Posted Apr 29, 2011 01:30 pm CDT
The anonymous blogger Bad Lawyer is posting again—after a five-month stint in federal prison. “My professional conduct deviated from the standards of the ethical attorney in the maintenance of my IOLTA account; and, in the reporting of income and payment of taxes,” he wrote in his last post before surrendering in November.
He posted April 16 about his release, and dozens of posts have followed. Most of his posts, now as they were before, cover lawyer misconduct and criminal cases. “It was a remarkable experience to write this blawg and subsequently end up in prison with some of the subjects/criminals in the stories I wrote about, or linked to,” he wrote last week. He also hinted in another post that he plans to eventually blog more about his experiences in prison.
With a billion-plus people around the world expected to watch today’s Royal Wedding, mentions of it crept into the legal blogosphere:
Josh Blackman noted that there were plans to install signal-blocking technology in Westminister Abbey to prevent cellphone interruptions and live tweets from the church. Blackman took umbrage. “The entire service will be streamed live on YouTube. There will be millions of ‘media’ there broadcasting. Why limit tweeters? Do you really think anyone important enough to receive an invite to the wedding will forget to put his or her phone on vibrate?”
Howard M. Friedman, professor of law emeritus at the University of Toledo, noted at Religion Clause that the Church of England recently blocked a government effort to scrap the 1701 Act of Settlement, which holds that any heir to the throne must renounce his or her right to it if he or she were to marry a Catholic. Canon law dictates that any children from such a union would have to be raised Catholic, and that would result in a Catholic Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Alfred Brophy at The Faculty Lounge has been reading up on Prince William’s and Kate Middleton’s educational backgrounds. “What will the fact that the Royal couple are graduates of St. Andrews do for that university’s ranking? Will their UK News and World Report ranking go up?”
Family Lore blogger John Bolch answered the question of what he is doing on the day of the Royal Wedding: “Of course, if I were still practising then I would join the throng of divorce lawyers outside the Abbey, eager to thrust their business cards into the sweaty mit of the bride and/or groom. … The day is, nevertheless, one to celebrate. After all, a royal marriage will doubtless encourage more plebs to marry, and we all know that more marriages = more divorces = more money for divorce lawyers.”
At the Careerist, Vivia Chen noted a Wall Street Journal article heralding that stiletto heels are out and shorter, chunkier heels are in. She has mixed feelings about the prospect of shifting workplace footwear.
“Cute and comfy—is that what women professionals want in a shoe?” Chen wrote. “Personally, I feel torn about the issue. Being petite, I’ve always counted on high heels or platforms to give me that extra 3- or 4-inch boost.”
Chen also asked other female law bloggers for their takes on high heels:
Susan Scafidi, director of Fordham’s Fashion Law Institute and Counterfeit Chic blogger: “Professional women divide into two tribes. Second-wave feminists who’ve metaphorically burned their high heels along with their bras, and third-wave women who embrace the option of towering over naysayers. I’m firmly in the latter camp.”
Kat Griffin of Corporette: “Four-to five-inch heels are inappropriate for most professional women and most offices.”
“everysixminutes,” a former Wall Street associate with an eponymous blog: “Heels make us feel confident.”