Over my past two columns, I’ve focused on reviewing two related television series, The Practice and Boston Legal, with the ultimate goal of comparing them. To conduct my review, I utilized the top-rated episode from each series as calculated by episodeninja.com. So, which series came out victorious? The Practice? Boston Legal? Not so fast.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago has reprimanded a New York lawyer for skipping oral arguments in a late-settled case and relying on opposing counsel to represent the parties’ joint views on costs.
The gender gap among lawyers arguing before the federal appeals court in Chicago barely improved over the last decade, according to a report published by the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession.
In October, I reviewedThe Practice. It’s now time to take a look at Boston Legal, compare the two related series and crown the better “legal TV” option. As was the case with The Practice, I am going into this viewing session blind; I'd never before watched an episode of Boston Legal. Let’s dig in.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ consideration of a Texas death row inmate’s case deviated from the U.S. Supreme Court’s prior instruction regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and conflicted with its precedents, the ABA told the Supreme Court on Thursday.
In April, Screen Rant published its list of the 10 best legal drama shows of all time, ranked according to IMDb. After review, I realized two of the 10 were very closely related. Boston Legal was a spinoff of The Practice, and also according to IMDb, the byproduct is better than the initial offering.
A tiny typographical error in a 1928 U.S. Supreme Court opinion had a big impact after it was picked up in subsequent opinions and used to bolster arguments for property rights, a law professor has found.
Is the U.S. Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” of emergency orders and summary decisions being misused in a way that undermines the court’s legitimacy? Or are Democrats who are criticizing the docket trying to intimidate the justices?
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it will resume in-person oral arguments when its term begins Oct. 4, but members of the public will not be allowed to be there.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday sided with a nonprofit organization that provides free food to homeless people in a park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, finding that a city rule that limits the practice is unconstitutional.
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled in favor of plaintiffs who alleged that spectators using wheelchairs at T-Mobile Park, the home of the Seattle Mariners Major League Baseball team, had inadequate sightlines under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The ABA Journal wants to host and facilitate conversations among lawyers about their profession. We are now accepting thoughtful, non-promotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors.
.png)
