12 « April « 2005 « f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

April 12, 2005

papa’s fiddle

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 4:51 pm

spring cleaning
leaving the rosin
on papa’s fiddle

first tree buds
the list of baby names
not chosen

cutting biscuits
spring sun
through the blinds

  W.F. Owen

“spring cleaning” tiny words (March 15, 2004)

“first tree buds” tiny words (March 10, 2004)

“cutting biscuits” tiny words (March 30, 2004)

by dagosan:

waiting

for the alarm to buzz —

sunbeams warm my ear

                [April 12, 2005]

potluck

The lastest edition of the Harvard Law Bulletin (Spring 2005) features a

cover that reads “Giving Back: Harvard Law School wants all lawyers to get involved in

public service.”   I recommend “Sowing the seeds of public service at HLS”, as well as

Requirement connects law students to the practice of public service, which describe

the HLS pro bono requirement, its purpose, and the flexible ways it can be fulfilled. The

program, which apparently helps attract some of the very best students, hopes to make

even the most skeptical student see how fulfilling it can be to make public service a part

of your life (by following your bliss).  There are some good anecdotes.

I was surprised to read about the comprehensiveness of the

HLS Low Income Protection Plan — as you can see from

this chart, it offers loan help to any alumnus who makes less

than $87,000 and still has student loan debt (expecting an

annual contribution of $0 toward loan payments, if you make

$37,000 or less). Any fulltime job for a non-profit, governmental,

or educational entity is eligible for the program and — this

will make Carolyn‘s heart beat fast — so are law-related jobs in

the private sector (like at small law firms or firms in locations that

are less desirable geographically).   What a difference this would

have made for me back in 1976!

The Ask the Professor feature of the Spring 2005 edition of the Harvard Law

Bulletin asked HLS Professor David Barron, an expert on local government law, to explain

what’s at stake in the U.S. Supreme Court’s pending case, Kelo v. City of New London, and

what he thinks the Court should do. Here’s part of Prof. Barron’s reply:

“By affirming New London’s exercise of the power of eminent domain on

the ground that it constitutes a legitimate land-use planning effort, the Court

would protect private property rights and provide a check against cities using

takings as simply a fiscal tool. Tying a planning requirement to the ‘public use’

test would stimulate local government planning because, whenever a transfer

of the condemned land to a private party was involved, the taking could pass

muster only when it was part of a real urban land-use plan.”

Ben Cowgill at the Legal Ethics [We]Blog, gives “Congratulations to Carolyn Elefant

of MyShingle.com for well-deserved recognition in JD Bliss, the on-line journal devoted

to ‘balancing life and law’.”  See “Success Story: Carolyn Elefant: How to Go Solo” at

JD Bliss. Ben credits Carolyn’s weblog and leadership for helping to forge new kinds

of networking between and among solo practitioners. Ben and Carolyn have been using

the term “independent practitioners” to describe this new breed of lawyers. In true Yabut

fashion, I have left a Comment at Ben’s palce, asking for more helpful terminology. Please

leave your suggestions, too.

As usual, Bob Ambrogi points today to an interesting new website — this time, it’s Patricia

M. Dugan’s ElectaPope.com, at which the “practicing Catholic canon lawyer and civil lawyer”

has collected lots of information on the process and history of papal selection (and more).

Since Prof. Yabut was feeling cranky again today, he pointed out the use by

Lawyer Dugan of one of his least favorite phrases: In her Bio, Dugan claims she is

“one of the only” laywomen to ever hold both degrees. Prof. Y has always thought

the phrase should be used only by lazy reporters on short deadlines. When

confronted by the term, Alfred M. Kriman at Stammtisch Beau Fleuve asks:

“Which one of the only?” We add “what’s an only?”

The SBF site also explains that “one of my favorite” is the:

“Diplomatic declension of ‘my favorite’.”

And, “one size fits all” means: We don’t have your size.

Evan Bling-Bling Schaeffer just saved me time and money with his review of Justice

magazine. Thanks, Evan, but aren’t you being too hard on morons?

Comments (10)

analogically correct

Filed under: pre-06-2006,q.s. quickies — David Giacalone @ 12:58 am

approxS Harvard Law Professor Lloyd L. Weinreb is known for his expertise in criminal, constitutional, and intellectual-property law, as well as jurisprudence. His experience in the law — both broad and deep — has taught him the importance of the well-honed analogy. That makes him a hero for Prof. Yabut and the rest of the f/k/a gang (see, e.g., our blurb last month, “differences we can’t see”).

In the face of arguments from heavy-hitters like Richard Posner, Edward Levi and Cass Sunstein against the use of analogical reasoning by judges and lawyers, Weinreb has written Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument (Cambridge Press 2005). Weinreb explains that the use of analogical reasoning is dictated by the nature of law, which requires the application of rules to particular facts, and he helps the reader learn how to separate the analogical chaff from the whole-grain variety (my lame comparison, not his).

Although written for legal scholars, students, and practitioners, I hope it will become must-read material for webloggers and weblog commentors — so as to ease the frequent agita I get perusing those sources. Legal Reason is filled with examples from both the law and everyday life — and it’s easy enough for editors from all generations and political persuasions to understand. I plan to share examples and ideas from the book with my readers (and my long-suffering friends). And, I already know what a number of my relatives will be getting for Christmas 2005.

like he’s biting
the cold moon…
gargoyle

my shadow looks
like the Old Man’s!
first winter rain

cursing like sailors
at the plum tree…
crows

…………………. by Kobaysahi Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue

noYabutsSN Suffolk U. Law School prof Andrew Perlman, guest posting at the Legal Ethics Forum today, compares roadblocks to Bar Admission for Out-of-State Lawyers s to protectionism, and points to his recent article, which argues that the Admission rules are unconstitutional — violating three constitutional provisions designed to prevent economic protectionism – the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause, and the dormant Commerce Clause. (“A Bar Against Competition: The Unconstitutionality of Admission Rules for Out- of-State Lawyers” . Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Vol. 18, p. 135, 2004; click here for a synopsis from SSRN, where the article can be dowloaded after a free registration.

The Comments, joined by Laura Appleman and Dennis Tuchler (plus myself), discuss whether the ABA has been a guild-like force to restrict competition from without and within the profession. My own experience monitoring the profession from a competition perspective suggests that, were it not for the intervention of the antitrust laws, the ABA would still be overly dampening competition (in the name of professional dignity, client protection and similar euphemisms), and that it is now quashing the competitive forces that could be created by fully-informed clients in the digital era.

Check out the law review article, “The Rise of the Modern American Law School: How Professionalization, German Scholarship, and Legal Reform Shaped Our System of Legal Education,” New England Law Review, Vol. 39, p. 251, 2005, where Laura I. Appleman argues that the move from the apprenticeship system to formalized law school training was encouraged by the ABA/AALS/State bar commissions in the late 19th century, due to concern about the influxof “undesirable” lawyers practicing criminal and personal injury law.

autumn wind–
like the teeth of a comb
pilgrims from the north

let him pass
like a mosquito, a fly…
solitary priest

like people
an upright scarecrow
can’t be found

approxS

…………………. by Kobaysahi Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue

A recent blurb at sunEthics put a smile on my face: Attorney’s fees were awarded against a state agency (the parole commission) after it rested its defense on a meritless and untenable interpretation of the law — and where “no plausible basis for the Commission’s interpretation of the controlling statute was advanced.” King v. Florida Parole Comm’n, ___ So.2d ___ (Fla. 1st DCA, No. 1D04-2585, 3/30/2005), reversing the trial court’s interpretation of Fla.Stat. sec. 57.105 (2003).

Comments (6)