How about this badge, which you may see this on other lawyers' websites?:

It may even be accompanied by the claim that the lawyer is a "Top 100 lawyer in Houston" or a "Top 100 lawyer in Texas" or even "one of the top 100 lawyers in the U.S.A."

The badge is nonsense, and the claim that it signifies "one of the top 100 lawyers in" some geographic area is false, and means one of three things:

After almost 16 years of intermittent blogging, I'm moving along to a different platform, which I think will better suit both my talents and the times.

Please visit https://defendingpeople.substack.com and subscribe to my newsletter.

Thanks to you all.

Interesting voir dire question on Twitter, from a Gideon's Promise (it's a terrific program; if you have some charity dollars to direct, please consider sending them yeaward) alumna:

Just want your thoughts: During a Voir Dire in a very conservative area, would you use the Trump impeachment process in any way? Just was a thought myself and instead of fleshing it out for myself, I'm calling on you to weigh in.

My initial response was maybe a little snarky:

I think I have discovered a bug in how DPS administers the sex-offender registry in dealing with people who have ten-year sex-offender registration offenses and prison sentences.

If you went to prison for a ten-year-registration offense, and have been out of prison (regardless of parole status) for more than nine years, I'd like to hear from you. We may be able to do something on your behalf.

Please spread the word.

Some dolt ((Not an argumentum ad hominem: I'm not saying his argument is wrong, because he's a dolt. I'm saying he's a dolt, because his argument is wrong. Read on, and tell me if I'm wrong.)) in Illinois thinks my handling of the "speech of purely private concern" argument here is too "dismissive":

You're right that the Supreme Court has not applied its lesser-protected speech language to cases like this. But that language is there and the test is being developed on the state level. Your dismissive approach therefore does not seem to be particularly effective.- Michael Smith (@msmith750) October 23, 2019

He bases this statement on his reading of the blog post I wrote on People v. Austin, linked to above.