July 28, 2016
Attorney Terry Goddard leads a tour of the Monroe Abbey, April 21, 2016.
Before the June issue of Arizona Attorney Magazine moves off our digital landing page, I share my editor’s letter from that issue, about a remarkable transformation occurring in downtown Phoenix, and the lawyer driving the change.
Here is a video of Terry Goddard describing the resurrection of the historic First Baptist Church:
As my column opens:
Do you ever hear from new lawyers wondering what your “best case” was? Or your favorite legal memory?
Monroe Abbey column detail
That may be a hard question, but I’m guessing it doesn’t involve your biggest financial windfall. Or even the one that got written up in your law office’s client newsletter.
Instead, it may have been the case that allowed you to devise a great solution out of what had been a pile of rubble. Perhaps one that made a transformative difference for someone.
I’ve thought about that question a lot as I passed a beautiful hulking mass of a building in downtown Phoenix for more than 10 years. After many trials and tribulations—and even a blistering fire—the historic First Baptist Church is on its way back to making a useful community contribution.
To me, there’s no surprise that an attorney has been driving that preservation effort.
Terry Goddard served as Phoenix Mayor from 1984 to 1990, and as Arizona Attorney General from 2003 to 2011. But it took more than good lawyering to see the potential in the 1929 building, which was ravaged by fire in 1984. Gazing in dismay at the empty shell, Goddard decided to take action. He founded a nonprofit—called Housing Opportunities Center—that purchased the church and saved it from what was almost certain demolition in 1992.
Today called the Monroe Abbey, the structure sat, safe but fragile, for 22 years—the amount of time needed to raise renovation funds. Finally, in 2014 and 2015, work began to better stabilize the building and make adaptive reuse possible.
Read the complete column here.
Follow the Abbey itself here.
July 27, 2016
102-year-old Jerry Emmett, an honorary Arizona delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention, announces the delegate vote.
Well, if there is one thing we can say about us “younger” states out in the Western United States, it’s this: We can have a delegate attend a political convention who is older than the state itself.
Whatever your politics, you may enjoy reading about Jerry Emmett, an honorary delegate to the Democratic National Convention this week—and a 102-year-old Arizonan.
As the news story reminds us, Jerry was not only born when Arizona was still a territory, she also was born before either World War and before women had won the right to vote.
And here is CNN’s coverage of the vote itself:
I also urge you to watch a news story on the topic, by the young journalists at Cronkite News. Part of the Cronkite School of Journal at ASU, Cronkite News is broadcast on the PBS affiliate every day—and I try to watch, for they do a great job covering news national and local. (Yes, they have a DC bureau too). Here’s their coverage:
Finally, here’s another story that details Jerry Emmett’s life.
Time to roll up our sleeves and make our own difference, whatever it may be.
July 22, 2016
We wrestle with the age-old question: Is a hot dog a sandwich? What a time to be alive.
You know that universal rule about food? “Never go to the grocery store when you’re hungry.”
Turns out, the same is true for blog writing. For when I write on the intersection of food and law, I often find myself yearning for the first—and ignoring the second.
So on Change of Venue Friday, I raise that age-old and tasty question: What is a sandwich?
What is a sandwich? Have I completely lost it?
Not at all. In fact, let’s open this blog-meal by watching this great Atlantic video, which explains the tax consequences (at least in New York State) that flow from whether a food product is deemed a sandwich:
At least one British journalist has been flummoxed by this quintessential American question, as you can see here, where the whole enwrapped story of “sandwich ontology” is explored.
As the writer winds his way toward his hot-dog-IS-a-sandwich conclusion (madness!), he cannot resist an arcane side-dish that examines America as a delicatessen whose daily special is mimicry:
“America is a country founded by people from someplace else on ideas borrowed from someplace else, ultimately to try to distinguish itself from every place else. It is a fraught balance of identity – to take and be of an other, yet define yourself by contrast to that other. This is the strange impulse of our ‘exceptionalism’, to always borrow something and modify it slightly, then declare the end result definitively, uniquely American.”
Tell me he didn’t put quotation marks around exceptionalism! Oh, yes he did. (Plus, he insists on clinging to the quotation-marks-inside-the-comma rule. God save the Queen.)
True sandwich experts concur in this well-seasoned debate.
Yes, that video and news story are from a year or two ago, so you may wonder what’s the delicious news hook. Well, you may be pleased to know that The Big Question has been answered definitively—though I doubt you’ll like the result:
Yes, a hot dog is a sandwich.
At least according to those noobs at the Merriam–Webster Dictionary. In your busy summer, you may have missed the news that the dictionary folks made the determination. I leave it to the brilliant and entirely partisan correspondents at Eater to tell you the real deal.
Where do I stand on the sandwich question? Probably more aligned with Eater and the Atlantic video. But I’ve been told that intelligent people may disagree (ha!), so you may come to your own conclusions. Just don’t bring up lettuce wraps; there are limits to my definitional patience.
In the meantime, have a great weekend, whether it’s highlighted by a roll, bread, pita, or any other delicious envelopment.
Hot dog: Compact? Absolutely. Delicious? Indisputably. A sandwich? Grrr.
July 21, 2016
Story ideas welcome, everything from the Theory of Relativity to more mundane thoughts.
I will not insult you with that old chestnut, “There are no bad ideas.” All you need to do is watch a presidential campaign to undermine that tall tale.
But as I work on the 2017 Editorial Calendar—our story roadmap—I do want to stress that there are very few truly bad ideas.
Feel better? Did I lawyer that enough for you?
I’d really like to hear from you—readers or not—about what we should cover in this crazy, mixed-up legal profession. Not sure what I mean? How about:
- New things happening in law practice
- New niche practices that are growing
- Crazy-important topics that legal publications have failed to cover in sufficient detail (or at all)
If you need more direction:
Close your eyes. Imagine a box. And picture the oddest, most novel thing, which is so impressive it cannot even fit in that box.
So consider this an open invitation for your ideas, of all kinds. They are welcome anytime, but contacting me in the next few weeks would help ensure those ideas get into our formal editorial calendar. (Curious? You can see our current 2016 calendar here.)
Write to me at email@example.com.
July 20, 2016
Former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods has authored a play to be performed this weekend, July 23 and 24.
Yesterday, I had coffee with a friend whose life goal is to locate paid work that allows him to do whatever the heck he wants to do. The fact that he is successful at it, and that he is a lawyer, makes me all the more envious. For he has found ways to minimize the daily-grind parts of the legal profession and to maximize the collaborative, business-building, soul-nourishing parts of his career.
Well, screw him.
Of course, I don’t mean that. I really am very happy for him, and for that small subset of others who manage to make their avocation their vocation, who move their most creative work to center stage.
And the stage is where you’ll find the work of another such creative guy, Grant Woods.
I have previously praised the drive of former Arizona Attorney General Woods to nourish his musical and theatrical impulses. You can read about a few of them, here, here, and here.
This weekend, his playwright chops will be on display. “The Things We Do” is Grant’s play, which will be performed this Saturday and Sunday, July 23 and 24. It will be featured at TheaterWorks in Peoria as part of a New Works Festival. Here is how it’s described:
“A very clever and very real comedy telling the story of Bill, Sarah, Ted and Alice, a group of not-so-young professionals discovering once the kids are grown, you may find yourself searching for very different things in life. Follow their journey as they discover the intricacies of modern love and the myriad ways humans deal with the complexity of our associations.”
Tickets and more information on all the plays are here.
And be sure to read another news story about Grant’s writing life here.
July 19, 2016
Posted by azatty under Change of Venue
, Law School
, Social Media
| Tags: divorce
, mandatory binding arbitration
, prenuptial agreement
, social media
, Venn diagram
Leave a Comment
What, doesn’t everyone do that?
Probably not. But we occasionally should wonder a little more about the legal side of those app-tastic tools.
For instance, I was struck by the open approach at the very top of those terms. In fact, they highlight a binding arbitration provision you may be agreeing to. The ALL-CAPS are theirs:
“ARBITRATION NOTICE: WE WANT TO LET YOU KNOW UP FRONT THAT THESE TERMS CONTAIN AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE A LITTLE LATER ON. EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DISPUTES MENTIONED IN THAT ARBITRATION CLAUSE, YOU AND SNAPCHAT AGREE THAT DISPUTES BETWEEN US WILL BE RESOLVED BY MANDATORY BINDING ARBITRATION, AND YOU AND SNAPCHAT WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT OR CLASS-WIDE ARBITRATION.”
Charming, in a way—though certainly driven by courts that have looked askance at such provisions when they are hidden away, deep down in legalese. But no one who glanced at even the top sentence of Snap’s term could miss that blunt warning.
Turns out, I could have opted out of the requirement of mandatory binding arbitration, simply by sending a letter to that effect to their snail-mail address (within 30 days of these changed terms).
Did I? No, though I considered it simply as a fun exercise (and a second blog post!). I passed on the legal Bartleby moment partly through laziness. But partly also because I’m just conspiracy-theory-amenable enough that I would fear they’d take the six, or eight, or 10 decline-letters they receive every month and “accidentally” close our accounts.
Irrational? I get it. Whatevs.
And apparently, I’m not the only one fascinated by terms of service. Just this morning, the lead question in the ABA Journal’s legal-news quiz focused on PokemonGo’s TofS. So there:
PokemonGo terms of service was a subject in an ABA Journal news quiz this week. Do you know the answer? I did.
Meantime, to add to our social media joy, how many of us are aware that social media clauses in prenuptial agreements are now a thing?
It’s true. Not only might you want to keep grandma’s stocks and grandpa’s bullion out of the hands of your formerly betrothed. Now, you want them to keep their hands off your social media assets.
Romantic, I know.
Read the essay by Jaburg Wilk attorney Jason Castle here. And follow him on Twitter @CastleAzlaw @Jaburg_Wilk
As Jason tells us:
“For example, the clause would address what and how information is shared whether it is positive, negative, insulting, embarrassing or includes flattering photos, images, or other content. I recommend keeping the clause as broad as possible to accommodate the rapidly growing technology because the technology of today will be outdated within 10 years. I also believe prior to marriage it is important for the parties to clearly understand what they each define as private and what is acceptable to be shared with others. Another component of a social media clause can include the ability to monitor the other spouse’s social media activities.”
And that’s even before he gets to the awfulness of revenge porn. I mean, people are the worst.
Very scientific Venn diagram catalogs the human condition.
To make the whole thing more legally accessible, I’ve created the Venn diagram above. You’re welcome. (And for all my law school professors who wondered about my legal acumen: Boom!)
Comment below or write to me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
July 18, 2016
Posted by azatty under Arizona Attorney Magazine
, Change of Venue
, Criminal Sentencing
, Law Practice
, Legal events
| Tags: ABA
, American Bar Association
, Miranda v. Arizona
, Miranda warning
, Paul Ulrich
Leave a Comment
Downtown Phoenix neighborhood “The Deuce,” around Third St and Jefferson, early 1960s.
What happened to Miranda?
That intriguing question is how attorney Paul Ulrich opens his article on the landmark case that appears in the June Arizona Attorney Magazine.
Most everyone in the United States has at least a rudimentary knowledge of the Miranda warning, if not of the case itself. But 50 years on, how deep and long-lasting are the rights associated with Miranda v. Arizona? For in those five decades, multiple court rulings have chipped away at the bedrock of the case.
Is Miranda still a powerful case? Or merely an important piece of legal history?
Read Paul’s article, and let me know what you think.
One of the pleasures of covering the landmark case was in sharing some photos of downtown Phoenix, from about the same time period as Miranda’s arrest and trial.
As Paul mentions in his article, the once-shady—and vibrant—neighborhood of downtown was called “The Deuce.” Longtime residents are often pleased to share stories of the activities that marked the streets and alleys.
To learn more about that neighborhood, and more, read Jon Talton’s blog, Rogue Columnist. It is worth bookmarking.
And if you want a more concrete memory of the case, head over to the ABA website, where you buy a T-shirt emblazoned with the Miranda warning. You never know when that may come in handy
Next Page »