|
In
This Issue |
|
1. The Michelangelo
Code. Potential versus
performance.
2. Did You Know?
Our first birthday.
3. Law-Impaired Rambo
Boy. Of thee I sing.
4. Manhattes, Here We
Come. Susman Godfrey opens its New York
office September 1st.
5. (I Can't Gitmo)
Satisfaction. Civics for
terrorists.
6. Hot Lunch.
Cost-effective jury research.
| |
|
Did You Know?
This issue of Barnett's
Notes completes the first year of
e-publication.
Notes started in September 2005
as a way for me to keep in touch each month with
lawyers, clients, and the occasional judge who
I might otherwise lose track of. The first
issues serialized a chapter on "Techniques
for Expediting and Streamlining Litigation" in
the multi-volume treatise, Business
and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts,
2d (R. Haig., ed. 2005).
Now Notes has upwards of 7,000 subscribers
and deals as much with views on the practice of
commercial trial law as with legal
developments.
The law strikes a lot
of people as dry, but it fascinates me, and I
want you to enjoy it as much as I do. Humor
helps. So does relating law to quotidian
human experience. At least I see it that
way. Your comments suggest that many of you do,
too.
Looking back at the first 12
issues, I especially enjoyed
writing:
If you have comments or suggestions, you can always type me a quick note to notes@susmangodfrey.com. And thank you for
subscribing. |
|
Manhattes,
Here We Come
590 Madison Avenue, between
56th and 57th Streets, New York City.
September 1 marks the opening
of Susman Godfrey's office in Manhattan at 590 Madison
Avenue (the former IBM Building). We will
concentrate on representing plaintiffs, on a
contingent fee basis, in commercial litigation,
including antitrust, intellectual property, securities,
and accountant malpractice cases.
For more information, click
here and here. Also
here.
|
|
Hot Lunch
|
Jury research can get expensive. How can
you get the most bang for your buck?
I can't suggest a complete answer in
this little column. So let me emphasize a few of
what I view as the most important aspects of any jury
research.
First, start small and soon. An
early focus group doesn't cost a lot and will alert
you to key issues to develop or avoid
in discovery.
Second, favor the other side. Don't go
overboard, but work hard to counteract your
natural (and unconscious) desire to win.
Use your strongest trial lawyer to put on the
opposition's case.
Third, concentrate on the bad news. Then
go to work fixing your problems.
Finally, discount mock jurors' opinions about
specific damage amounts. They generally don't have
enough of the story to give reliable predictions of what
a real jury would award.
|
|
The Michelangelo
Code
Michelangelo's
law-giving Moses (San Pietro in Vincoli,
Rome). Observe commandments under right
arm.
As all the world knows, The Da Vinci
Code deals with a sublime painting
by a great artist. But Leonardo da Vince
finished few of the projects he
started. A younger contemporary, by
contrast, turned out masterpiece after masterpiece
until he died at 89. Michelangelo worked so
steadily in fact that he wore a pair of socks
for years so he wouldn't have to wash them.
Don't get me wrong. Leonardo did
surpassing work in his 67 years --
including a notebook that he wrote backwards
in, the Last Supper mural in Milan, and of
course the surreal Mona Lisa in the
Louvre. But he never completed a
single architectural or sculptural project and
didn't build any of his inventions. Even the
Last Supper started sliding down the wall as
soon as he finished it using an experimental
technique. And don't get me going on the bathos
of The Da Vinci Code.
The subject of a better book
and movie, The
Agony and the Ecstacy, Michelangelo spent years
painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and The
Final Judgment over the altar;
sculpted the towering David
and the scary Moses (top, with horns); and designed the dome
of (while serving as chief architect for) St.
Peter's in the Vatican. Michelangelo did suffer
failures, but -- man, oh, man -- he got everything out
of his potential.
What do you value more in a commercial trial
lawyer: Brilliance or execution?
Cleverness or mastery? The thrill of Leonardo
or the steady skill of Michelangelo?
Barry
Barnett, Editor |
|
Back to
top |
|
Law-Impaired Rambo
Boy
Rambo tries non-verbal
persuasion.
A smarty-pants person once drove me and a
couple other numbskulls home over a college spring
break. He had no acquaintance with us before,
but he did own a car. He also displayed
a cultural je ne sais quoi (French for I
know a French phrase but you don't.). We
hated him.
The many bits of knowledge that he shared
on our journey included the superiority of
classical music over any other form.
Never shy of ignorance, I said that I
liked country music. He assured me that I'd get
over it. My taste, he promised, would improve with
the refinement of a proper education.
Sorry, Mr. Smarty Pants. I still can't listen
to a symphony without skipping to the good parts --
da, da, da, daaa! . . . da, da, da, daaa!
And my car radio still spends most of its time
telling about people with good hearts and strong
faith but poor impulse control.
I've even taken a shot at lyrics for one of my
favorites -- Long-Haired Country Boy,
which you can listen to here.
My version relates to a familiar figure
-- the Rambo litigator. I hope you like it.
Law-Impaired Rambo
Boy
Judges call me no
good
And abusive as a
goon
I file silly motions
at lunchtime
Demand hearings in the
afternoon.
I'm
sorta like that guy Zarqawi
Who thought he was so
great
But couldn't get his
machine gun
Pro-per-ly to operate.
[more] |
|
Back to
top |
|
(I Can't Gitmo)
Satisfaction
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Rent
runs $4,085 per annum -- about 14 cents an
acre.
Let us now sing of the U.S. Supreme Court.
A detainee at Guantanamo Bay may challenge the
lawfulness of the military commission that the
President established to decide whether he (the
detainee) conspired against the United
States. So the Court held
on June 29, 2006.
The date may live in infamy. It may not.
Who can tell?
I sure can't, but I have to marvel
at the audacity of the five Justices who
supported the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
decision. They challenged a forceful
administration. At a time when Americans
legitimately worry about terrorism,
the Court said that even a
terrorist (come on -- he drove for Osama bin
Laden!) has some due process rights.
And they offered a civics lesson, including --
especially -- for the bad guys who wake up every morning
wanting to kill us.
Nobody can reasonably question the
necessity of making life-and-death decisions about
enemy combatants in military emergencies. But this
case doesn't seem to involve
an emergency. We have held Hamdan
in Gitmo for years.
Thugs and murderers don't exactly deserve
fairness. Terrorists don't deserve a fair
trial.
Five Justices said that we can't
get satisfaction if we don't do things
the right way. I wish I didn't have to
agree. |
|
Back to
top |
|
Copyright © The New Yorker. Used with
permission. |
|
Back to
top | |
