Yesterday the Appeals Court issued a decision that was probably correct, but disappointing.  The gist of it is that we have a law in Mass that if you get sued for “public participation,” you can file a motion to dismiss and make the big bully pay your legal fees.  The idea is that people with deep pockets (like Wal*Mart) shouldn’t be able to use the legal system to intimidate their political opponents (like local people who oppose building a new Wal*Mart).  These suits are called SLAPP suits, for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.  The idea of the SLAPP suit isn’t necessarily to win–it’s to distract your detractors, divert their resources from activism to litigation, and make them shut up.
After the jump, read how one SLAPP plaintiff carved out a loophole

---

Posted by AndyCowan on February 24th, 2010 :: Filed under In the News, Law for the Layman
Tags :: old fashioned beatdown, SLAPP, Tactics and Trial Strategies, the wealthy and their wealthy lawyers, things that are wrong

---

Today I visited the Malden District Court with a client, where a person who shall remain anonymous (but not a defense attorney) told me, “I could tell you must be CPCS; they’re the only ones who care about their clients.”

I know this is a false statement.  I have seen many private attorneys and bar advocates go above and beyond for their clients on countless occasions.

I have also seen many private attorneys and bar advocates dodge trials, minimize work, and do a disservice to their clients by giving less than the full zealous advocacy that they owe.

It’s up to you, attorneys: every single one of us is responsible to fight for our clients’ stated objectives,* give them the best advice possible about their options, and stand up to those who view them as so subhuman that the facts and law do not matter.  We must prove to the world that defense attorneys are not just in it for the paycheck, nor are we mere ushers to the penitentiary.  To the extent that we may sometimes feel downtrodden and irrelevant, it is up to us to prove our relevance.  Go.  Fight.  Win.

---

Posted by AndyCowan on July 16th, 2009 :: Filed under Client Service
Tags :: About the defenders, Tactics and Trial Strategies, things that are wrong, to the lawyers

---

Gwen Filosa, of the New Orleans Times Picayune, reports:

An Orleans Parish judge today held a public defender and a newly hired investigator in contempt of court for trying to interview a 12-year-old girl and her 8-year-old sister in connection with a rape case without the permission of the children’s mother.

My favorite choice quote: “This matter is not new today,”[ADA Joe] Meyer said. “Every judge in this building has confronted this issue of there are people dying out there because of irresponsible activities by defense attorneys. There are people every day refusing to testify.”

He seems to have confused “zealous advocacy” with “irresponsible activities.”  Interviewing witnesses is what we’re *supposed* to do!  Not interviewing witnesses, especially in a case as serious as rape, could variously be called “malpractice,” “ineffective assistance of counsel,” or “a violation of the attorney’s duty of zeal.”¹

Brethren, every time a judge or an ADA pisses you off, be thankful you don’t have to deal with what our comrades in New Orleans do.

Edit Thursday, 7/15/09, 9:29 PM.  See how I make a note that I’m editing my story when I do it?  Gwen Filosa and nola.com don’t do that.  In the nola.com story as it existed this morning, it said that the investigator spoke with the children while they were out with a sitter as the mother rested after a medical procedure.  That section has since been removed.  WIth the facts as they are currently presented, it looks like the investigator just took the kids. Not so, according to Filosa’s own prior reporting.  This edit earns the “bad journalism” and “media criticism” tags, which were already in the dictablog tag cloud, but hadn’t yet been applied to this post.

---

¹Of course, there are cases where counsel might make a strategic decision not to interview a particular witness or witnesses. Likelihood of the defense team being arrested should not be a factor in this equation.

---

Posted by AndyCowan on July 16th, 2009 :: Filed under A Day in the Life, Client Service, In the News
Tags :: almost but not quite entirely unlike law, bad journalism, first amendment, media criticism, things that are wrong

---

On his Twitter Feed, “Skelly Wright” of Arbitrary and Capricious offers a bit of practical advice:

To teen in court: if you want to beat a [urinalysis] for marijuana, make sure the friend’s urine you’re substituting won’t be positive for opiates.

Oops.

---

Posted by AndyCowan on May 21st, 2009 :: Filed under A Day in the Life, Client Service, Law for the Layman
Tags :: drugs, forensic evidence, law and science, not my client, Things that are funny, things that are wrong

---

I got an email from the police yesterday, in the town where I live, alerting me that there has been a pattern of armed robberies near my neighborhood.

They describe the suspect:”police are looking for a black male in his early 20s who is approximately 5′7″ to 5′9″ in height and weighs 160 to 175 pounds.”

---

Posted by AndyCowan on May 14th, 2009 :: Filed under A Day in the Life
Tags :: eyewitness identification, id, identifications, police, things that are wrong

---