Recently, I found myself engaged in conversation with a past – and possibly future – legal blogger. The person in question – a lawyer who once regularly maintained a legal blog – had decided to abandon his site, perhaps due to lack of interest, perhaps due to lack of time. However, during the conversation, this former blogger revealed that he ultimately wished to return to the legal blogosphere. He had recently wiped the archives of his former blog from his site, but he wished to start anew with a fresh perspective and approach.

The dilemma: How to do so? And if so, when? It’s hard out there for seasoned blog writers and editors. As we here at Abnormal Use previously noted:

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.

As noted above, the issue confronted by this legal blogger is similar to those who wish to start their first blog, as well. The task of creating a site and regularly contributing to it is daunting. We, as lawyers and writers, tend to think of a blog post as a tedious task on our daily checklist; something that we must stop what we are otherwise doing in order to place ourselves in front of the computer, stare at a blank screen, and hope above all things that a topic materializes in our mind. But as we have noted before, it is a much easier task than that.

We, as lawyers, have a myriad potential posts in us. Any anecdote, complaint, legal pet peeve, war story, or off-hand thought on the latest court opinion can itself become a blog post. Any story that we have told at a party, over dinner, or at lunch with colleagues is fodder for a legal blog. Further, one’s immediate – or reasoned – reaction to another’s blog post is, itself, a potential blog post. In fact, it may be that once a lawyer begins to think of all of these things as blog posts that many such topics will come naturally.

Here at Abnormal Use, we have certainly utilized this approach. In addition to covering the latest products liability court opinions, we also discuss the perils of pop culture references at depositions, legal pet peeves, the existential dilemma prompted by one’s temporary loss of an iPad, and Foursquare check-in’s at state and federal courthouses. Of course, we have also written about the state and federal products liability jurisprudence, social media discovery, and the latest recall news. But’s all fair game and good blog fodder.

You may recall that we recently expressed some surprise when a defense firm’s social media discovery at issue in a recent Kansas case referenced Orkut, Google’s social media network.

The request for production at issue in that case read as follows:

Request No. 15: All documents constituting or relating in any way to any posting, blog, or other statement you made on or through any social networking website, including but not limited to Facebook .com, MySpace.com, Twitter.com, Orkut.com, that references or mentions in any way [The Defendant] and/or the matters referenced in your Complaint.

At the time, we quipped: “How curious to see a reference to Orkut in a social media discovery case! We wonder if the defendants had specific knowledge that the Plaintiff used Orkut or if that social media platform simply appears in all of their discovery requests.” As you might suspect from our comment, Orkut has always been a bit of an obscure network, never reaching the popularity of Facebook or Twitter.

Well, on July 5, 2014, just a few weeks after our posts referencing the social network, Orkut sent out an email (entitled “A Farewell To Orkut”) to its users. It read:

After ten years of sparking conversations and forging connections, we have decided it’s time for us to start saying goodbye to Orkut. Over the past decade, YouTube, Blogger and Google+ have taken off, with communities springing up in every corner of the world. Because the growth of these communities has outpaced Orkut’s growth, we’ve decided to focus our energy and resources on making these other social platforms as amazing as possible for everyone who uses them.

We will shut down Orkut on September 30, 2014. Until then, there will be no impact on you, so you may have time to manage the transition. You can export your profile data, community posts and photos using Google Takeout (available until September 2016). We are preserving an archive of all public communities, which will be available online starting September 30, 2014. If you don’t want your posts or name to be included in the community archive, you can remove Orkut permanently from your Google account. Please visit our Help Center for any further details.

It’s been a great 10 years, and we apologize to those of you still actively using the service. We hope you will find other online communities to spark more conversations and build even more connections for the next decade and beyond.

With respect to litigation, this development suggests that lawyers should investigate claimants’ Orkut usage, if any, with all deliberate speed before the service ends later this year. Additionally, lawyers referencing Orkut in their discovery requests may want to update their forms in the coming months. Goodbye, Orkut.

Oh, and by the way, we referenced Orkut in our 2013 April Fool’s Day post.

Tonight, FX airs the first two episodes of “Partners,” a new legally themed sitcom starring television veterans Kelsey Grammer and Martin Lawrence as two unlikely law partners. Created by Robert L. Boyett and Robert Horn, “Partners” looks and feels like a tired sitcom of the eighties or nineties made modern only by occasional references to Twitter. Although the laugh track did its best to assist, “Partners” is not particularly amusing, a fault which must be assigned to the writers, as both Grammer and Lawrence have generated huge laughs in the past with much better material. Further, as you might imagine, “Partners” does not go out of its way to accurately depict the legal profession or the daily working lives of practicing attorneys. In the end, it’s a silly premise with a silly execution. Warning: Spoilers abound in the review below.

Grammer plays Allen Braddock, a 20 year veteran lawyer fired by his father from a prestigious Chicago law firm. We are told that he practices civil, criminal, and corporate law (and apparently, family law, as well, as we see) with a “success rate” of “89 percent.” His employment prospects are now grim,  as he is told by a former colleague that his father has poisoned the minds of the local bar such that “no respectable firm will hire [him] now.” Shortly after his termination, Braddock is summoned to a local courtroom by a judge seeking to sanction him for his abhorrent conduct during a past trial (which, incidentally, he won). The judge – who accuses Braddock of “misdirection, hiding behind technicalities, and something that was a very close cousin of jury tampering” – sanctions him by assigning him a handful of pro bono cases.

Meanwhile, Lawrence plays Marcus Jackson, an idealistic solo practitioner and community activist who has fallen on hard times. Now living with his mother and facing a devastating divorce, Jackson blames himself for the end of his twenty-two year marriage in part because he spends too much time at his law office. Choosing to represent himself in the divorce proceeding, Jackson has adopted a defeatist attitude and agreed to a settlement in which his wife will receive “70 percent of [his] assets and half of [his] law practice.” Appearing in court immediately after Braddock’s sanctions hearing, Jackson earns the sympathy of the judge, who continues the divorce hearing so that Jackson might obtain a more favorable settlement. After the hearing, Braddock and Jackson meet, and ultimately, Jackson agrees to retain Braddock to represent him in the divorce if Jackson will handle to pro bono cases previously assigned to Braddock. Thus begins the fractious relationship which ultimately leads to the two lawyers becoming law partners at the episode’s conclusion.

Much of the narrative is dedicated to Braddock and Jackson purportedly learning from each other as they trade insults about each other’s various differences. Rounding out the cast are Rory O’Malley as paralegal and law student Michael, Telma Hopkins as Jackson’s mother, Ruth, Edi Patterson as Jackson’s ambitious office manager and investigator Veronica, Danièle Watts as Jackson’s daughter, Laura, and McKaley Miller as Braddock’s annoyingly bratty step-daughter, Lizzie. At least in the first two episodes, we are not introduced to Jackson’s estranged wife or Braddock’s lawyer father.

Directed by Grammar, the pilot (titled “They Come Together”) primarily sets the stage to bring the two protagonists together. After Braddock agrees to represent Jackson, the two lawyers surreptitiously visit the residential quarters of a local church where Jackson’s wife volunteers and now live. (Some students of the law might call this “trespass.”).  They ultimately find themselves in Jackson’s wife’s bedroom – breaking and entering, anyone? – where they discover evidence of her infidelity. Thus, armed with this new evidence of an extramarital affair, Braddock is able to secure for Jackson a more equitable divorce settlement (and convince Jackson to move on from the experience). No one seems to question how the evidence was obtained or whether it was done so properly.

Directed by Joe Regalbuto, the second episode, “Let’s Have A Simple Gwedding,” centers around Braddock and Jackson’s pro bono assistance of a gay couple whose purportedly elite wedding planner has provided substandard services. Rather than crafting a demand letter threatening to sue the wedding planner for deceptive trade practices, Braddock and Jackson pose as a gay couple and “stage a fake consultation” in an effort to secure evidence of the wedding planner’s wrongdoing. When that approach fails, the two stage a fake wedding reception during which they find evidence that the wedding planner is “repurposing funeral arrangements,” recycling airplane food,  and pouring wine-in-a-box into far more expensive bottles. The lawyers obtain a refund for their clients and inform them that the wedding planner now faces “six months behind bars.” Apparently, all of this effort is provided by the firm at no cost to the clients, despite the fact that the clear evidence of fraud on the part of the wedding planner might lead to punitive damages or the recovery of attorneys fees under various deceptive trade practices and/or consumer protection statutes. So much for Braddock’s ability to generate revenue for the new firm!

Sadly, “Partners” appears to be another hackeyned sitcom with all the familiar tropes. Further, the writers and producers of “Partners” seem only to know of the practice of law from other bad televisions. Back in 2013, we here at Abnormal Use wondered why television programs so rarely depict discovery in civil litigation. In so doing, we speculated:

Is it that the writers of legal television shows themselves only know of our industry from other bad legal television shows?  Is it that the a program’s advisers do not have the breadth of legal experience to provide such anecdotes to the production?  Or is it that the traditional formula of a legal TV show is so well established and ossified that any deviation therefrom would simply require extra effort?

Really, both “cases’ depicted in the the episodes – Jackson’s divorce action and the potential claims against the wedding planner – cry out to be litigated. However, the writers prefer to treat the litigators as would-be detectives venturing out into the world to gather clues under false pretenses rather than as lawyers developing facts through a formal investigation or the discovery process. This is especially curious as the show has gone to great lengths to establish the existence of a competent non-lawyer investigator at the firm.

As a consequence, lawyer viewers may groan often as the narrative unfolds.

A few other notes on the show’s depiction of the legal process and the practice of law:

There are many, many “Lawyer As Witness” issues, meaning that Jackson and Braddock should be disqualified from representing their clients after becoming fact witnesses themselves.

How does Braddock determine that his “success rate” is “89 percent,” particularly when he practices across some many different areas?

How cynical a show is this that the judge “sanctions” Braddock by assigning him pro bono cases, as if pro bono cases exist as a deterrent to bad behavior?

The terms of Jackson’s divorce settlement made us wonder whether non-lawyers in Illinois are permitted to own a percentage of a law practice.

Shortly after Braddock and Jackson meet, Braddock advises: “It’s never a good idea to represent yourself in a personal case, you know that. You should have had another lawyer representing you all along. You’re too emotionally involved.” That’s actually good advice, but Braddock himself violating that very rule by appearing on his own behalf at a hearing during which he was sanctioned for misconduct.

“’Too far’ is how you win cases,” quips Braddock after Jackson advises him that is going, well, “too far.” And we wonder why litigation is so costly . . . .

The first two episodes of “Partners” air tonight on the FX Network at 9:00 p.m.

 Okay, so how’s this for a legally themed comic book cover? Above, you’ll find the cover of Uncanny X-Men #23, published just a weeks ago in 2014. The cover is simple: It depicts “The Last Will and Testament of Charles Xavier,” who we all know to be the leader of The X-Men. What is his testamentary intent? Did he comply with all of the formal prerequisites required of the execution of a will? Who were the witnesses to its execution? We assume that with such a fancy cover page that it is not a holographic will. We’ll review the issue and report back dear readers. In fact, this is the same comic book issue that we mentioned last week due to the fact that a part of the narrative is set in Charleston, South Carolina.

Here’s some news: In this month’s ABA Journal, our editor Jim Dedman offers two contributions to its “12 Movies With Pivotal Lessons Featuring Lawyers” article. As a part of that piece, he was asked to choose a significant legal scene from a film and identify some of the lessons that lawyers can learn from it. Of course, he chose to write about the expert witness sequence in My Cousin Vinny (a film to which we here at Abnormal Use dedicated a week’s worth of posts on the occasion of its twentieth anniversary back in 2012). As for his other contribution, he chose to discuss the wonderful Wilford Brimley scene in Absence of Malice.

Here’s how he describes the scene in Vinny:

In the final trial sequence, Vinny calls an unsuspecting Mona Lisa to the stand to testify as an expert witness for the defense. In so doing, he draws an objection from the prosecutor (Lane Smith), who rises to question Mona Lisa’s expertise. He then conducts a brief voir dire of Mona Lisa—which, curiously, takes place in the jury’s presence—to determine whether she is indeed qualified to testify. Impressed by the depth of her automotive knowledge, the prosecutor withdraws his objection and the judge permits her to testify. Through her testimony, Vinny wins an acquittal for his clients.

As for Absence of Malice, he sets the scene as follows:

No summary can do the final sequence justice; it must be seen to be fully experienced. As Gallagher’s efforts to “get even” begin to come to fruition, Wells convenes a meeting of all of those involved in the Gallagher affair—including the federal prosecutor, the district attorney (to whose campaign committee Gallagher has made anonymous contributions so as to cast doubt upon him), Carter and the newspaper’s lawyer—in an office conference room. The federal prosecutor attempts a mock cross-examination of Gallagher to prove his revenge scheme, but Wells takes over the meeting and queries Carter about her source into the investigation of Gallagher. Carter admits she received the information from the federal prosecutor, and following that admission, Wells—after commenting on the First Amendment and the purported reporter’s privilege—tells everyone where they now stand.

You’ll need to visit the ABA Journal‘s site to see the potential lessons from these films. You can read the Absence of Malice article here and the My Cousin Vinny article here.

By the way, we once tried to interview Mr. Brimley about his fateful scene, but alas, it was not in the cards. But it resulted in an interesting story about our attempts to do so, which you can revisit here.

For better or worse, the infamous Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot coffee case filtered through our legal system and staked its claim in the mainstream media. Despite the fanfare surrounding that case, few know all the in’s and out’s of the case from either the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s perspective. Perhaps playing on the ignorance of the general populace, supporters of both tort reform and social justice movements have used the case as propaganda to support their causes. We suppose there is no harm done in using the case as a means of persuading the public. But what would happen if the case was used to sway a jury? Looking deep into the legal vault, the Utah Supreme Court gives us its answer to the question.

In Boyle v. Christensen, 251 P.3d 810 (Utah 2011), the plaintiff was injured when struck by a truck while walking in a crosswalk.  After the defendant truck driver admitted liability, the case proceeded to trial on the issue of damages.  During closing arguments, counsel for the defendant responded to the plaintiff’s request for damages as a result of pain and suffering with the following:

Ladies and gentlemen, they want a lot of money for this. A lot of money. What’s been written on the board is called a per diem analysis…. How many days has it been since the accident? How many days for the rest of his life. And how much per day is that worth? That’s what’s been done here. That’s how we get verdicts like in the McDonald’s case with a cup of coffee.

Whoa!  Did that come out of nowhere?  Plaintiff’s counsel sure thought so, immediately objecting to the reference as prejudicial and not in evidence.  The objection was overruled, and the jury returned a verdict of $62,500, about one-seventh of that sought by the plaintiff.  Not satisfied with the result and the reference to the infamous hot coffee case, the plaintiff appealed.

After the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, the Utah Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court.  In finding that the reference to the McDonald’s hot coffee case was improper, the Court discussed at-length the general public ignorance of the facts of the McDonald’s case and recited the standard pro-Liebeck talking points (i.e. coffee measured 180-190 degrees, McDonald’s received 700 previous complaints, etc.).  Given this perceived ignorance, the Court stated:

Given the uniquely iconic nature of this case, the passion it has produced in the media, and the general misunderstanding of the totality of its facts and reasoning among the public, we find it hard to imagine a scenario where it would be proper for a party’s counsel to refer to it before a jury. Generally, as here, such a reference would seem to have the sole purpose of recalling the public outrage over isolated elements of the case—thus improperly appealing to a jury’s passions. It is not the jury’s job to make legal determinations, so no legal arguments from the case are relevant. The facts in the McDonald’s coffee case were not in evidence before this jury and were also utterly irrelevant. Indeed, the one attempt counsel made to make her reference seem relevant was a misrepresentation because the high punitive damages award in the McDonald’s coffee case had nothing to do with a per diem analysis. It is certainly unfair to require the other party to clarify all the misconceptions about this irrelevant case in the limited time allotted for closing argument. The great latitude provided in closing arguments regards reasonable inferences about evidence properly before the jury and does not extend to misrepresentations or efforts to appeal to a jury’s passions. Thus the reference to the McDonald’s coffee case in closing argument was improper.

While we may disagree with some of the Court’s talking points, we have to agree that the reference to the McDonald’s case was improper in this context.  The jury should be deciding the case based on the facts at hand and not based on whatever misconceptions they may have about another case tried in another jurisdiction years before.  Interestingly, it appears that defense counsel may have been equally ignorant of the facts of the McDonald’s case as those sitting in the jury box.  As the Court correctly noted, the high punitive damages awarded in the McDonald’s case were based on two days of coffee sales and not the per diem analysis used to calculate pain and suffering to which he was arguing.

There is nothing wrong with continuing to discuss the McDonald’s case.  We do it a lot here at Abnormal Use.  However, we should keep it in its proper context and out of the courtroom.

And, for good measure, let’s try to know the facts before bringing the case up in public.

(Hat Tip: Eric Nordstrom).

At this point, everyone knows A&E’s hit television show “Duck Dynasty.”  The characters on the program have coined various catch phrases, including Uncle Si Robertson’s declaration that “My Favorite Color is Camo.”  The popularity of this quip led A&E to produce a line of camouflage clothing marketed to the show’s fans – a move which apparently generated “$400 million in revenues from sales of Duck Dynasty branded merchandise at Wal-Mart in 2013 alone,” according to a new lawsuit filed against the network.  The total revenues from the Duck Dynasty brand are unclear, but A&E reportedly also sells the clothing through merchandising deals with Sears, Kohl’s, Sports Authority, and Target. A Florida retail company, Hajn, alleges that it came up with the “My Favorite Color is Camo” trademark and began selling merchandise using the trademark in 2011, a year before “Duck Dynasty” first aired.  So, naturally, it has showed up to “quack some skulls in the duck call room,” legally speaking. Hajn sent a cease and desist letter to A&E asking that it stop selling the merchandise, but apparently the sales continued. So, on July 22, Hajn filed suit for willful trademark infringement and unfair competition in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida to prevent A&E from using its purported trademark. A&E has apparently declined to comment, and as of press time, it has not yet filed a response to the lawsuit.

We will say that we were impressed with the color images of advertisements – and even tweets – embedded into the complaint. Longtime readers may recall that back in 2010 we here at Abnormal Use remarked:

While it is customary to attach photographs as exhibits to memoranda in support of motions, rarely does the attorney actually embed the photograph into the pleading itself. (This is changing for the better, though.).

Whatever the case, we should all be patient to see where this one goes, or as Uncle Si says “America, everybody is in too big a rush. Lay back, take a sip of tea, mow a little grass. Then if you get tired, take a nap.”

The suit is Hajn, LLC v. A&E Television Networks, LLC, 2:14-cv-14291-KAM (S.D. Fla).

We recently blogged about troubled actress Lindsay Lohan’s lawsuit against a video game creator who allegedly misappropriated her likeness and used it for profit.  Apparently, she is not the only public figure who has been recently targeted by a video game company.  Reportedly, former Panamanian dictator, Manuel Noriega, has filed suit in California state court against video game creator Activision Blizzard for using his likeness in Call of Duty: Black Ops II.  Noriega is apparently the subject of various fictional missions within the video game that include historical footage and “real-life characters in Cold War scenarios, including Oliver North.”

Noriega, who is currently serving out a prison sentence in Panama for “drug trafficking, money laundering, and killing political opponents,” alleges in his lawsuit that, among other things, the defendant “damaged his reputation” by portraying him “as a kidnapper, murderer, and enemy of the state.”  For these alleged wrongs, Noriega seeks damages, to include a share of the profits from sales of the video game. He also demanded a jury trial!

Now, quite frankly, this is a deposition that we would like to see (assuming that the case makes it to the discovery phase and that Noriega, currently a prisoner in Panama, testifies in any way, shape, or form). We’re amused that in his Complaint, in the “Parties” section, Noriega mentions that he is “an individual residing in Gamboa, Panama,” without referencing that he is, in fact, in prison. If he is deposed, we would ask that defense counsel please question him about the punk rock and heavy metal music that was played during Operation Nifty Package back in the day. But that’s just us. Oh, and here is the complaint if you would like to read it.

An unrelated confession: The Activision game our editor played was Pitfall! for the Atari 2600.

Today, we here at Abnormal Use once again continues our series, “Abnormal Interviews,” in which we conduct brief interviews with law professors, practitioners, and other commentators in the field. For the latest installment, we turn once more to lawyer blogger James Daily of The Law and the Multiverse blog, an incredibly fun site in which the authors apply the laws of the real world to the exploits of comic book superheroes. You might recall that we interviewed James and his co-blogger Ryan Davidson way, way back in March 2011. James was kind enough to submit to a second interview with Abnormal Use, which is as follows:

JIM DEDMAN:  We first interviewed you in March 2011, just a few months after the blog debuted in late 2010. In the years since, what is the most important lesson you have learned as a legal blogger?

JAMES DAILY: I’ve learned a few different lessons, but it’s hard to say which is the most important.  One thing I’ve learned is to change it up from time to time.  Some of my most popular posts have been about unusual topics, such as the contract from The Hobbit.  They’ve also been a nice change of pace for me.

DEDMAN: You’ve achieved an immense amount of attention as a result of the site, including interviews with national publications, a book deal, and even your own Wikipedia entry. What do you feel has been your biggest success with the site?

DAILY:  All of that attention has been a continual surprise.  I think the biggest success has been that I still get more questions from readers than I have time to fully answer.  It underscores the point that there is still tons of material to write about, and as an attorney it’s always a great feeling when someone wants to know your opinion about a legal issue, even a fictional one.

DEDMAN: As the blog approaches its fourth anniversary, what challenges do you face in continuing to find new material for the site?

DAILY:  The main challenge I have is finding the time to write, not finding new material.  I have a backlog of dozens of questions from readers, and I’ve fallen behind on Daredevil and She-Hulk, to say nothing of less law-focused comics.  The creativity and breadth of questions from readers never ceases to amaze me.  They often come up with better post ideas than I could.

DEDMAN:  Since the blog came into being in 2010, what has been your favorite reaction from a reader to the site and its mission?

DAILY:  I have received quite a few letters from law students, lawyers, and comic book fans that include some version of “I’m so glad I found the site.  I thought I was the only one that thought about this kind of stuff.”  It validates the thesis of the site, and I think it’s great that the blog has contributed to a community of sites centered around discussing the law and pop culture.

DEDMAN: As you know, there is a burgeoning movement of “real” superheroes out there making news in some jurisdictions. What have you learned from writing the site that might be of benefit to them?

DAILY: The main thing I’ve learned is that it would be very, very difficult to be a comic book-type superhero that stays within the bounds of the law and yet still does more than act as a member of the neighborhood watch.  The law has evolved to frown on “self-help”, with the possible exception of modern stand-your-ground and castle laws.  It’s a legal tightrope act without a net, and I don’t recommend it.

DEDMAN:  Is service by publication the only way to serve a superhero or villain with a lawsuit?

DAILY:  It depends on the superhero or villain.  Some superheroes have very public identities (e.g. Jennifer Walters/She-Hulk and Tony Stark/Iron Man).  Even some villains act more-or-less in the open, such as Wilson Fisk/Kingpin.  And of course even a villain such as The Joker could be served during one his many (brief) stays in Arkham Asylum.  Even more reclusive characters such as Batman and Superman have accepted process (subpoenas anyway) at the Justice League headquarters on the Moon.  A really aggressive process server might stage a crime (with a “victim” who was in on it) in order to attract a superhero’s attention.  That might make for an interesting comic book story!

BONUS QUESTIONS:

DEDMAN:  What has been your favorite post since you founded the site?

DAILY:  I have trouble picking my favorite anything, but I really enjoyed the opportunity to interview Mark Waid (writer of Daredevil, among many other things) and Daniel Reeve, the artist who created the contract for The Hobbit movies.  That was definitely something made possible by the success of the rest of the blog.  I enjoyed being able to take a peek behind the scenes and hopefully ask questions that my audience would want to know about that wouldn’t be asked elsewhere.  Since you’ve also interviewed Mark Waid (and a host of other interesting folks), I think you can understand the appeal.

DEDMAN:  What is your favorite superhero movie?

DAILY:  Another favorites question!  I’m going to punt and say the Christopher Nolan Batman movies and Captain America: The Winter Soldier.  But honestly the MCU movies have been so consistently good that it’s tempting to say all of them.  I’ve generally enjoyed them more than the Spider-Man and X-Men movies, although The Wolverine and Days of Future Past were quite good.

DEDMAN:  What do you feel is the most disastrous depiction of the legal process in popular culture, and why?

DAILY:  That’s a tricky one.  Disastrously wrong or disastrous for its negative impact on society’s perception of lawyers or the legal process?  I tend to shy away from writing about stories that get the law laughably wrong, since it’s not much fun to beat up on someone’s creative work, especially when legal accuracy is rarely central to the plot.  I’ll leave that to the experts.

BIOGRAPHY:  James Daily is an attorney licensed in Missouri and a graduate of the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is also registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He and Ryan Davidson started the Law and the Multiverse blog in November of 2010. You can follow him on Twitter here.

We here at Abnormal Use are somewhat embarrassed to admit that we were once fans of the television show, “Alf.” But, hey, we all have some mortifying secret from the 1980’s, right? Accordingly, we direct you to the above cover of Alf #33, published way, way back in 1990. Note that the cover depicts a wanted poster for Alf who is, apparently, sought by the law for “illegal entropy” and, our favorite, “impersonating a USDA inspector.” We wonder who defended our favorite alien life form at his criminal trial, but perhaps we will never, ever know (not having read this issue or mustered the energy to seek it out 24 years later). Alas, Alf.

We’ve written a bit about the products liability implications of driverless cars, but what about the criminal law? Apparently, according to Techdirt, the FBI believes that driverless cars will aide criminal enterprises. We’re thinking, perhaps, that the FBI has forgotten about all of the driverless cars that have assisted law enforcement, like KITT from “Knight Rider.”

As a law firm with three offices in the Carolinas, we were surprised to learn that part of the latest X-Men comic book takes place in Charleston, South Carolina. Apparently, aliens attack the city. For more on that, see here.

Did you hear that Duran Duran has sued the company it hired to run its fan club? If we had filed that lawsuit, we would have concluded our complaint with the phrase “(Save A) Prayer For Relief.” But we’re music nerds.

Are you following Abnormal Use on the Facebook? If not, you can do so by clicking here!

Reportedly, the Chicago Cubs have filed suit against five individuals responsible for the “billy cub” mascot, which has interacted with fans around Wrigley field for the past seven years in exchange for tips.  Billy Club has no actual affiliation with the Chicago Cubs organization.  Apparently, the litigation was sparked by a bar fight between Billy Cub and a bar patron.  The incident drew extensive publicity after a video of the altercation was posted to YouTube.  According to witnesses, the video showed only a small portion of the harassment that Billy Cub had been receiving from the fan prior to the incident, and the removal of the head was the last straw.  So, why can’t the Cubs give Billy Cub a pass? According to the Cubs, this is not the first time Billy Club has acted mischievously.  The Cubs allege that Billy Cub has a history of bad behavior, including swearing and using racial slurs in connection with bad tips received from fans. So what do the Cubs want a court to do?  Among other things, they have asked that the Billy Cub mascot outfit be delivered for destruction. Delivered for destruction? How about that?