Surprised no one has commented about local heroes The Killers' new album, which is about Brandon Flowers's childhood in western Utah. It's great. Probably my favorite of theirs; very Tunnel of Love-era Springsteen.
They were too busy waxing poetic over Com Truise and his ilk.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 4:57 pm
Don't know if the blog covered this already, it didn't seem to get much notice, but Michael Wall also died, unexpectedly and quickly from covid. Damn shame. He was a good guy.
I also liked and respected
Michael Wall. I cannot believe H & S has not posted something on his behalf.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 5:10 pm
Just like the post about "music to grind to", the discussion of "self-love" has me both feeling antiquated in how these terms used to be used as well as making me feel juvenile enough to chortle at their archaic meanings.
Its okay to chortle at "What lawyers can learn from [choking their chickens]"
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 5:22 pm
Airline seats.
There is nothing in this world, absolutely nothing, that makes me madder than someone reclining their seat. If I ever commit battery, it will be over a seat reclined. The seat rows are already too close together. I can't put my tray down, can't use my laptop and I can see in detail the persons scalp and smell their unwashed hair. I begin to daydream about mayhem. I begin to wonder if should start faking a cough and blow onto their hair. Crossing my legs results in bumping the seat that is reclined because the seat rows are so close. So, I purposely start crossing and re-crossing my legs every 5 minutes. It's hell. I hate it. Don't recline you seat.
If I plan to work, I fly business or first class. If not, I deal with it. It is not the airline's or passenger's fault that governmental regulations and taxes force airlines to pack passengers like sardines.
4:38 That's just nonsense. There is no federal law or regulation forcing airlines to pack people into their seats. There is also no tax issue. Go look how much taxpayers have spent propping up and bailing out the airlines since 9-11. And don't be under any delusions here – that money went into exec's and shareholder's pockets. They make plenty of money. It is 100% the airlines' fault that we are crammed into airplanes without enough room to even move our legs.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 5:22 pm
Re the 'Wrongful death' case. The woman came into the store to shoplift, she was approached by an employee and the woman ran out of the store. The pepper spray was sprayed at the back of her head as she fled, so it wasn't the cause of her fleeing. She was running from someone catching her stealing and she ran into the street to get away from someone who wasn't even chasing her. Jeez. This seems like a "settle for defense cost" type of case.
Wow. And they named the driver of the car who hit her in the middle of the friggin intersection? Could you imagine accidentally killing someone even if you were completely in the right and had a green light at a busy intersection only to hit a fleeing shoplifter only to then get sued on top of that?
20. At all times relevant hereto, particularly on or about April 4, 2020, Plaintiff decedent was attempting to flee her attacker at Defendants’ premises by crossing Flamingo Rd. at the Koval Ln. intersection.
21. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant HELDACK, who was operating a Dodge Van on Flamingo Rd, failed to keep a proper lookout and struck Plaintiff decedent ALANNA with the Dodge Van
Ladah has a duty to pursue all claims. If the driver was on his/her cell at the time, or otherwise distracted, or had an opportunity to brake but did not, etc. etc., their could be negligence. Noted that stating a claim and proof of the claim are different, something that some lawyers sometimes forget.
I love that everyone takes the RJ (of all places) and a police report as the gospel of what happened. I have had plenty of injury cases that were dead bang losers and then, miraculously, a critical fact changes and suddenly the script totally flips. I suspect that it is not as simple as everyone is making it out to be and that the RJ is just looking for clicks (as always).
She shoplifted and ran away from security. She bears 100% responsibility for what happened.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 5:27 pm
Earlier this week, I was in court and saw that an attorney I admire for many reasons, including diligence, got a filing in quite late, a couple of days before the hearing. This is a good attorney, someone I really respect and admire. It makes me think that the past year has been pretty rough on everyone staying on top of things, etc. We need to be diligent, but we also need to be forgiving of ourselves and others.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 5:48 pm
Wtf, attorneys dropping like flys. So sad. RIP to both attorneys
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 5:49 pm
Flies
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 8:06 pm
I asked a few colleagues(who were either Boyd graduates or otherwise had some level of connection with the school) if Boyd deserves and merits the mockery it often receives on tis blog, as well as many other places.
Specifically, I asked if the professors and curriculum was seriously lacking.
The responses were that the professors, and curriculum, were not necessarily per se bad from a purely legal academic standpoint.
They said the problem was that it is as if not one of the professors has even spent one day in their life actually practicing law. They said the lack of practicality, relevancy and proportionately by the professors was truly
shocking. And it is true that if someone in the legal profession has those characteristics, they usually have little or no practical experience as a practitioner.
It was particularly interesting that this harsh criticism came from people who either attended there, or have some level of connection with the school(such as being a former adjunct lecturer).
But in fairness to Boyd. this issue(the professors tending to have very little practical experience in the practice of law) seems to be a problem in many law schools(if not most).
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 8:43 pm
1:06–this dynamic–most professors in most law schools having very little practical legal experience–is not just something that randomly evolved.
It is by active, aggressive design. I firmly believe that when hiring professors, all they care about is academic reputation and commendations. I am convinced that they have actual contempt for applicants who have years of sterling practice, but little or no previous involvement in the highly, insulated, ivory tower world of legal academia.
For example, if a Criminal Law professor needs to be a hired, a law school will rarely hire some legendary, local Criminal defense attorney. They will instead hire someone who published a couple articles in academic journals that virtually no one reads.
The best the legendary criminal defense lawyer could hope for is a shot at a one off adjunct–teaching one class. But he/she will never(or, very rarely) be hired on full time as a professor.
And I'm talking about all law schools. Simply put, I believe that well in excess of 90% of law professors have less than a decade of actual practice. In fact, if you averaged all law professors together, you might find that the average number of years as a practitioner was only two or three years(if that).
Obviously, if medical schools operated that way, things would be an unbelievable disaster.
Generally, medical professors teaching in various areas of surgery, have years of exceptional experience in that surgical area they teach in.
But it seems totally acceptable, in law schools, for Civ. Pro. professors, Evidence professors, and professors teaching various forms of Trial Advocacy, to have never conducted a trial in their life.
contempt for applicants who have years of sterling practice is a bit of a reach bruh. It's pretty simple. U.S. News & World Report has no idea who that local "sterling" professional is and instead ranks the strength of the faculty on their published articles. It's a stupid system, but it is the system. Law schools are then forced to play the game.
Not necessarily. As I recall, one school refused to provide US News with any information. Other schools should follow the example.
The ratings are skewed and seem to me to be based on easily fudged statistical numbers, such as the number of grads who have jobs (ex: working as document reviewer for $15/hr. or associate at Big Law). I agree that a published professor looks better on paper for US News but does not reflect the quality of instruction. We all have seen a full professor who teaches only one class and is otherwise unavailable to students.
And it's easy to say law schools "should" follow whatever school you say did that, but you're kidding yourself if you think that wouldn't affect the caliber of applicant you're going to get.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 9:04 pm
1:06, 1:43–Reminds me of, a few years back, when there was someone advanced to the US Senate for Approval as a Federal Judge(and I'm not picking on either party as both major parties are guilty of this type of situation).
This was a similar dynamic to what is being discussed here, but the stakes were much higher as this was not a situation where this individual was being considered for a professor position, but was actually being considered for federal judgeship.
In a real glaring example of how politics and connections are far more important than experience, we learned that this prospective federal judicial appointee: has never conducted a trial in Federal or State Court, has never argued a motion in Federal or State Court, had never assisted with a trial or ever conducted any witness testimony, had never conducted a deposition, had no idea what a motion in limine is, could not at all explain what abstention means in the Federal vs. State scenario, etc.
It was really brutal. It's on you tube.
Although that was a particularly dramatic example of the dynamic being discussed here, we have even seen presidents of both parties offering prospective Supreme Court nominees who seem to have very little meaningful experience.
The debate always centers around the attitudes and past behavior of the prospective appointee, and whether they are far too conservative, or far too liberal, way too religious, not religious enough, or a whole myriad of other concerns.
But seldom does anyone emphasize the real obvious, and critically important dynamic in operation–the person has served for years as a figure head director after receiving a plum assignment to lead some agency, until finally receiving a judicial appointment just seven months prior to being considered for the US Supreme Court
So, what you wind up with is someone who served a government bureaucrat for decades, then only served as a judge for those last seven months, and now has an opportunity to become a US Supreme Court Justice.
The dean of my law school (who I did intellectually adored and admired) was one of the reporters of one of the Restatements, was incredibly intelligent, thoughtful and witty in the law. At the risk of giving away who I am, he ended up being Chancellor of the entire university.
He had a contractor cause a leak in his home, and he had to hire one of the local law firms, a law firm I had to be clerking for at the time. He had no idea how to handle the case, had never passed a Bar Exam (became a teaching fellow and then joined the faculty of the law school 1 year out of law school) and needed practical assistance when he had an IRL legal issue.
10:39 AM, I am fairly certain we went to the same law school, although at different times 10:39 AM. Is the first letter of the Dean/Chancellor at issue H?
2:34 here. Ha! I am proud of myself for correctly identifying him. He taught my 1L torts class while he was Chancellor. He was a very engaging teacher. Though there are quite a few of us in town, I know pretty much all of us and I am sure we have met IRL.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 10:55 pm
Roger Wirth was an incredible attorney and I was lucky to have him as a mentor for as long as I did.
Guest
Anonymous
August 22, 2021 2:31 am
I was in house counsel for a company. We hired H & S to represent a plaintiff in one big case. The only thing that impressed me was how they could consistently and unapologetically bill for doing absolutely nothing to advance plaintiff's case
The H & S special. I have had a couple clients who started over there, paid a fortune and had nothing to show for it. I had one client who had a simple issue that very likely could have been solved informally. Years later and after spending tens of thousands, they will likely end up having to pay out of pocket to get out of the thing because his attorney over there blew everything so far out of proportion. Pretty unethical IMO.
Guest
Anonymous
August 23, 2021 5:44 pm
@4:23 – isn't that how the whole thing started anyways?
Surprised no one has commented about local heroes The Killers' new album, which is about Brandon Flowers's childhood in western Utah. It's great. Probably my favorite of theirs; very Tunnel of Love-era Springsteen.
They were too busy waxing poetic over Com Truise and his ilk.
Don't know if the blog covered this already, it didn't seem to get much notice, but Michael Wall also died, unexpectedly and quickly from covid. Damn shame. He was a good guy.
https://www.larkinmortuary.com/obituary/view/michael-keith-wall-43
I was a baby lawyer when I worked with Mike. He was amazing and will be sorely missed. My condolences to his family <3
Really tragic. Didn't know him very well but he was an excellent lawyer.
Thanks for posting. I am so sad to hear of Mike's passing.
Is it weird H&S website doesn't have an in memoriam for Mike Wall? He was an instrumental part of the firm's identity for a very long time.
I also liked and respected
Michael Wall. I cannot believe H & S has not posted something on his behalf.
Just like the post about "music to grind to", the discussion of "self-love" has me both feeling antiquated in how these terms used to be used as well as making me feel juvenile enough to chortle at their archaic meanings.
Its okay to chortle at "What lawyers can learn from [choking their chickens]"
Airline seats.
There is nothing in this world, absolutely nothing, that makes me madder than someone reclining their seat. If I ever commit battery, it will be over a seat reclined. The seat rows are already too close together. I can't put my tray down, can't use my laptop and I can see in detail the persons scalp and smell their unwashed hair. I begin to daydream about mayhem. I begin to wonder if should start faking a cough and blow onto their hair. Crossing my legs results in bumping the seat that is reclined because the seat rows are so close. So, I purposely start crossing and re-crossing my legs every 5 minutes. It's hell. I hate it. Don't recline you seat.
Amen to that.
If I plan to work, I fly business or first class. If not, I deal with it. It is not the airline's or passenger's fault that governmental regulations and taxes force airlines to pack passengers like sardines.
4:38 That's just nonsense. There is no federal law or regulation forcing airlines to pack people into their seats. There is also no tax issue. Go look how much taxpayers have spent propping up and bailing out the airlines since 9-11. And don't be under any delusions here – that money went into exec's and shareholder's pockets. They make plenty of money. It is 100% the airlines' fault that we are crammed into airplanes without enough room to even move our legs.
Re the 'Wrongful death' case. The woman came into the store to shoplift, she was approached by an employee and the woman ran out of the store. The pepper spray was sprayed at the back of her head as she fled, so it wasn't the cause of her fleeing. She was running from someone catching her stealing and she ran into the street to get away from someone who wasn't even chasing her. Jeez. This seems like a "settle for defense cost" type of case.
Wow. And they named the driver of the car who hit her in the middle of the friggin intersection? Could you imagine accidentally killing someone even if you were completely in the right and had a green light at a busy intersection only to hit a fleeing shoplifter only to then get sued on top of that?
They should countersue the estate for property damage.
Who represents the dead shoplifter's estate? That's some shameful nonsense.
Ramzy Ladah filed the Complaint
20. At all times relevant hereto, particularly on or about April 4, 2020, Plaintiff decedent was attempting to flee her attacker at Defendants’ premises by crossing Flamingo Rd. at the Koval Ln. intersection.
21. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant HELDACK, who was operating a Dodge Van on Flamingo Rd, failed to keep a proper lookout and struck Plaintiff decedent ALANNA with the Dodge Van
Everyone knows the reasonable person standard of "Watching out for fleeing criminals while you have the right of way"
2Pac was fatally shot at Flamingo and Koval way back in the day.
When police asked Tupac who shot him, Tupac said, "Fuck you!"
Ladah has a duty to pursue all claims. If the driver was on his/her cell at the time, or otherwise distracted, or had an opportunity to brake but did not, etc. etc., their could be negligence. Noted that stating a claim and proof of the claim are different, something that some lawyers sometimes forget.
I love that everyone takes the RJ (of all places) and a police report as the gospel of what happened. I have had plenty of injury cases that were dead bang losers and then, miraculously, a critical fact changes and suddenly the script totally flips. I suspect that it is not as simple as everyone is making it out to be and that the RJ is just looking for clicks (as always).
She shoplifted and ran away from security. She bears 100% responsibility for what happened.
Earlier this week, I was in court and saw that an attorney I admire for many reasons, including diligence, got a filing in quite late, a couple of days before the hearing. This is a good attorney, someone I really respect and admire. It makes me think that the past year has been pretty rough on everyone staying on top of things, etc. We need to be diligent, but we also need to be forgiving of ourselves and others.
Wtf, attorneys dropping like flys. So sad. RIP to both attorneys
Flies
I asked a few colleagues(who were either Boyd graduates or otherwise had some level of connection with the school) if Boyd deserves and merits the mockery it often receives on tis blog, as well as many other places.
Specifically, I asked if the professors and curriculum was seriously lacking.
The responses were that the professors, and curriculum, were not necessarily per se bad from a purely legal academic standpoint.
They said the problem was that it is as if not one of the professors has even spent one day in their life actually practicing law. They said the lack of practicality, relevancy and proportionately by the professors was truly
shocking. And it is true that if someone in the legal profession has those characteristics, they usually have little or no practical experience as a practitioner.
It was particularly interesting that this harsh criticism came from people who either attended there, or have some level of connection with the school(such as being a former adjunct lecturer).
But in fairness to Boyd. this issue(the professors tending to have very little practical experience in the practice of law) seems to be a problem in many law schools(if not most).
1:06–this dynamic–most professors in most law schools having very little practical legal experience–is not just something that randomly evolved.
It is by active, aggressive design. I firmly believe that when hiring professors, all they care about is academic reputation and commendations. I am convinced that they have actual contempt for applicants who have years of sterling practice, but little or no previous involvement in the highly, insulated, ivory tower world of legal academia.
For example, if a Criminal Law professor needs to be a hired, a law school will rarely hire some legendary, local Criminal defense attorney. They will instead hire someone who published a couple articles in academic journals that virtually no one reads.
The best the legendary criminal defense lawyer could hope for is a shot at a one off adjunct–teaching one class. But he/she will never(or, very rarely) be hired on full time as a professor.
And I'm talking about all law schools. Simply put, I believe that well in excess of 90% of law professors have less than a decade of actual practice. In fact, if you averaged all law professors together, you might find that the average number of years as a practitioner was only two or three years(if that).
Obviously, if medical schools operated that way, things would be an unbelievable disaster.
Generally, medical professors teaching in various areas of surgery, have years of exceptional experience in that surgical area they teach in.
But it seems totally acceptable, in law schools, for Civ. Pro. professors, Evidence professors, and professors teaching various forms of Trial Advocacy, to have never conducted a trial in their life.
contempt for applicants who have years of sterling practice is a bit of a reach bruh. It's pretty simple. U.S. News & World Report has no idea who that local "sterling" professional is and instead ranks the strength of the faculty on their published articles. It's a stupid system, but it is the system. Law schools are then forced to play the game.
Not necessarily. As I recall, one school refused to provide US News with any information. Other schools should follow the example.
The ratings are skewed and seem to me to be based on easily fudged statistical numbers, such as the number of grads who have jobs (ex: working as document reviewer for $15/hr. or associate at Big Law). I agree that a published professor looks better on paper for US News but does not reflect the quality of instruction. We all have seen a full professor who teaches only one class and is otherwise unavailable to students.
What law school was that?
And it's easy to say law schools "should" follow whatever school you say did that, but you're kidding yourself if you think that wouldn't affect the caliber of applicant you're going to get.
1:06, 1:43–Reminds me of, a few years back, when there was someone advanced to the US Senate for Approval as a Federal Judge(and I'm not picking on either party as both major parties are guilty of this type of situation).
This was a similar dynamic to what is being discussed here, but the stakes were much higher as this was not a situation where this individual was being considered for a professor position, but was actually being considered for federal judgeship.
In a real glaring example of how politics and connections are far more important than experience, we learned that this prospective federal judicial appointee: has never conducted a trial in Federal or State Court, has never argued a motion in Federal or State Court, had never assisted with a trial or ever conducted any witness testimony, had never conducted a deposition, had no idea what a motion in limine is, could not at all explain what abstention means in the Federal vs. State scenario, etc.
It was really brutal. It's on you tube.
Although that was a particularly dramatic example of the dynamic being discussed here, we have even seen presidents of both parties offering prospective Supreme Court nominees who seem to have very little meaningful experience.
The debate always centers around the attitudes and past behavior of the prospective appointee, and whether they are far too conservative, or far too liberal, way too religious, not religious enough, or a whole myriad of other concerns.
But seldom does anyone emphasize the real obvious, and critically important dynamic in operation–the person has served for years as a figure head director after receiving a plum assignment to lead some agency, until finally receiving a judicial appointment just seven months prior to being considered for the US Supreme Court
So, what you wind up with is someone who served a government bureaucrat for decades, then only served as a judge for those last seven months, and now has an opportunity to become a US Supreme Court Justice.
The dean of my law school (who I did intellectually adored and admired) was one of the reporters of one of the Restatements, was incredibly intelligent, thoughtful and witty in the law. At the risk of giving away who I am, he ended up being Chancellor of the entire university.
He had a contractor cause a leak in his home, and he had to hire one of the local law firms, a law firm I had to be clerking for at the time. He had no idea how to handle the case, had never passed a Bar Exam (became a teaching fellow and then joined the faculty of the law school 1 year out of law school) and needed practical assistance when he had an IRL legal issue.
10:39 AM, I am fairly certain we went to the same law school, although at different times 10:39 AM. Is the first letter of the Dean/Chancellor at issue H?
First letter of the first name that is.
@2:34 It is. HP.
2:34 here. Ha! I am proud of myself for correctly identifying him. He taught my 1L torts class while he was Chancellor. He was a very engaging teacher. Though there are quite a few of us in town, I know pretty much all of us and I am sure we have met IRL.
Roger Wirth was an incredible attorney and I was lucky to have him as a mentor for as long as I did.
I was in house counsel for a company. We hired H & S to represent a plaintiff in one big case. The only thing that impressed me was how they could consistently and unapologetically bill for doing absolutely nothing to advance plaintiff's case
I honestly appreciate the fact that H&S is very transparent when they have run out of client money. I wish I was an disciplined as they are.
Maybe, but a client usually appreciates something in exchange for that transparency. Like results.
Mormons robbing Mormons blind . Happens all the time
The H & S special. I have had a couple clients who started over there, paid a fortune and had nothing to show for it. I had one client who had a simple issue that very likely could have been solved informally. Years later and after spending tens of thousands, they will likely end up having to pay out of pocket to get out of the thing because his attorney over there blew everything so far out of proportion. Pretty unethical IMO.
@4:23 – isn't that how the whole thing started anyways?