Statute of Frogs

Those of you who read regularly and extremely carefully* may have noticed the debut of a new category here at Statute of Frogs. Entitled “SNOOT,” it deals with the frequent (and frequently amusing) misuse of language that I encounter. The name comes from a David Foster Wallace essay (available in this book) in which he describes it as an acronym for “sprachgefühl necessitates our ongoing tendency.” Those who know me are well aware of my proclivities in this direction, so it seemed worth adding to the menu of bloggable subjects.

* I’m not really sure there’s anyone in this category, but I can pretend.

There are signs in all the elevators here at the courthouse informing us that the windows are being cleaned over the next few weeks. It contains basic information about what to expect, and then concludes:

Please do not be alarmed if you see individual(s) propelling down the sides of the courthouse.

I, for one, think that our friendly window washers* would want us to be concerned if they were being propelled down the side of the building.

* I should note that there is not enough money on Earth to get me to do this job. I get vaguely woozy just watching them from my safe perch inside.

Law schools place a lot of emphasis on legal writing. This makes sense, since most of what lawyers do is written. In general, though, I think people shouldn’t move on to legal writing until they’ve got a basic handle on writing. You know: proper English sentences. Sadly, this doesn’t appear to be a requirement.

Earlier this fall, I received a brief which contained a 10-comma sentence. Unless you’re Marcel Proust, there’s no excuse for that. Today, I got a letter with a sentence of the form “In addition, I have also [done another thing] as well.” How much more redundant could you be?

It’s a travesty, really. But not unusual.

There can’t have been many suits filed on a legal theory so original as this one.  Our plaintiff is incarceted for possession of cocaine base (i.e. crack) with intent to distribute.  He’s sued Arm & Hammer and its parent company because its baking soda product does not provide a warning on the label that cooking the product with cocaine will produce crack, which is not only dangerous, but subjects a user to enhanced penalties.  His proposed warning:  “the use of this product with illegal drugs is punishable by law and is prohibited.”

At least the people who purchased crack from him can rest assured that he was using name brand baking soda rather than the cheap generic.

Following a link from How Appealing, I ended up at a page created by the Botswana Department of Tourism listing the major attractions of Lobatse.  It seems innocuous enough with a picture of the downtown and picture of the High Court building (which is pretty nice, but looks a little like they’re holding court under a bridge).  The last item, though, is the Botswana Meat Commission, which runs the main abattoir for the country and a packing and canning plant.  Is this some strange form of anti-eco-tourism?  I like going to markets in far away places, but, personally, I draw the line at slaughterhouses.

This article begins:

Liberal and progressive Christian groups say a new computer game in which players must either convert or kill non-Christians is the wrong gift to give this holiday season.

I’m down with that.  Not really in the holiday spirit, is it?

Law schools, of course, have every incentive to get their graduates into high-priced, prestigious law firms.  Not only does it make the law schools look more prestigious, but it gives the graduates lots of money they don’t have time to spend and which, so the theory goes, they can donate to their law school.  According to this article at Precedent, Yale Law School is at least honest about the cost of that path.  Their career development office has a handout that helps students figure out what 2200 billable hours really means.  The numbers are pretty scary and students who are on the Biglaw track should at least make an informed choice.

Hat tip:  Above the Law

The danger of linking to your friends’ blogs is that, in a fit of Internet vanity, they’ll find their way back.  It’s happened to me before, and now it’s happened again.  Julie has found me out.  Now I guess I’ll have to be on good behavior.

Apparently, those who have aspirations to the federal judiciary need not only be careful about what they write while in law school, they also have to be careful about what parties they attend. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has placed a hold on the nomination of Judge Janet T. Neff to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Her big faux pas? In 2002 she attended* the Massachusetts commitment ceremony** of a former neighbor to her female partner. As if that weren’t bad enough, Neff was part of a 6-judge compromise package that unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee. Because they were sent to the floor as a package, Brownback’s hold has the effect of halting confirmation proceedings for all six. So if you have your sights set on the federal judiciary, I suggest avoiding any social interactions at all with people the religious right finds personally offensive.

UPDATE:  It appears that at least some of the judges were confirmed on the last day of the lame duck session.

* Not presided, mind you, just attended.

** This was, of course, before same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, so the ceremony had no legal effect. Just imagine Brownback’s conniptions if it had been an actual legal marriage.

Judge Posner is beside himself about the inability of certain lawyers to understand the finer points of diversity jurisdiction.  Sadly, though, ignorance of basic rules of federal jurisdiction known to every 1L appears to be surprisingly common.  I’ve already had two cases that we dismissed because we lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. 

One involved a resident of our state who slipped and fell in a business establishment in a pretty-far-away state.  Her attorney had the diversity thing more or less in hand, but the Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodsen minimum contacts problem seemed beyond her.  Never mind that this is the first topic covered in almost every Civil Procedure class.  The only contact she alleged with our state was the existence of the defendant’s website, which was accessible from here.  Um…no.

So Judge Posner should consider himself lucky that in the rarified air of the Court of Appeals, he’s spared at least some of the most egregious lawyerly failings.