There
is
a
fine
line
between
zealous
advocacy
and
doing
too
much
—
the
side
you
land
on
is
usually
determined
by
the
outcome.
One
example
would
be
Clement
Vallandigham’s
zealous
defense
of
his
last
client.
He
represented
a
man
who
was
accused
of
shooting
someone
to
death
in
a
bar
brawl.
His
client
didn’t
have
a
gun
on
him,
but
that
wasn’t
enough
to
prove
he
didn’t
do
it.
Vallandigham’s
theory
of
the
case
was
that
the
deceased
actually
could
have
just
shot
himself
by
accident;
which
Vallandigham
then
demonstrated
at
the
cost
of
his
life.
Zealous
or
doing
too
much?
Hard
to
tell.
While
it
did
cost
him
his
life,
his
client
walked!
While
we’re
on
the
topic
of
lawyer
demonstrations,
a
federal
judge
recently
ruled
that
a
group
of
lawyers
has
to
go
apologize
to
Philly
residents.
ABA
Journal
has
coverage:
Lawyers
who
wakened
South
Philadelphia
residents
with
a
looped
recording
of
a
screaming
woman
to
prove
a
point
in
a
lawsuit
must
go
door
to
door
to
issue
in-person
apologies,
a
federal
judge
has
ruled.In
an
Oct.
10
opinion,
U.S.
District
Judge
John
F.
Murphy
of
the
Eastern
District
of
Pennsylvania
said
lawyers
for
former
inmate
Termaine
Hicks
will
have
to
written
apologies
to
nearby
residents.
At
least
one
lawyer
will
have
to
go
door
to
door
to
apologize
to
those
living
closest
to
the
recording.
Let
it
be
known
that
there
was
a
big
point
to
prove:
they
were
representing
a
man
who
was
alleging
that
officers
framed
him
for
a
rape
he
did
not
commit.
He
said
that
he
heard
a
woman
screaming
from
two
blocks
away
and
went
to
the
source
of
the
sound.
The
City’s
lawyers
tried
to
prove
that
he
couldn’t
have
heard
a
scream
from
two
blocks
away
by
relying
on
an
acoustics
expert’s
judgment
and
a
siren
test.
Hicks’s
lawyers
responded
with
a
much
more
apt
test:
The
122-decibel
recording
broadcast
for
more
than
an
hour
beginning
at
5:30
a.m.
Sept.
23.
That
volume
is
“somewhere
on
the
border
between
uncomfortable
and
painful
and
is
similar
to
an
ambulance
siren,
a
rock
concert
or
a
chainsaw,”
Murphy
wrote…Lawyers
for
the
plaintiffs
acknowledged
that
“residents
were
clearly
upset,”
Murphy
said.
One
man
came
over
with
a
baseball
bat.
A
woman
yelled
at
the
acoustics
expert.
Many
wanted
to
know
who
was
responsible
for
the
recorded
scream
and
asked
whom
they
could
contact
to
complain.
The
main
issue
seems
to
be
that
no
one
in
the
community
was
given
notice
that
the
test
would
be
conducted.
Going
around
to
apologize
to
the
affected
Philadelphians
is
an
understandable
punishment.
Zealous
advocacy
or
doing
too
much?
I
think
the
determinant
will
be
whether
the
apology
range
will
be
in
a
one
block
radius
or
two.
Lawyers
Ordered
To
Provide
Door-To-Door
Apology
After
Their
Early-Morning
‘Scream
Test’
[ABA
Journal]
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.