One year ago today, on March 15, 2011, we here at Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. opened our new office in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was our second office counting our headquarters in Greenville, South Carolina, where our firm has exisited for sixty years. Now, two years later, we have three offices in two states (having opened a third office in Columbia, South Carolina last summer).  The office began in a temporary space with a single lawyer and paralegal, and now, a year later, it hosts six lawyers and four staff members.

Today, on our office’s terrace, we had a brief first birthday party.  And, yes, that’s the actual cake from the party above.

We wish a happy birthday to our Charlotte office and congratulate them on all of their hard work over the past year.

(You can read our original 2011 press release on the Charlotte office here).

Today, we here at Abnormal Use continue our week-long tribute to My Cousin Vinny with a look at a couple of the film’s actors.  Today, we are proud to feature an interview with veteran character actor James Rebhorn, who was kind enough to agree to an interview with our own Jim Dedman late last year. You’ve seen Rebhorn in dozens of movies; often, he plays a lawyer, a judge, or sometimes even, a juror. In My Cousin Vinny, Rebhorn plays George Wilbur, the prosecution’s FBI expert automotive witness who ties the vehicle in question to the criminal defendants played by Ralph Macchio and Mitchell Whitfield. Fun Fact: In 1992, Rebhorn appeared in Vinny with Marisa Tomei, who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, in Scent of A Woman with Al Pacino, who won the Oscar for Best Actor, and in Lorenzo’s Oil with Susan Sarandon, who was nominated for Best Actress for that role. Our interview with Rebhorn, which features his memories of the Vinny filming, his thoughts on playing lawyers on screen, and his memories of prosecuting the “Seinfeld” gang in that show’s series finale, is as follows:

JIM DEDMAN:  In 2008, the American Bar Association named My Cousin Vinny third on the list of the 25 greatest legal movies of all time.  Why is it do you think that this film has resonated so well with viewers and lawyer viewers in particular over the past 20 years.

JAMES REBHORN: I really think it’s because it’s funny, and I think all of us need to look at our careers regardless of what we’re doing and find joy in them and be able to laugh at them and laugh at ourselves by doing that.  And I think My Cousin Vinny does that pretty well.  And also I think the legal points that it makes are pretty clear and I think that clarity probably is also one of the reasons why it resonates so much with the lawyer population.  But mostly, I think, is because it’s funny and it gives people a good hook into the understanding of the legal system.

JD: Now, you played George Wilbur who is an FBI expert witness on automobiles and tire tread identification.

JR: Right.

JD: How did you become a part of the film and get that role?

JR: Well, it was a situation with the casting director had sent out a casting call to various agents around the country, both on the East and West Coast, and my agent submitted my name, and the casting director asked me to come in, and I auditioned for the casting director and the director, Jonathan Lynn, and the producer, as well, although I can’t remember who was in the room when I auditioned.  And it was based upon that audition that they offered me the job.

JD: How did you go about preparing to play an expert witness like Mr. Wilbur?

JR: Well, I just figured I had to know what I was talking about was my preparation.  I had assumed that the dialogue in the script was accurate, and so I just embraced that and went ahead and delivered it with authority and confidence.

JD: Fair enough.  Now, Mr. Wilbur’s testimony, which is initially offered to convict the two criminal defendants, ultimately turns out to be incorrect or at the very least out of context. What do you think that says about the use of expert witnesses in criminal trials like the one in the movie?

JR: Well, I think it was interesting because – it’s been a while since I’ve seen the movie, and it certainly has been a long time since I’ve done it, but in a way, it was his testimony.  It wasn’t that he lied, or even that he covered up the testimony, or even that he softened the edges of what he had to say.  It was what he said, in fact, that made it feel compelling, so I think that’s what’s interesting to me, is that if you tell the truth, and if a good lawyer can pick out the most truthful kernel, then that’s what works in a court of law.  It’s interesting because I’ve been on a couple of juries in my life.  I found it very interesting how lawyers – and I don’t feel like lawyers twist the truth, they just highlight the truth.  And that’s what Vinny did in that situation: he highlighted the truth of what I said and put it into the context – a statistical context – that brought into question to veracity or the strength of my testimony.  So I think that’s how it worked.

JD: Your scenes were shot in the courtroom.

JR: They were.

JD: What efforts were made to accurately depict the criminal process on set?

JR: Well, there was a lawyer – there was an adviser on set, and I do not recall who that was or how involved he was or she was with everything that was going on.  But I know they certainly had somebody on set.  And I don’t know in terms of the art direction who the art director or what actual courtroom the art director used as a model for that set.  But again, I’m assuming that they pursued it pretty rigorously and found a courtroom that was pretty accurate to that location.

JD: Do you have a favorite moment or memory that sticks out in your mind from shooting those scenes?

JR: Well, it was just great fun.  . . . [E]verybody was very relaxed, and everybody really enjoyed it.  I don’t have anything real strong stand out – memories of it – but I do remember having a great time.

JD: In your career both on stage and on screen, you’ve played a number of attorneys and judges, and even jurors.  Do you prepare for those types of roles any differently than non-legal roles?

JR: . . . [M]ost of what you’re doing [as an actor] is reacting so that dialogue between actors – they feed each other.  They kind of build in a scene.  But in the case of legal dramas, especially the lawyers, they’re the ones who kind of carry the ball.  You know what I mean?  So that they have to kind of start the conversation rolling, and they’re the ones that have to tie together the story, so that they’re less playing off of the other characters than sort of generating the scene out of their own minds.  In fact, you mentioned Phil Morris in the “Seinfeld,” I was the opposing lawyer in that episode.

JD: That was literally my next question.

JR: That was a particularly challenging job because they didn’t give us a script until the day before we were taping it.  In that particular episode, I was really the one who was generating the ball for the whole show.  I had to keep tossing it around, and nobody was tossing me anything back.  They were just answering my questions.  So, when you play a lawyer, I find you really have to depend upon your powers of memorization and retention when you’re a lawyer.

JD: What is it like to be the guy who sent Jerry, Elaine, George and Kramer to jail?

JR: I found it very satisfying.

JD: And you got to square off against Jackie Chiles as well.

JR: That’s right.

JD: Now, you also played juror number 4 in the great play “Twelve Angry Men.”

JR: Yeah.

JD: What can you tell us about your role in that production and what it says about the jury system in America?

JR: Well, I’m not sure what it says about the jury system.  It says a lot about where television and movies have gone since then.  That was sort of the first major legal drama in the American theater.  There have been others, as well, but this was the one – Reginald Rose who wrote it – he then went on to become the producer and head writer for “The Defenders,” and it was sort of the precursor, sort of the template, for all other kind of courtroom legal dramas that followed.  Reginald Rose, the playwright, really honed his craft very well with that play.  . . . [I]t was for me much more interesting as an actor than it was sort of as a mirror of the legal system . . . [It was] so interesting for all of us because it was really a one scene play.  And I don’t think any of us have ever been in a one scene play, where we all come on at the beginning of the play, and we don’t leave until the play is over.  That made for an interesting challenge for all of us.  And memorable – we still get together for reunions, and we still talk about the seven months we worked together, and it was particularly relevant and meaningful to me in my life as an actor.  It also certainly tells and interesting story about the jury system, which I’m sure has been replicated in other jury rooms.  . . . I refer back again to the time when I was on a jury, and I ended up being the foreman which, you know, is just a matter of chance.  And we certainly went through stages of discernment and of discussion that were not dissimilar to what happened in “Twelve Angry Men,” yet the stakes were not as high with a tenant-landlord case, so the stakes are certainly not as high.  But there certainly was – going back and forth and trying to lay out the facts in a way that enabled us to come up with what we thought was a just verdict.

JD: You have served on a jury, and obviously, you’ve been in many, many films and programs. Do the acting and legal professions require similar skill sets, do you think?

JR: I think certainly a litigator and an actor – I think they have to have – they certainly have to feel comfortable with words and pitching them in front of a live audience.  So I think to that extent, there is a lot of similarity.  I also think actors, when they’re given a script, a lot of what they do in developing their work, and in developing and creating their characters is dissecting the cause and effect of that piece.  Why do people act that way?  Why do people say those things?  So to that extent, I think the analytical process is probably also very similar to what lawyers go through.

JD: Of all the legal roles that you’ve played in your career, do you have one that is your favorite?

JR: Well, I supposed in terms of the overall experience, playing the lawyer, the prosecutor Alvin Hooks, in Snow Falling on Cedars would probably be at the top of the list, although all of them have been great fun and great challenges.

JD: Are there any memories that you have from shooting the “Seinfeld” finale that stick out in your mind in those courtroom scenes?

JR: Well, only that as an actor, it was kind of a brutal experience.  As I’ve said before, we didn’t get the script until the day before, and I was on the East Coast, and we were filming on the West Coast, so I was dealing with jet lag and all that kind of experience.  It was a tough job, because they had never done an hour show before, and it was their last show, and of course, they all wanted to make it TV history.  You tape these things in front of a live audience, and we would start in the early evening, and everybody in Hollywood was there, so there was a tremendous amount of pressure to do the job right.  But by the end of the evening, and by the end of the evening, I’m talking like 4:00 in the morning, there’s nobody out there, so it was a challenge to sustain that energy and focus throughout the whole thing.  Those are the memories I have of the show, but they were all very gracious folks, and they were certainly a lot of fun to work with.

JD: You’ve also played attorneys on two David E. Kelley shows, “The Practice” and “Boston Legal.”  What can you tell us about those experiences in playing a lawyer on those shows?

JR: They were terrific.  And I would compare them favorable with “Law & Order.” . . . [B]y the time I was playing a lawyer in them, in the history of those shows, they were well oiled machines.  You know what I mean?  So that everything fit together very nicely, and there was very little waste of time, and everybody knew what had to happen, and that’s always a pleasure for an actor coming into a show as a guest star.  When things move smoothly so that you can go ahead and explore and do what you have to do to get your job done.

JD:  Getting back to My Cousin Vinny, the director, Jonathan Lynn, studied law at one point during his life.  Did he rely on that at all while shooting the film?

JR: I’m certain that he did, although I don’t recall anything specifically that related to his experience and training in the legal field. . . . [I]t’s true of everybody who works in the theater or film or in television – you always bring to the set, to the location, to the stage, who you are.  And certainly in his case, he brought to the set who he was.  And it certainly, I’M sure, and formed everything he did as a director on that movie.

JD: Have you gotten any response over the years from anyone that’s an expert witness or with the FBI about your scenes in My Cousin Vinny?

JR: I don’t think specifically about my scenes, about my credibility as an expert witness.  But I have a lot of lawyers that stop me and say . . .  they’ve seen it in law school and they show it at their firm meetings and. . .  it apparently has great relevance to the legal world and understanding the judicial system that we have in this country.

JD: As you may know, lawyers are required to do continuing legal education every year and you cannot go to a continuing legal education seminar without seeing at least one clip from the movie.

JR: Now, what do you think?  Do you think it’s a pretty accurate portrayal of the legal system?

JD: It really is, quite frankly.  And you’re right.  There’s some humor there – that’s what it’s designed for – but many, many, many films go the humor route and then abandon realism.  But, really, what’s funny about the film, is that so much of it is so real and funny.  He probably would have been thrown in jail a little bit earlier.

JR: I would bet.  Those kinds of things – the fact that he really hadn’t passed the bar and all this other kind of stuff.  That’s a stretch of reality, but I agree with you – it seems to me, what I still like about the movie and what makes it so funny, is that he doesn’t twist anybody’s testimony.  He just pursues the flaws in it.  And he does it with great skill.

JD:  I think, as you pointed out, your character isn’t misrepresenting the truth, he’s come to an analysis and it’s only after new information is given to him that he changes his opinions.

JR: Yeah.  It’s really – it’s a wonderful movie, very entertaining movie.

JD: It’s been 20 years since the film was released this March.  Looking back, do you have any other thoughts on the film or its place in film or legal history?

JR: It’s certain, I think, in terms of film history, it’s gotta rank as one of the funniest movies ever made.  I don’t know where you’d put it in the top 100, but it certainly is well up there.  It continues to have resonance.  Clearly, we’re talking about a 20 year difference – it clearly has had some impact.  I’m glad about that.  I’m very proud and happy to have been a part of it.

(To see a full index of our My Cousin Vinny twentieth anniversary coverage, please see here.).

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.

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.

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.

“Oh, no!” you exclaim.  “Not another hot coffee post!”

But today is quite an anniversary.  Twenty years ago today, on February  27, 1992, the world’s most famous litigant, 79 year old Stella Lieback, ordered what would become the most famous cup of hot coffee in America.  It was in Albuquerque, New Mexico at a McDonald’s drive-thru located on Gibson Boulevard.  She was inside her grandson’s Ford Probe.  He drove from the drive-thru to a parking spot, where Ms. Liebeck, clad in jogging pants, placed the cup of coffee between her legs and then attempted to pry open the lid.  She somehow lost control and the coffee spilled into her lap.  She was attempting to add sweetener to the coffee.  The rest is history, which we need not repeat here.  However, if you are interested in doing a little historical reading, we recommend you check out our Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case FAQ file as well as our history of reporting on other hot coffee cases here.

(Oh, and to our pal Steve McConnell of the Drug and Device Law blog, please note that we made it through the entire post without a “It was twenty years ago today . . . .” Sgt. Pepper’s reference.

If you frequent this site, you know we try to showcase legal themed comic book covers on Fridays. Let us tell you this: that gets more and more challenging each week! So, depicted above is Infamous: Lindsay Lohan #1, published not so long ago in September of 2011 by Bluewater Comics (which often produces quickie celebrity bio titles like these).  On that cover, we see the troubled former starlet taking her mug shot about as seriously as she likely takes everything else in her difficult, difficult life. Whatever the case, we doubt the folks in California would allow a prisoner to be so cavalier during the mug shot process.

As you may recall, in the past, our own Frances Zacher has written a bit about the legal issues involving driverless cars.  In a post called “Autobots – First Casualty,” the author of the Living the Meme blog attempts to pick up where Frances left off and explore the issue in further detail.  Check it out.

Get this!  Accordingly to The Lariat, Baylor Law School – our editor Jim Dedman’s alma mater – recently hosted a “People’s Law School.”  At that event, there was a section dedicated entirely to the McDonald’s hot coffee case! Had we been in Waco that day, we would not have missed it!

Speaking of our editor, last week he was hanging out in Philadelphia on a vacation of sorts and he met and hung out with Max Kennerly, the author of famed Litigation & Trial law blog. It was a great time, we hear.  However, if you had overhead their conversation about blogs, Twitter, and BBSs, you would have thought they were huge nerds.

Oh, and you may remember that we’ve been hinting for a while that we have some big plans in store for you, our dear readers, in 2012.  Today is the last Friday in February.  In just a few weeks, in mid-March, you’ll see our first such  blogging project of note.  Be forewarned: it’s a doozey!

Way, way back in the early 1970’s, there was once a television program called “The Young Lawyers,” which starred Lee J. Cobb, Judy Pace, and Zalman King (who passed away earlier this month at age 69). At some point during the show’s run, Dell Comics published the comic book above dedicated to the program. Its tagline for this issue reads: “When a bomber strikes, who is to blame?” We would suggest that the person to blame is likely the bomber. (Maybe they young lawyers never took Crim Law.).

Max Kennerly of the Litigation & Trial law blog offers this great post entitled “The Real Risks of Writing a Legal Blog.”

As you know, we here at Abnormal Use go to great lengths to chronicle the hot coffee litigation.  Some have accused of us of trying to relitigate a long dead issue (or is it beat a dead horse?).  However, it seems these issues may be more relevant than even we realized.  Just last week, at the local Starbucks drive-thru right here in our own Greenville, South Carolina, we overheard:  “Give me a Venti Americano, two Splendas, and . . . make it extra hot!  I mean, really hot!” Contributory negligence, perhaps? Assumption of risk?  Or something more sinister? Perhaps this zealous customer was seeking a golden payday.  Stay tuned to Abnormal Use to find out.

Here we go again!  According to this report by Jon Campisi at Legal News Line, “[a] Philadelphia woman who claims she became burned by a hot cup of coffee at local Burger King is suing the fast food giant in state court.”  The incident occurred on Valentine’s Day 2010, two  years ago this week, and the Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he lid had not been properly placed on the cup, causing the hot coffee to spill on [the Plaintiff]” when the fast food employee handed it to her at the drive thru.  We’ll be following this one.

Hey, deponents, don’t call your 88 year old grandmother “The Creeper” at your deposition.  Okay? Thanks.

As lawyers, we are a sanguine and cynical bunch, but we don’t really have to be, do we?  Sure, we may believe that the most unreasonably dangerous and defective product in our life is our own heart, but we can vanquish those thoughts from our mind today, Valentine’s Day.  Accordingly, we here at Abnormal Use wish you a wondrous and resplendent day.  Yes, Valentine’s Day may be a greeting card holiday, one seized upon by chocolatiers and flower sellers and would-be purveyors of happiness.  But, if we can pretend for a lunar cycle that we remain actual human beings and not just toiling attorneys at law, that may not be such a bad thing after all, eh?

So, without further ado, Happy Valentine’s Day to you and whoever is your special someone.

Oh, and depicted above is the cover of Star Wars: A Valentine Story #1, published by Dark Horse Comics not so long ago in 2003..  You can see that even intergalactic heroes face their own dilemmas on this day. Of course, our question is this: If the events depicted in Star Wars occurred “a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,” how do they even know about Valentine’s Day?  Another George Lucas plot hole, we suppose.

And, of course, you should revisit last year’s Valentine’s Day post – featuring not one but two comic book covers – here.