May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates

Skip To Content

MIPTC Author:

Bookstore:


Listed in Latino Who's Who, June 2014
 Attorney
Locations of visitors to this page

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


Quote of the Day - Call it a clan, call it a network, call it a tribe, call it a family. Whatever you call it, whoever you are, you need one. - Jane Howard
Adjust font size: A A+ A++
Claim Your Profile on Avvo
There are 2033 Journal Items on 255 page(s) and you are on page number 179

The First Month Of 2005 Is Over. How Are Your Resolutions Coming Along?

Are you relaxing at home tonight? (Subscription required to access link). According to the statistics in that last link, if you're a lawyer, you're probably not. At least some 87% are not. But I don't think the phenomenon is limited to lawyers.

Even so, the January 31, 2005 California Law article notes that "attorneys toil at home an average of nine nights per month, though 13% say they never work from home. On the other end of the spectrum, 7.5 percent of those surveyed have "homework" at least 25 evenings each month, and another 10.5 percent work from home 20 to 24 nights per month," writes June D. Bell.

I checked Matt's blog to see if he caught this story yet, but he hadn't. We'd all be interested in his perspective, I'm sure. Perhaps, however, it isn't Matt's perspective, but your family's that matters.

Ask them. Find out whether being buried in your computer is "quality time" with the family. If you're like me, you probably already know the answer. In some ways, it's too late for me. My kids are grown and off to graduate school (two of three are married), so I'll never really know the answer to that question. Or do I already?

In any event, it's time to ask some questions: How blissful is your life? Do you have time to do something about it? What are your resolutions and goals?

Most important, what are you going to do?

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Monday, January 31, 2005 at 12:02. Comments Closed (0) |

The Newscast About The Podcast

First came the Podcast about the Podcast from MIPTC contributor Mike Geoghegan on his own blog, MWGblog. MIPTC features Mike's podcasts as a part of our "Friday At The Movies" series.

Mike next followed his highly regarded podcast with the Podcast about the Podcast #2. It's been equally well received, and if you want to learn more about podcasting, it's a "must listen." Mike also features some great podcasting resources on his blog, aka "Reel Reviews." Take a visit and look around; Better yet, give a listen to his movie review podcasts. MIPTC features only a smattering of Mike's excellent work.

Just last week, Mike and his podcasts were recently featured in the Orange County Register, along with MIPTC on the article's second page. Now, you can read the newscast about the podcast.

I aspire to provide you with Mike's same sound quality in MIPTC's podcasts. First, though, I've been working on the vidcasts, which I've put on the shelf temporarily until I can get the lighting requirements down and the teleprompter activated. Plus, I've got an offer to use a highly sophisticated and computerized television studio, so it won't be long before MIPTC vidcasts are back up and running. Even though it was a blast to get started, the quality wasn't what it should have been.

Vidcasts will be back soon, and meanwhile, you can enjoy MIPTC's podcasts. Even better, you can join us at our next OC podcaster's meeting and learn even more.

Look at it this way: it's cheaper than the $249 to $375 cost you'd have to pay to attend this seminar.1

Footnote

1 Now, admittedly, you'll learn a few other things in that seminar, but it was odd to find out that someone else is giving seminars and using MIPTC as an example. back

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Sunday, January 30, 2005 at 22:41. Comments Closed (0) |

Diving Doesn't Involve Floating; The Best Part Is Underwater

Here's a new lawsuit I'd like to read. It's a scuba diver who was diving off an oil rig, and alleges that he was left to drift for five hours because the dive boat forgot him. As we all know, there are more than two sides to every story.

It has happened to other divers in other parts of the world, sometimes with disastrous results. But there are precautions. High among them is to dive with a group of friends.

Another is to stay with your buddy. It's a system that works well to ensure everyone dives safely. It also places responsibility on both divers to maintain contact while under water. After all, even if you're doing fine, your buddy may need some help.

On the whole, diving is safe, enjoyable and an exhilarating sport. Like other sports, it requires discipline and attention to detail.

After all, if you don't dive, you're missing two-thirds of the world. You can dive right in.

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Saturday, January 29, 2005 at 23:11. Comments Closed (0) |

MIPTC's Friday Wine Review from Grape Radio

Retail Wine Buying

Here's MIPTC's Friday wine review from Grape Radio. Today, the guys talk up "Retail Wine Buying." Give a listen to their podcast.

Grape Radio #3: This show focuses on the retail aspect of buying wine. There is no reason for a novice wine buyer to be intimidated about going into a wine store and asking for help finding a bottle of wine.

Grape Radio's special guest today is Senior Wine Buyer John Downing. John has been in the business for over eight years and focuses on international wines, but he also gives great insight into buying wine from a local retailer.

John works at Hi-Time Wine Cellars, a wine and spirits shop founded 1957. The store, which is one of the largest in the USA, is both a traditional brick-and-mortar establishment while also offering a full e-commerce online shopping option. Hi-Time Cellars offers an email newsletter and can be found at Hi-Time Wine.

Podcast 


MIPTC's Friday At The Movies Feature from Reel Reviews

Cinephile Series #3: Apocalypse Now

As a regular Friday feature on MIPTC, here's Mike Geoghegan's movie review and podcast:

Reel Review #23: “Everyone gets everything he wants, I wanted a mission and for my sins they gave me one.” For the third edition of the Cinephile Series we examine Apocalypse Now. (Please remember, unlike the standard Reel Reviews, the Cinephile Series works on the assumption you have seen the film. Spoilers abound.) Easily one of the greatest films ever made, Apocalypse Now has rightfully maintained its popularity with new movie going audiences over the years. Simply put - a must see film. (For the observant listener, you’ll notice Mike mispronounces Joseph Conrad’s novella as Hearts of Darkness. He apologizes: "Sorry about that.") Take a trip up the river with us and journey back into the insanity. The horror, the horror…

Links mentioned:

Apocalypse Now Redux at Amazon.com

Apocalypse Now at Amazon.com

IMDb

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by Mike Geoghegan on Friday, January 28, 2005 at 20:09. Comments Closed (0) |

Doctoring With Law Degrees

What kind of a degree does a lawyer get upon graduation from law school? Sure, it's called a Juris Doctor, but is it more like a Ph.D. or more like a masters? It takes about three years to get either a law degree or a doctorate. No one calls lawyers "Doctor," however, and we don't have to write a thesis.

But we do have to take the bar exam to practice, and I'm not sure which is worse.

If you're going to Harvard, it could be a distinction without a difference. You can now get Ph.D. credits from taking law classes.

Just imagine. "Bob Smith, J.D., Ph.D."

Does that mean that it'll be "Doctor Bob, Juris Doctor?"

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Thursday, January 27, 2005 at 13:41. Comments Closed (1) |

A Parent's Nightmare Come True. What Would You Do?

If you're a parent, read on. If you're an under-18 child of a parent, read on. Better yet, read the introduction to this court opinion first.

No, this post is not rated, but if it was, it would be rated G. The court's opinion, on the other hand, could qualify as NC-17.

You can always tell a lot from the first line of court opinions. This one gives no doubt about the outcome: "This case is a parent's nightmare come true."

Daughter, 16, started dating a 15-year old boy. Her grades declined, she failed three classes, skipped school and had a series of behavioral problems with her parents. Guessing that the boyfriend was the root of the problem, Mom banned daughter from dating boyfriend.

Boyfriend, in turn, wrote threatening letters to Mom, including "fantastical" schemes including murdering the parents and other "vitriolic" threats.

Mom got an injunction, preventing boyfriend from contacting daughter, Mom and Dad.

Boyfriend appealed the injunction, claiming it violated his first amendment rights.

As foreshadowed above, boyfriend lost. That is until daughter reaches 18, when she reaches majority, and the Court set the injunction to expire. As the Court noted, "She will then have the right and responsibility to make her own decisions; her parents' role will become one of influence and persuasion, rather than direction and control. Of course, Danielle could seek to renew the injunction for a period beyond her eighteenth birthday."

What would you advise Daughter Danielle to do?

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at 14:36. Comments Closed (1) |

I Didn't Agree To Agree, I Just Didn't Object to Agree

Here's a lesson in how not to handle a settlement. The case, decided today, provides two important lessons, maybe more if you're paying close attention.

Most insurance policies vest the power to settle a case in the insurer's hands, not yours. That's lesson number one. You likely don't have the right to object to your insurance company's agreement to settle your case, even if you think it's outrageous. So, if you want that power later, buy that kind of coverage now.

Lesson number two is that when you make a settlement orally in front of the judge, it's going to be enforced, so think about what you're agreeing to first. The "on the record" requirement was removed some time ago.

Here, the driver and passenger of a car sued the drivers of other cars that hit them. After much wrangling (the facts of this case read like a contortionist playing with a Rubik's cube), the passenger settled with the driver and the other cars that hit him. The insurance adjusters didn't object to the settlement.

Everybody was happy. Or so it seemed.

Then the passenger tried to renege on the deal. [Who knows why other than he probably thought he could get more money in settlement or trial.]

So who did agree?

The passenger. He was on the record. And the attorneys for the defendants/insurance companies.

Did the other defendants, who weren't there, agree? Who knows? They weren't there. But remember, too, that the adjusters didn't formally agree. They just didn't object. The "agreement/no objection" of the insurance adjusters wasn't on the transcript, either.

But, the court of appeals ruled everyone had an agreement.

Even if there weren't agreements all around.

Don't you agree?

Podcast 

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 at 19:58. Comments Closed (0) |



Page:  << Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  151  152  153  154  155  156  157  158  159  160  161  162  163  164  165  166  167  168  169  170  171  172  173  174  175  176  177  178  179 180  181  182  183  184  185  186  187  188  189  190  191  192  193  194  195  196  197  198  199  200  201  202  203  204  205  206  207  208  209  210  211  212  213  214  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  236  237  238  239  240  241  242  243  244  245  246  247  248  249  250  251  252  253  254  255  Next >>

Back to top.