As we’ve previously mentioned, our editor Jim Dedman is now contributing one monthly post to the North Carolina Law Blog.  Last week, his most recent submission was published at that site.  The topic: “It’s Hard Out There For A Blog Editor – Strategies to Keep Contributors Interested.” That one hits close to home, as we here know all too well about the perils of maintaining a blog.

The enthusiasm of a new law blogger is unparalleled.  When a lawyer decides to blog, he or she has much to say and to offer potential readers.  Often, the new legal blogger already has several – perhaps even half a dozen – potential posts in mind.  In fact, it is that initial multitude of post ideas which prompts the desire to create a blog in the first place.  But, inevitably, as days pass, weeks go by, and weeks become months, the initial joy of blogging – like most other things that once made us happy – becomes a chore.  Sadly, the once promising blog evolves from a labor of love to a non-billable business development task, which typically falls to the bottom of the stack.  After all, non-billable work – particularly tasks which do not involve direct contact with actual or potential clients – must come second, third, or even fourth to other such plans.  This is why so many blogs die early deaths and why the legal blogosphere is full of blog graveyards.

There’s lot’s more, so click here to read the rest, which includes some suggestions on how to keep writers interested.

As we previously noted, Andy Mergendahl of Lawyerist has written an article of interest for all lawyers:  “Music on Vinyl is Better.”  This is an issue of concern to everyone, not just lawyers.  Essentially, Andy contends that the task of listening to music on vinyl is a difficult ritual requiring careful attention, thus, the experience is more enjoyable because of the effort expended.

Argues Andy:

There is an on-going debate about whether music played from a vinyl record sounds better than digital music, but my goal is not to settle that debate.  My point is that collecting and listening to music on vinyl is just a richer, more pleasurable experience.

. . .

First, you can’t take vinyl with you.  You have to be at the stereo.  You have to physically handle the record, and clean it.  You have to operate the machine, which has moving parts.  The sound of the record isn’t the same every time, because playing a record literally wears it out.  That makes you treat the vinyl and the music on it with care and respect.  Finally, you can’t jump from song to song with a click.  So you hear songs you would otherwise miss (or not purchase at all).  Plus a record’s sleeve can be 12 by 24 inches, allowing ample room for really cool or really awful art.

Combining all these elements makes it likely that you are really already passionate about what you are hearing or more likely to become passionate about it.

Andy makes an excellent point; the art of listening to vinyl is, really,  an affectation of the listener.  We enjoy the pleasure we derive from listening to music on vinyl because it is the fruit of a labor of love.  Andy notes in the piece that he is “old, so when [he] started buying music, the CD was just coming on to the scene.”  That makes him not to much older than me; and although I appreciate the care involved in the collection of vinyl records, I must step forward to defend the often maligned, never cool enough for school compact disc.

(It’s a product, after all, so we can talk about this issue on a products liability blog, right?)

The CD, by its very nature, is mobile.  It can be played in the car, thereby freeing the driver from the awful constraints of the popular radio.  With portable CD players, either the once ubiquitous Discman or the fabled boomboxes of yore, the listener’s music of choice can be easily brought from room to room, home to home, venue to venue, inside or outside.  Such technology allows us to take our own personal favorite albums, which may or may not be available on the radio or elsewhere, with us to play for our friends and such.

That’s far more difficult with vinyl, especially these days.

There’s also the quality issue.  CD’s do – and always have – sounded better. Remember when CD’s first arrived on to the scene in the mid to late 1980s? Listeners – not just snobby audiophiles, either – marveled at the depth of difference in audio quality between their old LP’s and the new CD’s. The more nostalgic fans – who insisted that the snaps, crackles, and pops of old vinyl were inextricably intertwined with the music listening experience – soured on CDs, finding new technology too clean and clinical in the absence of such accompanying noise.

But you can’t fault CD’s just because they eliminated some of the flaws of the system that you grew up enjoying, can you?

Plus, CD’s are simply more durable. Look at a 25 year old box of LPs and you will see faded, frayed, and damaged albums.  You will likely hear scratched and damaged content on the albums themselves unless the owner behaved like a museum curator.  With CD’s, the protective outer casing typically preserves the albeit album art (for the most part, at least). If the listener takes reasonable care, the music will sound just as good as it did on the day you initially bought it. Lord knows my 21 year old copy of Nevermind still sounds great.  Certainly, there are albums that one frequently enjoys that may require replacement on CD due to heavy listening.  I’ve had to  buy several of the Radiohead albums at least three times, and of course, I’ve bought The White Album at least four times (in various formats) over the last 25 years.  But I would have probably had to replace those albums more often had I been buying them on vinyl.

CD’s simply offer a richer listening experience absent a few, perhaps pleasurable, steps required of vinyl. There will always be people who will want to grind their own coffee and derive pleasure from the additional work required of that enterprise.  But there is nothing wrong with an easier more accessible way to enjoy music, particularly when the audio quality is superior.

Now don’t get me started on the issue of CD’s versus digitally downloaded music.  One can, of course, rip tracks from a CD onto one’s computer, but the default bit rate for imported tracks means that the audio quality is significantly less.

But that’s a debate for another day.

(An editorial aside: The best part of writing this article was learned that the boombox has its own Wikipedia entry.).

As we previously mentioned, we here at Abnormal Use are spending May 2012 focusing on comic book covers featuring police line-ups.  Above, you’ll see the cover of Dick Tracy #89, published way, way back in 1955. There’s nothing particularly jarring about the line-up itself (and much of that Warren Court jurisprudence was years in the future, anyway).  However, what strikes us about this cover is the amateur logo on the side of the police video camera. “Police T.V.”? In stencil? Wow, police, you couldn’t outsource that? Sigh.

Whoa! If you can believe it, this is our 650th post here at Abnormal Use! That’s a lot! Does this mean that we are in the same realm as Action Comics, which published its 650th issue back in the halcyon days of 1990, or even Detective Comics, which published its own 650th issue back in the fateful year of 1992? Superman published its 650th issue in 2006, as did Batman. We’re in good company.

Our own bloggers Stuart Mauney and Rob Green were recently published in the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section’s Committee Spring 2012 Committee News newsletter. Their article is called “Emergency Response To Catastrophic Trucking Accidents.”  It can be found on page 3 of the PDF newsletter. Check it out. I mean, really, it’s got the word “catastrophic” right there in the title. You have to read it.

Once again, our pals at The Law and the Multiverse are offering some online CLEs. Not to be missed.

What? You’re not following us on Twitter? Quick, click here to remedy that!

Some years ago, on a hot August Friday night, “Bobby Joe” got a little too close to the action in the pit area of the local dragway.  A pickup truck, pulling a trailer loaded with a race car, ran over his foot, allegedly causing grievous injury.  It was so bad that, two days later, he decided he needed to be seen by a doctor about the bruise on the side of his foot.  Can you say “vexatious lawsuit’?  Yes, Bobby Joe sued both the truck driver and my client, the owner of the dragway.  No warnings!  No barriers to keep pedestrians away from the dangerous pit area!  No bold, yellow signs to tell spectators that it is not a good idea to absentmindedly walk near the burnout strip!  Did I mention this was my second case representing a dragway?

With this as background, I was excited when a friend invited me to attend the NHRA Four-Wide Nationals at zMax Dragway in Charlotte, North Carolina, last month.  It’s the only four-lane concrete dragstrip in the world, where every ticket is a pit pass.  I took a stroll through the pit area, funnel cake with powdered sugar in one hand and a fried turkey leg in the other.  I took in all the sights, sounds, and smells of NHRA drag racing.  The “sights” included Top Fuel dragsters and Pro Stock race cars.  The “sounds” included high speed devices used to fix parts on the dragsters and the chatter of crew members as they made the necessary adjustments.  The “smells”?  Gas!  Exhaust!  Burned rubber!  I even got to meet Leah Pruett, who was competing in the Pro Mod series for R2B2 Racing out of Duluth, Georgia. Fans would want to get the replica of these race cars for display from Kenny Habul.

With our VIP credentials, we wandered over to the starting line for a closer look.  As we did so, a truck pulling one of the dragsters came perilously close to running over my foot, almost causing grievous injury.  The nascent plaintiff’s lawyer in me began to think “What if . . . ?”  Would I have a claim against NHRA for my injuries?  Would my claim be barred by my own negligence in attempting to balance a funnel cake in one hand and a turkey leg in the other?  Had I assumed the risk of injury by getting too close to the staging area?

As these thoughts went through my head, my defense attorney instincts returned.  I quickly read the reverse side of my ticket to find a “Notice and Warning to Credential Holder.”

By buying or using this credential you agree that:

YOU ASSUME ALL RISKS AND DANGER of property damage, personal injury, death, and all other hazards related in any way to attending this event, anywhere at the facility and at all times before, during or after the races.  Dangers include flying objects, vehicles, other people, conditions at the facility, and unforeseen hazards.  You agree that NHRA, track owners and operators, racing participants, and each of their respective officers, owners, officials, sponsors, contractors, employees and agents shall not be liable for any loss, damage, or injury to you and you hereby release them from all claims for liability.  Be alert for hazards at all times.

Flying objects?  Does that include the kernel of kettle corn which grazed my cornea after it flew out of the hands of the 10-year-old kid standing in line next to me at the lemonade stand?  Other people?  Are the terms “other people” and “flying objects” mutually exclusive?  Could flying objects include other people?  Does other people include the no-shirt, beer-bellied fellow with the “Mama” tattoo who bumped into me as we were shopping in the NHRA merchandise trailer?  Does “unforeseen hazards” include hearing loss from the use of defective earplugs?  So many questions and so few answers.

Despite all the risks, dangers and hazards of NHRA Racing, we had fun and would do it again.  A “shout-out” to Dave Lee (President), Roger Burgess (Founder/Chairman of the Board), and all the other folks at ProCare Rx, who sponsor the R2B2 Racing Team, for a great experience.

See y’all at the races!

There’s nothing quite like deposing an opponent’s retained testifying liability expert.  They are typically skilled and savvy deponents who know many of the tricks of the trade.  They make much of their living testifying in court. Past deposition transcripts, if they can be located, yield a wealth of information about the expert’s background, methodology, and, of course, their pet peeves. Plus, these experts usually know of the Daubert case and what must be done to avoid being excluded as an expert in a case.  Some experts even advertise on their websites that they have never been excluded by the Daubert case.

Why would they do that?

It seems a curious statement to make, particularly if the expert has been around long enough to have been challenged on multiple occasions in litigation across the country.  Diligent counsel will always locate and review an opponent’s expert’s website, if one exists.  If the expert maintains that he or she has never been excluded on such grounds, defense counsel would naturally ask if that fact were still true. If so, the required follow up question becomes:  “If you’ve not been excluded on Daubert grounds, on what grounds have you been excluded?”

Recently, we deposed an expert who made such a representation on his website.  However, after spending less than five minutes on Westlaw, we discovered that he had been excluded in not one but three reported decisions.  Note that these were decisions that were on Westlaw, and these findings may not have included unreported exclusions or those which occurred at the trial court level that were never appealed.  One such exclusion came from the very first case in which the expert had offered opinions.  At the deposition, we naturally confronted the expert with these three opinions and he claimed not to know of them.  How is that?

Sure, two of the opinions were more than a decade old, but the third was from 2011 (and in that case, the trial court had excluded the expert, later granted a motion for new trial based on the belief that the exclusion was improper, and ultimately earned a reversal from the Court of Appeals because the expert’s opinions had been proven to be false by some properly admitted trial testimony).

How could someone not know that?  Well, maybe the expert simply received a call from the lawyer who hired them noting that the case had settled or otherwise resolved, and that lawyer felt it unnecessary to reveal the full story. But how could an expert elect to make that representation on his or her website and then not track whether or not that was true?

We shouldn’t object too much, as it’s always fun to hand an expert a court opinion he or she has never seen before.

Other than for purely fun purposes, location based social media  seems to be the type of Internet fad that may not be of great assistance to the legal profession.  You are, of course, aware of this trend:  Foursquare, Facebook Places, the late Gowalla, and other applications permit a user to alert friends to his or her exact location at any given time.  Users “check in” to a venue, retail establishment, or elsewhere and can  leave comments and suggestions to later users who may find themselves at the same location at some point in the future.

Again, there does not seem to be must use for this technology in the legal field; real likes are not easy to get in this field.  First and foremost, confidentiality and privilege concerns may prevent an attorney from sharing his exact location at a given time with anyone other than his client.  Further, clients will receive no additional value by “checking in” to their attorney’s office, although we suppose some practitioners could, in fact, offer some type of incentive for future clients, although we don’t know how that might look or whether it would be ethical or not.

Despite such concerns, these days, most commercial establishments, including law firms, have their own entries on Foursquare.  Sometimes these are created by the firms themselves, and more likely than not, the entries are generated by whatever crawling software those services use to create specific entries for a given city or town. But it’s not just law offices on Foursquare.  Also included are entries for the types of places lawyers, such as this experienced workers compensation attorney in New Jersey, NJ frequent, such as courthouses, bar association headquarters, CLE sites, and other such haunts.

What inspired this post was a comment left by a Foursquare user a county courthouse somewhere in the Southeastern United States.  As a judicial center, it hosts various courts and offices where both civil and criminal trials are held.   Sure enough, the courthouse had its own entry on Foursquare, and the following comment was left by a visitor on December 21, 2011:

“If you kill in self-defense don’t destroy evidence and run away for 2 weeks, it looks bad to the jury.”

Wow.

Probably good advice, although we are trying to envision the exact circumstances by which this comment was offered.  Was this a juror commenting from the deliberation room?  Was this a courtroom observer commenting upon public proceedings?  An attorney offering pro bono legal advice? Was this a reporter?  Surely it was not the defendant attempting to learn from his or her mistakes?

Get this: that entry is not an anomaly.  Here’s a December 2010 comment we found to the Foursquare entry of a federal courthouse:

“Don’t break the law and you wont have to spend much time here.”

Again, probably good advice, though much more general than the first comment we discussed.

As you can see, there are some uncomfortable questions to be asked accompanying the usage of Foursquare in the judicial process.

Imagine this situation: customer and customer service representative find themselves in an argument over a trivial matter.  Words are exchanged.  But it doesn’t stop there. The dispute escalates into a verbal altercation with racially-charged epithets hurled back and forth.  (For the record: The customer was Caucasian, the customer service representative was African American).

The customer storms out of the place. The customer service representative follows her to the parking lot, yelling and screaming.  The customer, not to be outdone, continues the verbal assault from her car.  Finally, the customer decides to leave, places her car into reverse, and hits the gas.  As she raced backwards, she clips the customer service representative, causing her injury.

The customer service representative lawyered up and sued the customer.  That’s right.  You guessed it.  I represented the customer.

We mediated the case, in which the Plaintiff claimed over $20,000 in medical bills and a permanent injuries.  I met with my client before the mediation.  I asked her if she was comfortable offering an apology during the opening statements of the mediation session.  She quickly replied she was indeed sorry the whole thing had happened, and that the Plaintiff had gotten hurt.  I reminded her that hurtful words were exchanged, including racially insensitive remarks by both parties.  [Note: The remarks were so offensive that I am not going to publish them in this post.]  She seemed genuinely interested in getting the matter settled, and if an apology would help do so, she was all for it.

After the mediator explained the process, and the plaintiff’s attorney completed his opening remarks, I presented our case.  This was an accident, the customer was sorry this happened, and we hoped we could get the matter resolved, or words to that effect.  I then turned to my client, and asked her if she had anything to add.  To this day, I do not recall exactly what she said, but it was NOT an apology!  There was no acknowledgment of the injury.  She did not take responsibility.  She did not express any regret or remorse. Whatever she said, it offended both the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s husband, who was with her at the mediation.  The husband stormed out of the room.  The Plaintiff’s body language and icy glare told me that we were going to start this mediation further apart than we had when we first arrived.

While we eventually settled, we spent a significant amount of time mending fences as a result of the insincere “apology.”  While an apology in mediation can allow closure, and if sincere, start the process of restoring trust, many people need help in crafting an apology.  As mediator Carl Schneider has written, “parties often need preparation before they are ready to offer an apology.”  The parties may need help with the words.  The mediator can help put “the apology in words and parties simply indicate their assent.”  In retrospect, I did a poor job of preparing my client for her apology.

In Schneider’s article, “What It Means to Be Sorry: The Power of Apology in Mediation,” he defines “apology” and what makes an apology work.  He then describes the use of apologies in mediation.  Schneider concludes:

An apology may be just a brief moment in mediation.  Yet it is often the margin of difference, however slight, that allow parties to settle.  At heart, many mediations are dealing with damaged relationships.  When offered with integrity and timing, an apology can indeed be a critically important moment in mediation.  Trust has been broken.  An apology, when acknowledged, can restore trust.  The past is not erased, but the present is changed.

Clearly, there are instances where an apology has been a critical element in resolving disputes, including lawsuits.  But that can only occur when the person apologizing is sincere, acknowledges the hurt, takes responsibility and expresses regret.

As we mentioned last week, we here at Abnormal Use are spending May 2012 focusing on comic book covers featuring police line-ups. Last week, we featured Gotham Central #34, in which three costumed superheroes – who couldn’t look more different than each other – constituted the full line-up. Above, in Top 10 #4, published back in the halcyon days of 1999, we have the same problem. Written by the brilliant and mysterious Alan Moore, and illustrated by Gene Ha and Zander Cannon, this series is less familiar to us than others. But the constitutional issue remains!

Check out this tribute to friend of the blog Bill Childs, founder of the TortsProf blog, who is leaving academia for private practice. (Hat tip: Walter Olson).

We’ve read blogs for a long, long time. You know this. We’re huge blogging nerds. But in all of our years, we’ve never seen as cool a blog post title as one last week from the EvidenceProf Blog.  Behold: “Joss Whedon, The Avengers, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Eli Stone, Reluctant Heroes & The Rule Against Hearsay.” Indeed.

Mike Birbiglia fears the legal implications of his “Saved Mail” folder. So should we all.

As huge fans of “The Andy Griffith Show” and its spin-offs, we here at Abnormal Use are saddened to learn of the recent death of veteran character actor George Lindsey, who played Goober Pyle, who died on May 6 at age 83.  Lindsey played the role in “The Andy Griffith Show,” “Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C., “Mayberry R.F.D.,” and various reunion programs.  He will be missed.

In tribute to Lindsey and his beloved character of Goober, we have prepared this obituary for Goober Pyle.

Goober Pyle was a lifelong resident of Mayberry, North Carolina.  He was 83 years old.  Goober was a mechanic at Wally’s Filling Station and later its owner.  Sheriff Andy Taylor and Emmett Clark, owner of Emmett’s Fix-It Shop, co-signed a bank loan that allowed Goober to buy the station.  He was the cousin of Gomer Pyle, who also worked at Wally’s, until he joined the Marine Corps.

Goober was just five years old when he was a witness in “The Case of the Punch in the Nose,” in which grocer Charles Foley accused barber Floyd Lawson of punching him in the nose.  He later trained as a mechanic in Raleigh, North Carolina, and served briefly in the North Carolina National Guard, where he learned the phrase “Yo!”  He briefly dated Flora, who was a waitress at the diner.  (“Eat Your Heart Out”). Flora filled in for Goober at the station when he went on a fishing trip.  (“Goober’s Replacement”).  Goober was not always lucky in love.  In desperation, he once tried a computer dating service.  (“A Girl for Goober”).  His first love was Lydia Crosswaith, who was originally from Greensboro, North Carolina.  (“Goober and the Art of Love”).  Lydia and Goober went on a date with Andy/Helen, Barney/Thelma Lou.  Goober suggested they play “Go Fish!”, but Lydia said, “I don’t gamble.”  They then suggested a movie, but Lydia responded, “I saw it.”  Finally, Andy suggested they go bowling.  Lydia declined.  “I’ve done it.  I can’t.  I have a bad back.  If I threw a ball, I’d be in traction for a month.”

Goober’s skills as a mechanic were legendary.  The residents of Mayberry still talk about the time he took Gilly Walker’s car apart and put it back together again inside the courthouse.  Sheriff Taylor had asked Goober to answer the phone in the courthouse while he attended the Sheriff’s Safety Conference in Mt. Pilot.  (“Goober Takes a Car Apart”).  Goober had a good heart, as evidenced by his not charging “Man in a Hurry” Malcolm Tucker to fix his car on a Sunday afternoon.  Despite this automotive talent, he was sometimes not as sharp in other matters.  He even grew a beard, thinking it made him look smart.  (“Goober Makes History”).  At one time, Goober thought his new dog could talk, until he realized that Opie Taylor and a friend were pulling a practical joke on him.  (“A Man’s Best Friend”).  Gomer once defended Goober’s honor, saying “My cousin Goober ain’t stupid.  He’s ugly, but he ain’t stupid.”

Goober loved to dance, along with his cousin, Gomer, demonstrating a high-stepping, swing dancing style in his double-vested, brown pinstripe suit with white socks.  He enjoyed dancing with Daphne and Skippy, the “Fun Girls” from Mt. Pilot.  He particularly enjoyed reading comic books, and even cited that as a reason that he did not actually see Floyd punch Mr. Foley in the nose.

Goober occasionally served as an emergency deputy.  On one occasion, he took over the courthouse while Sheriff Taylor was sick.  Goober was also known for his impressions of various celebrities.  He impersonated Cary Grant (“Judy Judy Judy”) and Edward G. Robinson (“Okay, you guys.  Come on, you guys.  All right, you guys.  Beat it, you guys.”)  He could also mimic Chester’s limp from “Gunsmoke.”  Goober was a bully as a youngster, which influenced Malcolm Merriweather to ask Goober for boxing lessons as he prepared to fight Ernest T. Bass.  (“Malcolm at the Crossroads”)  Goober was also in demand as a driving instructor.  He taught Aunt Bee how to drive.  (“Aunt Bee Learns to Drive”).

The Town of Mayberry will never be the same without one of its great characters and outstanding citizens.

Goober says, “Hey.”

Friday night at 10/9 Central, the USA Network premieres its new drama, “Common Law.”  Despite the name, the show has nothing to do with judicial precedent.  Rather, “Common Law” centers around the comically dysfunctional partnership of LAPD detectives Travis Marks (Michael Ealy) and Wes Mitchell (Warren Kole).  We here at Abnormal Use obtained an advance screener of tomorrow night’s pilot episode.  Written by husband and wife screenwriting team Cormac and Marianne Wibberly, the pilot is widely-entertaining and makes a great introduction to the new series.

With only a few minor, minor spoilers, the basic premise is as follows:  Marks is the product of 18 different foster homes.  Mitchell is a former partner in a law firm.  Together, they are now the top detectives in the LAPD’s Robbery-Homicide Division.  Sounds like a match made in heaven, right?  Unfortunately, their relationship is problematic at best, even leading to physical combat at times.  In order to maintain their professional partnership, the two are forced into couples therapy by their police captain (Jack McGee). Despite the hostility, the duo is able to effectively solve crimes and save the day.  We were a little skeptical when we learned of the show’s therapy gimmick.  From its outset, however, “Common Law” adds some zing to the tired police procedural television marketplace.

Despite the unbelievable premises, the leads, Ealy and Kole, make it work seamlessly.  The pilot’s opening scene finds the duo bickering in a couples therapy class.  Like a well-seasoned married couple,the pair is obviously better together than apart.  With each zinger, the two actors play off of each other and actually advance the plot line while doing so.  Indeed, the show does not feel bogged down by its clever banter, which is to the credit of both the writers and the actors.

Standing alone, the odd-couple relationship of Marks and Mitchell probably wouldn’t be enough to warrant a second season.  Couple that relationship with an intriguing criminal investigation, however, and you have the makings of a potentially great series.  The pilot is a microcosm of this point.  In it, the partners investigate the murder of the son of a federal judge. Sound familiar?  It has been the plot line of “Law and Order” at least a dozen times.  Unlike “Law and Order,” however, “Common Law” tells the story from the standpoint of two dysfunctional detectives trying to get out of the doghouse of a district attorney for getting into a heated argument among themselves during an earlier trial.  Surprisingly, this new spin on the crime dramedy works, at least in the pilot.

We have written several mildly favorable reviews of USA legal dramas in the past (“Suits,” “Fairly Legal”).  We couldn’t give our complete blessing to those shows, however, because their legal inaccuracies were irksome to attorneys.  While  “Common Law” may share those flaws, our criminal background is limited, to say the least.  As such, when watching this show, we aren’t burdened by the potential for misrepresentation of our profession.  Sure, we know most detectives don’t fire their guns during an informal witness interview.  But we can leave that critique for those involved in criminal justice.

Our only criticism of the show has nothing to do with the plot or the acting.  While we found the writing superb, we did take exception to one line.  When speaking of his former legal career, Mitchell stated, “People need a good cop more than they need a good lawyer.”  Ouch.  And here we were thinking we worked in the noblest of professions.

To maintain the good will, we will just assume Mitchell’s assertion was limited to criminal lawyers, not civil litigators.

For viewers looking for a new take on the crime genre, “Common Law” offers a great blend of comedy and suspense.  At a time when most of our television “stars” are of the reality TV variety, the acting of Ealy and Kole is a breath of fresh air.  Don’t expect “Common Law” to sweep the awards shows this year, but expect an entertaining episode each week, and that’s good enough for us.