Above, you’ll find the cover of the recent book, The Law of Superheroes, by friends of the blog James Daily and Ryan Davidson.  As you might recall, those two run The Law and The Multiverse blog, a site dedicated to”superheroes, supervillains, and the law” and the exploration of legal issues through comic books.  While we here at Abnormal Use typically feature a legal themed comic book cover each week, James and Ryan analyze in detail how particular statutes and common law rules might apply in a given comic book universe.  We’ve loved their site from the beginning, and we’re pleased that they’ve published some of their material in book form. (For more on this book, please see here.).

You may or may not watch TV’s “Survivor,” but we’re amused to note that this season’s winner – named this past Sunday – is a Harvard law student by the name of John Cochran.  Our favorite part of the season finale: Cochran, who has made it to the final three, is planning the opening statement that he will deliver to the jury, composed of former competitors who were “voted off the island.”  Cochran remarks to an interviewer that addressing a jury is something that Harvard Law school did not prepare him to do. Ouch.

We really shouldn’t be working today. We would much rather be seeing Star Trek Into Darkness.

Here’s another century old comp claim from @TweetsOfOld.

We’ve talked before about the depictions of lawyers on television and our relative disappointment with the portrayals thereof.  The other day, one question occurred to us:  Why is discovery rarely, if ever, depicted on lawyer television shows?

When is the last time you saw a witness being deposed on a lawyer television show? When is the last time you saw a young associate in a frightful warehouse in the middle of nowhere performing document review? When is the last time you saw a lawyer responding to discovery requests or lodging objections to same? Is it that such tasks are not cinematic in nature?  Surely, that’s not it.

We can certainly imagine an interesting episode of a television show regarding an associate’s trek to an industry site to review documents.  Further, we can also imagine the novelty of a large scale toxic tort plaintiff’s deposition with 20 defense lawyers in the room.

So why is it that we never see such things on television?

Is it that the writers of legal television shows themselves only know of our industry from other bad legal television shows?  Is it that the a program’s advisers do not have the breadth of legal experience to provide such anecdotes to the production?  Or is it that the traditional formula of a legal TV show is so well established and ossified that any deviation therefrom would simply require extra effort?

Perhaps we will never know the answer to these questions.  But we’d watch a show featuring such things.

Every so often, the blog gods shine down upon their minions and grant them a post that, almost literally, writes itself.  This is one of those posts.  While perusing Yahoo! News the other day, I ran across this story.  Go ahead.  Click on the link.  You’ll be glad you did.

Was I right?  A copy of the full opinion can be found here [PDF].  It’s well worth a full reading.

I’ve often thought that being a judge might sometimes get a little dry, and that writing legal opinions (or, rather, reviewing the opinions that my clerk wrote) might become mundane.  But every once in a while, a case lends itself to a bit of creative writing.

This ruling is simply hilarious.

I was also a bit curious about its author, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, so I looked him up.  According to his official bio on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas website, Judge Biery was appointed by President Clinton [withhold additional commentary here] and he enjoys basketball and gardening.  His Wikipedia page already has a citation to this fun ruling.

Law is serious business.  No one denies that.  Further, it is possible that the town of San Antonio and the strip club at issue do not find the judge’s lighthearted opinion at all amusing.  Perhaps they feel that their litigation is not being taken as seriously as they believe it should.  But for the rest of us, this opinion proves that lawyers–and judges–are not sticks-in-the-mud all the time.  And that’s a good thing!

They say that golf is the ultimate sport of honor.  That may still be true on the course, but as we have seen over the past few years, it doesn’t hold up with golfers off the course (see, e.g., Tiger Woods).  This time, according to Golf Magazine, Vijahy Sing is getting into the mix by taking questionable performance enhancing substances and bringing a frivolous intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the PGA tour.

Vijahy was privately suspended by the PGA a few months back after he admitted using a performance enhancing drug known as “deer antler spray.”  Deer antler spray allegedly contains substances banned by the PGA tour.  However, after some legal maneuvering, Vijahy was able to avoid serving any suspension. Now Vijahy claims that there never was any reason to suspend him in the first place. So, naturally, he has filed a lawsuit  alleging that the PGA tour negligently and intentional inflicted emotional distress upon him.

Emotional distress claims are notoriously difficult to prove.  Negligent infliction of emotional distress requires, at minimum, that a Plaintiff prove that he was in a zone of impact and suffered physical manifestation.  Intentional infliction of emotional distress claims require proving that the defendant intentional or reckless acted in a manner so heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society.  Very very doubtful that Vijahy can prove either.

When you are pro golf and you admit to using suspect performance enhancing drugs, you run the risk of ticking off your employer and getting suspended.   Unless Vijahy’s got some really good hidden evidence in his golf bag, it is unlikely that this case is going anywhere.

According to a report from Law360, Apple was sued Friday in a California federal court over an issue involving the iPhone 4’s power button. As you may know, there has been a great deal of Internet buzz among iPhone 4 users complaining that the power button becomes stuck or non-responsive after 1-year of usage. Because the button problems arose beyond the 1-year factory warranty, users were left without a remedy. Now, users are responding with a putative class action against the computer giant.

It is one thing to allege that a product is defective. It is quite another to allege that the product is rigged to fail just after the expiration of the warranty. Apparently, this is exactly what the class has done. It appears that the suit alleges that Apple not only knew and failed disclose the defective button, but also that it designed the button to fail as to render the phone unusable. That’s harsh.

We here at Abnormal Use do not have enough information to comment on the validity of the defect allegations. However, even if defective, we doubt Apple “rigged” the button to fail. What would Apple’s motivation be to do so?

We appreciate the rationale of a profit-motive argument, but it lacks an understanding of Apple buyers. iPhone users constantly upgrade their devices – broken power button or not. Apple releases new iPhone models every 6 months, making you feel that your barely used phone is outdated. While updating your new iPhone, upgrade a brand new personalized phone cover & for more details visit website. Apple doesn’t need to tamper with your phone to get you to buy a new one. They already use enough trickery in the marketplace. Plus, we hope Apple users would be smart enough to move onto a new product line if the one you are using is defective.

It will be interesting to see how this suit plays out. Of course, Apple probably has the case rigged, right?

Above, you will find the cover of Superman #41 published way, way back in 1946.  As you can see, Superman seems to be frustrated with a case of writer’s block.  We definitely empathize with his dilemma – especially when due dates are upon us.  But, we must wonder why Superman is writing his own comic in the first place.  Talk about the opportunity to flatter one’s self.  Faster than a speeding bullet?  More powerful than a locomotive?  Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound?  Whatever you say, Superman.  It’s amazing he ever revealed the whole green Kryptonite vulnerability thing.  Alas.

Here is an interesting article from The New Yorker discussing the drawbacks of Entropica, the latest artificial intelligence system garnering tons of internet buzz.  We think the authors could have saved a lot of time and Internet space by simply reminding us of The Matrix.

According to a Gawker report, a supermarket chain in the United Kingdom has been ordered to recall bags of nuts for failing to disclose that they contain nuts.  You might recall our own Stuart Mauney discussing a similar issue some time ago.  (Hat tip:  Overlawyered).

Don’t forget! You can follow Abnormal Use on Twitter here and on Facebook here! Drop us a line!

Here’s a tip:  When deposing a doctor, or any other witness, Google their name and see if he or she maintains an official website.  These days, almost anyone in business maintains a website.  Doctors, retained testifying experts, contractors, fact witnesses, essentially anyone you might depose, likely has one.  Accordingly, such sites can be mined for information prior to their depositions.

You’d be surprised at how much information doctors place online about themselves.  This is not the type of personal information that one might find on a social media profile like Facebook.  This is the public presentation of that person’s business identity.  Accordingly, you might find biographical information, representations of their skill sets, or information about how often they do the type of work at issue in your case. You may be learn that the doctor actively solicits patients from lawyers or hawks his services as one who treats accident victims.  If the doctor does that, such representations can be explored at the doctor’s deposition.  Further, it is unlikely that the doctor may recall the precise wording of the representations on the website and will be unprepared to answer questions about them.

Other information may also be obtained.  For example, you may learn the names of all of the staff members of a doctor’s practice, and thus be able to identify other potential witnesses.

So, for good measure, seek out the official website before your deposition. It might be worth it.

Professional courtesy, and our rules of civil procedure, require that a lawyer deposing a witness provide copies of exhibits to be used with said witness either prior to the deposition or simultaneous with their introduction into evidence at the deposition. Generally, that’s the way it’s always been, and there’s been little dispute about that over the years.

For the most part, though, such exhibits are already in the possession of the other lawyers in the case.  For example, when deposing a treating physician, it is customary to produce the relevant medical records, which have usually been produced to all parties long before the scheduling of the deposition of the provider at issue.  Further, there are non-controversial exhibits – like the notice of deposition itself or the subpoena to the witness or even the affidavit of service – which may be introduced, depending upon the deposing lawyer’s preference, without incident.

The question becomes:  Does the deposing lawyer really need to bring with him multiple copies of all such exhibits to the depositions in this day and age?  Even ten years ago, law firms were using PDF formats and electronic storage of documents to reduce paper files and presumably protect the environment.  Today, many lawyers take their iPads or laptops to depositions and bring with them relevant materials in digital format.  Further, even if one does not take into account the technological advances, the deposing lawyer can typically assume that the other lawyers in the case already have in their possession or otherwise have access to the anticipated exhibits at the deposition. It’s not rocket science, after all.

So does the deposing lawyer need to lug around multiple copies of all such documents?  Suppose we have this situation.  A single plaintiff has sued a single defendant, and the deposition of a doctor with 500 pages of medical records has been noticed.  Must the defense lawyer, in noticing the deposition of the provider, bring three separate copies of the medical records in hard copy format to the deposition?  Three copies would be needed because one would be for the record, one for the deposing lawyer’s use during the deposition, and one for the plaintiff’s attorney.  In multi-party cases, even more copies are required, both dramatically increasing the amount of paper being wasted and the hassle of carting so many documents to the deposition.

There must be a better way.

In fact, this is already on the minds of lawyers in the field.  Recently, at a deposition of a plaintiff’s retained testifying expert, I brought with me, as courtesy and custom demands, multiple copies of all such records and file materials of the expert.  When I attempted to hand to the plaintiff’s lawyer a copy of a large set of documents that I introduced into evidence, he simply replied, “Oh, no you don’t.  I’m not lugging that around.” We both laughed. I had hoped that he would take the set of documents because it would relieve me of carrying them around any further.  Obviously, one set of documents I had brought with me to the deposition would be left with the court reporter in evidence.  But the plaintiff’s lawyer refused to accept the copy of exhibits I had provided for him. Alas.

Maybe next time I’ll just email the exhibits ahead of time.

Last week, viral news site BuzzFeed released its “hotness” rankings of the various prosecutors appearing on NBC’s “Law & Order.” A daunting task it is to rank the attractiveness of our television colleagues. While BuzzFeed‘s efforts are admirable, it – like much of the general public – fails to view these TV lawyers for their total package. How shallow of them.

For example, by ranking Fred Thompson at No. 36 on the list, the author obviously failed to account for Thompson’s political career or his commercial work pushing reverse mortgages. What could possibly be more attractive than a politician encouraging others to take out loans accessing the equity in their homes? Obviously, BuzzFeed is ignoring the voices of its senior citizen readers.

And how can Alfred Molina rank a paltry No. 34? He is Dr. Otto Octavius, for goodness sake. We recognize that Spider-Man 2 was the worst of the trilogy and pales in comparison to the Amazing Spider-Man. But, he is still associated with the classic superhero and deserves more credit than a 34 ranking. BuzzFeed must be more a fan of heroes than villains.

As poor as the Thompson and Molina rankings are, they are by no means as laughable as placing Sharon Stone at No. 22. Stone is a legend. She has been dominating these types of rankings since the late 1980’s and deserves some respect. Last time we checked, Harry Connick Jr. (No. 6 on the list) never had a starting role in Total Recall. Ageism rears its ugly head once again.

Thankfully, there is no list ranking real-life lawyers in such a fashion. We here at Abnormal Use would not expect to rank very highly if such a list did exist. Especially, if BuzzFeed failed to account for our work as Old King Cole in our first-grade play.

It’s that moment every lawyer dreads.  It’s a quiet court room, a lawyer is examining a witness, and then you hear it.  A rogue cell phone.  Someone forgot to turn off the ringer.  As if the situation itself was not embarrassing enough.  You know the judge is one of those that treats a cell phone in his courtroom as the equivalent of a dirty bomb.  You hold your breath for a moment, wondering if you are guilty party.  Luckily it’s not your phone, but the judge does let lose on the perpetrator and holds him in contempt. And so it goes.

Well, it happened recently in a Michigan courtroom, except it was the judge himself who was the offender.  To the judge’s credit, he held himself in contempt.

According to an account at MLive, Judge Raymond Voet had recently purchased a new phone, and apparently, he didn’t lock it properly before court.  He surmises that he bumped the screen, and it began asking him who he wanted to call.  You know, the old “please say a command” prompt.  This was, of course, in the middle of the prosecution’s closing argument.

To make matters worse, Judge Voet reportedly had trouble turning it off.

The judge is apparently known for being a real stickler about cellphones.  In fact, he has signs posted outside his courtroom warning cellphone users that they face  a $25 fine and could lose their electronic device if it does off during a hearing.  He is even said to have taken phones from police officers and personal friends.

So what did the judge do about his own indiscretion?  Apologize and move on?  Consider becoming a little less strict on others?  Nope.  Judge Voet held himself in contempt and walked downstairs during a court recess to pay the same $25 fine he imposes on other offenders.