Soldier Threatens Knox County Chancellor. Many times have I disagreed with a judge's or chancellor's ruling. Never have I thought to threaten the judge or chancellor. The veneer of civilization runs awfully thin....

Isn't this racist? At 5:44 into the video, Michael Meyers, constant Fox News talking head and Executive Director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition, says, "The NAACP is now a politcal arm of the White House. Al Sharpton and the NAACP people are in the White House so often they ought to have rooms designated . . . ."

Considering we have an African-American president, calling the NAACP a politcal arm of his administration strikes me as insensitive, at least. Even assuming that Sharpton and the other guy to whom he unintelligibly refers have visited the White House, does that make the NAACP a tool of the Administration? Not without something other than vague circumstance, it doesn't.

UPDATE: Criticizing Meyers's hygiene? Fair or unfair? You decide. He is a poet. Don't you know it.

It's official. Our own Glen B. Rutherford has designated as a Cityview Top Attorney for 2010 in the area of Social Security Disability. To see the listing, go to the link and then type 104-105 in the page box at the bottom left.

Congratulations go out to Glen for this long-overdue accolade, as well as to our colleagues in the Knoxville Bar who voted for him.

Here we go again. Now, I realize that to be a big time football player, you really need to have a sense of invulnerability. But how can these players not realize that they are in the spotlight no matter where they are? Rogers hasn't played a down yet for Tennessee and he's already in trouble. Myles is now on his second altercation since April. Getting in bar fights is just stupid. And unacceptable. Hey guys, ever heard of just walking away?

Glenn is looking at lawyers and what people think about them. As a lawyer, I usually am disappointed at how badly lawyers are portrayed in contemporary TV/movies. Even a pro-plaintiff picture like Erin Brockovich is about how the non-lawyer paralegal -- Julia Roberts -- forces the lawyers, against their own apparent natures, to do the right thing and strike a blow for the people.

The question we need to be asking is why there is such an anti-lawyer bias being played out in contempo media? What happened to the lawyer heroes -- Perry Mason, Owen Marshall, Counselor at Law, even the L.A. Law characters? Why is it that the current view of lawyers seems to be out of Boston Legal: the schmuck [James Spader] or the buffoon [William Shatner]?

24 years into law practice, I can guarantee that the jerks portrayed on TV wouldn't last long in the real world. The vast majority of lawyers I have known over the past quarter century have truly been devoted to serving their clients and maing a living doing so.

But I guess that doesn't make a good movie or TV show. Wait -- except for this one.

Finally, I can post. I've been trying since last Thursday, and the stupid Blogger New Post window wouldn't work. I am now using Firefox 3.6.3, and it seems to operate. Google offers no interactive help, either.

Cheesiest Lawyer Advertising?  I am proud to say it's not from Slovis, Rutherford & Weinstein!  I will agree with Hunter's two finalists, although I won't identify them in this post.  I mean, they ain't plugging me; I ain't gonna plug them.  And they're really cheesy, too.

Historically, Hunter is a little inaccurate, referring to Ward "Wheelchair" as the earliest big TV lawyer advertiser.  In fact, it was this firm -- then known as Lockett, Slovis & Weaver -- that was doing the biggest TV buys in town, round about 1991.

And finally, I should give some credit to my attorney competitors  colleagues.  A wise marketing guru once told me to "look at what the other advertisers are doing -- and you do the exact opposite."  That's why we're concentrating on information-based marketing and not insulting the intelligence of the public, like the other guys.

Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing.  Former Bushie Shannen Coffin and Powerline's John Hindraker are still out to get Bill Clinton and anyone associated with him.  Including the current Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan.  The issue: did Kagan, while working for the Clinton Administration, improperly or deceptively cause language to be inserted in language from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology [ACOG] that made it easier for a federal court back in 2000 to overturn Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortions?  Answer: No, not really.

Here's the deal.  The ACOG statement, according to Coffin in National Review Online, said, “in the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health.”  Kagan suggested language to ACOG -- which ACOG was under no obligation to accept -- adding the following: “An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”

When ACOG initially says, "In the vast majority of cases...." it is admitting that there are indeed some cases where the procedure would be justified.  Which is exactly what Kagan's suggested language says: "may be the best procedure in a particular circumstance." (emphasis added).  There's nothing deceptive or inconsistent about adding that language; it merely clarifies the ACOG position, which is probably why ACOG unilaterally agreed to include it in the first place.

Believe me, ACOG is no real friend of Democratic Party philosophy or ideology.  I learned that back in the late 1990s, seeing how ACOG tried to make it harder to prove and win obstetrical malpractice cases, by manipulating its practice standards relative to the causes of and terminology relating to fetal distress during labor.

Kagan must be awfully well-qualified for the Repubs to scrape the bottom of the barrel like this.  It illustrates how zealots will attempt to demonize innoccuous actions taken long in the past, using fauly analysis and half truths.  All to gain a momentary political advantage.   That's the shocking part.

Are you breaking the law when you record encounters with police officers?  Apparently, you are in Maryland.  In Tennessee, however, I would argue that Tennessee Code Annotated sec. 39-13-601(b)(5) applies:

It is lawful under §§ 39-13-601 — 39-13-603 and title 40, chapter 6, part 3 for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the constitution or laws of the state of Tennessee.

In any event, it is absurd to say that a police officer on duty in public has some expectation of privacy, where the person he is encountering does not.

Iguess this guy just couldn't get a date.

Three burning legal questions.

Woman Follows Directions, Gets Run Over.  Because there were no sidewalks on the route she followed, she walked on the street, got hit by a car, and is suing Google.  Maybe she should have looked at the street and used some common sense? 

Criminy, I've got a Google Map linked to my web site, too.  Please don't sue us....

Nurse practitioners operating independently of actual M.D.s?  Well, it is likely that such nurse practitioners and physician assistants are in effect doing that now, even though operating in the context of a medical practice.  My worry certainly is the oversight and the liability concerns.  If I go to a nurse practitioner's office and as a result I am injured, is that medical malpractice, or just general malpractice?  It's an important distinction, as it is much more difficult and expensive to sue a doctor for medical malpractice than, say, a motorist for an automobile accident.

Here's a lawsuit going somewhere to happen.

Is BP putting its money where its mouth is?  We'll see.  As a lawyer that handles claims all the time, what is important is NOT that money is being reserved, or set aside, but instead whether claims will be quickly, properly, and fairly administered and paid.  Interestingly, "The fund will be controlled not by BP, but by an independent, third party...."  Attorney Kenneth Feniberg is supposed to be "in charge" of the fund, whatever that means.  Here's a bio on Feinberg from his firm's web site:

Kenneth R. Feinberg has been key to resolving many of our nation's most challenging and widely known disputes. He is best known for serving as the Special Master of the Federal September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, in which he reached out to all who qualified to file a claim, evaluated applications, determined appropriate compensation, and disseminated awards. Mr. Feinberg shared his extraordinary experience in his book What Is Life Worth?, published in 2005 by Public Affairs Press. Just a few years later, Mr. Feinberg became Fund Administrator for the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund following the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech. Mr. Feinberg also has served as Special Master in Agent Orange, asbestos personal injury, wrongful death claims, Dalkon shield, and DES (pregnancy medication) cases.

Clearly, this guy has a lot of experience with mass tort/accident/injury situations.  Let's see if he can get it done.  In the meantime, the oil continues to fill up the Gulf.  Ugh.

For those dozens of you who have checked back at this site over the past several years, you will note a new template and a (somewhat) new direction. 

When I started this blog back in 2003, I was railing about Big Insurance and its efforts at tort reform.  As those efforts largely were proven unsuccessful, I broadened the scope to include general legal stuff that interested me, and later just blogged on any subject that caught my eye.

Now, I have decided to integrate the blog more closely with my law firm website and get serious about blogging once again.  I have also -- after playing website developer games for over two months, dumped the website developer, and made content and feature changes in the firm's web site myself.  I was able to do in three days what they couldn't do in two months.  There's a whole frustrating story there for the telling.  Some day....

In any event, I hope you'll check out the site, and especially the new FAQs/Videos page, which has a bunch of Q & A on legal matters, as well as some videos, one of which I posted here a few weeks ago.  I have also posted the videos on Youtube, here, here, here, here, and here.

Constructive comments about the site and this blog are welcome.  Remember -- I'm doing this myself, so be kind if you can!

Well, I guess I had it wrong the whole time. This video certainly convinces me that them Palestineans were in the right after all!

Here is the first video for my law firm web site. For anyone who views this, I would really like to know if there are technical problems. Specifically, does the audio stay in sync with the video?

ELECTRIC CARS FOR RETAIL SALE IN 2011. In Israel. 350 mile range. Sales and maintenance pricing equivalent to gas-powered equivalent vehicles. (To view video scroll across to the story "Electric Cars By Next Year"). When will they hit Tennessee? Marty Peretz wrote it up, too.

Earthquake in Grand Cayman. Apparently, there are no casualties or damage, though. Thank goodness....