Lawyers must use themes in Social Security disability cases

 

In North Carolina (and every other state), insurance companies what to screw you when you have a car wreck claim

 

Technology won't save us, but it can help us (think automation)

Technology cannot solve all our problems. I say that frequently because it's true. Technology provides wonderful tools to enhance what we are already doing by making us more efficient. It makes things faster. Rather, the things that are laborious and do not involve higher level thinking are perfect to be influenced by technology, specifically, automation. But what is automation?

Automation is "the use of machines or technology to perform simple human tasks without much human intervention."  Where we will see the benefits the most are in AI. Think fillable forms. You gather necessary information and have it populated in routine forms. 

Automation isn't new. Some of the greatest technological breakthroughs have been seemingly simple improvements such as the assembly line invented by Henry Ford. Ford installed it on December 1, 1913. It allowed for the mass production of automobiles. As a result, people all over America bought cars. Eventually the interstate highway system grew up after World War II. And now we can't imagine life without driving.

Automation through AI will be similar because it will allow us to process work faster especially in the legal field (personal injury,  M&A, workers comp, VA, Social Security disability, and wills and estates are all examples of practice areas that will benefit). We already see its benefits with forms that auto-populate, faster online systems, and self-guided systems. 

The downside for the American labor market is it could in theory take away jobs. Arguably, it will create jobs, too. Ultimately, I think it will benefit us by creating more opportunities and careers we haven't even imagined yet. 

It's nothing to be afraid of like some Twilight Zone episode.

But technology won't think for us. Rather, it shouldn't. We should still think for ourselves. In this way, technology won't solve all our problems. But it can greatly benefit it. Those who learn to use technology such as automation to enhancer their productivity will be the ones who do well in modern day America--especially in the legal field. 

People were so offended by the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics

 

Never Trust a Male Lawyer who Dyes his Hair

 

Kamala Harris will defeat Trump and his Project 2025

Trump is weird

 

Trump Vance Campaign Crushed by Couch and Dolphin Memes

Memes are a part of our culture now. Some have become so iconic that they are now part of the cultural zeitgeist. Think "distracted boyfriend" from 2015. Then there's "change my mind" and "Drake." Now JD Vance, Trump's pick for VP, has supplied "JD Vance had sex with couch" and "dolphin porn." Look, JD Vance is supposed to be a smart person. Supposed to be. But he's an idiot when it comes to politics, and he's going to keep stepping in it. I'm enjoying it, though, and I think we will see more classic memes about Vance.

Does the SCOTUS opinion in Trump v. United States mean electronic evidence that is a so-called "private record" of the President or his advisors is inadmissible at trial??

Yesterday the Supreme Court laid waste to the Constitution when it ruled the President has absolute immunity for official acts and the presumption of immunity for unofficial acts. And "private records" of the President or his advisors as to any potentially illegal unofficial acts is not admissible at trial. In other words, this preemptively excludes oral statements, electronic data, and documentary data. What this appears to mean is phone evidence or any other electronic data tied to the President or his advisors cannot be admitted. Ever. It makes it almost impossible to prove the President did anything illegal, and it means the President has, essentially, absolute immunity. This is not hyperbole. 

Impeachment is now virtually impossible. Even if it were possible, conviction would be impossible. It circumvents the Constitution and strips the impeachment power held by Congress. 

With respect to evidence, the Supreme Court said, "Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32." I don't know how the Supreme Court reached this conclusion. 

So, electronic data may matter to the rest of us. But it doesn't matter to the President or his advisors as he or she commits crimes. 

The rule of law is dead. 

Lawyer Doddle—thoughts on class action lawyers (data breach)

Collect your $50 while lawyers make millions. 

Should judges post on social media?

No one wants a judge who is a partisan hack. I read The Appeal by John Grisham, which painted an unflattering portrait of the way appellate judges are selected and how they decide. It makes you think about what you want in a judge. The question I wonder about is: what should judges post on social media? Or should they post anything at all?

 

Judges are people. Although black robes are meant to convey majesty, that is more about the court and the power of the court as an institution. The judge an agent of that institution and the embodiment of it.

Some states elect their judges. Some states appoint their judges. In North Carolina, we elect judges. It used to be non-partisan, which was a little silly. You knew where everyone stood, but it allowed judges to have at least a little removal from politics. Not anymore.

The North Carolina General Assembly made the elections partisan after about two decades of not listing the judge’s party. This raises all kinds of questions about judges who hold certain political philosophies and how they might rule.

For example, many Republican judges come from the DA’s office. Do you want a judge who worked for the DA’s office if you are a criminal defense lawyer? Probably not. I suppose it depends on the judge. Conversely, if you are a victim of crime, do you want a judge who was a long-time criminal defense lawyer and a Democrat?

And what if you are a plaintiff’s attorney in a personal injury lawsuit, and your case goes in front of a Republican judge who worked in insurance defense his or her whole career? You may not want this judge.

The two-party divide has always existed, so, in theory, this problem has always been present. You simply learned how judges leaned and you “judge shopped” accordingly.

Lately I’ve noticed judges showing up in pictures on social media at political events for North Carolina Court of Appeals and North Carolina Supreme Court candidates and incumbents. In theory, these appellate courts could rule on opinions written by the judges attending their events and contributing to their campaigns.

It raises the question: is it proper for a judge to appear on social media in these kinds of pictures? What about appearing in pictures with candidates for various offices? Or pictures with children of major politicians? For example, what if your judge appeared with Donald Trump, Jr. in a picture at a political event? How would you feel about that judge? I suppose it depends on how you want the judge to rule, doesn’t it? If you were a Democrat, not so good. How would you feel if your judge appeared with Hunter Biden? If you were a Republican, not so good.

I don’t have the answers, but I do believe:

1. Judges should keep their social media to a minimum and keep their points of view offline. I suppose the counter argument for that is it is better to see how they really think and vote accordingly;

2. Judges should not be photographed with appellate judges who may rule on their cases;

3. Judges should not voice hyper-partisan opinions online; and

4. Judges should not voice strong opinions online about issues that may give people pause as to the judge’s judgment, for lack of a better word.

One thing that troubles me is how so many judges are drawn from the DA’s office. How is a judge who comes from the DA’s office qualified to hear anything but criminal cases? Wouldn’t you want a judge who understood criminal law and civil law? Those are questions for another day.

I’m not sure what judges should do about social media, but I do believe they should at least appear to not be a partisan hack. Right now, some try harder than others. 

But it raises the question: if judges conduct themselves as political animals, can you go after them like any other political candidate? I think you can. And you should.