If they existed for lawyer magazines, rack sales would skyrocket with celebrity covers. (Or celebrity-adjacent.)
Let’s step back in time, shall we? All the way to December 2013. That’s when California Lawyer Magazine ran a cover story on Jason Beckerman, a TMZ in-house counsel (and on-air commentator).
If any story was made for Change of Venue Friday, this has to be it, am I right? A touch of law, a dash of celebrity, a soupçon of journalism. You are most welcome.
And yes, this has been out there for a bit, but so what? I somehow managed to never write about it, and the story includes some of my favorite things: magazines+attorneys! So quit yer whining and enjoy today’s “content.”
Watching the video (below), I must say, I couldn’t help but chuckle as the TMZ correspondents praise their lawyer colleague while dissing the publication he fronted. The assumption being, of course, that lawyer magazines are likely to be dull, drowsy affairs. Hurtful, that. But how little those televised hipsters know about compelling content, beautifully delivered.
And today’s content comes to you courtesy of the West Coast legal eagles Kallie Donahoe and Sayre Happich Ribera, both at the Bar Association of San Francisco. Knowing my Google Alerts for TMZ–lawyer mashups may have failed, they alerted me to the news, and I wanted to get it out to you as soon as possible. Thank you, Kallie and Sayre, rock stars both in legal culture and the more pop variety!
To make things even easier, here is a brief video on the topic of Beckerman’s being the mag’s cover lawyer.
All kidding aside, the story was a very good one, and Beckerman’s insights and observations are worth reading. They include a discussion of media, the First Amendment, anti-SLAPP laws, and fair use.
I also appreciated getting some insight into the workplace and the job of a lawyer at TMZ. Here’s how show host and co-founder (and former journalist and lawyer) Harvey Levin describes the task set before their attorneys:
“Pondering doesn’t work,” Levin says. “You gotta have good instincts and if you don’t, there are consequences. It’s kind of a ten-second rule—someone hands you documents, and you have ten seconds to get to the heart of the matter.”
Sound like your law office? Probably not.
Here’s wishing you a great—and celebrity-filled—weekend.
Part of the opening spread in the profile of Bar President Bryan Chambers, Arizona Attorney Magazine, Sept. 2015.
Some organizational moves at the State Bar of Arizona:
As you probably know, the new President of the Bar took his leadership position at the close of the June Convention. At that time, we offered congratulations to Bryan Chambers, from Globe.
While all that was going on, Superior Court Judge Peter Cahill announced his retirement, mid-term, from the Gila County Superior Court. Bryan applied for the judgeship.
Recently, we learned that Bryan had, indeed, been appointed to the bench by Gov. Doug Ducey. You can read about that here.
Of course, that meant Bryan could not serve as a Bar officer, per State Bar bylaws. So at a meeting last week, the Board of Governors elected a new President, Geoff Trachtenberg, of Phoenix. Detail on that is here.
In that press release, we also learn that the board elected: Jeffrey Willis to fill the second vice president post vacated by Trachtenberg; and Steven Hirsch, to fill the secretary/treasurer seat vacated by Willis.
Meantime, I was working on the annual profile of new President Chambers. And he will have served for about 60 days by the time her steps down on August 31, so of course he deserves a profile. That’ll be in the September issue of Arizona Attorney. But now I suppose I’ll gear up to write one on Geoff Trachtenberg too. (That’s OK; it’s one of the perks of the job!)
Stephen L. Pevar, author of The Rights of Indians and Tribes.
Today I share some news about an upcoming event that touches on Indian law.
The author of a book that explains the complexities of federal Indian law and tribes’ and their members’ relationships with each other and with non-Indians will speak on current legal issues facing Native peoples Aug. 7 at the Heard Museum in Phoenix.
Stephen L. Pevar, the author of the 2012 book The Rights of Indians and Tribes, will speak at 6:30 p.m. Friday, Aug. 7, in the Monte Vista Room at the museum, 2301 N. Central Ave. Pevar will sign copies of his book, available at $25 per copy following his presentation. Since Aug. 7 is First Friday, evening (6 to 10 p.m.) general admission to the museum—and to Pevar’s talk—is free; a $5 gate fee will be charged to visitors wishing to attend the exhibit Super Heroes: Art! Action! Adventure!
Federal Indian law continues to be a complex subject for lawyers and non-lawyers alike. In his presentation at the Heard, Pevar will touch on several topics discussed in the book, which include the powers of Indian tribes; civil and criminal jurisdiction on Indian reservations; Indian hunting, fishing and water rights; taxation in Indian country; the Indian Civil Rights Act; the Indian Child Welfare Act; and tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians.
Pevar is senior staff counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. He taught a course in federal Indian law at the University of Denver School of Law for 16 years and has lectured extensively on the subject. He is a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Virginia School of Law. He had served for three years as staff attorney for South Dakota Legal Services on the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation. Since 1976, he has been a national staff counsel for the ACLU.
Pevar has litigated some 200 federal cases involving constitutional rights, including one case in the U.S. Supreme Court. His areas of specialty include free speech, Indian rights, prisoners’ rights and the separation of church and state.
“Sunday marks the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act and there is reason to celebrate the progress it ushered in over that quarter-century. But needed still is a call to action to affirm equality — especially in terms of employment.”
“Just one in three Arizonans with disabilities ages 16 to 64 were employed from 2008 to 2012, according to the census. That’s compared to more than two in three (71 percent) Arizonans with no disabilities who were employed during that time.”
“Perhaps even more sobering is the percentage of Arizonans with disabilities not even in the job market: 59 percent.”
“This new edition of Understanding the ADA delves deeper into many of the complex topics of disability claims. The updates offer expanded guidance on remedies if the law is violated; advice on when you have a right to sue; the statute of limitations for ADA claims; when a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss; and whether a class-action is a viable thing to pursue. There are new areas of discussion regarding standing, when a complaint is sufficient, statute of limitations, and mixed-motive jury instructions, and additional information on disparate treatment cases, class actions, jury selection, and Batson challenges. Expanded and new topics include: ADA as it relates to sports including the Office of Civil Rights guidance on § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Utilizing negligence and negligence per se actions as an alternative to title III claims Highly detailed chapter on remedies and procedural issues Improved checklists and litigation forms.”
Washington, DC, murals, courtesy of Google.org, commemorate the ADA’s 30th anniversary. (And yes, they’re on stairs.)
Yesterday marked a significant anniversary of the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Reaching 30 years is definitely momentous, so I’ll probably cover it a few times this week. Today, some positive news about the ADA, and a troubling sign of how far we have to go.
As the Washington Post reports:
“Take a walk around D.C. this weekend, and you may stumble across some newly installed murals honoring leaders in the fight for equality for people with disabilities. This Sunday marks the 25th anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disability Act—landmark legislation signed into law in 1990 that prohibits discrimination on the basis of someone’s disability.”
“Google.org—the philanthropic arm of Google—is celebrating the anniversary and the start of the Special Olympics this weekend with these installations throughout the city. There are 10 temporary pieces at six locations in the city. The murals are stickers, illustrated by Darren Booth, and will be removed Sunday.”
You can read the whole story here. But as a friend, disability advocate Jennifer Longdon, mused, the ADA-celebration murals are on stairs? Really? Ya really do have to wonder.
And lest we get too high-falutin’ in our self-praise as a nation, you really should read a companion piece from the Post. It describes the ultimately unsuccessful efforts by another advocate to travel around Washington during the celebrations. Thirty years later, public accommodations are too often that in name only.
And as long as I’m mentioning self-praise, it’s worth noting, WaPo, that terms like “wheelchair-bound” are no longer acceptable, even in journo style guides.
In the September issue of Arizona Attorney Magazine, we cover facial hair on witnesses. It’s not just for hipsters, y’know.
Short and sweet, just as a Change of Venue Friday should be.
As we were putting together our September issue of Arizona Attorney Magazine, it occurred to me that our cover story could be a great candidate for a Vine video.
Don’t know Vine? Well, as Monsieur Wikipedia puts it so well:
“Vine is a short-form video sharing service where users can share six-second-long looping video clips. The service was founded in June 2012, and microblogging website Twitter acquired it in October 2012, just before its official launch. Users’ videos are published through Vine’s social network and can be shared on other services such as Facebook and Twitter. Vine’s app can also be used to browse through videos posted by other users, along with groups of videos by theme, and trending, or popular, videos.”
Anyhoo, our cover story examines the views people have about facial hair on witnesses. Who knew there was detailed research on the topic?
Along with sharing that research, we share great photos that could be illustrate the authors’ points. How else can a legal magazine find a way to feature Brad Pitt, Ashton Kutcher, David Beckham, and Adolph Hitler—all in the same story?
Musing on the wonderment of wieners, I was curious about this, so I checked: In the five-plus years I’ve written my daily blog, I’m chagrined to note that the words “hot dog” appear more than a dozen times.
That seems high for a legal blog. Agreed? Well, maybe it’s a cry for help.
In any casing (see what I did there?), I thought I would share my first-ever documented blogular use of the phrase. It occurred in the prologue to a legal novel I wrote (detail about that endeavor is here.)
The book is titled The Supremes, and it involves a new law firm composed of former state supreme court justices. They thought clients would come knocking—which they did—but the law firm partners underestimated how much they disliked each other—and disliked hard work.
The hot dog reference came early, when the new firm’s administrator thinks about Harvey Shinblock, a colorful lawyer who is now disbarred (for numerous offenses, including a Circle K assault with a pocketknife). Harvey owns a hot-dog stand, and he carries quite a grudge against the legal profession. Here’s a portion:
Bernie Galvez liked hot dogs, and Harvey Shinblock sold the best in the city.
Galvez smiled as he recalled how Shinblock had managed to get 30 days in the county lockup for his “misunderstanding” at the convenience store—the best lawyering Shinblock had ever done, representing himself before old Judge Barnes. And after that 30 days, Shinblock woke up driven by a dream of opening his own hot-dog stand.
Human nature being the self-destructive little imp that it is, Shinblock drove his metaphoric stake in the ground on the sidewalk right outside the criminal courts complex. There, he gazed balefully as lawyers and judges streamed by him daily. If looks could kill—or wound with a pocketknife—those members of the bench and bar would have been a bloody mess on the Phoenix streets.
But maybe they got their comeuppance. For in the last three years since Shinblock opened “Court Wieners,” he had received the praise of every publication in town, from the “Best in Phoenix” to the “Best in the Southwest” to the “Best Nooner in a Casing.” Shinblock knew what he was doing as he steamed his hand-crafted dogs.
Nonetheless, no lawyer or judge was ever known to be brave enough to step up and purchase a meal. The history, the bad blood, and the fear of poisoning kept a significant portion of the suited sidewalk denizens from venturing forward and trying Shinblock’s bliss in a bun. They salivated and gnashed their teeth, but the gray and blue army marched past the stainless steel stand, thinking hungrily that they may have been a tad hard on good old Shinblock. Still, march by they did.
Is your law practice on the leading edge; or is it bringing up the rear? A preview of an annual assessment of burgeoning law practice areas is out, and it may be helpful to track your own path.
I always enjoy these annual articles by Bob Denney, who writes a “what’s hot” assessment. (Let’s admit it right now; the what’s hot trope is an awkward one, but no need to go on about it.)
His full piece will not be out for months, when he describes his predictions for 2016. But we get a preview here.
As you can see, Denney identifies labor & employment and elder law as on an upward trajectory. But litigation and bankruptcy are not faring as well.
What’s working in your own law office? Are there any niche areas that are growing faster than you would have expected? I’d like to hear about them. Write to me at arizona.attorney@azbar.org.
OK, I give in to the “hotness” analogy: What’s hot and what’s not in the legal profession?
It’s true that law practice may be more challenging than it’s ever been. And yet I marvel at the ingenuity some have brought to the profession, finding ways to automate the parts that should not require a graduate education to master.
So as we work on our October issue at Arizona Attorney Magazine, dedicated in large part to law office management, my radar is up for tools that take the arrggh out of an attorney’s day.
The smartest tools do not seek to do everything a lawyer does. Instead, they identify a single element of practice that could be improved. And that’s what a new app called “StandIn” appears to do.
How many of you have appeared in court or in chambers for another lawyer on her or his case? I recall doing that in California as a part of my solo practice. The money could be pretty good, and the work was flexible.
Plus, if you were lucky, a standard status conference might yield a few challenging questions from the judge—and who has graduated from law school and not yearned for a little of that? You had become familiar with the case file, so you could handle it, and it definitely got the blood pumping to: (1) interact with an inquiring judge while (2) not royally screwing up another lawyer’s case on what was supposed to be a 10-minute appearance.
But the cost of those great minutes as an oral advocate for your client was often an organizational headache. Getting hired for the appearance required significant back-and-forth with the attorney hiring you, especially if you didn’t yet know each other. It involved phone calls, faxing (remember that?), negotiating your fee, ensuing you knew which court to go to and what time. Plus, of course, getting photocopies of the case elements that were relevant to that day’s hearing. (And don’t get me started on finding a pay phone the day of when something went amiss. That used to be something lawyers had to do.)
Like other location-based apps you’re probably already familiar with, StandIn will also process payments and allow reviews of the hiring and hired attorney.
Even if you have no need of such an app, I recommend reading the essay anyway. And even though it’s not (yet) in Arizona, I commend the article to you. Why? Well, it’s well written, plus it probes these inventive people for their views of the future of the legal profession. Whether you’re doing appearances for others or writing wills or arguing zoning cases—or whatever—that future should interest you.
And a final bit of pleasure for my blogging day: I was pleased to see that one of the StandIn founders came out of the Michigan State Reinvent Law initiative. I’ve written about it before, and I’m intrigued at the smart ideas that percolate up from entrepreneurial centers like this one. As I mentioned before, you really should follow their work; if you do that often enough, you’ll probably find other lawyers are following you.
Maybe the power of “Mockingbird” is most clearly viewed through the upset people have over the possibility of a newly released book that includes the character Atticus Finch. Simply put, they love that character, and anything that sullies or even complicates their view of the lawyer who does good, best as he can, is not something they want to engage with.
I’ll admit, I’ve at least somewhat shared that view. Besides the fact that sequels usually pale in comparison to the original, I also felt that there are few enough portrayals of compassionate lawyers. Can’t we keep Atticus just as he is? Please?
Two things changed my mind. One was a great magazine story (let’s hear it for the power of magazines). And the other was a political town hall.
“Though Watchman isn’t Harper Lee’s best work, [Harvard Law Professor Randall] Kennedy says, it ‘does reveal more starkly the complexity of Atticus Finch, her most admired character. Go Set a Watchman demands that its readers abandon the immature sentimentality ingrained by middle school lessons about the nobility of the white savior and the mesmerizing performance of Gregory Peck in the film adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird.’”
Ouch. Is sentimentality blocking readers from a fuller and truer understanding of American history? Chagrined, we must admit that such a thing has happened time and again. So am I and others doing that when we seal our “favorite” Atticus in amber?
One clue that the scholars are on the right track is visible when you read the comments following the ABA Journal story. As the saying goes, Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
The second element that leads me to get over my bromance with Atticus Finch occurred this past Saturday, at a town hall featuring two presidential candidates.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Phoenix, Ariz., July 16 2015.
I attended portions of the Netroots Nation annual conference mainly to cover the three or so “legalish” panel discussions they scheduled, featuring topics like redistricting and Supreme Court jurisprudence. But in the process, I managed to get into the Phoenix Convention Center room where journalist Jose Antonio Vargas would interview U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, each vying for the Democratic nomination.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Phoenix, Ariz., July 18, 2015
Gov. Martin O’Malley, Phoenix, Ariz., July 18, 2015
What I and 3,000 of my new friends expected was a moderated discussion. What we got was a highly effective staged protest by “Black Lives Matter” activists. About five minutes into the dialogue with O’Malley, activists rose from their seats or came from the back of the room, demanding to be heard.
You may have read about the event in the national news, for example, here and here.
Black Lives Matter activist Tia Oso confronts Gov. Martin O’Malley, July 18, 2015
What surprised was not that there was a protest—after all, this has been a year marked by flash-points in the intersection of policing and race. What surprised were the insufficient responses of the candidates. And that was followed by the irritation of many in the audience that the protestors spoke up at all, or for so long, or so stridently. And I heard from many audience members who professed to be pleased with their candidates’ responses, “given the circumstances.”
But in the era of Ferguson—and of Sandra Bland and Tamir Rice and Eric Garner and Freddie Gray and Michael Brown—it takes a special kind of denial to insist that the view of your candidate not be disturbed, distorted or made more complex by Saturday’s events. Both candidates may have had smart and compassionate things to say about race, the justice system, and people’s lives. But neither said those things. That is worth noting. They had the past tumultuous year-plus to think over their response to these tragedies. They did not take that opportunity. That is worth noting.
So for those reasons and more, I’ll get a copy of “Go Set a Watchman.” Sure, the later years of Atticus may show a man who is not a shining beacon of enlightened views. But, sometime between now and a presidential election, we all should grow a little more open to complexity—in our novels, in our history, and in our public policy.
Is your law practice on the leading edge; or is it bringing up the rear? A preview of an annual assessment of burgeoning law practice areas is out, and it may be helpful to track your own path.
AZ Attorney 