courts are to protect the MINORITY

There's been news that the "overwhelming" majority of Americans disagree with the Supreme Court's recent campaign finance law ruling. That's ok. That's why you have courts. I don't think -- at the time -- the majority of Americans agreed with the Court's civil rights decisions, either. The courts are to protect the minority. The legislative and executive branches will take care of the majority.

Not that I agree with the Court's recent decision. Or that I think corporations (the "minority" affected by the decision) need any help. I'm just saying it's ok, and actually a good thing, that the Court issued an opinion people don't agree with.

Chemerinsky visits San Diego

Erwin Chemerinsky is a dude. The law professor/Constitutional scholar/UC Irvine law dean visited San Diego on Friday, as reported in this interesting article.

One funny comment he made -- he thinks U.S. Supreme Court opinions should have word and page limits! That'll be the day! He makes a good point, the Court hears fewer cases these days, but their opinions are getting longer and longer. A page limit would let the court hear more cases....

It's no big deal when pseudoanonymous blawgers criticize the Court. It's always inspiring when high profile people do so publicly. I guess that's why Chemerinsky almost wasn't UC Irvine Law's dean -- he's polarizing.

Lawyers' worst instincts

The following exchange in dueling ex parte briefs pissed off the judge. Go figure!

Plaintiff's moving papers:

It is little wonder why attorneys are regarded with such disdain by the public at large given the duplicitous conduct of [defendant's] counsel and others of like ilk . . . . Argument in the alternative is one thing, but agreements and declarations in the alternative is nothing more than janus-faced mercenaries with no regard for one's role as an officer of the Court.

The Defendant's lawyer perceived this as just another indicator of the maleficence of the adversary. His opposition is not subtle:

[Plaintiff's] conduct is incredible. [Plaintiff] first notified [defendant] of its intention to file its discovery motion one day prior to filing the motion . . . . When [defendant's] counsel could not meet on only ten minutes' notice, [plaintiff's] counsel decided to go ahead and file its procedurally defective motion without meeting. [Plaintiff's] ambush tactics and utter disregard for [the local rules] is scandalous.

Well played you too. (Mission Power Engineering Company v. Continental Casualty Company (C.D. Cal. 1995) 883 F.Supp. 488.)

you can't drink your own kool-aid

I read an article several years ago stressing how important it is to remain objective as a lawyer. You have to be able to see both sides of an issue before you can be an effective advocate of one of the sides. I had to think about it, but it made sense.

Recently, because I "drank my own kool-aid," I had an artificially high expectation of winning a demurrer I wrote. At the time of deciding to bring the demurrer, I thought it was a tough argument. Then, by the time the reply papers and hearing prep was done, I thought, damn, we should win this! My own arguments convinced me. Well, the demurrer was overruled. I can't say it was necessarily the wrong result. (The judge said I had a "poor man's summary judgment motion" LOL.) I don't think drinking the kool-aid did anything in this instance, but you can imagine it would lead to skewed perspective/focus and tone in arguments you're trying to make.

how to email.

This is a good article on email etiquette.