The New Economy voter - Jeff Cooper points to an article in the New Republic by Judis & Teixeira which describes the New Economy voter, and argues the Democrats are failing to capture that voter, even though they should. Cooper describes the New Economy Voter, and I meet most of the criteria, especially
"They are leery of the growing power of large corporations over various portions of their lives—the abuse of personal information, the restrictions on uses of new technology, the restrictions on choices."
And I agree with this statement by Cooper (who is obviously interpreting what the authors say) too:
"And thanks to the influence of the [Democratic Leadership Committee] and the Democrats' ties to the entertainment industry, Democrats are supporting dramatic expansions of copyright law that would significantly complicate the creation, dissemination, and use of content for all but the big media players. These actions on behalf of the powerful over the people, combined with the failure to articulate and advance a coherent agenda in the one branch of the federal government in which they exercise control, means that Democrats, especially Senate Democrats, are ill-suited to seize the opportunity that, according to Judis and Teixeira, presently exists."
Yeah, get real Dem's! You're missing the boat. I voted for Bush last time around (couldn't tolerate Gore), but if I perceived that you guys understood what is going on with our New Economy I'd come back to the fold in a heartbeat.
5:08:08 PM
Tape Recording Phone calls - here's a 30 second legal question that is increasingly likely to come up but no one thinks about that much: when is it okay to record a phone conversation. Many phones now have the ability to initiate recording by the push of a button, and phone vendors tout this as a great thing because you can quickly capture a recording. My understanding is that, in Louisiana at least, it is okay to tape a conversation as long as one party consents. I'll check on that. But, if that's right, it means that I can record because I (one of the parties) have consented. Some states, I believe, have a two-party requirement.
But, even if it is legal to record the conversation, that still doesn't mean that you can use it in a court of law as evidence. That's a whole 'nother question.
3:58:29 PM
Wireless in the Courthouse? - well not if too many court personnel read about this case. The article doesn't give details as to how the security specialist was able to hack the system. I know 802.11b has lots of security issues, and it would be good if Glenn Fleishman could sniff out (pun intended) the salient facts of this case. I hate to see wireless get a bad name.
"Law professor Susan Koniak takes lawyers to task for their roles in Enron-Anderson-Global Crossing-et al. "The dirty secret of the mess is that without lawyers few scandals would exist, and fewer still would last long enough to cause any real harm." Although ethics rules prohibit lawyers from knowingly assisting client fraud, they are ineffectual because "lawyers never 'know.'" Forbes (free registration required).
A harsh indictment from one of our own. Is it warranted? My reaction is mixed. On the one hand, the ultimate choice—and therefore the ultimate responsibility—lies with the client. On the other hand, lawyers are the great facilitators, the transaction engineers who figure out how to parse the rules and game the system. As Koniak notes, clients can't get themselves into this much trouble without professional assistance.
I agree that we have duties, as lawyers. We all know about the duty to our clients (which is well-defined, forceful, and important). But the duty to the client is also a part of a duty to the system. The reason for the duty to the client is to create trust and allow the client to be candid. But lawyers have a duty of candor toward tribunals as well. If the net effect of the various lawyer-duties is to create a legal system that encourages people to peacebly resolve their differences (as opposed to using weaponry of various sorts) then all is well. If the net effect of these duties is to encourage a lot of holding-your-cards-close-to-your vest, which in turn promotes the view that the legal system is a complex zero-sum game, then we are going down a less than desirable path.
But, I too am torn. The legal system is an adversarial one. There is truth in advertising, and we know that a lawyer's primary obligation is to his or her client. So, keep that in mind when you deal with lawyers.
2:21:13 PM
