Law isn’t about what’s legal and illegal; it’s about serving clients.

Law students, too many lawyers, and most non-lawyers think that lawyers tell clients what they can do and what they can’t — what’s “legal” and what’s not. This caricature is so far from the truth it’s laughable. Lawyers serve clients, and there is so, so much more that drives client decision making than what the law states (except, perhaps, in those exceedingly rare instances when the law mandates a certain decision).

So it’s refreshing that Settlement Perspectives reviews the kinds of questions clients want to hear from their lawyers but don’t hear often enough. Perhaps the most important one is this:

What is an acceptable outcome in this matter?

The article goes on to list a number of other questions of particular import to clients, including this one, perhaps most immediately comprehensible to my first year students:

In the case of a litigated matter, on the continuum between winning and losing, what is considered acceptable? Is there a possibility for success short of complete victory? Prevailing without success? Not prevailing but not losing?

(Hat tip to What about Clients?)

Justice Department: Torture Memos were “insane” but not the product of professional misconduct

From Jurist

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] has overruled the findings of a report [DOJ Ethics Report] released Friday concluding that two Bush administration lawyers committed professional misconduct when they wrote memos [JURIST news archive] authorizing the use of certain interrogation techniques that critics have called torture. Instead, the DOJ said that John Yoo [academic profile; JURIST news archive], and Jay Bybee [official profile; JURIST news archive] were only guilty of “poor judgment” in writing the memos. An internal ethics investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that Yoo had committed “intentional professional misconduct when he violated his duty to exercise independent legal judgment and render thorough, objective and candid legal advice.” The report also found that Bybee had committed professional misconduct when he acted in “reckless disregard” of his duty to exercise independent legal advice. However, David Margolis, an associate deputy attorney general, released a separate memo [DOJ Margolis Report] overruling the OPR’s report, finding its analysis was flawed because it did not have a clear definition of what constitutes professional misconduct.

Back in August of 2008, when I began writing this blog, I explained my then long-held conviction that the White House Office of Legal Counsel — and in particular Jay Bybee (now a federal judge) and John Yoo (a tenured law professor) had acted immorally and in violation of their professional duties as lawyers in writing the so-called “torture memos” that gave legal approval to the torture the Bush Administration began. Both the DOJ Report and the DOJ Margolis Report confirm the details of  what I wrote back in 2008 — the memos were plainly written to justify a pre-determined conclusion. As I wrote then:

Somehow a justice department lawyer who is now a tenured professor at Boalt Hall Law School at U.C. Berkeley, along with his boss, who is now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, thought they could get away with this utterly fictional definition of “severe pain.” And they did. Plainly, though, Yoo does not believe in constraints. In December 2005 he stated in a Chicago debate that there is no law that could prevent the President from theoretically ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.”

And now the DOJ Margolis Report concludes that “the’ evidence of the knowing violations . . . led us to conclude that Yoo put his desire to accommodate the client above his obligation to provide thorough, objective, and candid. legal advice, and that he thereforecommitted intentional professional misconduct.”

Mr. Margolis in the DOJ Margolis Report also stated:

While I have declined to adopt O.P.R.’s findings of misconduct, I fear that John Yoo’s loyalty to his own ideology and convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client and led him to author opinions that reflected his own extreme, albeit sincerely held, view of executive power while speaking for an institutional client.

The reports really are remarkable testaments to how far the Bush Administration went to force its desire to torture within a rule of law that does not permit torture. Among other things, the DOJ Ethics Report quotes other Bush Justice Department appointees stating that John Yoo needed “adult supervision” and describing the torture memos as “insane,” a “one-sided effort to eliminate any hurdles posed by the torture law,” “plainly wrong,”  and “slovenly”:

Our view that the memoranda were seriously deficient was consistent with comments made by some of tlie former Department officials we interviewed, even though those individuals would not necessarily agree witl! some of our findings in this matter. [Daniel] Levin stated that when he first read the Bybee Memo, “[I had} the same reaction I think everybody who reads it has - 'this is insane, who wrote this?'". Jack Goldsmith found that the memoranda were "riddled with error," concluded that key portions were "plainly wrong," .and characterized them as a "one-sided effort to eliminate any hurdles posed by the torture law." [Steven G.] Bradbury told us that Yoo did not adequately consider counter arguments in writing the memoranda and that “somebody should have exercised some adult leadership” with respect to Yoo’s section on the Commander-tn-Chief powers. [Michael] Mukasey acknowledged that the Bybee Memo was “a slovenly mistake,” even though he urged us not to find misconduct.

” Insane” about sums it up. You’re not acting as a lawyer if the research and analysis you do is insane. But, I guess, “insane” is not a sufficiently firm legal standard for Mr. Margolis. The funny thing is that I’d expect any reviewing official who didn’t see discern a standard in the report he was reviewing to state the proper standard and make his own determination whether the facts set forth satisfied or did not satisfy that standard. Or he could have sent the matter back to the ethics people with instruction to set forth a clear standard. Instead, he plainly was looking for a way to find no ethical violations here. Honestly, if the flat out lies about the law contained in the torture memos is permitted, then anything is permitted in the “war on terror.” Which, of course, is exactly Yoo’s position.

Don’t let your clients send you emails from their employers’ email systems.

Mike Masnick at techdirt has an interesting item about a court decision that “personal emails sent from work computers can still be considered privileged and confidential as an attorney-client communication.” Masnick notes, however, that “[w]e’ve seen plenty of cases where courts have said that an individual has no expectation of privacy on emails sent from work.” And he realizes that the case he’s discussing isn’t the typical employee e-mail case; instead, “it dealt with a federal prosecutor who was fired, and is trying to claim that the firing was for his whistle-blowing. He was trying to access the emails of a US Attorney that he believes will reveal why he was fired. So it wasn’t a case of a company trying to review the email (which is normally the case in these types of lawsuits). And, as such, it makes sense.”

But Masnick has a more interesting question: suppose you e-mail your lawyer from your employer’s e-mail system — is your e-mail protected by the attorney-client privilege from disclosure to your employer? As Masnick wonders:

[W]hat would happen in a lawsuit where it was the employer looking at the material? If a company has a regular program of recording and examining employee email (as many do), then how would the issue be resolved? It would seem that, in such circumstances, it would make a lot less sense to consider the content protected, since the employer is not asking for it, but already has access to it.

I think Masnick is right that your e-mail to your attorney, sent from an e-mail system you know your employer has access to (pursuant to typical employee e-mail policies), is not subject to the attorney-client privilege. And if it’s not protected by the privilege, anyone who has a right to it as relevant evidence in a lawsuit will be able to get it, not merely the author’s employer.

Why? The mere communication between client and lawyer does not establish the existence of an attomey·client relationship ”It is of the essence of the privilege that it is limited to those communications which the client either expressly made confidential or which he could reasonably assume under the circumstances would be understood by the attorney as so intended.” McCormick on Evidence § 91 (4th ed. 1972).

Thus, to establish confidentiality, (1) “[t]he client must intend his communications with his attorney to be confidential, (2) [t]he client’s subjective intention of confidentiality must be reasonable under the circumstances, and (3) the confidentiality must have been subsequently maintained. A subjective expectation of privacy can sometimes be ascertained from the client’s express intentions.” Those intentions must be determined from the circumstances surrounding the communication. William P. Matthews, Encoded Confidences: Electronic Mail the Intemet, and the Attorney-Giant Privilege, 45 U. Kan. L. Rev. 273, 283 (1996).

In short, in considering whether the privilege applies, the courts focus on the precautions taken to preserve confidentiality and the parties’ “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Wendy R. leibowitz, Communication in the E·Mail Era: Deciphering the Risks and Fears, Nat’l LJ., Aug. 4, 1997, at B9.

Lawyers are like priests or doctors — you learn early on that your client’s confidence’s are sacred and that your knowledge of them will go to the grave with you. You learn too that disclosure of those confidences to third parties destroys them. So you don’t discuss client business on elevators, in subways, in taxis, on planes, in restaurants, in coffee shops, on crowded sidewalks . . . . You know a client’s “friend” who is along for moral support but not part of the case should not be present for discussions that should be kept confidential.

In short, you know that if there’s a reasonable likelihood someone else may be in on the communication (whether by listening in or by opening the letter or e-mail), the communication is not confidential. And it doesn’t seem to me that an employee has a reasonable expectation that someone else may not be “in on” the communications he makes via e-mail from work. As the Privacy Rights Clearing House puts it:

Is electronic mail private? What about voice mail?

In most cases, no. If an electronic mail (e-mail) system is used at a company, the employer owns it and is allowed to review its contents. Messages sent within the company as well as those that are sent from your terminal to another company or from another company to you can be subject to monitoring by your employer. This includes web-based email accounts such as Yahoo and Hotmail as well as instant messages. The same holds true for voice mail systems. In general, employees should not assume that these activities are not being monitored and are private. Several workplace privacy court cases have been decided in the employer’s favor. See for example: Bourke v. Nissan, Smyth v. Pillsbury, Shoars v. Epson.

In short, if you’re communicating with your lawyer in the course of what you consider a lawyer-client communication, don’t use your employer’s email system. You might just as well be speaking with your lawyer in the back seat of a taxi with the cabbie listening in.

Nesson continues to blame others for his lousy job of lawyering.

The  Harvard Law Record reported yesterday on Charlie Nesson’s address to : a room full of HLS students to explain his motivations and methods as the lawyer representing Joel Tenenbaum in Sony BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, the case that resulted in a $675,000 judgment against his client.

I have on more than one occasion expressed my harsh views regarding Nesson’s lawyering in the case (here and here). But the Harvard Law Record’s story only adds fuel to my fury at Nesson’s lawyering skills. According to the story, “When the case first came to his attention, Nesson knew that there was little chance of victory on the merits, with the only truly viable strategy at trial being the minimization of damages.” (emphasis added)

The RIAA cannot have been happy about the way it looks after winning a judgment of $675,000 from a kid, especially since, as Nesson with some degree of accuracy explains, “[w]hat Joel did in downloading and sharing songs was what just about every kid in his generation did and which I bet a great many of you did.” The RIAA was anxious to settle a similar case in which it won $1.92 million from Jammie Thomas-Rasset for illegally downloading 24 songs. As Mike Masnick wrote, the RIAA “seems to recognize that the insanity of the $1.92 million doesn’t do it any favors. Even the musicians whose music was part of the case are embarrassed by the amount. . . . the RIAA would love to settle the lawsuit for some lower amount so it can run around touting the ‘risks’of file sharing without having people laugh outloud when hearing that someone had to pay $1.92 million for potentially sharing 24 songs that could be bought for $1 each.”

And Tennenbaum quite plainly had the ability to minimize damages through settlement rather than by means of Nesson’s tactic of going to trial. In February, Ars Technica reported that the “RIAA’s initial offer to settle, made way back in 2003, was for $3,500. Joel offered $500, which was declined. After the case went to court in 2007, the judge ordered the parties to settle and work it out between themselves. Joel offered $5,000. The RIAA demanded $10,500.”

And yet Nesson, realizing that “there was little chance of victory on the merits” and that the only viable way of representing his client’s best interests was to minimize the amount of his liability, failed to settle a case that at most would have cost his client $10,500 (assuming, contrary to any notion of common negotiating sense, that the RIAA would not have moved off of its last offer).

The Harvard Law Record’s story goes on to state that “the evidence presented by the RIAA . . . made it look like Tenenbaum blamed others and lied,” thereby interfering “with his effort to appear credible and sympathetic.” The problem is that the evidence didn’t merely make it “look like” Tenenbaum lied. He admitted in trial that had lied in sworn statements he had made before trial that he had not used peer-to-peer file sharing networks to download and upload recordings.

I’ve said it again and again. I’m no fan of the RIAA. The recording industry’s business and legal responses to the technological revolution that has deprived them of their former monopoly on the means of mass producing and distributing recorded music have been, to my legal and business mind, idiotic. But Nesson was Tenenbaum’s lawyer. His professional judgment as a lawyer was that any legal defense to the RIAA’s claims had little chance of success and that the best lawyering job he could do for his Tenenbaum was to minimize the damages he would be liable for. Nesson clearly had the opportunity to do so. That he passed up that opportunity in a quixotic fight for a principle might be something a lot of people admire, but it’s terrible lawyering.

Want to become a practicing lawyer? Don’t go to Harvard! Nesson and Tenenbaum again.

Some of my favorite and most respected former colleagues in practice went to Harvard Law School, but, based on what I’ve been seeing out Charlie Nesson in his role defending Joel Tenenbaum in Sony BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, I have to seriously wonder what Harvard is teaching about the actual practice of law.

I took Nesson to task recently for using his role as lawyer in the case to fight a crusade against the music industry, not to give his client the best defense possible. That attitude alone destroys my confidence in Nesson’s ability to train anyone to be a lawyer.

Now Nesson has proven he can’t write a brief. Yesterday on behalf of Tenenbaum he filed in the court that produced the $675,000 judgment against his client a document entitled Defendant’s Opposition to Entry of Judgment and Injunction (pdf)(the “Brief”). There are some non-frivolous arguments somewhere in that self-righteous screed, but they’re so buried in Nesson’s preference for rhetorical flourish over lawyerly detail that, as a responsibility to the students I am teaching to be lawyers, I have to call him out on his incompetence. A lawyer’s job is to win the judge to his client’s side through persuasive reason and argument; it is not to throw a mess at the judge that may or may not contain winning arguments and leave it to the judge to find those winning arguments.

It’s a dirty little secret that lawyers don’t like to make too much of: lawyers, not judges, win and lose cases. Lawyers don’t like to make too much of it because they want judges to believe they’re the ones from on high pronouncing judgment. But if you convince the judge you’re right and give him the tools to rule your way, you’ll win. It is remarkably pleasing to get an order from a judge ruling in your client’s favor and realize the order is merely a cut-and-pasted version of your brief. Why shouldn’t the judge steal my words if they explain his result as well as he can figure out how to explain them, and why should he trouble himself trying to find better ways to do so?

But Nesson doesn’t give the judge he’s seeking to persuade anything to work with. First, he’s asking the judge not to enter an order that would impose the jury’s verdict and the injunction against his client. But on what basis? Is he asking for judgment notwithstanding the verdict? What procedural rule is he filing his opposition to the entry of the judgment on? His Brief sure doesn’t explain the basis. Nor does it explain what he is asking the judge to do in lieu of entering the order? Dismiss the case? Lower the damages? Lift the injunction? Any or all?

Listen, students: when you write to the judge make sure she knows what you’re asking her to do and the legal basis she has for doing it.

I won’t get into all of the merits of Nesson’s arguments. I think he may well have a due process argument on the excessiveness of the statutory penalties, but even that one is a stretch.

But the argument he considers “first and foremost” is that “the statute in question does not permit a lawsuit against an individual consumer for statutory damages.” Brief at 1-2 (emphasis added). Having not graduated from Harvard myself, perhaps I am missing something. The operative statute, 17 U.S.C. Section 504(c), provides that “the copyright owner may elect . . . to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, . . . .” (emphasis added)

Nor is there anything in any authority to suggest that Nesson’s incomprehensible conclusion that the statute does not contemplate imposing statutory damages on individuals is founded in sources to obscure for me to know.

Nimmer on Copyright, Section 14.04[a] provides: “Under the current Act, the copyright owner may elect to recover statutory damages, instead of actual damages and defendant’s profits. He may, moreover, make such an election regardless of the adequacy of the evidence offered as to his actual damages and the amount of defendant’s profits, and even if he has intentionally declined to offer such evidence, although it was available. . . . The availability of statutory damages under the current Act, even under circumstances in which plaintiff’s damages or defendant’s profits are susceptible to precise evaluation, represents a departure from the pertinent provisions of the 1909 Act.Under that former law, the availability of statutory damages was to a degree discretionary with the court and turned largely upon the proof of actual damages and defendant’s profits.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)

Patry on Copyright, Section 22:153 states: “Statutory damages are damages whose assessment has been fixed by the legislature. They have existed in U.S. copyright laws since preconstitutional days and stand in contrast to common law actual damages and an accounting of defendant’s profits. Recovery of actual damages or profits varies according to the harm suffered or the benefit received, without an upper limit on the recovery. Statutory damages have been believed to be particularly valuable where such relief is difficult to prove. The purpose of statutory damages has been noted a number of times by the Supreme Court.”

Thus, the court in In re Mann, 410 B.R. 43, 49 (Bkr. C.D. Cal. 2009), quoting Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Nimmer at § 1404[A] ), stated: “However, a plaintiff may elect statutory damages for copyright infringement ‘regardless of the adequacy of the evidence offered as to his actual damages and the amount of defendant’s profits.’” In Raydiola Music v. Revelation Rob, Inc., 729 F. Supp. 369, 374 (D. Del. 1990), the court explained that “the purpose of statutory damages is to remedy a wrong which would otherwise go unremedied if actual damages could not be proven.” See also Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Papa John’s Inc., 201 U.S.P.Q. at 305 (”Statutory damages were provided by Congress to create a remedy where actual damages [or profits] are not provable at law, but yet where it is proven that a violation of the copyright has occurred.”).”

In short, the plaintiff in a copyright infringement case has an alternative: he can prove and recover actual damages or seek the amounts allowed by statute. Such alternatives are common in situations in which it might be difficult for plaintiffs, even after having established statutory violations, to quantify their economic harm. It might even be argued that illegal downloading is precisely such a case — how can Sony BMG possibly quantify the sales, if any, it lost as a result of Tenenbaum’s unauthorized downloading of copyrighted songs.

Could I be wrong? Of course, but Nesson hasn’t begun to explain to me why. Instead, he’s made himself out to be someone who makes arguments that are patently false.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m not on Sony BMG’s side. I think the music industry’s legal and business approaches to the technological revolution that has entirely undermined their old business models have been disasters, and I certainly don’t think Joel Tenenbaum should have to pay Sony BMG $675,000.

My problem is that Nesson is Tenenbaum’s lawyer and he hasn’t given me a good reason to believe he can get Tenenbaum free from that monumental verdict.

Lawyers do the best they can for clients; I wish law professors realized that’s what lawyers should always do.

As someone who has practiced over ten years and taught over ten years I am particularly sensitive to the divide between legal practice and legal academia, and I am partial to the legal practice side of the debate. It’s not that a lot of law professors don’t do a lot of good things; rather, it’s that too many law professors and too much legal education proceeds as if the world of practice is irrelevant. In fact, I am convinced that legal education and legal theory divorced from the application of law in practice is meaningless. Law does not exist except as it has the potential to affect the real world (unless you’re talking about religious law).

And it is fundamental to the practice of law that the first and primary responsibility of the lawyer is to the client’s best interests. When you start treating the client merely as a means to raise intellectual issues you find of greater interest you’re doomed to get in trouble.

Charles Nesson is a good example of a law professor who doesn’t understand how to be a lawyer. Nesson ignored the advice of many who are sympathetic to the plight of file sharers in conducting his defense of Joel Tenenbaum, a case which resulted in a $675,000 verdict against his client. There were many who considered Nesson’s defense bad lawyering, including myself. Blue Mass Group even asked whether he was “the worst lawyer ever” in a post that supported the legitimacy of the question with examples from the case:

[T]hrough the course of the litigation, Tenenbaum gave sworn statements that he then contradicted at trial. And in a dramatic moment, it seems that at the end of his testimony, just before the verdict, he actually admitted liability, causing the judge to find him liable and the leave only question of damages for the jury to decide. Who prepared Tenenbaum to testify? Did anyone bother?

It also seems that Professor Nesson made audio-recordings of depositions in the case–perhaps for use in the classroom?–without the knowledge of the lawyers on the other side of the case. This is potentially a crime, as well as an apparent violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which require a lawyer taking a deposition to notify the other side of the method to be used to record it (though perhaps if Professor Nesson was recording depositions taken by the other side, he would not be in violation of the rule–I’m not sure).

Now, Professor Nesson says he will appeal on the judge’s failure to instruct the jury on fair use. I’m not a copyright law expert, but I’ve heard others describe this issue as likely to lose.

In any case, it seems clear to me that Professor Nesson did not really act to protect Tenenbaum’s interest. This twenty-something graduate student is now facing bankruptcy when he could have settled the case for next to nothing.

More support for the criticism of Nesson’s job defending Tenenbaum comes today with the news that the judge in Tenenbaum’s case ordered defendants who did not even bother to defend file sharing charges to pay the minimum penalties allowed under the Copyright Act, prompting Ars Technica to point out that Tenenbaum and others like him “would have been far better off monetarily if they had simply ignored the complaint altogether and failed to show up in court.”

The sad part is Ars Technica is right — sometimes bad lawyering is worse than no lawyering.

Nesson’s response to criticism that he ignored defenses and other strategies he might have used to minimize Tenenbaum’s liability? He writes, without an ounce of apparent regret: “these defenses do not join the fundamental issues. this trial was not an exercise in getting joel off the hook.”

That’s precisely my point. If you treat a case as a means to an end and are willing to sacrifice the client’s best interests to get to that end, you are not doing your ethical duty as a lawyer. If you insist on a jury, make legal arguments there is no good reason to think will prevail, allow your client to lie in pretrial testimony and go ahead and put him on the stand anyway, flout good sense in recording hearings without having gotten the judge’s permission to do so, and then go and post those recordings on line, is it any wonder your client ends up paying a big price?

As I indicated in my last post (and numerous times on this blog and elsewhere), I am convinced the RIAA’s campaign to sue file sharers is misbegotten as a practical, business matter. I’ve even gone out of my way to try to help Nesson. (See also here.) That doesn’t mean that Nesson is a noble guy in sacrificing his client to what he considers a greater cause, and a lawyer should know better.

Few people read them, but some online agreements are enforceable, and some aren’t; it’s a mess.

Just 3 days ago I wrote about two conflicting decisions concerning the enforceability of online contract provisions that do not require consumers to affirmatively click an “I agree” button. Well, today techdirt points me to a new court decision invalidating such a provision: according to MediaPost, the court “ruled that Internet retailer Overstock can’t enforce the manadatory arbitration agreement set out in its online terms and conditions because there is no evidence that consumers read the policy.” According to the decision, the plaintiff  ”lacked notice of the terms and conditions because the website did not prompt her to review the terms and conditions and because the link to the terms and conditions was not prominently displayed.”

As I wrote the other day, under all the court decisions I am aware of online sellers can ensure that their contracts are not invalidated on these grounds merely by requiring the affirmative act of clicking on an “I agree” button. As I read all of these decisions, online agreements that require the consumer to click “I agree” are enforceable despite the fact that consumers generally do not read the agreements.

To rule otherwise would overturn ages of decisions imposing on the consumer a “duty to read” that binds them to agreements they express agreement to even if they don’t understand what they are agreeing to. It would also leave open to dispute any online transaction that the consumer decided he or she didn’t like, a result that would mire our economy and courts in a mess to deep to contemplate.

There is a solution, however, and it’s one that hit a high gear 50 years ago only to peter out in the wake of our more recent passion for unregulated free markets — consumer protection laws that dictate what terms can and cannot be imposed on consumers. As the situation now stands, we are left with a patchwork effort to find traditional contract rules to come up with fair results (such as invalidating mandatory arbitration clauses that deprive consumers of any meaningful remedies for wrongdoing by online sellers).

In the meantime, I can only repeat what I wrote the other day:

Online sellers: if you want to be maximize the likelihood your agreements are enforceable, do what most online sites do — require your customers to click on a button that expresses their agreement before the transaction is complete.

Online buyers: be careful. Don’t believe that you’re getting what you think you’re getting. You’re only getting what the fine print says you’re getting. But if you do get screwed, remember too that even when you sign something it might be so unfair it is unenforceable.

Copyright and Good Judgment: Damien Hirst, Idiot.

In England, a 17 year old artist named Cartrain created a collage that included an image of Damien Hirst’s diamond encrusted skull, a work entitled “For the Love of God.” As the Independent reports: “The collages were put up for sale on a website, 100artists.com. Hirst reported him to the Design and Artists Copyright Society and a string of legal letters were sent to Cartrain’s art dealer, Tom Cuthbert, at 100artworks.com, about the teenager’s pieces, also called For the Love of God. The online gallerysurrendered them to Hirst with a verbal apology.” So, in July, Cartrain walked into a museum showing some of Hirst’s works and walked off with a box of pencils from one of the installations. As Cartrain explained, “That same day I made up a fake police appeal poster advertising that the pencils had been removed from the Tate and that if anyone had any information they should contact the police on the phone number advertised.” “A few weeks later I went out and I returned home to find out the art and antiques squad from New Scotland Yard had called round with a warrant for my arrest.” According to the Independent, Cartrain “was told by custody officers that the pencils were valued at £500,000 and that he had damaged ‘the concept of a public artwork titled Pharmacy … valued at £10,000,000.’ Cartrain is on bail and, if convicted, his actions will feature among the highest value modern art thefts in Britain. Does Damien Hirst have the right to foreclose the use of images in which he owns the copyright from collages? Plainly, I don’ t think so. But it’s also one of those situations in which I’d tell a client to just back off. Reportedly, Hirst sold the skull for $100 million. The image is ubiquitous. I know I’ve sent it to friends as part of an app on Facebook. Do you, I’d ask, really need to be so heavy-handed in connection with a kid trying to get his start as an artist? (hat tip to Techdirt)

Legal rules, convenient fictions, and figuring out when you’ve agreed to something you haven’t read.

I wrote on Friday about one legal fiction — that a corporation is a “person” entitled to First Amendment free speech rights — and today I can write about another: that contractual relationships are founded on agreement.

I can get one level of the point out of the way quickly. As first year law students learn right at the beginning of their first year contracts course, it is the objective manifestation of agreement that matters, not the subjective intent. You cannot agree to buy a “white” horse and then argue that delivery of a white horse is a breach of your agreement because you subjectively intended “white” to mean black. To suppose otherwise would create a practical nightmare — every contractual dispute potentially would have to be resolved by determining which party to the contract was a liar.

But how do you determine the “objective” meaning of someone’s expressed intent? As a general rule, if you sign an agreement that says you’ve agreed to X, a court will rule you agreed to X. In the online world, if you click on a button that says “I agree,” a court will rule that you agreed even if, as is likely, you didn’t read the agreement.

But there are more complicated possibilities. In Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. (pdf)(S.D.N.Y. 2001), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (someone I once, many years ago, worked for) ruled that an agreement to arbitrate contained in an online agreement Netscape purported to bind anyone who downloaded a certain program from the internet was not enforceable. Why? Because under California law (which the court had determined was applicable to the dispute), someone, “‘regardless of apparent manifestation of his consent, is not bound by inconspicuous contractual provisions of which he was unaware, contained in a document whose contractual nature is not obvious. . . . ‘” Slip op. at 16 (citation omitted).

In Specht, Judge Hellerstein found that the provision in dispute was too inconspicuous to be enforced because the person downloading the program could have done so without even knowing he was agreeing to contractual terms that would limit him in certain ways. Why? Because the language indicating that there even was such an agreement could have been entirely missed — it appeared via a link that could not even be seen unless the user scrolled down on the appropriate page. In other words, the user could click through to the download page without even seeing language indicating that his download represented an agreement to terms he could find by clicking on a link. Id. at 17.

Judge Hellerstein clearly preferred online agreements that require the affirmative act by the user of clicking on a button that says “I agree” and made plain that Netscape’s failure to do that in itself (even if the link to the applicable terms had been visible without scrolling down a page) was enough to undermine its argument that an agreement had been formed:

Netscape argues that the mere act of downloading indicates assent. However, downloading is hardly an unambiguous indication of assent. The primary purpose of downloading is to obtain a product, not to assent to an agreement. In contrast, clicking on an icon stating “I assent” has no meaning or purpose other than to indicate such assent. Netscape’s failure to require users of SmartDownload to indicate assent to its license as a precondition to downloading and using its software is fatal to its argument that a contract has been formed. Id.

Recently, however, as Techdirt pointed out, the court in PDC Laboratories Inc. v. Hach Co., No. 09-1110 (pdf) (C.D. Ill., Aug. 25, 2009), disagreed with Judge Hellerstein and ruled that under Illinois law a contract provision available for viewing behind a hyperlink was an enforceable term in the parties’ contract for the sale of goods.

So, online sellers: if you want to be sure your agreements are enforceable, do what most online sites do — require your customers to click on a button that expresses their agreement before the transaction is complete.

Online buyers: be careful. Don’t believe that you’re getting what you think you’re getting. You’re only getting what the fine print says you’re getting. But if you do get screwed, remember too that even when you sign something it might be so unfair it is unenforceable.

If, like my law students, you’re shaking your head, thinking this guy is not cutting to the bottom line — what does the law say? — understand this: the law is not like the Ten Commandments, setting forth brief rules that are always applicable. Rather, much of the time it gives you guidance on how to minimize your risks. Assume that you’ve minimized your risks as an online seller if you require someone to click on an “I agree” button, and assume you’ve minimized your risks as a buyer if you’ve read and understood the fine print.

Then again, even the Ten Commandments are not as clear cut as most people think. Thou shalt not kill? Unless you’re a Jain, you don’t really believe in the literal truth of that rule.

Paris Hilton as law professor: each judge is your BFF, and remedies are everything.

Knowing the law and being a lawyer are two entirely different things. If something is illegal, does that mean you can’t do it? That would mean you can’t drive 26 mph in a 25 mph zone. In other words, it’s not about whether something is legal or illegal; it’s about consequences, remedies. If you’re in breach of contract, it doesn’t matter much if the party suing you doesn’t have proof that your failure to live up to your promise actually caused the harm you’re thinking of.

Paris Hilton understands that. She also understands how to get a judge on her side. As Law.com reports, “Hilton flirted with a Miami federal judge and mentioned her Zodiac sign as she testified Friday in a civil trial seeking the full production cost of the box office bomb “Pledge This!” for allegedly scanty promotional work.” The plaintiff in the case is “Worldwide Entertainment Group, which was seized by federal regulators as a Ponzi scheme after producing Hilton’s 2006 movie.” Hilton is arguing that she fulfilled all her contractual obligations to promote the film and that her schedule is booked months in advance. To illustrate, she explained that last week she was filming her new reality show, “My New BFF,” in Dubai. “This prompted Moreno to ask what ‘BFF’ stood for. Hilton explained the acronym is short for ‘best friend forever’ and added, ‘You’re my best judge forever.’ Spectators applauded.”

Hilton’s lawyer is arguing not only that she fulfilled her contractual obligations, but also that even if she didn’t the World Wide Entertainment can’t show her failure to do so is the reason the film only made $2.9 million in theatrical release. The judge, apparently won over by Paris, seemed open to that argument — “Moreno said even if he finds Hilton could have done more to boost the movie, he doesn’t know how he can translate that into damages. ‘I know even some of the greatest actors flopped in the movies economically,’ he said.”

Why is music the main battleground in the copyright wars?

Andrew Dubber is an established scholar working in Britain, an author, and an online music consultant writing a book “about the music industries and intellectual property in the digital age.” He’s also writing a blog as “a scrapbook of material for” the book. The book and the blog, Deleting Music, are “[s]pecifically . . . about the problems that arise when music is only considered in terms of its function as commerce, rather than as culture.”

Two days ago Dubber raised this question: why is his focus on music when the issues he is exploring “extend[] way beyond popular music into books, visual arts, academic works, medicine… and extend[] into the realms of international trade, global politics and genuine life and death issues”? He believes that the reason is that the music industry is uniquely threatened by the commercialization of culture:

There’s a genuine cultural crisis going on in the music industries. Master tapes are decaying in vaults. Original works – by artists you’ve heard of, not just obscure and irrelevant wannabes – are not being preserved. Archives and libraries are only reluctantly being supplied with copies of released material – and not reliably so.

In music, perhaps in more than any other field, culture is not merely being prevented from being remixed – it’s completely disappearing, preventing it from forming the basis of any future works or research. And it’s that, more than anything else, that I want to communicate through this book.

This is not a hypothetical problem, or merely an unfair distribution of power. Popular music culture is literally vanishing right now. Magnetically-charged metal oxide particles are falling from master tapes as we speak.

To me, that’s important, urgent – and worthy of its own book

Music has been the center-piece in the recent copyright wars. Dubber knows better than I the impact of the music industry’s practices on the culture, but I think there’s a very good legal explanation for the music industry’s centrality to today’s copyright disputes.

In both the plastic arts and in literature there is a long history of, well, “remixing” as a legitimate method of creation. There has been in music as well, but not in quite the concrete and specific way there can be in painting and literature. Collage is a long-established artistic genre, and in literature the wholesale copying and rearranging of existing work as a composition method goes back to the foundation of Western literature in Homer. In music, on the other hand, while composition has always been a matter of reworking existing formulas, we’ve been operating in recent times on a general assumption that lifting a single note from an earlier recording constitutes copyright infringement. For long enough this practice has been the norm in the music industry that most people I know simply assume it’s an indisputable fact that if you sample anything from a copyrighted work you must pay for the sample.

But that’s a very debatable proposition. So where did it come from?

Paying for every last sampled note from a copyrighted song only became standard industry practice beginning in 1991 practice after Judge Kevin Duffy in Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. , 780 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), in a decision that did not even consider issues pertaining to fair use, enjoined the distribution of Biz Markie’s third album because one of its songs sampled three words and the accompaniment ostinato of Gilbert O’Sullivan’s cheesy hit “Alone Again, Naturally.” Duffy wasn’t satisfied with a mere injunction; he also referred the defendants to the U.S. Attorney’s office for criminal prosecution and began his opinion, like a preacher from the pulpit with these words:

“Thou shalt not steal” has been an admonition followed since the dawn of civilization Unfortunately, in the modern world of business this admonition is not always followed.

The U.S. Attorney’s office exercised its prosecutorial discretion and refused to seek an indictment against Biz Markie or his producers. One likes to think the prosecutors were more thoughtful about the copyright issues the case raised than was Judge Duffy.

But Biz Markie’s record company did not appeal the decision and, in fact, the decision marked the beginning of the music industry’s practice of requiring permission and payment for any sample. The companies that at the time constituted the industry had a strong interest in maintaining the regime Duffy’s decision put into place (a regime bolstered in 2004 by the decision in  Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2004), in which the court ruled that the defendant had committed copyright infringement by using in his own musical recording a two-second sample from an earlier copyrighted recording, lowering the pitch, and looping the sample to extend it to 16 beats). Deference to this legal regime meant that each company’s recordings were inviolate without payment. There was no economic reason to challenge the right of another recording company to require payment for any sample, no matter how small, no matter transformative its use was, and no matter how little impact it would have had on the market for the sampled piece. Moreover, artists who would have challenged the existing regime hardly had the financial wherewithal to take on the industry and the enormously successful artists who benefit from it. Thus, as John Pareles has written, “[a]lthough sampling was just a technological extension of the age-old process of learning through imitation, producers who use samples now pay up instead of trying to set precedents for fair use. “

Thus, the the RIAA states “generally speaking, the use of any part of a song requires a license.”

But, as I have emphasized again and on this blog, law is forced to change when the material conditions it governs change, and the ability to make and stitch together samples into compositions that can be disseminated world-wide — an ability that in 1991 was held almost exclusive by the recording industry — is now within reach of, literally, millions of people. It is inevitable that with this change the deference given to a trial court decision in 1991 would be challenged and that the arguments Judge Duffy entirely ignored in that decision would be examined anew.

But when, and in what circumstances? That is the interesting legal question right now. As I’ve previously written, Greg Gillis, who performs as Girl Talk, creates music that does nothing but violate the rule Judge Duffy declared inviolate since the dawn of civilization — Girl Talk’s work consists entirely of samples of recordings (virtually all copyrighted) stitched together into entirely new works.

Girl Talk’s work therefore has been described as a “lawsuit waiting to happen.” Gillis’s compositions include samples of recordings made by such artists as Metallica, who have demonstrated their willingness to sue people they believe have violated their copyrights, and the Guess Who, whose representative has stated ,  “We’ll chase [Girl Talk] down. What more can you do?” Yet no one, as far as I know, has yet sued Gillis. Why?

Well, I think I am a lawyer just like the lawyers representing Metallica, the Guess Who, and anyone else whose work has been sampled and repurposed by Gillis. And if were advising one of these clients (or I were representing the RIAA and could influence the lawyers for Metallica and the Guess Who), I would advise that client not to sue Girl Talk; Gillis’s argument that he has transformed the copyrighted materials sufficiently that his work constitutes non-inringing fair use is just too good. I’d go after someone I am more likely to beat. Othewise, I’d lose all the leverage I have with the existence, as yet undisputed in case law, of the decisions in Grand Upright Music and Bridgeport Music.

The Madoff Investigation Should Focus on the SEC.

Ever since the Bernie Madoff scandal broke, I’ve wondered: was the SEC paid off? It’s hard to believe the SEC could have investigated Madoff as it did, see what anyone who looked closely could see, and not dig sufficiently to uncover the fraud. And a story today from the Washington Post only adds gasoline to the fire of that suspicion. An SEC lawyer told her superiors in 2004 that “information provided by Madoff during her review didn’t add up and suggest[ed] a set of questions to ask his firm.” She was instructed in response to focus on other matters. And her immediate supervisor’s boss later married Madoff’s niece!

The suspicious SEC lawyer, Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, “had previously worked at the American Stock Exchange, where she developed an expertise in specialized trading strategies.” After she was diverted to other matters, she never was asked about the Madoff investigation again, even during an agency investigation into Madoff in 2005 which only “found three violations of minor rules.” In 2006, Walker-Lightfoot left the SEC after filing a complaint with the agency alleging that she’d been subjected to a hostile workplace. A person familiar with the complaint said it was settled in Walker-Lightfoot’s favor.”

Madoff, incidentally, once “boasted at a business roundtable discussion about his close relationship with SEC regulators, saying “my niece just married one.”

Did Apple Mislead Investors Regarding Steve Jobs’ Health? Almost certainly, yes. Then why did it not disclose the medical facts? (Part I)

Steve Jobs had a liver transplant last week, and, the L.A. times and others report, the “doctor who led the transplant team said this week that Jobs was ‘the sickest patient on the waiting list’ at the time a donor liver became available.” All Apple had earlier disclosed to the public regarding Jobs’ health was set forth in 2 statements written by Jobs and posted on Apple’s website posted last January. The first, in connection with his widely reported drastic weight loss in 2008, stated that “my doctors think they have found the cause—a hormone imbalance that has been ‘robbing’ me of the proteins my body needs to be healthy. Sophisticated blood tests have confirmed this diagnosis. The remedy for this nutritional problem is relatively simple and straightforward, and I’ve already begun treatment. But, just like I didn’t lose this much weight and body mass in a week or a month, my doctors expect it will take me until late this Spring to regain it. I will continue as Apple’s CEO during my recovery.” (emphasis added) The second letter, posted one week later, stated that “during the past week I have learned that my health-related issues are more complex than I originally thought. In order to . . . focus on my health, and to allow everyone at Apple to focus on delivering extraordinary products, I have decided to take a medical leave of absence until the end of June.” (emphasis added) In April, “[a]ccording to unnamed sources . . . Jobs continue[d] to work on the “most important strategies and products from home,” though Apple’s only official statement was that “Steve continues to look forward to returning to Apple at the end of June.”

Inevitably, people are asking a question lawyers representing a company whose stock is traded on public exchanges always have to ask themsevles about any facts that might affect the company’s’ value: is the information “material”? On the one hand, the L.A. Times story states: “Companies are not required to divulge medical details about executives, lawyers said.” But the story also quotes a lawyer stating that “If [Apple] tried to lessen the disclosure and make it misleading by omission, that’s just as bad as telling something that flat isn’t true . . . . ” And Warren Buffet is quoted stating: “Certainly Steve Jobs is important to Apple. . . Whether he is facing serious surgery or not is a material fact.” (emphasis added).

What’s going on? What information is “material” and therefore has to be disclosed to the public by a publicly traded company? Well, Neil Lipschutz is right that “something is material if ‘there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important” in making an investment decision. Also, if there was a substantial likelihood a reasonable investor would think the information ’significantly altered the total mix of information available’ about a company.’”

Do we have anything better to guide us than (1) what seems a terribly subjective test, (2) the gut reactions of lawyers and of Warren Buffett, and (3) the almost certain fact that Apple, after close consideration of the facts and the law by its lawyers, made the business decision that the risks and probabilities of disclosure last January (or at any time between when Jobs first got sick and now) were outweighed by the risks and probabilities of liability for securities fraud if and when its lack of candor became known?

Well, if what you’re seeking is guidance in the way beginning law students and most non-lawyers want the law to provide guidance — articulation of rule that makes it easy to decide the question — the answer is a resounding NO. These are judgment calls based on the specific evidence of each case. In order to determine if a set of facts would matter to an investor, you need to look at those specific facts. And plainly I have not had available to me all the evidence that might eventually be considered to judge the question in this case. But there is a lot available, and based on only that, I have to agree with Warren Buffet that the fact Steve Jobs was so ill he required a liver transplant certainly is material.

But, again, my certainty is not a product of pointing to a “law” and having you nod your head in agreement. I have to look at the specific evidence regarding Apple, the law, and the facts in the cases in which courts have concluded that events are material and in which courts have concluded the events are not material. By doing that, I hope I can convince you that my certainty is well founded. That’s the best I can do.

Moreover, that’s not the end of the lawyer’s job. Even if the lawyers concluded that the facts regarding Jobs’ health prior became “material” at any time before the next week would not mean Apple necessarily would disclose those facts. Apple’s lawyers would have to consider what potential downside its failure to disclose those facts would present and the likelihood that downside would occur. Then Apple, not the lawyers, would have to decide if those risks and probabilities would outweigh the likelihood and degree of the impact disclosure would have on Apple’s value.

There are a number of rules under which a publicly traded company is obligated to disclose “material” information to the public or face criminal and civil liability, but the definition of “materiality” is the same under all of them. One is a regulation known in the trade as “Rule 10b-5″ [17 CFR 240.10b-5], which makes it a crime and a civil wrong for any a company or an individual purchasing or selling stock “to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, . . ” As the United States Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit stated in SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d at 833, 848 (2d Cir. 1968), this requirement to disclose material facts is based “on the justifiable expectation of the securities marketplace that all investors trading on impersonal exchanges have relatively equal access to material information . . . .” The requirement originates in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)), one of the keystones of the New Deal passed in response to the practices prevalent on Wall Street that had led to the 1929 stock market crash.

As the court further stated in Texas Gulf Sulfur, “[t]he basic test of materiality * * * is whether a reasonable man would attach importance * * * in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question.” Thus, material facts include any facts “which affect the probable future of the company and those which may affect the desire of investors to buy, sell, or hold the company’s securities.”

The defendants in Texas Gulf Sulfur had argued that tests showing one of their company’s mines was likely a rich one were not material because there was nothing certain to report until mining had actually begun and there was more certainty than the tests could provide.  The Second Circuit rejectted their argument, ruling that even possibilities that never occur might be material. One must look at the probability the fact would have an impact on the company’s value and the magnitude of that potential impact: “whether facts are material . . . will depend at any given time upon a balancing of both the indicated probability that the event will occur and the anticipated magnitude of the event in light of the totality of the company activity.” 401 F.2d at 849. Thus, the court reversed the trial court’s decison to dismiss the criminal charges against the defedants because, the Second Circuit decided, they would be guilty if it were true that they had failed to disclose “the possibility, which surely was more than marginal, of the existence of a mine of the vast magnitude” as a result of a “remarkably rich” sample taken  ”close to the surface (suggesting mineability by the less expensive openpit method) within the confines of a large anomaly (suggesting an extensive region of mineralization).” That mere “suggestion . . . would certainly have been an important fact to a reasonable, if speculative,  investor in deciding whether he should buy, sell, or hold” stock in the mining company the defendants controlled. Id. at 849-50 (emphasis added).

The U.S. Supreme Court expressly adopted the Second Circuit’s test in 1988 in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), a case in which the Court determined that corporate insiders might have had the duty to disclose negotiations for a corporate merger before the merger was concluded. Some courts outside the 2d Circuit prior to that time had ruled that a deal didn’t have to be disclosed until it was a binding deal. The Supreme Court rejected the reasoning of those courts and made plain that an event that might not ever happen nevertheless might at some point be likely enough and big enough that it would affect a reasonble investor’s investment decisions.

So the questions Apple’s lawyers had to be asking themselves all the time ever since they learned in 2004 that Jobs had pancreatic cancer, are the following:

(1) Is Jobs so important to Apple that an investor would make a decision to sell, buy, or hold on to Apple stock based on his ability to do his job?

(2) Do the medical facts demonstrate with sufficient probability that Jobs’ condition is threatened enough that those facts would cause an investor to sell, buy, or hold on to Apple stock?

(3) Did Apple’s words or omissions mislead reasonable investors in evaluating whether Jobs could continue to do his job well enough to not affect their investment decisions.

Let’s get the easy stuff out of the way. Jobs’ health and its impact on his ability to do his job  are so plainly material that to argue otherwise wouldn’t pass the “giggle test.”  I would therefore, if I were representing Apple in litigation, advise the company simply to admit this point in the answer to any complaint anyone filed. To admit the point would at least minimize attention to something that, if Apple did dispute it, would only increase attention to a weakness in the company’s case. But just in case you think I don’t understand when it’s smart lawyering to concede a point, remember these things — someone’s own words are taken by a court as “admissions.” In other words, if someone admits something that is harmful to his legal position, the court will assume the facts are at least that bad. In the letter posted online last January, addressed to the “Apple Community,” Jobs ended with this: “So now I’ve said more than I wanted to say, and all that I am going to say, about this.” I’d love to ask him in a deposition why, if he didn’t want to write what he wrote, he did. The probelm, if Apple had decided to dispute the materiality of Jobs to the company’s value, is that he’d have to deny and dance around the obvous: his lawyers told him he had to write the letter because his health and its impact on his capacity to do his job is material to Apple’s shareholders and potential shareholders.

Don’t assume I haven’t considered the arguments I could make on Apple’s behalf on this point — I could point out, for example, as MacNewsWord did yesterday, that since January, when Jobs wrote the letter he didn’t want to write, Apple stock has almost doubled in value. The Apple loving outlet implied that market shows that investors have been confident that Apple was fine without Jobs:  ”This could be due to general belief among investors that Apple has a good management team in place which has kept the company running on an even keel despite the CEO’s absence.”  Or it could mean the market had already accounted for Jobs’ illness.  Or it could be that the market is driven by unreasonable investors.  It could be for any number of reasons. Regardless, I am convinced  that a strategy to fight a securities fraud case on the grounds that Jobs isn’t important enough to be material to Apple is not going to make winning the case more likely. I could go on and on . . . Last October, just to take at random one piece of evidence easy to find via a mere Google search, (according to CSnews) “Some individual had posted a fake report . . . claiming Steve Jobs had suffered from a heart attack and was rushed into the hospital. As a result, Apple’s stock made a 10% nosedive.”

NEXT: (a) was Jobs’ health so dire its specifics would have made a difference to people thinking about buying, selling or holding on to Apple stock, (b) did Apple’s statment’s or silences mislead investors about Jobs’ health, and (c) why would Apple choose not to disclose specifics regarding Jobs’ health even if its lawyers were telling it that those were material facts?

The EFF surely wants Jammie Thomas not to settle at any price, while the RIAA, even though it won $1.92 from a jury, surely wants her to, likely for any price.

Mike Masnick of Techdirt reports that the RIAA is anxious to settle the case in which it won $1.92 million from Jammie Thomas-Rasset for illegally downloading 24 songs. As Masnick writes, the RIAA “seems to recognize that the insanity of the $1.92 million doesn’t do it any favors. Even the musicians whose music was part of the case are embarrassed by the amount. . . . the RIAA would love to settle the lawsuit for some lower amount so it can run around touting the ‘risks’of file sharing without having people laugh outloud when hearing that someone had to pay $1.92 million for potentially sharing 24 songs that could be bought for $1 each.”

Masnick writes too that he’s been expecting Jammie Thomas to settle “but the longer this goes on, the more I wonder if she’s actually planning to fight on. If so, this could certainly represent a case to examine the statutory rates associated with copyright violations.”

Mike is more right than he may know. Any lawyer interested in challenging the constitutionality of the statutory penalties imposed by the Copyright Act would want to represent Jammie Thomas on this appeal. When a lawyer looks to challenge a law, if he’s got any sense he doesn’t challenge it via any case that happens to come up. He chooses a case that presents especially good facts for the challenge. The EFF would love to have Jammie Thomas appeal – no case involving a defendant found liable for illegal downloading would be a better vehicle for bringing the challenge to the statutory penalties.

Tweets on Law Practice

Matthew Homann, at the [non]billable hour, has published  100 Tweets: Thinking About Law Practice in 140 Characters or Less (pdf).  His advice is terrific. Here are some of my favorites:

1. “My lawyer can beat up your lawyer” is not a marketing strategy. “My lawyer will call me back before yours will” is. 

8. The most significant advantage you possess over lawyers who’ve come before you is that you don’t believe what they do. 

16. The confused mind always says no. 

28. You should never have a bigger monitor or more comfortable chair than your secretaries do. 

53. Never confuse your desire to explain something with yourability to do so. 

84. Trying to learn client service in ethics class is like trying to learn to ride a bicycle by watching lots of bike accidents. 

By the way, on Twitter, I’m “@pbfriedman.”

I think we should shoot puppies!

There — that headline should ensure I never can be confirmed for federal office.

Dawn Johnsen, a law professor at the University of Indiana, is President Obama’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which ” provides authoritative legal advice to the President and all the Executive Branch agencies.”  It’s the office that produced the “torture memos,” those shockingly ill-reasoned legal fig-leafs for the Bush administration’s policies regarding the treatment of “detainees in the War on Terror.” Ms. Johnsen was an “unsparing critic” of those memos.  As a result, Senate Republicans are threatening to filibuster her nomination.  But that’s not the reason they are expressing.  What is their pretext?  Twenty years ago in a footnote of a brief she wrote in a lawsuit in which she represented the National Abortion Rights Action League, she wrote that “forcing a woman to bear a child when she had no desire to do so was ‘disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude.’” Thus, the Republicans threatening filibuster say, she has “equated abortion with slavery” and is therefore unqualified to fill those posts once occupied by John Yoo and Jay Bybee (currently a tenured law professor and a federal court of appeals judge, respectively), who purported to provide legal justification for the waterboarding and beatings of U.S. prisoners.  (The torture, of course, ensured that we can never bring the terrorists subject to it to justice since no U.S. court would ever consider the evidence obtained by torture reliable enough to convict those terrorists.)

The Republicans are also threatening to do all they can to block the nomination of Harold Koh to be legal counsel to the State Department.  Koh is the dean of Yale Law School.  Why is he unqualified to fill the job he’s nominated for?  Because, purportedly, he thinks “Sharia law could apply to disputes in U.S. courts.” This stuff is actually taken seriously. Even though none of it is true.

I’m flabbergasted.  Effective persuasion and argument require being open to all sorts of ideas, but it also requires constraints — one cannot persuade with unpersuasive arguments.  But whether justifying torture or opposing perfectly reasonable people who happened to oppose the justification of torture, there seems to be a remarkable willingness to rely on the hope that whatever one says, no matter how empty or absurd, will have an impact.  It reminds me of the “Obama pals around with terrorists” line.  Since he had professional connections with Bill Ayers 30 years after Ayers’ days in the Weather Underground, we were supposed to imagine Obama hangs out on his off days with his friends from Al-Qaeda.  I would expect the U.S. Senate could have as much sense as the entire electorate demonstrated last November in rejecting those ridiculous arguments.  So far, it seems, I’m wrong about the Senate.

War is Peace, or They can sue, but you can’t.

There is wisdom and responsible citizenship, and then there is mindless use of law to advance whatever selfish interests one has when one has them.  May my students know the difference, and may they not serve clients who want the latter at the cost of the former.

In November 2006,  the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation issued a report arguing for cutting back on regulation of financial markets, for limitations on private lawsuits and on lawsuits by state attorneys general, and for increased restrictions on the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue new rules. The Committee on Capital Markets Regulation was a private group, but it had prominence.   Its co-chairs were R. Glenn Hubbard, the dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Business, and John L. Thornton, the chairman of the Brookings Institution, its formation was endorsed by then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., and a significant part of its funding came from the Starr Foundation, started by Maurice R. Greenberg, who had in 2006 recently been deposed as Chairman of AIG.

Greenberg and AIG were notoroius for their hostility to lawsuits.  It figures — AIG is (was?) an insurance company, and liabilities are what insurance companies are supposed to pay for.  As the founder of one law firm I worked for, Gene Anderson, always says, “Insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums and denying claims.”

Now, though, Greenberg no longer heads AIG and AIG showed itself incapable of paying for the liabilities it had collected premiums to insure.  So their minds seem to have changed.  Greenberg has become a lawsuit enthusiast, most recently suing AIG for for securities fraud based on alleged “‘material misrepresentations and omissions’” that  caused him to acquire New York-based AIG shares in his deferred compensation profit-participation plan at an ‘artificially inflated price.’”

And I just read that AIG commenced a lawsuit last month against the federal government seeking a return of $306 million in taxes it claims it should not have paid.  The claims include taxes paid in connection with AIG’s financial products unit (”the once high-flying division that has been singled out for its role in A.I.G.’s financial crisis last fall”), and “AIG offshore entities whose function centers on executive compensation and include C. V. Starr & Company, a closely held concern controlled by Maurice R. Greenberg and the Starr International Company.”

As the New York Times puts it:

A.I.G. is effectively suing its majority owner, the government, which has an 80 percent stake and has poured nearly $200 billion into the insurer in a bid to avert its collapse and avoid troubling the global financial markets. The company is in effect asking for even more money, in the form of tax refunds. The suit also suggests that A.I.G. is spending taxpayer money to pursue its case, something it is legally entitled to do. Its initial claim was denied by the Internal Revenue Service last year.

And if you think corporations should be liable to individuals for damages their products cause, that taxes should be raised on the people who earn more than 95% of our citizens, and that we should tax the inheritances of heirs who have done nothing to earn that money, you’re accused of engaging in “class warfare”?  I’ve got news for you: they struck first.

Shepard Fairey, lightning rod

I’ve pointed out both that I believe strongly that Shepard Fairey’s use of an AP photograph to create his Obama Hope poster does not infringe the pohotograph’s copyright and that Fairey has been the target of frequent criticism in the art community regarding his “originality” and regarding his apparent hypocrisy in asserting infringement claims against artists who had appropriated his images.

It has come to my attention that some criticize the Fair Use Project’s decision to take up Fairey’s cause in the case of the Obama Hope poster and think Fairey should be taken down because of his apparent hypocrisy.

As a lawyer, I strongly disagree with this position.  If, as I zealously believe, the Obama Hope poster is fair use, it would be self-defeating to those of us who support the explicit application of the fair use doctrine to transformative appropriation art and various other methods of “remixing” pre-existing works, regardless of our view of Fairey himself,  if we failed to support Fairey’s position in connection with the Obama Hope poster.

I cannot help but recall last year’s lawsuit brought by Yoko Ono, Sean Ono, and Julian Lennon seeking to require the makers of the documentary “Expelled” from using a 15 second excerpt of John Lennon’s song “Imagine” in their documentary.  As I wrote at the time, I believed the lawsuit was misbegotten and that the film’s use of the excerpt constituted fair use despite my love of John Lennon and my contempt for the film, which purports that “theorists” of “Intelligent Design” have unjustifiably been expelled from the conversation regarding evolution and the development of life.  The court hearing the case agreed with my position and dismissed the case. Not coincidentally, the Fair Use Project represented the producers of “Expelled” in that case.

Fair use is fair use, and if we believe in it we should support it wherever it exists, even if we despise the people asserting fair use.  I supported the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a community full of Holocaust survivors, because I believe that the right to demonstrate in public is protected by the First Amendment regardless of how vile the message being conveyed may be.  The Supreme Court agreed.

That doesn’t mean we can’t criticize Fairey when he seems to want his cake and eat it too.  (Though it may be that Fairey’s thoughts have evolved on these issues — while he sent a cease-and-desist letter to Baxter Orr for Orr’s appropriation of one of Fairey’s images, Fairey never followed that letter up with any other action despite Orr’s continued use of the image.)

You may not like Fairey.  But that does not mean we shouldn’t support his position when he happens to be right.  To fail to do so would be to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

You hang yourself with your own words.

One thing I learned well as a lawyer is that you could almost always hang an adversary with his own words.  When deposing the opposing party or a witness for the opposing party, my strategy was always to get the person to talk as freely and voluably as possible.  I’d ask open ended questions, nod agreeably, follow up with words like “Really?” to prompt even more loggorhea, and, invariably, when the transcript came back I’d find one piece of testimony after another that was damaging to my adversary’s case.  Conversely, when I prepared witnesses to testify in response to the questions of adversarial lawyers, the advice, pounded in with a hammer, was to answer the question and SHUT UP.  If a yes or a no answered the question, just say yes or no and SHUT UP.

Here’s an amusing example (pdf): in a prosecutor’s opposition to a defense attorney’s request for a delay in the defendant’s trial, the prosecutor explains that the defense attorney “is a partner in a large law firm (over 325 attorneys) and presumably has daily access to a horde of eager, smart, hard working associates to assist in this case.”  That’s not all that bad an argument about why there should be no delay in the trial, but it doesn’t have all that much bite.   But her footnote points out that the defense attorney “touts himself as a ‘Super Lawyer’ on his website.”  Ouch.  Surely a Super Lawyer shouldn’t need more time given the other points the prosecutor has made.

The threat one’s own words pose to oneself is one of the things that scares me most about writing so much on the internet.  Shoot me if I ever refer to myself as a super lawyer.  But how can I?  A recent commenter wrote that something in a recent post of mine wasn’t “worthy of a First Year, much less a professor of law.”   And, after all, considering what the prospect for a hanging does to one’s mind, being wary of being hanged by my own words probably not the worst thing to consider when I’m spouting off.

(hat tip to Southwest Virginia Law Blog, via Brian Ledbetter)

Law Firms and Layoffs

Law firms, like most businesses in these dire days, are laying off a lot of people.  In doing so, like any business, they have to consider the threat of lawsuits by individuals who have been laid off.  Catherine Padalino, the worldwide employment practices liability manager for the Chubb Group of Insurance Cos., has some wise advice for businesses of all sorts, including law firms, on how to minimize these threats:

– First (of course, given the source) have insurance against the risk.

– Evaluate the overall anticipated impact of the layoff, including the potential for litigation as well as public scrutiny.

– Use quantitative criteria such as tenure and performance, rather than “soft” criteria such as social situations and financial hardship, to determine which employees to let go. Be consistent in applying the criteria, which should be communicated to all employees.

– Review the demographics of the staff that will be laid off to eliminate any appearance of discrimination. Consider the status of each employee, including whether he or she recently requested a leave under the Family Medical Leave Act or filed a workers’ compensation claim.

– Use outside counsel to evaluate employment practices and severance policies. Law firms should refrain from self-diagnosis.

“Most important,” said Padalino, “remember to treat all employees-those who will be laid off and those who will stay-with dignity. Laying off employees is unpleasant, but firms that try to do the right thing can help mitigate the potential for an even more unpleasant EPL lawsuit.”