We here at Abnormal Use and Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. hope that you and your family have a happy and eventful Thanksgiving. But not too eventful! Kick back and enjoy the time off! Let the billable work wait until Monday (or, if you simply must return to your desk and duties, until Friday). Although we usually present a comic book cover on holidays such as this, we direct your attention today to our official Thanksgiving card above. We hope you enjoy it, and we will see you in turn after the holidays. Don’t forget to watch some football!

Here we are again on the Monday before Thanksgiving. Accordingly, it’s time that we once again direct you to our 2010 Thanksgiving post entitled “Thanksgiving in 1810, 1910, and 2010.” Back then, in our early blogging days, we somehow unearthed a century old magazine article in which the writer, a resident of 1910, looked back 100 years and marveled at the incredible social and technological change that occurred in the previous ten decades. That writer also looked forward to 2010 and briefly speculated how we, as citizens of the 21st century, might look back at those who lived in his era 100 years before. That article struck such a chord with us, and it’s become a Turkey Day tradition for us. So, today, we remind you of it once again and direct you back to it 106 years after its publication. (That neat illustration above – and many others like it – comes directly from the 106 year old article.). Have a look, and let us know what you think.

We have some news here at Abnormal Use and Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A.  We’re very proud of our partners, John E. Cuttino, John T. Lay, Jr., and H. Mills Gallivan, who are currently serving as presidents of DRI, IADC, and FDCC, respectively. All three sitting defense bar presidents, all at one firm. We’re very proud of them, and we wish them the very  best!

Go. See. Arrival. At. The. Theatre. We here at Abnormal Use can’t recommend it enough.

We’re fans of Jeff Richardson, who runs the iPhone J.D. blog. Well, if you updated your iPhone software recently, you might have noticed an annoying new way in which the iPhone’s email organizes your electronic correspondence. Well, if you want to restore your iPhone’s email software to the old way, read Jeff’s article here.

Step 12 – Pace Yourself for a Marathon.

We have now reached the final step in Judge Carl Horn’s 12 Step program for lawyers.  If you have followed steps 1-11, then you are on your way to Step 12: Pacing Yourself for a Marathon. Following the previous steps suggested by Judge Horn will lead to our last goal of a sustainable pace.  In order to pace ourselves for the marathon, we should make it clear that quality of life matters and that while we intend to work hard and pursue excellence professionally, we are not going to sacrifice important relationships and other essential elements of a healthy, balanced life. Professor Dershowitz reminds us that striving for professional excellence is a good and worthy goal.  In sharp and important contrast, trying to achieve perfection is not. Dershowitz observes that “every book, painting, symphony, or speech could be improved. The search for perfection is illusory and has no end.”

Judge Horn closes his 12 step chapter with this encouragement: “Except for the extraordinarily well disciplined, and perhaps the most saintly, these are challenges and issues with which we can expect to struggle for the rest of our lives. But, thankfully, they are not impossible struggles, and if we diligently take these ‘steps’ we can realistically expect to move closer to our goal: finding balanced success and fulfillment in the practice of law.”

Judge Horn then concludes his book with a charge to the jury:

Now, members of the jury, the evidence is in, and it is your turn to deliberate. You have been introduced to the experiences of your fellow lawyers, some happy and some not so happy, and have seen what many are doing to find fulfillment in the practice of law, read more from source here to understand how to make your visit worth the time.. Members of the jury, it is solely up to you to address the issues that have been raised.   Please retire to your own personal and professional “jury rooms” and do your best to reach a unanimous verdict. When you complete your deliberations, you will not be discharged from further service.   Much to the contrary, your service on this jury is for life, or at least as long as you labor in the law. May you find the “wherewithal” to keep any commitments you have made and may we all be busy and happy engaging in what the law is essentially all about:  doing justice.

We hope you have enjoyed our weekly series on 12 Steps Toward Fulfillment in the Practice of Law. Judge Carl Horn wrote this as part of his book, Lawyer Life: Finding a Life and a Higher calling in the Practice of Law, published by the ABA in 2003. Horn’s focus was on the individual choices lawyers can make in their personal and professional lives for better satisfaction in our profession.

According to a recent report from the New York Post, New Yorker Bradley Moss has filed suit in the Manhattan Supreme Court seeking the recovery of a $125,000 engagement ring he gave to his ex-fiancee, Amy Bzura. The plan was for Moss and Bzura to wed back on October 29th, but the wedding was apparently called off at the last minute. No word as to the reason for ending the nuptials. Regardless, Moss is now seeking the return of the ring or its cash value plus interest as well as punitive damages. Lawsuits arising out of the predicament of the cancelled wedding engagement ring are nothing new. For reasons unknown, we here at Abnormal Use find them fascinating. Perhaps it is because they way these cases are often decided is the perfect blend of property law, soap opera, and reality television. In other words, the engagement ring cases are most-suitable for an episode of “Judge Judy.”

At common law, an engagement ring was considered a conditional gift given on the promise to marry. If the marriage did not occur, then the condition was not fulfilled and, thus, the ring shall be returned to the donor. This remains the law in many jurisdictions, including New York (but with a couple of exceptions). Other jurisdictions, however, have added a new twist to the conditional gift paradigm – fault. In other words, while an engagement ring is considered a conditional gift, a donor cannot recover the ring if he/she was at-fault for ending the engagement. Bring on the soap operas and reality TV.

We can understand the equity behind the introduction of fault to the analysis. However, the fault determination creates a couple significant issues. What is “fault” for ending a relationship, anyway? It isn’t always that clear from a legal sense. For example, what if two people are engaged to be married and one of the people gets a little too intoxicated at a bar one night and has a moment of infidelity. The cheater still wants to get married, but the other finds out about the affair and calls off the wedding. Is the cheater at fault or is it the other who said, “I don’t want to marry you?” If you think the answer is clear, remove the cheating aspect of the hypothetical and replace it with any other complaint. See how this might be a problem?

The question we have to ask ourselves is should juries really be deciding who is to blame for ending a relationship? More importantly, is this really something a jury wants to decide? Sure, it may be more entertaining than your average contract dispute, but, in our opinion, deciding who is to blame for ending a relationship is often an impossible task. After all, if one’s own peers can’t decide, what makes us think a jury of them wants to anyways?

We here at Abnormal Use and Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A. celebrate the heroism of our nation’s military personnel today, Veterans Day. As we do each year, today, we pause to reflect upon all of the sacrifices made by American servicemen and women and all they have done for the country, both in present times and years past. We thank them for their service and their sacrifices.

Step 11 – Be Generous with Your Time and Money.

Judge Carl Horn reminds us of “the inverse relationship between selfish materialism and happiness.” Specifically, Horn says that “devoting too much of our time and energy to acquiring will yield an opposite result.” While most of the writing in this area has a narrow focus on pro bono work, Horn’s point is a broader one. “Our primary point here is more selfish, namely, that being generous with our time and money will make us feel better about our profession and our lives generally. In a word, giving generously will make us happier.”

Judge Horn quotes legal commentator Steven Keeva on his encouragement to develop a “helping heart.” Keeva says “those who . . . have been revered for their wisdom and empathy . . . have often been people who believed that the very purpose of life is to be of service to others. Today’s lawyers, being overwhelmingly inclined to minimize the importance of their inner experience are more apt to see personal enrichment as their purpose, at least in their professional lives.”  

Judge Horn states that if fulfillment is one of our goals then “after we provide for ourselves and our families, we will get more satisfaction out of generously giving then we will from hoarding.” Lawyers who are fortunate enough to make more money than they need “should apply this important life lesson by taking Step 11, that is, by looking for opportunities to share their time, talents, and resources with others.” 

Next week is the last Step, Pace Yourself for a Marathon.   

Unlike strict liability and breach of warranty claims, any negligence based claims asserted by Plaintiffs will focus on the conduct of the defendant, as opposed to whether the defendant merely sold a defective product. Accordingly, arguments that the defendant merely acted as a middleman in the transaction are more effective (under the current state of South Carolina law) in defending any negligence based theories that are asserted. If the Plaintiff is unable to point to culpable conduct on the part of the defendant, the Plaintiff will be unable to prove a negligence based claim. This is particularly important because punitive damages are not available for strict liability and breach of warranty claims in South Carolina, while punitive damages are available in negligence based product liability claims (if the jury determines that a defendant’s conduct was willful, wanton, or reckless).

Accordingly, if the Plaintiff is unable to point to any wrongful acts or omissions on the part of the Defendant, the negligence claim will fail, as will the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

Recently, we here at Abnormal Use have become big fans of the reality show “Ink Master.” The show pits tattoo artists from across the country against each other to compete for a cash prize, and, in the current season, a guest spot at tattoo shops owned by the show’s judges, Chris Nunez and Oliver Peck. The show is currently in its 8th season, and it has been a huge success story from Spike’s channel lineup.

The success of a show about tattoo artists got us thinking. Why can’t we have a reality show with lawyers? Maybe one where they compete for a job at a big law firm in some big city. Well, guess what? There was, in fact, a reality show for lawyers competing for a “big time” legal job. But, unfortunately, a show about lawyers was not as entertaining to the masses as artists comparing their cover-ups of lower back tattoos. There were also nursing home abuse lawyer michigan in it.

The lawyer reality show, “The Partner,” aired on Fox way, way back in 2004. The show apparently lasted only one season, and there are few remnants of its existence on the Google search engine. (We here at Abnormal Use, as avid reality television fans, can recall watching the show, and as such, we can vouch for its existence). Reality TV World described the show as follows:

[T]he hour-long show, based on an idea by FOX reality programming executive Mike Darnell, will be eight to ten episodes in length and, similar to NBC’s The Apprentice, feature two competing teams. Unlike Apprentice however, rather than be divided by gender, the composition of the teams will be determined by the prestige of the contestants’ law schools — with Ivy Leaguers forming one team and graduates of “less prestigious” schools forming the other.

In each episode, the contestants conducted a mock trial of sorts in front of a jury. The jury determined the winning team, and the losing team had to face a judge who, in turn, would eliminate one of the attorneys from the competition. This process repeated each week until one contestant was left standing. According to the Reality TV World report, the winner was rewarded with a “position as a ‘partner’ in a major law firm.”

We must admit, the concept of the show sounds entertaining at the very least. (The show pre-dated this writer’s law life, and due to that small fact, it didn’t quite present the same intrigue at the time). While becoming a partner may be a bit much, in many ways, the competition isn’t too bad of an idea for hiring purposes. Certainly, observing lawyers in a courtroom (albeit a fake one) could be a more practical evaluator of an applicant’s potential to practice law than a law school transcript and a resume.  And, if the show is anything like every other reality show, you can probably discover who the jerks are as well so there is no fear of getting fooled during an interview. For repairs and installation of TV you could hop over to these guys.

On the other hand, “The Partner” is no more “real” than any other reality show. Even for trial lawyers, practicing law is so much more than stepping into a courtroom. We imagine the lawyer contestants of “The Partner” didn’t have any discovery or brief writing competitions. We doubt they were given the opportunity to earn immunity for the next elimination challenge if they could  be the first to find a case on Westlaw from the 1920s’ setting forth the elements of “assumpsit.” After all, who other than us legal nerds would have watched that, anyways?

Okay, so back in the 1980’s, when we here at Abnormal Use read comic books, we never really acquainted ourselves with Doctor Strange. Well, apparently, this weekend, we can remedy that issue and see the new Marvel film featuring that character. Anyone seen it yet?

Oh, and we heard that there was some baseball played this week. We’re not certain what to say about that.

If you’re on Twitter, be certain to investigate the brand new #PracticeTuesday hashtag for tips on appellate practice and more.

Our favorite legal tweet of the week is a real gem:

The time between clicking on an ECF email link to get an opinion and your browser loading the opinion is the longest period known to science

— Sean Marotta (@smmarotta) November 1, 2016