« Obsidian Wings Poetry Slam #2! | Main | Comfortable Armchairs: II »

July 22, 2004

Comments

Now why didn't you send me that site before I had to finalize my list of judges for clerkships? I only chose two hotties, and one of them was female.

Though if Souter is in 4th place, there wasn't much to be done about it. He's my favorite justice on the current court, but a hottie he's not.

Balkin's also quite good. (At blogging, that is. I don't know what he looks like.)

I am unconvinced by Bainbridge's argument, which seems to amount to saying it would be too expensive to allow the owners of the company (i.e. the shareholders) to actually choose who should be on the board of the company, even when a majority (or a large minority) of those owners have indicated their desire to replace the current board, or at least to vote on alternatives for the current board.

The current system for electing corporate boards resembles nothing so much as an election in a kleptocracy (say, Zaire), where the only way to express any dissent is to withhold your vote. To defend the system on the ground that it would cost too much to hold actual elections every time a majority of the shareholders wanted to do so is an implicit admission that the system is non-functional, if not corrupt.

OTOH, I share your views on A3G (especially the part about visiting but not wanting to admit it).

Another good law clerk blog is Legal Fiction --

http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_lawandpolitics_archive.html#108990226739253348

Von,

I blogged about an eloquent defense of trial lawyers by a Republican conservative trial lawyer (who also happens to represent Jeb Bush) here. Some excerpts from his defense:

And if the rap on Edwards is that he is the friend of personal-injury trial lawyers, where does this leave the RNC? Is the RNC the friend of the drunk driver -- sued by the trial lawyer -- who blew the stop sign and caused a young mother to be a quadriplegic? Is it the friend of the car company -- again, sued by the trial lawyer -- that consciously decided not to fix its defective gas tanks, which, upon impact, were causing its vehicles occupants to be incinerated?

My own favorite comment:

After all, trial lawyers were the first persons called by Bush and Cheney in 2000, when Republicans feared that the election was about to be stolen. It is because of the successful efforts of those trial lawyers that Bush and Cheney are now up for reelection.

Now why didn't you send me that site before I had to finalize my list of judges for clerkships?

Sorry, Katherine. I wasn't thinking. (If you don't end up with a Superhottie, here's hopin' you get at least Hottie.)


I blogged about an eloquent defense of trial lawyers by a Republican conservative trial lawyer (who also happens to represent Jeb Bush) here.

Excellent. Calling for tort reform is fine (heck, I'm in favor of it). These mindless attacks on "trial lawyers" by those who should know better, however, are depressing.

Von: About your two categories of plaintiffs' lawyers: I represent the "little guy" (category 2), but I have also filed a number of class actions in my career (category 1). Even though I consider myself a very knowledgeable class action lawyer, however, I definitely don't "travel around the country filing silly lawsuits in a virtual extortion gig." Don't you think you're engaging in the same sort of mindless generalizing that you criticize in Prof. Bainbridge?

By the way, I disagree with you that the term "trial lawyer" is imprecise. It's actually quite precise: it's a lawyer who does trial work, whether for the plaintiff or the defense. The problem is that people like Prof. Bainbridge misuse the word, and you can't really blame them, since the plaintiffs' lawyers like me adopted the term "trial lawyer" in naming their group ATLA--The Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

Still, I share your frustration with the way the precise term is used imprecisely, and have written about it a lot on my weblog.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad