Rodrigo González Fernández y un grupo de egresados de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad la Republica en Chile ha decidido poner al alcance de todo el mundo de la profesion legal importantes materias en Ingles para ir practicando el trabajo en materia de Tratados internacionales y que nuestra profesión estará en primera linea. Invitamos a todos a opinar, debatir, participar activamente.Es el primer blog legal en inglés de latinoamerica.
TU NO ESTAS SOLO EN ESTE MUNDO.YOU ARE NOT ALONESI TE HA GUSTADO UN ARTICULO, COMPARTELO
Let me be perfectly clear: Neither Carolyn nor I solicited or knew beforehand of O'Keefe's post. When I saw it, I added a comment, tongue firmly in cheek, "A brilliant and insightful post."
The anonymous editor of Blawg Review took O'Keefe's post more seriously than did I, it appears. He/she wrote O'Keefe a private e-mail titled, "What's with Kevin O'Keefe," which O'Keefe then published under the heading, What's with Blawg Review editor? That, of course, brought a public response from the Blawg Review editor, again titled, What's with Kevin O'Keefe?
The issue, of course, is not whether ALM "appreciates" Carolyn and me. As I understand the Blawg Review editor's concern, it was that O'Keefe was out of place "to take up the causes of others without them having asked [him] to do so." Let me, again, be clear: I have no "cause" to be taken up by anyone, as far as ALM is concerned. O'Keefe has been a regular critic of ALM and other legal publishers for what he sees as their failure to "get" blogging and related technologies. In the post at issue, he singled out ALM CEO Bill Pollak, suggesting that perhaps he did not understand "the power of blogs and the need for them at ALM." In a private e-mail to O'Keefe yesterday, I wrote, "Funny thing is that Bill Pollak is one of the people at ALM who most 'gets' the Internet, blogs and all that jazz. To the extent ALM has taken leaps forward in this area, I suspect he's been a prime motivator."
At the same time, I believe every blogger should be encouraged to speak his or her mind on issues that affect the legal profession. As I also wrote privately to O'Keefe: "We need more rabble rousers, fewer ass kissers." I have no cause that needs taking up, but I am all for lawyers taking up the causes of others without necessarily awaiting an invitation.
Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on August 4, 2006 at 01:06 PM | Permalink
Slate editor-at-large Jack Shafer takes the similarity a step further, drawing on Kane to offer Kushner some unsolicited advice. First, suggests Shafer, Kushner needs his Rosebud -- some reason for his interest in journalism.
"The average vanity press mogul hopes to save mankind, punish his enemies, boost his status, or revisit the remembered glories of putting out a high-school newspaper. ... If you don't have a Rosebud, get one, even if you have to make one up."
Next, says Shafer, Kushner should watch Citizen Kane a couple of times for inspiration and drop hints to others about the parallels.
"I also have a great Kane line for you to pinch. When young Kane's financial guardian asks if the muckraking he's doing with the New York Inquirer is his idea of how to run a paper, Kane retorts, 'I don't know how to run a newspaper, Mr. Thatcher. I just try everything I can think of.' There's your motto!"
Still, Shafer cautions, Kushner should not emulate Kane in all respects.
"Avoid over-eating, don't leave your wife for a bad singer, don't start a foreign war, and don't run for president."
And, of course, don't neglect to show up at law school when classes resume in the fall.
Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on August 4, 2006 at 01:04 PM | Permalink
Sleuths Unearth Lost Brandeis Opinion In the annals of First Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court's 1927 opinion Whitney v. California is known for its concurrence by Justice Louis Brandeis in which he wrote an eloquent defense of free speech while joining in a decision against it. Although Brandeis' words seemed out of sync with his ruling, scholars largely overlooked this irony. Now, a recently published law review article shows that much of what Brandeis said in Whitney he had intended for his dissent in another case. When fate intervened to prevent one opinion's publication, Brandeis adapted his words to another.
"The story of the Whitney and Ruthenberg appeals is the story of the two minds of Louis Brandeis. One case he didn't want to decide, but was forced to; the other he did want to decide, but was unable to. One case impelled him to apologetic concurrence; the other provoked him to uninhibited dissent. One case was to be resolved by procedural rules; the other on the merits with a new vision of the First Amendment. All of this changed unexpectedly ... and the two minds of Louis Brandeis melded into one."
"Brandeis' dissent in Ruthenberg would have become a leading light of First Amendment law instead of his Whitney concurrence were it not for Ruthenberg's untimely death from acute peritonitis in March 1927 before the release of the Court's opinion. Hence, Brandeis' dissent in Ruthenberg was withdrawn and lost to history until the Collins and Skover article, which includes the opinion in an appendix."
Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on August 4, 2006 at 01:02 PM | Permalink
DA Seeks Gag on Lawyers -- but Why? A Massachusetts district attorney wants to gag two lawyers from talking about the case of a man they helped free after 21 years in prison. In an article in this week's Boston Phoenix, writer David S. Bernstein asks why.
The lawyers, John Swormley and Harvey Silverglate, represent Bernard Baran, who was convicted in 1985 of molesting children at a day care center. In June, they won Baran's release from prison, when a judge vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding that Baran's original defense was incompetent.
But now, David Capeless, the Berkshire County district attorney, has asked a judge to place a gag order on Baran's attorneys to prevent them from making public statements about the case. His argument is that discussing the case could prejudice jurors in a retrial. But author Bernstein questions that premise. He notes that Capeless, who is personally handling the Baran case, is running for re-election. He quotes another lawyer who calls the timing of the gag-order motion "odd," because Capeless is appealing the Baran ruling and "there is no pending trial whose potential jurors could be influenced."
In a recent editorial, The Berkshire Eagle portrayed this as a matter of protecting the lawyers' free speech:
"In seeking a gag order ..., Mr. Capeless argued that the defense team's comments could prejudice potential jurors. The district attorney's concerns, however, should not result in the loss of the lawyers' constitutional right to free speech. The actions of the lawyers may or may not make Mr. Capeless' job more difficult, but the search for jurors should not take precedence over a basic right enjoyed by all Americans."
Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on August 4, 2006 at 12:59 PM | Permalink
Howell, Bashman and Svenson are our guests this week on the legal-affairs podcast Coast to Coast. We discuss, among other questions, why there aren't more legal bloggers at larger law firms, whether larger firms see value in blogging and whether bloggers by their nature tend not to fit with larger firms. You can listen to the program:
Learn how IP experts are addressing the growing threat of online brand abuse by attending this FREE webcast: Preventing Online Brand Abuse. This one-hour presentation will surface the latest trends and best practices in establishing, maintaining and protecting corporate brands on the Internet. This on-demand event includes panelists from Best Western, TaylorMade and Verizon. View Now!