The Internet Is Real Life: How A Lawyer Will Track You Down

Years ago I sat in my Dad’s office after email had really just become a thing. I was a kid at the time, but I remember distinctly my father talking to a divorce client who was, as divorce clients normally are, pissed off. However, this divorce client wasn’t only pissed off, they were technologically literate, something that my poor father most definitely was not. You have to understand, up until recently, and even now, lawyers are like the most technologically backwards people in the world by necessity.  Part of this is because the courts are technologically backwards and keep insisting we do things in certain ways, and part of it is the cost of an update is prohibitive because developers of software that’s really only used by the legal field are all like “Lawyers have money! Bleed them dry!”

But I’m getting off track a bit, aren’t I? We were talking about Dad and the fucking Bill Gates of divorce clients. Anyhow, Dad had gone through his normal spiel about not contacting the soon-to-be-ex, you know, “don’t call them,” “don’t ask friends how they’re doing,” “don’t leave nasty notes,” “don’t try to burn down their new lover’s car with lighter fluid while sobbing ‘WHY DENISE? WHY?’ into the night.” The typical stuff. The client, part of the way through, said “What about email?” After a suitable amount of time in which the client explained to Dad that email was “electronic mail” and, assuredly, was becoming all the rage and not at all the work of the Devil, Dad nodded sagely, leaned back, and said words that I’ve never forgotten:

“If you don’t want it read back to you in court, don’t fucking send it. Period.”

Continue reading “The Internet Is Real Life: How A Lawyer Will Track You Down”

InkedFur’s Furry Friday: Hewwo Copywighted Wowks! Who Owns Your Commission, Part 2

Hello my fuzzy little horde of anthropomorphic intellectual property infringements! It’s time once again for another Inkedfur.com Furry Friday here on Lawyers & Liquor, where I pop open the gates and let the technicolor zoo roam the streets with wild abandon. This time, in a continuation from our discussion of copyright and your totally original and not at all Disney derivative original character, we’re going to go totally vore and get into the meat of the matter. That’s right, this time we’re going to discuss who, in all actuality, owns that commission  you just paid someone to draw of a giraffe named Gerald seductively eating an ice pop or something.

Look, I don’t know what you fuzzy little assholes pay people to draw. That’s between you and whatever god you’re currently making cry.

So last time we covered a lot of the basic of what a copyright is, how you register one, etc. etc. etc. You know, all that advice that you guys are totally not going to listen to because, goddammit, you definitely have better things to do with your time and money then protect your art and fixed tangible ideas. This time we’re going to talk about something a lot more personal: what if the only fucking reason the art exists at all is you paid your hard-earned money to get someone to draw it for you?

Well. That’s a horse of a different art style, now isn’t it?

Continue reading “InkedFur’s Furry Friday: Hewwo Copywighted Wowks! Who Owns Your Commission, Part 2”

Who Drives The Bus, Part 2 – A Guide to Decision Making for Young Lawyers

On Monday we talked about the Supreme Court case of McCoy v. Louisiana, wherein an attorney decided that a perfectly reasonable trial strategy was to tell the jury that his client had definitely committed murder in an attempt to avoid the death penalty.  The lawyer did this without the permission of his client, and in fact did it explicitly against his client’s wishes.  The client wanted the attorney to present a defense that he didn’t kill anyone, despite the state’s overwhelming evidence, and it brought to the highest court in the land the question of “Who really controls the representation.”

So we’re back today with Part 2, talking about who really gets to careen the bus of bad decisions off the freeway in glorious slow motion: the lawyer or the layperson who hires them. So, because I’m not gonna waste a lot of time or space today on building shit up, let’s just jump straight into this discussion.

Continue reading “Who Drives The Bus, Part 2 – A Guide to Decision Making for Young Lawyers”

Who Drives the Bus, Part 1: McCoy v. Louisiana

Let’s start with the commonly accepted preposition that our clients are, by and large, incapable of finding their backsides with both hands, a map, and a native guide. Whether the client be the sweet little old lady from down the street or the meth dealer who’s been the scourge of the Shady Acres Mobile Home Community for the last three weeks before he fell behind on his rent, clients are collectively idiots without a single clue as to what’s in their best interests. It isn’t even their fault, really. As a society they’re trained to second guess people by television shows that teach them nice, and ultimately meaningless, phrases like “post hoc ergo propter hoc” that they can parrot back at the nice man or woman in the suit in front of them and make demands.

We live, ladies and gentlemen, in the Golden Age of Dipshittery, where any asshole with access to Google and a cable subscription can fancy themselves a lawyer. All hail King Dipshit, as he wanders into the office and proceeds to immediately second-guess the attorney. And, of course, because we learn the law from folks whose names are preceded by words like “Professor,” we of course have the vitriolic reaction of any learned professional when T-Bone tells us he  totally thinks we should argue he was driving that ATV through the nunnery because aliens told him to: Sit down, shut up, I’m the goddamn lawyer.

And so, today and Wednesday, we’ll talk about the division of decision-making between an attorney and their client, i.e., who has control over what and when in an attorney-client relationship.

Continue reading “Who Drives the Bus, Part 1: McCoy v. Louisiana”

Fetish Friday: Bad Doggy – The Legality of Pup Hoods In Public

Hey my favorite group of kinksters! It’s time to delve into the sexually charged aspects of the law in another Fetish Friday here on Lawyers & Liquor, with all of the associated whips, chains, clamps, hot wax, and just general blowing of those vanilla minds that you guys love so goddamn much! So without further ado, because unlike Mistress Mona I don’t get off by making you squirm in anticipation, let’s dive right into the hot, sticky, and oh-so-alluring mess that gets created with the wearing of fetish gear in public!

Like most subjects these days, this one was first presented by the furries, those interesting folks that get themselves up in a tizzy about all sorts of things. Apparently there’s an ongoing debate about the legality and appropriateness of wearing things like leather hoods shaped like dog heads (“Pup Hoods”) the public spaces of convention hotels and centers and the associated impact on the public. A lot of the back and forth on the matter seems to be “it doesn’t look right to others” on one side with the opposing side responding “there’s nothing illegal about wearing this stuff in public.”

Can you filthy little worms figure out which side of that debate caught my interest more than the other? Oh yeah, baby. It was the legal aspect, because lawsplaining shit is my thing.

So let’s start delving about elbow deep in the dark crevices that’s the legality of using and wearing fetish-associated gear in public. Today we’re gonna focus on Pup Hoods specifically, but I think I’ll be back to this one in regards to other things in the not-too-distant future, because there’s a LOT of other shit we can talk about in relation to this.

  But, as always, first a disclaimer, because like all of you fine folks, Boozy likes to play safe.

Continue reading “Fetish Friday: Bad Doggy – The Legality of Pup Hoods In Public”