It was the wrong thread - Page 136

notcasesensitive · 03-06-2009, 02:40 AM

Anyone have thoughts on job search ideas for a recently laid off large-firm lit staff attorney in Southern California? Class of 2000-2002 era. I have a close friend who was hit in the latest round and I'm trying to be helpful (as opposed to hepful).

John Phoenix · 03-06-2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

Anyone have thoughts on job search ideas for a recently laid off large-firm lit staff attorney in Southern California? Class of 2000-2002 era. I have a close friend who was hit in the latest round and I'm trying to be helpful (as opposed to hepful).

I bet that Howard Rice will be looking for people soon. (Although others who know the field suggest that might be an overstatement.)

Other ideas would be to let the listings come to your friend - have your friend set up RSS feeds for various job sites, and interesting listings will get pushed.

LessinSF · 03-06-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

Anyone have thoughts on job search ideas for a recently laid off large-firm lit staff attorney in Southern California? Class of 2000-2002 era. I have a close friend who was hit in the latest round and I'm trying to be helpful (as opposed to hepful).

Obama bonanza director and grant herder.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-12-2009, 01:49 PM

Eugene Volokh (who has a link to the decision I'm too lazy to reproduce):

Quote:

Lawyer Disbarred for Switching Vote as a Juror Solely in Order To Return To His Busy Law Practice: The case is In re Fahy (Cal. Bar Ct.); here's an excerpt from an affidavit signed by the lawyer to support a motion for a new trial:

Quote:

I was convinced from the outset [of the medical malpractice trial] that [the defendant] had violated the standard of care in his care and treatment of the [p]laintiff.... During the trial that was supposed to last only 2-3 weeks, I maintained a busy law practice. As the trial continued into its 4th week, problems at work continued to mount as most of the day was devoted to my being a juror. Deliberations were a nightmare.... It was becoming very apparent that even if the other jurors were to vote in favor of the [p]laintiff on the issue of liability, that lengthy discussion would take place on other issues ...

As a result, I advised my fellow jurors that I would change my vote if Judge Ballati failed to declare a mistrial after he was advised that the jury was deadlocked because there was no way I could afford to spend another week away from the office ...

When I arrived on Monday, I changed my vote to favor [the defendant] even though he was liable for what happened to the [p]laintiff. I changed my vote so that the deliberations would finally come to an end and I could return to the office....

The court's legal conclusion:

Quote:

[T]he harm to the parties and to the fair administration of justice is clear and serious when respondent disregarded his duty to vote as the facts and judge's instructions guided him, and instead voted as the convenience of his law practice swayed. To be sure, jury service for busy citizens of all occupations or with family responsibilities can be difficult, even burdensome, at times. Yet it is the accepted duty of citizens to serve, subject to the statutory provision for excuse for undue hardship. Moreover, the Judicial Council has recognized that jury service is an “important civic responsibility,” requiring court and staff use of all necessary and appropriate means to ensure that citizens fulfill this duty. Surely, respondent, as a practicing attorney at the time, was keenly aware of the role which an effective jury system serves in the fair administration of justice.

Respondent's violation was not a technical one. As the Court of Appeal and the State Bar Court hearing judge each found, respondent's vote was decisive in breaking the jury's deadlock. Patently, his change of vote to avoid continuing to serve as a juror voided the verdict he rendered and required the parties, their counsel and the courts to bear the additional costs, time and burdens of appellate and further trial court proceedings.

Because of this misconduct, because of Fahy's apparently deceitful responses to the court when questioned about this, and because of Fahy's recent disciplinary record, and because of Fahy's lack of acceptance of responsibility, he was disbarred. For more, see this S.F. Recorder article.

Of course, if Fahy had only remained quiet about his true motivation (something he initially revealed to his fellow jurors during deliberation) he would have gotten off scot-free (though that of course does not excuse his behavior).

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-13-2009, 01:37 PM

This is the best judicial decision about salad dressing that I have read in a long time.

sebastian_dangerfield · 03-13-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Eugene Volokh (who has a link to the decision I'm too lazy to reproduce):

The Princess Leia jury avoidance bit on 30 Rock needed to be extended. That bit could have run for two minutes. So much material.

Not Bob · 03-13-2009, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is the best judicial decision about salad dressing that I have read in a long time.

Holy shit. Posner really tore that AUSA a new one, no?

eta:

Quote:

The government’s appellate lawyer told us that the prosecutor’s superior would give her a talking-to. We are not impressed by the suggestion.

Hank Chinaski · 03-13-2009, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Holy shit. Posner really tore that AUSA a new one, no?

eta:

link doesn't work

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-13-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

link doesn't work

Try this:

08-1839 USA v. Farinella, Charles criminal 03/12/2009 Opinion POSNER

If not, go to homepage and opinions, then find this case in list of this week's opinions.

Anyway, I guess it's a bit easier to give the prosecutor a "talking to" for inflaming the passions of the jury when that's not the sole basis for reversal.

Hank Chinaski · 03-13-2009, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Try this:

08-1839 USA v. Farinella, Charles criminal 03/12/2009 Opinion POSNER

If not, go to homepage and opinions, then find this case in list of this week's opinions.

Anyway, I guess it's a bit easier to give the prosecutor a "talking to" for inflaming the passions of the jury when that's not the sole basis for reversal.

I know criminal law has its own standards, but this decision seems wacky.

He found there was no showing consumers were misled? Seriously? they got the crap for cheap because it was soon not sellable by the manufacturer. then they post date it? What is the purpose of the date?

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-13-2009, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I know criminal law has its own standards, but this decision seems wacky.

He found there was no showing consumers were misled? Seriously? they got the crap for cheap because it was soon not sellable by the manufacturer. then they post date it? What is the purpose of the date?

Judge Posner suggests, at some length, that the dressing would still be OK after that date, and what reasons the manufacturer might have to put those dates on the dressing.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-13-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Judge Posner suggests, at some length, that the dressing would still be OK after that date, and what reasons the manufacturer might have to put those dates on the dressing.

Putting aside the facts of the case, which are pretty weak on which to base a prosecution, I wonder why a dressing maker would specify a "best if purchased by" date. That suggests somehow it's doing worse sitting on a store shelf. But surely that's not the case. So of what relevance is the purchase date, other than as a quasi-guarantee that up to that date it's in good shape, after maybe not. But if that's what the "best by" date means, it should be a consumption date.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-13-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I know criminal law has its own standards, but this decision seems wacky.

Why, because the IP holder didn't win?

Cletus Miller · 03-13-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Putting aside the facts of the case, which are pretty weak on which to base a prosecution, I wonder why a dressing maker would specify a "best if purchased by" date. That suggests somehow it's doing worse sitting on a store shelf. But surely that's not the case. So of what relevance is the purchase date, other than as a quasi-guarantee that up to that date it's in good shape, after maybe not. But if that's what the "best by" date means, it should be a consumption date.

I had thought that the relatively-recent proliferation of "best by" dates on non-perishable food was a result of state law in one or more states (New Jersey is what I remember) and the desire of the food companies to have consistent packaging nationwide. The example I know of is canned soup--until the last few years, there were no "best by" dates, then suddenly there were; not certain if there are still, as I also recall something about the state law(s) being repealed.

Hank Chinaski · 03-13-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Judge Posner suggests, at some length, that the dressing would still be OK after that date, and what reasons the manufacturer might have to put those dates on the dressing.

but the public should be able to look at the date and give what weight they care to about it. the guy didn't scrape the date off, he changed it for some reason.

and yes burger the manufacturer should have a very straightforward claim. you don't think removing the reason these bottles might be at the Dollar Store won't hurt sales of the higher priced stuff at the local Pig's?