Twenty years ago tomorrow, on March 13, 1992, the popular legal comedy My Cousin Vinny hit theatres.  If you’re a lawyer, you’ve probably seen the film many, many times and quoted it just as often. Written and co-produced by Dale Launer, and directed by Jonathan Lynn, the film stars Joe Pesci as Vincent LaGuardia Gambini, a New Yorker and new bar member defending two capital murder defendants in faraway Alabama.  It’s a funny, funny movie. Upon its release, New York Times film critic Vincent Canby noted: “The film has a secure and sophisticated sense of what makes farce so delicious, which may not be surprising, since its credentials are about as impeccable as you can find in the peccable atmosphere of Hollywood.”  But there is a truth that accompanies the humor. Jack Garner of the Gannett News Service, writing at the time, saw fit to include this statement in his review: “And a lawyer friend even tells me he found the courtroom segments more natural and believable than he’s seen in some for-more-prestige judicial dramas.” In March of 1993, a full year after the film’s release, actress Marisa Tomei, who played Vinny’s fiancee (and an expert witness to boot),  would win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress at the 65th Academy Awards. Even two decades after its release, the film continues to resonate with lawyer viewers. In 2008, the ABA Journal named it the third best legal film of all time.  (The ABA Journal would also name the character of Vinny number twelve on the list of Top 25 fictional lawyers; its readers, in a popular vote, chose Vinny as number one.). We here at Abnormal Use have always been fans of this movie, so we decided to commemorate its twentieth anniversary with a full week’s worth of coverage.  As you know, in the past, we have featured interviews with Hollywood celebrities on the anniversaries of the release of their legal themed films, including an interview with the writers and producers of the 1991 film Class Action last year this time last year.  However, for this occasion, we’ve gone all out. This week, we’ll be posting  interviews with members of the cast and crew, our own thoughts and memories of the film, and links to other bloggers’ anniversary thoughts.

We are particularly excited about this project and offer the following preview of what to expect this week:

Later Today

“My Cousin Vinny – More Than A Movie.”  In this piece, writer Nick Farr explains how My Cousin Vinny changed both his life and the outcome of a 7th grade student council election. (Yes, you read that right.).

“Lessons Learned From Vincent L. Gambini.”  In this piece, our newest contributor, Rob Green, offer six practical lessons that lawyers can glean from watching the film. If you think about it, the film is its own continuing education course with many practice tips contained therein.  In fact, we should probably all get CLE credit for watching it again, don’t you think?

“Review: Vincent LaGuardia Gambini Sings Just For You.”  Did you know that years after the film’s release, Joe Pesci released an album in character as Vinny? Rob Green somehow found a copy of this long forgotten album and drafted a review.  Spoiler alert: the album is not for the faint of heart.  Or the faint of ears, for that matter.

Tuesday, March 13

Interview with Director Jonathan Lynn. You know Jonathan Lynn’s work.  He directed Clue, Trial & Error, and a number of other beloved films.  What you might not know is that Lynn once studied law at Cambridge. In this interview with Nick Farr, Lynn recalls the shooting of the film and the funniest moment of its production.

Wednesday, March 14

Interview with writer/co-producer Dale Launer.  You also know Launer’s work.  He wrote Ruthless People and Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. In his interview with Nick Farr, Launer, as the creator of the Vinny character, shares his memories on how he developed the character and brought him to life.  Launer also reveals the details of the planned sequel that never made it into existence.

Thursday, March 15

Interview with cast member James Rebhorn, who played George Wilbur, the prosecution’s automotive expert witness from the FBI.  Rebhorn, a veteran character actor, has played many lawyers, judges, and jurors over the course of his career, and he shares his memories of the film and thoughts on the craft with our editor, Jim Dedman.  “Seinfeld” Alert: Rebhorn also played the district attorney who prosecuted Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer in the “Seinfeld” series finale, so of course we asked him about that, as well.

Interview with cast member Mitchell Whitfield, who played Stan Rothenstein, one of two murder defendant clients represented by Vinny.  Whitfield would go on to play Barry, Rachel’s former fiancee, on “Friends.”  Whitfield spoke to our own Steve Buckingham about his memories of the film, its place in cinema history, and of course, what it is like to kiss Jennifer Aniston on a sitcom set.

Interview with cast member Raynor Scheine, who played Ernie Crane, the eyewitness whose testimony Vinny demolishes due to the presence of dirty windows and vegetation in his field of view. Scheine, a denizen of both the stage and screen, shares some behind the scenes memories with our own Nick Farr.

Friday, March 16

My Cousin Vinny Links.  We asked a number of our favorite law bloggers – including some  heavy hitters in the legal blogosphere – to rewatch the film and provide their thoughts on the film twenty years after its release.  They’ll be posting their reviews throughout the week, and on Friday, we’ll provide links to all of them and post excerpts from each of their posts for your review and commentary here.

As the days proceed, we will activate the links to this content above.

Depicted above is the cover of Tales From The Crypt #21, published way, way back in 1950.  Note the newspaper headline: “Cooper Dies in Electric Chair / Convicted Killer Swears Revenge On Judge Hawley As Switch Is Thrown!”  The reader of that paper, presumably Judge Hawley (still in his robe!), looks up to see an undead version of Cooper at the window. Yikes! Here’s the thing: When the executed criminal rose from the chair at the state penitentiary, you’d think the warden or someone would have called Judge Hawley to warn him that a supernatural undead convict – who had only just vowed revenge upon him – was on the way to his chambers!

Friend of the blog Bill Childs, himself of the TortsProf Blog, directs us to this 2009 post from his blog entitled “Some Data Points on Coffee.”  Here’s a teaser: “This year, I decided to ask students to use a food thermometer I have to compare the temperatures of coffee and other hot drinks as served in the Springfield area.”  Check it out.

An important question for our dear readers: Did you get the new Bruce Springsteen album, Wrecking Ball, which was released this past Tuesday? Any thoughts? Here’s one Twitter review we read: “The Boss is back, and he’s really angry.  Really.”

Click here to learn about “assault” “verbal combat” in a Colorado courtroom in 1911. Yes, you read that correctly.

Remember not too long ago when we alluded to big plans in 2012?  Well, they’re almost here.  Stay tuned, and check the site on Monday.

In a departure from the usual at Abnormal Use, we offer this Abnormal Public Service Announcement.

A study by Johns Hopkins University found that among more than 100 occupations studied, lawyers were three times more likely to suffer from depression than any other profession.  Ted David, Can Lawyers Learn to Be Happy?, 57 No. 4 Prac. Law 29 (2011).  According to this piece,  “a quality-of-life survey conducted by the North Carolina Bar Association in 1991 reported that almost 26 percent of the bar’s members exhibited symptoms of clinical depression. Almost 12 percent of them said they contemplated suicide at least once each month.”  See Michael J. Sweeney, The Devastation of Depression.  The North Carolina study was prompted in part by the suicides of eight Mecklenburg County, North Carolina lawyers in a seven-year period.  Several years ago, in a period of just 18 months, six lawyers died by suicide in South Carolina.

Suicide is the third leading cause of death among attorneys, after cancer and heart disease.  Thus, the rate of death by suicide for lawyers is nearly six times the suicide rate for the general population.  Suicide can be prevented.  While some suicides occur without any outward warning, most do not.  We can prevent suicide among lawyers by learning to recognize the signs of someone at risk, taking those signs seriously, and knowing how to respond to them.

The National Institute on Alcohol and Alcohol Abuse estimates that 10 percent of the U.S. population is alcoholic or chemically dependent.  In the legal profession, the abuse may be as high as 20 percent.  David, supra.  According to this piece, “[a]lcoholism is a factor in 30 percent of all completed suicides.”  Reports from lawyer assistance programs indicate that 50 percent of lawyer discipline cases involve chemical dependency.

Whether you are the husband, wife, employee, judge, law student, law partner, law firm associate, friend, or colleague of a person challenged by depression or substance abuse, your understanding of the nature of the problem can play a vital part in helping that individual to achieve and maintain recovery.  Please remember that there is hope, and there is help.  You are not alone.

In South Carolina, call the Lawyers Helping Lawyers toll-free helpline at 866-545-9590.  Check with your State’s bar for a lawyer assistance program or click this link for the ABA directory of lawyer assistance programs.

(See also here for a recent similar article by Stuart Mauney in the January 2012 issue of the South Carolina Lawyer).

Last year, a federal class action lawsuit was filed against Caesars Entertainment Corporation alleging that the casino corporation failed to safeguard its employees from secondhand smoke. The named plaintiff in the case, Denise Bevrotte, alleged that her son died of cancer from inhaling secondhand smoke at work. Bevrotte’s son was employed as a dealer at Caesars’ Harrah’s New Orleans Hotel and Casino for over 15 years. Bevrotte brought the suit on behalf of all non-smoking employees of Harrah’s New Orleans Casino. The case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana is captioned Bevrotte v. Caesars Entertainment Corp. d/b/a Harrah’s New Orleans Hotel and Casino, No. 2:11-cv-00543-SSV (E.D.La. 2011). The class claims were dismissed in October for failure to allege a common issue. Last week, Bevrotte’s remaining wrongful death claim was dismissed for failure to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that she was her son’s statutory beneficiary. While these dismissals were a clear win for Caesars, they offer little fodder for legal bloggers on the validity of secondhand smoke claims. Undeterred, we now offer our thoughts.

As frequent casino visitors, we here at Abnormal Use empathize with the concern over secondhand smoke. When we discard our money, we could do without that pleasant aroma of Virginia Slims. On the other hand, we understand why casinos allow smoking. Casinos are big business. If people want to smoke while pouring their money into slot machines, casinos are glad to accommodate. For those who don’t enjoy smoke, casinos offer many other vices.

Even though we ourselves disdain smoke, we would never sue a casino because of it. First, we have never knowingly been injured as a result of casino smoke. Sure, any secondhand smoke has undoubtedly blackened our lungs beyond repair, but so too has the smoke from every other bar and restaurant into which we have ventured over the course of our wearisome lives. How do we single out the casino?

We recognize that Bevrotte’s son served as a Harrah’s employee for over 15 years. As a result, his smoke exposure at the casino is far more significant than that on our casual weekend vacation. Even if Harrah’s is a more identifiable tortfeasor for Bevrotte, we share one thing in common. We each made a choice. While our reasons for entering the casino may have been different, nobody forced us to go. By entering the casino, we know we will be exposed to secondhand smoke, yet we continue to go. While we continue to learn about the impact of smoke inhalation, the dangers of secondhand smoke are not a new discovery. We assume the risk and shouldn’t sue others for our own perilous decisions.

We here at Abnormal Use have been doing this blogging thing for about two years now, and we still love it.  One thing we love in particular are comments from our dear readers.  Without you, we would not enjoy this enterprise nearly as much (and, without you, of course, there would be no reason to do it).  We also enjoy good-natured debates with those with whom we disagree.  One of our fondest memories from our college days is getting together with intelligent people with differing views and backgrounds and debating the issues of the day, whether they be political, legal, or social.  You can learn something when you engage in constructive debate with someone who disagrees with you.

Certainly, one of our frequent topics of discussion is the infamous and controversial Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee case.  Our posts on that topic have generated much debate.  Our review of Plaintiff’s attorney Susan Saladoff’s Hot Coffee documentary earned 30 comments, while our initial preview of the film and highlighting of Ms. Saladoff’s background as a trial lawyer received 25 comments.  Our objective FAQ file, which we assembled using the original pleadings, motions, and contemporary news coverage of the case, drew seven comments.  Even the post we authored calling for Ms. Liebeck’s attorney Reed Morgan produce the trial transcript of the case merited 11 comments.

And there’s more.  Even though some of these posts are months old, or even a year old, they continue to receive comments to this day.  Even our post commenting upon Ms. Saladoff’s appearance on “The Colbert Report” still gets a comment or two months later.  One such comment to that post, submitted by a Houston lawyer in late January, is as follows:

I’m amazed at the extent to which your law firm, years later, continues to cheer for a team that lost at the expense of public faith in a justice system that worked — whether you agree that it worked, or whether it serves you in particular, or not. There are salient facts on both sides of this issue. Yes, the coffee was very hot. Yes, she sat in it for 90 seconds. Yes, people should know coffee is hot. And yet, McDonald’s knew its coffee was dangerously hot and callously treated the risk to Ms. Liebeck as a mere cost of business. All of this evidence was heard by the factfinders, the jury. What matters now is that the factfinders heard the evidence — from both sides — and made a decision based on the evidence and the law it was charged to apply. As a member of the bar who has taken the same oath that (I presume) the attorneys in your firm have also taken, I think your continued biased commentary is irresponsible. I’m not saying that you don’t have a constitutional right to say it (questions regarding attorney ethics rules notwithstanding); you probably do. But I think you’re doing more harm than good to our legal system by doing so, and it’s ethically and morally irresponsible to continue to cry about how this jury was wrong and our system is broken simply because they dared to conclude differently than you would have them conclude. I would expect your biased editorialism from a college newspaper, not accomplished members of the bar.

Gee whiz.  For one, if every jury verdict is sacrosanct and immune from criticism of any kind, that’s going to put a lot of appellate lawyers out of business. Sure, we expect criticism and disagreement; that’s part of putting ourselves out there in the legal blogosphere. But our analysis and commentary on an infamous jury verdict is “irresponsible”?   Possibly unethical? Really? Can we no longer analyze and have some fun re-litigating a case which appears to have been misrepresented in the media by those from varying backgrounds, and before our acquisition of the pleadings and motions, discussed for years without reference to the original underlying documents? It’s harmful to our legal system to look back at reevaluate some of the decisions made by the lawyers, the trial court, and the jurors and gauge whether they were right or wrong? Must we consider those jurors infallible?

Sigh. I guess that’s what we get for engaging in this blogging thing. (And by the way, “biased editorialism”? Is there any other kind?)

Or, maybe we just hit a nerve and our making some points that those who have a vested financial interest in the jackpot justice system would prefer that we not make.

Nationally syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker recently asked whether civility can be saved.  Parker noted that Americans have always been “a bunch of rowdies and rascals,” citing as a “perennial favorite,” the “caning administered by South Carolina Rep. Preston Brooks upon the person of Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner over a disagreement about slavery and a question of honor.”  Parker defined civility as “courtesy in behavior and speech, otherwise known as manners.  In the context of the public square, civility is manners for democracy.”  Parker then argued that our manners have deteriorated, particularly in recent years.  “Manners have become quaint, while behaviors once associated with rougher segments of society have become mainstream.”

How did Parker suggest we fix the civility problem?  She said that change “has to come from within, each according to his own conscience.”  The media must strive to be “honest, accurate and fair, and reward the coarsest among us with scant attention.”  Parker claimed that the greatest threat to civility is not the random outburst but “the elevation of nonsense, and the distribution of false information.”  She concluded by reminding us that the Golden Rule works well.  “Best taught in the home, it could use some burnishing.”

Parker’s column was published in my local newspaper, The Greenville News, on February 19.  Just two days later, that same newspaper published a column by another nationally syndicated columnist, Cal Thomas, titled “Learning a Civility Lesson.”  Thomas recently spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, and in his own words, “failed to live up to one of my highest principles.”  The story of the day was the Obama administration’s recent move to require faith-based institutions to provide contraception as a part of health care coverage.  A video clip was played from Rachel Maddow’s program on MSNBC in which she commented on the subject.  After the clip was played, Thomas told the audience, “I think she’s the best argument in favor of her parents using contraception, and all the rest of the crowd at MSNBC, too, for that matter.”  In his column, Thomas admitted that he spoke before thinking: “I am not supposed to behave like that.”  The morning after the speech, Thomas called Maddow to apologize.  Maddow graciously accepted the apology and commented on her show that she believed Thomas’ apology.

Thomas concluded his column by reminding his readers that he has had many liberal friends over the years.  “They became my friends because I stopped seeing them as labels and began seeing them as persons with innate worth.  That is what I failed to do in my first response to Maddow.”  Parker referred to “the food-fight formula that attracts viewers to cable TV” and would surely be pleased with Thomas’ apology.

Our friends at Legal Blog Watch noticed that the Fourth Circuit recently called out the U.S. Attorney’s Office for uncivil language in an appellate brief.  The court felt “compelled to note that advocates, including government lawyers, do themselves a disservice when their briefs contain disrespectful or uncivil language directed against the district court, the reviewing court, opposing counsel, parties, or witnesses.”

In South Carolina, lawyers are required to sign an oath, pledging “fairness, integrity and civility, not only in court, but also in all written and oral communications” to opposing parties and their counsel.  In striving to remain faithful to this oath, lawyers would do well to remember Parker’s reference to George Washington’s writings on this subject: “Let your Conversation be without Malice or Envy, for ‘tis a Sign of a Tractable and Commendable Nature: And in all Causes of Passion admit Reason to Govern.”  Finally, we would also do well to remember Thomas’ civility lesson, including the willingness to admit we are wrong and apologize for our behavior.

Behold, the cover of The Batman & Robin Adventures #6, published not so long ago in the halcyon days of 1996. But at that time, things were not going so well for the Boy Wonder.  The cover depicts a copy of a newspaper, The National Insider, the headline of which exclaims, “Batman Fires Robin.”  We wonder if Robin sought any advice from an employment lawyer following this report.  For one, who told the newspaper that Robin was fired? Surely not Batman.  Alfred, maybe? Perhaps there’s a potential defamation claim there.  We’re trying to imagine Robin completing a complaint and submitting it to the EEOC.  Can you imagine that pre-investigation mediation?

Friend of our blog Jeff Richardson, himself of the famed iPhone J.D. blog, notes that we are just a few days away from the release of the iPad 3.  Make certain you are reading Jeff’s site next week for all iPad related news.

Eric Goldman has a post over at the Technology & Marketing Law Blog that you’ve got to read to believe.  We know we say stuff like that all the time, but here’s the headline: “Facebook, Google and Lexis-Nexis Get 47 USC 230 Immunity in a Bizarre Case Involving a Missing Sex Toy–Gaston v. Facebook.” Um, okay. How about that? Let’s hope that one makes the case books some day.

Don’t forget!  Today is Texas Independence Day!

The legal blogosphere is consumed with talk of the Washington, D.C. based federal judge who this week struck down the proposed federally required labels for cigarette packages.  As you will recall from our post here, the proposed new label were icky and gross. The district court basically agreed with our assessment.  See here for Findlaw’s Courtside blog’s post on this new development.

And, yes, if you must know, we here at Abnormal Use remain crestfallen that we were unable to catch the Radiohead concert last night in nearby Atlanta, Georgia. (Our editor has seen the band live four times!) We are recuperating – or attempting to – from this existential issue. Here’s the set list from last night, if you must know. Sigh.

This weekend will, however, be dedicated to another musical group, The Monkees.  As you know doubt heard, Monkee Davy Jones died this week in Florida at age 66.  Our thoughts and prayers are with his family. So, for the foreseeable future, we’ll definitely be listening to “Daydream Believer” and “A Little Bit Me, a Little Bit You” on repeat. Rest in peace, Mr. Jones.

Doctors recently treated a Louisiana woman for redness in her right forearm that developed after she attended a party.  She admitted that she had the bright idea of injecting a drug into her arm two days earlier.  Doctors discovered that she had developed necrotizing fasciitis (doctor speak for a flesh eating bacteria), which spread so rapidly that they had to amputate the woman’s arm, shoulder, and collarbone, as well as perform a radical mastectomy.  What was the drug that caused such massive destruction in such a short time period?  Meth?  Heroine? Crack?  Nope.  Bath salts are at it again and it seems the government is helpless to stop it.

As we reported last fall, “bath salts” are a designer drug that contains stimulants that act much like meth and cocaine.  They are highly addictive, and their reported side effects include hypertension, extreme paranoia, hallucinations, and suicide.  Who would have guessed that a drug that mimics meth could string you out just like meth?  Well, now we can apparently add flesh-eating bacteria to that list of side effects.

How are these bath salts still legally available for purchase at many convenience stores? No one buys the idea that they are actually enhancing that spa retreat feeling in your bathroom.  Most states have actually attempted to ban them, but are running into one little problem.   The chemists who design these products are one step ahead of the lawmakers and are altering them to get around new laws.  For example, in Pennsylvania, a state law banned six chemical compounds of bath salts.  The makers responded by simply tweaking the formula, and voila, they were back on the market in no time.  Many other states have hit similar snags in their attempts to regulate these products.

We will be watching the evolution of this issue. Can the government get its act together and get this stuff off the market?  A host of lawsuits have already been filed against the makers of bath salts.  How will the fact that the makers are changing their products to get around anti-drug laws affect any defense that they are labeled as “not intended for consumption?”  In the mean time, we should continue to get a few more gem headlines courtesy of bath salts.  For instance, “Man Bites Car, Bath Salts to Blame?”