Law blog round-up

Here's an instructive anecdote about two lawyers talking capital gains and child support over coffee. The upshot: judges must consider recent capital gains in any requested recalculation of child support but are not required to then factor them into a revised support amount.

A bit about blog law on a law blog: The Volokh Conspiracy speculates about the differing levels of protection various media may have against charges that they - Canada's McClean's magazine, in this case - are publishing hate speech.

Today from the Supreme Court: Below-guidelines sentencing is OK in certain cases. Most notably for cities like Baltimore, judges can consider the disparity in prescribed punishment for crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine crimes.

-BRENDAN KEARNEY, Legal Affairs Writer

Choosing a new chief judge

OK, I confess: I'm a law dork. It's hard not to get sucked into law-dorkdom when you've covered Maryland's legal community for the past couple of years.

Anyway, because of my dork status, I've been thinking a lot today about who will replace Judge Joe Murphy as chief of the Court of Special Appeals.

UB law prof Byron Warnken suggested to me yesterday that the governor would probably pick someone who has been on the court a while, but not someone who is too close to retirement. If we're talking about judges who will reach the mandatory retirement age soon, that eliminates Judges Davis, Salmon and Sharer, all of whom will turn 70 in the next three years.

On the other end of the spectrum, using a three-year cut-off would eliminate only the court's newest member, Judge Woodward, who was appointed in May 2005.

Warnken also seems to believe that Judge Adkins will likely win the retiring Judge Cathell's seat on the Court of Appeals, and that Judge Barbera is heavily favored for the Court of Appeals seat that Judge Raker will vacate in April, so he thinks they are not likely candidates for the chief judge spot.

That leaves five possibilities: judges Hollander, the two Eylers, Krauser and Meredith.

Do you agree with this list? Anyone have any guesses about whom the governor might favor? (For the record, Warnken predicts James Eyler.)

-CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

Short-listed for the Court of Special Appeals

As we reported Friday, the Appellate Judicial Nominating Commission whittled down the whopping list of candidates for the Court of Special Appeals to eight.

I’m wondering what everyone out there thinks of the names that were passed along to the gov. Anyone who applied and should’ve made the commission’s cut but didn’t? Anyone on the short list who doesn’t belong there?

It looks like O’Malley will have his work cut out for him because there are some very well-respected names on the list. O’Malley also has ample chance here to increase female representation on the court, which, as my colleague Brendan Kearney pointed out last month, is not proportional. I’ll also point out that the gov has a shot at appointing the first black woman judge on the Court of Special Appeals.

-CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

Law blog round-up

Here are a few law links for your blustery Monday morning:

-The Supremes won’t hear (PDF) Maryland v. Paulino (PDF), a.k.a. the buttocks case. That means the Court of Appeals’ decision stands; the court voted 4-3 in June to throw out the drug conviction of a man whose buttocks cleavage was searched by police at a car wash.

-A gay Iranian man from Rockville apparently faces deportation. According to an article in the Gay City News, Hassan Parhizkar’s immigration problems stem from him hiring a man he thought was a lawyer, but who was allegedly a con man posing as an attorney, to handle his initial claim for political asylum.

-17-year-olds can no longer vote in the Maryland primaries, complains WaPo letter-writer.

-A New York judge has pledged not to shave until state judges there, who make $136,000 a year and haven’t gotten a raise in nine years, get a salary hike.

-CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

Just how big was Bromwell’s break?

State Sen. Thomas L. Bromwell, who admitted dealing in favors, got a six-month break on the start date of his 7-year prison term. But lawyers for Bromwell and his wife, Mary Patricia (who faces her own year-and-a-day term), say it’s a matter of special circumstances, not special treatment, since the couple’s two youngest children are just 11 and 14 years old.

Even Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathleen O. Gavin, who prosecuted the case, agreed that such an allowance for parents of small children who are sentenced to incarceration at the same time is not unprecedented.

“It happens,” she said after the Bromwells broached the idea in court Nov. 16.

William B. Purpura, Mrs. Bromwell’s attorney, said sentences have been staggered in cases with similar facts in other federal districts and in state courts. He said even business partners have been allowed to serve their sentences roughly consecutively.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate to say people involved in white collar crimes get this break and those involved in drug crimes don’t,” said Herbert Better, a former assistant U.S. attorney and now at the Baltimore office of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

What do you think?

-BRENDAN KEARNEY, Legal Affairs Writer

Same-sex marriage: Good business for Maryland?

A group of researchers has concluded that if Maryland legalized same-sex marriage, the state would benefit to the tune of $3.2 million.

The researchers are affiliated with the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, and they have done analyses on other states before, concluding that legalizing gay marriage or extending domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples would bring in money and/or cost the states little.

According to a press release on the study, some of what makes up that $3.2 million figure are these factors:

“— Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would reduce the State’s expenditures on means-tested public benefit programs by about $1.5 million annually.

— The net impact on the State’s income tax revenue resulting from same-sex marriages would be small: the State would experience a decrease in income tax revenue of about $132,000 annually….

— The State would incur some revenue loss from transfer taxes as a result of same-sex marriage, approximately $1.4 million annually.

— With same-sex marriage, annual expenditures on state employee benefit programs would increase between $400,000 and $1.3 million….”

The researchers also postulated that if same-sex marriage were legalized, 7,800 gay couples in Maryland would wed. All those nuptials would give the wedding and tourist industries a major boost, resulting in a net gain to business of $88 million per year in the first three years, the study says.

On page 25, they’ve also got an interesting chart listing the Maryland companies that offer domestic partner benefits. Highlights include DLA Piper, Johns Hopkins, and BGE.

-CARYN TAMBER, Daily Record Legal Affairs Writer

Firefighters: aiming to extinguish terrorism?

Firefighters tend to enjoy hero status as first responders who arrive with only one agenda: to put out the fire and help the wounded.

The government is adding another to the job description: to be lookouts for possible terrorist activity.

Unlike boys in blue, firefighters and EMTs don’t need warrants to enter homes and buildings – an enviable position that allows them to scout for blueprints or bombs.

As you might imagine, critics are concerned about an invasion of privacy:

Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now national security policy counsel to the ACLU, said the concept is dangerously close to the Bush administration's 2002 proposal to have workers with access to private homes — such as postal carriers and telephone repairmen — report suspicious behavior to the FBI. "Americans universally abhorred that idea," German said.

That hasn’t stopped Homeland Security from training NYC firefighters to spot signs of terrorist activity. If the training’s successful in New York (and a fire chief quoted in the story says it’s turned up a few “hits”), the government intends to expand it.

D.C. firefighters were recently given the same access as police to terrorism-related information. They carry the knowledge with them to the 170,000+ homes and businesses they routinely enter each year.

Are we safer now that we have more sets of eyes on alert for terrorist activity? Or is more of our privacy slipping away?

Will this hold up in court?

-JACKIE SAUTER, Multimedia Editor

Image courtesy wvs.topleftpixel.com.

Law blog round-up

Welcome back! To start off your week back at work, here are a few law links you might enjoy:

- Brian Higgins at the Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog writes about a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland, in which the Orthodox Union, which certifies food as kosher, alleges that Baltimore-based Wilder Foods has been using the OU symbol on its packaging even though its spices have not been certified kosher. Update: Wilder tells The Daily Record that the products are certified kosher, but by a certification agency called EarthKosher, rather than by the Orthodox Union.

- Ron Miller at the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog thinks plaintiffs’ lawyers undervalue herniated disc cases.

- Adam Liptak of The New York Times has an interesting story on what happens to unclaimed money from class-action settlements. Thanks to the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog for the link.

- The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has indefinitely suspended a Maryland lawyer whom our Court of Appeals suspended last year. Her name is Candace Calhoun and she recommended that a client accept an $8,000 settlement, then charged him $9,500 in fees.

- And of course, there’s also more on Rod Rosenstein’s nomination to the 4th Circuit, such as blogger Hoystory ridiculing the Maryland senators’ opposition to the nomination.

-CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

Dog owner gets $3,100 tab for bitten bark

A Pennsylvania man and his canine companion are being held accountable for the cost of three trees that fell victim to her penchant for bark.

The story, from the AP:

This summer, Tyler Port allowed his dog, Rossman, to run loose in a park. The dog apparently had a habit of chewing bark off trees, and Port was cited for failure to keep the dog under control.

John Iorio, the city's dog law officer, also is seeking $3,100 to cover the cost of replacing three honey locust trees, which a consultant said may die.

"Rossman," a pit bull, apparently also likes to hang from tree limbs by her teeth.

Do you think the dog and her 22 year-old owner should have to buy the Altoona park new trees?

Can't wait to see what area dogs will do to the artificial turf fields that are on the way in Howard and Anne Arundel counties.

-JACKIE SAUTER, Multimedia Editor

Rodriguez, Rogers go it alone

Alex Rodriguez, the New York Yankees third basemen and recently named American League MVP, sidelined his lawyer, super agent Scott Boras, last week and instead consulted Goldman Sachs bankers and renowned investor Warren Buffett on his way to signing another landmark contract.

Rodriguez’s former teammate with the Texas Rangers, pitcher Kenny Rogers, has also cut ties with Boras and is representing himself in his contract talks with the Detroit Tigers.

Boras has developed a reputation as a tough negotiator, to his benefit — his stable of clients could easily make up an All-Star team — and now, apparently, to his detriment.

Many fans have long held sports agents in low esteem, as interlopers who meddle in the business of players and teams.

Were last week’s decisions to consult money men in lieu of a lawyer or go completely pro se specific to Boras, or have players come to see their lawyers like the fans - as impediments rather than indispensable advisors and advocates?

-BRENDAN KEARNEY, Legal Affairs Writer

Update: New Orleans DA's office saga nears resolution

Turns out that no one wants to be without the District Attorney's office in New Orleans.

The Associated Press reports that the city and state of Louisiana will pay the majority of a $3.4 million judgment against the DA's office. The judgment was awarded to 36 employees (35 white and one Hispanic) who were fired shortly after Eddie Jordan took over in 2003.

As the AP puts it:

The district attorney's office, with a $12 million annual budget, had struggled to find a way to pay the judgment while the city and state argued over who has responsibility for the office.

[Mayor Ray]Nagin had earlier resisted bailing the district attorney's office out, saying it would set a dangerous precedent, but he said this deal avoids that. "The city is advancing the money to the district attorney's office," Nagin said. "They will pay us back."

You can read my original post on the situation here.

-JACKIE SAUTER, Multimedia Editor

To bear or to ban?

The Supreme Court announced today that it will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s long-time handgun ban — and in doing so, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

The case stems from a federal security guard who, with the backing of a rich libertarian, challenged the District’s 31-year-old gun control law that prevented him from keeping a gun in his home. In a split-decision, the federal appeals court sided with the security guard in March.

The Supreme Court’s decision had been widely anticipated by the parties, each of which petitioned the Court to hear the case, along with several states who filed briefs, including Maryland, and advocates on both sides of the issue nationwide.

Does the Second Amendment give an individual the right to bear arms, or was it just created to maintain “a well-regulated Militia?”

If the Supreme Court decides next year that the ban is unconstitutional, what effect do you think that will have on Maryland’s gun laws, and on gun-related crime in places such as Baltimore City and Prince George’s County?

-BRENDAN KEARNEY, Legal Affairs Writer

Does Rosenstein lack "Maryland perspective" for 4th Circuit post?

Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy has a post mocking The Sun for its editorial Sunday supporting Sens. Mikulski and Cardin in their efforts to block Rod Rosenstein’s path to the 4th Circuit.

The Sun said Rosenstein does not have deep roots in Maryland and lacks the “Maryland perspective” the conservative appeals court needs.

Kerr writes:

Can any one explain this “Maryland perspective” of the law? Is it genetic? Are there classes you can take to learn it? Books you can read? Can it be acquired quickly, or must it age like a fine wine during decades of residence?

Or is it supposed to be a proxy for political views, with the idea being that a true Marylander isn't particularly conservative?

-CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

Law blog round-up

Your blog round-up for this Monday morning — er, afternoon:

—“There’s something hilarious about an institution as staid as the Supreme Court awkwardly sitting around trying to hash this one out,” says the DCist blog of the possibility that SCOTUS will take the Maryland buttocks case.

—The Sun weighed in yesterday on the Rosenstein nomination. Unsurprisingly, they’re not pleased.

—In further 4th Circuit news, another of the President’s nominees, Duncan Getchell, has been sued for defamation. Hat tip: How Appealing.

—What a mess in South Carolina! Thanks to Feminist Law Professors for the link.

—Volokh Conspiracy writes about candidates jockeying for law prof support.

-CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

Fourth circuit settles canine couture fight

Score one for the little guy (or pooch).

A panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling today that kept Las Vegas-based Haute Diggity Dog and Ashburn, Va.-based Woofie’s Pet Boutique in business.

Luxury handbag maker Louis Vuitton had claimed Haute infringed on its trademark with “Chewy Vuiton” dog toys, but – as the AP puts it – the court “refused to bite.”

The AP reports:

Judge Paul V. Niemeyer found that Chewy Vuiton is "a joking and amusing parody" that "pokes fun at the elegance and expensiveness of a LOUIS VUITTON handbag."

Read the full opinion here. (PDF)

And take note of some of Haute's other parodies: Chewnel perfume and The Bark Street Journal.

-JACKIE SAUTER, Multimedia Editor

DA office saga in the Big Easy

I do my best to post when a particularly intriguing business or law story turns up, and I won’t disappoint this afternoon — though the credit goes to our sister publication, New Orleans City Business.

My colleagues from the South shared a juicy-yet-frightening story with me that involves the Orleans Parish district attorney (a parish is to Louisiana what a county is to Maryland).

District Attorney Eddie Jordan (right) resigned earlier this month after a federal court ruled the assets of the DA’s office could be seized to pay a $3M+ civil rights judgment against it. The judgment was the result of a lawsuit filed by workers Jordan fired after he took office.

Now, a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday that requires the interim DA to disclose the agency’s assets. Among them? Payroll.

The latest, from the AP:

An official with the district attorney's office has said it can pay employees on Thursday, as scheduled, from funds that haven't been frozen by the plaintiffs' actions. It remains unclear how the long the office can make its full payroll.

Our sister publication polled its online visitors and found that most thought the assets should be seized to satisfy the judgment, even if it meant shutting down the office.

To complicate matters further, Louisiana has strict speedy trial rights that require a charge be brought within 150 days after a felony arrest.

Are there any words left?

What will New Orleans do without a District Attorney’s office?

Above: New Orleans District Attorney Eddie Jordan, left, announces his resignation as Mayor Ray Nagin listens at City Hall in New Orleans, Tuesday, Oct. 30. AP Photo.

-JACKIE SAUTER, Multimedia Editor

Kiefer Sutherland: a teaching tool?

I admit it. I’m a bit of a TV junkie. But, as much as I enjoy the temporary escape into a fantasy world, I don’t necessarily think of these people or their problems as real.

So when I heard that Georgetown Professor Gary Sharp was creating a new counterterrorism law class based on Fox’s show, “24,” my television-flooded mind was intrigued: wait, we can learn something from TV?

Indeed, says Sharp, and so do other law professors. The University of Maryland School of Law even offers a “Law in Film” seminar that teaches students how to analyze films and the legal issues presented in them.

Scrolling back over my Tivo list of shows, I wonder what a law professor could do with FX network’s new show “Damages,” which premiered this summer.

The show’s first season was filled with murder, suspense and intrigue — all surrounding a civil law suit against a C.E.O. who cheated his employees out of millions. Like “24,” it’s not very realistic, but it does present some interesting ethical and legal dilemmas.

Do you have any favorite movies or television shows you’d like to put to a legal review?

-LIZ FARMER, Legal Affairs Writer

Law blog round-up, 11/12

Here are some links for your Monday morning:

— Maryland is among the states asking SCOTUS to review the D.C. Circuit’s holding that a District law banning handguns violates the Second Amendment. The justices could decide whether to hear the case as soon as tomorrow. What’s your take?

— James Gross at the Maryland Divorce Legal Crier writes about what he calls the “Alice in Wonderland Law” — the law governing marital property.

— Rees Morrison at Hildebrandt’s Law Department Management blog says “Michael Clayton” makes general counsels look bad. Anybody out there see the movie? Does it do the GC community wrong?

— Jim Cotterman at Altman Weil gives some numbers on associate compensation.

— Everyone’s favorite female current Supreme Court justice (pathetically, that can only mean one person at the moment) talks bathrooms, men-only job interviews at big firms, and wearing her mother-in-law’s clothes.

-CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

U.S. lawyers decry Pakistan’s actions

The Maryland State Bar Association has joined the American Bar Association in condemning Pakistan’s suspension of its national constitution and rule of law, the arrest of more than 1,500 Pakistan lawyers and the detention of eight members of that country’s Supreme Court.

"This is a profound breach of the rule of law, the cornerstone of a lawful society,” the MSBA said in a statement today urging Pakistan President Musharraf to rescind these actions.

The bar association’s numbers were based on accounts as of Nov. 5. CNN yesterday put the figure at 3,000, out of a total bar of 12,000 — in other words, one in four Pakistan lawyers.

“President Musharraf is justifying his actions by citing the threat of terrorism,” the MSBA statement said, tracking the language used by ABA President William H. Neukom on Monday.

“But shutting down a nation’s lawful institutions of justice will hurt, not help, the fight against terrorism. Courts are society’s referees. A judiciary that can impartially apply fair rules, without outside interference, is the foundation of lawful government. … The organized Bar supports the use of peaceful, legal means to persuade President Musharraf to restore justice to the people of Pakistan.”

Above: Two lawyers are arrested after a protest of over 200 lawyers against President Gen. Pervez Musharraf in the the city court district of Islamabad, Pakistan, Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2007. AP Photo.

-BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor, Law

Think American laws are out of whack?

Then you might enjoy this list of daft UK laws.

Among them:

It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament;

If someone knocks on your door in Scotland and requires the use of your toilet, you are required to let them enter;

It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British king or queen's image upside-down.

Other ridiculous laws (foreign and domestic) are listed, including one from Vermont:

Women in Vermont must obtain written permission from their husbands to wear false teeth.

Is there a Maryland law on the books that you find absurd?

-JACKIE SAUTER, Multimedia Editor