Free Law.Com article, courtesy of Meghann Cuniff:
August 26, 2021
August 24, 2021
August 21, 2021
August 16, 2021
ATL News Roundup: YET ANOTHER New York Times article about Lat
How many times must the NY Times "check in" with David Lat??? Can't they take a week off? HE IS FINE --apart from his failing newsletter, that is.
Though it was revealed that Lat is scared to drive a car and he and his hubby sit directly across from each other at a table all day, when they're "working" at home. He's also totally bored in the suburbs.
In other ATL news, Elie has lost 21 pounds in 8 months (21 down, 500 to go.) He also manages to make the Afghanistan mess all about himself and his experiences in racist America. Plus he spent $100 on tea (?) when his wife wasn't looking.
August 11, 2021
Liberties group lobs 3A law bomb at landlord lockdown
The Third Amendment Lawyers Association (or ÞALA, as it stylishly refers to itself*) has filed an amicus brief in the Alabama Association of Realtors® emergency petition to enforce the Supreme Court's recent order lifting the CDC's eviction moratorium. The amicus argues that the moratorium is illegal because it amounts to an unconstitutional "quartering" of troops on private property.
Plaintiffs seek to recover possession of their properties from tenants who have failed to pay their rent. Ordinarily, the eviction process would play out in the courts. The CDC eviction moratorium prevents this. And, they cannot resort to “self-help”. As a result, Plaintiffs are being forced to house individuals, i.e. quarter them, without their consent. Given the size of the population at issue, some of these tenants are bound to be soldiers. To the extent the CDC moratorium prohibits evicting a soldier, it runs afoul of the Third Amendment. (Citation omitted.)
Although I am sympathetic to the goals of ÞALA, represented by (and perhaps mostly composed of) Jay Wolman and Marc Randazza, even I find the Third Amendment argument a bit of a stretch. Any involvement of a "soldier"-as-tenant in a proscribed eviction action is likely to be coincidental. Still, I can't help but admire ÞALA's creativity. I wish ÞALA the best of luck both in raising awareness of the Third Amendment and possibly expanding its membership.
* Apparently, the "Þ" is called a "thorn" and is a vestige of the Old English alphabet. It is pronounced as a "th-" sound.
August 10, 2021
ABA Journal Counts Coup on Womyn Lawyers
Some may remember the recent Internet shitstorm over the column published by ABA Journal which suggested that womyn lawyers, rather than the evil patriarchy, might be a cause of the non-advancement of womyn in BigLaw. Indeed, Refo Wom'n and the Horrible Ten signed a missive proclaiming the column contrary to "ABA's core values." Twitter and LinkedIn users called for the column to be purged, and for the author and the editor who allowed its publication to be cut loose. A law student named "Lippy" initiated a change.org petition calling upon ABA to "denounce" the column, and some Weiner over at Glawker also complained most bitterly of its offensiveness.
However, despite all the performative virtue-signaling and gnashing of teeth, the column was not removed, and the author and editor were not fired. Lippy's petition ran out of steam and missed its signature target. Refo Wom'n and the Horrible Ten went quietly off to whatever hole they had crawled from, leaving the ABA Journal columnist in possession of the field. The hill was not taken. The village was not saved. The column remained online, continuing to traumatize the womyn of the legal profession.
It wasn't nearly enough. So the ABA Journal staff must have reasoned. They quickly sighted in a follow-up salvo, just to show the trouble-making womyn who's who. This time, it was the magazine cover story, not just some stray ruminations posted by a columnist online. This time, it explained, with citation to scientific support from some academics, that the root of the problem is the submissive complacency of the womyn, and their attitude of "unentitlement." That is, the womyn are getting screwed because they naturally and instinctively accept their role as the ones to be screwed.
https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/how-pandemic-practice-left-lawyer-moms-on-the-verge
I personally emailed a link to the Weiner over at Glawker, pointing out very specifically what the article said, and noting that ABA Journal seemed to be unconvinced by the prior criticisms. Crickets. Nothing. No reaction. Nothing from Lippy either. Nothing from Refo Wom'n or the Horrible Ten.
I can only conclude that the womyn were so exhausted by the failure of their previous effort that they saw a renewed contest as futile, accepting their "unentitlement," and allowing the ABA Journal staff to rub their noses in it.
Bravo. Could we get another log on the fire here? Maybe some bacon or some beans? I'm feeling very peckish this evening.
Florida Court to ABA: "We got Your 'Value Proposition' Right Here"
In a reaction to ABA's attempt to force every CLE presenter to sign up "diverse" panelists, the Florida Supreme Court adopted a rule change that nixes credit for CLE sponsored by organizations that impose such quotas.
Strictly speaking, the ABA moronity, though imbecilic in its own left, did not actually impose "quotas," since a wide range of persons from various groups deemed "marginalized" would satisfy the ABA "diversity" requirement. However, the court did not see it that way, and unlike the slack-jawed yokels in the ABA House of Delegates, the court can make binding rules. This one effectively sends a torpedo through the side of the ABA "value proposition," as all ABA-blessed CLE hatched after the date of the rule change is not going to be recognized for Florida credit.
In a hyperbolic (but likely futile) "comment" on the change, ABA decried the new rule as barring "access" to its valuable CLE. No such thing of course. Whatever number of dues-paying Florida members are still tolerating the ABA, they can access its CLE programs all day every day. Just not for credit.
Perhaps additional states will take note, and follow along with like actions of their own. I am sure ABA can be counted on to stand by its "diversity" requirements to the last dollar of declining dues revenue.
https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/732072/opinion/sc21-284.pdf
ABA Membership Model Failing; Rives Blames Pandemic
If you prefer to skip the shit-talking happy fluff and the labored cicada/butterfly analogies, just go right to the 11:50 time marker to hear the admission that operating dues revenues for fiscal year 2020 are down 9.6% and the number of members is down (again) by 4.4%. Despite the general statistical assertions that senior members and membership groups are more likely to renew, Rives specifically acknowledges group non-renewals were a major cause of the membership loss. Likewise, we can tell from the relationship of the 9.6% and the 4.4% that these weren't newbie members, but senior lawyers stuck with the age-discriminatory, ultra-high dues rates. Note that the decreases are despite the "new members" number Rives claims from their marvelous CLE and the "paywall" that now hides 78% of all their content from the public.
Notably, no mention of the fact that the CLE is worthless is some jurisdictions, with Florida most recently joining that club. Although Rives seeks to blame "the pandemic," what this really looks like is a continuation of the annual decline that was an established pattern in the years prior to the "New Membership Model." That is, all their re-branding shit, and their "value proposition" shit and their paywall and "New Membership Model" shit, is all failing.
Blaming it on the pandemic may help Rives get to the witless fools for another year of salary, but it isn't going to address the continuing death spiral. ABA will get to the point at which denial will not pay the light bill, and then the game will be up.
August 7, 2021
Coverage of Avenatti trial
There is excellent, annotated and detailed coverage of the CA Avenatti wire fraud trial by reporter Meghann Cuniff. Here is day11 (a barn burner) in the thread-roll:
August 1, 2021
Will ScarJo's Disney Case Be Heard in Court or in a Concrete Arbitration Bunker Miles Below the Earth's Surface ?
So here's what I've learned: ScarJo has a direct deal with Marvel but not with Disney. Marvel is a subsidiary of Disney. Since nobody has leaked her contract with Marvel, we dont know if there is an arbitration clause in it, but it seems likely.
ScarJo sued Disney not Marvel, and while the complaint says that Marvel breached her contract, it doesn't assert a breach of contract claim against Marvel.
Instead, the complaint (link below) accuses big meanie Disney, the parent company, of interfering with Marvel’s contract with SJo and forcing Marvel to dump "Black Widow" on Disney's low-rent side-hustle (Disney +) the same day the movie opened in theaters, basically sending SJ to the poorhouse.
So to keep this thing out of arbitration, SJ's lawyers are saying that Disney and Marvel are separate entities capable of interfering with each other’s contracts. Will this work?
I have no idea but a sycophantic article in the Hollywood Reporter said it probably wouldnt.
It's pretty obvious any secret behind-the-scenes negotiations broke down and ScarJo was offered chump change to compensate her for her reduced box-office bonus. There's an email in the complaint from Marvel chief counsel guaranteeing her a "renegotiation" if they changed their release strategy...so if that even happened, it clearly went south.
So her lawyers figured they'd go public and threaten Disney with a court case and the risk of having all their juicy financial info made public.
It's pretty obvious any secret behind-the-scenes negotiations broke down and ScarJo was offered chump change to compensate her for her reduced box-office bonus. There's an email in the complaint from Marvel chief counsel guaranteeing her a "renegotiation" if they changed their release strategy...so if that even happened, it clearly went south.
So her lawyers figured they'd go public and threaten Disney with a court case and the risk of having all their juicy financial info made public.
And also force them into a juicy PR battle which Disney is already losing--ha ha ha--as it's now accused of being anti-woman.
Disney supposedly thought that leaking ScarJo's monster $20M upfront salary during Covid was a genius PR move.
Naturally it immediately backfired and caused her talent agency (for the first time in entertainment history) to actually stick up for a client in public and and accuse Disney of “weapon[izing] her success as an artist and businesswoman.” A bunch of "Women in Film" groups also started yelling at Disney.
Disney said that it did too live up to the agreement. That is, “Black Widow” did get a wide theatrical release, and nowhere in the contract does it say that the release would be (THIS IS KEY WORD--->)exclusive to theaters. It would just be "in" theaters. And maybe some other places too!
Disney said that it did too live up to the agreement. That is, “Black Widow” did get a wide theatrical release, and nowhere in the contract does it say that the release would be (THIS IS KEY WORD--->)exclusive to theaters. It would just be "in" theaters. And maybe some other places too!
Here's the complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21029535-johansson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)