Deliberations

What Great Basketball Coaches Can Teach Us About Trial Prep

Dean Smith, the hall-of-fame University of North Carolina basketball coach, was a master at preparing his players for opponents.  I once heard a story that described a time when Coach Smith had to get his Tarheels ready for an opposing team that had significant height at numerous positions around the court.  Rather than having a normal practice, he gathered brooms and mops from the janitorial closet and distributed them to defenders as arm extenders to block shots.  If Coach Smith’s players could shoot over brooms, then they could certainly shoot over their upcoming vertically-enhanced opponents.

Like many of the best coaches, Dean Smith knew that effective preparation often meant stacking the deck against oneself in practice.  This mantra also holds true for trial preparation.  It is easy to assume that a motion will be won to exclude damaging testimony or evidence, but what if the judge decides in favor of your opponent?  What if opposing counsel is more capable than first anticipated or an expert witness handles his or her deposition swimmingly?  

Doggie Witness Prep (Coming To A Courtroom Near You?)

Recently, a loveable dog named Rose (Rosie to her friends) sat next to a child witness in court while she gave testimony about the brutal rape and impregnation she endured at the hands of her father.  Yes, a dog sat in the witness stand.  Rosie is a service dog that can sense anxiety and was provided to the young witness to aid her in the process of testifying.  At one point, the help was very evident when Rosie “nosed” the child during a particularly difficult bout of answers.

While this is the first instance of “comfort dog” use during testimony in New York State, (as this article outlines) the practice has actually been happening across the country with child witnesses for some time (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, etc.).  In this case, Rosie and the witness spent five weeks bonding (and prepping) prior to the trial.  The goal of the training was to help the victim reduce her anxiety about facing her father and being questioned on such painful memories in front of a courtroom full of strangers.

Not surprisingly, the defense attorney was up in arms about the dog’s presence (and is appealing).  It is certainly a valid point to suggest that the presence of a dog could be unduly prejudicial.  Would dog lovers view her more favorably?  Dog haters more unfavorably? Is it possible that a witness could lie more easily with a comfort dog present?  How would the dog impact opposing counsel’s cross examination?

These are valid questions, but the opposing response is more persuasive.

In State v. Cliff, 116 Idaho 921, 782 P. 2d 44 (1989) an eight year old victim of sexual assault was allowed to carry her doll to the stand because the court ruled the calming effect would aid in more accurate testimony.  A similar ruling occurred in Washington [State v. Smith 119 P.3d 411 (2005)] when a teddy bear was allowed to venture into the witness box.  In those cases, the defense unsuccessfully argued that the presence of a psychological security blanket would impede cross examination of the children.

Anyone worth their salt at witness prep will tell you that anxiety is one of the top barriers to effective testimony.  Much of what litigation consultants do is help in reducing witness anxiety so the truth can be more effectively presented on the stand.  Why would the reduction of anxiety in a child be a bad thing?  Further, service dogs for people with physical/mental handicaps have long been allowed in courtrooms.  Has the presence of these dogs created unjust verdicts?

Most importantly, the “comfort dog” accommodation has primarily been utilized with children.  A child witness has a special status with the court, which can be seen in states that allow closed circuit or videotaped testimony for child victims.  As this UST Law Review notes:

“…our Supreme Court  promulgated the Rule on Examination of A Child Witness  which acknowledges the special concerns of child witnesses that need to be addressed while testifying before criminal, civil, legislative, or administrative proceeding…  the main objectives of the said Rule are to ‘create and maintain an environment that will allow children to  give reliable and complete evidence, minimize trauma to children, encourage children to testify in legal proceedings, and facilitate the ascertainment of the truth.’”

Obviously, the rules of the game change when a minor is giving testimony.  Proper voir dire should spot those jurors who would not be able to set aside the influence of having a dog (or a doll, or a teddy bear) sitting with a child on the stand.  While there is some danger of prejudicial effects, the value of truthful testimony from a calm mind (and reduced emotional damage to the child) far outweighs the potential risk.

Those interested in utilizing comfort dogs in court can check out a sample brief here.

Blogger: Matt McCusker

 

Yo Quiero Taco Bell’s Legal Strategy

“Hooooold me now. It’s hard for me to say I’m sorry. I just want you to stay (as a defendant).” - Chicago

Yesterday, Taco Bell leveled a smackdown of epic proportions through an open letter to opposing counsel in a class action suit.  It was witty, in-your-face and broadcast through newspapers across the land.  The full page ads began with a giant-fonted question: “WOULD IT KILL YOU TO SAY YOU’RE SORRY?”

(I highly encourage you to read the full ad here, it’s a riot.)

Alabama plaintiffs’ law firm Beasley Allen recently decided to run for the border and withdraw the class action suit against Taco Bell that alleged the company was using bad meat products and false advertising.  In response, Taco Bell has brazenly demanded an apology and pointed out that this case has ended with:

“No changes to our (Taco Bell) products or ingredients. No changes to our advertising. No money exchanged. No settlement agreement.”

The ad concludes with a final poke at the attorneys:  “You got it wrong, and you’re probably feeling pretty bad right now. But you know what always helps? Saying to everyone, ‘I’m sorry.’ C’mon, you can do it!”

Taco Bell claims that the lawsuit had no merit and cost the company millions in legal fees and lost revenue.  While this ad is an excellent way to get the “safe tacos” announcement out (e.g., I’m writing a blog about Taco Bell’s trustworthy meat), I wonder if there is a secondary goal:  fewer future lawsuits.

This ad was clearly designed to send a message, but it never specifically mentions Beasley Allen.  One reason could be to avoid any claims of reputation damage by the law firm, but I think there was also a motivation to keep the communication “open” to any future opponents.  By investing a tremendous amount of money in an aggressive campaign for an apology, the public relations tables have been turned.  Rather than agreeing to an undisclosed settlement, the company has adopted the Steve Buscemi Strategy (seemingly harmless, but with a disconcerting  unpredictability).

Honestly, I can’t see the downside in this approach.  It’s brilliant.  The question will be if others follow suit (excuse the pun) in highlighting frivolous cases, rather than simply settling them for low dollar values.  In the meantime, don’t mess with Taco Bell, they’re loco.

Blogger: Matt McCusker

 

One Underwear Bomb = 10 Million Nudie Pics (The Question of Body Scanner Legality)

“Opt out!” the TSA officer yelled at me in a startling manner as I stood in the security line at Reagan Washington National Airport. “Opt out!” I heard in the distance.  “Opt out!” was yelled for a third time from another direction as my head swiveled and everyone seemed to be staring at me.  Suddenly, my bags were swept off the X-ray machine and I was instructed to remove everything from my pockets (boarding pass, a gum wrapper, a crumpled Starbucks receipt), untuck my shirt, hike up my pants and “assume the position” for a disturbingly invasive frisking that seemed eerily similar to a pre-conjugal visit pat down (or so I’ve heard).

As I spread my legs, I had visions of Harvey Keitel in Bad Lieutenant while a very unhappy man intimately touched me in ways that I will not recount on this blog (but can assure you have historically been preceded by a first kiss).  Simultaneously, another TSA officer opened my bag for a bout of aggressive rummaging and began testing my unmentionables for bomb residue.  When I asked why all this was necessary, I was gruffly informed that it was for my security and I should “get used to it.”  To quote my new TSA friend with benefits: “Don’t you remember the underwear bomber? That’s why.”  When they were done, I put my clothes back on and gathered my belongings, meekly skulking away towards my gate like Jodie Foster in The Accused.

What had I done to instigate this unsettling ballet that would be aptly titled “Le Opt Out”?  Simply told, I declined a TSA officer’s request to leave my much faster metal detector security line for the body scanner security line. As a result of this insubordination, I won a trip through the metal detector (which I was already set to go through) and endured what I have dubbed the “Sanctioned Crotch Reach ‘Opt Out’ Deterrent” (or SCROOD for short.)

For those have not yet experienced this wonder of modern technology, the body scanner is able to allow your friendly neighborhood TSA officers to look under you undies (assuming you have no Flying Pasties) to make sure that you are not smuggling weapons onto a plane (although there is serious debate on its effectiveness).  Don’t worry, the program apparently blurs your face, it’s only everything else that is exposed to a stranger sitting 10 feet away. Also, as a bonus, it blasts you with “safe levels” of radiation through a “backscatter X-ray process” that is not powerful enough to send radiation all the way through your body, only through your skin.

A recent NY Times piece seems to have ignited a powder keg of anger on the web that has been growing over the last year.  In fact, there is a National Opt Out Day Protest planned for this November 24 (where everyone is asked to “Opt Out” on the busiest Thanksgiving travel day).  A brief Google search uncovers that it’s hard to find a news organization that is not taking a negative slant on this new technology (CNN, Fox News, ABC, CNET, CBS, NPR, etc.). The question is: Is this legally acceptable?

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed a lawsuit that moves to stop the utilization of body scanners through a number of interesting arguments (you can read the brief here).  Amongst its claims, EPIC argues that the scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and (most interestingly) the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act.  This last assertion utilizes a law that was passed to prevent people from installing cameras to look up women’s skirts. (Who needs that ancient technology anymore?)

A similar backlash has been ongoing in the U.K., where the scanners were forced to become optional for children under 18 years of age because the naked images would violate child pornography laws.  What has not yet been brought into legal question is the regular use of invasive pat downs for children that do not go through the scanners.  Even the U.N. Human Rights Council has weighed in on the question of privacy rights lost through the use of body scanners and pilots unions are advising their members to avoid the scanners based on health concerns and employment rights.

Litigation consultants travel a lot and this is the life I have chosen.  I am not one to downplay the need for security on planes, especially since I spend so much time on them.  However, it is also necessary to ask the question “Where is the line that makes the sacrifice greater than the gain?”  Luckily, I’m not the only one asking this question.  Given the current plan to rapidly replace all metal detectors with radiation-driven body scanners in the name of security, it’s nice to know that some people are forcing us to take a breath and think about the health concerns, privacy rights and fiscal responsibility that we find equally as valuable.

(Click Here for a funny Top 13 list on why Consumer Traveler loves body scanners and check out the new online game Celebrity Body Scanner here.)

Blogger: Matt McCusker

 

 

If Miss Cleo Couldn’t Predict a Jury Outcome, WHO CAN?

In an end to an illustrious career, Miss Cleo and her Psychic Readers Network came to a landmark settlement with the Federal Trade Commission where the company sacrificed $500 million dollars in fees and paid a $5 million fine for deceptive business practices.  This result brought three questions to my mind:

1. A $500 million settlement! How much money was Miss Cleo Making?  How much did she “psychically predict” a jury would award?
2. This is just one example in a sea of settlements based on predictions of trial outcomes, I must ask: How accurate are these predictions?
3. If I wore a turban and spoke in Jamaican accent, could I be a successful psychic litigation consultant? (Seriously. I cannot get over that $500,000,000 figure for a psychic hotline.)

A recent analysis out of Cornell Law School attempted to explore the meaning of “jury predictability” in the United States and if such a thing even exists.  They utilized a national comparison of jury verdicts via the 2005 National Center for State Courts Civil Justice Survey (an amazing study I have cited before) and the 2005 and 2006 U.S. Chamber of Commerce State Liability Ranking Studies.  Through a process I won’t go into here, Valerie Hans and Theodore Eisenberg established a creative method of analyzing the relationship between corporate and insurance attorneys’ assessments of juror predictability and the actual verdicts that were eventually rendered in various States.

Their results demonstrated that predictability ratings had little relation to jury compensatory damage awards, but were surprisingly in synch with punitive damage awards.  It suggests that the outcomes of cases with punitive damages (awarded in only 5% of judge or jury civil plaintiff verdicts nationally) are dominating defense attorney assessments of jury predictability.

In 2008, a paper published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies entitled "Let's Not Make a Deal" analyzed 9,064 decisions in contested litigation cases to examine the number and magnitude of errors made by attorneys and clients in failed settlement negotiations that ended in jury verdicts.  The results reconfirmed the findings of three prior empirical studies: both plaintiff’s counsel and defendant’s counsel frequently make dramatic miscalculations when predicting trial outcomes.  Interestingly, plaintiffs had a high rate of miscalculations (61.2%) with mid-level financial magnitudes, while defendants had a lower rate of miscalculations (24.3%) that resulted in very high financial magnitudes.  In other words, the plaintiffs guessed wrong regularly but only took a medium hit to the pocketbook, while defendants miscalculated less often but it cost them tremendous amounts of money. (I call it a tie.)

So, what does this mean? I would suggest that there could be several factors at play:

• Current methods of predicting potential case outcomes may be lacking due to an over-reliance on a small sample of similar jury trial outcomes.
• The stronger side may be sacrificing too much during mediation and settlement negotiation due to an unrealistic fear of loss or a lack of preparation towards fully establishing the power of the case.
• The idea of what a case is worth may be too heavily based on what similar cases have settled for, furthering a vicious cycle of faulty settlements.
• There is an over-dependence on Jamaican mystics and psychic hotlines.

Predicting jury outcomes is tremendously difficult task and every situation is different.  The best insurance against faulty guessing is to spend significant time learning one’s case and developing the strongest possible strategy prior to negotiation.  Just remember, that attorney who just had the embarrassing loss on a similar case down the road may have been depending on a very questionable strategy that began with 1-900…

Blogger: Matt McCusker

 

OPENING STATEMENT? We've got an app for that.

 Last year, comedian Louis CK delivered a hilarious rant on the Conan O’Brien Show about our modern-day technological expectations (click here to laugh).  CK makes his point about how accustomed we’ve become to the luxuries of 21^st century life by recounting an interaction with a fellow airplane passenger:

“I was on an airplane and there was internet, high speed internet on the airplane…it’s amazing… then it breaks down and they apologize the internet is not working and the guy next to me goes ‘this is bullsh**.’…Like the world owes him [YouTube clips] he knew existed only 10 seconds ago… Oh really?  What happened next?  Did you fly through the air incredibly like a bird? Did you partake in the miracle of human flight?  Wow, you’re flying!  It’s amazing!  Everybody on every plane should just constantly be going, ‘OH MY GOD!’ ‘WOW!’ …You’re sitting in a chair in the sky!”

Louis CK’s rant went viral through the internet because it rang so true.  Technological advancements have completely altered our daily expectations.  Think of the first cell phones, the first internet connections, the first automobiles.  How would we rate them today?  Progress has caused us to judge harshly those who fail to rise to the lofty goals we set.  The courtroom is not immune to this phenomenon.

Today’s information-age jurors expect well-crafted presentations that include advanced auditory and visual components which are interwoven with the case story.  Moreover, a famous 1963 Weiss and McGrath study demonstrated that there is good reason for this juror preference.  They found that information is retained at a remarkably higher rate when it is presented orally and visually (65% retention), rather than orally alone (10% retention) or visually alone (20% retention).¹  While many attorneys think that a good opening statement or closing argument does not need the aid of visual dynamics, both research and juror comments beg to differ.

However, there is also the danger of going too far.  Presentations should not be so shocking or overwhelming that they serve to drown out supporting evidence that may be key to the foundation of a case. A recent study published in the Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising found that commercials shown between “intense war news” segments had much lower retention rates in audiences.  One could see how it would be counterproductive to make key points in a closing argument directly before or after graphic photos were shown.

Interestingly, a similar point was made when researchers tested the efficacy of PowerPoint text animations.  A study out of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington found that college students retained less information when presented with animated PowerPoint slides, than when the same topics were presented through static (non-animated) PowerPoint slides.

Still, it should be remembered that a good PowerPoint presentation, demonstrative computer animation or video clip will only go so far.  This audio-visual array must also be set in a framework that allows jurors to focus on learning, rather than remembering.  Researchers from the University of Amsterdam and Duke University have demonstrated that learning and remembering compete for valuable resources in the brain.  As a result of this battle for brain power, jurors who are constantly trying to recall case elements (Who is who? Why does this matter? When did this happen?) are distracted.  If this happens, all of the money spent on fancy instructional animations could be wasted.  An effective story or narrative framework is essential to making multi-modal presentations stick in jurors’ minds.

Blogger: Matt McCusker

*Image courtesy of the Wake County (N.C.) Bar Awards and Merritt Videoworks.  Click Here to see all of the great work the Wake County Bar is doing for their community and see if you can help.

¹ (H. Weiss and J.B. McGrath, "Technically Speaking: Oral Communication for Engineers, Scientists and Technical Personnel" (1963).)

MAN WINS PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION SUIT (Seriously.)

 As I prepare my Mediation Workshop for the upcoming American Society of Trial Consultants Conference (June 17-20), I have been floating in a dispute resolution state of mind. Then, I came across this story...

Eversheds, one of England’s largest law firms, recently found themselves in quite a pickle.  For financial reasons, the firm needed to lay off one of two redundant Associates at their Leeds office (one a bird, the other a bloke).  As experienced barristers, the higher-ups at Eversheds knew a lawsuit would be likely if they chose to sack the female employee who was actively on maternity leave (Ms. Angela Reinholz).  So, they created an “unbiased” rating system and ended up dismissing the “lower scoring” male Associate instead (Mr. John de Belin).  Crisis averted, time for tea.  Or, was it?

In a classic case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” Mr. de Belin sued Eversheds for choosing to terminate him because he “was not on maternity leave.”  With further investigation, it became clear that Ms. Reinholz (the new Mum) had been given “generous marks” on certain scoring measurements that allowed her to edge out Mr. de Belin by half a point in the Eversheds Associate Assessment.  Not surprisingly, Mr. de Belin was awarded £123,000.

There are many crazy lawsuit stories out there:

Musician sued for copyright infringement on silence.

Student sues teacher for being woken up too abruptly during class.

Woman sues police dog for intention to bit.  (Seriously, she sued the dog.)

However, this pregnancy discrimination case is fascinating to me because it is both bizarre and seems like a prime candidate for a mediated resolution.  The way I see it, there were four “inside the box” options:

1.       Lay off the woman on maternity leave and likely encounter a lawsuit.

2.      Lay off the man who was not on maternity leave and subsequently encounter a lawsuit.

3.      Keep both people (who were in redundant positions), lose money, and avoid a lawsuit.

4.      Lay off both people and hire a new person.  Thus, avoiding a discrimination lawsuit, but potentially finding a wrongful termination lawsuit and losing money on training the new employee.

Truth be told, I don’t know what courses of action were considered or proposed and what potential barriers existed.  Despite this, I thought of a flurry of potential “outside the box” mediated cures for Associate redundancy that are all likely cheaper than the costs of a lawsuit defense and subsequent damages award:

·         Offer to re-task one of them to a different area of the practice. (Many people like shifting gears.)

·         Offer a transfer to one of the 47 other Eversheds offices where they wouldn’t be redundant. (Many people want to live abroad.)

·         Promote one. (If they were worth designing a fancy test for, they were worth keeping.)

·         Offer to help them get a job at another firm before the lay off. (People know people.)

(For more on finding alternatives to money awards, see Getting to Yes, a.k.a. the Negotiators’ Bible.)

Many attorneys hate the idea of mediation.  This stems from a variety of reasons, but I think that the most common complaint is the inaccurate belief that mediation is a waste of time and rarely works.  While it is true that many cases do not find settlement agreements on the day of mediation, it is also true that much of the groundwork for an eventual settlement (which may arrive weeks or months later) is established through formalized negotiations.

It is easy to get trapped in a battle of numbers.  This can happen to both clients and attorneys.  The benefit of mediation is not simply to demonstrate case strengths and fight over dollar figures, but also to create an environment where “outside the box” alternatives are floated in conjunction with monetary settlements.  As a former mediator, I have seen huge shifts in dollar values in exchange for such items as: A favorable joint-press release, lifetime access to a beach, and even a simple “I’m sorry.”

Blogger: Matt McCusker

CONNECTING WITH JURORS? Just Look to Kindergarten (and Neuroscience)

 I want to begin this blog by saying that this piece is not a hatchet job on juries or attorneys.  Both are the backbone of our justice system and a very important part of putting takeout food on my table and a roof over my three dogs’ heads.  That being said, many of us have seen a rift growing between jurors and litigators.  Jurors are frustrated with the legal process while attorneys complain about jurors’ inability to understand case arguments, basic premises of law, and instructions. 

Unfortunately, this disconnect has spawned sayings like “The only people on juries are those who were not smart enough to avoid jury duty.”  However, I believe that this confusion (often thought to be a lack of intellect) is often due to poor communication.  Jury duty is tough.  Jurors must face complex legal issues, sit like silent sponges without interaction, delay deliberation, and proceed with little guidance.

Imagine if 12 attorneys were brought to a conference of astrophysicists to judge who had the correct theory about the size of the universe.  Let’s suppose that the lawyers were told to sit and watch days (even weeks) of presentations by top physicists, were not allowed to ask real-time questions, and were not allowed to deliberate until the very end.  What would physicists say about the attorneys who could not understand such basic premises: The Planck epoch, relativity, and the cosmological constant?  My guess is that it would not be complimentary.

The problem, as with many of the world’s ills, is one of common language.  So, I suggest we go back to the basics and look to the rules of Kindergarten to find our answers.

(BTW, as a shout-out to Science Daily's hard work, the following links all go to their articles.)

The Golden Rule:  In 1992, Bill Clinton famously uttered the phrase, “I feel your pain.”  New research suggests that this may have been more than rhetoric.  A study published in Cell Press found that our brains show similar patterns of activity both when we feel pain and when we see familiar pain in someone else.  However, the study suggests that it is much more difficult for us to process unfamiliar pain.  This impediment can have big implications on both jury selection (looking for those who have common pain) and the need for metaphors and similes to bridge the gaps (speaking to those without common pain).

Say Thank You (or at least think it):  Researchers from the field of management consulting have discovered that thinking about worse case scenarios connects us more strongly to our actual (if imperfect) reality.  Their study found that employees (concerned about the economy) who were asked to think about potential pitfalls that their company had survived, were more likely to have greater attachment and positivity towards their employer.  For example, FedEx employees felt better about the company after focusing on the thought of what would have happened if the founder (Fred Smith) had not chosen to make his desperate 1973 flight to Las Vegas to help his company meet payroll. In other words, counting our blessings both makes us appreciative of what we have and tends to mitigate negativity about the present.

More Pictures:  Researchers at North Carolina State University have discovered that the saying “less is more” does not necessarily apply to charts and graphs.  They found that rectangular bar charts were actually processed more quickly with a circular (filled with circles) background than with a blank/white background.  They posited that contrast was the key to identifying important information, not simplicity.  Throw out the boring demonstratives, complex ones can actually increase retention and attention.

Nap Time: While I know it’s unconventional (yet unintentionally partaken by many), I end this blog with a plea for a national “nap time” to be inserted into the trial day.  In support of my call, I point to research out of Beth Isreal Deaconess Medical Center that shows dreaming about a complex task (doing a maze) during a nap increased performance by 10 times over those who did not nap.  Don’t we want our jurors maximizing their retention and processing?  Support the national call for nap time, Winston Churchill did: “Don’t think you will be doing less work because you sleep during the day. That’s a foolish notion held by people who have no imagination.”

Blogger: Matt McCusker

Finding Good Blogs

This is off-topic, but maybe not so far off, because if there's any blog whose readers might need help navigating the blogosphere, it's mine. 

I know they're out there

Your average trial lawyer isn't spending much time in the world of Web 2.0.  I know, because I was the same way when I started.  I'd heard there were all these brilliant blogs out there, scooping mainstream journalists and opening the windows in scholarship's ivory tower.  But when I looked for them, running regular searches and trying to figure out blog search engines like Technorati, I couldn't find them among the thousands of navelgazers and crazies.  It was like trying to find a new town with an old map.

They're out there, though, and they're worth finding.  I learned the territory one or two blogs at a time, first coming to like and trust a few blogs (and bloggers) and then following their links and blogrolls to others. 

Useful guides

That's still a good way to find good blogs, but it's slow.    You can speed up the process with good directories and guides.  The main ones are:

• Blawg Review, the weekly law blog carnival.  Each week a different legal blogger writes a review of the week's posts in other law blogs, usually trying to outdo all who have come before in creativity and style.  (I was privileged to host Blawg Review last September, and stayed up half the night.)  If you read Blawg Review over even a few weeks, you'll see who shows up regularly;  if you read it regularly, you'll learn of good blogs you might never have seen otherwise.  Blawg Review is itself a blog, whose posts point you to the current host and lots of other things.
• The ABA Journal's Blawg Directory and Blawg 100 list.  The Blawg 100 was controversial when it came out because it omitted some wonderful blogs, and I'm not a neutral source because I'm in it.  That said, I'm a faithful follower of some blogs I first learned of because they were in the Blawg 100. 
• Kevin O'Keefe's Real Lawyers Have Blogs.  It's a blog, not a guide, and since Kevin's company LexBlog sells a software platform and support for blogging lawyers, you'd think it might be a little provincial, but it isn't.  Kevin covers pretty much anything that has to do with legal blogging, and I've learned about many good blogs from his posts. 
• The law page at Alltop.com, a brand new directory from marketing guru Guy Kawasaki.  I wish I'd had this when I first started.  It's a "single-page aggregation," with "the latest five stories from thirty or more sites on a single page."  (Even Alltop finds this hard to explain:  "You can think of an Alltop site as a 'dashboard,' 'table of contents,' or even a 'digital magazine rack' of the Internet.")  The sites and the order they're in keep shifting, and if you want to go beyond law, there are dozens of other pages and new ones coming all the time.  Note to the Francophiles at What About Clients?:  the France page debuted today, en Français. 

____________

Notes:

1. If you're going to follow more than a few blogs, you need an RSS feed reader, also called a feed aggregator.  If you don't know what that is, a few searches will educate you.  I use Google Reader -- it's fast, free, and works nicely with the rest of Google's products.
2. Full disclosure:  I think I move up in Alltop's algorithm by linking to them, but really, it's good.
3. While I'm off topic and talking about maps (and good blogs), check out the cool mindmaps in Vickie Pynchon's posts this week at Settle It Now Negotiation Blog (here and here), and her wise words on what they have to do with negotiation.
4. Guy Kawasaki and I share a birthday, so if there's anything to astrology, I should be famous and wildly successful sometime soon.
5. Related content here:  A Trial Lawyer's Guide To Social Networking Sites.  Some nonlawyers have told me they found it useful as well.

(Image from Library of Congress via pingnews at http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingnews/2122158366/; license details there.)

Thank-You Notes

If you're not quick with thank-you notes, they start to stack up.  So I can't delay any further in thanking:

1.  Blawg Review's wonderful Ed. -- for letting me host Blawg Review last year at all, and for awarding my effort a bronze medal, third best of the Blawg Review posts of 2007.  Since first- and second-place honors were so clear (Colin Samuels's final installment of his masterful Dante trilogy and Eric Turkewitz's brilliant New York Marathon edition), and the other submissions were so good, I'm extremely proud of this. 

2.  The ABA Journal's Stephanie Francis Ward for quoting me in her terrific story on trial blogs, "Full Court Coverage," in the current issue. 

3.  Gideon for hitting Publish on a post at Public Defender Stuff that contained the phrase, "the incomparable Anne Reed."  I may never get over it.

(Photo by Gisela Giardino at http://www.flickr.com/photos/gi/304120801/; license details there.)

Welcome, Court-O-Rama Blog

Legal Blog Watch posted today about bloggers' resolutions for the New Year, and I'll confess I have one:  stop trying to post daily.  The fact is I'm no Scott Greenfield (less than 48 hours into 2008, the man has ten posts up, for heaven's sake), and if this project is going to remain fun, I have to slow it down.

But fear not:  if I haven't posted lately and you're looking for timely, spirited, approachable, and sometimes funny material about courts and juries written by a lawyer named Anne, there's a new blog for you.  Anne Skove, former editor of the National Center for State Courts' weekly Jur-E-Bulletin, is a blogger now, at Court-O-Rama, "the least dangerous blog."  She and her co-blogger Tom Carlson explain simply:  "It's a blog. About the courts. We hope you learn something new, and if you're not careful, you just might enjoy yourself."

If you subscribed to Anne's wonderful Jur-E-Bulletin, you'll join me in expecting great things here.  If you didn't, you still should; the style and substance she brought to it are still there.

(Photo by Michel Verburg at http://www.flickr.com/photos/michelos/1015826394/; license details there.)

Deliberations In The ABA Journal Blawg 100

The ABA Journal's editors picked "100 best web sites by lawyers for lawyers" today, and it's an honor to say that Deliberations is on the list.  Now they're asking readers to vote for their favorites, by category.  I'm in a "toolkit" category with all the big general-interest law practice blogs:  Adam Smith, Esq., Amazing Firms, Amazing Practices, Bag and Baggage, Build a Solo Practice, and that's just the A's and B's.  So I have no expectation of finishing anywhere near the top, but still it would be nice to get some votes, which you can cast (one per blog, as many blogs as you like) by clicking the link above. 

"The height of folly"

I was in danger of getting really puffed up over this today until Kevin O'Keefe's post arrived with perfect timing:

Maybe it's lawyers' low self esteem that requires their egos to be stroked by being on someone's list of the 100 best this or that. Maybe lawyers are so bored that they love gimmicks. Maybe it's websites and organizations that are so starved for attention or relevance that they need to have contests to get their beauty pageant contestants to tell others of the website. I don't know.

But to get sucked into believing a contest like the ABA Journal's 100 best lawyer blogs means something is the height [of ] folly.

I've learned to trust most anything Kevin O'Keefe says about blogging, and I know he's right on this too.   Anyone can see that Blawgletter, New York Personal Injury Law Blog, Defending People, Drug and Device Law, Corrections Sentencing, and Kevin's own blog Real Lawyers Have Blogs are just a few of many blogs that are better than mine and aren't on the list.  More to Kevin's point, one of the strengths of the legal blogging world is that there's a different "best" blog out there for each reader.  "What's best and what's good," he says, "is determined by the value the blog offers a niche audience."  That message gave me hope and vision back when I was sure I'd never have more than seven readers, and it still shapes this blog today.

A map, at least

Kevin's real complaint is that the ABA Journal's recognition is "damaging to the growth of law blogs."  He argues that a handpicked list like this distracts readers from the real value of the blogosphere, which is the opposite of handpicked.  Your browser, he says, is a door to a democratic world where "a lawyer in a town with a water tower, an old grain elevator and 3 four way stops is on equal footing with a lawyer who clerked for a Supreme Court Judge." 

It's self-serving to say it, but I do think I differ with him here.  It's true that there are wonderful blogs that won't show up on any national "best" list, but at least in my own case, any map I could get was very helpful when I was first learning the territory.  You find blogs you trust when they're cited in other blogs you trust, and you have to start somewhere.  I've gotten a startling number of visitors today from the ABA Journal site, and I hope some of those visitors come to rely on other blogs they learn about here.

Bottom line . . .

So vote for Deliberations in the ABA Journal Blawg 100, if you're willing.  I've got to keep up with my dad's blog, and heaven knows I won't be in the next contest Kevin envisions.  "Why not have a contest as to which blogging lawyer looks best in a swim suit?" he asks.  Yikes. 

Welcome, Mortgage Meltdown Blog

My partners Laura Gramling Perez, Chris Ware, and Ellen Brostrom, with help from a growing number of our colleagues, have unveiled a blog on all things related to the subprime mortgage crisis.  It's called Mortgage Meltdown, and it covers everything from the basic ("What Is A Subprime Mortgage?") to the advanced ("FASB 157:  Day of Reckoning?"). 

Don't take my word for how good they are; Stephen Rosenberg of the Boston ERISA & Insurance Litigation Blog says they're "terrific (and wonderfully named)."  Which got me some points around the office, because I've been telling people for months how collegial and kind the world of legal blogging is.  It's great to have another Reinhart Boerner blog. 

(Photo by Francis Storr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/fstorr/228542578/; license details there.)

Best Law Blog?

Definitely not, but I'm still delighted to have been nominated in the category of Best Law Blog in the 2007 Weblog Awards. And I'm not too proud to say that the nomination can be seconded, by anyone who may be so moved, by clicking on the little plus sign in the nomination comment here. (The voting comes later, apparently.) Or you can go to the main post where you can second the nomination of some really good blogs, or nominate your own.

(Photo by Nichole Armageddon at http://www.flickr.com/photos/nmusser/150096657/; license details there.)

"Simply The Best"!

The anonymous editor of Blawg Review reads law blogs all day (or so it seems). Today he listed "the top ten law blogs he thinks are simply the best" -- and Deliberations is one of them!

I know, I was surprised too, especially in light of the nine luminaries who unsurprisingly made up the rest of the list: Above the Law, Adam Smith, Esq., Balkinization, Concurring Opinions, f/k/a, May It Please the Court, QuizLaw, Sentencing Law and Policy, and The Volokh Conspiracy.

"Sure, there may be better blawgs out there," says Ed., and he's definitely right that there are better blawgs than this one. This fact has now become my problem, since Ed. has challenged his ten best to name their ten best. I'll do that, when I dare -- and meanwhile, I'll try my best to behave at the grown-ups' table. Thanks, Ed.

Update:  my own "ten best" list is here. 

(Photo by Nichole Armageddon at http://www.flickr.com/photos/nmusser/150096657/; license details there.) 

Blawg Review Right Here Next Week

I'm privileged to be hosting Blawg Review next Monday -- and more than a little nervous.

I'll be honest. I don't think I fully understood when I signed up that the standard of, well, review on this thing is really high. There was Corporate Blawg UK who did the entire review in iambic pentameter. And there was Sheryl Schelin at SC Employment Law Blog, whose dog Rosemary wrote the whole thing for her. Then David Lat at Above The Law did it, which is fine for him because he's David Lat and he can say whatever he wants to.

I can't rhyme, my dog can't write, and I'm not David Lat -- so please, be kind. You can submit your blog post here. (Don't send it straight to me; when you send it through official channels, it's archived so somebody can step in and praise it if I get hit by a bus or something.) If your post deals with something I know anything about, like trials, so much the better. And see that "comments" box in the submission form? It's great if you put a little hint there as to what the post is about.

Crossing my fingers.

My Dad's Cooking Blog

I've never done an off-topic post, but my dad has a cooking blog, and I really like it. 

You have to understand:  he never used to cook, and he certainly never used to blog.  But I should have seen it coming when, several weeks ago, he E-mailed me:  "Anne:  what is a blog, and what is the derivation of the word?"

Pretty soon he had one.  He calls it Cooking Tools; It's a compilation of family recipes and accompanying stories.  I can vouch for the recipes, and I love the stories -- particularly the one I'm in, where he tells the tale of how, in his seventies, he learned to cook.

You'll make my dad very happy if you visit his blog.  It might change your life too; next thing you know, you'll be telling your dad what a blog is.

(Photo by Alfonso Pierantonio at http://www.flickr.com/photos/kruder396/340821582/; license details there.)