Recent Blog Posts
Fake Ad Hominem, Cowardice, and Real Lawyers
So there's this guy:
With respect to anonymity, I am going to maintain it for the time being. There are a number of reasons.
First, there is in my estimation a small risk to others, by association with me. After all, this effort is a swipe at powerful interests. It may or may not be effective – I hope it is. But I see no reason to take even small risks with the interests of others when the potential for accomplishing anything good is as speculative as this is right now.Second, I object in principle to making the writer an issue, rather than the merit of what is said, and far too much of that goes on. Arguing against the person rather than the ideas espoused is a common logical fallacy known as ad hominem. I could be an 11 year old hacker in a basement or the second coming of Adolph Hitler, but if I said that a cup is measured as 8 fluid ounces I would be correct no matter who I otherwise am.
Praise the Lord and Pass the Witness
[Begin willing suspension of disbelief.]
As I've said more than once, the government and the free market are failing to provide competent criminal-defense services to the working poor.
And so the church steps in: Well of the Oath Legal Clinic of Irving, Texas is a faith-based nonprofit organization providing legal services (through second-year lawyer Craig Randall Novak) to people making less than 250% of the Federal poverty guideline (so $27,075 for an individual or $45,775 for a family of three).
The representation is not entirely free, of course:
Furthermore, we will discuss with you your becoming or being an active part of a church body. We do not make exceptions to this policy. We believe that the Lord can not only change your life in your legal matters, but wants to heal you, and be with you through this difficult process. We will be glad to recommend to you, if you do not have a church family, one of our church partners.
The Great Lawyers' Strike of '10
I finally got around to looking at the anonymous Lawyers on Strike blog, which Scott Greenfield, Jeff Gamso, and Mike at Crime & Federalism wrote about last week.
The anonymous blogger's bright idea: "I will use this blog to call for a ‘strike': that is, to call upon all attorneys in the geographic area to refuse to appear in front of that judge."
My immediate reaction: "what?"
Let's say I represent a client in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas (Ruben Guerrero presiding). The anonymous blogger of Lawyers on Strike calls for a strike against Ruben Guerrero. Let's say that I think such a strike is appropriate because I think Guerrero is unfit to serve as judge (I do), and that I think I can make a difference by striking.
It Only Looks Easy.
Why does it cost more to hire me as the second lawyer on your case? Because the first lawyer was probably this guy:
(H/T D.A. Confidential, who says, "This is how it works. For real." DAC is a Travis County prosecutor; 'nuff said.)
The Sobe Study
The researchers supplied people with Sobe Adrenaline Rush, an "energy" drink that was supposed to make them feel more alert and energetic. (The drink contained a potent brew of sugar and caffeine which, the bottle promised, would impart "superior functionality"). Some participants paid full price for the drinks, while others were offered a discount. The participants were then asked to solve a series of word puzzles. To Shiv's surprise, the people who paid discounted prices consistently solved about thirty percent fewer puzzles than the people who paid full price for the drinks. The subjects were convinced that the stuff on sale was much less potent, even though all the drinks were identical.
(Why Do We Love Our Dentists? Wired Science.)
Matthew Homann (the [non]billable hour) brings us news of the study, and comments:
“On Behalf Of”
FindLaw's latest marketing gambit: "blogs" for lawyers, using lightly-reworked (as in, "paraphrased so that a particularly stupid high school freshman might turn it in as original work and then be surprised to get an F") news stories, published "on behalf" of the lawyers paying for the marketing. A few examples (if the link doesn't work, go to blogsearch.google.com and search for "on behalf of" criminal defense or "on behalf of" personal injury).
Despite my (and others‘) evangelism against FindLaw, one of my fellow Houston criminal-defense lawyers has been suckered in; the blog (nofollow link, of course) is here.
Totalitarianism Starts With Those Whom Society Hates
Here are the rules-by court order and coerced "agreement"-by which a Texas sex offender has to live for the rest of his life, even after he has served his entire prison sentences, if some hack psychologist doesn't want him in his neighborhood and so testified, because of consequential ethics, that the offender is likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence:
Texas Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment Conditions
If you're an ordinary person, you probably don't care much what the State does to a sex offender who has been adjudicated a sexually-violent predator.
If you're a right-thinking citizen, you probably think, "it serves him right."
No car, no driver's license, no contact with children (including his own), no alcohol. No unapproved travel, higher education, or contact of any sort with other humans. Life in a halfway house, regimented schedules, mail monitoring, polygraphs, penile plethysmographs, 24-hour surveillance, and GPS tracking. Mandatory non-private "therapy." No "deviant" fantasies or "deviant" masturbation (but "positive masturbation is acceptable"). The risk of prison for violating the smallest rule. For the rest of his life.
Don't Be Carlos Romious [Updated]
Greenfield wrote about some of the travails of Kansas City lawyer Carlos Romious.
But if we are to view Romious' behavior as an indication that this is a seriously unstable individual, then what is he doing practicing law in this condition? Rather than being held in contempt, he should be held for a psych evaluation.While the WSJ categorized this story under "lawyers behaving badly," I think they've missed the boat. This lawyer either suffers from a psychological infirmity or is shockingly incompetent. Psychosis seems the most likely, because the alternative is just too far beyond the pale to accept. And if Romious' conduct was the result of psychosis, then the solution isn't contempt but treatment.
Ten days later, a federal judge in St. Louis ordered Romious to undergo an inpatient psychiatric evaluation at FMC Springfield.
So You Want to Be a Lawyer
Because one of my readers might not have seen it yet:
Sometimes the Power Elites Get it Right
I wanted to defend Christine O'Donnell.
I read reports of the Delaware Senatorial candidate's debate against Chris Coons, in which she questioned whether the U.S. Constitution demands separation of church and state, mindful of Mike's (Crime and Federalism) suggestion that power elites control public perception of candidates, like O'Donnell, who were not born into the right social class.
The derisive reaction (see, e.g., Political Ticker, Huffington Post) to O'Donnell's reported words seemed unfair. O'Donnell asked Coons where the words "separation of church and state" appear in the First Amendment; they don't, of course. Almost a century and a half of Supreme Court precedent says so. But the fact that the Supreme Court says something does not render further discussion unimportant.