20th Anniversary: Malice (1993)

Twenty years ago today, on October 1, 1993, the film Malice was released to theatres. Directed by Harold Becker, written by Aaron Sorkin and Scott Frank based on a story by Sorkin and Jonas McCord, the film centers around a brilliant surgeon who becomes entangled in a medical malpractice suit.  It’s a mess of a film with so many plot contrivances and melodramatic turns that we couldn’t do it justice with a brief summary. In fact, check out the plot summary on the film’s Wikipedia entry and you’ll see just what we mean. Starring Alec Baldwin, Nicole Kidman, and Bill Pullman, the film resonates with lawyers – even two decades later – due to a scene in which Dr. Jed Hill (the surgeon in question, played by Alec Baldwin), exclaims during a deposition that he believes himself to be God. You remember that scene, right? Courtesy of IMDB, here’s the dialogue in question:

I have an M.D. from Harvard, I am board certified in cardiothoracic medicine and trauma surgery, I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England, and I am never, ever sick at sea. So I ask you; when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn’t miscarry or that their daughter doesn’t bleed to death or that their mother doesn’t suffer acute neural trauma from postoperative shock, who do you think they’re praying to? Now, go ahead and read your Bible, Dennis, and you go to your church, and, with any luck, you might win the annual raffle, but if you’re looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November 17, and he doesn’t like to be second guessed. You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God.

(You can watch the full scene here.). Now, we remembered the scene a bit differently before we revisited it for this blog post.  We had always thought that Dr. Jed Hill was the deponent, but that’s not the case. Rather, it is his superior at the hospital, Dr. Martin Kessler (played by George C. Scott), who is being deposed in the matter. For some reason or another, Dr. Hill, the defendant in the suit, is present at this deposition. It is during an off the record break in the proceedings that Dr. Hill makes his famous speech. (In an episode of “30 Rock” aired years and years later, Jack Donaghy, makes reference to this scene and confesses he once referred to himself as God in a deposition.).

We’re not the only ones who have blogged about this film lately.  Check out Alex Craigie of the At Counsel Table blog’s post, “Why It’s Critical To Get a Stipulation To Go ‘Off The Record’ In Deposition,” which uses this very scene as an example.

We leave you with the opening paragraph of film critic Roger Ebert’s review, published 20 years ago today:

Malice is one of the busiest movies I’ve ever seen, a film jampacked with characters and incidents and blind alleys and red herrings. Offhand, this is the only movie I can recall in which an entire subplot about a serial killer is thrown in simply for atmosphere.

If you’re up for a messy and crazy movie from the early 1990′s, this may be the one for you.

Abnormal Interviews: Comic Book Writer Ryan Ferrier, Creator of Tiger Lawyer

Today, Abnormal Use continues its series, “Abnormal Interviews,” in which this site will conduct interviews with law professors, practitioners and makers of legal themed popular culture. For the latest installment, we turn to Ryan Ferrier, creator of the comic book series Tiger Lawyer, in which a tiger establishes a successful career as a courtroom litigator. Take a look at the panels above – which Mr. Ferrier mentions below in response to one of our questions – and you’ll get a good feel for the character and his series. On a number of occasions, we’ve mentioned this fateful character (here, here, here, here, and here.) Last week, Mr. Ferrier was kind enough to submit to an interview with our site. Without further ado, the interview is as follows:

1) How did you first come up with the idea of Tiger Lawyer?

This is one question I get asked quite often, and it kills me that I can’t really remember the catalyst for the concept. I do remember it was December of 2011 when I tweeted something very quick along the lines of “my next comic will be about a Tiger who’s a lawyer LOL,” meaning it only as a joke. That one tweet got some pretty good traction and I was encouraged to actually write the script that became the first half of issue one—Matt McCray’s story—over the course of a cold Calgary weekend. From there the whole thing just kept growing, and once Vic Malhotra joined the team, it turned into the comic series we have today. I wish I had a more interesting story on exactly how I came up with the concept itself, but alas, I do not. It was just a blip in the brain. I may have been on the treadmill. Or in the shower. I’m afraid of all the crazy things that pop in my brain that I don’t follow through with.

2) Why a tiger?

It’s funny, I don’t really have much of an affinity for tigers, to be honest. They’re not my favorite animals or anything. I give credit to my subconscious on that one. It very easily could have been Walrus Lawyer, or Horse Lawyer. I admit there is something appealing and accessible about a tiger, though. I think it certainly works with the character’s charm and confidence. His presence. Tigers are pretty awesome though, when I really think about it.

3) What is in store for the future of the character?

Oh, we’re certainly not done with the character yet, not by a longshot! We—myself and artists Matt McCray and Vic Malhotra—are currently working on Tiger Lawyer #4. It’s the best issue yet, in my opinion. Matt and I are doing something very unique to the previous issues, but very funny. Vic and I are working on the more serious half, which is going to be fantastic. We’re really excited to take the character on a new journey, especially after how the noir arc ended in issue #3. We don’t have a release date for issue four yet, as we’re taking our time to make it the best possible book we can, but it’ll be in the not too distant future, that’s for sure.
I’ve also got plans for a spin-off Tiger Lawyer one-shot. It won’t be called Tiger Lawyer #5, but instead something totally different, but still revolving around the character.

4) What has been the reaction from lawyer readers? What about non-lawyers?

I do get a ton of comments and kindness from lawyers, and I really love it. It’s fantastic. I used to get nervous about it, as everything I know about law, I learned from episodes of “Night Court” and Hollywood films. But now I just give in to it and embrace it. I know there’s a ton of legal inaccuracies, and that’s what makes it fun. How else should a comic about a talking tiger play out? I’ve received a lot of great feedback from people in the legal field, and I’ve heard stories of people giving copies out at firm Christmas parties and stuff like that. It’s great. I feel like there aren’t many law-related things, so I’m happy to fill that void for now.

The reaction from non-lawyers has been simply amazing. I honestly cannot believe it’s gone this far, and been received so well. I give all that credit to the artists, Matt McCray and Vic Malhotra. They are the ones who have brought the character to life. The title of the book is pretty catchy, I admit, and does really well at cons, and hooking someones eyes, but it’s Matt and Vic that have been able to ground our stories and make them special. I did the sizzle, they did the steak. But it’s really been great; we sell out of books at a lot of cons, and the reaction from my peers has been really inspiring and I’m so grateful for it.

5) Where do you get the ideas for your legal story lines?

Like I mentioned before, I really only know about law from television, movies, and pop-culture. I draw a lot from that, especially those big, media spectacle trials, like the O.J. Simpson  case, and things like that. While I don’t mean to minimize the often macabre, very real circumstances that surround those cases, it’s the spectacle of the cases that attracts me to them. With a character like Tiger Lawyer, it’s got to be big and sensational.

With issue #3, though, I wanted to shift the focus onto the character instead of the trial, which is why we made it a prequel, showing Tiger’s time at Harvard law. I think there’s still so much we can do with the character without re-treading familiar waters, and issue #4 will continue that, while providing some big courtroom laughs at the same time.

6) Obviously, we’re talking about a lawyer who is a tiger. But do you make any effort otherwise to depict the legal world realistically?

I think I make an effort not to, honestly. I mean that, however, with the utmost respect and appreciation of the legal world and those who work in and around it. It’s Hollywood law, and I aim to satire just that. I think there’s a very tongue-in-cheek feeling with the series, and as nutty as it sounds, it’s my goal to have the reader think “hey, this writer doesn’t really know a lot about how actual law works.” There’s humor in that. It’s like how television news doesn’t play out in real life how it did in the film Anchorman, for example. But, I do understand how many people wouldn’t get it. Early on in the series, I heard someone complain about how Tiger objects during the prosecutor’s opening statement (which I now understand isn’t a thing that happens). This person was actually pretty cut up about it, but I laughed. It’s a cartoon world, with cartoon rules, and a talking tiger.

That’s my defense, anyways.

BONUS QUESTIONS:

1) Who is your favorite fictitious lawyer?

Great question! It’s a tie between Dan Fielding (the amazing John Larroquette in “Night Court”) and Saul Goodman (the incredible Bob Odenkirk in “Breaking Bad”).

2) What is your favorite comic blog?

There are many great comic blogs, and I hate to single any out. But I will. Multiversity.com, Comicosity.com, and ComicsAlliance.com are all worthy of a daily visit.

BIOGRAPHY: Ryan Ferrier is a Canadian comic book writer and letterer. He currently writes Tiger Lawyer and The Brothers James for Challenger Comics, a self-publishing comic collective he runs with artist Brian Level. Ryan also letters Robocop: Last Stand for Boom Studios, as well as Skybreaker and Theremin for Monkeybrain comics. He can be found on Twitter at @ryanwriter.

The Blue Book and Commercial Recording Citations

Not too long ago, we directed your attention to a federal case in which a Kris Kristofferson song was at issue. We lamented the fact that the court in question did not see fit to cite the song at issue as per the dictates of Blue Book rule 18.6.1, entitled “Commercial Recordings.” Here’s that rule:

Cite Commercial Recordings by artist and title, providing the name of the recording company and the date of release (if available):

* Cowboy Mouth, Are You With Me? (MCA Records 1996).

* The Beatles, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (Capitol Records 1990) (1967).

If a particular song or musical work is referred to, cited by analogy to shorter words in a collection according to rule 15.5.1:

* Don Henley, The Boys of Summer, On Building the Perfect Beast (Geffen Records 1984).

Well, that is from the 18th edition of the Blue Book, which is the one we had handy. The fact that the most recent cited example of an audio recording is from 1996 struck us funny, although we are certainly fans of Cowboy Mouth, a New Orleans rock band made famous for its rock anthem “Jenny Says.” But Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band? Building the Perfect Beast? We’re huge Beatles fans, but come on, surely the authors of the Blue Book – comprised of the editors of the Columbia Law Review, the Harvard Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and the Yale Law Review, can cite some more recent records and songs than those? First, the quibble with the Beatles citation. Why cite to a later pressing from 1990 when one can and should simply cite to the original 1967 recording? Further, wouldn’t it have been better to cite Rubber Soul or Revolver?

Next, Don Henley? Sure, we love “The Boys of Summer,” with its classic reference to aging hippies with their “Deadhead stickers on Cadillacs,” but how many law students using the Blue Book will recognize Henley and this classic from 1984? At this point, most law students were born after 1984, anyway. Surely we could throw some Radiohead in there?

So, come on, editors, let’s throw in some updated references! (Full disclosure: We’re still using the 18th edition, so let us know if they’ve already updated these issues in the 19th.).

Seinfeld’s Jackie Chiles is Back, Honey Bears Targeted

Winnie The Pooh, beware. Jackie Chiles is coming for you. Chiles, the flamboyant and opportunistic trial lawyer of “Seinfeld” fame, has been retained by Jim Beam to enjoin bears everywhere from continuing with their honey theft.

So what’s Jim Beam’s beef with bears? Well, the Kentucky bourbon whiskey brand has developed a new product infused with honey and liqueur known as Jim Beam Honey. It appears that honey production has been depressed by a decline in the honey bee population. Even though the supply is waning, Jim Beam needs its honey – and it is willing to fight the largest consumer to get it.

Speaking to the media through his handlers, Chiles had this to say about the suit:

“Bears are egregious, devious, and just plain mischievous! . . . I’m here to go on the record – with Jim Beam Honey as my witness – to ensure that sweet, mouth-watering justice is served!”

With Chiles leading the charge for Beam, the bears may be in trouble. For their sake, we hope the bears have Vincent Gambini on speed dial.

We here at Abnormal Use are glad to see Chiles back in action. We are typically not fans of frivolous lawsuits, but Chiles is a friend of the blog. (We previously scored an interview with Phil Morris, the actor who brought Chiles to life). We have no idea what will happen with the bears, but for some reason, hearing about Chiles’ revival makes us want to buy a bottle of Jim Beam Honey. In fairness, though, we probably would have done that anyway.

No Matter What You Think of Scalia’s Opinions, This Guy Thinks They’re Musical

As a Justice of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia (or, more pointedly, his opinions) are a polarizing force.  Although gruff and cantankerous from the bench, he’s apparently not such a bad guy outside the courtroom.  After all, we’ve heard reports of hunting trips with Justice Kagan, and it’s been reported that he has eaten New Year’s Eve dinner with Justice Ginsburg since 1982.  Apparently, he’s the funniest Justice, too, eliciting more laughter with his comments than any other, according to Boston University law Prof. Jay Wexler.

Justices Scalia and Ginsburg also share a love of opera, as reported by U.S. News & World Report in a 2007 piece:

An opera aficionado, Scalia, along with fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appeared as an extra in a 1994 production of Richard Strauss’s Ariadne auf Naxos. Scalia appeared onstage for about an hour and a half during the second act in a costume first worn by Plácido Domingo during the world première of Goya in 1986.

Well, apparently, the opera connection doesn’t end there.  According to NPR’s Nina Totenberg, and reported on NPR, a new opera about these two legal heavyweights has been completed.  The composer, Derrick Wang, is a new graduate of the University of Maryland’s Carey School of Law, who heard music in the opinions and dissents:

I realized this is the most dramatic thing I’ve ever read in law school … and I started to hear music — a rage aria about the Constitution,” Wang said. “And then, in the midst of this roiling rhetoric, counterpoint, as Justice Ginsburg’s words appeared to me — a beacon of lyricism with a steely strength and a fervent conviction all their own. And I said to myself, ‘This is an opera.’

Well, the opera is finished, and Justices Scalia and Ginsburg got a preview last month at the Supreme Court, the day after the Court’s term ended.  No news yet on whether it will be performed elsewhere, but in our opinion, the highest court isn’t exactly community theater.

Idiocy By Proxy Is Indefensible

The dog days of summer are here, and the school year is over.  Kids love this time of year; for parents, it’s a mixed blessing – no more responsibility for getting the kids to school at the crack of dawn, but also, they must face the long, hot days and fill them with activities, camps, and play dates. The end of the academic year is marked in most schools by end-of-year recitals, plays, and fundraisers of all types.  Perhaps you can go and bid in a silent auction on Precious Boy or Girl’s priceless works of “art” – colorful swirls done with fantastically dirty fingers.

Or, perhaps you are out of town, so you proxy bid.  If this is your method of bidding, perhaps you should set a ceiling on those bids.

Enter Jon and Michelle Heinemann, who send their Precious Boy (who is 5 years old) to Cathedral School of St. John the Divine in Manhattan.  Out of town for the silent auction, they gave their proxy to make sure they would be the highest bidder on a painting done by Precious Boy and his classmates.

The price tag at the end of the day?  $50,000.00.  For a finger painting.

Furious, they have sued the school, saying that one of the teachers kept increasing the bids artificially so that the Heinemanns would have to pay some big bucks for Precious Boy’s creation.  They are suing not only to recover the price they paid for the painting, but for costs to send their children to another school, and a chauffeur to get them there.

Right.

There are several things we love about this story, which we found on Gawker here.  First, it’s that a couple of people who think they’re really smart may just have been outsmarted, and they are too fancy to admit it.  Second, it’s this line, as reported by Gawker:

Because the Heinemann’s were out of town, and had given instructions to a proxy to be the highest bid, they believed the largest possible damage for a finger painting (which are priceless) would fall around $3,000.

Because $3,000.00 would have been reasonable for a finger painting.

Finally, we love that the Heinemanns are also claiming that Precious Boy has been treated unfairly by the school since the auction went sour, claiming that he has had to do such things as hold the door for other students. Maybe I’m just a public school kid who didn’t know any better, but when I was five, it was cool to do such menial tasks as hold doors and erase blackboards for teachers.

A few other fun facts:  Jon Heinemann appears to be in finance in New York, running investment money management funds.  Here’s a website for The Heinemann Fund.  Michelle Heinemann was featured in something called “Black Tie Magazine” [pdf], which called her a “modern day Renaissance woman” and informed readers that she maintains several homes.  The Google has much more on this couple, if you’re curious.  Finally, according to its website, tuition  at Cathedral School of St. John the Divine in Manhattan for the upcoming school year rounds out at $38,425.  At least it includes lunch.

Banana Split: Velvet Underground and Warhol Foundation Settle

The Velvet Underground’s first album cover, which featured a drawing of a large yellow banana, has been the subject of recent litigation.  Why? In a collaborative effort with the band in the 1960′s, Andy Warhol designed the banana that was featured on the album cover.  A recent spat arose between the Velvet Underground and the  Warhol Foundation’s over the Foundation’s proposed licensing of the banana for use on case  for Apple products.  The suit recently settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

The suit was first filed by The Velvet Underground in January of 2013 alleging that Warhol Foundation violated its rights to the album design by licensing the design for commercial purposes.  The banana graces the cover of the band’s album The Velvet Underground and Nico, which was rated by Rolling Stone as the 13th best album of all time.  However, the band never sought or received trademark registration for the image from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Nevertheless, they claim instead that they earned trademark rights by virtue of years of association with it. Without the trademark registration, the band was certainly facing an uphill battle.  It would have had to prove that the design has come to be associated by the public with the band itself.  While that may be true with regard to certain segment of the population that is really into music, most of the general public would recognize the drawing as nothing more that a typical piece from Warhol’s collection.  Especially given that the album cover also prominently featured Warhol’s signature.

Probably best for both parties that they just went ahead and split this banana (pun intended).

 

Seven Court Opinions That Cite The Great Gatsby

Well, we’re not turning into Buzzfeed or anything, but we did think we would take advantage of this short week and do a bit of pop culture court blogging.  Like some of you, we saw the new cinematic adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby (about which we decline further comment).  It got us thinking: How many courts have referenced the novel?

So, here are seven courts which refer to the novel by name, some in much more detail than you would suspect.

1. Legacy Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Provident Foundation, Inc., No. 1:03CV00515., 2007 WL 275974, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 26 2007).

“While the billing documentation procedures will not likely read as clearly or fluidly as The Great Gatsby, the Medicare rules and regulations are not beyond the ken of the average layman.”

2. New York State Trawlers Ass’n v. Jorling, 16 F.3d 1303, 1312 (2d 1994).

“In closing, we are reminded of the words of F. Scott Fitzgerald. In the final passages of The Great Gatsby, Nick sits on the beach looking out over the Long Island Sound. While contemplating the Sound, Nick reflects upon the ‘fresh, green breast of the new world’ as it must have appeared to its first explorers. Not long ago, it would indeed have seemed that the Sound ‘year by year recedes before us.’ Increasingly, however, New York is recognizing its interest in protecting the rich natural resources of the Sound. The Amendments to N.Y.Envtl.Conserv.Law § 13-0329 are rationally related to that interest. Perhaps, ‘one fine morning-’.”

3. In re Compton, 97 B.R. 970, 980 (Bkrtcy. N.D. Ind. 1989).

“It strains the court’s credulity to believe the Defendant’s love-starved and tearful explanation for her conduct. The old adage that ‘the third time is a charm’ is not applicable on these facts. As they say in baseball, three strikes and you’re out. The court is not swayed by the Defendant’s tearful exhortations. The Defendant’s conduct bears a harsh resemblance to that of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s character Daisy in The Great Gatsby. The difference however, is that Daisy’s seemingly endless wealth could support her financial follies with the men and opportunities in her life. The Defendant did not have the same riches and affluence at her disposal.”

4. Stainton v. Tarantino,  637 F.Supp. 1051, 1082-83 (E.D. Pa. 1986).

“Plaintiffs’ theory of the case was that plaintiffs were a naive shop teacher and his wife who were hoodwinked by two unscrupulous lawyers. Tarantino’s theory of the case was that two educated, sophisticated people, with great wealth, set out to destroy him because Mrs. Stainton considered him a social climber. The closing argument of defense counsel presented Tarantino’s theory of the case. The references to the wealth of the plaintiffs, including the quotation from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Great Gatsby, were relevant to the financial sophistication of the plaintiffs and the motivation for bringing the lawsuit.”

5. Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, 499 F.3d 1170, 1179 (10th Cir. 2007)

“No one thinks The Great Gatsby is government speech just because a public school provides its students with the text. This is because the speech conveyed by the physical text remains private speech regardless of government ownership.”

6. CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc., 780 F.Supp.2d 196, 250 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (citations omitted).

“According to Simple, finding that the JavaScript Bible is enabling ‘is no different than saying that a dictionary would enable an author of ordinary skill to write a novel like The Great Gatsby, because it discloses all of the words used by F. Scott Fitzgerald.’ In other words, Simple asserts that CA has not met its burden of clearly and convincingly showing that the JavaScript Bible offers sufficient guidance to enable one skilled in the art to practice the subject matter claimed in the patents in suit.”

7.  In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897, 912 n.25 (9th Cir. 2011)

“The converse is also true: one can be a ‘person entitled to enforce’ without having any ownership interest in the negotiable instrument, such as when a thief swipes and absconds with a bearer instrument. See Comment 1 to UCC § 3–301. The ability of a thief to legitimately obtain payment on bearer instruments, such as bearer bonds, has factored in literature and film focusing on the dark side of humanity. See, e.g., F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby ch. 9 (1925) (part of Gatsby’s downfall connected with the theft or falsification of bearer bonds); Die Hard (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. 1988) (thieves masquerading as international terrorists seek to steal a highly valuable trove of bearer bonds); Beverly Hills Cop (Paramount Pictures 1984) (friend of protagonist is murdered for stealing bearer bonds from a drug operation’s kingpin).”

Finally, the authors of both R-Boc Representatives, Inc. v. Minemyer, No. 11 C 8433, 2012 WL 2905733, at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2012) and Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Barbour, 614 F. Supp. 2d 47, 48 (D.D.C. 2009) begin their opinions by quoting the very last line of The Great Gatsby: “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

 

Once Again: Thoughts on Television Lawyers

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.

Narrow Minded TV Lawyer Hotness Rankings Debunked

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.