Constitutional Daily

Founding Principles

The Tenure Paradox - Robot pimp

Slap on the Wrist for "Non-Consensual Sex" - Lampshade, Esq.

Intelligence: The Gathering - Graphic and Gratuitous

Grads are the New Illegals - Robot Pimp

Meet Entitlement Eric - Robot Pimp

Wherein I Solve World Peace - Lampshade, Esq.

A Necessary Delusion - Shadow Hand

Do you even need to shave overhead? - Lawyerlite

LSAT Jenga - Publius Picasso

http://www.constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1573:legal-reasoning-redux-5&catid=38:there-and-never-back-again&Itemid=65

Time, Place, and Manner

...Should have some links here or something.

Banner

Constitutional Daily

Terrebonner

E-mail Print PDF

WHEREAS, the Terrebonne Parish Council finds that appearing in public view while exposing one’s skin or undergarments below the waist is contrary to safety, health, peace, and good order of the parish, and the general welfare...

Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana passed an ordinance this week to ban saggy pants in public. Terrebonne Parish, in case you were wondering, is in that little part of Louisiana that’s underneath Mississippi but isn’t New Orleans, and is home to about 111,000 folks.

The ordinance includes no measurements or other type of specification on how low the pants have to be to be inappropriate, how much underwear or skin is enough to incite a ticket, and unfortunately no visual aids as examples of inappropriate clothing. The patent office figured it out, but we’re waiting for every other governmental agency to figure out that visual aids are informative, and fun!

Offenders of this grievous anti-saggy pants ordinance will be fined $50 for the first offense, $100 for the second offense and $100 plus 16 hours of mandatory community service for the third offense. A judge will determine the punishment for any further violations.

The new ordinance it “unlawful for any person to appear in public view or in a public place wearing pants, skirts or other clothing below the waist which expose the skin or undergarments.”

Temporarily disregarding the generally silly nature of the ordinance itself, let’s take a look at the way it’s written. We understand that “expose the skin or undergarments” is intended to mean “expose the skin or undergarments between the waist and the top of the clothing item worn around the waist.” But, that’s not what they said. What they said was “clothing below the waist which exposes the skin.” Sounds to us like you can no longer wear any clothing below the waist except, well, pants. And if you wear pants, don’t you dare wear peeptoe heels! (Or loafers with no socks, thus exposing your ankles, BL1Y.) Skirts, shorts, skorts, capris, and ankle pants all expose some skin below the waist. …Though perhaps some of though ought to be banned.

Do you even have to wear pants? seems to be the obvious follow up question. While the Terrebonne Parish City Code makes nudity and semi nudity in public places illegal, they define nudity to mean “the appearance of a human bare buttock, anus, male genitals, female genitals, or female breast,” and semi nudity just means that you have some kind of opaque clothing covering those areas, but only those areas. So you can’t expose those areas, and you can’t expose everything but those areas. Sounds like the start of a great LSAT logic game, but the way we understand it, you can toss on a shirt and undies, and be just fine because while your skin and underwear is exposed, you’re not wearing pants or anything else below the waist which is doing the said exposing.

We find the whole ordinance rather unnecessary, but the local NAACP chapter wholeheartedly agreed with the ban, declaring, “There is nothing positive about people wearing saggy pants. This is not a black issue, this is not a white issue, this is a people issue.”

While this isn’t the first time a municipality has attempted or enacted an anti-saggy pants ban, this is the first time the local NAACP chapter agreed with it. Not the first time the NAACP has weighed in, mind you. Just the first time they’ve weighed in on the wrong side.

There are really only two reasons for a law like this: you either really want a dress code for your parish because you’re the sort of busy body who needs to control everyone’s life, or you want the police to have a cover for racial profiling and harassment, because you’re the sort of busy body who wants to harass poor black people without going through the effort of pretending to smell marijuana.

And the only reason for the local NAACP chapter to support the bill, which come on, we all know is designed to go after black kids, is that the NAACP leadership has gotten old, and now their opinions of black youth are starting to align with the white opinions they experienced when they were younger. There is a group for that, by the way. It’s called the AARP. Maybe they should merge and form an NAARCP, and leave the NAACP to people who think black people are better served by having liberties than by being told how to dress.

Let's hope the Boston marathon bomber makes us all stupid about race issues

E-mail Print PDF

David Sirota has an article up on Salon.com titled Let's hope the Boston marathon bomber is a white American. Great title David, and we'd be inclined to agree, but you lost us as "Salon.com." Here's the gist of Sirota's argument:

[W]hite male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.

[...] If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.

Remember how in the aftermath of the shootings in Aurora, Colorado and Newtown, Connecticut the shootings ended up having absolutely no bearing on any larger policy debates? Ohhh, right, they did. Congress and the nation has been debating gun regulation ever since.

But hey, James Eagan Holmes and Adam Lanza were treated like lone wolves! The entirely of white maledom wasn't blamed for their actions! What gives?

Well, of course all the evidence points to them being lone wolves, and nothing points to their being white as having anything to do with their motives. (Being male probably does have something to do with it, given that nature has dealt men a hand more likely to be violent and suffer from a mental illness that manifests itself violently.)

But if white people weren't collectively blamed by Holmes and Lanza, why do Muslims get collectively blamed for attacks by Islamist terrorists? I mean, just listen to this speech by George W. Bush just 9 days after the September 11th attacks.:

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.

The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime. It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.

[...] I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

Wow! You can just smell the white male privilege dripping from that fiery rhetoric! It really takes an uppity white dude to tell the world how peaceful the vast majority of Muslims are. Where does he get off?

 

When we said David had a great title, we meant it. He just wrote the wrong article. We do hope that the bomber was a white American. Hopefully a white Christian American. Why? Not because it's going to insulate foreigners from prejudice, but because white male domestic terrorists do in fact tend to be lone wolves. We hope he was a lone wolf because that's preferable to hoping there's an organized terrorist organization that's going to continue carrying out attacks.

Domestic terrorists aren't painted as part of a larger conspiracy because there isn't one. The terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11th were described as part of a large, international terrorist organization because they were.

If we can't have a white American as the culprit, we'll settle for a black American. Heck, even one with the name Muhammad, because if you remember, in the wake of the ten Beltway Sniper murders white privilege was extended to blacks to protect the entire black population of the United States from being considered a terrorist organization. Although, the extension of this privilege was probably accidental, as Montgomery County, MD Police Chief Charles Moose suspected the shooter was a white male (because, no surprise, when someone commits a crime that is typically committed by lone white males, criminal profiles suspect the culprit is a lone white male, privilege be damned).

Passionate, Flexible 0Ls? Sounds Sexy. Or Stupid.

E-mail Print PDF

Yesterday the US News University Directory published a news piece with the headline, “Law School Students Use Passion and Flexibility in Struggling Job Market.” Never the kind to turn down an opportunity to roll our eyes at idiocy, we read the article.

The headline is off to a great start: redundant and almost completely inaccurate. “Law school students” because somehow “law students” wasn’t clear? That headline might lead one to believe this article would be some kind of focus piece on individual law students who have done something passionate or flexible with their law degree. Nope. Note even a little.

The article is actually about pre-law students, and no one is actually using passion or flexibility- they just think their hypothetical future selves might. The job market is struggling, though, so at least they got something right. Well, actually, the job market itself isn’t struggling, but people in the market are. …Well, not even really in the market yet. But whatever. Close enough?

The article claims that despite the difficulties of the current legal market, students are still “flocking” to law schools. Students are flocking to law schools the same way lemmings would flock off a cliff if a Stopper lemming was dropped in the middle of a herd and some Builder and Digger Lemmings got the rest to safety. Law school applications are headed for a 30 year low, and despite some schools voluntarily cutting class sizes, there’s a good chance numerous schools will find themselves with empty seats. There’s still a flock, but the context demands mentioning it’s a significantly smaller flock.

The article goes on to cite a survey by Kaplan Test Prep, which says that half of pre law students plan to use their law degree in a nontraditional legal position because of the condition of the legal market. And Jeff Thomas, Kaplan’s Pre-Law guy thinks that’s just okay:

While we'd always counsel students to go to law school with the intent to practice law, society is filled with lawyers in all types of positions - politicians, lobbyists, authors, law enforcement officials, executives at professional sports leagues, and more - which shows that law degrees can be applied to a broad range of career options.

We could point out that if you’re planning on doing something other than practicing law, you’re better off getting a degree that’s much more on point (and probably cheaper) than a law degree. If you want to be an author, get an MFA. If you want to be a police officer, study criminal justice or go to the police academy. If you want to be a politician, get an MRS and wait for your husband to hit his term limit. There are just so many other, better choices than a JD for alternative careers.

We could also point out that if you don’t intend to practice law, but instead want to use your JD to be a politician, lobbying, author, police officer, or professional sports league executive, you’re going to first need to practice law. For most of these, look at a stay in the legal profession of 15 years to life, maybe 12 if you get out on good behavior.

But we’re not going to say that. What we’re going to say is that if you believe a test prep company about the viability of alternative career paths, you’re embarrassingly gullible. Test prep companies are only going to make money if you’re planning on taking a test they can prep you for. There’s no politician or writer version of the GMAT, GRE, or LSAT. You don’t sell test prep programs by telling people to get an entry level position in their target field.

Furthermore, if you believe a test prep company about the viability of alternative career paths, fire your test prep company, because they’re obviously doing a pretty terrible job at teaching you logical thinking. That’s probably on your test somewhere, and you officially suck at it.

According to the survey, while half of these bright pre-law minds don’t plan to actually practice law (because they’ll be exploring that alternative career path), 71% of them are going to law school so they can have a career they are passionate about. Here’s what law school has given us at ConDaily a(n increased) passion for: beer, wine, spirits, sleep, not getting enough sleep, client-hating, and confusing parenthetical placements.

The only sense demonstrated by anyone referenced in the article comes from the 43% of pre law kids who said they would postpone or alter their law school plans if they did not receive enough financial aid. At least some of the flock gets to the edge of the cliff and says, “Oh hell no. Not without an umbrella.”

I Hope They Serve Beer on Broadway

E-mail Print PDF

Raise your hand if you saw this coming. Now put your hands down, because no you didn't. Tucker Max's I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell is being turned into a Broadway show.

The show will be based on the book, rather than being an adaptation of the movie (which combined some plots, made some new stuff up, and generally deviated from the text quite a bit), the play is being written by Kit Sanderson (two seconds of Googling didn't reveal anything interesting), and you will be able to purchase and drink beer at the theater, which is actually not that uncommon, though being able to take your drink from the lobby and into the actual theater is a bit of a novelty (not like anyone was actually sitting through Legally Blond without sneaking in a flask).

The show opens June 5th, and Tucker Max will be played by Abe Goldfarb, who has the double Cartman no-nos of being both Jewish and a Ginger:

Frankly, we think he looks the part.

30 Seconds for Brian Loncar

E-mail Print PDF

Law firm with "HURT" in the phone number? Even Sweet Brown got time for that!

Should You Take a Document Review Job?

E-mail Print PDF

Yesterday we gave you this picture from the ABA's website of a blonde LF10 talking to a brunette RW10, asking for possible captions. As a commenter pointed out, they are probably discussing just how the hell that folder is flying, cause neither of them seems to be holding it. Is this the sort of next level shit they showcased at the ABA Tech Show?

 

Not liking to play fair, we already had the winning caption in hand, provided by none other than the ABA itself. This picture appears on the top of all pages in the publications section of the ABA website, but one page in particular stood out:

 

Bazing!

You can read the ABA's full analysis of doc review jobs, but we've selected two gems:

Document-review work is not glamorous, but it is a common way to gain legal experience and provides valuable insight into the discovery process in many different areas of law. It is often done by solo practitioners looking for extra income or new law school graduates who have not yet secured permanent employment.

Document review is not legal experience. Not by a long shot. You might get a little bit of knowledge about privilege, but you could have just grab a free MPRE study guide and get the same information. The number of valuable insights to be had in document review is less than the number of opportunities for promotion.

The ABA also misses the mark in saying it's something you can do as a solo, or to earn "extra" income. Truth is document review is going to be all or nothing. It's rare that a company will let you work your doc review schedule around the few client meetings and court appearances you have for your struggling solo practice. There's an oversupply of lawyers willing to do this work, and doc review companies want 40+ hours a week.

Although most assignments are done with a looming discovery deadline, it is uncommon to work over forty hours a week. Best of all, document review assignments rarely involve weekend work. Some attorneys may find this schedule preferable to a demanding firm job. At minimum, document review work is a good way to get your feet wet and earn a steady paycheck.

It's uncommon to find a document review position for less that 40 hours a week; more than 40 hours is common, though overtime rates are not. And plenty of doc review jobs require working 6 days a week (as noted in a different article the ABA has on document review). Despite the hours, doc review still has a schedule that's preferable to most firm jobs because when your day is done, it's done. You're not on call 24/7. Although, firm jobs pay year-round. Doc review's schedule means constantly being in search for your next gig.

Despite their being some slight perks to the schedule, it's entirely disingenuous to say that some people "prefer" that schedule. They don't. They'd prefer the schedule of working 60-70 hours a week and being on call all the time because that's the schedule that comes with a real lawyer job where you do real legal work (see the ABA article on minority attorneys being "left to languish" on document review projects). If you neither advise nor represent clients, and doing so is nowhere in the future of your job, you're not a real attorney.

That's nowhere to be found in this introduction to document review. You might need a license to do the job, but you're not practicing law. And you're not getting your feet wet either. You're part of the legal process, but you're in a deadend bottom position, and legal secretaries get to see more of the process than you.

But, to answer the question, should you take a document review job? The answer is quite simple. How desperate are you for money? If you still hold out hope of having a professional career, and your water hasn't been shut off yet, no. Don't do document review. If you don't mind being a basement dwelling nobody for the rest of your career, or are living in conditions so squalid that guinea worms are a real threat, then yes, take it.

Captain Contest

E-mail Print PDF

Here's a picture. You know how caption contests work. Get going.

But first, a tiny bit of back story. This image is from the ABA website. We also already have in hand the winning caption, provided by the ABA itself which we'll post tomorrow, but we're going to give the rest of you shlubs a chance to play.

When you play the game of TV time slots, you watch live, or you DVR

E-mail Print PDF

Maybe your Sunday evening doesn’t revolve around TV scheduling, in which case, congratulations on your exciting and fulfilling life. If you’re like at least half of the ConDaily staff, though, it does, and last night presented a bit of a dilemma: watch the AMC premiere of Mad Men at 9ET/8CT, or watch the second episode of Game of Thrones on HBO at the same time?

If you’re like us, you decided to watch Mad Men first. Both HBO and AMC had a night of back-to-back encores planned, but Mad Men had a two-hour time slot, so going to Game of Thrones first would mean an hour break between show. Or waiting an hour and catching the second Game of Thrones and immediately going in to Mad Men, but why would you want to delay your happiness by an hour? Mad Men then immediately Game of Thrones was the clear decision. Except that Mad Men wasn’t a 2 hour premiere. It was a 2 hour and 8 minute premiere. Thanks for the heads up on that, AMC. Oh wait, you didn’t give us one. Sure, there’s the actual time listed in the digital cable guide, but this is news worthy of a smart phone app blast. I didn’t realize that the episode had gone 8 minutes over until you saw the credits and looked at the clock to see if you had time for a potty break before switching to GoT. This is what I get for having blind faith in television producers staying in their projected time slots.

Is 8 minutes really that big of a deal? You tell us. A lot can happen in that time. You can commit adultery (Don Draper), bang a prostitute (Tyrion Lannister), do 8 minute abs (maybe Namby?), and be more or less done making box mac and cheese (all the rest of us, and the ATL staff, and pretty much every under-employed legal type).

And so I missed the first 8 minutes of GoT. Sure, if we were real upset about it, we could’ve waited ‘til the next showing, or gotten on HBO Go, or On Demand, or begged someone to tell us what happened. (As an aside, I still haven’t seen it, so that tells you how eager I am, and by extension how upset I was).

But, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that AMC had given us (and HBO) a heads up about this running over thing. What if they called up HBO and were all, “Hey, could you delay GoT a few minutes? We’re running a little long on this premiere of Mad Men.” And HBO could’ve been all like, “Yeah sure, AMC. We know that there’s a lot of overlap in our audiences (the people who care about good TV audience), and this is a small concession to make in order to let everyone watch both shows without a stupid one hour break in the middle or delaying the whole 188 minute TV marathon by an hour.”

And because this hypothetical is already ridiculous, picture it ending with the douchiest characters from each show high-fiving: Theon Greyjoy and Pete Campbell. (Spoiler alert: this joke is much funnier if you’ve seen the latest GoT.)

Jumping into the legal analysis, this agree is, on its face, anti-competitive. As in “hey, let’s not compete over this chunk of time.” Anti-competitive collusion usually happens at the expense of the consumer and to the benefit of the business. But in this instance, if the networks had “colluded,” then everyone’s happy. The fans see all of each episode, so they’re happy, which (should) make the networks happy, and would certainly make advertisers in those last 8 minutes of Mad Men happy to not have a chunk of their audience switch over to HBO.

HBO doesn’t have much incentive to cooperate, but maybe AMC agrees to pay a portion of the last block of advertising money, or HBO just puts up a message saying “Game of Thrones has been delayed a few minutes while we wait for viewers to join us from Mad Men” and gains a lot of good will. Even viewers who don’t watch Mad Men will appreciate the gesture, and HBO can just run some filler, like cast interviews they’ve already taped, or run a promo for Louis CK’s new special.

Or even better, we could take our legally dubious collusion to the next level and send the Game of Thrones staff over to Mad Men and help them find 8 minutes to cut, because good lord that episode was slow. Maybe trim a few seconds off each of the close-ups showing Don looking—yet again—constipated? How about losing the entire thing with the wedding and the lighter? Maybe the photo shoot? The goulash? So many things. In the entire 2+ hours, Mad Men packed in about 3 moments of interest. The best thing the episode had going for it was getting all the disappointment out in one evening instead of ruining next Sunday as well. But nope, that didn’t happen, and instead we didn’t just get a poorly paced episode of Mad Men and a conflict of Game of Thrones, but I also got stuck with an assignment from BL1Y to analyze whether antitrust laws would prevent two networks from coordinating their scheduling. Thanks a lot everyone. I hope you get [spoilered] just like [spoiler] does to [spoiler] during [spoiler]’s [spoiler].

Does Ken Cuccinelli Sodomize His Wife?

E-mail Print PDF

Virginia's Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is pushing for what has to be an extremely unpopular law: the re-criminalization of sodomy. That's right, no blowjobs or buttsex. Why? Probably because he thinks that those things are totally gay and only gay people do them and bad gay bad.

What he doesn't realize is that a lot of straight couples engage in the same activities. Actually, he probably does realize it, but knows that the law would be selectively enforced against gay couples, and is essentially a backdoor into criminalizing homosexuality.

Virginia's anti-sodomy law was struck down earlier this month in a 2-1 decision by the 4th Circuit, and Cuccinelli is seeking an en banc review of that decision. As abhorrent as anti-sodomy laws are, and as settled as Lawrence v. Texas is, Judge Diaz's dissent may hold water:

The majority grants MacDonald federal habeas relief on the basis that the Virginia anti-sodomy provision facially violates the Due Process Clause. The Virginia Court of Appeals, citing its own precedent, concluded that Lawrence did not facially invalidate all sodomy statutes, but rather only the application of such statutes to private, consensual sexual activity among adults. Accordingly, the Virginia Court of Appeals concluded that the Virginia anti-sodomy provision was constitutional as applied to MacDonald because his sexual conduct involved a minor. [Internal citations omitted; get the opinion here.]

And then there's some stuff about how he may be wrong, and the Supreme Court can smack Virginia around, but that the 4th Circuit should defer to the Virginia Court of Appeals on a matter of state law:

If a federal court is to grant a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner incarcerated under Virginia law, it needs to be more than "confident" that the underlying criminal conviction violates the Constitution. The foundation for the issuance of the writ requires a certainty, not just a likelihood, that a state court ruling "reached a decision contrary to clearly established federal law." Unlike the majority, the district court here remained faithful to that distinction in declining to issue the writ.

Obviously someone is wrong here, as is necessarily true every time there's a dissent. And, we're not going to dig into the law to try to figure out who's right. That's what SCOTUS is for. And then SCOTUSBlog to tell us what SCOTUS said. We're also not going to guess at the judge's motivations. Could he be secretly homophobic and dissent out of prejudice? Sure. But he is at least presenting a viable legal argument. Likewise the majority could be influenced by bias, or could be following what they genuinely believe to be the law.

But we will speculate about Ken Cuccinelli. There's a good chance he's had a little bit of sodomy at some time. And maybe it was a bad experience for him. In fact, it's quite likely it was a bad experience for him, because anyone who's ever followed the story of an ardent anti-gay advocate knows how the story always ends. Ken Cuccinelli is probably gay.

That makes it a little bit tougher to drop the hammer on him. His anti-gay campaigning is probably a manifestation of his own internal struggle. Most people don't feel that strongly about gays, even your typical redneck who will agree with the most homophobic stuff you can think of at the end of the day really doesn't care. The people who do care are the ones fighting their nature because for them homosexuality is an issue that dominates their own lives, and so they think the rest of the world is as concerned as they are. If I, a straight man, want to suck Governor McDonnell's dick so bad, the gay agenda must be dangerously close to corrupting everyone!

We have convincing evidence this lawyer is a dick

E-mail Print PDF

Step 1: Take a pic of your dick.

Step 2: Put that pic in an inbox.

Step 3: Regret.

We’ve all heard about the “problem” and “dangers” of sexting, we’ve seen the Law and Order episodes, we’ve seen someone’s personal dirty pic to their then-partner became very public very quickly after a breakup. This year has been no stranger to weird legal sex cases, from judges sexting on the bench to defense attorneys banging clients and then billing them for that time. But we haven’t seen anything quite like this.

We’d like to introduce to Dwayne Beck, the inspiration behind this headline, “Lawyer Asks Judge to Seal Photo of His Penis from the Public Record.”

Beck is an Orange County attorney charged with sexual battery, assault and five other charges. While we don’t know what those other five charges are, and we’re not interested enough to pay to find out, if you are, click here and search by name. You’re welcome.

The alleged victim in this case filed suit as Jane Doe. According to her complaint, she is a translator and interpreter for a legal service and worked with Beck, although it’s not clear for how long or on how many occasions. The complaint alleges that Beck repeatedly propositioned Doe, brushed against her, asked to take pictures of her breasts, and blocked her from leaving a room while he had an erection. The exit-blocking incident ended with Beck texting Doe a photo of his penis.

But that’s just the tip of the story. When she filed suit, she went balls to the wall. Taking no chances that the complaint would contain insufficient allegations and be prematurely dismissed, Doe included the offending photo.

Before anyone gets offended by us making a joke of sexual harassment. We’re not. Sexual harassment is a serious issue and should be treated as such. But the guy sending dick pics? He’s fair game. And since he seems to have been struggling with the concept of rejection, we’re giving our kudos to Miss Doe for sending the most unambiguous rejection we can think of, suing someone and putting a picture of their dick into the public record.

While Beck apparently had no problem sending a picture of his penis to someone he knew (or at least should have known) did not want to see it, he apparently does have a problem with that same photo being viewable by people who do want to see it (at least, by way of public record). Beck admitted in an ex parte application to seal the complaint that the dick in the pic is indeed his.

In addition, Beck argued last week that: (1) Doe should have to reveal her name for the record; (2) Beck should get to change his name in the case to John Doe; and (3) the entire complaint should be sealed. You’re probably as shocked as we were that Beck went 0 for 3 on those arguments. He did get a small concession, in that the judge did allow the dick pic to be sealed.

We can only assume this incident will put Beck in front the California Attorney Disciplinary System, sooner or later. In between now and then, we can’t help but wonder if Beck will try to use this dick-pic-as-public-record thing as the basis for a sexual harassment case against Jane Doe. That just seems like the kind of thing you could expect from a middle-aged dude who hasn’t realized that no one really wants to open their inbox and see that. Dick in the box didn’t even end well for JT, guys. It won’t end well for you either.

Page 5 of 136

Philadelphia Lawyer, Unfiltered

The finest blend of analysis, advice, and fury on the internet. Sour mash, oak barrel aged, published at cask strength.

 


Most Recent Article:

In Defense of Risk (Happy Fourth of July)


All Articles from The Philadelphia Lawyer

Author Profile

The Robot Pimp

An in depth look at the emerging intersection of law, behavioral economics, and robots.


Most Recent Article:

The Tenure Paradox


All Articles from The Robot Pimp

Author Profile

Practice Makes Putrid

Legal practice would be all rainbows and buttercups, if it weren't for the clients, and opposing counsel, and co-counsel, and judges, and the law.


Most Recent Article:

Eat Mor Fiv Freedums


All Articles from The Namby Pamby

Author Profile

Gin and Glannon's

As Shadow Hand suffers through law school, the rest of us get a little Schadenfreude.


Most Recent Article:

I Just Work Here


All Articles From Shadow Hand

Author Profile

Irresistible Impulse

Dr. Rob Dobrenski's daring expedition into the psychology of lawyers and the law. (Not a substitute for a life well lived.)


Most Recent Article:

You're Not a Failure, You're a Narcissist


All Articles from Dr. Rob

Author Profile

Graphic and Gratuitous

Sometimes cartoons are the highest form of communication. Those times are known as "most of the time."


Most Recent Cartoons:

Intelligence: The Gathering


All Cartoons

There And Never Back Again

Defunct Big Law attorney BL1Y shares his misadventures as a writer who accidentally went to law school.

 


Most Recent Article:

JD vs MFA


All Articles from BL1Y

Author Profile

Lampshade, Esquire

We're dealing with some technical difficulties here. Hold up a minute.


All Articles From Lampshade, Esq.

Staff Infections

News, humor, and other non-billables from our underpaid, uncredited, unsexy staff.

 


News Articles

Smaller News Bits

Large Numbers of Law

Mixed Bag of Lawesome

Reviews

Scofflaw Multistate Bar Review

Lawyerlite