Home › Posts tagged lawyer

lawyer

a refreshing c&d letter

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

That’s “cease and desist” for you non-lawyer types out there. Not often that I use the words “cease and desist” and “refreshing” in the same sentence. But completely appropriate for this story that highlights a trademark infringement cease and desist letter sent out by Jack Daniel’s trademark lawyer that is actually civil and polite.

I think it’s a good illustration that lawyers don’t necessarily need to engage in overbearing, high-handed or brow-beating tactics all the time to protect the interests of their clients. Compare and contrast this, for example, to the approach taken by one Charles Carreon.

Congratulations Christy Susman – I think you’ve earned a lot of fans (and prospective clients). And deservedly so. And who knows, maybe I’ll pick up a bottle of Jack on the way home. It sounds a lot tastier.

More coverage in boingboing, Mashable and The Atlantic.

Tip o’ the fedora to Jeanette Lee.

 

 

 

 

it.can 16th annual conference

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Does IT form a part of your practice area? If so, then you won’t want to miss IT.Can’s Annual Conference, taking place in Montreal this coming October 29-30.

The conference  offers an array of interesting, cutting edge IT, IP and related topics presented by distinguished speakers. The program will be accredited by the Bar of Quebec, British Columbia and New Brunswick for continuing legal education requirements. Registration is available for either one day or both days at a discount. Highly recommended.

For more information, take a look at the brochure (PDF). Or just go register.

wikipedia, legal authority and facts

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

I was in the middle of writing yet another half-finished post (this one on Groupon, in case you were wondering) when I was distracted by a tweet from Barry Sookman on how a court determined that Wikipedia is not a legal authority in US courts, which then pointed to a brief blog entry written by Peter Vogels. In it, he concludes with this statement:

Even though the Smithsonian Institution is now teaming up with Wikipedia that does not validate Wikipedia postings for the Courts. As time moves on Wikipedia may be a reliable source for the Courts, but when is still unpredictable.

which I interpreted as disappointment with the court’s ruling, at least as far as Wikipedia goes. This piqued my interest a bit, so I took at look at the order (PDF – which Mr. Vogels was kind enough to link to in his entry). The operative paragraph was set out in the following footnote in the order:

4The court notes here that defense counsel appears to have cobbled much of his statementof the law governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims by cutting and pasting, without citation, from the Wikipedia web site. Compare Supplemental to Motion for New Trial (DN 199)at 18–19 with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strickland_v._Washington (last visited Feb. 9, 2011).The court reminds counsel that such cutting and pasting, without attribution, is plagiarism. Thecourt also brings to counsel’s attention Rule 8.4 of the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct, which states that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” SCR 3.130(c). See also In re Burghoff, 374 B.R.681 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2007) (holding that counsel’s plagiarism violated identical provision of Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct). Finally, the court reminds counsel that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of legal authority in the United States District Courts.

This, in turn, was a footnote to the following sentence in the order:

The defendant claims that she must be granted a new trial because the representation she received was so deficient as to violate the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.4

I’m not sure the statement of the court above  is necessarily as unfortunate as it sounds. Legal authority is usually used to describe “reporters” – specific publications that publish court decisions. Some are “official”, as in they are approved in some way by the courts, while others, which are still accepted by the courts, are not. These reporters, as far as I am aware, take great care to ensure that decisions are published completely and accurately. They are typically well known by lawyers and judges, so that anyone given a reference to a particular case using a particular citation will be assured that it will be identical, down to the page, of anyone else looking at that citation. For example, R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 will allow any lawyer or judge to look up the case described in a specific reporter.

If I’m interpreting the above correctly, the judge seems to be suggesting that the lawyer in question basically tried to rip-off arguments in another case without acknowledging that they came from another case (or rather the Wikipedia entry for the case) – at least for all of the footnote other than the last sentence.

That last sentence, however, I think speaks only to legal authority in the sense I’ve described above. Or at least I hope it does, because that would be a sensible thing to say – after all, the full text of decisions are not published on Wikipedia but rather summaries which are editable by users. And when it comes to citing past decisions as the basis for coming to a new judicial decision, it is probably important to have some degree of reliability, immutability and consistency for your sources. Or perhaps stated simply, lawyers shouldn’t be providing a link to Wikipedia when they’re citing a case as precedent – they should be citing authoritative reporters.

This should be distinguished, I think, from more general use of Wikipedia by the courts to refer to factual matters, which an article in the New York Times summarized the current perspectives quite well. The article in particular noted a case where a US court had rejected references to Wikipedia:

When a court-appointed special master last year rejected the claim of an Alabama couple that their daughter had suffered seizures after a vaccination, she explained her decision in part by referring to material from articles in Wikipedia, the collaborative online encyclopedia.

The reaction from the court above her, the United States Court of Federal Claims, was direct: the materials “culled from the Internet do not — at least on their face — meet” standards of reliability. The court reversed her decision.

Oddly, to cite the “pervasive, and for our purposes, disturbing series of disclaimers” concerning the site’s accuracy, the same Court of Federal Claims relied on an article called “Researching With Wikipedia” found — where else? — on Wikipedia. (The family has reached a settlement, their lawyer said.)

The article does go on, however, to identify a number of instances where Wikipedia had been accepted by other courts, sometimes for rather important facts, which has been criticized by some:

In a recent letter to The New York Law Journal, Kenneth H. Ryesky, a tax lawyer who teaches at Queens College and Yeshiva University, took exception to the practice, writing that “citation of an inherently unstable source such as Wikipedia can undermine the foundation not only of the judicial opinion in which Wikipedia is cited, but of the future briefs and judicial opinions which in turn use that judicial opinion as authority.”

while others have been less harsh:

For now, Professor Gillers said, Wikipedia is best used for “soft facts” that are not central to the reasoning of a decision. All of which leads to the question, if a fact isn’t central to a judge’s ruling, why include it?

“Because you want your opinion to be readable,” said Professor Gillers. “You want to apply context. Judges will try to set the stage. There are background facts. You don’t have to include them. They are not determinitive. But they help the reader appreciate the context.”

I guess my point in all of the above is that I’d be inclined to agree that Wikipedia shouldn’t be used at all to cite legal authority (assuming of course I’m properly interpreting what the court meant), without of course discounting the desirability of perhaps replacing (or supplementing) the rather antiquated, primarily paper-oriented system of legal authority with more modern, internet-accessible means of publication. Conversely, I would think that references to Wikipedia for factual matters should perhaps be a bit more flexible, and I don’t think this particular order  rules that possibility out.

do lawyers own their pleadings?

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Very interesting (at least to lawyers) post on Slaw about a class action proceeding against Thomson Reuters. In short Thomson has started offering a service where it charges a fee to access a database comprised of pleadings filed by lawyers in court.

Raises a whole number of issues, both in respect of the ownership of the materials themselves and what implied licenses, if any, are being granted by lawyers in filing them with the court, whether to the court, participants in the court and the general public, as well as copyright not necessarily in the materials but the database created by Thomson (which of course in and of itself has value).

Not the first time it’s happened. There was a claim by Milberg Weiss (or at least the threat of a claim) a few years ago. Not sure what happened with it.

don’t repay debt = lose your right to practice law

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

An interesting blurb in reportonbusiness.com. The nub: Lawyer fails to repay student loans. Court revokes his license to practice law. Why?

“there is a clear and rational connection between Santulli’s lack of trustworthiness or reliability in carrying out responsibilities and the likelihood that he will harm a client, obstruct administration of justice or violate the disciplinary rules.”

It seems somewhat counterintuitive to take away a person’s primary means of earning an income to repay the debt as punishment for not repaying it – almost a “lose-lose” solution if you will. In addition, the reasons given seem to be somewhat overreaching. It’s one thing to take away someone’s license to practice if they do harm a client, obstruct administration of justice or violate disciplinary rules, but doing so because there is a “connection” to the “likelihood” that they will do so? Sure, there may possibly be some tenuous connection to failure to pay debt and being less professional to one’s clients. There is also a higher likelihood that he may rob a bank? While they’re at it, why don’t they just throw him in jail for that as well?

I’m certainly not suggesting he shouldn’t repay the debt or that there shouldn’t be sanctions for that. There should be. Seize his assets. Garnish his wages. And so on. There are a whole arsenal of tools available to creditors. But taking away his license to practice. That I don’t get.

Guess I better go pay that credit card off…

web 2.0 & the law

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Another story from  The Register communicating a warning from the EFF about the inherent legal risks of Web 2.0 stuff. The nub:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has given Web 2.0 media sharing start-ups some non-technical advice: run your ideas past a lawyer first to stay on the right side of copyright law.

Can’t argue with that. Continuing on:

“One of the big mistakes I see in this space is failure to engage legal counsel soon enough. Often these involve business issues – like how do you want users and employees to interact on the site,” staff attorney Fred von Lohman said.

The choice of whether to offer buzzy features like mash-ups or to profit from other people’s content on the server may also have a bearing on a company’s legal exposure. “Techies will tell you it [server-side computing] is about efficiencies, the reality is lawyers will tell you to think hard about it,” von Lohman said.

While you might think executives running sites that suck in other people’s content have most at risk, von Lohman pointed out that investors are also in the firing line. He cited EMI and Universal’s decision to drag Bertelsmann through the US courts over its $100m investment in the old Napster, which they claimed helped the P2P site infringe on their works.

So there you have it. Straight from the EFF.

taking the fun out of blogging

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

As a lawyer, I understand the need for policies, procedures, practices, etc. when running a business, managing vendors, employees, etc. Of course. Sure. That’s part of work – both my work and the work of my clients. But when I see an article entitled “Blogging Policies and Best Practices for Lawyers and Law Firms” well, gotta say, my eyes start glazing over.

Not that there’s anything particularly bad or wrong about the article. In fact, it offers some good advice on avoiding “ethical minefields”, creating “powerful marketing tools” and ensuring you realize a good return on your “investment”.

Ugh. To be perfectly honest one of the primary reasons I blog is not to realize a return on investment, or to create a powerful marketing tool, but rather just to offer casual observations (or ruminations) on my work or things related to my work. In other words, its a bit of fun, as compared, for example, to writing a formal research paper, journal article, or a 100 page outsourcing contract. For those types of writing, there are many, many rules, requirements and policies to remember and adhere to, amongst other considerations. And relatively speaking, its not quite as much writing that stuff as it is posting what are ostensibly meandering ramblings about the next new thing. Don’t get me wrong, its certainly interesting and challenging work, but its not the type of thing one typically does to relax.

I guess what I’m getting at is along the same lines as the previous post about making blogging part of someone’s job. Its kind of like saying that its part of your job to chat up your friends at work on a regular basis. Its kind of like saying that there should be internal policies governing who you go to lunch with, and what you talk about over lunch. In other words, to me, it seems to take all the fun out of it. It makes it seem like work. It puts you in the mindset that it is work. And, to be perfectly honest, I think it makes it less interesting, because you’re too worried about the time being put into it. Too worried about whether you’re writing for your “target market”. Too worried about “visualizing and addressing your market”. Too worried on making your blog sound “informal and conversational”. Too worried about this, that and the other thing, none of which have much to do with the subject matter of what you’re writing about.

Of course, this is just my take on blogging and what I hope to achieve (or perhaps rather not to achieve) by doing it.

Wikiality – Part II

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

There was some traffic on the ULC E-Comm Listserv (on which I surreptitiously lurk – and if you don’t know what it is and are interested in e-commerce law, highly recommended) about courts citing Wikipedia with a couple of links to some other stuff, including an article on Slaw as well as an article in the New York Times about the concerns raised by some regarding court decisions citing Wikipedia. Some excerpts and notes to expand on my previous post:

From the con side:

In a recent letter to The New York Law Journal, Kenneth H. Ryesky, a tax lawyer who teaches at Queens College and Yeshiva University, took exception to the practice, writing that “citation of an inherently unstable source such as Wikipedia can undermine the foundation not only of the judicial opinion in which Wikipedia is cited, but of the future briefs and judicial opinions which in turn use that judicial opinion as authority.”

This raises a good point that I didn’t mention in my previous post. I certainly think Wikipedia is fine to note certain things, but I really, definitely, positively, do not think that it should be cited as judicial authority. In my previous article I thought this was so self-evident I didn’t bother mentioning, but the quote above illustrates that it might not be all that clear. Court decisions, as most of you know, are written by judges who take into account the facts and apply the law to the facts of the case, along with other facts and information that may have a bearing on the case. The source of the law includes statutes and of course previously decided cases, which enunciate rules or principles that the court either applies, distinguishes based on the facts as being inapplicable, or, in some cases, overturns (for any number of reasons). Court decisions are not, of course, published on Wikipedia and are not subject to the collective editing process of Wikipedia, nor should they be. Rather, references to Wikipedia in court cases are to provide additional or ancillary context or facts to a case. They do not and should not derogate from principles of law that are set forth in court decisions. But, contrary to what Mr. Ryesky, Esq., indicates above, I don’t think referring to Wikipedia for context or facts will suddenly undermine the foundations of law, since the legal reasoning itself still will and must be based on sources of law, not facts and not context.

Hence the following end to the NTY article:

Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School, saw this as crucial: “The most critical fact is public acceptance, including the litigants,” he said. “A judge should not use Wikipedia when the public is not prepared to accept it as authority.”

For now, Professor Gillers said, Wikipedia is best used for “soft facts” that are not central to the reasoning of a decision. All of which leads to the question, if a fact isn’t central to a judge’s ruling, why include it?

“Because you want your opinion to be readable,” said Professor Gillers. “You want to apply context. Judges will try to set the stage. There are background facts. You don’t have to include them. They are not determinitive. But they help the reader appreciate the context.”

He added, “The higher the court the more you want to do it. Why do judges cite Shakespeare or Kafka?”

Exactly.

The Virtues and Evils of Open Source

Posted on by — No Comments ↓

Yes, I know, I’ve been behind lately. A ton of very interesting things to catch up on. But I’d like to put in one quick note about open source code. I recently came across an article, written last year by a lawyer, generally advising development companies not to use open source. I don’t quite recall where it was (if I did I’d link to it) but I do remember it being quite clear in stating that using open source is A Bad Thing and to avoid it altogether – not just to be careful, but rather to treat it as one would radioactive waste.

With respect, I don’t quite agree. I certainly advise my clients to take a great deal of caution in using open source code, particularly the GPL variety, and very particularly if they have a desire to keep some or all of their own secret, proprietary code secret and proprietary. That being said, I do have many, many clients who have used open source code to great advantage in various ways. Some have simply used existing open source code to avoid reinventing the wheel (and saving on costs), while taking care to keep viral elements out of their proprietary code. Others have been more aggressive with the open source model and have intentionally decided to use open source as the basis for their business model and making their very own code, or parts of it, either open source or subject to a dual-licensing model. As the Red Hats, JBosses, Sleepycats, MySQLs etc. etc. of the world have demonstrated, you can go open source and still have a pretty viable business. And, of course, there are the “old world” companies like IBM who have decided to go open source (in some limited ways – e.g. IBM’s DB2 Express-C thing).

Of course, this is not to suggest that anyone through caution to the wind and just start pulling down stuff from Sourceforge and whacking it into your product. Use of open source definitely requires some planning ahead and consideration of what the business model and value proposition of your business will be. Optimally, enlist the help of a lawyer who’s familiar with open source licenses to discuss what you plan to do and the packages you plan to use. Or, if that’s not feasible, try at least to read the applicable licenses yourself and ensure you comply with them, because if you don’t think that anyone will notice, or that no one will actually sue you, you may want to pay a visit to the GPL Violations Site and reconsider, in addition to the questions that will be asked of you when the due diligence starts on your next round of financing or, even worse, your (aborted) exit event. Can badly managed open source usage (and I emphasize badly managed, not simply open source usage) kill a deal? Definitely.

In short – I don’t think open source is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it can be a pretty good thing, not just in the social good sense and all that, but also as a business. But it need to be used taking into account its terms of use and ensuring that its consistent with the strategy you plan to take.

If perhaps there’s one thing I’d recommend it would be for shops to make absolutely sure they have a disciplined approach in tracking where code comes from and the terms under which its being used and why its being used. That applies not only to open source stuff, but also, for example, your programmers taking neat snippets of code from Dr. Dobbs or something else, or coming across a nice little script somewhere on the Web and saying “Gee, that’s neat, let’s use it in our product”.

Anyway, if I remember where the article was I’ll update this to include a link.