Evan Schaeffer's Legal Underground

NO GOSSIP OR GRIPING ON THIS WEBLOG . . . An Law.com article about the growing use of weblogs by large law firms begins like this--

No longer viewed as just forums for law gossip or associate griping, blogs are becoming a marketing tool for large law firms eager to create a buzz about their practice areas.

The article features the CAFA Law Blog, which I posted about here a few days ago. It also has some good quotes from Kevin O'Keefe.

GADGET UPDATE: the StealthSurfer II . . . Is your ability to surf the web at work being hindered by a fear of being discovered? Then you need the StealthSurfer II--

For a mere $100, this USB drive, which comes preloaded with Firefox, will keep your web-surfing tracks from being recorded on your employer's hard drive. It also contains Anonymizer, which makes your identity unknowable to the sites you visit. Keep this little baby in your pocket, and your "coffee break" can last all day!*

*Not approved for use by employees of Schaeffer & Lamere, P.C., who will be immediately terminated if discovered using the "StealthSurfer II."

AT MY TRIAL PRACTICE WEBLOG . . . . "New CLE Requirements for Illinois Lawyers."

AND HE'S NEVER PARTIED ALL NIGHT LONG WITH FAMOUS ROCK STARS . . . Today on NPR, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid explained why he voted against John Roberts--

No one could question his legal brilliance. But the fact is, he's never taken a deposition, never voir dired a jury, never argued a case to a jury. I think that that's not what I personally am looking for in someone going to the Supreme Court.

Yes, it's true: trial lawyers rule! And wouldn't the Supreme Court be twice as effective with draft beer in the robing room? It's just the sort of lesson a lifetime of taking depositions and arguing to juries will teach you. Take it from me, a trial lawyer. Like Sen. Reid, I hope Bush gets it right the next time. Link from Althouse.

THE STANKOWSKI REPORT #18: Succumbing to the Temptation

By Stan Stankowski

In the end, parts of it are oh, so sexy.

Not sexy in the way you want. Not sexy like a spy or a real military hero or someone else slightly dark and yet triumphant. Not like that at all.

Still, it has its appeal. Those words: “Good work, you billed more than any other associate this month.”

I rail against it, and so does everyone else, but in reality you have to watch it.  You have to watch it like a cobra watches a mongoose because deep down, when you are sitting there, with a 98% realization rate and a whole shitload of hours, literally weeks above your goal, well…..it feels nice.

And then comes the temptation.

AT MY TRIAL PRACTICE WEBSITE . . . "A New Weblog about the Class Action Fairness Act."

HURRICANES AND TORT "REFORM" . . . Are the tort reformers in the U.S. House of Representatives using hurricanes to get out their message about tort reform? It sure seems like it. Exhibit #1 is the Katrina Volunteer Protection Act of 2005, which was sponsored by Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and passed by voice vote in the House two weeks ago. The text of the bill, which grants  immunity for volunteers in a way that is duplicative of existing law, states that volunteers are being "hindered in their efforts, or held back from joining the relief effort by the threat of lawsuits."

Is that really true? I doubt it. I personally know two people who drove trucks loaded with food and other items into Mississippi. Neither mentioned that they were fearful of being sued. That's just anecdotal evidence, but I haven't heard anything to the contrary.

Of course, it will take more than evidence to stop the tort reformers in Washington from "staying on message" about tort reform--in fact, not even hell or high water will stop them.

DO PEOPLE CHOOSE LAWYERS BASED SOLELY ON THEIR ADS? . . . In Missouri, there are new rules for lawyer advertising, including a requirement that print and broadcast ads contain the following "conspicuous" disclaimer:

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Don't most people know that already? And if they don't, will they be persuaded to change their usual practice of choosing a lawyer with the biggest, flashiest ad as a result of the new disclaimer?

I don't think so, but it doesn't bother me to have to add the language to any advertising I do in Missouri. I wonder if the corporate defense firms will be so agreeable, since their advertising often doesn't lend itself to a disclaimer like the one that's being required. The firm I worked at for six years after law school, for example, recently did some radio advertising that was described in a newspaper article over the weekend:

Thompson Coburn LLP devised a radio campaign, "Spotlight on St. Louis," that was launched last year in conjunction with its 75th anniversary. The 60-second radio spots, running on stations KMOX and KRTS, focused on the history of 78 local companies, charities and landmarks. The end of each segment said it was sponsored by Thompson Coburn, with offices in St. Louis, Belleville and Washington. . . .

The campaign ran for 26 weeks and cost the firm $65,000.

That's lawyer advertising that's designed not to sound like lawyer advertising. Its target audience is sophisticated businesspeople, not unsophisticated consumers. The new disclaimer would be confusing and unnecessary in that case, assuming the idea of the new disclaimer is to prevent lawyers from taking advantage of unsophisticated consumers.

EVERYONE HAS SOMETHING TO PROTEST . . . Todd Chatman of ambivalent imbroglio explains in Blawg Review #25.

AT MY TRIAL PRACTICE WEBSITE . . . "Litigating Electronic Discovery Issues: Free Forms."