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. 

Plaintiff's Lawyers Fight Uphill Battles--the Only Way to Fight

As a lawyer, my two greatest pleasures are: 1) Fighting hard for my clients. They are real people who inspire me. 2) Fighting back for my clients against other people, insurance companies, former employers, the government, and whoever else goes after them. My clients deserve someone who will fight hard for them, which is what I try to do.

If I am guilty of one thing as a lawyer (and as a person), it is that I do not tolerate jerks (Normally, I'd say assholes, but this is LinkedIn, which requires more decorum). Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am usually kind, courteous, and polite. I learned to have good manners and be respectful to people. I am. When others are nice. Even when they are not nice, I am sill nice. Usually.

However, when people are mean just to be mean. Lawyers, business people, politicians, or anyone else. Then, I hit back. And I hit hard. 

And I have a long memory. This means I am constantly in search of rectifying what I think is wrong. 

It isn't easy. But it is worth it.

Standing up for others and for yourself requires risk. But most things do. Most things worth doing expose us to risk. 

Plaintiff's lawyers must not be afraid to offend people or upset them. We are at a disadvantage. We are fighting against corporations with limitless funds, who do not see our clients as real people. They dehumanize and disparage our clients when they choose to fight back. And they have lobbied for decades to poison the well against winning in court. 

It's called "tort reform," and it worked. Unfortunately. Why has it worked? Money. Lobbyists. Pitting real people against each other and laughing at them. Laughing to the bank.

Wolves in sheep's clothing. Insurance companies and other corporations have all the money. They are the bullies because they can be. And they want to keep their money. They certainly don't want our clients to have it. Especially when our clients deserve it.

What is the best way to describe corporate America when it comes to how they treat our clients--the real people in America? It's pretty simple. JERKS.

Like I said, I don't like jerks. I'm mean back to jerks. That's who I am. I'm just glad I've found a profession that allows me to be who I am while fighting hard for my clients. 

My clients deserve the best. And I will do all I can to give it to them.

Legal Sharks: Data Breach Class Action Lawsuits Make the Lawyers (on both sides) Lots of Money and do Little for the Clients

Data breach class actions are a racket. California is the epicenter of this plaintiff's legal fee bonanza. The passage and subsequent amendment to the CCPA fueled this legal juggernaut. While the CCPA does provide greater protection for victims of data breaches, in reality it means consumer victims of data breaches really only get at most $750 while the lawyers make hundreds of thousands if not millions in fees. 

The way it works is enterprising plaintiffs' lawyers scour the internet daily searching for data breaches where consumer personally identifiable information (PII) is compromised. In the health care context, it is know as protected health information (PHI)  Note: a favorite website of lawyers is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) where massive health care breaches are announced as required by law, often months after they occur giving the victims little chance to mitigate their damages. 

If the breach is big enough and affects a California consumer, then the law firm drafts a blog post to their website and purchases advertising. They try and reel in a plaintiff. Once they have one they information is plugged into a canned complaint, and they file the lawsuit in federal court--hoping to be the first firm to file. Almost all of these firms are in California, which is a litigation paradise for this legal cottage industry.

If you are the first law firm to file, then you get to be lead counsel, which means--if the case isn't dismissed--you will make more in fees than the other circling shark lawyers. Many of these settlements are in the millions, and law firms take between 33% and 40%. Or the case is up to those percentages, but the billable time for several hundred hours is billed out between $700 to $1000 per hour. When I handled these cases, my time was around $700 per hour. 

On one case I billed 76 hours. $53,200 in fees. You can see how lucrative it can get just on billables. If it is based on percentages, then it came be in the millions. And most of the time you don't even need to take depositions or barely even conduct depositions. It is largely complaint (the lawsuit) and brief driven. If you make it past a low level motion to dismiss, then the case will almost certainly settle for a ton of money.

God forbid these lawyers ever had to go to trial. They wouldn't know what the hell to do. 

Oh...and there are mediations that take place where the pie is carved up. And the mediator (there aren't many who do it) charges between $11,000 and $15,000 for a one-day mediation. I shit you not. This is all while the defense lawyers, who have billed as many hours if not more than the plaintiff's attorneys, are billed out at $800 or $1000 per hour. 

But, hey, the class members get maybe $750? Does this sound like justice to you? Don't tell the plaintiffs' lawyers that because they all talk about "justice," which is a total crock of shit. 

In my opinion, many of the plaintiffs' lawyers who do these cases are no better than ambulance chasers and so-called Walmart lawyers. I don't do these cases anymore, and I've had time to think about it. I regret ever doing them, quite frankly. Perhaps in time I will wash the slime off of my body from this sleazy nature of these cases. But it will take a while. 

Lawyer doodles