Former Army Judge Advocate General and Texas Tech Dean Walter Huffman resigns

* * * BREAKING * * *

Walter Huffman, Dean of Texas Tech’s law school since 2001, and former Judge Advocate General of the Army, announced today his intent to resign effective following this upcoming school year (Spring 2009). The one-year lead time is apparently to allow the school time to conduct a thorough search for his replacement. No word on where Dean Huffman is off to.

Everything I ever heard about Dean Huffman was beyond positive, and I know that he had been ambitious in his efforts to raise both the profile and the academic statute of TTU’s law school. They will no doubt miss his leadership, and owe him a debt of gratitude for his successful and dedicated efforts as well.

Thx to an anonymous aspiring lawyer

 

Our condolences to Justice Baker’s family

I read with great sadness this weekend of former Texas Supreme Court and Dallas Court of Appeals Justice James Baker’s passing. I got to know him only briefly, but I can vouch that his stellar reputation among those who appeared before him was well-earned. He was giant both in his jurisprudence and in the admiration he rightly enjoyed from his colleagues and peers. He will be greatly missed.

Thx to SCOTX Blog and the Houston Chronicle

 

Are legal blogs now an essential check on inaccurate Big Media reporting?

Last month, the Texas Appellate Law Blog had a great post on the (believe it or not) benefit legal blogs offer to the legal landscape at large. I would add one other entirely unexpected yet undeniably valuable benefit to that list as well, as evidenced by the media fracas over Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s recent travails.

I have purposefully stayed away from writing about this story because it struck me from the beginning as likely a bogus “scandal.” I was wrong to do so, but not because the story had any merit, but because it turns out the blogosphere actually served to get the truth out.

In brief, the L.A. Times published a story at the urging of a disgruntled litigant who—as is frustratingly all too common—insisted on lambasting the four trial judges and at least six appellate justices (including Chief Kozinski) who held against him of bias and judicial misconduct. Riiiight. The L.A. Times story revealed that Chief Kozinski had various files stored on his family’s server that the paper framed as pornographic and even as examples of beastiality but that were really just so much ribald and off-color humor.

As Professor Volokh explains:

And some of the files contain what is basically—if what I saw at Patterico’s site is representative—visual sexual humor. There are some spoofs, for instance of the MasterCard commercials, some puns, some absurdities. Kozinski, or someone in his family, apparently got them sent to him, and decided to save them alongside a bunch of other stuff he found interesting or amusing.

* * *

Jeez, folks, Kozinski has a quirky sense of humor, and keeps some joke pictures and videos on his computer rather than throwing them away. I’m sure they aren’t the kinds of things some people would enjoy seeing. But he wasn’t trying to show them to those people! He was just minding his own business, keeping some files on his own private server. And now it’s a national news story.

Chief Kozinsky’s wife put it even better:

The reporter describes the handful of comic-sexual items as follows: “the sexually explicit material on the site was extensive.” He then includes graphic descriptions that make the material sound like hard-core porn when, in fact, it is more accurately described as raunchy humor.

* * *

The fact is, Alex is not into porn—he is into funny—and sometimes funny has a sexual character.

So, the only real controversy at issue as a result of all the hubbub was that Chief Kozinski was presiding over an obscenity trial when the story broke. However, any traction that valid potential conflict rightly had was quickly defused when, within just a few days of the story’s printing, Chief Kozinski recused himself, declared a mistrial, and called for an investigation into the controversy surrounding his stored web files.

Which, after much exposition, brings me back to my original point. If one were to have only read the L.A. Times story, you would have thought the Chief of a federal circuit was keeping porn on his work computer and making it available to the public. It was not until the legal blogosphere started investigating further that it came to light that the evidence upon which the story was based had been shopped around to several media outlets for months by a disgruntled litigant, that the files in question were not really pornographic at all, and that the “website”—really a server subdirectory—upon which they were stored was not meant to be publically accessible.

So, after entirely too much prologue, my point is that the legal blogosphere can even—in rare instances—be useful in combatting slovenly reporting by major news outlets that only serve to tar and tarnish the reputation of non-political actors as are most appellate courts and jurists. Chief Kozinski himself has now recognized that the legal blogosphere may serve at least one useful purpose—providing fuller context and facts after a media hit-piece has been released—after having once famously derided the utility of legal blogs:

I hate ‘em. Hateful things. . . . I just think it’s so self-indulgent, you know. Oh, I’m so proud of what I’m saying, I think the world instantly wants to know what I’m thinking today. People wake up thinking, hmm, what does this person, whoever the blogger in question is—I wonder what great thoughts have come into his mind this morning that I can feel myself edified by. I can’t really have breakfast, really enjoy my day until I hear the great thoughts of Howard Bashman—I don’t think so. I go for months without ever knowing what Howard has to say. So I don’t know. I find it sort of self-indulgent. And I find it so grandiloquent.

By the way, Chief Kozinksi is absolutely correct on this point: all of us legal bloggers are—to some extent or another—at least partially self-absorbed and hubristic. Why else spend valuable billable time opining on topics about which no one asked our opinion?

On a much smaller scale, I have felt forced to use this blog in much the same fashion as Patterico and Above the Law have used theirs on this matter to combat the all too numerous instances of the Texas media blindly parrotting the tripe constantly spewed forth by Texas Watch. I have no idea if my hopefully somewhat-cogent rantings have had much of an impact, but it is my pleasure to stick up for our vastly-underpaid and supremely-talented judiciary when it is ethically restrained from responding on its own to such baseless bilge favored by Texas Watch and now the L.A. Times.

Thx to Above the Law and Patterico’s Pontifications

 

Our thoughts and prayers are with the Russert family

Much has been written last week and this weekend regarding the untimely and shocking passing of Tim Russert by folks far more eloquent than I. All I can do is thank him and his family for the many years of Tim gave us that set the bar against which modern journalism should and hopefully will measure itself henceforth.

Before the advent of the DVR, I had many a Sunday where I agonized over having to turn off Meet the Press in order to get everyone to church on time.

May Tim rest in peace and our thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Maureen, and son, Luke.

Thx to Tim Russert for his integrity, objectivity, and unmatched acumen

 

Capitol offense

Early Sunday morning, some cowardly soul set fire to the Texas Governor’s Mansion. Completed almost one hundred and fifty-two years ago on June 14, 1856, the Governor’s Mansion is one of Texas’s most historic structures, having housed Sam Houston during his first term as Governor.

In the downstairs parlors:

where Texas’ first presidential visitor, William McKinley, was received in 1901, plaster could be seen cracked and broken. Smoke damage was heavy, and windows were broken and charred.

The dining room—where famed humorist Will Rogers once ate so much chili with Gov. Miriam Ferguson that he had no room for dessert — was blackened and still smoldering.

Because the mansion was currently undergoing an extensive renovation, thankfully “all of the furnishings and official items had been removed” including “the window casements.” Some these irreplaceable items include original and seminal Texas history works of art and Stephen F. Austin’s writing desk.

I’m not a criminal lawyer, so I don’t know what the Penal Code provides as a sentence for arson, but I’m all in favor of upping it to life in prison in this instance—or even worse—permanent banishment from Texas. Whatever misguided and mangled soul set this fire, they’ve forever given up their right to enjoy life in our fair State.

Thx to the Austinist, the Statesman, BurkaBlog, and State Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado, who is leading the investigation and has promised that “[w]e’re going to come get the person responsible for causing this damage.” Amen brother.

 

Gee, thanks a lot

Since leaving office, national appellate star and former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz has been busy beginning to build the U.S. Supreme Court and national appellate practice at Morgan Lewis.

Well, the “U.S. Supreme Court” end of that effort may have just gotten an ill-timed kidney punch from one of Cruz’s new partners, Daniel Johnson, Jr., in the firm’s San Franscisco office.

Johnson, a mid-70s graduate of Yale Law School was recently interviewed for a story by the American Lawyer examining whether Justice Thomas’s black Yale Law contemporaries faced similar employment struggles as he initially did.

Johnson’s less than eloquent, on-the-record response to a question regarding whether Thomas’s argument that Yale’s affirmative action program made his law degree worthless?

“Bullsh[!]t.”

Lovely. Just as Cruz is attempting to organize and lead a first-rate national appellate practice at his new firm, one of his own partners hauls off and profanely insults—in writing—one of the five votes for which Cruz will be vying on a regular basis.

Thx to the WSJ Law Blog and the American Lawyer

 

Whither Laura Ingraham?

We here at the SMSB are huge fans of former Justice Thomas clerk and current syndicated radio host, Laura Ingraham. So we are intrigued to read today that she might be leaving her hugely popular radio show, right at the height of its popularity.

Her absence from the airwaves this week coupled with her appearances on several Fox News shows makes it more likely her departure is related to a contractual dispute than a health concern. Plus, this eyebrow-raising email was sent by one of her producers over the weekend to a guest scheduled to be on the air Monday:

From: Tom Elliott
To: Donny Pauling, Craig Gross
Date: Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Subject: Tomorrow

Hey, guys –

Bad news. We’re going to have to take a rain check on tomorrow’s segment. I’m unable to provide a lot of detail, but the short story is that Laura will not be hosting the Laura Ingraham show for the foreseeable future. This just developed over the weekend, so I apologize for the late notice. Could someone please contact Ron, or should I? Whatever’s easiest. (I don’t have an email address, and don’t really want to bother him on a Sunday.)

I do hope we’ll still be able to air this segment; it likely will just have to wait a little while.

Thanks,

Tom

Tom Elliott
Executive Producer
The Laura Ingraham Show

Thx to Radio Equalizer

 

How Texas law schools should be ranked

The U.S. News & World Report law school rankings have long been criticized for numerous and valid reasons by people who know of what they speak (unlike myself), but I think Res Ipsa has crystalized what criteria should really be considerd when ranking law schools—if the purpose in ranking these schools is to help inform where an aspiring applicant will spend the next the three years of indentured legal servitude.

Namely, return on one’s dollar.

Most law school students could care less about most of the indices USNWR uses to rank law schools, namely the size of a school’s library, median entering GPAs or LSAT scores, per capita expenditures, or even the employment rate for graduates (because what does it matter that you have a job if that job pays far less than the amount of money you just shelled out for the privilege of securing said job). Of much more importance to most law school students is the relative assurance they have that a given law school will provide them with an education that will likely allow them to attain a positive net worth at some point in their lives.

There are only three law schools in Texas where a graduate will, on average, make more in their first year of practice than they paid in tuition for three glorious years of legal tutelage: UT, Houston, and Texas Tech.

However, I would add two columns to Res Ipsa’s excellent comparison chart above (and if I weren’t much lazier than Res Ipsa, I’d add in Thurgood Marshall’s numbers as well): the return ratio of these schools when you factor in room and board (which all of us know who survived law school grossly underestimates the essential “beer” portion of the “board” figure, not to mention all kinds of other significant costs like books, etc.).

Taking into account room and board, nobody makes enough their first year to make up for what they expended during law school, but some schools fall so woefully low on the this list that I think the fallacy of the USNWR ranking of these schools is revealed.

So, according to USNWR, SMU is the second best school in Texas, but according to the modified return rate ranking, it’s one of the very worst. Same with Baylor (third best according to USNWR, sixth out of eight schools measured according to the modified return rate ranking).

However, USNWR did accurately rank UT as the best law school in Texas, and came awfully close on both Houston (third versus second) and Texas Tech (fourth versus third).

So, all hype and boosterism aside, I think one would have a pretty hard time arguing UT, Houston, and Texas Tech are not the top three law schools in the state. Conversely, it’s hard to rank either Baylor or SMU in the top three when you consider how much longer it will—on average—take a graduate to make back their law school investment.

I freely and anectdotally admit however that—hands down—the most impressive and intellectually-imposing lawyers I’ve ever worked with, against, or for were largely SMU and Baylor grads.

All this aside, it goes without saying that if you graduate in the top ten percentile, have served on a journal (or better yet, been pubished in or been selected to the executive board of said journal), you will likely be able to secure a clerkship somewhere and then go on to make oodles of money in the private sector, if so desired.

* * * MEA CULPA UPDATE * * *

Having had some time this afternoon to reflect on this morning’s rant, I think I have to temper my enthusiasm for the modified return rate metric somewhat. Namely, I don’t think that it is as indicative of the best law schools in the state as it is merely a investment-value measurement.

While I believe that average starting salaries among Texas law schools are misleading because I would posit that SMU, Houston, and South Texas’s numbers are biased upward because most of schools’ graduates remain in either Dallas or Houston to practice, and St. Mary’s is largely as low as it is because a large percentage of its graduates remain in San Antonio to practice, average starting salary is still probably a greater reflection of school prestige than is a return rate index.

Under my reasoning put forward earlier today, Harvard, Yale, and Stanford would all likely have much lower return rate rankings than their state school brethren, but no one could argue that these schools are not the best in their respective states, if not the country.

Thx to Res Ipsa

 

Writ of please go away

This blog’s newfound buddy, Adam “[Gee, maybe I'm not so] Bulletproof” Reposa, is–unfortunately–back in the news.

Tex Parte Blog just came across the ad mentioned here a few months ago and used quite effectively by the prosecution as an exhibit at Reposa’s trial for demonstrating an alternative hand sign for “contempt.”

Reposa has filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals complaining his 90-day contempt sentence is excessive. In his writ, Reposa alleges that he was denied due process and due course of law when “Judge Davis declined to follow criminal procedure in ascertaining applicant’s guilt” by allowing the state to introduce evidence of extraneous conduct, i.e., the ad mentioned above from something called Whoopsy magazine, which is apparently distributed in some Austin clubs.

Of course it is.

In a letter sent by one of Reposa’s attorneys to the State Bar’s Advertising Review Committee responding to the committee’s letter that threatened to report Reposa to the State Bar’s grievance committee, Reposa’s counsel justified the ad (presumably with a straight face) by stating:

If one was acquainted with Mr. Reposa when he was 11 years old, then they might connect this parody with him, but otherwise, no casual reader would regard this parody as an advertisement for a specific lawyer.

No, of course not. Except for the fact that the ad repeatedly mentions it references an Austin DWI attorney who has given himself the moniker, “Bulletproof.” It just so happens that there’s only one Austin DWI attorney–or any attorney in the state for that matter–who [in]famously holds himself out with the nickname “Bulletproof.”

Surely no one could connect those disparate dots?

Thx to Tex Parte Blog, Texas Lawyer, and Awesomeness For Awesome’s Sake

 

Rudimentary math for aspiring law school applicants

Res Ipsa has another great post today detailing the average starting salaries of Texas law school grads. Unsurprisingly, UT topped the list at $101,111 and Texas Wesleyan–the newest accredited law school in the state–provided the foundation for the list at $57,497.

Res Ipsa also includes a fascinating snapshot of a relative salary comparison tool from CNN Money that will help the curious decide if the grass is truly greener on the other side.

As an aside, for any of my readers that are looking to add a talented lawyer to their ranks, you should get in touch with young Mr. Benson Varghese, who runs Res Ipsa Blog and is currently a 3L at Texas Tech. Since debuting his blog in March of this year, it has consistently proven to be a fine legal read with invaluable content for the Texas Bar (of which Mr. Varghese will no doubt soon be a member).

Thx to Res Ipsa

 

The turncoat gene

Few who read this blog may be old enough to remember Carole Keeton Strayhorn Rylander McClellan’s 1986 run for Congress, but I do.

Back in ‘86, Carole “Keeton McClellan”–as she was then known–made enemies of her Democrat compatriots when she abruptly resigned from the State Board of Insurance with a full three years left on her term, and promptly switched parties so that she could run against the revered and longserving District 10 congressional representative, J.J. Jake Pickle. It wasn’t so much that people begrudged her ambition, but that she would so brazenly and inelegantly attempt to displace an LBJ-era icon in Central Texas politics who was literally beloved by his constituents.

In fact, so deserving of his constitutents’ affection was Congressman Pickle that I remember a tale told at his 2005 funeral that, throughout his years in Congress, he kept his home telephone number listed in the Austin phonebook so he was always—literally—just a phone call away from those who elected him.

Well, the Washington Times reports today that, ‘lo and behold, Mama Carole may have had something to do with her son’s recent partisan about-face with his former boss, 43.

Lil’ Scotty’s on the left.

Thx to the Washington Times and the Austin Chronicle

 

Toll roads: pay $6 to get there 20% slower

Ever get the feeling that the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and TxDOT are flat-out lying to you about the supposed nirvana that will be a future Central Texas criss-crossed by toll roads?

Yeah, me too.

Well, here’s the proof. Austin American Statesman reporter Ben Wear cajoled a colleague to drive I-35 during rush hour while he cruised worry-free down the SH 130 toll road and then record who arrived at the toll road’s southern terminus first. According to Wear:

The tollways have been sold as a speedier alternative to the ravages of I-35 rush hour traffic. Toll road proponents have said that truckers, in particular, will flock to Texas 130 (and, eventually, Texas 45 Southeast) because time is money to them. Even with a $24 cash toll for truckers ($6 cash for passenger cars and pickups, $5.40 with a toll tag), the argument goes, it’s worth it to save the time.

So I decided to test that claim. I’d drive the tollway during rush hour and recruit a colleague to drive I-35 at the same time, then compare notes.

* * *

So last Monday morning, after synchronizing our watches on a frontage road just north of Texas 130’s departure from I-35, and agreeing that both of us would drive no faster than 70 mph in unrestricted traffic, we headed off, me to the tollway and Andrea on I-35. Who got to the intersection of FM 1327 and I-35 first?

* * *

Taking the toll road cost me nine minutes. And the toll I paid. But that’s not all it cost.

My total mileage: 54.8 miles, 11.5 miles more than the direct I-35 route. My Taurus tells me that I got 23.7 miles per gallon, so the extra mileage cost me a little less than a half-gallon of gas. That’s another $1.75 or so. I averaged 60.6 mph, Andrea 57.7 mph.

So, at rush hour, I paid almost $6 to get there 20 percent slower.

Fantastic. Small wonder the brain trust at TxDot was recently forced to admit a $1 billion “error” in its budget forecasting.

Thx to the Statesman’s Ben Wear

 

End of an era at the Post

Fishbowl D.C. has been dutifully covering the buyout offers extended to longtime Washington Post employees as the paper struggles to remain competitive in the internet age.

Part of the Post’s strategy has been to offer buyout packages to its full-time employees so that the paper can convert them into contract employees who require less financial overhead. The buyouts of the more lucrative news personalities will not result in any real change in their job functions at the Post, but will instead serve to alleviate the remunerable concerns of the paper.

Well, just this month, one of the men who put the Washington Post on the map and who happens to be Assistant Managing Editor accepted the paper’s buyout offer: Bob Woodward.

Even though the buyout may be a mere formality with no real effect, it still seems like the end of an era when the financial times force the Post to break with it’s longtime resident legend.

Thx to FishBowl DC

 

Federal hearing cancelled because of high gas prices

Well, kind of.

U.S. Western District of Texas Judge Fred Biery cancelled this morning’s hearing in LULAC of Texas v. Texas, No. SA-08-CA-389-FB (W.D. Tex. 2008 ) (order cancelling hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction), because:

the Court sees no reason for a hearing with testimony. Moreover, numerous gallons of $4.00 a gallon gasoline would be expended for a significant number of persons to appear with the result being an oral presentation of already written arguments.

Id. at 2.

Thx to Postcards From the Lege

 

Do as I say, not as I do

If any of you are afflicted with the same degenerate compulsion as I am–the urge to blog–see this excellent/depressing post by Todd Smith at the Texas Appellate Law Blog for why you will likely be better served by NOT blogging anonymously (as I do).

Thx to the Texas Appellate Law Blog

 

A little less shade on the Capitol grounds

The big hail storm that hit Austin two days ago will leave at least one lasting scar on one Texas’ most treasured sites. The 22 wooded acress surrounding the Capitol has long been a favorite of my family as a great picknicking site on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Sadly, seven to eight oak trees on the Capitol grounds, estimated to be between 75 to 100 years old, bore the brunt of the swirling winds this past Wednesday night and were uprooted in the storm. The State Preservation Board estimates that some fifteen more trees have major damage, some of which may also have to be removed. See video of the damage here.

Apparently, some of the burled trunks will be saved to make gavels.

* * * UPDATE * * *

More video of the Capitol grounds damage here.

Thx to Texas on the Potomac, KEYE, Austinist, and the Statesman

 

Changing of the guard at Texas Monthly

The founder and longtime publisher of Texas Monthly, Michael Levy, has announced that, after 35 years, he is retiring from the indispensable magazine he founded back in 1973.

An edited version of his farewell email is below:

My last day as publisher of TEXAS MONTHLY will be August 31. (I know it’s a Sunday, but for everybody associated with TEXAS MONTHLY over the years it’s always practically been 24/7/365.)

To paraphrase my friend George Pratt–who rose through the ranks at Southwest Airlines from working on the ramp and sweating in 737 baggage holds to ultimately becoming a key executive responsible for operating various regions of the country–to walk away from a labor of love is not an easy task.

At last week’s TEXAS MONTHLY Talks taping with Evan Smith, Lyle Lovett said, “Anybody who gets to do on a daily basis what he likes to do is very lucky.”

It started in 1973 with an idea, the premise still true today: Texas is a huge expanse of geography, but in essence it’s really a defined community of interest… And from our first issue in February 1973 to the newest one on the newsstands, I have always believed that our success has been due first, foremost and primarily to the magazine’s publisher always having surrounded himself with colleagues far smarter and more capable than he.

But it worked! Beyond anything I had dreamed possible.

So why now to say adiós?

Simply put, the 35th anniversary of TEXAS MONTHLY in February prompted me to make a very personal and difficult decision. With the encouragement and support of my mother, my three daughters, Rachel, Tobin and Mara, and my sister Jean, after 424 issues I’m ready to turn the torch over to those who are here, and those who will follow, because I trust them to make the magazine I started even better. The time and opportunity have come to allow me to begin a new chapter in my life…

This is proving to be much harder for me than starting TEXAS MONTHLY 35 years ago.

The most difficult part of all for me will be not being with the wonderful people here, the humanity of TEXAS MONTHLY. I guess I will never really “leave”. I just won’t be here.

We have not only made a difference in Texas, a state we all love, with our journalism and with our support for the voluntary action movement, we created a community, an extended family…

Happy trails to you all, and thanks for a great 35 years.

Onward!

Mike

Thx to Michael Levy for giving our State an outstanding journalistic legacy and Texas Politics

 

Retentionally yours

Ever wondered what the retention rates are at Texas law schools? Glad you asked, Tex Parte Blog just so happens to have the rankings, care of Above the Law:

University of Houston Law Center: 1.79%
SMU Dedman School of Law: 1.81%
University of Texas School of Law: 2.13%
Texas Tech University School of Law: 2.99%
South Texas College of Law: 4.45%
Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law: 6.99%
Baylor University School of Law: 7.23%
Texas Wesleyan University School of Law: 10.15%

These numbers are pretty interesting. I wonder if the schools with higher attrition rates advertised themselves as being more prestigious than their students found them to actually be, or if some other causal factor is at work.

I must say that I’m fairly shocked that UT’s attrition rate is as high as it is (and only third best in the state). Where are UT students transferring to I wonder?

Thx to Tex Parte Blog and Above the Law

 

First Cruz, now Clement

Like his Texas counterpart a few weeks ago, U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement submitted his resignation today, effective June 2. Also like former Texas Solicitor General Cruz, General Clement is leaving on a high note.

Speaking of notes, the WSJ Law Blog reports that General Clement’s favorite band is Nirvana. “Smells Like [SCOTUS] Spirit” indeed.

The last similarity between these two Solicitors General is one they share with yet another former Texas SG (and Cruz’s predecessor), Greg Coleman. All three were were named to the American Lawyer’s Young Litigators Fab Fifty in early 2007, which listed the top 50 litigators under the age of 45 from around the country.

Thx to General Clement for his able service to our country and Above the Law, Bench Memos, and the WSJ Law Blog

 

How the mighty have slipped and fallen, part II

Back in June 2007, we noted former SCOTUS nominee Judge Robert Bork filed a $1 million slip-and-fall suit against the Yale Club for injuries he sustained while giving a speech there.

Well, he has now settled his suit for an undisclosed sum, and he will hopefully look before he leaps the next time he opines in public.

Thx to DC Dicta

 

Texas Watch wants it both ways

SCOTX Blog has a great post today regarding the latest screed from Texas Watch in their ever-vigilant quest to find new ways to sound imbecilic (my description only).

Texas Watch has apparently prepared a new “report” which purports to shine the light of truth on SCOTX’s “penchant for secrecy” by “using per curiam opinions inappropriately to avoid accountability for some of the tough decisions.“

Before I delve into the nonexistent merits of Texas Watch’s revelation, there is something curious going on here. Both the Houston Chronicle and the AP have published news accounts describing a report that Texas Watch has not even yet issued. Does anyone else find it odd that supposedly objective news outlets would be writing articles concerning PR dossiers that haven’t even been released to the public yet?

As to the merits, as any lawyer knows (which perhaps explains Mr. Winslow’s ignorance), per curiam opinions are a remedial tool used by SCOTX (and the courts of appeals for that matter) to more quickly dispose of cases that require only relatively straightforward error correction. See Hon. Robert H. Pemberton, One Year Under the New TRAP: Improvements, Problems and Unresolved Issues in Texas Supreme Court Proceedings, in State Bar of Tex. Prof’l Dev. Program, Advanced Civil Appellate Practice Course B, B-18 (1998).

In fact, SCOTX first began to increase its use of per curiam opinions as early as 1925, when–not coincidentally–the Court was suffering from such a severe backlog of cases that a separate judicial body was created to assist in the mass adjudication of pending cases. See David M. Gunn, “Unpublished Opinions Shall Not Be Cited as Authority”: The Emerging Contours of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 90(i), 24 ST. MARY’S L.J. 115, 117 (1992) (describing how, beginning in 1925, the Texas Supreme Court began to increase its issuance of per curiam opinions, “perhaps as a corrective device”); see also Act of Apr. 3, 1918, 35th Leg., 4th C.S., ch. 81, 1918 Tex. Gen. Laws 171 (made effective April 3, 1918, and reestablishing the Texas Commission of Appeals); Tex. S.J. Res. 8, 49th Leg., R.S., 1945 Tex. Gen. Laws 1043 (adopted at election held Aug. 25, 1945 eliminating the Texas Commission of Appeal).

Accordingly, per curiam opinions are used to more efficiently dispose of those cases upon which there is little or no disagreement, and which present fairly straightforward legal issues. In other words, if the Court is issuing more per curiam opinions, it is probably more accurately an indicia of an increased determination to reduce the Court’s backlog (previously bemoaned by Texas Watch) of appropriate cases than it is a Machiavellian attempt to shroud the deciding members from public scrutiny.

To the contrary, the use of such a jurisprudential mechanism actually INCREASES the scrutiny upon the Justices because a per curiam opinion is–by definition–issued by the entire Court. Every Justice is given equal praise/blame for the failings or triumphs of the decision, as compared to an authored opinion which can be attributed only to the majority of Justices who sign it.

Moreover, because the only type of case that is appropriate for per curiam disposition is one in which the legal issues are clear, straightforward, and non-controversial, Winslow’s claim that “[a]ll too often, the Texas Supreme Court uses per curiam opinions as a shield to hide behind when they render decisions that are controversial, leaving them unaccountable to voters” can simply not be taken seriously. Any decision likely to cause controversy or which demands the Court clarify a muddled or disputed area of the law is precisely the type of opinion least likely to be issued per curiam. And, as explained above, a per curiam opinion subjects every single Justice on the Court to elevated scrutiny, not just the authoring few.

Again, any basic analysis of the different types of opinions SCOTX is empowered to issue is a bit dry and legally complicated so I can’t really fault a group of non-lawyers (save for the one four-year lawyer Texas Watch recently hired) for failing to comprehend the finer points of the practice.

Most interesting to me is SCOTX Blog’s noting that the official statistics published annually by the Office of Court Administration track the per curiam opinions written by each Justice (see page four of the .pdf file).

While it is of course obvious that a single Justice must be logistically tasked to author a per curiam opinion, the identity of that Justice should remain anonymous because it is the Court as a whole that is issuing the opinion. The fact that OCA tracks and publishes this data, tying these opinions to the chambers which issue them (by number of opinions only) is more troublesome than any flotsam trotted out by Texas Watch.

Thx to SCOTX Blog

 

“Law firms at which you REALLY don’t want to practice for $1,000 Alex”

You’d think that law firms–of all places–would be bastions of political correctness and equality, or at the very least, the last professional environment where one could expect to have the following things happen.

First, it was Paul Hastings‘ (known for its employment law practice) extreme lack of tact (or timing) in firing an associate six days after she suffered a miscarriage. Then the firm had the audacity to coerce her into signing a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for three month’s pay (which she rightly refused).

They are now reaping what they sowed.

Now, a former associate of Bingham McCutchen is suing her former firm for failing to take action after she reported being drugged with tegretol (an anti-seizure medication that causes memory loss when taken with alcohol) at a firm holiday party.

Wouldn’t most folks assume that a LAW FIRM would be proactive if not aggressive in trying to get to the bottom of such criminal and damaging behavior?

Apparently not.

* * * UPDATE * * *

Bingham has responded with its official side of the story.

Thx to Above the Law

 

Seems plausible

How much money does it take to start a record label? A lot I’m sure. But $360 billion?

That was the excuse given by a Fort Worth man who tried to cash a check made out for $360,000,000,000.00. He quickly lowered his monetary sights (by about 96 million times), however, posting bail for $3,750.00.

Thx to Above the Law, the FW Star-Telegram, and MSNBC

 

Here we go again

We reluctantly pass along to you that the Houston Chronicle is reporting SCOTX Justice Medina’s wife has been re-indicted for arson relating to the fire that destroyed the couple’s home last year.

Prosecutor Vic Wisner said he didn’t expect to seek any other indictments in the case, which would effectively clear Justice Medina in the matter.

Thx to Political Junkie and the Houston Chronicle

 

Another one bites the dust

When you’re making your entertainment plans this summer, be sure to include one last visit to the Backyard, because this summer will be your last chance to see a show at the original location.

I was just out with an old friend the other night at Doc’s MotorWorks drinking a few too many pitchers of Shiner, when we began to reminisce about the good old days of the Backyard, before it was surrounded by a parking lot and bigbox chain stores. The last show I saw there was Willie, and it was really magical to sit out under the oaks in the majestic Texas Hill Country and listen to really good Texas music.

The owner of the Backyard hopes to relocate down the road in the City of Bee Cave in a location that won’t again be overrun by developers.

So, hopefully unlike Shady Grove RV Park and the banks of Waller Creek, the Backyard will once again be a tranquil spot where you can come listen to some of the best music around.

Thx to the Austinist

 

Kim Possible

The sky is the limit for first-term Austin City Councilwoman Jennifer Kim. When it comes to allocating the $260,000 a year with which her office is endowed (nominally to pay for the member’s salary and that of their staff), Councilwoman Kim has appropriated generously.

Oh, not on salaries mind you or other public expenses that wouldn’t raise the eyebrows of Austin’s taxpayers, but on questionable items such as:

$921 for a three-night stay at the W hotel in Manhattan
$700 for a membership to Continental Airlines’ ‘President’s Club’
$550 for a Sharper Image air purifier
$400 for 20 copies of Discover Your Strengths
$232 in Crane and Company brand stationary
$86 in Vera Wang barware
$67 for a Steam Wizard from The Sharper Image
$59 each for “Executive Rollerball” pens from The Sharper Image.

Using taxpayer dollars to buy designer barware, and a stay at a trendy Manhattan hotel? Has she been reading the Pedernales Co-op’s guide to fiscal responsibility?

When asked about these expenditures by a local reporter, Kim defended her acquisitional judgment by saying, “I spend what I need to out of my budget to be able to do the job. And in the beginning, it was a brand new office, a brand new staff, there were a lot of things that we needed.”

Like Vera Wang barware. Riiiiight.

I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt on the pens (my Mont Blanc makes those look reasonable), the stationary, the suit steamer, the travel club membership, etc., but–despite being an Aggie–she should know enough not to use public funds to buy any of these items from expensive vendors, if at all.

This is not the first example of Kim’s poor judgment however. In early 2007, she created a furor by indignantly attempting to bypass airport security at ABIA, claiming nonexistent VIP status. When informed her status as a member of the Austin City Council conferred her no special security rights, Kim said “I didn’t know it was a [Transportation Security Administration (TSA)] issue, … I thought since it was our airport and we own it, and if we are pre-cleared, we could get through.”

Uh, ask anyone who has flown since 9/11 if they are aware TSA runs airport security.

As reported elsewhere, Kim’s antics have made her hard to work with, running through at least three executive aides since she took office in 2005.

Her airport shenanigans have even given her electoral opponent a campaign slogan, “I’ll be happy to stand in line with you at the airport anytime.”

Thx to KVUE’s Political Junkie, the Austin Chronicle, News 8 Austin, and PinkDome

 

Bazed and Confused

Gilbert King has an op-ed in today’s NY Times that bemoans the SCOTUS plurality holding in Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439, slip op. (Apr. 16, 2008 ), which upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty.

King lists three examples of botched executions, two of which were the basis of SCOTUS decisions cited by both Chief Roberts and Justice Thomas in their separate opinions. See Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878 ); Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947).

The circumstances of these three executions, while undeniably unintended and no doubt more painful and stressful to the prisoners than originally contemplated, cannot be viewed in isolation as examples of “cruel and unusual” punishment.

Let’s take a look at the manner in which these three hoodlums killed their victims that led them to death row in the first place, shall we?

First up is Wallace Wilkerson, who moved slightly just before the firing squad unleashed its volley in 1879, resulting in four fatal–if not immediately so–wounds. “My God!” Wilkerson shrieked, “My God! They have missed!” Twenty-seven minutes later, Wilkerson died. How did he dispatch his own victim? Ironically, by the very same method–gunfire–that eventually did him in. There is no account of how long it took Wilkerson’s victim to die after being shot by Wilkerson, or what his victim’s last words may have been.

Willie Francis was electrocuted in 1946 in Louisiana for gunning down his employer, but Francis failed to die in the chair because of negligence on the part of the drunken prison guard who prepared it. He was re-electrocuted in 1947 after his unsuccessful appeal to SCOTUS.

The last example trotted out by King is that of William Kemmler, who was electrocuted in 1890 in a fiery mishap. While Kemmler’s death was no doubt gruesome, it could not have been as disturbing as his common-law wife and victim’s demise, who he murdered with a hatchet on March 29, 1889.

Forgive me if I am not moved by the discomfort experienced by any of these murderes in meeting their maker. And thankfully, neither is SCOTUS.

Thx to the NY Times and How Appealing

 

Lateral hiring circa 2009

The most painfully humorous clip I’ve seen in a while.

Thx to Simple Justice

 

The gift that just keeps on giving …

Just when you thought the Adam “Bulletproof” Reposa saga couldn’t get any more convoluted and strange, it does.

Turns out that Reposa’s former law partner, Bruce Garrison–who I assumed severed ties with Reposa after Reposa was sentenced to ninety days in jail for contempt of court–may have been given the boot by Reposa instead.

Back in November of ‘07, Garrison was charged with six felony counts of tampering with a government record and forgery relating to his alleged forging of several local judges’ signatures on bonds. Now, the best part, one of the judges whose signature Garrison forged was none other Benchslapper in Chief nominee Jan Breland.

That’s right, the same judge before whom Garrison’s former law partner later demonstrated the hand sign for “contempt of court.”

Small wonder she had little patience for Reposa’s antics in light of his former law partner’s demonstrated disregard for Judge Breland’s office. What is more, just days after Garrison was indicted for creatively obtaining judicial orders, he was indicted again for possessing marijuana, and possessing with the intent to deliver a controlled substance.

Apparently the two sets of indictments are related as described by one of the other judges whose signature Garrison forged:

Signing a judge’s name wouldn’t slow a drug addict down a bit[,] … [w]hen you have problems such as Mr. Garrison’s, you need money, and when you’re desperate for money, you’ll steal from your parents, you’ll steal from your friends, you’ll forge judge’s signatures on bonds.

Garrison’s illicit activities have resulted in the indefinite suspension of his law license by the Texas Bar. So, while it is still unclear how the two parted company, it is hard to fathom two lawyers more aptly suited to practice together.

Thx to Awesomeness for Awesome’s Sake, Tex Parte Blog, and KXAN

 

How does this man still have a law license?

Not only that, how did U.T. Law ever admit–much less allow to graduate–this buffoon? The depth and breadth of Adam “Bulletproof” Reposa’s idiocy is even greater than I feared.

* * * WARNING–NSFW language * * *

Can’t imagine why his former law partner, being “directed” by Reposa above, would have jumped at the chance to wind down the partnership once “jailbait” Reposa was thrown in the hoosegow.

Even more disturbing is a piece of evidence introduced at Reposa’s