Biglaw Senior Associate Isn’t Happy About How You Sign Your Emails

Someone whose online handle is “hlsperson1111” is almost certainly insufferable unless in some freak coincidence they’re a Hofstra grad. But since we all know this is really the kind of person who went to Harvard Law and now — years into practice — still feels this fact is central enough to his or her properly gender-neutral identity to employ it online we’ll take judicial notice of their insufferabilitude.

But the first step to overcoming any obstacle is admitting you have a problem, and our friend hlsperson1111 seems to be grasping toward self-awareness over at the Top Law Schools board:

I’m a senior associate at a big firm. Over the years, I have developed an abiding hatred of people using “Thanks” without a period in emails. I think it’s sloppy and sends a message that the sender doesn’t care enough about your time to include a period. I see it often from partners and other associates around my seniority, and I suffer in silence because it’s not really appropriate for me to pick a fight with them about it. But I now am at the point where I am supervising associates who use “Thanks” without a period, and it drives me up the fucking wall. Is it too petty for me to tell them to cut it out and that it’s a bad look?

Thankfully moderator QContinuum (a handle that marks a very different kind of insufferable) offered the final word on the matter:

Yes, it would be petty. Thanks

And while that was a perfect way to end, if there are any of you out there who sympathize with hlsperson1111, you should know that your frustration should be with your own inability to understand the vagaries of human language. In a recent episode of the podcast Lexicon Valley (which is a fantastic program), Columbia University linguist John McWhorter discussed a phenomenon of human language known as “softeners.” These are the little wrinkles in communication that people often subconsciously throw in to indicate to the listener that they shouldn’t misread a potentially harsh sentence. It’s the “could you open the door?” when you mean to communicate the directive “open the door.” These aren’t set in stone, but evolve as human communication evolves.

Written electronic communication has brought a whole new set of softeners from emoji to aggressive overuse of the exclamation point! And one other recent marker he mentions in passing is the technique of omitting a period to avoid giving the message a sense of brusque finality. And by recent, it’s worth mentioning that we’ve been talking about this softener for at least nine years now.

Ending a message with “Thanks.” today would be understood by many if not most online literate readers as a “don’t even try to respond to this until it’s handled you plebeian.” It’s just how communication is evolving… leave the period off if you don’t want people to think you’re a dick.

Thanks.


HeadshotJoe 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.

Man Seeks ‘Trial By Combat’ Against Ex-Wife

This isn’t the first trial by combat motion we’ve seen in the last few years, but it’s definitely the first we’ve seen where the man wants a sword fight with his wife.

David Ostrom of Kansas asked an Iowa judge to allow him to take a sword to his ex-wife and her attorney “so that he can ‘rend their souls’ from their bodies.

The judge withheld judgment for the time being.

Ostrom claims in his filing that he needs this remedy because his former spouse and her lawyer have destroyed him legally. Not to get technical, but it sounds like this trial by combat motion is not timely because if he’s been “destroyed legally” they already had the trial and he lost.

Now if he moved for a new trial first…

Man asks Iowa judge for ‘trial by combat’ with ex-wife, lawyer [KCCI]


HeadshotJoe 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.

Biglaw ‘Booze Chaperone’ Policy Is Like A Designated Driver For ‘Not Being Lecherous A-Holes’

The hard-drinking Biglaw culture can become unhealthy in a lot of ways, but one of the most glaring is its contribution to the incidence of sexual harassment in the workplace. It’s a connection that’s led some firms to phase-out drinking at firm social events in a bid to stay ahead of misconduct. But across the pond, Linklaters has appointed a number of booze chaperones to stay sober and monitor social gatherings to make sure nothing untoward happens.

The policy is really more of a strong suggestion, with the firm encouraging partners to designate chaperones to keep their people safe while pounding a few back.

“Our people work hard and we recognise the value of teams socialising together to help provide a healthy work-life balance,” a spokesperson for Links said. “As part of a wider set of guidelines covering social activities, we have recommended to partners, directors and business leaders that they designate a non-drinking role to a senior person to assist the smooth running of our social events.”

Just how blackout drunk are these folks getting that they can’t keep control of their gatherings without a hall monitor? The new policy, which was in place for the firm’s holiday party, brings it in line with the recommendations of the Law Society’s Junior Lawyers Division, the gathering of legal Brainy Smurfs who recently “offered up a range of alcohol-free networking alternatives including paint-balling, hat making and mini-golf.” Hat making. Talk about something that will drive people to drink.

The problem with all of these solutions is that while cutting back on alcohol for its own sake may be a worthwhile endeavor, tying it to sexual harassment misses the mark. The partner hitting on the associate may be the drunken expression of misconduct but most likely stems from a pre-existing problem that manifests daily in a million other ways. That more subtle inappropriate behavior is what needs to be stamped out.

If only there were sober chaperones keeping an eye out for misconduct every day at the office. We could call these people “human resources professionals” and take wild steps like having them “believe women” or “empowering them to make changes even if it could impact high revenue generating partners.” I know it sounds crazy!

Maybe we’ll just ban happy hour instead and call it a day.

Linklaters appoints sober supervisors to chaperone boozy social events [Legal Cheek]

Earlier: Biglaw Summer Programs Phasing Out ‘Boozefests’ To Create All-New, Worse Sexual Harassment Opportunities


HeadshotJoe 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.

WV Legislature Invites Neighboring County Into Mountain Mama’s Warm Embrace

West Virginia is ready to take home a big chunk of northwest Virginia, if only the residents of Frederick County will wake up and realize those country roads really are the place where they belong.

Yesterday the West Virginia State Senate passed a resolution inviting citizens of the commonwealth’s northernmost county to consider a change of venue. Noting that Frederick County, Virginia, had failed to fill out its RSVP card from 1862 allowing it to attach itself to the newly born Union state of West Virginia, the legislators generously offered to extend “all of the rights secured and protected by the West Virginia Constitution to the citizens of West Virginia” up to and including “the right to keep and bear arms without interference by the government.” Hint, hint.

Calling Frederick County the “mother” of the seven West Virginia counties which contain pieces of her original territory, the resolution invokes “the counties which are the children of Frederick County, and the citizens of those counties, [who] have pined for reunion with their mother county and prayed that she might join them in the State of West Virginia.” That’s the kind of chain migration the GOP can really get behind!

And the name of the Morgan County Republican sponsoring this heart-rending resolution?

Charles S. Trump.

Because this is 2020, and irony is dead.

But Senator Trump isn’t the only one coveting his neighbor’s comely flank. The website RedStateSecession.org (tagline “Preserving the American parts of America”) is also wondering if the consenting adults in Virginia’s western counties might be ready to explore Mountain Mama’s warm embrace. It’s Almost Heaven!

Theorizing that those elitist Democrats in Virginia’s newly blue statehouse would be only too happy about “strengthening the position of their party in their state by letting low-income Trump-voting counties leave” and “allowing the departure of counties that don’t pay their share of income and sales taxes because of lower incomes,” Red-State Secession’s proposed map looks like this:

Would Democrats willingly give up Winchester, Woodstock, Harrisonburg, Sheraton, Lexington, Marion, Pulaski, and Big Stone Gap, not to mention at least two members of the U.S. House of Representatives to ensure permanent control of state government? Seems unlikely.

Senator Trump’s proposal is headed for the West Virginia House for consideration. But sadly it appears the Frederick County citizens are staying put. The AP’s John Raby reports:

A message left for Frederick County Board of Supervisors chairman at large Chuck DeHaven wasn’t immediately returned Monday. But he told the Herald-Mail of Hagerstown, Maryland, last week that Frederick County has no interest in becoming part of West Virginia.

It’s not you, Mountain Mama. It’s … it’s just so weird.


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

Current Zimbabwe governance system beyond fixing – The Zimbabwean

Mthuli Ncube

Of late, I have been quite irritated by my smartphone’s maddeningly frequent demands for me to upgrade its system – at times, as little as only two days after my last upgrade. What I, however, found very interesting is every new upgrade’s claim to ‘fix bugs’ – so-called ‘debugging’ – that is, to identify, correct, and remove defects, in the previous system.

Typical of my mindset, I always soon found myself comparing this to how we, in Zimbabwe, still try to ‘debug’ our government – particularly, through criticism of their destructive and anti-people policies, or proffering advice on how they could improve their operations and the country’s welfare.

Nonetheless, what has become so clear to me is that, after 40 long years of continual bungling and messing up – through persistent unfettered and systemic corruption, institutionalized incompetence, and inherent brutality – it is now foolhardy for anyone to expect any genuine, sustainable, and significant reform from this government’s modus operandi, such that any manner of ‘debugging’ is a lost cause.

As with any computer system that has become too corrupted to be fixed – the only reasonable and progressive action to take would be its complete replacement. Period.

Similarly, this Zimbabwe government is way beyond any fixing, and the only way forward is its complete replacement.

The only question that should be on the people of Zimbabwe’s minds is no longer how to fix this system of governance, but rather, how to completely replace it with a modern, more effective, trustworthy, and truly democratic one.

This, of course, requires a national debate, and consensus – but, as a law-abiding, patriotic, and loyal member of this great country, I firmly and unequivocally stand on the tenets of constitutionalism, and democracy – as anything else is certainly a recipe for disaster.

That is why – as much as I fully understand and empathize with every one of us Zimbabweans, who has had to endure 40 years of untold suffering, anguish, and torment at the hands of this cold-hearted, kleptomaniac, and dysfunctional regime – my viewpoint has always for us to desist from narrowing our struggle to only an individual.

That is the grave mistake that landed us in these troubles we find ourselves in today under this so-called ‘new dispensation’ – as we myopically reduced our plight to only one man, then-president Robert Gabriel Mugabe – instead of focusing on the replacement of the entire system.

We found ourselves engrossed in such simplistic slogans as, “Mugabe must go!”, yet our problems transcended any one individual, but captured the entire system of governance in Zimbabwe – such that, when the coup d’etat of November 2017 occurred, we were ready pawns in this purely internal ruling ZANU PF party factional fight, thereby supporting and celebrating the ‘debugging’ of one problem, and its replacement with another similar problem – yet, what was clearly required was the complete replacement of the entire corrupted system.

Today, we find ourselves crying out, “Nothing has changed”!

Of course, nothing has changed. Why would anything have changed, when we blindly endorsed the continuation of the same old outdated, antiquated, contaminated, and dysfunctional system?

In fact, that is why we are even further saying, “The situation has actually become worse than before”.

Yes, it has – and it will only get worse!

These days, we are inundated with mostly unverified online stories about another possible coup d’etat in the country – this time around with the rumored planned removal of incumbent president Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa (himself a product of the coup against Mugabe), by his vice president Constantino Guvheya Chiwenga (the mastermind and ringleader of that same coup).

I can not help wondering why this renewed excitement in the possibility of the recurrence of such a catastrophe – which, quite obviously previously never worked to the ordinary people’s benefit?

If, indeed, another coup were to take place today, are we to find ourselves back onto the streets again? Singing, dancing, and waving the Zimbabwean flag? Are we to allow ourselves again, to be gripped by a false and misguided sense of renewed optimism for a better, more prosperous, and democratic future?

Then, a few months down the line, reality sets in. Again, we repeat the same expressions of regret, “Nothing has changed”, or, “The situation was actually better under ED”, or, ” At least under ED we had such and such”!

Did we not learn anything? Do we ever learn?

Let it be abundantly clear to all Zimbabweans that, the only hope for a brighter and better future for this country does not lie in piecemeal changes in this country’s ruling establishment. It does not lie in ‘debugging’ one or two things within the current system.

The situation has long since deteriorated beyond such mediocre measures. After 40 whole years of corruption, incompetence, and brutality, the system has gone beyond repair or fixing.

The government can replace a political appointee like Patrick Chinamasa, with a technocrat and internationally acclaimed financial wizard in the mould of Mthuli Ncube, but this will never improve the welfare and well-being of the ordinary Zimbabwean.

We can be relentlessly bombarded with endless mantras, such as “Zimbabwe is open for business”, or “Vision 2030”, or “Upper middle income economy by 2030′, but as long as this outdated system is still in place nothing will ever change.

The people of Zimbabwe may converge around the table with the government, discussing and sharing all manner of economic blueprints, strategies, and plans – yet, these would be nothing better than patches on a torn trousers (zvigamba), which would never make it new, as only acquiring a fresh pair would be the only reasonable way forward.

This also includes the now popularized issue of ‘talks’ between the two main political parties – ZANU PF and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) – or, the current house-play (mahumbwe) between the government and some pseudo-opposition parties (who embarrassingly and dismally failed to garner any significant votes in the previous harmonized elections in 2018.

As the saying goes, “One can not put new wine in old wine skins”, the days of trying to fix this obsolete system are long over – as only a bona fide imbecile can ever dream of anything positive coming out of such.

Zimbabweans do not have the luxury – in time, energy, and resources – for misguided, misconceived, and misconstrued hallucinations that this government is salvageable and redeemable – whilst, the country burns, and millions of this county’s people wallow in unending and increasingly toxic abject poverty.

Let us no longer waste our time figuring out how to push, or assist this government to function better – but, rather, we now need to do what we should have done a long time ago – formulate constitutional and democratic means of replacing the entire system with a totally new updated and upgraded one.

Then, and only then, can we ever dream of a prosperous, peaceful, progressive, and democratic nation – where every Zimbabwean’s right to a dignified life is guaranteed.

° Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice activist, writer, author, and speaker. Please feel free to contact him on: WhatsApp/call: +263733399640/+263715667700, or calls only: +263782283975/+263788897936, or email: [email protected] com.

You Are Cordially Invited To Talk Prison And God Over Omelettes With Insider Trader

Law School Professor Sues New York Times For ‘Clickbait’

The New York Times building (photo by David Lat).

I love the Times. I know that journalism is hard, and deadlines are short. So I when I asked the Times to correct these two false and defamatory statements, I fully expected they would, and I fully expected that would be the end of it. And I so I was astonished when they not only refused to fix the mistake, but doubled down on the absurdity of their justifications. For example: Because I was supporting Joi [Ito, former director of the MIT Media Lab], I was therefore supporting what Joi did. Wow. So if the Times criticizes the assassination of Suleimani does that mean the Times supports what Suleimani did? I was criticizing the scapegoating of Joi. I was not supporting what Joi did.

— Professor Larry Lessig on suing the New York Times for claiming he wrote an essay justifying fundraisers taking money from Jeffrey Epstein. The essay at issue wasn’t exactly clear but it’s impossible to say he was giving a moral pass to fundraising off of Epstein. Still, it’s not really “clickbait” to say Lessig’s article endeavored to suggest how MIT could have best handled its bid to separate a pedophile from his money — frankly, making Epstein poorer without giving him public credit for it sounds like a good thing!

Check out the complaint on the next page…

New Law Aims To Allow Murdered Law School Professor’s Kids To See Their Grandparents

Dan Markel

Professor Dan Markel was murdered in his driveway in 2014, and while the men who pulled the trigger are in jail today, the “middle woman” who allegedly set the hitmen on a collision course with Markel awaits retrial and the family that prosecutors claim paid for the hit are not only free but enjoy unfettered access to Markel’s kids.

After Dan’s murder, sole custody of his children fell to his ex-wife, Wendi Adelson, even though prosecutors continue to argue that Adelson’s brother arranged the killing in a bid to… get Wendi sole custody of the kids. Adelson then changed their last name and cut off their contact with Markel’s family.

Florida State Senator Jeff Brandes just introduced legislation to remedy at least the last part of the ongoing horror. The Grandparent Visitation Rights bill would give grandparents access to petition the courts for visitation rights, something they mostly lack at present as long as the children have a living parent. The one exception comes from a 2015 law that gave grandparents the right to petition for visitation if the remaining living parent is convicted of a felony, which creates a gap in a legal morass like the Markel killing where prosecutors are holding out the Adelsons as unindicted coconspirators at this point.

“This is, at its core, an access to courts issue. The ability for grandparents to petition courts is no guarantee of visitation,” Brandes stressed. “Rather, courts must remain strongly deferential to the living parent’s authority and must take into consideration the relevant factors prior to determining what is or isn’t appropriate.”

A press release for the announcement of the bill notes that advocates see it as a means “to create a disincentive for other families who may see murder as a way to gain total control of children” which is a tragically sad sentence to suggest that we need to set up additional procedural disincentives to get people to abide by the whole “don’t murder people” rule. You’d think that one would hold up without additional window dressing, right?

On the other hand, the threshold for a grandparent’s successful showing under this new law is certainly lower than the constitutional requirements for a criminal conviction. So this might actually have some teeth for anyone who thinks they’ve worked out the perfect crime but also don’t want to ever see their mother-in-law again.

It’s the “wrongful death” tort for people whose only real wish is seeing their grandkids again. While that may not sound as powerful a disincentive to murder as life in prison, for some people the probability of a family law defeat might functionally outweigh the magnitude of a criminal sentence.

Earlier: The Dan Markel Case: Answers To Your FAQs
Trial Begins In Murder-For-Hire Plot That Killed Law School Professor
The Dan Markel Case: Trial Approaches


HeadshotJoe 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.

Space Law Can Only Be Libertarian Minded

The impact on human daily life from a transition to the virtually unlimited resource reality of space cannot be overstated. However, when it comes to the law, a minimalist, dare I say libertarian, approach appears as the only applicable system.

In the words of NASA, “2020 promises to be a big year for space exploration.” Yet, as Rand Simberg points out in Reason magazine, it is actually private American investment that is currently moving space exploration to “a pace unseen since the 1960s.” According to Simberg, due to this increase in private investment “We are now on the verge of getting affordable private access to orbit for large masses of payload and people.” The impact of that type of affordable travel into space might sound sensational to some, but in reality the benefits that space can offer are far greater than any benefit currently attributed to any major policy proposal being discussed at the national level. The sheer amount of resources available within our current reach/capabilities simply speaks for itself. However, although those new realities will, as Simberg says, “bring to the fore a lot of ideological issues that up to now were just theoretical,” I believe it will also eliminate many economic and legal distinctions we currently utilize today.

For example, the sheer number of resources we can already obtain in space means that in the rapidly near future, the distinction between a nonpublic good or a public good will be rendered meaningless. In other words, because the resources available within our solar system exist in such quantities, all goods will become nonrivalrous in their consumption and nonexcludable in their distribution. This would mean government engagement in the public provision of a nonpublic good, even at the trivial level, or what Kevin Williamson defines as socialism, is rendered meaningless or impossible. In fact, in space, I fail to see how any government could even try to legally compel collectivism in the way Simberg fears.

Similar to many economic distinctions, however, it appears that many laws, both the good and the bad, will also be rendered meaningless as soon as we begin to utilize the resources within our solar system. For example, if every human being is given access to the resources that allows them to replicate anything anyone else has, or replace anything “taken” from them instantly, what would be the point of theft laws? If you had virtually infinite space in which you can build what we would now call luxurious livable quarters, all without exploiting human labor or fragile Earth ecosystems when you do it, what sense would most property, employment, or commercial law make? Again, this is not a pipe dream, no matter how much our population grows for the next several millennia, the amount of resources within our solar system can sustain such an existence for every human being.

Rather than panicking about the future, we should try embracing it, or at least meaningfully preparing for it. Currently, the Outer Space Treaty, or as some call it “the Magna Carta of Space,” is silent on the issue of whether private individuals or corporate entities can own territory in space. Regardless of whether governments allow it, however, private citizens are currently obtaining the ability to travel there, and if human history is any indicator, private homesteading will follow, flag or no flag. We Americans know this is how a Wild West starts, where most regulation becomes the impractical pipe dream. But again, this would be a Wild West where the exploitation of human labor and fragile Earth ecosystem makes no economic sense, where every single human can be granted access to resources that even the wealthiest among us now would envy, and where innovation and imagination become the only things we would recognize as currency. Only a libertarian-type system, that guarantees basic individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness could be valued and therefore human fidelity to a set of laws made possible, in such an existence.


Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.