Evan Schaeffer's Legal Underground

Memo to the Defense Team Concerning Its Disbandment

Two days ago, I issued a warning. Now I've made my decision. It's time to disband the defense team.

I have a lot to say, but right at the start I should apologize. I realize I wasn't the best client. None of you could have foreseen the way I'd call in the middle of the night, just a little tipsy, to chat about our case or occasionally just to rant. Remember, I was once a big firm defense lawyer myself. I know what it's like when the client forgets you have other cases or becomes rude and dismissive just because he's paying the bills. I know I was a thorn in your side. I know Professor Bainbridge wasn't thrilled when I asked him to carry my briefcase. Ted Frank is probably still upset about my comment during that first conference call to "Shut up and listen for a change."

But it works both ways. Did I mention I was once a defense lawyer? When I worked at this defense firm, I was a master at making the client think he was always right, even when he obviously wasn't. That's why these past few days, I've taken your compliments with a grain of salt. Remember during the second conference call when Walter Olson said that of all the shining lights in the chandelier of the plaintiffs' bar, I was the one who shined most brightly? I smiled, I felt good--but I knew it was all bullshit. Even though it may have been true.

Anyway, I want you to know that you guys are the best, even those of you who tried so valiantly to ignore your appointment to my defense team. And our European bully? Let him take his best shot. I've learned more from you guys in the past week than I've learned during my entire legal career. I'll take him down myself with one hand tied behind my back. (And at a savings of approximately 6,200%.)

Bring it on.

Masked and Anonymous

Only diehard Bob Dylan fans need apply. 'Nuff said.

Update: George Wallace of A Fool in the Forest has alerted me to his own much more substantive post about Masked and Anonymous. I wholly recommend George's post without endorsing it; reading between the lines, I take him to be less of a Dylan fan than me.

Weekly Report #7

This week I'm going to punt, except to say I attended the meeting of the Madison County Bar Association, where I talked with Matt Homann of the [non]billable hour about the ABA Techshow in Chicago. I won't be there, but anyone who's thinking about going should see Matt's site for some tips.

Other than that, my week wasn't that interesting (save for my European stalker, about which more tomorrow). I spent some time working on a brief opposing a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, which spilled over way too much onto The Illinois Trial Practice Weblog. On Wednesday, I appeared for three hearings in one morning, even covering something for the Senior Partner, who isn't feeling so well at this stage in her pregnancy. Oh, and our phones still aren't working.

Instead of giving you any more details, I thought I'd point you to the Criminal Law Blog, where Ken Lammers recently posted another entry to his recurring "A Week in the Life of a Criminal Defense Attorney." Since Ken's week was more interesting than mine, read his and pretend I was there. Even though I wasn't.

Next week, I'll be traveling on a secret mission. It probably won't slow down the blawg, but then again it might. Stay tuned to find out how many plates your humble blawger can keep spinning at once.

The Intended Victim, Mel Gibson, Now Fears for His Life in Hollywood

The BBC News is reporting that actor Jim Caviezel was struck by lightning while acting in the role of Jesus in Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ. The lightning strike took place at a remote location a few hours from Rome.

How Appealing at the Law Schools

Christmas Grinching at a mad tea party:  For those of you who haven't seen it yet, Alice at a mad tea party  has lots to reveal about Skadden Arps. Especially interesting are the twenty-two comments and what they tell us about what's important--and what's not--to law students and young legal associates.

Andrew Sinclair is reporting: At andrewsinclair.org, Andrew is reporting that "CD Price Settlement Check Arrives."  Andrew is soliciting suggestions for how to use his check.  So far, one comment really hits the nail on the head:  "Buy 2/3 of a CD? Personally I will spend that money on iTunes downloads."

News from Cambridge, MA:  Over at Jeremy's Weblog, blogger and Harvard 2L Jeremy Blachman offers up "The Ballad of the Eight-Hour Exam," as well as a look at what makes law firms unique .  (I hope he's not set to mock my new firm!).  Congrats to Jeremy for landing the permanent posting position at Crescat Sententia, where I particularly like Jeremy's entries on his blogroll.  

Available from the Hose Monster Blog:  A very compelling and thoughtful post about e-mail spam.  Actually, I spent so much time staring at this post--considering its "ins and outs," as it were--that I neglected to figure out what law school the Hose Monster attends.  I would appreciate it if the Hose Monster would let me know!

Well I've very much enjoyed this little stroll around the law schools. Expect more of the same very soon. (Honestly, though, it's a little hard to find time for law students when every federal court in the nation is counting on you to find mistakes in its decisions before anyone else!) As for my mistakes here: if you're expecting to get paid for spotting typos, forget it. Who do you think I am, Evan Schaeffer?

A Brief Note to My Defense Team

All's been quiet for two days. But looking at my referrer logs, I can see that someone bearing the fingerprints of our European friend has been lurking around Legal Underground today. How can I tell? The lurker or his agents entered by way of a search on Google Deutschland for the name of the same man who's been dogging me.

He better make a move soon, because otherwise I'm going to have to disband the team. Honestly, I've got to get you off the payroll. These guys came cheap, but Frank, Wallace, Fowler, Bainbridge, Olson, Giacalone, Marks, Blachman and more: the mind reels. What was I thinking?

Sorry to be such a complainer. (Hell, Dedman's been on the road all week on other matters, but his bills are through the roof!)

. . . and Where Does It Meet?

In my last post, I did something no blawger has ever attempted: I explained the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. More familiarly called the MDL Panel, this is a group of seven federal judges who likes to pack light. Every two months, they meet in the federal courthouse of a different U.S. city. Here's their schedule for the past two years. You can draw your own conclusions.

1/31/02	Ft. Lauderdale, FL		3/27/03	Charleston, SC
3/21/02	Tucson, AZ		5/29/03	Santa Fe, NM
5/30/02	Washington, DC		7/24/03	Portland, MN
7/18/02	Newport, RI		10/9/03	Washington, DC
9/26/02	Portland, OR		11/20/03	San Antonio, TX
11/21/02	Savannah, GA		1/29/04	Sacramento, CA
1/28/03	Los Angeles, CA		3/23/04	Jacksonville, FL

With these two posts, I'll begin keeping you up to date on the MDL Panel's traveling road show. At the same time, I'll begin a Sisyphean quest, one of my own devising: a quest to lure the MDL panel to the federal courthouse nearest where I practice. That's the federal courthouse in East St. Louis, Illinois.

Bon voyage!

What's the MDL Panel? . . .

You're a taxpayer, yet you've never heard of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation? Shame on you.

Lawyers call it the "MDL Panel." Think of it as a sort of secret society of seven federal judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. These seven judges meet at a different place every two months to figure out what to do when a whole bunch of similar federal lawsuits are filed against the same defendant.

Need an example? Let's say Washington Mutual does something rotten to a lot of people then gets sued in ten different federal courts. Bring on the MDL Panel! The team of seven judges will issue an order consolidating the various cases into a single giant lawsuit, saving the defendant the hassle of defending a bunch of little cases scattered around the country. Next, the judges of the MDL panel will decide what federal judge gets to oversee the consolidated giant case. (The judge who chairs the MDL Panel explains the process here.)

It's a big job. The MDL Panel deals with cases of such complexity that lawyers whose cases are handled before it feel entitled to brag whenever it happens. (I'll show you what I mean. I've had lots of cases before the Panel.)

What really makes the judges of the MDL Panel special? It's their travel agent. If you want to know what I mean, stay tuned for the next post.

Sounds Like the Time the TSA Seized My Nail Clippers

In Hong Kong yesterday, airport officials were trying to explain how an hour-long porn movie, "Exposure Trip in Hong Kong," was filmed at the airport. According to the Associated Press, the film included "20 minutes of hardcore action," including some in the departure lounge.

Thursday's Memo to the Defense Team

Still no word from our European friend or his lawyers. Maybe we've scared him off. To make sure, I'd like to add Jenna from Hold U In Contempt to our defense team, then send her overseas to do a little snooping around. She's been a faithful reader of this blawg since its inception; even better, she's a legal investigator with close ties to Johnnie Cochran, who we might need to call upon should my defense involve a glove that doesn't fit.

Now, a second important matter. I'd like you all to do some soul-searching about one of our own, the Curmudgeonly Clerk. Did you see his post yesterday? A few things troubled me about it. First, the Clerk is so smart and witty that he intimidates me. And this is a time when I need to be strong. But there's something else. Look at the Clerk's post again. It's filled with references to Talking Heads songs! I about fell out of my chair when I realized it might be the Clerk who is the David Byrne-infatuated clerk I wrote about the other day. It might be the Clerk who ghost-wrote U.S. v. Abner, the federal decision that got me into this mess in the first place.

Preposterous? I'm not so sure. The circumstantial case is very strong. Isn't he a federal judicial clerk who knows his Talking Heads? And has he ever bothered to tell us who he actually works for, or who he used to work for? Covering his tracks, if you ask me.

So it looks like the Clerk may be conflicted out. If he's going to be a witness, we can't have him on the team. Any suggestions?