AZ Attorney

Your writing may not be as bad as you think. Maybe you’re being ironic.

In a modern age driven to rank everything around us and enamored of “Top 10” lists, isn’t identification of “the worst” a breath of fresh air?

That’s what I thought when I opened an Economist article slugged “The World’s Worst Sentence.”

On this Change of Venue Friday, I suggest you read this rant-ish essay that takes to task the writer Philip Mirowski and his new book “Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste.”

I know you’re eager to start your weekend, so let me give you the sentence right up top:

“Yet the nightmare cast its shroud in the guise of a contagion of a deer-in-the-headlights paralysis.”

The brave but pitiless commentator pulls no punches as he writes, “That is not just a mixed metaphor; it is meaningless and pretentious at the same time.”

Ouch.

To be constructive, the writer points us to George Orwell’s six rules for writing (actually, five rules and a lecture) from a 1946 essay. But I doubt that made Mr. Mirowski feel any better (or, as he would likely put it, “any more salubrious”).

The examples provided by The Economist are indeed frown-inducing. But as someone who has edited publications for years, I’m not sure I’d agree with “the worst” moniker. I will not throw any authors under the bus today, though!

Instead, I point you to those folks who have great fun writing bad prose. I mean, of course, the annual Bulwer Lytton contest, made famous by the “dark and stormy night” author.

As the organizers gamely describe on their website, “WWW means Wretched Writers Welcome.” And as they say, “Since 1982 the English Department at San Jose State University has sponsored the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, a whimsical literary competition that challenges entrants to compose the opening sentence to the worst of all possible novels.”

(Read more from their hilarious “About” page here.)

But we all signed on for bad writing today, so let’s get to some examples.

This year’s Bulwer Lytton overall “best in being worst” award went to Chris Wieloch of Brookfield, Wis.:

“She strutted into my office wearing a dress that clung to her like Saran Wrap to a sloppily butchered pork knuckle, bone and sinew jutting and lurching asymmetrically beneath its folds, the tightness exaggerating the granularity of the suet and causing what little palatable meat there was to sweat, its transparency the thief of imagination.”

And here’s another that made me smile. It’s the runner-up in the Adventure category, written by Ron D. Smith of Louisville, Ky.:

“As the sun dropped below the horizon, the safari guide confirmed the approaching cape buffaloes were herbivores, which calmed everyone in the group, except for Herb, of course.”

Read all the winners (that you can stomach) here. And have a good weekend. (Or, alternatively: May you stride into a surfeit of pleasures surpassed only by the simmering indulgences of kings, potentates and celebrities, borne aloft by the manicured hands of minions, the sirocco of gilded good fortune, and the unalterable recognition of their own immortality and deserving nature.)

Here is some news from my colleague Alberto Rodriguez. He regularly reports on a successful program providing legal information to the public. Congratulations and thanks to those lawyers who shared their time and talent.

The State Bar of Arizona and 12 News hosted the August Lawyers on Call on Tuesday, August 6. The topic covered in that evening’s public service program was immigration law.

Eight attorneys volunteered their time and experience to help inform callers about immigration issues. Seven of the eight attorneys were first-time volunteers. The lawyers were (click their names for more information):

• Bami Adelayo
• Simona Dima
• Mark Egan
• Magaly Fontes
• Roya Habich
• Jared Leung
• Mac Nayeri
• Cynthia Perez

A total of 51 calls were answered by the volunteer attorneys—which is substantially lower when compared to other phone banks. This is the second immigration Lawyers on Call phone bank that has resulted in low numbers—an issue we’ll consider when planning for 2014. As always, our volunteers offered helpful information, solutions and resources to callers.

Here is a sample of consumer questions:

• Can I have dual citizenship? If so, how do I go about it?
• How do I get legal status for my undocumented fiancé?
• What are the requirements for Deferred Action?
• Will a minor criminal charge affect my eligibility for citizenship/Deferred Action?
• Can children petition on behalf of their parents?

Overarching questions were related to qualifications for citizenship and how to proceed with the citizenship petition.

Over the past month, I have shared information from a collaboration of the State Bar of Arizona in an initiative to assist military personnel who were formerly deployed. As the organizers point out, those former servicemembers may face numerous challenges, including legal obstacles.

The campaign recommends ways that Arizona lawyers may get involved.

In the multi-week information campaign, this week’s message relates to the important matter of jobs, specifically as it relates to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. (Read our previous Arizona Attorney Magazine coverage of the Act here).

As the campaign’s organizers say:

Servicemembers return home from deployment believing their jobs are waiting for them. For some, the joy of coming home is short lived when they find their employer has replaced them.

After serving their country, their jobs should be waiting.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) prohibits employer discrimination because of military service and protects job rights and benefits for servicemembers.

Many employers are not aware of these protections.

USERRA provides protection for:

• Military leave of absence
• Job seniority
• Status
• Pay and benefits
• Promotion and pension
• Disability as a result of military service

Returning servicemembers are entitled to jobs comparable to their peers whose careers were not interrupted by military service. Employers are required to make reasonable efforts to upgrade the skills of returning employees so they can qualify for the positions they would have earned had they not left for military service.

Learn how you can help protect their employment rights.

To sign up, go here.

Follow the effort on Twitter.

A tough and sometimes controversial job: The Jury, by John Morgan (painted in 1861).

Juries simply fascinate us—like an uncle who is typically wise but occasionally demented. All in all, though, he’s the one we go to when we need advice.

Recently, a slew of material has flooded my way regarding juries, good and bad. And I could use your help.

I’ve been collaborating with an attorney on an article about cameras in the courtroom, and how they may affect jurors and other participants. We are covering a lot of ground, but it still would be nice to land on an insightful and local angle that illuminates the topic in new ways.

What do you think of cameras in the courtroom? And more specifically, what angle or hook would lead you to read a story that has percolated nationwide for decades?

Meanwhile, a colleague shared a dialogue he had heard regarding state laws that prohibit jurors from making money (from books or interviews) after a trial. The question arose during Florida’s prosecution of George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin’s death. But after sitting through months of an Arizona trial of Jodi Arias, we wonder about the same thing here.

We are all accustomed to laws denying convicted people the opportunity to profit from their own stories. But restrictions on jurors are less often discussed; usually they come to light after major prosecutions, such as those against O. J. Simpson or the Menendez brothers. A recent story details what a Florida legislator proposed in the panhandle state. The law:

“would make it a third-degree felony for jurors to sell their stories within 270 days of serving on a jury. State Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando, said the law would also apply to media organizations who try to pay jurors for their stories. It would not prohibit jurors from speaking freely without compensation or payment.”

The news squib is here. So under the law jurors would be free to speak with the trial’s lawyers, but could not sell their stories. What do you think?

Judge Sherry Stephens presided over the Jodi Arias trial, which involved issues of juror speech and cameras in the courtroom. Here, she urges the jury to continue deliberating after the jury delivered a message that they were deadlocked on a penalty for Arias, May 22, 2013. (AP Photo/The Arizona Republic, Rob Schumacher, Pool)

Meantime, you may recall the story of the judge who put a gag order on jury members, and it affected their speech, to anyone, whether or not for pay. The article was from way back in 1998, ancient history. But I do not know if the unique order, which was upheld by the Fifth Circuit, was ever overturned.

It is a curious idea, the one where judges feel the need to protect the nebulous “judicial system,” even if it infringes on First Amendment rights. How many jurors expect that a do-not-talk order will continue for days, months and years after a trial is complete?

(A more rare instance—in which a juror is retained as a trial consultant in a retrial of the original case—is discussed here. Also examined is what’s known as the Juror Integrity Act.)

Another article from the early 2000’s explains how a gag order was enforced until after the appeals. And it overtly affected both the media and the lawyers.

Here is a nice summary of the law on the topic of juror speech.

Both of these topics—cameras in the courtroom and juror speech—implicate substantial constitutional issues. When the right to free speech runs hard against the right to a fair trial, the second should win. But the facts may not be so bald, and judges and legislators must craft solutions that aid both.

Do those topics interest you? If so, what magazine story approach would cause you to say, “Wow. That’s surprising”?

University of Arizona Law School Professor Jane Bambauer

Scouring law school websites may not be your idea of fun. Maybe it ranks right up there with scouring sites of county recorders, or tax-advice columnists. (Cue the angry tweets from all three providers.)

But you may be surprised at the valuable information located at law school sites. Today, I share some news from the University of Arizona Law School.

First, I point you toward a podcast with interview of UA Law Professor Jane Bambauer. In it, she  discusses her Stanford Law Review article called Is Data Speech?

The podcast is on the unsurprisingly good site of Surprisingly Free (“A weekly podcast featuring in-depth discussions with an eclectic mix of authors, academics, and entrepreneurs at the intersection of technology, policy, and economics”—yo, bookmark it!). In the July 23 interview, Bambauer “addresses several issues relating to whether data can be can be considered speech, how to define ‘data,’ and whether data collection can be covered by the First Amendment.”

If you’re more of a visual thinker, you can read a draft of her paper here.

This is a fascinating topic, and perhaps I’ll prevail on Professor Bambauer to cover this topic (and others??) in Arizona Attorney Magazine.

Last month, she was a co-host at a law school event (and I’m still sorry I didn’t get the chance to talk to her, as she was swarmed by law students and others). Below are a few photos from the July 10 law school event, held at the downtown Phoenix Palomar Hotel.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

And then, in case I needed reminding that I didn’t hang out with professors nearly enough in law school, I see a new book is out that bears reading. It’s called “Saving the Neighborhood,” and a co-author is UA Law Professor Carol Rose.

You can purchase the book here. And from the same spot, I share a description of the volume, which clearly has much to say about our society and the evolution (or not) that it’s witnessed.

“Saving the Neighborhood tells the charged, still controversial story of the rise and fall of racially restrictive covenants in America, and offers rare insight into the ways legal and social norms reinforce one another, acting with pernicious efficacy to codify and perpetuate intolerance.”

University of Arizona Law School Professor Carol Rose

“The early 1900s saw an unprecedented migration of African Americans leaving the rural South in search of better work and equal citizenship. In reaction, many white communities instituted property agreements—covenants—designed to limit ownership and residency according to race. Restrictive covenants quickly became a powerful legal guarantor of segregation, their authority facing serious challenge only in 1948, when the Supreme Court declared them legally unenforceable in Shelley v. Kraemer. Although the ruling was a shock to courts that had upheld covenants for decades, it failed to end their influence. In this incisive study, Richard Brooks and Carol Rose unpack why.”

“At root, covenants were social signals. Their greatest use lay in reassuring the white residents that they shared the same goal, while sending a warning to would-be minority entrants: keep out. The authors uncover how loosely knit urban and suburban communities, fearing ethnic mixing or even “tipping,” were fair game to a new class of entrepreneurs who catered to their fears while exacerbating the message encoded in covenants: that black residents threatened white property values. Legal racial covenants expressed and bestowed an aura of legitimacy upon the wish of many white neighborhoods to exclude minorities. Sadly for American race relations, their legacy still lingers.”

I know; heady stuff for a Monday morning. Well, it’s August, and school is back in session. Let’s get learning.

Know your tort law, says Ralph Nader, and you know important lessons about America. He’s helping to build a museum to teach those lessons.

Ralph Nader (yes, that Ralph Nader) says that Americans can learn a lot by better understanding tort law.

Do you agree?

A recent story explains that the lawyer, consumer advocate and sometime-presidential candidate is getting closer to a dream to build a museum of tort law in his Connecticut hometown.

You can read even more about it here.

I recall the opening week of Torts class in law school, when I was naïve and thought that some of the commentary and historic tidbits in the textbook were as important as all those cases (what a doofus). And so I still remember the textbook author reminding us that the odd word tort comes from the French tortus—for twisted.

How surreal and visual—exactly the kind of thing to draw an impressionable law student in.

Lawyers adept at trial work and personal injury may be similarly adept at the visual—which is why the museum organizers evocatively name tort “the muscle of justice.”

Proposed American Museum of Tort floor plan

I tend to agree that tort is a window of sorts into important parts of American society. So on this Change of Venue Friday, I suppose I’m saying that if he builds it, I will go.

The website for the American Museum of Tort Law is here and includes a variety of display mockups.

Who’s in?

Have a great and tort-free weekend.

This may be odd, but when I travel for work or otherwise, I enjoy coming across legal news or a legal organization that is compelling or that provides significant value to attorneys—like here or here or here.

Don’t judge.

This week, I’m in San Francisco, and I’m pleased to report that the Bar Association of San Francisco does both those things.

Granted, I’m biased, as I know a few of the folks who run that bar, but I’m often pleased by the work that emanates from their offices. In member engagement, publications and online offerings, they are a leader and worthy of stealing from emulating.

You can read about the BASF here. But I point you to a few praiseworthy items.

First, here is a BASF initiative that was mentioned at the annual NABE Wednesday morning meeting by the group’s Executive Director, Daniel Burkhardt.

It is called the “Mind the Gap Initiative,” which aims to “provide recent law school graduates who are unemployed or underemployed with training, work experience, mentorship and debt reduction information.” You really need to read about the initiative’s five elements here.

Second, I am blown away by a new blog launched by the BASF. It’s called “Legal By the Bay,” and you should read it (and bookmark it) here.

Legal By the Bay includes constantly changing content, all aggregated in a variety of intuitive categories, including technology, family law, work life balance, dispute resolution and others.

There are many law blogs I enjoy and read regularly. But there are a few that I am routinely jealous of. What Colorado does is one. And now Legal By the Bay is another.

Finally, because I love print as much as digital, let me point you to a great, SF-style magazine story that I’m considering appropriating for our own Arizona Attorney.

The article, happily, is not about a drowsy new statute or regulation. Instead, it explores the trend of lawyers who like to bicycle—either to work or otherwise.

Lawyers in form-fitting Spandex may not seem to be the most appealing idea, but the BASF made it work—and in the process revealed a unique side of its membership.

Well done.

In a future Arizona Attorney, look for our coverage of lawyers who scale mountains, or brave triathlons, or get their own coffee. Just do it.

Crowdfunding may work, or could be like finding a pig in a poke.

Money? On social media? Where?

Tomorrow morning about this time, I’ll face a roomful of association leaders, each eager to hear how their organizations can finally—finally!—make some revenue off this social media thing we’ll all convinced them is worthwhile.

What can go wrong?

The annual meeting of the National Association of Bar Executives (“NABE,” an ABA affiliate) meets in San Francisco this week. I plan to have an Irish coffee at the famed Buena Vista Cafe, sit down with two other talented presenters, and face the challenging questions.

Among us, we have more decades of communications experience than I’d like to admit, and we’re all social media advocates. But when it comes to increasing revenue via social media, we’ll be discussing a topic that is still in serious flux.

For instance, how much do you want your bar association to be increasing non-dues revenue via online channels? Maybe you have no opinion. But maybe the last thing you want is to be “sold” via yet another medium.

Below you’ll see an image of our panel description in the program brochure. And you can click here to read our handout of other resources.

On Thursday morning, after a Kickstarter expert explains that tool, I will discuss challenges bar associations face in monetizing. My three-part presentation is divided into:

1. Why many people like the idea of monetizing (even when they don’t quite understand it);
2. What are the many possible missteps inherent in trying to make money online; and
3. Why, despite my negativity, there may be hope after all to increase revenue.

Word on the street: “Monetize”

In my talk, I get to touch upon:

• Spiderman
• Veronica Mars
• Law students
• Herd mentality
• The A-Team
• Venice Beach
• CLE
• Spilled watermelons
• The Bill of Rights Monument
• Al Pacino
• Subway trains
• The Bar Foundation

Curious, right? Kind of feel bad you can’t be there, eh?

I may report back about what we covered, and how it was received. If you see big honking pop-up ads cluttering my blog in the coming month, you’ll know our message did not get through.

Last week, I introduced you to a collaboration of the State Bar of Arizona in an initiative to assist military personnel who were formerly deployed. As the organizers pointed out, those former servicemembers may face numerous challenges, including legal obstacles.

Organizers have created a multi-phased information campaign that will roll out over the coming weeks. What follows is this week’s message, recommending ways that attorneys may get involved to lend a hand.

I was pleased to see that this week’s message relates to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. We previously covered the Act in Arizona Attorney Magazine, which you can read here. (In the same issue, we also covered the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.)

While servicemembers are deployed, their families often face difficult financial pressures. Stress and strain on spouses, children and adult dependents can be intensified by creditors, bill collectors, landlords and lenders.

There are legal remedies available.

Since 2003, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) has allowed those serving on active duty to focus on their missions by relieving unnecessary or unfair financial stress on their families. SCRA limits the enforcement of civil liabilities, leases, installment contracts, mortgages and liens, such as:

• Credit card interest
• Mortgage payments
• Pending trials
• Taxes
• Terminations of lease

Federal law ensures that servicemembers and their families are not hurt financially as a result of their service. By temporarily suspending or postponing civil proceedings, SCRA helps demonstrate that our nation values the sacrifices of these individuals.

Learn how you can help protect their rights.

To sign up, go here.

Follow the effort on Twitter.

How things change: This was the penthouse library on the top floors of 190 S. LaSalle in Chicago when I worked at Mayer, Brown & Platt in the late ‘80s.

If you are trying to figure out the legal profession’s big picture—especially the prospects for BigLaw—I’d recommend that you surf over to the amazing coverage offered up by The New Republic.

Recent offerings by the monthly magazine have included an examination of what’s new in law school thinking. In “How To Fix Law School,” they invite six experts to say what they would change about legal education.

Suggestions range from timing, to student loans, to the Socratic Method, and more.

(And if you’re in the mood—i.e., not already depressed—read Elie Mystal’s article “A Guide for Choosing a Low-Ranked Law School.”)

As good as the first New Republic piece is, I was riveted by an article in the same issue by Noam Scheiber titled “The Last Days of BigLaw: You Can’t Imagine the Terror When the Money Dries Up.”

Few commentators on big law firm life get the access Scheiber did. With that access, he develops a nuanced and detailed view into the inner workings of what many say is a devolving institution. Casual perusers may not want to know so much about (for instance) the differences between income and equity partners. But for those engaged in the legal profession, the insight is invaluable.

Perhaps part of my interest arose from the fact that I used to work at a firm he uses as an object lesson. In the late 1980s and just before law school, I worked in Chicago at Mayer, Brown & Platt (and then McDermott, Will & Emery). It was odd to have walked the same (conceptual) hallways Scheiber did. And even for someone who worked as a nonlawyer at Mayer Brown, his observations ring true.

Do his conclusions sound accurate to you? How’s BigLaw doing?

Breaking Bad actor Bob Odenkirk as Saul Goodman

P.S. I also love The New Republic’s use of photos of actor Bob Odenkirk in his role of lawyer Saul Goodman on the AMC series Breaking Bad. Not familiar with it? Get watching.