While the significance of Brown v. Board of Education cannot be overstated, a lesser-known predecessor from thirty years prior deserves some attention
People would be better off realizing how often a Supreme Court decision rests on a legal technicality or procedural element, as opposed to the merits of a particular position.
It’s time for Wednesday Writs ft recent history of the Commerce Clause, which is much more important than it sounds, RGP eulogizing JPS, terrible lawyers giving terrible advice, the Angry Bagel Guy, a “Serial” update and more.
Oh, that’s right, legal fans, the amateurs are in charge now with Em off on Vacation. And it might be a bit bumpier for you esteemed members of the bar than usual.
Wednesday Writs are back with the Scopes Monkey Trial, SCOTUS updates, dumb lawyers and dumber criminals.
This week’s round up includes the assassination of President Garfield, sex discrimination at Jones Day, lawyers behaving (very) badly, dumb criminals and more
Imagine finding yourself accused of #metoo allegations or worse and being unable to find a lawyer to take your case because of public opinion.
Your Wednesday Writs for 11/21 with links to legal and law stories such as case of the week, bad lawyers, dumb crooks, and Missouri laws on drastic measures to deal with runaway bulls.
The thing worse than incompetence. A look at McCoy v. Louisiana.
Burt Likko fills in for Will Truman for this week’s aggregation of dozens of links to themed web randomness!
Renting a high-quality video camera setup and hiring a guy to operate it must be substantially more expensive than I would have first assumed.
So, that Stephen Glass guy. Tried to become a lawyer. Whatever happened to him?
By chance, sometimes the U.S. News and World Report rankings provide actual insight validated by empirical evidence. This is one of those times.
Now, before you get all in a huff about the California Supreme Court admitting an undocumented alien to practice law, at least read Burt Likko’s digest of the ruling.
A few thoughts on recovering one’s reputation for good moral character from very public past misdeeds. There should both a skeptical eye cast towards those who have been dishonest in the past and room for redemption from mistakes made in the past — but when does the latter overcome the former? Is it enough to have stayed out of trouble?
Will getting that J.D. really pay for itself?