On a number of occasions, we  here at Abnormal Use have reported on the ongoing legal battle between the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) and the makers of a toy called Buckyballs (see here and here).   After nearly two years, the CPSC has finally reached a settlement with the former CEO of the manufacturer of Buckyballs through which the toy will be recalled. By way of a refresher, Buckyballs are pea-sized  magnetic balls that are ultra-strong and can be stacked or shaped in fun ways.  The potential problem: If a child swallows more than one ball, the powerful magnets can cause serious internal injury.  The CPSC has likened the injury to a gunshot wound.  In spite of the product’s preexisting warnings, the CPSC waged a full fledged crusade against Buckyballs that ultimately led to the demise of its corporate manufacturer. Although Buckyballs’ parent company (Maxfield & Oberton Holdings) has been driven out of business, the CPSC has also gone after its CEO, Craig Zucker.  The CPSC has sought to hold him personally responsible for a recall of the toy.  Zucker has been an outspoken critic of the CPSC and has contended that the law does not allow individual employees to be held liable for such things.  It would certainly seem that Zucker had a valid argument.  Nevertheless, the realities of litigating against a federal agency with unlimited resources seems to have finally forced Mr. Zucker to relent.

The settlement agreement provides that Zucker will place $375,000 into a trust that the CPSC will control.  The CPSC will recall Buckyballs (and its sibling, Buckycubes) and will grant a refund to customers to be paid from the trust.

The settlement is troubling in that it sets a precedent for the CPSC holding a corporate officer personally liable for a product recall.  A good analysis of this issue can be found here.

The Eagles’ hit, “Life in the Fast Lane,” depicts a life of excess involving drugs, booze, and generally “everything, all the time.”  What the song does not address is the consequences of one’s actions if his or her life in the fast lane comes in contact with innocent pedestrians and ends in death or serious injury.  A recent Texas case suggests that the outcome depends on how wealthy your parents may be.

You may recall the 2013 criminal trial of Ethan Couch, the affluent teen who killed four people and catastrophically injured another while driving drunk (his blood alcohol was reportedly three times the legal limit).  At the criminal trial, Couch’s defense counsel retained an expert witness who testified, in part, that Couch was the victim of “affluenza,” an ailment characterized by being the product of wealthy and privileged parents who never set limits for Couch.  Couch’s counsel disputes that it relied on an affluenza defense, but regardless, Couch was not required to serve any time in prison for his crimes. As you might imagine, there was a media frenzy at the time about the nature of that defense.

At least one civil suit has been filed in connection with the accident.  A teen riding in the back of Couch’s truck at the time of the accident suffered a debilitating, permanent brain injury, and he has apparently incurred at least one million in medical bills.  He filed suit against Couch’s parents.  Couch’s father’s business was also joined in the lawsuit, as Couch was driving a vehicle owned by the business at the time of the accident.  The suit has reportedly settled for over $2 million.

Though tempted, we at here at Abnormal Use decline the opportunity to weigh in more formally on the criminal or civil outcome, except to say that there is something very curious about this affluenza theory.  In Couch’s criminal case, there were few consequences for his crimes, but his defense rested on his parent’s wealth. In the subsequent civil litigation, his parents (and/or their insurance carrier) paid a handsome sum.

Perhaps the expert’s affluenza opinion was a bit of foreshadowing more than anything else?

Let us direct your attention to Vazquez v. Buhl, — A.3d —-, No. 35319 (Conn. Ct. App. May 13, 2014).

As you can tell from the citation, that opinion is to be released tomorrow, technically making it jurisprudence from the future. (Technically, that’s how they roll in Connecticut.).

In that case, the court “confront[ed] Congress’ restrictions on defamation claims arising out of the Internet.” Essentially, as the court described them, the issues presented were these:

The plaintiff, Mitchell Vazquez, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after the granting of the motion brought by the defendant NBCUniversal Inc ., to strike counts two (defamation), three (false light), and four (negligent infliction of emotional distress) of the plaintiff’s complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that a motion to strike is not the proper procedural vehicle to decide the applicability of § 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996(CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230 et seq. The plaintiff further claims that the trial court improperly granted the motion to strike because it incorrectly interpreted the “provided by another information content provider” language of § 230(c)(1).

We suspect that you’ll be able to find a full analysis of the case on the tech law blog in the days to come. However, we did want to direct your attention to our favorite sentence of the opinion:

Congress, in 1996, likely could not have anticipated the advent and popularity of Twitter, Facebook or eBay, the shift from print to online news, the proliferation of search engines, or the myriad other developments of the Internet.

Indeed, although we should note we here at Abnormal Use were using Yahoo, Lycos, AltaVista, and Wired Magazine‘s HotBot as search engines back in 1996. We didn’t make it onto eBay until 1998, though.

Whatever the case, it’s nice to see some nostalgia for the early days of the Internet in today’s court opinions.

Okay, here’s an issue we need to find and read. Above, you’ll find the cover of Action Comics #581, published way, way back in 1986 (back in the days when we here at Abnormal Use were regularly visiting comic book shops). The cover proclaims: “In this issue you will meet the Man of Steel’s Lawyer!” Who could it be? How do you suppose he was retained? When Superman appears in your office as a potential client, do you require a retainer? Are you obligated to ask his secret identity for the purposes of the conflicts check? Where do you send your bills? To the Hall of Justice? Or do you handle cases for Superman pro bono (suspecting that it will probably pay off later if he owes you one)?

Did you know that there is a rock band called The Plaintiffs? Back in 2011, we interviewed  Brian Dale Allen Strouse, the leader of the Philadelphia rock group, The Lawsuits. (You can find that interview here). We think these two bands should tour together.

Don’t forget! If you’re in Charlotte, North Carolina on Thursday, May 22, you can attend the “Food Truck Law” CLE planned by our editor, Jim Dedman. For more information on that (including instructions on how to register for the event, please see here.). Best part: The event will be held at a local brewery!

By the way, did you hear that GWB partner John T. Lay has been selected for inclusion in the South Carolina Super Lawyers Top 25 for 2014?  For more on that, see here.

The Third Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s granting of a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by various generic drug manufacturers in a Fosamax suit.  Ninety-one plaintiffs from 28 different states filed suit against Merck and various generic drug manufacturers in Missouri state court, alleging that Fosamax and its generic equivalent (alendronate sodium), used for treating bone conditions such as osteoperosis and Paget’s disease, were defective in labeling, design, et cetera, due to the drug’s propensity to make bones more susceptible to fracture.  The case was removed to federal court and centralized with several other Fosamax-related lawsuits in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  As mentioned above, the generic drug defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings based on a federal preemption argument, and the trial court granted the motion.

In reaching its decision to affirm dismissal, the Third Circuit relied heavily on Mensing and Bartlett.  The Third Circuit was persuaded by the generic drug defendants’ argument that “they could only avoid liability by taking one of the options that Mensing and Bartlett say they cannot be forced to take: (1) changing alendronate sodium’s labeling, (2) changing the drug’s design, or (3) ceasing sales of the drug altogether.”  In the end, the Third Circuit held that the suit against the generic drug manufacturers was preempted under the doctrine of conflict preemption and affirmed the decision of the trial court.

For more on this opinion, please see this post over at the Drug and Device Law blog.

Recently, Arizona-based Lipsmark, LLC announced plans to begin marketing alcohol in powdered form under the name “Palcohol.” Since that time, the product has been on a roller coaster ride. Several weeks ago, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”) approved the sale of Palcohol. Several days thereafter, the TTB reversed course and claimed that the approval was issued in error. Now, Senator Charles Schumer (NY-D) is asking the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to make certain that the product never finds itself on store shelves, claiming it would become the “Kool-Aid of teen binge drinking.”

So, what is Palcohol, and why has it caused such a fuss? According to the company’s website, Palcohol is a powdered version of vodka, rum, and four cocktails. With the addition of 5 ounces of liquid, Palcohol allegedly becomes a standard mixed drink. The process is nothing new. A U.S. patent was issued for molecular encapsulated alcohol way back in 1974. While the product may seem harmless, Sen. Schumer fears that because it may be sprinkled on food, snorted, and easily concealed, it may appeal to underage drinkers much like Four Loko. We here at Abnormal Use appreciate the concerns. Nonetheless, we think that they may be premature. If it hits the market, Palcohol will be regulated and controlled the same as liquid alcohol. Even if it can be eaten, snorted, or concealed, we fail to see how this will have a significant effect on underage drinking. Whether it is breaking into a parent’s liquor cabinet or sprinkling Palcohol on a bowl of Fruity Pebbles, teens will find their way to alcohol if they want it bad enough. The problems and dangers remain the same. We do not know if Palcohol will make its way to stores. However, Lipsmark claims the TTB’s about-face was due to a labeling error rather than a change of heart on the product. Only time will tell. We expect the day will eventually come when we can all enjoy a shot of rum powder.

Today, Abnormal Use continues its series, “Abnormal Interviews,” in which this site will conduct brief interviews with law professors, practitioners, and other commentators in the field. For the latest installment, we turn to Kylie TenBrook, corporate counsel for Best Western International in Phoenix, Arizona. Her area of practice is employment law. We here at Abnormal Use first encountered Kylie earlier this year at the Hospitality Law Conference in Houston, Texas at which she presented the topic of “Pop Culture Employment Law” (which, in our opinion, included the best reference to Zoolander of the conference). After that, we knew we had to request an interview, which you can find below:

JIM DEDMAN: Generally, from the perspective of an in-house counsel, how has the rise of social media changed employment litigation?

KYLIE TENBROOK:  It’s changed it drastically. With the rise of social media, employees are not only saying and doing things in the workplace, they’re also saying and doing things on the Internet, and so you have to be cautious with respect to what your employees are doing and how they are behaving in this other public forum.

JD: What is a social media policy?

KT: Typically, a social media policy will set forth the standards that the company thinks employees should adhere to in using social media, and typically, that touches on anything from behavior that’s expected, to dealing with trade secrets of the company, to dealing with harassment or discrimination. It sets forth the behavior that employees are expected to engage in when using social media.

 JD: Now, you mentioned the word “cautious” a moment ago. What are some of the potential disadvantages of a social media policy in the employment context?

KT: Recent litigation with the National Labor Relations Board has focused a lot on social media, restrictions by employers on employees’ social media usage, and employers’ social media policies. The National Labor Relations Act, Section 7, applies to unionized and non-unionized work forces, and it prohibits employers from restricting employees [from] discussing the terms and conditions of their employment, among other things. And that’s really broad reaching under the current board’s spectre. They see almost anything that would be discussing work to be falling within Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. And they’ve taken a very aggressive approach with that, going not only after employers restricting employee actions on social media, but also going after social media policies as per se violations.

 JD: In light of those concerns, how should an employer navigate those waters and potentially protect its interests if an employee is commenting on the employer on social media?

KT:  . . . [W]henever you’re dealing with social media, employees, and employees talking about the employer on social media, you want to be careful. You want to sit back and look at the content of the message, and you want to make sure you’re involving your HR team and your legal team before taking any action. You need to determine whether the content discusses the terms and conditions of their employment, which I would argue is very broad, and likely will, if it’s the employer, but then you also need to make sure that it’s not violating any sort of policies that the NLRB would find unlawful.

 JD: So in the absence of a social media policy, what do you think are the best standards and practices for addressing these issues on a global scale for an employer?

KT: In the absence of a social media policy, you need to take a look at what your other policies provide . . . . What do your harassment and discrimination policies say? Interestingly, you do have issues where the two collide: The EEOC stance on what constitutes harassment and discrimination and the NLRB stance on social media. You really need to determine [whether] you are going to foster a workplace that is free of harassment and discrimination even if that goes up against what the NLRB says. You’ll also want to take a look at what your other policies say with respect to, for example, confidentiality, trade secrets, etc.  Those policies should apply equally to workplace conduct and social media conduct, which in my view, makes a social media policy unnecessary.

 JD: Now one of the popular topics in social media and litigation these days is the use of social media to investigate a claimant’s claims or damages in a pre-existing suit. The underlying claims of which may not have anything to do with social media itself, separate and apart from a social media policy or some of the concerns that you just expressed; what risks do employers face when monitoring employee social media use once that employee is a claimant or a plaintiff in a suit?

KT: Well, there are a couple risks. Usually, those risks come about in the form of hiring discrimination. When employees become a potential claimant, you’re going to be investigating them anyway, and if the social media is available, you should use it. However, your access to it should be limited in the first instance. In fact, I don’t think employers should be friends with their employees on social networking sites. You may find out things about your employees that you don’t need to know, and if you do make an adverse decision with respect to them later, what you saw on social media could be said to be the thing that is causing you to make your decision. For example, if you have an employee who is a certain religion, and you take action against that employee, and on their Facebook site, you’ve seen that they are of that religion, they may claim later that “Well, you’ve made this decision because of my religion.” So, there are some risks.

 JD: So, what would you do in a situation where you have pre-existing friendship or relationship with someone who becomes an employee? Is it wise to terminate the social media relationship in light of those concerns, or is there some middle ground there?

KT: I think it depends on the relationship. If there’s a reporting relationship, absolutely, you should terminate that friendship on social media. If there’s not a direct reporting relationship, I think there’s less risk, but to the extent that there’s a direct reporting relationship that really needs to stop.

BONUS QUESTIONS:

JD: What about your favorite lawyer on TV?

KT: I love “The Good Wife,” so I would have to say Julianna Margulies. One of my favorite shows. I also thought that “Boston Legal” was great with James Spader.

JD: What is the best depiction of an employment law issue in popular culture film or television in your view?

KT: “The Office.” “The Office” is just an amazing example of what not to do in every single work situation you could ever possibly think of.

JD: Any particular episodes stand out in your mind?

KT: Yes. My favorite one is the one where they each had a card that they put on their forehead identifying the participants as a certain race, ethnicity, etc., and they all had to communicate with each other in an entirely offensive way to figure out what the card on their forehead said. It was so over the top and so bad; it’s my favorite episode of all time.

JD: We’ve written before about “The Deposition” episode where Michael Scott is deposed which is, of course, fantastic. You have previously written about employment issues relating to late night television and Jay Leno in particular. What do you think of Jimmy Fallon’s new show?

KT: I’m very excited. I would rather stare at Jimmy Fallon for an hour than Jay Leno, any day.

BIOGRAPHY: Kylie TenBrook serves as corporate counsel for Best Western International, Inc. in Arizona. Previously, she practiced labor and employment law exclusively.

Time was, when I started law school back in the 1990’s, the new law students bonded over the books they’d just read about life in law school. (A communal fear of impending doom also brought us together.). Most students had read Scott Turow’s One L, and a few had managed to locate a tattered paperback of John Jay Osborn’s The Paper Chase. Years later, when asked by prospective law students, I would recommend that they also read Vincent Bugliosi’s Helter Skelter and Bob Woodward’s The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court (to help them to better visualize the criminal justice system and the inner workings of the U.S. Supreme Court, respectively). Because I’m me, I’d also throw in a wild card suggestion, and often, it was Cannibalism and the Common Law, The Story of the Tragic Last Voyage of the Mignonette and the Strange Legal Proceedings to Which It Gave Rise, by A. W. Brian Simpson (who elected to write about the famed 1884 case of Her Majesty The Queen v. Tom Dudley and Edwin Stephens, which some of you may remember from law school). Whatever the case, I’m not sure if anyone ever followed any of those suggestions.

None of those books, really, explained the nature of the practice of law. In our system, law students do not learn much about the practice of law itself; rather, they learn how to think like lawyers. We here at Abnormal Use have often written about the benefits of a practical legal education (see here, here, and here for some examples). However, with an exception or two, few institutions teach the practical components of the practice of law. Even fewer address the challenges of the business of law, the maintenance of client relationships, and the development of a book of business. Thus, it is generally left to the law firms, and somewhat, to the local bar associations, to inculcate such things. These days, many law school graduates find themselves without gainful employment, and thus, they may have little or no access to mentors who can teach them the lessons we all need to know as lawyers building a practice.

Alabama lawyer Keith Lee, the founder of the Associate’s Mind blog, addresses these issues in his new book, The Marble and the Sculptor: From Law School to Law Practice, published late last year by the American Bar Association. The title was inspired by an Alexis Carrel quotation (“Man cannot remake himself without suffering, for he is both the marble and the sculptor.”), and in the book, Lee offers his thoughts on how law school graduates can remake themselves into successful lawyers. That’s no small feat. Specifically, as the book’s back cover informs us, Lee seeks to answer these questions:

How do I transition from law school to law practice?

How do I get a job?

How can I find like-minded mentors and colleagues?

How do I develop a book of business?

How do I become a good lawyer?

These, of course, are big questions (and put another way, existential issues for a new lawyer). In confronting them, Lee starts with advice for aspiring law students: “Before you go to law school, go work in a law firm for six months.” This is advice that Lee himself took to heart. He came to law school at age 27 after having worked at a law firm, and thus, likely had a very different perspective than a recent college graduate. As Lee tells it in the book, he treated law school as an occupation in and of itself, taking advantage of every opportunity to learn the law and develop future contacts and referral sources. That’s an approach that would serve law students well (if they are so advised).

The book itself is a series of relatively short chapters containing general advice, tips to avoid legal mistakes, rules for client service, networking strategies, and anecdotes from seasoned practitioners.  Our favorite bit of advice: “Always walk into another lawyer’s office with a legal pad and pen.” At its essence, the book is a collection of suggestions on how to become a successful lawyer with a book of business and the transformation required in such a task. A young lawyer cannot become a success, Lee posits, by merely being a “worker bee.” In making this analogy, he even quotes Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill, Volume II in encouraging readers to become an indispensable “renegade killer bee.” That’s the real trick, though, isn’t it? To be the type of practicing attorney that is successful both in skills but in business development, one must be, for lack of a better phrase, “all in.” Lee’s tips are best described as “how to be all in.” To be honest, this book may be as helpful to a senior associate soon to become a junior partner as it is to a new lawyer, which says a lot about the ambition and wisdom of Lee, who himself is a young lawyer not yet a partner himself.

In sum, Lee’s book is one we would recommend both to the aspiring law student, the new associate, but also the more seasoned young lawyer looking to broaden his or her practices areas and develop new business. Not every bit of advice will be of benefit to every reader, but many of them will, and nearly all of them will prompt the sort of thinking and self-analysis which any lawyer – young or old – must undergo to keep sharp.

As a part of this review, Keith Lee was also kind enough to agree to a brief email interview with Abnormal Use.

1.       How would you describe the “gap” that a law school graduate must bridge between graduation and employment? How should that gap best be addressed, and by whom?

The most recent ABA job data came out a couple weeks ago. Fifty-seven percent of 2013 graduates were employed in full-time, long-term legal jobs. Exclude jobs funded by law schools from this figure and it’s 55.3 percent. If you’re a recent law school graduate you’ve got about a 50/50 shot of getting a job. So I think I would describe that “gap” as a gaping maw.

The people in the top 10 percent of their class are likely always going to be able to get jobs. But any other recent law school graduate that wants to come out on the right side of that coin flip needs to focus on differentiating themselves from their classmates. Try to become as “practice-ready” as possible.  Trial ad, practice management, et cetera. Focus on skill sets they possess outside of law. Work on growing their network of personal relationships. Look into ways you could begin working on business development on day one of the job. Law schools could help by letting the third year be more focused on these types of skills but instead people get “Harry Potter and The Law” or some other similarly useless elective. And even though law schools should be doing a better job of preparing their graduates, ultimately, it is the personal responsibility of every graduate to take their future and career into their own hands. No one else is going to do it for you.

2.    What role, if any, should the law schools play in teaching trial advocacy and practice management? In light of the size of most graduates’ student loans, are the law schools doing graduates a disservice by not better addressing these topics?

A much larger one. Although as currently structured, I think most law schools would likely do a poor job of it. Law schools would need professors who have actually practiced – like in this century – to come in and teach these classes to give them legitimacy. Maybe not so much for trial advocacy, but definitely for practice management. I’m in favor of more adjunct professors who are active practitioners. It would result in lower costs (less six figure professor pay) and more real world instruction for students. I think law schools want to do what is best for their students,  but they are slow moving institutions. They’ve been able to coast on the same model for decades while the rest of the world changed. Now they are being called out on it. Which is resulting in defensiveness (“We’ve always done things this way! No need to change!”) and scrambling for solutions. There is no easy fix, unfortunately.

3.     What would you say to the young lawyers who didn’t have an opportunity to read your book before going to law school and beginning their careers in the legal field?

Never stop learning or growing. The vast majority of successful lawyers I know place a large emphasis on having a mindset of continual improvement. There is never going to be a time that you can rest on your laurels and coast. You need fierce determination and a high work ethic if you want to succeed.

4.       You emphasize in the book that law students, and young lawyers, must be willing to work hard and sacrifice more than they might have imagined to develop themselves and secure a position with a firm. That is certainly true.  That said, what do you suggest young lawyers do to stay sane and keep perspective?

You have to have some life outside of work. Try and make the time to do something fun on the weekends. Sure there are times you’ll be at the office on the weekends, but not every weekend. Also, some sort of physical activity/exercise. Something that engages your body and mind and forces you to not think about work for 45 minutes is invaluable. I’ll also defer to Foonberg’s Rule (Jay Foonberg, author of How To Start & Build A Law Practice): “Clients come and clients go, family is forever.”Make time for them.

5.     You cast some scorn on social media in the book, but you also mention the benefits of networking and business development. How do you believe young lawyers can use social media and blogging to their advantage? Should they do so?

Obviously, I’m quite active online – and I enjoy it. But it’s not the end-all, be-all of practice. Social media is not some foundational keystone of being a lawyer that you have to be involved with to be successful. There are plenty of successful attorneys who do absolutely nothing online. That being said, used carefully, social media can help generate and accelerate relationships. It can also help young lawyers raise their profile quickly. But they have to do so ethically. The other issue for young lawyers is that they have to have their firm be on board with their online activities, which can be a tough sell.

6.       What is the best business development advice you have ever received?

Be friends with everyone, i.e. expand your network of relationships to as many people as possible. As you grow your network, opportunities grow as well.

7.      To your knowledge, has the book dissuaded anyone from attending law school? If so, what happened?

Not that I know of! But if it has, I would be pleased. If they can be dissuaded by a book, they probably didn’t want to go to law school for the right reasons. And I’ve actually heard from a number of new lawyers who found the book encouraging.

BONUS QUESTIONS:

Why do you dislike the term “blawg”?

Just look at it! “Blawg.” It’s an ugly looking word! Besides, blogs are just called blogs. There are mommy blogs, tech blogs, food blogs, etc. None of them have felt the need to create a new term for themselves. Blawg was cute for roughly 10 seconds the first time I saw it. Now I cringe when I see it.

What is your favorite depiction of a law firm in popular culture, and why?

“Suits.” Just for how over-the-top ridiculous it is. And how little it has to do with how firms actually work – yet people ask all the time if that is what firms are like.

What has been the most rewarding component of your blogging experience?

Building relationships with lawyers across the country. It’s taken a long time (years) but I’ve come to know dozens of lawyers across the country well. It’s helped broaden my experience of what it means to be an attorney and learn about how others conduct their practice.

What happens to Associate’s Mind when you make partner?

Not sure! At some point Associate’s Mind will have to change. I’ll be too distant from what it means to be a “new lawyer.” I’ll have to leave that perspective to someone better suited. I’ll write about what ever interests me at that point.

You have previously said that you were online back in the 1980’s as a BBS user. What do you miss about the BBS days and the Internet’s infancy?

British writer Arthur C. Clarke once remarked “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” When I was first getting online in the late 80s as a kid, it was pure magic. The net wasn’t all-encompassing and omnipresent. The pop, hiss, and crackle of dialing into a BBS –  it was a physical thing.  Being able to type in commands & get a response was exciting and new. It was like being in a William Gibson novel. I miss that feeling sometimes.

By the way, the image depicted at the top of this post is not the actual cover of The Marble and the Sculptor: From Law School to Law Practice. Rather, just as he did with Kevin Underhill’s The Emergency Sasquatch Ordinance, Abnormal Use blogger Batten Farrar carefully recreated the cover for the purposes of this book review. By the way, we are certainly not the first ones to interview Keith Lee. Last year, Ernie Svenson of Blogging for Lawyers interviewed him in a piece entitled “5 Questions for law blogger Keith Lee of AssociatesMind.com.” Check that out. (Coincidence alert: You may recall that we here at Abnormal Use once interviewed Ernie Svenson back in July of 2011. To read that interview, see here.).

As you may have heard, Al Feldstein, the long time editor of Mad Magazine, has died. He was 88 at the time of his death, but during his life, he edited the humor rag during its heyday from 1955 to 1984. Since we’re big Springsteen fans, we direct your attention to the cover above, that of Mad Magazine #270, which is a parody of the Live/1975–85 box set. That issue was published in 1987, just a few years after Feldstein retired from the publication.

Back in April 2011, in an edition of Friday Links, we here at Abnormal Use featured Mad Magazine #274 (cover pictured above) as our legally themed comic book cover of the week. Yes, as you can see, at the time of that issue’s publication (1987, again), the magazine was parodying “L.A. Law,” the then-popular legal drama. Of that cover, we said:

We recently realized that most newly minted lawyers are now too young to remember watching “L.A. Law” when it originally aired back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is sad news. How is it that a practicing lawyer can be unaware of the fictional exploits of the McKenzie Brackman firm? Was it that long ago in the past when the show left the airwaves in 1994? Was it that many years ago that the Rosalind Shays character perished by falling down an elevator shaft? So, what can we do but commemorate this program by sharing with you the cover of Mad Magazine #274, published way back in 1987? (An aside: One of the writer contributors of this blog actually bought this issue off the newsstand back in ’87, but we’re not going to tell you which one of us it was so as to protect the innocent.).

Indeed, we here at Abnormal Use became familiar with Mad Magazine back in the mid-1980’s, well after it was an institution. It was certainly superior to the other fad of the time: Garbage Pail Kids. By the 1990’s, though, we had left comic books and Mad Magazine behind, so we missed the legally themed cover to issued #322, published way, way back December 1994 and pictured below:

Mad Magazine on the O.J. Simpson trial? We might have to make our way to eBay to find a copy of that one (if only to learn why Marcia Clark appears to be introducing a photograph of famed magazine mascot Alfred E. Neuman as an exhibit to the proceedings). Yes, yes, we realize that if offering this tribute to Mr. Feldstein that we only displayed Mad Magazine covers from the late 1980’s and early 1990’s (after his tenure). So, today, in honor of Mr. Feldstein, head on over to Mad Magazine‘s official website, or if you’d like to stroll down memory lane, to Comicvine, where you can access images of all of Mad Magazine‘s covers all the way back to the 1950’s.

Recently, Pope Francis tweeted: “Inequality is the root of social evil.” I would like to go a little further and suggest that in the United States, lawyers are the great equalizers. Our Constitution was drafted, in part, by lawyers seeking to avoid the dangers of a monarchy and an overzealous government. Our Bill of Rights makes us unique and gives us not only rights, but responsibilities. In his speech at the Sorbonne on April 23, 1910, then former President Teddy Roosevelt, speaking most eloquently about the duties of citizens in a democracy, said, “To you and your kind much has been given, and from you much should be expected . . . no self-respecting individual, no self-respecting nation, can or ought to submit to wrong.”

Today, in this time of 24 hour news and 24/7 Internet bombardment of opinion and disinformation, there must be guardians of truth. Our Constitution sets forth the framework for finding the truth with rights, including but not limited to, free speech, due process of law, equal protection, counsel in criminal matters, and protection from illegal search and seizure. But this precious framework is worthless unless we have champions willing to stand in the breach and cry foul when these rights are abridged, either individually or against society as a whole. The list of legal championships is long, and in the history of the world unique to the United States of America: Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, and Gideon v. Wainwright are just a few examples. Each case was championed by a lawyer, who was not afraid to seek truth, justice and equality.

Just this week, the owner of the L.A. Clippers was banned from the NBA and fined $2,500,000.00 because of racist statements he made in a private conversation. The NBA may now try to take away his ownership of the team. Notwithstanding the despicable nature of his comments, the issue may come down to whether a citizen may be deprived of property as a result of a surreptitious private recording of his speech. He has the means to hire an army of lawyers to protect his property rights. But what about the aggrieved single mom who can’t support her family because of a deadbeat dad, the falsely accused indigent, or the individual who is the subject of racial, gender, age or religious discrimination? Who will take their cases? Most likely, it will not be an army of lawyers hired by a multimillionaire. No, it will be a solitary lawyer who takes seriously his or her oath “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States . . . and to assist the defenseless or oppressed by ensuring that justice is available to all citizens. . . .” President Abraham Lincoln knew the trials and tribulations of a lawyer seeking justice, truth and equality. These lessons he learned so well were the foundation for his quest for equality for all Americans. Speaking on the issue of equality and the framers of the Constitution, he stated, “They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all – constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and, even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, everywhere.”

I know of no greater honor in civilian society than the privilege of representing a client in pursuit of truth, equality and justice. We lawyers must always be willing to stand in the breach between lies and truth, injustice and justice, and inequality and equality. So, on this Law Day 2014, take stock in the words of Pope Francis, President Lincoln, and President Teddy Roosevelt. In our society, we lawyers are the great equalizers and we must fight social evil by “constantly” laboring for equality. If he were alive on this Law Day 2014, I think that President Roosevelt would be telling us: The credit belongs to the lawyer who is actually in the courtroom… who strives valiantly; who errs… who comes short again and again… who does actually strive to do the deeds…. who knows great enthusiasm… who spends himself or herself in a worthy cause… who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he/she fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his/her place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.