We are very honored to note that yesterday we received two prestigious awards in the legal blogsophere. First, we were named by the ABA Journal to this year’s ABA Blawg 100.  We’re very pleased to be included in the Torts category with such blogging greats as Eric Turkewitz of the New York Personal Injury Law Blog, Walter Olson of Overlawyered, Bill Marler of Marler Blog, J. Russell Jackson of Jackson on Consumer Class Actions & Mass Torts, and Jim Beck, Steve McConnell, and Will Sasche of the Drug and Device Law Blog. As you may recall, we were also named to this list last year, and one year later, we couldn’t be happier to be recognized in this fashion once more.  It was a big day yesterday here at AU HQ.

But that’s not all. We also learned today that Abnormal Use has been named one of the Top 25 Torts Blogs by the LexisNexis Litigation Resource Community.  We are in some prestigious company among those nominees, as well, and we’re very pleased and honored to be included as a part of that list, as well. As we said, it was a big day.

We’ll talk a bit more about these honors in this coming Monday’s post, but we wanted to take this opportunity to thank all of you, our dear readers, for your support. We plan to give you all another year of this blogging thing in 2012, and we’re looking forward to doing so. Special thanks must go out to our contributors Steve Buckingham, Nick Farr, and Frances Zacher, as well as alumni Mary Giorgi and Laura Simons. We simply could not do this without them. If you follow the links to both the ABA Journal and Lexis Nexis Litigation Resource Community’s pages, you’ll see that both sites are calling for votes for your favorites of those listed.  We’d very much appreciate it if you would consider us for that additional honor.

Subject change: Apparently, there is a rapper named “Lawyer Mike.”  See here for a video.

Quote of the week: “I’m very disappointed in the fact that somebody riding their bike in February crashes on the ice and gets $100,000. It absolutely reminds me of the case involving the lady who ordered hot coffee at a McDonald’s and spilled it on her lap. That’s pretty much it. You know it’s hot coffee when you order it. And you know riding a bike at night, in winter, is a little dangerous,” John Cornish, the president of the Florence Park District said in this piece by David Erickson of The Missoulian on November 29.

We here at Abnormal Use hope and trust that you had a splendid Thanksgiving yesterday. Today, though, is all about shopping, isn’t it? We understand that there are lots of sales and deals to be found. You’d best get to the store and buy holiday gifts (unless, of course, you’re already in line at the store reading this site on your mobile device, and in that case, we applaud you both on your commitment to consumerism and your dedication to our fair website). Oh, and that’s the cover of Ha Ha Comics #60 depicted above, published way, way back in 1948.

Speaking of the gift giving season, be certain to check out The Hytech Lawyer‘s “Holiday Gift Suggestions for the iPad Lawyer.”

Christie Foppiano of the North Carolina Law Blog offers a Thanksgiving themed piece entitled “Of Mashed Potatoes and Mediation,” in which she formulates “some questions that may be helpful in preparing your client for mediation.”

Another week, another news report on a hot coffee lawsuit.  The Telegraph reports about two potential hot coffee lawsuits soon to be filed in Melbourne, Australia.  Here’s the twist: The two potential Plaintiffs – both of whom were on airline flights at the time of the spill – claim that a flight attendant spilled hot coffee on them during the flights.  (One of the potential Plaintiffs was on a flight to Bali, the other on a flight from Hawaii to Australia).  These cases are, of course, different than the infamous Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case, wherein the Plaintiff spilled coffee on herself.

“When the Master Jailer imprisons someone, it’s a life sentence,” proclaims a villain, presumably the Master Jailer himself, on the cover of Superman Family #219, published way back in 1982.  But hasn’t the Master Jailer heard of the federal sentencing guidelines? He can’t just sentence someone to life! There’s a complicated scheme by which he must evaluate aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing a sentence! (Obviously, the federal guidelines apply because he appears to be in a federally insured bank!)  But the real victim here is Supergirl, who is imprisoned because of the Master Jailer’s apparent abuse of discretion! 

Apparently, there’s a band in Georgia called The District Attorneys.  The Dead Journalist blog reviewed the band’s new EP, Waiting on the Calm Down: The Basement Sessions, here.  We think they should tour with the Pennsylvania band, The Lawsuits, who we interviewed earlier this year here.

Our editor, Jim Dedman, finds himself in Cary, North Carolina today for the North Carolina Bar Association Law Practice Management annual convention (where there is sure to be much discussion of social media, legal technology, and other fun topics).  If you’re there, say hello!

McDonald’s is back in the news this week with yet another hot coffee lawsuit. (Don’t worry, dear readers, we’re not going to do another full post on a hot coffee case for a while, but we did think it merited a brief mention here in this edition of Friday Links).  According to this report from the Law360 blog, an Illinois woman sued the fast food chain after her toddler sustained severe burns from McDonald’s coffee.  We don’t know how the toddler came in contact with the coffee.  For the good of America, let’s hope the beverage didn’t leak from his baby bottle. We suspect this one may be in the news again someday, and if so, we’ll keep you posted.

I just got a new car.  Well, new to me, but not brand new.  It’s equipped with all sorts of cool features that my old car, which my parents bought for me in college, doesn’t have.  Cubby holes everywhere.  A moonroof.  Volume and channel controls on the steering wheel.  Although it’s barely been cold enough here in Greenville, South Carolina to use them, my favorite feature is heated seats (with two settings, nonetheless).

Yes, my new car is very well equipped with features that, while certainly not critical to the car’s function, make driving it a nicer, easier experience.  There is a new car on the market, however, that puts all of these features to shame — the new Buick Verano has a headrest that is designed to accommodate ponytails!

That’s right — as reported by USA Today, the headrests in the new Buick Verano are designed so that “someone with a ponytail or other big hairdo [won’t] feel like their head is being pushed forward.”  A marvel of engineering.  Yet the design still complies with federal safety standards, which mandate how close a person’s head must be to the headrest.

This new feature made me wonder how many of the features in my car had to be worked around federal safety standards to provide the convenience that they give me.  I wonder if they regulate the temperature of my heated seats?  A quick search of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards didn’t come up with much, but I bet it exists somewhere.  After all, if a cup of hot coffee can get a company in hot water, I imagine a set of too-toasted buns could do the same.

Dude. The cover of Young Romance #196, depicted above and published way, way back in the early 1970s, has got to be the most depressing legal themed comic book cover we have ever seen.  Usually, we profile silly comic book covers featuring superheroes in court or other such nonsense.  But look at this!  “Father has a new family now, Mother, but you won’t be alone! I’ll always be with you . . . I promise!” says the daughter.  Look at how sad her mom looks! In the background, we see the father embracing his new paramour, while a young man – with a very 1970s haircut – asks “But, Debbie, what about us?” We’re not sure who that guy is, but if that’s Debbie’s boyfriend, then he’s got some bad timing. What’s he even doing in the courtroom, anyway? What was DC Comics thinking? This is sad stuff!

Recommended reading for the day: “My iPhone foreclosure.”

If you like our posts on the Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee case, you’ll love Ted Frank’s “Questions for Susan Saladoff about ‘Hot Coffee’“, which ran Monday on his Point of Law blog.

Friend of the blog Alan Crede of the Boston Personal Injury Lawyer Blog had some kind words for us this week regarding the occasion of our 500th post. Thanks, pal.

The Lexis Nexis Litigation Resource Community is soliciting nominations for the Top 25 Tort Blogs. If you enjoy our work here, we would humbly request that you head to their site and nominate us.  Apparently, all you have to do is briefly register for their site and then post a comment here nominating us. We would greatly appreciate your support!

Don’t forget! This month is National Novel Writing Month! There’s still time to pry yourself away from those discovery responses and pour your soul into a manuscript. (Hat Tip: The Faculty Lounge).

As lawyers, we are prickly curmudgeons with respect to definitions, and all of the talk this year about documentary filmmaking prompted much disdain on our part over the use of the term “documentary.”  That word suggests some type of objectivity; Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary uses words like “factual” and “objective” in its definition.  A documentary filmmaker takes his or her camera to the scene of a series of events or profiles a particular person or persons and provides the most objective view of the subject of the film.   A documentary film is successful, we think, when both the subject of the film and those who are critical of the film’s subject matter agree that it is an accurate representation.  Thus, that factual and objective depiction – complete with the proper context – can prompt serious debate and discussion about the events depicted without falling victim to cries of bias, improper editing, or other editorial tricks of the trade.  But that’s not what documentaries do these days.  Just this year, we’ve written about would-be documentaries by Plaintiff’s lawyers advancing a litigious agenda (that being Susan Saladoff’s Hot Coffee) and disgruntled former litigants making films advocating tort reform (that being Brian J. Kelly’s InJustice.). These are filmmakers with agendas; they seek to convince viewers of a point and call them to action.

These are not documentarians; they are editorialists. There is, of course, a place in film for subjective editorializing, just as there is a place in a newspaper for an editorial and op-ed page. Heck, we here at Abnormal Use engage in editorializing every day and would not purport to be objective reporters of fact (unless we tried really, really hard to do so and specifically made that claim).  However, we do not generally bill ourselves as reporters or documentarians, and thus, we free ourselves of the constraints of journalistic objectivity.

We think that Saladoff, the former trial lawyer and producer of Hot Coffee, and Kelly, the former litigant and maker of InJustice – are editorialists.  They admit that they have an agenda, and they concede that they are trying to change people’s minds by showing them things they may not have seen before.  Their films are the work of advocates.  Thus, the term “documentary” is misleading when applied to their films, especially in light of  Saladoff’s representation that she is offering “the truth behind the McDonald’s case.”  Saladoff is a plaintiff’s lawyer with an agenda who has turned film maker; Kelly is a citizen who had an unpleasant encounter with the legal system who has a Washington PR firm with Bush administration alumni promoting his film effort. There’s nothing wrong with their decisions to make films to express their opinions about the American civil justice system; it’s just wrong to call them documentaries.

We suspect there would be similar charges of bias if we here at Abnormal Use produced a documentary on the merits of tort reform – the first complaint we would expect to hear would be that defense lawyers at a large southeastern civil litigation firm were attempting to change the minds of potential jurors.  (Kelly faced similar criticism with InJustice, and in fact, those charges of “bias” were leveled against us when we criticized Saladoff’s film). Similarly, we pointed out the potential bias of Saladoff, whose Facebook page explicitly requests viewers to “take action” and write letters to the editor to advance the film’s mission. (We’ve included in this post a few screencaps from the Hot Coffee official Facebook page indicating how the documentary’s producers are calling for actions by viewers – not something you typically see from an objective reporter of facts).  Take a look:

We suppose there is some point where the public is aware that what is presented as a “documentary” is not, in fact, an objective narrative.  Michael Moore became know for such films as Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 911, all of which were documentaries, in the sense that they were not narrative fiction, although they certainly had an editorial agenda not implied by the use of the term “documentary.”  There’s always a conservative would-be documentary popping up in response to Moore’s films, as well, but again, those too have agendas. Whatever the case, when the public learns of a new Moore film, they are not expecting an objective documentary. But when an unknown filmmaker like Saladoff or Kelly appears on the scene purporting to expose truth, we must be mindful of the term.

Incidentally, and perhaps ironically, we did attempt to make one objective piece of reporting on this very case.  Please direct your browser to our “Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case FAQ” for an editorial–free question and answer session about the underlying facts of the infamous hot coffee case, the trial thereof, and the post trial developments.  We thought it might be helpful if there was at least one place on the Internet where there was an objective retelling of that case using only the original documents from the trial and early 1990’s media coverage thereof.  If you want to learn the facts of the case, that is a good place to go.

This is not an intellectual property blog, although we couldn’t resist sharing the cover of The Adventures of Bob Hope #68, published way, way back in 1961. Hope, the comedian and star of the eponymous comic book series, appears at the Patent Office with a crate labeled “Top Secret,” which he claims contains “the greatest invention ever.” This appears to upset the caveman sitting nearby his own invention, the wheel. Something tells us this is not an accurate depiction of the patent application process as it existed in the early 1960s.

Maxwell Kennerly of the Litigation and Trial blog has a very interesting post on “The Three Types of Practicing Lawyer Blogs.”  He divides law blogs by practicing lawyers into three categories: the mainstream, the personalities, and the marketers.  And guess what? He identified us as an example of a personality blog! Says he: “The personalities are the single lawyer or handful of lawyers who write when they’re inspired, and they’re written with a distinctive voice. These blogs can range from analysis of case law (e.g., Drug and Device Law, D & O Diary) to personal observations about law (e.g., Erik Turkewitz, Associate’s Mind, Day on Torts) to a mixture of both (e.g., China Law Blog, Abnormal Use) . When someone mentions the ‘blawgosphere,’ they’re usually talking about those blogs — not least because those blogs are far, far more likely to link out to other websites and to engage in discussion with one another. ‘Organic’ is an apt description.”  Check out the full post.  In it, Kennerly offers the wisest advice one can give to prospective law bloggers: “Don’t feel compelled to write a particular type of blog; write what you like to write and get good at it, or it will suck and you will hate it.” We just discovered the post last night, and we may offer a more substantive response in the coming weeks.  We love blogging about legal blogging, after all.

Did you know that yesterday was National Coffee Day? We’ve written much about hot coffee lawsuits this past year, but it all began with our Stella Liebeck McDonald’s Hot Coffee FAQ, which we published in January in an attempt to dispel myths about the infamous lawsuit.  In writing the piece, we relied only on the original sources, those being the actual pleadings and motions in the case, as well as some contemporary media coverage of the verdict and settlement from 1994.  To celebrate this week’s National Coffee Day, take a look back at that FAQ here.

Well, I guess we’re going to have to buy new iPhones now.

You’ve got to hand it to Steve McConnell at the Drug and Device Law Blog.  In a post he ran Monday, he begins a paragraph recounting his memories of Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” with a Sgt. Pepper reference! (“It was 20 years ago today,” begins the old Beatles song, and Nirvana’s most famous song appeared on the Nevermind album 20 years ago this month). And the post itself is about a new Seventh Circuit opinion on “the standard of review for a district court’s refusal to permit an amended complaint.”  How did he tie it all together, you may ask? The musical references are to songs with misheard lyrics, while the new Seventh Circuit case is about unintelligible allegations in a pleading.  Nice.

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 associate dean of faculty development and law professor Tamara Piety of the University of Tulsa in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  She teaches courses in Corporate Law, Civil Procedure, Evidence, and Scientific Evidence. Dean Piety also knows a thing or two about corporate speech.  Her new book, Brandishing The First Amendment, argues that commercial interests should not have free speech rights. It will be published this fall by the University of Michigan Press. The interview is as follows:

1.  You’ve written and taught a great deal about commercial speech (including a book to be published on the subject later this year). Although this is primarily a constitutional topic, what aspect of this issue do you believe that civil litigators should be aware of in their daily practice of representing corporate defendants?

In Brandishing the First Amendment, which is forthcoming from the University of Michigan Press, I discuss the rise of an aggressive use of the First Amendment to fend of regulation of various sorts, as well as its use as a defense to fraud claims like that in Kasky v. Nike. Obviously, in the wake of Citizens United and perhaps more significantly still for business, Sorrell v. IMS, commercial and corporate speech and the First Amendment will continue to be a hot topic at the level of strategic corporate policy. Raising the First Amendment has become a sort of portmanteau, all purpose, weapon against regulation. That said, I am not sure there is much that will touch civil litigators in their daily practice of representing corporate defendants. Although presumably there will be cases in which a First Amendment defense could be raised to some sort of mislabeling or false advertising claim, the ordinary product liability case will probably not be affected.

2.  You teach a course called “Scientific Evidence.” What is the most significant evidence opinion to come out in the last year? Why is it significant?

The most significant case to come out of the Supreme Court last year for purposes of my scientific evidence course (which will be renamed “Expert Evidence” for Spring 2012) is the Bullcoming v. New Mexico case involving the application of the Confrontation Clause to the admission of lab reports. A lab technician will no longer be able to testify to the results of an analysis from a report where he or she did not actually observe the test. Many believe this is likely to have very significant consequences for prosecutors and forensic testimony involving DNA, drug residue and other chemical analysis and similar lab tests or expert assessments. However, this case won’t have much significance for civil practitioners since the Confrontation Clause is only of interest in criminal cases.

3.  Some states, including South Carolina, have not adopted the federal Daubert standard. What challenges, if any, do such states face in light of their decision not to follow the federal approach?

I think there are always challenges when it seems that you are failing to follow “industry standard.” And to the extent many view Daubert that way I suppose those states (or their legislators) which have not adopted the Daubert test  may face some pressure to adopt the federal standard. But it is not universally popular. And so I think that pressure is misplaced. Daubert is no magic bullet for determining how to sort good expert evidence from bad. As Ramirez v. State from Florida illustrated a few years back, it is possible for a court which is supposedly following a Frye standard to apply the Daubert standard in everything but name. So what standard nominally controls isn’t as important as it may seem at first blush. In Ramirez, the Florida Supreme Court reversed for (I think for maybe the 4th time) a conviction involving expert testimony from a tool marks expert that linked marks in a homicide victim’s body to a particular serrated knife found in the defendant’s possession. The witness claimed his method led to a 100 percent level of confidence in the identification and that he could identify the defendant’s knife  to the exclusion of all other such knives in the world. This claim was probably not well founded from a scientific standpoint and he may have fared better if he had simply said he was “very sure” or “reasonably certain” or words to that effect instead of reaching for an improbably high number. The Florida Supreme Court essentially used a Daubert type analysis to hold that this sort of claim was scientifically suspect and thus ought to be have been excluded as unfairly prejudicial. The decision in this case illustrates why you need to be familiar with the basic framework of Daubert even if your jurisdiction uses a different test. Judges may want the questions the Daubert Court asked– was the finding published in a peer reviewed journal? Is there a known error rate?, etc. – to be answered regardless of the phrasing of the local rule. So I am inclined to think that decisions like Ramirez illustrate that it doesn’t matter so much which standard a state adopts. If the court you are facing is inclined to find the evidence you want to submit unusual and bizarre versus conventional and routine it will probably exclude it because a court can usually find a means of doing so. The doctrinal test has more influence on the form the argument takes than the substantive outcome. That is why I don’t think Daubert necessarily represents the best test or the “industry standard” with respect to expert testimony. I’m not sure there is a good way of solving this problem since the problem arises because lawyers are trained in every field that they need to evaluate and there is no way that they could be. It is a problem that defies a completely satisfactory solution. South Carolina’s may be as good as the federal approach.

4.  What do you think is the most misunderstood issue in the scientific evidence arena?  Why is it misunderstood?

This is a tough question because there is so much that is misunderstood! I guess if I had to pick one thing it is the feeling that there is a really clear division between “science” and other kinds of expertise. And this goes back to my answer to the last question. Lawyers are scientists but scientists also aren’t infallible and the line between “science” and other types of knowledge is not always clear-cut. There are a variety of ways to try to “prove” something. Some are more reliable than others. For example randomized, double blind trials produce more reliable results for the types of studies for which they are appropriate than many other types of research. But this sort of test is not available or appropriate for every question. Furthermore, probabilities and regression analysis tell you a great deal and will help clinicians make diagnoses, ones we want, for example, our doctors to rely on in many cases. However they cannot say for certain that any one instance of a particular substance caused a particular condition. Yet the courts often seem to require that degree of precision from experts. If they don’t get it they will exclude the testimony. I think that is a mistake, particularly since we routinely and unquestioningly admit testimony that has lower levels of reliability than many regression analyses (and a lot lower than we imagine!), such as eye witness testimony.  I think we ask scientific evidence to do more than it can in some circumstances when much of what we want to prove in a court of law–the facts about the occurrence or non-occurrence of some acts, or a particular state of mind– are often probably out of the reach of not just the legal system, but of human capacity.  I think maybe we seek this sort of certainty from the legal system because too much uncertainty is paralyzing. So having a basis for making a decision, even if it is not always accurate, is sometimes preferred to saying “I don’t know” or “we can’t decide.”  There isn’t much room for compromise verdicts in courts of law, even though jurors try to enter them all the time.  I think this impossibility of knowing all the facts is one of the attractions of strict liability – it allocates fault without having to delve into one of the most difficult areas to prove – intent. Yet, of course, if you are the defendant who feels wrongly burdened because you feel like you were doing the right thing and taking all reasonable precautions, it is probably not satisfactory to say to that defendant, “Well, society is better off if we don’t try to figure out your state of mind so be comforted that you are contributing to social stability.” You want the system to be fair to you. Everybody does.  Yet that is an elusive goal. And in many cases it may be an open question which system – fault-based or strict liability  –is better for society as a whole. Neither approach is going to be satisfactory in every case.

5.  Why do you believe there was a popular misunderstanding of the facts of the Stella Liebeck McDonald’s hot coffee case? In a comment to one of our earlier blog pieces, you noted that McDonald’s “escaped appropriate censure because of the campaign to lampoon the case.” What censure do you believe McDonald’s should have received, and why?

On the first part of your question, I think the opening interviews with people on the street in the movie Hot Coffee, as well as some of the materials on the web suggesting that the McDonald’s case was a paradigmatic “frivolous” lawsuit, combined with the reaction the film makers got when they told people the facts of the case, combine to suggest that; (a) most people, when they know the facts, don’t think it was a frivolous case and (b) that the perception that it was frivolous was nevertheless widespread.  To me that indicates there was a popular misunderstanding. The  movie reflects that McDonald’s employees and management were aware that the holding temperature wasn’t fit for human consumption and that there had been a number of incidents in which people had been injured. When you combine these facts with a refusal to pay Ms. Liebeck what appeared to be a relatively modest initial request, McDonald’s actions seems worthy of censure. In terms of what censure it deserves, I guess the movie itself constitutes the deserved criticism I had in mind, particularly if it is widely viewed. On a side note, the movie illustrates that sometimes it is better to advise the client to settle even a case the company thinks it can or should win rather than face this sort of bad publicity.  Of course, it is also the right thing to do if you are at fault. Another aside, it is unfortunate that sometimes the consequences of appropriate apologies overwhelm the ordinary human instinct to apologize in appropriate circumstances and sometimes discourage settlements.  On the other hand, the problem I referred to in your earlier questions about scientific evidence and our ability to figure out what the facts are, make it difficult for management to sort out the deserving from the undeserving plaintiffs. And I think defendants are often fearful of the specter of an endless parade of plaintiffs, or of setting themselves up as a deep pocket.  All I can say to that is that defendants (and their attorneys) just have to do the best they can in trying to sort those cases out. Attorneys (as you undoubtedly know) need to look at these cases from the perspective of plaintiffs and of prospective jurors and be able to anticipate how those jurors, or the public, will view these facts and advise their clients accordingly. And clients need to understand that attorneys who advice them that way are doing their job and trying to prevent disasters down the road by offering reliable advice about how to sort out the cases that ought to be settled from those that ought to be contested, not just refusing to take their “side.” Clients should not want a “yes man” who is afraid to tell them which strategies will likely work and which won’t. I don’t know if McDonald’s got good advice in the Liebeck case, but it did it appears that it didn’t or it wasn’t followed. Of course, my observation on that point may be simply a result of hindsight bias – everything looks more obvious in retrospect!

BONUS QUESTION: What do you think is the best depiction in popular culture of corporate speech or scientific evidence issues?

On evidence generally it is (no kidding) My Cousin Vinny, although that now qualifies as an “old movie” and maybe not part of “popular” culture any more. A more recent one that touches on the difficulties of proving something is Doubt with Meryl Streep and Phillip Seymour Hoffman.  On corporate speech, I think the best is a documentary called The Corporation.  But I haven’t seen everything that is out there, so there may be better examples. I would be interested in hearing from others what they think are the best examples.

BIOGRAPHY: Tamara Piety is the Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Associate Professor of Law at the University of Tulsa College of Law. She is a nationally recognized legal scholar writing about the legal treatment of commercial and corporate speech. Dean Piety’s book, Brandishing the First Amendment, is forthcoming this fall from University of Michigan Press.  Dean Piety is an experienced former litigator who practiced law in South Florida for several years focusing on complex commercial fraud and criminal defense. She teaches a range of litigation-related subjects including, Evidence, Scientific Evidence and Law and Mind Sciences. Piety earned her bachelor’s degree in economics from Florida International University in 1985; her J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Miami School of Law in 1991 where she was an Article and Comments Editor for the University of Miami Law Review and Order of the Coif; and her LL.M. from Harvard Law School in 2000 where she was the Executive Editor of the Harvard Women’s Law Journal. She served as judicial clerk for the Honorable Peter T. Fay on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and as an interim clerk for the Honorable Irving L. Goldberg on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

We’ve been doing this blogging thing for about twenty months now, and we’ve enjoyed bringing you legal news and irreverent commentary on products liability issues. One of our proudest moments here at Abnormal Use was when we were included on the ABA Journal‘s annual list of the 100 best legal blogs last year. We very much appreciated the support of our readers who nominated us for inclusion on that list. Guess what?  The ABA Journal is now seeking nominations for this year’s list.  We humbly request that you, our dear readers, nominate us for the honor again this year.

You can do so by clicking here and briefly completing the very short nomination form. It should take only a few short moments to complete.

Be sure to tell them what you’ve liked about Abnormal Use this year (as the folks at the ABA Journal are looking for specifics). So far, we’ve had a pretty good year, if we do say so ourselves. We’ve continued to bring you the latest state and federal legal news and case commentaries in the products liability field.  We have interviewed a number of intriguing law professors, practitioners, and Hollywood celebrities (including the writers and producer of the 1991 film Class Action and even Mark-Paul Gosselaar and Breckin Meyer of TNT’s “Franklin & Bash” TV show). We offered some critical commentary on Hot Coffee, the would-be documentary film by plaintiffs attorney Susan Saladoff, which earned us shout-outs from both The New York Times and National Public Radio.  In March, Scientific American picked up a story we did on a series of predictions made in 1931 about the year 2011. We even came up with a comprehensive list of songs about attorneys and judges and authored what we thought was a pretty darn funny April Fool’s Day joke on the Star Wars prequels.  And, of course, each Friday, we have brought you a different legal themed comic book cover (which, you might not realize, is actually pretty difficult, as finding all of those legal comic book covers is sometimes like finding a needle in a haystack). We’ve even set up a page on Facebook. All of this we have enjoyed doing immensely.  Throughout this enterprise, we have also made a number of good friends in the legal blogosphere.

Which brings us back to our humble request for a nomination. Take a look at the nominating form and the ABA Journal‘s brief guidelines for submission.  If you enjoy the commentary we offer here and would like to support us in this endeavor, we would very much appreciate it. Nominations will be accepted until September 9.

We here at Abnormal Use have previously mentioned that She-Hulk, the Marvel Comics character, is a lawyer and litigator, and our friends at The Law & The Multiverse recently analyzed the issue of She-Hulk’s disbarment. With that prompting, we revisit the super heroine. Depicted above is the cover of She-Hulk #7, published not so long ago in 2006 and featuring She-Hulk sitting on a bench which happens to feature an advertisement for her alter ego Jennifer Walters’ personal injury practice. We wonder if it complies with the lawyer advertising rules of the Marvel Universe. (Interestingly, although the advertisement asks potential slip and fall Plaintiffs to call her for representation, there does not appear to be a phone number on the ad.).

Dave Lake of Seattle Weekly’s Reverb music blog offers a list of interest: “The 11 Most Notorious Rock & Roll Crimes.” Our question: Shouldn’t Bob Dylan’s latest string of live performances be included on any list of musical crimes? Or even his albums from the 1980s? Those things Mr. Lake does not address.

Well, it’s not a hot coffee lawsuit (and we bet you’re tired of hearing about those on this site!), but McDonald’s has now been sued in federal court in California over its advertising, which the Plaintiffs in that case contend is designed to “lure” children into the fast food company’s restaurants. How specifically, pray tell? The Happy Meal. That’s right. There is a class action lawsuit pending in federal court over Happy Meals. Wouldn’t it be fantastic if McDonald’s presented Grimace as its 30(b)(6) witness?  (More here from Reuters).

There’s a new blog dedicated to lawyers using iPads. It’s called IPAD4LAWYERS, and it’s run by Tom Mighell. We’ll have to add that to our list of daily legal technology reading which, of course, starts with the iPhone J.D. blog. (Hat tip: Cocky Law Blog).

Don’t forget: You can follow Abnormal Use on Twitter at @gwblawfirm. (In fact, check out our GWB 2.0 website for all of our social media endeavors as a blog and law firm.).