Posts Tagged Law

Our newest justice, after these messages

Here are two facts that seem, on their face, unrelated:

1.  Barack Obama is about to choose John Paul Stevens’ replacement on the Supreme Court.

2.  “American Idol” is still the top rated show in America.

I think you see where I’m going with this:  Stevens should beat Simon Cowell to death with his gavel.

If that’s not practical, we could hold open auditions and let viewers at home decide who advances to the Supreme Court, under the theory we couldn’t do much worse than the current justices. Read the rest of this entry »

, , ,

No Comments

Ill Bill

I think it’s wonderful the House has passed health care reform legislation.  Not on the merits of the bill.  It’s not like the thing will become an actual law during my lifetime.  What I’m excited about is that with all the yelling and name-calling and baseless accusations, congressmen in both houses haven’t had time to actually legislate, which means no official recognition of Oprah Winfrey’s birthday or $4.5 billion Roland Burris Institute For Political Ethics.

It takes forever for Congress to enact any kind of substantial change.  You can thank our founding fathers for this.  The system by which a bill becomes a law may seem silly and arbitrary, but bear in mind that the Constitution was written with great deliberation by learned men who thought it’d be hilarious to make the rules silly and arbitrary. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , ,

No Comments

AAAHH!!! REAL LAWSUITS

I want to know what this country’s coming to when a humble little multinational conglomerate can’t sell its energy drink without some mom-and-pop brewery making a beverage whose name contains many of the same letters.

The Hansen Beverage Company, which makes Monster Energy Drink, learned the Rock Art Brewery, a small hard beverage company in Morrisville, Vermont, named its new beer “Vermonster.”  So Hansen did what any reasonable entity would do when someone introduces a product with a vaguely similar-sounding name:  ignored it and went on with its business. Read the rest of this entry »

2 Comments

Bar exam Q&A

It’s unfair the Bar exam has a reputation as the toughest test in America.

Sure, the occasional straggler doesn’t pass, such as Kathleen Sullivan, who failed the California Bar in 2005 despite having served as — I swear this is true — dean of the Stanford Law School the previous five years.

But most people who take the test do just fine, provided they study day and night for months on end and forgo sleep and sacrifice small animals to Legalia, goddess of the motion to dismiss.

For the benefit of those outside the field of law and lawyers who repressed the whole thing from their memories I present the answers to some common reader-submitted Bar exam questions I just made up. Read the rest of this entry »

, ,

1 Comment

So a guy walks into a Bar exam…

Last week I wrote about the character and fitness requirement to passing the Bar, about which I’d like to remind Bar examiners I was just completely joking around in a totally good-natured way and would like to be removed from the blacklist now, please.

But the hardest part of becoming an attorney is the Bar exam, a 12-hour test given over two days so difficult and requiring so much technical legal know-how that you have to study a lot. Read the rest of this entry »

, ,

No Comments

Setting a high ethical Bar in the Land of Lincoln

Not just anyone can become an attorney in Illinois. It would be embarrassing if the state certified someone who later lied or stole or extorted children’s hospitals for campaign contributions.

That’s why there’s a “Character and Fitness” component to passing the state Bar. See, this is Illinois, and we don’t call ourselves the Land of Lincoln for nothing: it’s because Lincoln-Mercury gave Rod Blagojevich $150,000 in unmarked bills. Also because we’re the exclusive home of Abraham Lincoln, so his birthplace (Kentucky) and boyhood home (Indiana) can just shut up about it.

It’s a high standard for lawyers to live up to. One time a woman accidentally overpaid Lincoln by two cents, so the future president walked six miles to the woman’s house to confess to chopping down her cherry tree. Read the rest of this entry »

, ,

No Comments

Learning, and other horrors of grad school

As a law student, undergrads are always asking me questions.  “Why do you think I care that you’re a law student?” is a typical one.

The truth is we graduate-level students have a lot of wisdom, as measured in ponytails.  And there’s nothing we know better than why you shouldn’t become a grad student yourself. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , ,

2 Comments

Our newest justice, after these messages

justices-idol.jpgHere are two facts that seem, on their face, unrelated:

1. Speculation is ramping up about which Supreme Court justices might die or retire this year, and who could replace them.

2. “American Idol” is still the top rated show in America.

I think you see where I’m going with this: The justices should beat Simon Cowell to death with their gavels.

If that’s not practical, we could hold open auditions and let viewers at home decide who advances to the nation’s highest bench, under the theory we couldn’t do much worse than the Court’s current membership.

Justice mortality is a serious topic, one that would also make an excellent name for a Bond girl. Consider this recent quote from U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (R-You Kidding Me), who told reporters in February – I swear he really said this – that “Ruth Bader Ginsburg… has cancer… nine months is the longest anyone [with that kind of cancer] would live.” Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , ,

2 Comments

Lawyers have ethics? They bet they do

09-03-12-green-blago-satan-legal-ethics“Legal ethics” is not an oxymoron, and if anyone feels differently, I will file a frivolous lawsuit against you.

I learned about legal ethics to prepare for last Saturday’s Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, a standardized test that most states require lawyers to pass.  I had to study hard, because most of the questions look like this:

Lawyer, a lawyer in State, a state, represents Client, his client.  While in court Lawyer distracts Judge, a judge, such that Judge turns and snags his robe on Doorknob, a doorknob, exposing Judge’s buttocks.  Client subsequently laughs so hard he dies of an aneurysm.  Is Lawyer subject to sanctions?

A. Yes, unless Client filled out Form 47F (Buttocks-Related Aneurysm Waiver).

B. Yes, but not if everyone stays cool and just keeps their mouths shut.

C. No, if it is the Feast of St. Stephen.

D. No, because the Buttocks-Related Aneurysm Waiver is actually Form 47G. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , ,

3 Comments