Legal News Roundup for Monday 4/23/2018

Hey guys!  The Boozy Barrister is a little busy today and has no post for Monday, so here’s a quick “Legal News Roundup” from the strange places of the internet, showing the best and worst of the law for all of you to gawk at, with distracted commentary from Boozy.

Continue reading “Legal News Roundup for Monday 4/23/2018”

Everything Wrong with Legal Hiring: Searching for Dick Awesome, Esq.

It seems like every now and again Keith over at Associate’s Mind, the father of LawyerSmack, and I end up focusing on the same topics for a few days in a row. This time it all comes about out of an ad for an attorney and the ridiculous requirements and pay expectations that the firm wanted met in order to hire a lawyer to assist.  I’m not going to do a lot of talking to describe the ad, because you can watch the bullshit flow over on the LawyerSmack website about the anger and frustration of the attorneys that gather around the virtual water cooler (Keith has cleaned the joint up a bit from the days when it was more of a dive bar, and even insisted that sentient whiskey glasses identify themselves in the chat by their real names and everything).  But here’s the gist of the ad’s requirements:

  1. 5-7 years of experience;
  2. 20 cases tried to a verdict, unless you’re a former prosecutor, then at least 80 cases tried to a verdict;
  3. Answers to an attorney with 30 years of experience, and;
  4. Pay is $55,000 to $90,000.

While they’re at it, they’d like to find an attorney that owns his own rainbow-shitting unicorn, lives in a castle made of gingerbread, and can melt the faces of opposing counsel by singing eldritch verses in court. I mean, if we’re going to go all out on this shit, let’s go balls to the goddamn wall crazy with it.

Because the lawyer these guys are looking for?  It doesn’t fucking exist.

Continue reading “Everything Wrong with Legal Hiring: Searching for Dick Awesome, Esq.”

Brud v. The Jews: A shver harts redt a sach.

Yesterday was pretty interesting, wasn’t it? I mean, among all the other things that were going on in the world on September 27, 2017 we saw Puerto Rico continue to suffer, high-minded debate about the impact of the Jones Act on maritime commerce and relief efforts not to mention the economic impact on a U.S. Territory, the death of a Hugh Heffner, and, of course, a lawyer in Jackson, MS decided that it was time to sue “The Jews.”

Oh, did you miss that one?

Continue reading “Brud v. The Jews: A shver harts redt a sach.”

Lawyers Can Dress Themselves: The Attorney Situational Dress Code

So on Tuesday I talked about how lawyers shouldn’t trust their clients to dress themselves for court. That’s actually a good bit of common sense for any attorney out there, and for those of us who have had clients that we’ve represented in court was likely met with a resounding “No shit? You mean the guy who tried to sell weed to a cop who was in uniform shouldn’t be trusted to make good life decisions? Tell me more!”

Thanks for that vote of confidence. Look guys, they can’t all be on the best topics in the world. Sometimes you have to remind people that clients, left unattended, may decide to wear hot pants to see the the judge. Shit like this happens, I thought it was worthwhile.

Of course, the problem of dressing poorly for court doesn’t just extend to clients. It extends to lawyers as well, but in a somewhat more unique manner.

Continue reading “Lawyers Can Dress Themselves: The Attorney Situational Dress Code”

TiffanyvTwitter: An Open Letter To Tiff

Okay, so back in February I wrote about Tiffany Dehen, a USD Law graduate who filed a rambling, incoherent, and largely incomprehensible complaint as a result of someone creating a fake Twitter profile of her that implied her conservative political views meant she was a Nazi. Since that time, I decided it was best to leave well-enough alone, as Tiffany had proven herself to be sort of the litigious type and I wasn’t exactly interested in being dragged into the undertow on the sea of crazy that appeared to be brewing, and the fact that talking about Tiffany seemed a little too much like kicking a handicapped puppy. She was clearly out of her depth in this matter, suing both Twitter and her law school for $100,000,000 for the ostensible damage to her reputation.

This was, in my opinion, exactly the sort of lawsuit that the courts sort out on their own, without any interference from me or any other the other internet lawyer blogs who wrote about it.

Continue reading “TiffanyvTwitter: An Open Letter To Tiff”