Minnesota Lawyer Blog

Speaking of of the issue of judicial safety, we just got this statement in from the the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute.

The IBAHRI condemns the murder of four Afghan judges. The bodies of the four judges, along with their driver, were found on the evening of July 31. They had all been abducted on July 24 and were later executed.

The four judges were from Paktika Province in eastern Afghanistan and were on their way to Kabul. According to the Governor’s office, no demand was reported for the release of the judges and the killings were carried out by insurgents who specifically targeted government authorities.

As the Minnesota courts scrounge for the money to install metal detectors to protect our appellate court judges, some Michigan lawmakers want to go one step further and let judges to take their security into their own hands.

Rep. Kenneth B. Horn, R-Frankenmuth, and Sen. Roger Kahn, M.D., R-Saginaw, have introduced identical bills proposing to amend the Concealed Weapons Act to allow "state court judges" to carry concealed weapons in what are otherwise known as "no-carry" zones, according to Minnesota Lawyer's sister publication, Michigan Lawyers Weekly.

Judges and their families "are being threatened by" people whom they've sent to prison, Kahn said. Some of those making threats are felons who will be released after serving their sentences, while others are "mentally unstable," and others, still, have histories of "extreme violence," he added.

Judge Fred L. Borchard, Chief Judge Pro Tempore of the 10th Circuit Court, had his life threatened twice by litigants who have appeared before him.

Borchard said that, in his experience, there are three types of cases that really bring out the emotional and, occasionally, the menacing side of people:

-- Criminal;
-- Civil commitments involving mental health issues; and
-- Family law (ranging from divorce to custody to termination of parental rights).

"All of these matters place members of the judiciary at a greater risk of harm," Borchard said.

Judges with guns? An interesting concept. I suppose proponents might say that it's worth a shot.

There was an interesting story in the Strib over the weekend about the collectibles that Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Alan Page and his wife, Diane Sims Page, keep in their Kenwood-neighborhood home. (See "Going on the Offensive.") The Pages collect "black memorabilia" -- an umbrella term for items relating to the African-American experience, according to the article -- including Ku Klux Klan dolls made by Dallas school children, slave chains and items from the Jim Crow era.

"It's an important reminder for me that life isn't always fair, that not only have things not always been equal, they're still not, and that we need to make sure we don't go back to those ways," Page told the Strib.

Less culturally important -- but fascinating nonetheless -- is the fact that they also have a beautifully restored 1906 Buick in their garage. I can't help wondering what kind of gas mileage that baby gets ...

If you want to see a great legal movie with reflections on judicial independence (and "My Cousin Vinny" is not available), I would suggest "Amistad."

I recently caught a replaying of "Amistad" on cable and was amazed how relevant some of the lessons in the movie are for what's happening in Minnesota with the debate on whether we need to reform judicial elections.

In case you have forgotten, "Amistad" is about the legal battle that ensued after a slaver ship was intercepted off the eastern coast of the United States in 1839. The human cargo -- Africans abducted from their homeland -- had taken over the ship and killed their oppressers. The courts had to decide in the tinderbox environment of pre-Civil War America what to do with these people. Were they to be treated as slaves who had mutinied against their Spanish masters and committed murder or as kidnapped people whose actions were justified to regain their freedom? (The case was tried in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut.)

In the movie, the president of the United States, Martin Van Buren, takes a personal interest in the case, worried that it could propel the country into civil war. He somehow engineers for the presiding federal judge to step aside so that his hand-picked choice can hear the case.

Despite the machinations of the executive branch, the Africans win at the trial court level, and the case goes all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. On appeal, the Africans are represented by the aged former president, John Quincy Adams, who last argued a case before the high court more than 30 years earlier. Portrayed by Anthony Hopkins, Adams musters up an impassioned defense of his clients. In the process, he makes an eloquent case for an independent judiciary and its importance to our freedom.

Sarcastically referring to correspondence between then-Secretary of State John Forsyth and Queen Isabella II, the child Queen of Spain, he says:

I would not touch on them now except to notice a curious phrase which is much repeated. The queen again and again refers to our incompetent courts. Now what, I wonder, would be more to her liking? Huh? A court that finds against the Africans? Well, I think not. And here is the fine point of it: What her majesty wants is a court that behaves just like her courts, the courts this 11-year-old child plays with in her magical kingdom called Spain, a court that will do what it is told, a court that can be toyed with like a doll, a court -- as it happens -- of which our own President, Martin Van Buren, would be most proud.

Adams is, of course, making the poignant point that he does not favor such a court -- and neither should we. Although a number of the justices were from Southern states, the Supreme Court ultimately finds in favor of the Africans.

It's a good movie with more than one important message.

By the way, I was able to find a website that has the video from the movie of Hopkins delivering his speech to the U.S. Supreme Court. You can see it by clicking here. You can learn more about the Amistad incident by clicking here.

The Star Tribune has an interesting story today on the liability questions and potential lawsuits arising out of the collapse of the 35W bridge. (See "Question of liability rises.")

Given the limitations on state and municipal liability and the fact that the bridge was constructed 40 years ago, attorneys pursuing liability claims will likely have to focus on the private entities involved in the bridge's maintenance, the article correctly points out.

And there will, of course, also be a bevy of legal issues relating to insurance coverage that will crop up.

The most disturbing part of the article was an interview with Omar Jamal of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center. Once it became clear that a pregnant Somali woman and her 2-year-old daughter were among the victims, calls from attorneys looking for her family's contact info have not stopped, Jamal said. He reported at least a dozen in the article, starting within 24 hours of the collapse..

"This is the worst form of ambulance-chasing," Jamal told the Star Tribune. "The divers are still in the river looking, and the attorneys keep calling us."

It is unfortunate to hear that is going on. It plays into the worst stereotypes about personal injury lawyers.

Minnesota Lawyer has learned of at least one member of Minnesota's legal community who participated in the heroic rescue efforts following the collapse of the I35 bridge.

Bowman and Brooke summer associate Will Barron and his wife were in the immediate vicinity of the bridge when it collapsed last Wednesday evening. They were on the scene assisting victims immediately.

A photo of Will carrying an injured person out of the wreckage appeared in People magazine on Thursday Aug. 2. (He's in the gray shirt and blue pants.) A co-worker of Will's, Christopher Fowlkes, sent an e-mail around to other Bowman and Brooke employees today in which he states: "[Will] insists that he is not as bald as the picture depicts. Whether or not that is true I can't say. But I can say that what he did was truly heroic and I am glad to know him."

With all that has been going on lately here in Minnesota, I don't know how many of you had the chance to watch the testimony the other day of White House aide J. Scott Jennings in the ongoing U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's inquiry into the U.S. attorney firings. (Click here for the New York Times' coverage.) I caught some of it repeated late last night on C-SPAN.

Jennings is a 29-year-old with enough of a baby face to look more like he belongs in a Gerber's commercial than before a congressional committee. Yet there he was -- chubby cheeks and all -- caught in the epicenter of a power struggle between the President of the United States and the United States Congress.

The over-his-head aide was, of course, eaten alive by his senatorial inquisitors. To almost any question of substance, he consulted with his attorney and White House counsel, and then responded that he couldn't answer "pursuant to President Bush’s directive invoking executive privilege.” Jennings tried to diffuse the situation by comparing his position to being caught between Scylla and Charybdis -- and nearly got his poetic license permanently revoked with a congressional contempt citation for his lame attempt at levity.

I am not sure who deserves the most blame at here -- the executive branch for throwing a still-wet-behind-the-ears aide to the lions, or the legislative branch for dutifully being the lions. It's just hard for me to believe that things have degenerated to the point where we spend hours of congressional time on a low-quality witness like Jennings, who looks like he'd be more comfortable at a college keg party than before a congressional committee.

The executive and legislative branches need to find a way to work out this impasse so we can stop having to see hearings as useless as this one. Or maybe I just need to stop watching late-night C-SPAN ...

Coming up in Monday's Minnesota Lawyer -- Learn about a new device using by criminal-defense lawyers across the country to advocate for leniency for their clients.

Also: Have you ever thought about being an appellate judge? Find out why there may never be a better time for you to apply.

Having second thoughts about letting go of that item you sold on an eBay auction?

Too bad, according to the Australian court that today ordered Vin Thomas to complete a deal he made on the Internet to sell a vintage airplane.

According to a report in the Brisbane Times, Thomas put the plane -- worth about $250,000 -- up for auction on eBay in August 2006. An Australian war plane enthusiast, Peter Smythe, bid on the the 1946 World War II Wirraway plane moments before the auction ended, offering $150,000 (the reserve price). But Thomas wanted to back out of the deal, having found someone else who was willing to pay $100,000 more than Smythe.

Smythe took the case to court -- and won. The New South Wales state Supreme Court said the eBay auction formed "a binding contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and ... should be specifically enforced."

Kudos to the court for enforcing the agreement. But the case does bring to mind a question: Who buys -- or sells for that matter -- a vintage airplane worth $250,000 on eBay?

Dolan Media, the parent company of Minnesota Lawyer, went public today.

The Minneapolis-based firm’s shares opened on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol “DM,” with an initial public offering price of $14.50.

Though when trading commenced at 10 a.m., shares opened at $16.40 apiece and quickly climbed to trade above $17 per share.

The operator of niche business and law publications said net proceeds from the offering are expected to be approximately $138.6 million and will be used to redeem all outstanding shares of the company’s preferred stock, to repay $30 million of outstanding debt under the company’s credit facility and for general corporate purposes, including acquisitions and working capital.

“As a business journalist, how many IPOs have we written about over the years?” said John L. Kominicki, publisher of the Dolan Media-owned Long Island Business News, who was on Wall Street for the IPO. “To be involved in one and to cover it is a thrill.”

Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co. are acting as joint bookrunners and as representatives of the underwriters. Piper Jaffray & Co. and Craig-Hallum Capital Group LLC are acting as co-managers.

Dolan Media owns niche newspapers in 19 markets, including New Orleans, Baltimore, St. Louis, Boise, Idaho and Boston. It acquired Finance and Commerce in 1993 and launched Minnesota Lawyer in 1997.

Admit it—you've always wanted to write that Great American Novel. You may have even heard lawyer/bestselling novelist Phillip Margolin share writing tips during last month's Minnesota State Bar Association convention.

But when you finally put pen to paper, please don't start your book with this sentence:

Gerald began—but was interrupted by a piercing whistle which cost him ten percent of his hearing permanently, as it did everyone else in a ten-mile radius of the eruption, not that it mattered much because for them "permanently" meant the next ten minutes or so until buried by searing lava or suffocated by choking ash—to pee.

That line was the winner of this year's Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. An anathema to good writing, the contest challenges writers to compose the worst, most garrulous opening sentence for an imaginary novel.

Here's another gem, this one from a Minneapolis writer, which snagged a Miscellaneous Dishonorable Mention:

With "Bambi" eyes and an angelic face made for singing "The hills are alive" while traipsing across an Alpine meadow, Heidi Weissbrot seemed as pure as driven snow to older folks around Peach Blossom, but among boys her own age, there was a nasty rumor that her purity was more akin to snow driven to the river in dump trucks after being scraped from roads and parking lots.

The Bulwer-Lytton contest is named after the Victorian novelist who penned "It was a dark and stormy night"—the gold standard for purple prose. Click here to read all of this year's winning entries.

Our thoughts and prayers at the Minnesota Lawyer blog are with the victims of the 35W bridge collapse and their families and friends.

We encourage folks to donate money or blood to the local chapter of the Red Cross. Click here for more information.

Additionally, Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers issued the following statement this morning:

"Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers offers individual counseling services to all members of the legal profession and their immediate family members, 24 hours a day. These services are free of charge and we hope that those who may be affected by the 35W tragedy will call us if they need assistance. We can also help make arrangements for organizational assistance for firms or other legal employers who may need it. LCL may be contacted at 651-646-5590, 866-525-6466 or help@mnlcl.org."

There was an interesting interview on Minnesota Public Radio this morning with Attorney General Lori Swanson on her first eight months in office. The interview, conducted by Kerri Miller on the Midmorning show, made for very interesting listening. Overall, I thought Miller did a good job in asking some difficult questions about Swanson's stance on the attempted unionization of employees at her office, morale issues at her office and other management troubles that have cropped up in the early part of Swanson's term. Swanson resorted to nonanswers on a number of these inquiries. (One irate caller actually compared her evasive answers on some of these questions to those of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in his testimony before Congress.)

On the other hand, I thought Swanson did a very good job discussing some of the priorities of the AG's Office, including going after predatory lenders. And I do have to give her credit for at least putting herself out there to be confronted by some hard questions -- including fielding a phone call from a none-too-pleased AFSCME official.

But why not listen to the entire interview yourself and see what you think? The interview can be accessed on the MPR site by clicking here.

Starting today, ticket scalping is legal in Minnesota. Reselling tickets to ballgames, concerts and other events for more than face value, once a misdemeanor, is now on the up and up. This is good news and bad news.

It's good news for companies like Ticket King, which today opened a ticket outlet two blocks from the Metrodome after closing its longtime Hudson, Wis., location in response to the new law. Similar companies are sure to follow suit. Ticket brokers have long taken advantage of having pockets deep enough to allow them to buy up blocs of tickets, and being able to absorb the cost of "eating" the tickets that don’t sell.

It’s mixed news for the street-corner scalpers, the guys near the Dome with the signs reading "I Need Tickets" (need, in case it hadn’t dawned on you before, means am selling). While they no longer risk arrest for plying their trade, their revenues will be undercut by the presence of Ticket King.

It might be bad news for consumers. If the street-corner guys are driven away by Ticket King, bargain-priced tickets might be a thing of the past. Before, if a concertgoer bided his time until the Target Center headliner had taken the stage, he could get a ticket for less than face value from a scalper who just wanted to dump his remaining stock before it became worthless. Odds are, no such bargains are in store from Ticket King and their ilk.