Category: News Feeds

Masked heroes are everywhere today, but the very first character to don a mask and fight crime in American comic books first appeared in 1936. What was the name of former District Attorney Brian O’Brien’s alter ego?

Hint: When the publisher went under, DC purchased the rights to the character but allowed it to enter the public domain.

See the answer on the next page.

Not so very long ago, members of the American government might have hesitated before giving a thumbs up to U.S. companies bribing foreign governments. Advocating for public corruption was seen as a little bit … sordid. But in the age of Trump, all those political niceties have gone the way of the judicial filibuster.

In the latest Trump tome “A Very Stable Genius,” The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker and Carol D. Leonnig report that one of the president’s priorities his first year in office was to legalize overseas bribery. The president has long opposed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars American companies and individuals from paying bribes overseas, calling it a “horrible law” on CNBC in 2012. In his telling, other countries were “laughing at us” for being losers who eschew backhanders.

The New York Times reports from Rucker and Leonnig’s book:

“I need you to get rid of that law,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Tillerson.

Mr. Tillerson explained to the president that he could not simply repeal the legislation, according to Mr. Rucker and Ms. Leonnig. He pointed out that Congress would need to be involved in any effort to strike it down.

Undeterred, Mr. Trump told Stephen Miller, a senior policy adviser, to draft an executive action to repeal the law. Mr. Tillerson, the authors write, later caught up with Mr. Miller in the hallway, where Mr. Miller said he had some skepticism about whether that plan for unilateral executive action could work.

Did Mr. Miller’s skepticism arise from a vague memory of a Schoolhouse Rock video he watched as a boy? Perhaps one called “No More Kings” or possibly “I’m Just a Bill?”

As with so many presidential impulse buys, Trump’s underlings appear to have quietly put this one back on the shelf. But apparently a return to the heyday of political corruption may soon be upon us.

When asked today about possible changes to America’s anti-bribery law, Bloomberg reports that White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow seemed open to the idea.

“We are looking at it,” Kudlow told reporters in the at the White House Friday morning. “I would just say: We are aware of it, we are looking at it, and we’ve heard complaints from some of our companies. I don’t want to say anything definitive policy-wise, but we are looking at it.”

Another four years of this, and you’ll be able to deduct bribes as a business expense on your tax returns. CEOs, start your engines!

Trump Tried to Kill Anti-Bribery Rule He Deemed ‘Unfair,’ New Book Alleges [NYT]
White House Considers Changes to Law Banning Overseas Bribes [Bloomberg]

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Over the years, AI applications for healthcare have ignited innovation, collaboration and debate.

Clinical decision support, particularly in the area of medical image analysis, is one area where AI tools have been well received and seen a lot of adoption. It’s prompted much discussion on things like error rates and the impact it will have on radiology jobs in the future.

The patient perspective is also an important part of the discussion. Although many are supportive of their medical data being used to support advancements in healthcare, most people expect either to be consulted or a better balance between their needs, the needs of a technology company and of a healthcare organization, or both.

The latest eBook from MedCity News — AI in Healthcare: Scratching the Surface — highlights some of the collaborations that are taking place in healthcare and in drug development. It draws attention to some of the startups that seek to address some of the pain points in healthcare and industry insights on what needs to happen and what needs to be avoided for AI applications to be more widely adopted.

Also, click here to check out the library of eBooks we have put together on topics ranging from the startup landscape and clinical trial design to IPOs and how payers are working to adopt innovative health IT and treatments.

Source: Getty Images

Andrew Robertson, the former office manager for the Washington and Northern Virginia offices of Morrison & Foerster is accused of bilking $400K from the firm in the form of unauthorized credit card charges and transfers over a nearly two year period. As an office manager, Robertson had a company card and the authority to purchase office supplies to keep all the little MoFos flush with pens and legal pads.

Which is why it’s kind of amazing that it would take the firm so long to notice the designer clothing and big screen televisions that prosecutors allege showed up on the bills. But there was so much more!

There were more than a dozen pairs of Air Jordans, including one with a “gold toe” design. Other alleged purchases included an Apple laptop, a sleeper sofa from Crate & Barrel, a 24-inch gold chain necklace, a 1980s-style prom king costume and a white-gold pinkie ring.

Either MoFo’s D.C. office holds a bitchin’ throwback prom every year or that should have raised a red flag. In either event, the allegations make Robertson sound like a blast to party with.

Every time there’s a story about a disloyal law firm employee, it’s always amazing just how easy it appears to be to get the first $100K or so out of a firm. Obviously law firms deal in large sums of money — MoFo is a billion dollar firm after all — but this is like having a whole extra associate or two and not noticing. To its credit, MoFo did discover the discrepancies and turn the matter over to the authorities after firing him, but a lot of money got nipped before anyone caught it.

It makes you wonder how much firms around the country might be losing to schemes that stay below the threshold. This might be a good time for at least a cursory audit.

An 80s Prom King Costume, Designer Clothes and a Gold Pinkie Ring: Former Morrison & Foerster Employee Accused of Misusing Firm’s Credit Card [National Law Journal]

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

—ADVERTISEMENT—

The Rule of Three

One would do well to channel their inner Thomas Jefferson in legal writing. And while the likelihood that any of our writings will enjoy the warm, enduring shelf-life of his “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” is slim-to-none, we can still garner lessons from Jefferson to improve our prose.

Best-selling author and communication advisor, Carmine Gallo, poses the questions: Why did Jefferson choose three rights instead of twelve? Gallo explains the reason is the “Rule of 3.” Humans only have so much space in our short-term memory. This is the same reason that the TSA and military branches understand that disseminating information in groups of three is more easily processed, and thus, easier to follow. Hence why the TSA provides three simple steps to security: show ID and boarding pass, take out liquids and laptops, and take off shoes and jackets. And why the military teaches the “three rules of surviving captivity”: fellowship with other prisoners, survive, and return with honor (which feels ominously applicable to inner-office comradery)?

Granted, not every set of facts lends itself to a neat distillation of the issues into three categories, especially when there are a medley of litigants hurling counterclaims and crossclaims every which way, but the rule is still useful in drafting. For instance, I don’t think a judge or their clerk will have the time to read a string cite that is more than three cases long, so best not to include a dissertation on any single point lest you lose your audience’s interest. In our line of work making the most of the precious few minutes we have of a judge’s attention is critical. Channel thy Jefferson.

The Four Agreements

It’s been said that lawyers have a thankless job. Therefore, it helps to stay rooted in a philosophy that does not depend on the gratitude of others. The Four Agreements are a code that the ancient Toltec civilization (predecessor of the Aztecs) lived by, one that has application to the practice of law. The agreements are:

• Be impeccable with your word;
• Don’t take things personally;
• Don’t make assumptions; and,
• Always do your best.

If ever there were “four easy steps to success in law,” I think these are them. Regarding the, at times, thanklessness of our profession, “don’t take things personally” comes to mind. This stands for the proposition that anything anyone else says or does reflects themselves and their own reality, and actually has nothing to do with you. By not tying your sense of self-worth to the actions of others, you shall save yourself needless suffering, or so the Toltecs thought.

Being impeccable refers to speaking with integrity and not dragging the power of communication down to gossip or other lower rungs of expression. However, applying it as motivation to write the best brief of your career is not too far a stretch. Whatever works, right?

“Don’t make assumptions” could be the last thing every litigator tells themselves before giving an opening argument or conducting an examination. Be ready for anything and give your audience the facts it needs to find in your favor. Always doing your best is a given. Hard work is paramount in this profession, and that alone is just the first factor of entry into the realm of greatness that we strive to attain day in, day out. It is easy to get hyper focused on the latest deadline or next event in the calendar — and not necessarily a bad thing by any stretch — but keeping a broader perspective in mind keeps stress at bay.

The 30% Rule

In his second stint at Apple, Steve Jobs applied the 30% rule to great effect. That is, he focused the company’s efforts on the 30% of the products that were incredibly good and did away with the other 70%. This rule applies more broadly than to crafting arguments or drafting documents, but is also applicable to those tasks. Broadly, the rule is an acknowledgment that you cannot do everything, and that if you try to, you will fail at many of the things you attempt. In the context of writing a brief, this may be failure by trying to get too much information across to your audience and losing them altogether in the process. In the context of your day, the rule requires that you focus your resources on the 30% of tasks that are making you great and not be muddled by the 70% of distractions seeking your attention. This rule requires individuals to be focused and to make tough choices about what is most important to them. Now let us all go back to being focused and great.

Timothy M. Lupinek is an attorney at Balestriere Fariello who represents companies and individuals in state, appellate, and administrative courts of Maryland. He focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation with thousands of hours of civil, criminal, and regulatory trial experience. You can reach Timothy at timothy.m.lupinek @balestrierefariello.com.

We used to have, and up until very recently, this has been the history of the United States, the expectation — which was the Framers’ expectation — that from time to time, the chief executive would abuse his power, in the sense of either doing something that the Constitution didn’t permit, or somehow overdoing the powers that the Constitution gives to the president. And the expectation was not that you were going to jump every time that happened to impeachment. There are other ways that the Congress, either by political pressure or by using the power of the purse, would be able to rein in presidential excess. The idea was that, you know, there is a lot of area between something that is wrong and something that is impeachable.

— Andy McCarthy offering a bold take on the Framers over at Fox News. While there’s little to no evidence that the Framers imagined an executive branch that ignores congressional edicts on a personal whim, the key to becoming a Fox legal analyst is to say whatever pops into your head and throw the phrase “the Framers’ expectation” in there.