cursory dispositions that resolve upward of 80 percent of cases in federal appeals courts nationwide."

 

While many praised the decision, Nancy Soonpass of Legal Writing Prof Blog noted this concern:

 

"[F]ederal judges are concerned that they will now have to spend additional time polishing these opinions if they can be used as precedent and that such an expenditure of time will increase court backlogs."

 

Commenting from north of the border, Canadian legal researcher Elizabeth Ellis observed that the decision will add to the mountains of materials lawyers already have to sift through:

 

"Twenty five years ago, I recall spending most of my time 'researching' because the finding tools were not that helpful. .. Today, I think the 'research' time has been shortened -- but the analysis time lengthened because there is so much more material to consider and the material is often unorganized and confusing."

 

That adds up to higher legal bills for clients, she says.

 

To my mind, this is the right decision. You can judge for yourself. And feel welcome to publish your judgment as a comment here.

 

The text of the new Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is here. The court's order adopting the rule is here. For a "compendium of information" about nonpublication of judicial opinions, see NonPublication.com.

 

Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on April 13, 2006 at 06:28 AM | Permalink

 

Sponsor Spotlight

 

The Future of Silicosis Suits

Will a federal judge's scathing order, tort-overhaul legislation and a congressional investigation mean the end of silicosis litigation? At 10 a.m. (CDT) April 18, go to www.texaslawyer.com and click on "The Future of Silicosis Suits" to join an online discussion with plaintiffs lawyer Brent W. Coon and defense counsel Steve L. Russell, who have extensive experience litigating silicosis cases.