Uh oh. Google may have inadvertently placed itself within the cross-hairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its dictator, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  According to reports, Iran is threatening to sue Google over its labeling, or lack therof, of a body of water on Google Maps.  No, seriously.  Iran claims it will sue Google if the search engine giant does not re-label the gulf between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula known as the “Persian Gulf.”  It must be fun to be Google’s general counsel, Kent Walker.  “Hey, Kent . . . the Foreign Minster of Iran is on line 2.” How does law school prepare you for that telephone call?

The name of the body of water in dispute has long been a point of contention in the Middle East.   It is known by many names: the “Persian Gulf,” the “Arabian Gulf,” the “Islamic Gulf,” the “Arabo-Persian Gulf” and sometimes, simply, “The Gulf.”  In its mapping services, Google previously listed two names for the body of water: the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Gulf.  But it recently made a change. In what was meant to be a peace-keeping move in the naming dispute, Google removed both names from Google Maps earlier this month. Apparently, that didn’t do the trick and resolve the dispute.

Iran (formerly known as Persia) is a wee bit obsessed with this naming issue.  It previously threatened to ban airlines from using its airspace unless they refered to the body of water exclusively as the “Persian Gulf.”  Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told the Associated Press that “Google had better fix things or the company will be hit with ‘serious damages’.”

A mighty strange issue, this naming dispute. But this kerfuffle is not the first time that Google has gone head to head with foreign countries. See also, China.  Then again, this stand-off is so funny that we suspect – at least somewhat – that it could be some type of publicity stunt by Sacha Baron Cohen in support of his new movie The Dictator. Hey, that could be true, right? Well, maybe.

Alcohol retailers in Whiteclay Nebraska, a town with a population of 11 people, sold roughly of 4 million cans of beer in 2011.   How is this possible?   Whiteclay is located about 2 miles from the Pine Ridge Reservation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe in South Dakota.  Because of widespread problems with alcohol abuse among tribe members, Pine Ridge is an alcohol free reservation.  However, alcohol abuse problems persist in spite of the alcohol ban.  Tribal leaders blame the Whiteclay retailers for selling alcohol to tribe members who in turn illegally consume it on Pine Ridge or in the streets of Whiteclay.  The tribe has filed a lawsuit against the retailers in Whiteclay, as well as the breweries and distributors, requesting that the court prohibit them from selling alcohol to Native Americans.

Alcohol abuse is undoubtedly a serious problem for the Oglala Sioux Tribe.  As noted in the linked AP article, nearly a quarter of all children born on the reservation suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.  Moreover, the average life expectancy for tribe members is estimated to be less than 52 years, which is about 25 years shorter than for average Americans.  As such, the lawsuit seeks damages for health care costs and other alcohol-related problems on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.  The tribe also wants a judge to prohibit alcohol sales to Native Americans in Whiteclay.

It is certainly interesting that the Tribe has taken the position that alcohol retailers in Whiteclay should discriminate against Native Americans who seek to legally purchase their products.  One can assume that most of the alcohol sold is being illegally smuggled by the purchasers back onto the reservation for consumption.  But do the retailers, distributors, or manufacturers have a legal duty to ensure the products are consumed off of the tribe’s reservation?  And how far would such a duty extend?  If tribe members started driving to the next closest town, would that town’s retailers also be required to refuse sales to Native Americans?

The defendants in the case have moved for summary judgment.  However, if the case is allowed to proceed it has the potential for far reaching problems in the future for beer companies.  As one of the attorneys pointed out in the AP article, if the lawsuit is successful it could force the beer manufacturers to analyze the sales data of all of its distributors and retailers to ensure that none are selling a disproportionate amount if its product.   Small college towns come to mind as other places where the quantity of alcohol sold could likely far exceed the amount expected based on the number of residents who are of drinking age.

This certainly seems to be a hot button issue in Nebraska.  There’s even been a documentary about the retailers and the problems in Whiteclay.  You can watch it here.

Sometimes, we here at Abnormal Use feel like we’ve seen it all, as far as crazy lawsuits go.  However, every now and then, a lawsuit comes along that makes us do a serious double take.  This is one of those cases.  A New Jersey couple fled their rental home just one week after moving in and is now suing for the return of their security $2,500 deposit.  The reason?  They claim the home is haunted.

Apparently, Josue Chinchilla and his fiancé, Michele Callan, thought they rented Jersey’s version of the Amityville Horror house. They claimed to have heard bizarre sounds and seen flickering lights. The couple also alleges that a voice whispered, presumably in an ominous fashion, “Let it burn!”  But it gets better (or worse depending on your viewpoint). Chinchilla says that once, a “shapeless dark apparition” tugged at the sheets when he was in bed and grabbed his arm.  The couple left the home one week after moving in, though they had paid a full month’s rent along with the security deposit.

In prosecuting the suit, the plaintiffs hired two sets of paranormal investigators.  These supernatural detectives say something is amiss at the home but disagree whether Chinchilla and Callan are plagued by a “residual haunting or an active haunting.” Now that’s a battle of the experts. I wonder if Plaintiff’s counsel will be able to get these two qualified under Daubert?

The landlord, orthodontist Richard Lopez, counter-claimed against the couple for breaking the lease.  Mr. Lopez’s attorney, David Semanchik, said his client has been renting the house to tenants for more than 10 years and this is the first time anyone has claimed the house is haunted. He thinks Callan and Chinchilla can’t afford the rent and are using the ghost story as cover.

We have to wonder if Mr. Semanchik considered counter claiming for the plaintiffs bringing the ghosts with them to the property?

Kids all across California are breathing a sigh of relief.  California Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer recently dismissed a proposed class-action suit that sought to stop McDonald’s from providing free toys in its signature “Happy Meals.”   As we previously noted, the lawsuit was filed by Monet Parham, a mother of two, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest who accused McDonald’s of unfair and deceptive practices in using toys to promote Happy Meals. The suit alleged  that McDonald’s “exploits very young children” and “harms their health by advertising unhealthy Happy Meals with toys directly to them.”  It further alleged that “children 8 years old and younger do not have the cognitive skills and the developmental maturity to understand the persuasive intent of marketing and advertising.”

This suit would have to rank among the most frivolous we’ve seen in a while.  The Happy Meal is clearly not “unfair” or “deceptive” with respect to the purchaser.  Now, we certainly agree that a bunch of 6 year old kids lack the cognitive skills needed to understand the world of marketing.  You know what else they lack?  The means to purchase a Happy Meal on their own.  It’s not like kids are marching out the front door, walking down the street to the local McDonald’s franchise, slapping down a crisp $10 bill on the counter , and asking for a Happy Meal without an adult of any kind involved in the transaction.  No, the parents are the ones making the decisions to purchase the Happy Meals and allow their kids to eat them.  They should certainly be able to figure out what’s going on.

Ms. Parham was actually quoted as accusing McDonald’s of “getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.”  She added, “This litany of requests [to eat at McDonald’s] is draining and very frustrating for children. I would like this practice to stop.”  Perhaps the prayer for relief in this case should have included training to assist Ms. Parham with saying “no” to her daughter.

We are glad to see the food police get shot down on this one.  Judge Kramer’s order did not give his reasoning, but you would think dismissing such a stupid lawsuit would be a no-brainer.  Then again, this is California we are talking about here.  Some parts of the state have already take it upon themselves to act as the parents and have attempted to ban the selling of toys in children’s meals that do not meet state nutritional guidelines.

Virbram, the maker of those funny looking “toe shoes” called FiveFingers, has been sued over claims made in its advertising relating to the purported health benefits of its products.  The FiveFingers shoes are meant to mimic barefoot running, which Vibram claims is actually healthier than running in a traditional shoes.  The class action lawsuit filed in federal court in Massachusetts alleges that Vibram made deceptive statements about the benefits of running barefoot.

According to the complaint:

“Defendants have claimed that running in FiveFingers, inter alia, improves posture and foot health, reduces risk of injury, strengthens muscles in feet and lower legs, and promotes spine alignment. Defendants have used these claims to charge a premium for FiveFingers that consumers readily paid, believing FiveFingers would confer upon them significant health benefits. Unbeknownst to consumers, Defendants’ health benefit claims are deceptive because FiveFingers are not proven to provide any of the health benefits beyond what conventional running shoes provide.”

Interestingly, the plaintiffs’ lengthy complaint repeatedly claims that the FiveFingers product causes injury, yet presents no scientific evidence to support this claim.  Basically, the plaintiffs argue that there are no studies to support Vibram’s claims.  The plaintiffs then turn around and present no science to dispute Vibram’s claim.  Plaintiffs don’t rely on any type of scientific and controlled testing that they expect of Vibram.  Instead, they offer on the same anecdotal “evidence” that they criticize Vibram for using.  They quote a story in which a podiatrist says that 85 percent of her patients sustained injuries trying to transition to minimalist shoes.  They, of course, fail to note that a podiatrist is unlikely to be examining runners who have not sustained some sort of injury.  They also fail to mention whether that podiatrist’s patients followed Vibram’s warnings against over training.

Where this suit goes from here could have wide reaching impact on the footwear industry.  Many other shoe companies have been jumping on the barefoot running bandwagon, including New Balance, Merrill, and Adidas.  These companies use technology similar to that of the Vibram FiveFingers.   Merrill seems to have  aggressive advertising materials similar to that of  Vibram.  However, New Balance and Adidas tend to make far less claims as to the benefits of barefoot running.

In the interest of full disclosure, I actually own a pair of FiveFingers and a pair of the New Balance Minimus.  I’m happy to report that haven’t sustained any running injuries while using theses shoes.  Then again, I don’t think anyone would accuse me over training.

This case gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “blow it out your rear.”  As we all learned in law school, there’s strict liability when a person or entity chooses to engage in ultrahazardous activities.  Classic examples of ultrahazardous activities include really dangerous things like imploding a building or transporting hazardous waste.  Well now, according to a lawsuit out of West Virginia, ultrahazardous activities should include firing bottle rockets out of your anus.

Yes, you read that correctly.  A West Virginia student allegedly fell off the deck at his fraternity house when his fraternity brother fired a bottle rocket out of his own anus.  The student alleges the firing of the bottle rocket startled him so much that he jumped back and fell off of the deck.  The lawsuit claims that “firing bottle rockets out of one’s anus, constitutes an ‘ultrahazardous’ activity.”

We don’t think there’s any dispute that this alleged activity is certainly dangerous for the party attempting the stunt.  In fact, the bottle rocket reportedly failed to launch and blew up in the defendant’s rectum.  But is this the kind of ultrahazardous activity envisioned by the law, such that a defendant is subject to strict liability?

According to the Restatement (2d) of Torts, section 520, in determining whether an activity is ultrahazardous, courts should consider: 1) high risk of harm; 2) inability to eliminate risk; 3) extent to which the activity is not common; 4) appropriateness of the place where the activity is conducted; and 5) balance of community value of the activity versus the dangerous attributes.  There are some interesting and funny arguments to be made for both sides. For instance, we envision an argument from the defendant claiming that if a frat house is not the appropriate place for this kind of shenanigans, what location might be?

This case is still in its early stages, but we are certainly hoping it makes it to trial.  It should be interesting.

Recently, a New York judge threw out a lawsuit by nine former students of New York Law School (NYLS) who accused the school of engaging in deceptive practices by inflating employment statistics to attract prospective students.  Even though NYLS won the battle, neither the school, the students, nor the legal profession in general came out looking too good.   The judge basically said that the school may be “lackluster” and the employment statistics may have been misleading (although not materially) but the students should have done their homework before plunking down over $100k on tuition.

Just by way of background, NYLS ranked #135 in the latest U.S. News & World Report law school rankings, which is only a few spots ahead of where the magazine stops assigning schools a number.  NYLS charges its students $47,800 per year in tuition and fees alone.  At least they seem to spell that one out in black and white on their website.

The crux of the disgruntled students’ lawsuit was that the school’s website and marketing materials would have led a reasonable consumer to believe that between 90 to 92 percent of the school’s graduates secured full-time jobs as lawyers within nine months of graduation.  However, in reality that percentage included students who only secured part-time legal jobs, as well as students who secured non-legal employment.  According to the complaint, only 40 percent of the school’s graduates had full-time jobs that required a law degree.  Ninety-two  vs 40 percent – minor details right?

Even if that detail was buried somewhere deep within the pretty NYLS brochures, the judge believed it was the students’ duty to dig deeper and find the hidden truth.   He held that “by anyone’s definition, reasonable consumers – college graduates – seriously considering law schools are a sophisticated subset of education consumers, capable of sifting through data and weighing alternatives.”

We particularly liked this tidbit from the judge: “It is difficult for the court to conceive that somehow lost on these plaintiffs is the fact that a godly number of law school graduates toil in the drudgery or have less than hugely successful legal careers.  NYLS applicants, as a reasonable consumer of a legal education, would have to be wearing blinders to not be aware of these well-established facts of life in the world of legal employment.”

Even after all this bad press, NYLS still publishes employment data that appears to be vague at the very least.  If you look at their current numbers, it is unclear how they define whether someone has a legal job.  They claim a job is a “legal position” if a JD is “required or preferred.”  What exactly is “preferred”? More importantly, there’s a number that is glaringly missing from all those stats: only 65 percent of 2010 NYLS graduates were employed as lawyers at the time the data was gathered.  After you remove the 5.7 percent of graduates “employed” as fellows, only 310 out of the 481 NYLS graduates are working in “legal positions” under the curious “JD required or preferred” standard.  Moreover, they don’t disclose how many of those 310 had full-time legal jobs.

We here at Abnormal Use tend to agree that prospective law school students should be smart enough to do some independent investigating and figure out whether a law school is truly a good investment for them.  It really only takes a few minutes of Google searching to reveal that most law school employment data is a somewhat of a sham.  However, we can’t help but wonder whether law students should be expected to dig deeper.  In this noble profession of law, shouldn’t a prospective student expect to be given honest, open, and candid information from the institutions charged with molding young lawyers?

USA’s “Fairly Legal” returned to the television airwaves this past Friday.  Having just spent a whole week on My Cousin Vinny posts, we felt no constraints in returning to pop culture and offering you this review of the second season premiere.  Last  year, we interviewed the show’s creator and then-producer Michael Sardo, which you can peruse here.  Sardo was replaced this season by producer Peter Ocko. Although it’s been some time since we here at Abnormal Use watched the show, we figured now was as good a time as any to revisit it.

As you may recall, “Fairly Legal” centers around a young mediator and former attorney named Kate Reed (Sarah Shahi) who works for a San Francisco law firm started by her late father.  As the series opened last year, Kate’s father had just died, leaving her and the firm to adjust to the loss.  To make things worse for Kate, the firm is now headed by her cold stepmother and new boss Lauren Reed (Virginia Williams).  Needless to say, the two of them,who are relatively close in age, by the way, don’t get along well.  As if this wasn’t enough, Kate is going through a divorce with her estranged husband Justin Patrick (Micheal Trucco), an assistant district attorney.

Directed by Anton Cropper, “Satisfaction,” the first episode of the new season, lacked a certain polish. Admirably, Ocko seems to be steering the show away from its mediation of the week formula in favor of a more detailed character study. However, much of  “Satisfaction” was still dominated by the central case of the week.  Kate attempts to mediate a chemical exposure case involving a plaintiff who wants not money but the truth. (We here at Abnormal Use are still waiting for a mediation like that).  Instead of impartially serving as a mediator, Kate scurries about the office doing her best Erin Brockovich impression.   Of course, as we noted in our review of the pilot, one of Kate’s flaws as a character is that she injects herself into the case when she is supposed to remain a neutral figure.  As we noted then:

Kate is an idealist. She shows up at one client’s house late one night and encourages him to “do the right thing” – something which is contrary to his own wishes and best interests. Her managing partner advises her that a non-client criminal defendant is not worth attention – and Kate responds sarcastically that she should “never let an innocent kid’s life stand in the way of our legal fees.” She lectures her district attorney ex-husband about justice and truth being higher than the laws that are held up as sacred and immutable. The difficulty she faces – and what is bound to become a central theme of the show – is her philosophy and its conflict with the daily back and forth of the legal profession (which she comes to understand are just as important, but not more, than her own idealism).

That said, if last season’s pilot was any indicator, there is an immense amount of confusion over the role of a mediator in the show.  Kate, at times, assists her firm’s clients, although in the pilot, she had gone so far as to resign from the bar, meaning she is no longer a lawyer.  As a mediator, she strays so far beyond the confines of that role that it is a wonder that she accomplished anything at all.  In fact, it is curious that after a year of such antics that she is continuing to receive mediation referrals in any way, shape, or form.

However, a bright spot in the episode was the addition of new character Ben Grogan (Ryan Johnson), an ambulance chaser type who strikes a deal to become a partner at the now struggling Reed & Reed (although we’re curious why this free wheeling and independent litigator would want to a join stuffy defense firm like Reed & Reed – or why a stuffy defense firm would find itself so troubled that it would join forces with a flamboyant Plaintiff’s attorney). Interesting story lines to come include the Reed & Reed firm facing financial distress and Justin’s confession of infidelity.  In the end, though, we suspect that if viewers possess any pre-existing knowledge of the inner workings of the legal system generally, or mediation specifically, this show, with its errors and misrepresentations, may offer only frustration.

If you’re still interested, the show airs Fridays at 9pm Eastern/8pm Central on the USA Network.  In case you missed this week’s episode (or any of last season), you can catch them all on Hulu.  They are on the books for 13 more episodes this season.

As you have probably gathered by now, we here at Abnormal Use are big fans of the movie My Cousin Vinny.  So we were elated to learn of the 1998 concept album, “Vincent LaGuardia Gambini Sings For Just You,” for which actor Joe Pesci resurrected the Vincent LaGuardia Gambini character to record fourteen tunes. We happily shelled out the $1.50 for a used copy on eBay and eagerly awaited its arrival.  As soon as it was delivered to our offices, we popped it into the old CD player for a listen. We hoped that it would offer the same sorts of humor and wisdom that the film did.  But our expectations were, shall we say, a bit too high under the circumstances.

Released in October of 1998, six and a half years after the film hit theatres, and produced by Tom “T-Bone” Wolk and the production duo of Poke & Tone, the album is, well, atrocious.  In fact, we think that’s putting nicely. (Relax, Mr. Pesci, we’re not saying you amuse us.).   Here’s a little taste of the type of music this CD features.  The linked track is titled “Yo Cousin Vinny.” Clever, eh? It’s the very first track of the album.  We suppose the record label execs thought an expletive-laden salsa tune with Pesci at the  helm was a recipe for success.   They were wrong.  Of course, perhaps we’re underestimating the album’s potential international appeal. The album also features Italian and Spanish language versions of the same “Yo Cousin Vinny” track. We neglected to check the late 1990s pop music charts, but we doubt the album was huge overseas. But it’s possible, right?

Whatever the thinking of the record execs, the remainder of Pesci’s concept album is no better than its first track.   Hardly amusing, the schtick boasts no relation to the movie whatsoever.  We were duped!  We want our $1.50 back!  However, we should note for the record that not everyone agrees with our take on the record, since it currently maintains a 4 star rating on Amazon.com. Who knew?

Interestingly, this album was not Pesci’s first foray into recorded music.  Back in the 1960’s, under the name Joe Ritchie, he released an album called “Little Joe Sure Can Sing!”  Don’t believe us?  Take a look:

Guess what? Thanks to the magic of the Internets, you can hear one of that ancient album’s tracks on the Internet.  Click here to hear his song, “Can You Fix The Way I Talk For Christmas?” You’re certain to recognize Pesci’s voice. Perhaps some day in the distant future we here at Abnormal Use will offer you a review of that forty year old record, but not today. We wonder if that Pesci from the 1960s ever suspected that three decades later he’d record an album based on one of his films. We’ll never know.

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

Aside from being a downright hilarious movie, My Cousin Vinny offers some interesting lessons for aspiring trial attorneys.  Some were intentional, some not, but either way, there’s some good stuff.  So, without further ado, here are six lessons learned from Vinny:

Lesson 1 – Pick Your Battles

Scene:  Vinny doesn’t ask any questions at the preliminary hearing.  His client, Stan, angrily asks, “Why didn’t you ask them any questions? Maybe if you’d put up some kind of a fight, you could have gotten the case thrown out!”  Vinny calmly responds, “Hey, Stan, you’re in Ala-f*&%in’-bama. You come from New York. You killed a good ol’ boy. There is no way this is not going to trial!”

Lesson:  Sometimes, as an attorney, you need to know when to pick your battles.  Of course, by this point in the movie, Vinny didn’t have all the great exculpatory evidence he acquired later.  However, Vinny is probably right that  there was no way the case would be resolved without a trial.  It may have been a smart move to play it close to the vest and not reveal too much of his trial strategy.

Lesson 2 – No Argument in the Opening Statement

Scene:  The prosecutor, Jim Trotter, delivers a textbook opening statement – a fine recitation of the prosecution’s version of the facts combined with a clever attempt to massage the  jury’s collective ego.  Then, Vinny stands and delivers his own rather brief opening statement:  “Uh . . . everything that guy just said is bullsh*t. Thank you.”

Lesson: You’ve been dying to deliver this same opening statement for years, haven’t you?  It’s punchy; it cuts right to the chase.  But alas, such a retort is an improper argument.  Perhaps Vinny should have saved that approach for his closing argument.

Lesson 3 – Match Your Negotiation Strategy to Your Opponent

Scene:  Vinny finds out his girlfriend got stiffed on a game of pool with some yokel.  He flies down to the pool hall to collect, and the yokel asks, “How ‘bout I just kick your ass?”  Vinny retorts, “Oh, a counter-offer. This is a tough decision here. Get my ass kicked or collect $200?  Well, here’s my counter-offer: What if I were just to kick the ever loving sh!t out of you? . . . If I was to kick the sh!t out of you, do I get the money?”

Lesson: So much for that “Getting to YES” model where everybody wins.  Vinny invokes the old school tradition in his negotiations. Sometimes, that works.  It’s all about knowing your opponent.  Some are unreasonable. There’s no getting to “yes” without cracking skulls and forcing them to into agreement.  Vinny’s method succeeded, and he eventually collected that $200.

Lesson 4 – Do Some Digging

Scene:  There’s a long montage where Vinny performs his own investigation into the case.  He has his girlfriend take some photographs along the way.  Vinny is clearly annoyed when she’s trying to show him the pictures in the middle of trial.  He starts ranting, “Where’d you shoot this, from up in a tree? What’s this over here? It’s dog sh!t… That’s great! Dog sh%t, what a clue! . . . I should’ve asked you along time ago for these pictures.”  But then he realizes there’s a picture of the tire tracks, which really is the case cracker.

Lesson:  Most of the time, the facts will make or break your case.  As an attorney, you can’t always wait for the facts and evidence to come to you.  Even when you think you’ve got everything you need, keep digging.  Get out there and visit the accident scene, personally inspect the physical evidence, and talk to everyone you think knows anything about the case.  You never know what you are going to find if you keep digging.  It sure paid off for Vinny in his trial, and some day, that same diligence may pay off for you in one of your cases.

Lesson 5 – Be Collegial with Fellow Attorneys

Scene:  At one point in the movie, Vinny and the prosecutor engage in friendly discussion about their entry into the legal profession.  Later in the film, the prosecutor takes Vinny on a hunting trip, lets him borrow his cabin, and even congratulates him after Vinny’s victory over him at trial.

Lesson:  It’s a given that you should be a zealous advocate for your client.  But that doesn’t mean you can’t be civil, or even friendly, with opposing counsel.  At the end of the day, you are both just doing your job.  As everyone knows, one’s profession is more enjoyable when you’re working with friendly and respectful people.  Two attorneys should be able to duke it out in the courtroom and then grab a drink together after the trial concludes.

Lesson 6 – Stay Calm

Scene: As Vinny’s defense of his clients begins to unravel, he asks himself, “How the f*&k did I get into this sh!t?”  Luckily, Vinny keeps it together and eventually earns his clients their freedom.

Lesson: For many attorneys, your first trial will feel just like this movie (although hopefully, it won’t be as bad in reality).  You’ll have things that will go way off course, and there will probably be a point where you feel like you’re in way over your head.  You may even start asking yourself “Am I cut out for this?” or “How did I get into this?”  Don’t despair. Stay calm and press on.  By your second or third trial, things will seem much better.

These are just a few of the lessons to be learned from My Cousin Vinny.   The next time you watch the movie, find a legal pad and take notes. There are many other lessons, such as proper courtroom attire, enunciation, candor toward the court, and the importance of procedural rules. It’s almost a law school course in and of itself.

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