It was the wrong thread

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Intersting theory.

It's very much like the now-famous Plame Theorem:

((compensation for writing book) + (business gained by writing book) + (becoming mainstay on the Hollywood circuit) > (business lost) + (looking foolish at hearing))

Your post would be more comprehensible if Valerie Plame had written a book, gained business by writing a book, become a mainstay on the Hollywood circuit, or looked foolish at her hearing. But it is noble of you to concede that she lost her job. That's a start.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

California has met its match.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
California has met its match.

I wonder if i can waive in. sounds like there might be a lawyer shortage.

[Replaced_Texan]

Best Buy lawyers apparently weren't all that confident with their case.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Larry Lessig:

• Lawyers never face an opening weekend. Like law professors, their advice lives largely protected from the market. They justify what they do in terms of "right and wrong," while everyone else has to justify their work in terms of profit. They move slowly, and deliberately. If you listen carefully, sometimes you can even hear them breathe.

context

[SubPrime-Time]

From Tuesday's NYTimes:

A seven-year federal investigation into accusations that a leading securities class-action law firm, Milberg Weiss, paid secret kickbacks to plaintiffs gained traction yesterday when David J. Bershad, a former partner with extensive knowledge of the firm’s finances, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

Mr. Bershad’s guilty plea is the latest blow to a powerhouse firm that once dominated the landscape for class-action securities lawsuits and spurred fear as well as contempt in corporate boardrooms. But over the last year, the firm has struggled to retain its major clients, its lawyers and its hold on numerous lawsuits even as the number of securities-related cases has declined, in part because of the strong performance of the stock market.

Yesterday’s guilty plea also put renewed pressure on William S. Lerach and Melvyn I. Weiss, two of the industry’s leading lawyers who founded the New York-based law firm and have long been the focus of the federal investigation. Mr. Lerach split from Milberg Weiss in 2004 to form a firm in San Diego, and last month, he announced that he was considering retirement. Neither Mr. Lerach nor Mr. Weiss has been indicted. Calls to their lawyers were not returned.

Cite: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/business/10legal.html
[spree: SFW]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Larry Lessig:

• Lawyers never face an opening weekend. Like law professors, their advice lives largely protected from the market. They justify what they do in terms of "right and wrong," while everyone else has to justify their work in terms of profit. They move slowly, and deliberately. If you listen carefully, sometimes you can even hear them breathe.

context

Good article, but why didn't he just distill it to the old saw -

"You can always fuck a deal up if you're willing to hire enough lawyers."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
  I concur in the majority’s result insofar as it affirms the dismissal of some claims, but I dissent insofar as it reverses the grant of qualified immunity.
  I concede that this short opinion of mine does not consider or take into account the majority opinion. So I should disclose at the outset that I have not read it. I suppose this is unusual, so I explain why. . . .

Husain v. Springer, No. 04-5250-cv (2d Cir., July 13, 2007).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This post at Volokh.com, about homeowners insurance, libel suits, tip jars and advertisements, may be of interest to the administrators and bloggers among us.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Serving four years for this is heinous, but at least he didn't have to serve the full fifteen-year sentence. The case was argued in the Fourth Circuit by a Wake Forest 3L:

• In this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, John Mooney presented evidence that on August 4, 2002, in Huntington, West Virginia, he seized a firearm from his ex-wife in self-defense, when his ex-wife, who was intoxicated, pointed it at his head. He then walked several blocks to his place of employment to hand the weapon over to the police. Because Mooney was a convicted felon, however, he was charged with the unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
  
  Despite Mooney’s belief that his possession of the firearm was justified in the circumstances and that he did "the right thing" in returning it to the police, his counsel advised him that justification provided no defense to a violation of § 922(g). His counsel stated, "All the prosecutor has to prove was that [Mooney] was a felon with a firearm." Relying on counsel’s advice, Mooney reluctantly pleaded guilty, and the district court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal, we affirmed with an unpublished opinion.
  
  Mooney filed a timely § 2255 motion, claiming that his guilty plea was involuntary in that his counsel rendered him ineffective assistance by not investigating the justification defense and by advising him to plead guilty because there was no such defense to § 922(g). Mooney also claimed that pursuant to the district court’s inquiry, his counsel inaccurately represented to the court during his Rule 11 plea colloquy that "if this case went to trial, there would be no meritorious legal defense to this charge." In his motion, Mooney alleged that a quick search would have revealed that the Fourth Circuit, as well as most of the other circuits, has explicitly "recognized the justification defense in reference to Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)," citing United States v. Perrin, 45 F.3d 869 (4th Cir. 1995), and United States v. Crittendon, 883 F.2d 326 (4th Cir. 1989).
  
  The district court denied Mooney’s § 2255 motion noting,
  
  [W]hile Petitioner may have been able to successfully show that he was under a present threat of death or serious bodily injury at the time he took the gun from his ex-wife’s possession, he is unable to show a causal connection between that threat and his continued possession of the gun. Petitioner’s continued possession of the weapon after leaving the home negates his possible defense.
  
  Accordingly, the court found that "Counsel’s failure to advise Petitioner of the defense of justification can be consider[ed] sound trial strategy and does not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel." We granted a certificate of appealability.
  
  Based on the record made in connection with the § 2255 motion, we conclude that in connection with Mooney’s guilty plea, Mooney’s counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel, and but for that assistance, Mooney would not have pleaded guilty. We also conclude that if Mooney were able to present the same facts at trial, the trial court would be required, under the criteria we articulated in Perrin and Crittendon, to submit a justification defense to the jury and that the jury would likely consider it favorably. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order denying Mooney’s § 2255 motion, vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence entered against Mooney on May 13, 2003, and remand the case to permit Mooney to withdraw his guilty plea.

United States v. Mooney (4th Cir., Aug. 6, 2007).

[SubPrime-Time]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Serving four years for this is heinous, but at least he didn't have to serve the full fifteen-year sentence. The case was argued in the Fourth Circuit by a Wake Forest 3L:

• In this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, John Mooney presented evidence that on August 4, 2002, in Huntington, West Virginia, he seized a firearm from his ex-wife in self-defense, when his ex-wife, who was intoxicated, pointed it at his head. He then walked several blocks to his place of employment to hand the weapon over to the police. Because Mooney was a convicted felon, however, he was charged with the unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
  
  Despite Mooney’s belief that his possession of the firearm was justified in the circumstances and that he did "the right thing" in returning it to the police, his counsel advised him that justification provided no defense to a violation of § 922(g). His counsel stated, "All the prosecutor has to prove was that [Mooney] was a felon with a firearm." Relying on counsel’s advice, Mooney reluctantly pleaded guilty, and the district court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment. On direct appeal, we affirmed with an unpublished opinion.
  
  Mooney filed a timely § 2255 motion, claiming that his guilty plea was involuntary in that his counsel rendered him ineffective assistance by not investigating the justification defense and by advising him to plead guilty because there was no such defense to § 922(g). Mooney also claimed that pursuant to the district court’s inquiry, his counsel inaccurately represented to the court during his Rule 11 plea colloquy that "if this case went to trial, there would be no meritorious legal defense to this charge." In his motion, Mooney alleged that a quick search would have revealed that the Fourth Circuit, as well as most of the other circuits, has explicitly "recognized the justification defense in reference to Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)," citing United States v. Perrin, 45 F.3d 869 (4th Cir. 1995), and United States v. Crittendon, 883 F.2d 326 (4th Cir. 1989).
  
  The district court denied Mooney’s § 2255 motion noting,
  
  [W]hile Petitioner may have been able to successfully show that he was under a present threat of death or serious bodily injury at the time he took the gun from his ex-wife’s possession, he is unable to show a causal connection between that threat and his continued possession of the gun. Petitioner’s continued possession of the weapon after leaving the home negates his possible defense.
  
  Accordingly, the court found that "Counsel’s failure to advise Petitioner of the defense of justification can be consider[ed] sound trial strategy and does not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel." We granted a certificate of appealability.
  
  Based on the record made in connection with the § 2255 motion, we conclude that in connection with Mooney’s guilty plea, Mooney’s counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel, and but for that assistance, Mooney would not have pleaded guilty. We also conclude that if Mooney were able to present the same facts at trial, the trial court would be required, under the criteria we articulated in Perrin and Crittendon, to submit a justification defense to the jury and that the jury would likely consider it favorably. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order denying Mooney’s § 2255 motion, vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence entered against Mooney on May 13, 2003, and remand the case to permit Mooney to withdraw his guilty plea.

United States v. Mooney (4th Cir., Aug. 6, 2007).

Is Wake Forest 3rd or 4th tier?

[notcasesensitive]

I guess Dewey really is desperate to merge with/acquire someone. How long has it been since Dewey and Orrick decided not to merge? My inbox tells me that Dewey Ballantine and LeBoeuf Lamb are going to give it a whirl. Think they'll get this one closed?

[Spanky]

Hey guys:

I have a client that I am representing in a Real Estate negotiation and possible litigation. One of the parties to the negotiation (whose interests definitely conflict with my client) is being represented by a retired CPA (in other words does not have a license any more) and he is not an attorney. He is a complete shyster and has actually used his representation of her to collect money for himself from other parties. He has completely breached his fiduciary duty to her.

She has now realized he is an idiot and asked if I could represent both her and my client which I clearly can't do.

She needs both a good Real Estate attorney to represent her in her dealings with my client and who also has connections to real estate litigators and she needs a good CPA that has a strong relationship with her lawyers. She probably also needs an attorney to sue this shyster. She is very wealthy and owns properties all over the bay area.

Obviously this is rather delicate for me as I do represent someone whose interests do not align with hers, but she is being completely disserved by this shyster and I need professionals on the other end of the table that are looking out for her interests and not some lapsed CPA non attorney trying to use her.

She has one home in Santana Row in San Jose and one home in Menlo Park. She also has homes around the world.

Does anyone work for a firm, or know of a good firm that could provide all these services to her and provide them well. She is the type of client that would like to fly off to Staad or the Bahamas and just let the professionals take care of things for her. And she can afford it. Plus you would have the privilege of being on the other side of the table from Spanky.

Does any know someone at a firm that can handle this? She is a very nice and naive lady that needs help.

tx

Spanky.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Does any know someone at a firm that can handle this? She is a very nice and naive lady that needs help.

Sadly, my firm really isn't into that sort of thing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Bill Lerach is going to the Big House.