X

Happy New Year

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:46:00 +0000

Just over four months here in Colorado, we're settled in to the apartment, have a good sense for the area, and are getting used to having snow on the ground most of the time.

Work is super busy. Last I checked, I have 206 client files open. It's crazy, but I'm starting to feel like I know what I'm doing, even though there's still not enough hours in the day to get it all done.

No resolutions yet, but I'm considering some.

First month update

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:22:00 +0000

On Thursday I will have completed a full month as a public defender. The move out here went smoothly and we're pretty much settled in. It's been busy, with two trips back to the east coast, so not a lot of time to rest.

Life as a PD is busy. I have over 100 cases right now, and should have over 150 by the end of this week, as more are transferred to me. I'm regularly in the office until 6:30 or 7:00, catching up on writing motions and returning client phone calls.

I was supposed to have worked on two trials by now, but one client didn't show up on time to court and another trial got continued because the prosecution didn't have their witness. I have another trial scheduled for next week.

I'll try to update more often, but I'm pretty busy and there's a lot of stuff I can't say, due to client confidentiality concerns.

It's been too long

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:47:00 +0000

I'm not dead yet.

There's a lot of change in my life. I'm married now. We're moving to Colorado within the next two weeks, and I start my job as a Deputy Public Defender. I'm renting out my house in the DC area and am in the midst of a mad scramble to do all the things necessary to prepare the place for tenants, e.g. painting, licenses, leases, and various maintenance tasks I've been avoiding while residing here.

Stress Testing the Banks

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:55:00 +0000

If you have to prove you are worthy of credit, your credit is already gone. -Walter Bagehot

Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, has come out with a plan (really more of a vague idea) to "stress-test" American banks to determine whether they can survive this current recession. To be conducted in April, this testing will be performed on banks of over $100 billion who have taken government money. Using assumptions of average unemployment of 8.9% in 2009 and 10.3% in 2010, Treasury will determine whether they can survive.

There are two problems with this plan. The most obvious is that we haven't been in a crisis like this before so we don't know whether those unemployment assumptions are too pessimistic, too optimistic, or just right. We won't find that out until it's too late, but that won't stop Treasury from spending more tax dollars based on the model.

The more fundamental problem is that the very fact that these banks are being stress tested indicates that they are on the road to failure. People don't ask whether your company can survive if they think it can; they ask to confirm that it can't.

My opinion is that this is all political theater to convince the American people that their money has not been thrown down a giant rathole and to pave the way for a more smooth nationalization for some of the ratholes banks that have already received government funds.

This I Believe: Everyone Deserves Defense

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:10:00 +0000

I found out last Friday that my career as a public defender will be starting later than I'd like. Placement is by attrition and people aren't quitting as often as normal in this troubled economy. I'm disappointed, but still committed to being a public defender, albeit later than I had planned.

Derek pointed me to an NPR "This I Believe" essay by a former public defender. It's worth listening to, especially if you don't understand how I could choose a job where I fight for the accused, not the victim.

I passed the Colorado Bar Exam

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:17:00 +0000

Results of the Colorado Bar Exam were posted this morning and my name was listed in the list of people who passed. Now I just need to pass the background check, take a professionalism class, and swear in and I'll be a real lawyer.

Stop the bailout in the Senate

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:30:00 +0000

The Senate has scheduled a vote for Wednesday night at 7:30 pm on the bailout package. Now is the time to call your Senators and tell them not to support the bailout. Instructions on how to find your Senators and what to say are in my previous post.

Action: Stop Congress from giving away your money

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:47:00 +0000

Rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated. The bar exam is over, though it's still 10 days away from results.

This morning I urge you to take three minutes (literally only three minutes) out of your day to stop this insane $700 billion dollar bailout.

1) Call your Representative. You can look them up here. Be polite and tell them (a) your name and that you are a constituent, (b) ask if they have a position on the bailout, and (c) urge them to vote against it.

Fun bonus game: If they don't have a position, ask out of curiosity how many people have called them supporting the bailout. When they give the answer (my Senator had received a total of ten calls in favor), ask them why they don't have a position when their constituents overwhelmingly oppose the plan. Kindly let them know you'll be calling back to check on the position as it develops.

2) Call each of your two Senators. You can look them up here. Do all the same things you did for your Representative.

All told, each call will probably take less than a minute of your day and with luck, you can stop one of the worst pieces of legislation in recent memory from getting shoved down our throats.

Report back in the comments if you have the time.

UPDATE: According to Politico, the vote is currently 228 Nay, 205 Yes. However, the vote is being held open for the moment, so call again to tell your Representative to vote against it.

UPDATE 2: We have won! 228 against, 205 for!

UPDATE 3: The roll call vote results are here. Be sure to call your Representative to either congratulate or criticize.

The Kooks - She Moves in Her Own Way

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:55:00 +0000

I was listening to Pandora the other day and heard an awesome song by the Kooks. Catchy, with a nice acoustic guitar riff running through it, I keep listening to it over and over after buying it from iTunes. If you want to pick it up, click

How to write with style

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 05:32:00 +0000

Kurt Vonnegut wrote a lovely essay on style. Why should you read it? I'll let him answer:

Why should you examine your writing style with the idea of improving it? Do so as a mark of respect for your readers, whatever you're writing. If you scribble your thoughts any which way, your readers will surely feel that you care nothing about them. They will mark you down as an egomaniac or a chowderhead --- or, worse, they will stop reading you.

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Second Amendment Right

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:38:00 +0000

The Supreme Court ruled today in District of Columbia v. Heller that the District of Columbia's ban on possession of a handgun for self-defense within the home violated an individual right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The majority in the 5-4 decision of the Court was written by Justice Scalia, with Justices Breyer and Stevens dissenting.

Congratulations to Alan Gura, Bob Levy, and Clark Neily, attorneys for the respondent, on their successful work to extract a clear ruling from a Court that has avoided the Second Amendment almost entirely since the nation's founding.

While the ruling clearly supports an individual right, it does not answer some important questions like:

Does the Second Amendment apply to state governments?

What standard of review should courts apply to gun laws challenged under the Second Amendment?

Are systems of gun licensing constitutionally permitted?

All of these questions will come up in the future, as this ruling opens the door for challenges to other gun laws. Likely first on the list for challenge is Chicago's prohibition on handguns.

My prediction is that any Supreme Court nominee that doesn't agree with Heller will be swiftly and immediately filibustered. This prediction stands no matter who the President is and no matter who controls the Senate. Congressmen are particularly sensitive on the issue of gun control, especially after the bloodbath following the Assault Weapons Ban, and this will just make them even more sensitive.

UPDATE: Looks like my prediction about Chicago's gun ban being next to be challenged was correct. From the press release at ChicagoGunCase.com:

Following Thursday’s (5-4) ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms, and that a municipal gun ban violates that right, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) filed a federal lawsuit (complaint) challenging the City of Chicago’s long-standing handgun ban.

Previous posts on the D.C. Gun Case:
Supreme Court to hear D.C. Gun Case
ABA Journal article on the D.C. Gun Case

Update from Colorado

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:00:00 +0000

Sorry for the lack of posting. Since my last post, I have:

Graduated from law school cum laude.

Temporarily moved to Denver to study for the Colorado bar exam.

Set a wedding date and time with my fiancee and booked a venue for same.

Started growing a bar exam "playoff beard".

Quit my day job as a programmer in preparation for my new day job as a public defender (to commence at some indefinite future time).

Outdoor Animation in Brazil

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:47:00 +0000

This is, without a doubt, the coolest video you will watch today.

MUTO a wall-painted animation by BLU from blu on Vimeo.

New Blog: Trust Me, I'm a Used Car Salesman

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:45:00 +0000

My father has started blogging, focusing mostly on auto advice (buying and using, not repairing). Not only that, but he started a radio show too.

Infoporn: Where people go after law school

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:39:00 +0000

The National Law Journal has an interesting chart that breaks down where the class of 2005 went after graduation.

Note the steep decline in large firm placement outside of the top 10 schools. Also, Yale sent almost half of it's graduating class into judicial clerkships. That's part of why the clerkship hunt sucks for the rest of us.

Martin Luther King, Jr. on the Law

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:03:00 +0000

"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important."

-Martin Luther King Jr.

How Financial Markets Really Work

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:14:00 +0000

With the recent crash in housing prices, the credit crisis, the Fed cutting rates right and left, many people are left scratching their heads and wondering how this all happened. The following short video gives an excellent and detailed explanation:

A Soldier Died in Iraq

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 05:34:00 +0000

He blogged about his experiences.

His message, to be posted in case of his death, is here.

I didn't know him. I didn't read his blog. I only heard about this from a posting somewhere else.

And yet, I was moved near to tears.

Tempus fugit, memento mori.

Five Dangerous Things You Should Let YOur Kids Do

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:58:00 +0000

Jeremy linked to a fascinating talk by Gever Tulley in which he describes dangerous activities you should let your kids do.

I don't have kids (yet), but when I do, we're gonna do all this stuff.

New Job and a Move After Graduation

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:30:00 +0000

A quick update on the job search: I've accepted a job offer from a Public Defender's office in a Western state. I'll be moving out there very shortly after I graduate from law school in May to find a house and study for the bar.

This isn't the plan I had when I started law school, but it's one of the best opportunities available for me to get trial experience and I get to stick it to the Man (or at least his representatives from the State's Attorney's office). It's also very important work in an age of police and prosecutorial abuse.

Wish me luck.

Supreme Court to hear D.C. Gun Case

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:56:00 +0000

The announcement from the Plaintiff/Respondent:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the case of Heller v. District of Columbia, and decide whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to own guns. At issue is a 31-year-old Washington, D.C. law banning handguns and requiring that all shotguns and rifles be kept unloaded and either trigger-locked or disassembled at all times. There is no exception for self-defense.

Alan Gura, lead counsel for the Heller plaintiffs said, “The Bill of Rights does not end at the District of Columbia’s borders, and it includes the right to keep and bear arms. After three decades of failure trying to control firearms in the District, it’s time for law-abiding city residents to be able to defend themselves in their homes. We are confident the Supreme Court will vindicate that right in Washington, D.C., and across the nation.”

Coverage at SCOTUSblog here.

ABA Journal article on the D.C. Gun Case

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:55:00 +0000

The November issue of the ABA Journal has a feature article about the D.C. Gun Case. This is the first article I've seen that carefully examines the role of the NRA in trying to torpedo the case and obtained comment from all of the lawyers.

After they had assembled a group of six plaintiffs, Levy and Neily filed Parker on Feb. 10, 2003. Also on board by then was Alexandria, Va., litigator Alan Gura. He would do most of the heavy lifting, crafting pleadings and arguments as the case slogged on for four years. But Levy and his lawyers hadn’t heard the last of the NRA.

Seven weeks later, on April 4, the NRA filed Seegars through veteran outside counsel Stephen P. Halbrook of Fairfax, Va. Without even calling the Parker lawyers first, he moved to consolidate Seegars and Parker. Levy and his colleagues were not pleased.

“You just don’t do that to another lawyer,” Neily says. “Honestly, that set the tone for things. It was not well-received.”

Instead of the Second Amendment claim the Parker plaintiffs had envisioned, the NRA loaded its case with a Fifth Amendment due process claim, another mixed due process and equal protection argument, a civil rights claim under section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and a theory that the district lacked the authority under its municipal code to enact the ban in the first place.

It's well worth the read if you're interested in the political underpinnings of gun rights in America.

The plaintiffs have a blog with links to all of the filings, if you want to keep up with developments.

Why People Have to Make Their Own Mistakes

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:48:00 +0000

Found in an Economist article on how a central bank can (or cannot) stop a bank run:

"the ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools."

- Herbert Spencer, State Tampering with Money and Banks

Being a Happy, Healthy, Ethical Lawyer

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 04:11:00 +0000

Orin Kerr posted a question on the Volokh Conspiracy from a not yet employed 3L looking for career advice. There are good suggestions in the comments, but the best one is from "Anonobvious," who linked to Patrick J. Schiltz's law review article, "On Being a Happy, Healthy, and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession."*

It was written in the late 90s, so the numbers are a little off (though that amplifies the points made), but the reasoning is simple: Big law firms are driven by money. Money does not make one happy. People driven by pressure to make money are more likely to behave unethically. If you want to be happy and ethical, stay away from big law firms.

On why big firm lawyers don't give up a little extra money for a lot more happiness:

More importantly, though, the flaw in my analysis is that it assumes that the reason lawyers push themselves to make so much money is the money itself. In other words, my analysis assumes that the reason lawyers want to earn more money is that they want to spend more money and enjoy the things that money will buy. When put in those terms, giving up 600 hours of life for another $40,000 on top of a $160,000 salary makes no sense for most lawyers. What you need to understand, though, is that very few lawyers are working extraordinarily long hours because they need the money. They are doing it for a different reason.
Big firm lawyers are, on the whole, a remarkably insecure and competitive group of people. Many of them have spent almost their entire lives competing to win games that other people have set up for them. First they competed to get into a prestigious college. Then they competed for college grades. Then they competed for LSAT scores. Then they competed to get into a prestigious law school. Then they competed for law school grades. Then they competed to make the law review. Then they competed for clerkships.229 Then they competed to get hired by a big law firm.230 Now that they’re in a big law firm, what’s going to happen?
Are they going to stop competing? Are they going to stop comparing themselves to others? Of course not. They’re going to keep competing — competing to bill more hours, to attract more clients, to win more cases, to do more deals. They’re playing a game. And money is how the score is kept in that game.

On the difference between "legal ethics" and what people generally think of as ethical:

As a law student, and then as a young lawyer, you will often be encouraged to distinguish ethical from unethical conduct solely by reference to the formal rules. Most likely, you will devote the majority of the time in your professional responsibility class to studying the rules, and you will, of course, learn the rules cold so that you can pass the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam (“MPRE”). In many other ways, subtle and blatant, you will be encouraged
to think that conduct that does not violate the rules is “ethical,” while conduct that does violate the rules is “unethical.”
It is in the interests of your professors, the organized bar, and other lawyers to get you to think about ethics in this way. It is a lot easier for a professor to teach students what rules say than it is to explore with students what it means to behave ethically.

On how the Stoics have it right about how to truly find happiness:

This is the best advice I can give you: Right now, while you are
still in law school, make the commitment—not just in your head, but in your heart—that, although you are willing to work hard and you would like to make a comfortable living, you are not going to let money dominate your life to the exclusion of all else. And don’t just structure your life around this negative; embrace a positive. Believe in something—care about something—so that when the culture of greed presses in on you from all sides, there will be something inside of you pushing back. Make the decision now that you will be the one who defines success for you—not your classmates, not big law firms, not clients of big law firms, not the National Law Journal. You will be a happier, healthier, and more ethical attorney as a result. ... (“[T]here may be no way to permanently increase the total of one’s pleasure except by getting off the hedonic treadmill entirely. This is of course the historic teaching of the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, Buddha, Jesus, Thoreau, and other men of wisdom from all ages.”) (quoting Philip Brickman & Donald T. Campbell, Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society, in ADAPTATION-LEVEL THEORY: A SYMPOSIUM 287, 300 (M.H. Appley ed., 1971).

Please, if you are a law student or a lawyer, read this article. It may be some of the most valuable time spent in your career.

* - 52 Vanderbilt Law Review 871.

Muckraking of the First Order

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. X) — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:55:00 +0000

Radley Balko has a shocking account of how Steven Hayne cornered the autopsy market in Mississippi. During his years, he's testified that a skeletonized woman was strangled (even though there was no muscle tissue to make that determination), testified that two people's hands were on a gun from the bullet wound, and performed 1,800 autopsies per year (the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) says a single medical examiner should perform no more than 250 autopsies per year and will not accredit a practice with more than 325 annually).

Even worse, there's a man on death row because of his testimony.

Consider Jeffrey Havard, convicted in 2002 of killing his then-girlfriend’s six-month-old daughter. Havard claims he was bathing the child when she slipped from his hands and hit her head on the toilet. But Hayne testified at Havard’s trial that bruises, scratches, and cranial bleeding indicated a case of shaken baby syndrome. Hayne also testified that the child’s anus was dilated, indicating sexual abuse. The DNA evidence was inconclusive: Havard’s DNA was not found on the baby, but both his DNA and hers were found on a sheet from the bed where she had gone to sleep that night, which was also the bed Havard shared with his girlfriend.

Because there were no witnesses to the incident, the evidence of sexual abuse was key to securing Havard’s conviction and death sentence; the charge was “murder in the commission of sexual battery.” Havard, who had no money, was assigned a public defender. His lawyer was suspicious of Hayne’s conclusions and at trial asked the court for funds to hire an independent pathologist to review Hayne’s findings. The judge refused, ruling that Hayne, the prosecution’s witness, was qualified and sufficient.

After Havard was convicted, attorneys from Mississippi’s post-conviction relief office, which represents indigent defendants in their appeals, were able to get James Lauridson, Alabama’s former state medical examiner, to review Hayne’s work in the Havard case. According to an affidavit he filed with the Mississippi Supreme Court in 2004, Lauridson found significant problems with Hayne’s testimony. Most notably, factors not related to abuse—e.g., rigor mortis—can often cause the anus to dilate after death.

In February 2006 the Mississippi State Supreme Court nevertheless upheld Havard’s conviction. It refused even to consider Lauridson’s review of Hayne’s work, ruling that any expert testimony refuting Hayne’s conclusions had to have been introduced at trial. Havard’s attorney had tried to do that, of course, but the trial judge denied him the necessary money.

This is why being a public defender is such an important job. The PD is the only person who has the opportunity to stop a wrongful conviction before it happens.