On the Death Knell of Affirmative Action

 As you've probably read (if not, you can do so here), the Supreme Court pretty much ended affirmative action in college admissions today by a 6-3 vote.  Although not a plurality opinion, the long-ass majority opinion by Roberts, comparatively brief concurring opinion by Gorsuch (which I actually found helpful), rambling stream-of-consciousness concurring opinion by Thomas (which reads like what I'd imagine James Joyce would have written had he been in the Federalist Society and on cocaine), lengthy emotional dissent by Kagan, and a heavy-on-results light-on-the-law dissent from Jackson, there's a lot to unpack.

The result isn't a surprise.  What did come as a surprise was the peek behind the curtain into Harvard's admissions.  Applicants are initially scored 1-6 (with 1 being the highest) on 6 categories: academic, extracurricular, athletic, school support, personal, and overall.  The opinion doesn't say but I think it's safe to assume that the majority of the applicants are 17-18 years old.  I guess when you're perceived as the "best" university every applicant who has any chance at admission is going to have near-perfect academic credentials but, JFC, what happened to letting kids enjoy their childhood?  I guess this explains why (with one singular exception), everyone I've ever met who went to Harvard is fucking weird.

John Eastman Disciplinary Trial Viewing Party

Constitutional gremlin John Eastman drew the ire of the California State Bar in connection with his role in the whole overthrowing the election thing.  His disciplinary trial in the State Bar Court is underway in Los Angeles.  

For those of you who would like to watch a tranwreck in the background while you work, the whole affair is available live via Zoom (but is presently in recess as of 1:15 p.m. Pacific): https://calbar.zoom.us/j/97985435232

Feel free to share your live reactions here.

Harry fights back tears telling Brit court "I'm suing to protect Meghan (sniffle)"

 Ah, the things a young man with an inked NetFlix deal in his pocket will do for love ....$29,000,000 in attorneys fees to sue to protect his lady. How sweet! Honey, you sued for me! This calls for a new Hallmark card!

Never mind that when asked for actual evidence of phone hacking by opposing counsel Harry seemed a bit ignorant of the burden of proof replying "You would have to ask the reporters involved".

Such a sad, sweet, tiresome man whose 15 minutes are up.

Live coverage of this train wreck here: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/prince-harry-court-case-latest-live-b2353276.html

Full story: Prince Harry has no proof Mirror Group journalists hacked phone, court told

The lawyer argued that many of the stories Harry claims were obtained through illegal means had already been published in other newspapers.

The prince told the court that he was still “suspicious” about some of these articles, which often quoted anonymous “royal sources” providing surprisingly detailed information. ergo, I was hacked. Amiright?

The suspicion burden of proof. Maybe it will catch on.

Welcome to the “Find Out” Portion of the Program

 Something called a Lewis Brisbois, which I am told is a “mega firm” (in the same sense that Walmart is a premium retailer), decides to deal with defectors who took 100 lawyers to open a “compassionate” law firm, by releasing emails showing … otherwise.  

Tywin Lannister would be proud. 

https://nypost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/nypost.com/2023/06/03/woke-la-firm-routinely-used-vile-language-to-refer-to-women-poc/amp/

Armie Hammer will not face criminal charges; Gloria Allred dumps accuser

 You know an alleged sexual assault victim has credibility problems if Gloria Allred - who never met a microphone she didn't like - dumps her as a client. But that is what happened in the land of Meghan and Harry when prosecutors declined to file rape (or any) charges against actor Armie Hammer.

The law office of Gloria Allred, who organized a news conference for the woman in 2021, said that they no longer represent her and had no comment.

Mr. Hammer faces no charges in connection with the other women’s accusations.

The woman in the Los Angeles investigation, who is in her 20s, had said at an online news conference in March 2021 that Mr. Hammer raped her for more than four hours in Los Angeles on April 24, 2017. She said Mr. Hammer repeatedly slammed her head against a wall, bruising her face, and had beaten her feet with a crop.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/31/arts/armie-hammer-sexual-assault-investigation.html

 

Editors’ Picks

A Journey Across London on the Elizabeth Line

A Week With the Wild Children of the A.I. Boom

Honoring the Body Donors Who Are a Medical Student’s ‘First Patient’

Continue reading the main story

Lawyer uses ChatGPT to draft federal court brief; it does not go well

 “When Avianca asked a Manhattan federal judge to toss out the case, Mr. Mata’s lawyers vehemently objected, submitting a 10-page brief that cited more than half a dozen relevant court decisions. There was Martinez v. Delta Air Lines, Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines and, of course, Varghese v. China Southern Airlines, with its learned discussion of federal law and “the tolling effect of the automatic stay on a statute of limitations.”

There was just one hitch: No one — not the airline’s lawyers, not even the judge himself — could find the decisions or the quotations cited and summarized in the brief.

That was because ChatGPT had invented everything.

Ooops!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/27/nyregion/avianca-airline-lawsuit-chatgpt.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

The mother of all abuse of process

 From https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A164148.PDF:

No doubt due to the scattershot presentation of issues by Kinney, neither party gives us a cogent explanation of the wider context behind the events immediately at issue here. That context is illuminating. [...]

1. The Ferndale Cases Stated generally, the pertinent facts are as follows. Eighteen years ago, Clark had the misfortune of selling a home to Kinney and Kempton in the Silver Lake neighborhood of Los Angeles. (Kinney v. Clark, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 727.) What began as a dispute over a fence and some purported easements led to multiple lawsuits in Los Angeles County Superior Court by Kinney and Kempton against Clark, various Silver Lake neighbors,. [...]

There is no question Kinney was the ringleader in all of this. A Second District Court of Appeal panel observed in 2011 that “[w]ith Kinney at the helm, Kempton has pursued six lawsuits in Los Angeles Superior Court over the last five years. All of the lawsuits relate to real property owned by Kinney and Kempton (the K’s), located on Fernwood Avenue in the Silver Lake neighborhood of Los Angeles . . . . The K’s have continually—and resoundingly—lost their cases in the trial courts. As one trial judge aptly wrote in a statement of decision, Kinney is ‘a relentless bully’ who displays ‘terrifying arrogance’ by filing ‘baseless litigation against the City and its citizens.’ ” (In re Kinney, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 953.) 2. The Federal Litigation and the Vexatious Litigant Orders After suing unsuccessfully in state court, Kinney and Kempton filed a series of equally unmeritorious actions in federal court attempting to relitigate issues they previously lost in state court. As judgment after judgment in these cases went against them, the federal litigation snowballed into a series of actions against Clark’s attorneys3 and various official actors who were involved with the litigation and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings, including the State Bar,4 members of the Second District Court of Appeal panels that rejected the appeals in the Ferndale cases,5 a federal district court judge,6 and every member of the California Supreme Court who voted on denials of review in those cases.7 There were dozens of these satellite federal actions.

The opinion continues in this vein.

Amazing.

CalBar to institute snitch rule

 Via nien clicks nien links:

Lawyers in California may soon be required to report professional misconduct by their peers and colleagues—as do attorneys in every other state. The State Bar of California’s board of trustees on Thursday voted for a new ethics rule mandating that lawyers report fraud, misappropriation of funds and other criminal acts or conduct that reflect adversely on lawyers’ “honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness,” by fellow attorneys.

The board recommended the new so-called “snitch rule” to the California Supreme Court, which has the final say on adoption.

Pass Rate on California's February Bar Exam Dips Below 33% | National Law Journal

 Wait, only 1/3 of bar exam takers passed the dumbed down two day test?

Summer Help Criteria

Open discussion: In hiring summer help—interns, clerks, homeless au pairs, etc.—what are the two or three most important qualities that you or your organization look for in candidates? Please be clear and succinct in your responses. Thank you.