Communication. Do we sometimes get it wrong with clients—or otherwise? I learned a valuable lesson early on in my legal career while still an articling student. My boss and good mentor, Hank, invited me to lunch. After the meal, I ordered a cup of tea. As I like it a certain strength, I said to the waiter, one Jean Pierre, “Bag out, please.”
Crime is consistent. After all, if we look back to the world’s oldest “criminal codes” (the Code of Ur-Nammu—circa 2100 to 2050 B.C.; the Laws of Eshnunna—circa at least 1930 B.C.; the Code of Lipit-Ishtar—circa 1934 to 1924 B.C.; and the Code of Hammurabi—circa 1755 to 1750 B.C.), we see actions such as false charges and testimony, theft, distraint, trespassing, kidnapping, sexual offenses, bodily harm and murder outlawed, with punishment ranging anywhere from a fine, maiming or death. Although there have seemingly always been penalties, crime continues.
There is a deep political divide on the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the country, over the Constitution and religion. Liberals long have interpreted the establishment clause of the First Amendment as best understood through Thomas Jefferson’s metaphor that there should be a wall separating church and state. For decades, this was the approach taken by the Supreme Court, but conservatives reject this notion and believe the government violates the establishment clause only if it coerces religious participation or gives assistance that favors some religions over others.
Since the 2020 presidential election, the Biden-Harris administration has offered policy correctives on a spectrum of civil rights and social justice issues. Still, we have more to accomplish. The ABA Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice's Rights of Immigrants Committee—in strategic partnership with the ABA Coalition on Racial and Ethnic Justice and with support from the African American Policy Forum—hosted a policy summit designed to advance racial equity and social justice principles.
On April 1, 2004, the Glastonbury Citizen, a weekly newspaper, reported that John Sakon, a real estate developer, was planning to build a 250,000-square-foot Walmart and the state’s largest Hooters restaurant in the Connecticut town. The story wasn’t true. Sakon demanded a retraction. When he didn’t get one, he filed suit for defamation.
Two years have passed since the onset of the pandemic, and no matter how you look at it, things will never be quite the same. COVID-19 changed everything. In many cases, the only way for lawyers to continue to practice law and maintain business operations during the pandemic has been to take advantage of remote working technologies.
Ari Kaplan recently spoke with Marla Crawford, the general counsel at Cimplifi, an integrated legal services provider that aligns e-discovery and contract analytics for corporate legal departments and law firms.
I was a kid in the early 1990s. More accurately, I was a kid raised by kids. My parents were young, and I saw the gap in age (or lack thereof) as a blessing and a curse. They were young enough that it was difficult for our family at times, but I was able to find an awesome balance between “parent” and “friend.”
When the COVID-19 pandemic stormed into our lives in 2020, many U.S. law firms saw increased demand for their services and a greater need for efficient operations.
The legal profession. All good? Maybe not all, at least according to some observers, such as Shakespeare, who said something like, “First, let’s kill all the lawyers.” I retired about five years ago after spending more than 40 years in the Ontario court trenches, and I would now like to share some thoughts on what’s good about our profession.
