As I look back at my childhood, I recall a number of formative events which shaped me into the adult I later became.  Of those experiences, my first viewing of My Cousin Vinny ranks at the top of the list. Doubt me? It’s the honest truth.

My first Vinny experience came later than most.  When the film was released in theaters twenty years ago this week, I was in the fifth grade and far too young to gain entry into an R-rated movie.   To be honest, I did not even realize at the time I was being punished by oppressive movie restrictions.  I was more interested in classics like Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and Wayne’s World.  As you might imagine from this embarrassing confession, Vinny was not exactly on my radar in the early 1990s.  As a result, I didn’t watch the film until my parents rented it on VHS some time later.  Of course, I had to stay up late after my parents had retired to bed to watch it due to its R-rating.

The movie was, of course, hilarious, even though some of its humor was slightly over the head of a ten year old viewer.  Above all else, Vinny’s opening statement to the jury stayed with me long after that first screening.  In that scene, district attorney Jim Trotter (played by the late Lane Smith) gives a rousing opening statement forecasting the state’s damning evidence.  Vinny, weary and exhausted from a night without slumber, slept through Trotter’s presentation.  Undaunted, Vinny responds with the greatest opening statement in the history of film – “Everything that guy just said is bullsh*t.  Thank you.”  The jury was instructed to disregard the entire statement with the exception of the “thank you.”  Nevertheless, he made his point.  That young version of me hoped to do the same some day.

Fast forward to the fall of 1993.  A friend of mine was running unopposed to be our 7th grade homeroom’s student council representative.  A firm believer in democracy, I thought it would be un-American to permit an uncontested election for such a prestigious position.  Unable to convince any of my other classmates to run, I decided to toss my name into the hat.  I never really desired to become a member of the student council, but I did want to give my class another option, even if it was an untenable one.  On the other hand, my friend clearly wanted the job and campaigned as if he were seeking a presidential nomination (minus the negative television ads and robocalls).

After a week of campaigning, we each gave a speech to our class prior to the election.  My friend arrived fully prepared with note cards and a platform.  I, on the other hand, had forgotten that it was even election day.  My friend spoke first.  He delivered a lengthy speech and set forward a clear agenda of (unachievable) educational reform.  After concluding, he returned to his seat to thunderous applause.  It was then my turn. I walked to the front of classroom, all the while trying to formulate clever impromptu remarks.  At that time, I realized this was my chance to be Vinny.  I knew saying, “Everything he just said is bullsh*t” would earn me an afternoon of tedium in detention.  So, I decided to adapt Vinny’s speech for a 7th grade audience.  My speech, like Vinny’s, consisted of just one sentence: “Everything he just said, I can do better.”  Not quite as punchy, but it still got the point across, right?

While my teacher disapproved of my candor, she respected the First Amendment and allowed the election to go forward.  Not that I cared.  It wasn’t like I was going to win with that speech anyway.  To my surprise, however, my class felt differently.  I won in a landslide.

To date, I have not recreated Vinny’s infamous opening statement in a court of law.  However, it taught me a valuable lesson.  Let’s cut through all of the bull and tell the people what they need to hear.  You’d be surprised how well people respond to the truth.  That is the crux of Vinny.  There is nothing wrong with cutting to the chase.  This philosophy has served me well so far.  After all, it did earn me a yearlong stint as a 7th grade student council representative.

Thanks for that, Vinny.

(To see a full index of our My Cousin Vinny twentieth anniversary coverage, please see here.).

As you have probably gathered by now, we here at Abnormal Use are big fans of the movie My Cousin Vinny.  So we were elated to learn of the 1998 concept album, “Vincent LaGuardia Gambini Sings For Just You,” for which actor Joe Pesci resurrected the Vincent LaGuardia Gambini character to record fourteen tunes. We happily shelled out the $1.50 for a used copy on eBay and eagerly awaited its arrival.  As soon as it was delivered to our offices, we popped it into the old CD player for a listen. We hoped that it would offer the same sorts of humor and wisdom that the film did.  But our expectations were, shall we say, a bit too high under the circumstances.

Released in October of 1998, six and a half years after the film hit theatres, and produced by Tom “T-Bone” Wolk and the production duo of Poke & Tone, the album is, well, atrocious.  In fact, we think that’s putting nicely. (Relax, Mr. Pesci, we’re not saying you amuse us.).   Here’s a little taste of the type of music this CD features.  The linked track is titled “Yo Cousin Vinny.” Clever, eh? It’s the very first track of the album.  We suppose the record label execs thought an expletive-laden salsa tune with Pesci at the  helm was a recipe for success.   They were wrong.  Of course, perhaps we’re underestimating the album’s potential international appeal. The album also features Italian and Spanish language versions of the same “Yo Cousin Vinny” track. We neglected to check the late 1990s pop music charts, but we doubt the album was huge overseas. But it’s possible, right?

Whatever the thinking of the record execs, the remainder of Pesci’s concept album is no better than its first track.   Hardly amusing, the schtick boasts no relation to the movie whatsoever.  We were duped!  We want our $1.50 back!  However, we should note for the record that not everyone agrees with our take on the record, since it currently maintains a 4 star rating on Amazon.com. Who knew?

Interestingly, this album was not Pesci’s first foray into recorded music.  Back in the 1960’s, under the name Joe Ritchie, he released an album called “Little Joe Sure Can Sing!”  Don’t believe us?  Take a look:

Guess what? Thanks to the magic of the Internets, you can hear one of that ancient album’s tracks on the Internet.  Click here to hear his song, “Can You Fix The Way I Talk For Christmas?” You’re certain to recognize Pesci’s voice. Perhaps some day in the distant future we here at Abnormal Use will offer you a review of that forty year old record, but not today. We wonder if that Pesci from the 1960s ever suspected that three decades later he’d record an album based on one of his films. We’ll never know.

(To see a full index of our My Cousin Vinny twentieth anniversary coverage, please see here.).

Aside from being a downright hilarious movie, My Cousin Vinny offers some interesting lessons for aspiring trial attorneys.  Some were intentional, some not, but either way, there’s some good stuff.  So, without further ado, here are six lessons learned from Vinny:

Lesson 1 – Pick Your Battles

Scene:  Vinny doesn’t ask any questions at the preliminary hearing.  His client, Stan, angrily asks, “Why didn’t you ask them any questions? Maybe if you’d put up some kind of a fight, you could have gotten the case thrown out!”  Vinny calmly responds, “Hey, Stan, you’re in Ala-f*&%in’-bama. You come from New York. You killed a good ol’ boy. There is no way this is not going to trial!”

Lesson:  Sometimes, as an attorney, you need to know when to pick your battles.  Of course, by this point in the movie, Vinny didn’t have all the great exculpatory evidence he acquired later.  However, Vinny is probably right that  there was no way the case would be resolved without a trial.  It may have been a smart move to play it close to the vest and not reveal too much of his trial strategy.

Lesson 2 – No Argument in the Opening Statement

Scene:  The prosecutor, Jim Trotter, delivers a textbook opening statement – a fine recitation of the prosecution’s version of the facts combined with a clever attempt to massage the  jury’s collective ego.  Then, Vinny stands and delivers his own rather brief opening statement:  “Uh . . . everything that guy just said is bullsh*t. Thank you.”

Lesson: You’ve been dying to deliver this same opening statement for years, haven’t you?  It’s punchy; it cuts right to the chase.  But alas, such a retort is an improper argument.  Perhaps Vinny should have saved that approach for his closing argument.

Lesson 3 – Match Your Negotiation Strategy to Your Opponent

Scene:  Vinny finds out his girlfriend got stiffed on a game of pool with some yokel.  He flies down to the pool hall to collect, and the yokel asks, “How ‘bout I just kick your ass?”  Vinny retorts, “Oh, a counter-offer. This is a tough decision here. Get my ass kicked or collect $200?  Well, here’s my counter-offer: What if I were just to kick the ever loving sh!t out of you? . . . If I was to kick the sh!t out of you, do I get the money?”

Lesson: So much for that “Getting to YES” model where everybody wins.  Vinny invokes the old school tradition in his negotiations. Sometimes, that works.  It’s all about knowing your opponent.  Some are unreasonable. There’s no getting to “yes” without cracking skulls and forcing them to into agreement.  Vinny’s method succeeded, and he eventually collected that $200.

Lesson 4 – Do Some Digging

Scene:  There’s a long montage where Vinny performs his own investigation into the case.  He has his girlfriend take some photographs along the way.  Vinny is clearly annoyed when she’s trying to show him the pictures in the middle of trial.  He starts ranting, “Where’d you shoot this, from up in a tree? What’s this over here? It’s dog sh!t… That’s great! Dog sh%t, what a clue! . . . I should’ve asked you along time ago for these pictures.”  But then he realizes there’s a picture of the tire tracks, which really is the case cracker.

Lesson:  Most of the time, the facts will make or break your case.  As an attorney, you can’t always wait for the facts and evidence to come to you.  Even when you think you’ve got everything you need, keep digging.  Get out there and visit the accident scene, personally inspect the physical evidence, and talk to everyone you think knows anything about the case.  You never know what you are going to find if you keep digging.  It sure paid off for Vinny in his trial, and some day, that same diligence may pay off for you in one of your cases.

Lesson 5 – Be Collegial with Fellow Attorneys

Scene:  At one point in the movie, Vinny and the prosecutor engage in friendly discussion about their entry into the legal profession.  Later in the film, the prosecutor takes Vinny on a hunting trip, lets him borrow his cabin, and even congratulates him after Vinny’s victory over him at trial.

Lesson:  It’s a given that you should be a zealous advocate for your client.  But that doesn’t mean you can’t be civil, or even friendly, with opposing counsel.  At the end of the day, you are both just doing your job.  As everyone knows, one’s profession is more enjoyable when you’re working with friendly and respectful people.  Two attorneys should be able to duke it out in the courtroom and then grab a drink together after the trial concludes.

Lesson 6 – Stay Calm

Scene: As Vinny’s defense of his clients begins to unravel, he asks himself, “How the f*&k did I get into this sh!t?”  Luckily, Vinny keeps it together and eventually earns his clients their freedom.

Lesson: For many attorneys, your first trial will feel just like this movie (although hopefully, it won’t be as bad in reality).  You’ll have things that will go way off course, and there will probably be a point where you feel like you’re in way over your head.  You may even start asking yourself “Am I cut out for this?” or “How did I get into this?”  Don’t despair. Stay calm and press on.  By your second or third trial, things will seem much better.

These are just a few of the lessons to be learned from My Cousin Vinny.   The next time you watch the movie, find a legal pad and take notes. There are many other lessons, such as proper courtroom attire, enunciation, candor toward the court, and the importance of procedural rules. It’s almost a law school course in and of itself.

(To see a full index of our My Cousin Vinny twentieth anniversary coverage, please see here.).

Twenty years ago tomorrow, on March 13, 1992, the popular legal comedy My Cousin Vinny hit theatres.  If you’re a lawyer, you’ve probably seen the film many, many times and quoted it just as often. Written and co-produced by Dale Launer, and directed by Jonathan Lynn, the film stars Joe Pesci as Vincent LaGuardia Gambini, a New Yorker and new bar member defending two capital murder defendants in faraway Alabama.  It’s a funny, funny movie. Upon its release, New York Times film critic Vincent Canby noted: “The film has a secure and sophisticated sense of what makes farce so delicious, which may not be surprising, since its credentials are about as impeccable as you can find in the peccable atmosphere of Hollywood.”  But there is a truth that accompanies the humor. Jack Garner of the Gannett News Service, writing at the time, saw fit to include this statement in his review: “And a lawyer friend even tells me he found the courtroom segments more natural and believable than he’s seen in some for-more-prestige judicial dramas.” In March of 1993, a full year after the film’s release, actress Marisa Tomei, who played Vinny’s fiancee (and an expert witness to boot),  would win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress at the 65th Academy Awards. Even two decades after its release, the film continues to resonate with lawyer viewers. In 2008, the ABA Journal named it the third best legal film of all time.  (The ABA Journal would also name the character of Vinny number twelve on the list of Top 25 fictional lawyers; its readers, in a popular vote, chose Vinny as number one.). We here at Abnormal Use have always been fans of this movie, so we decided to commemorate its twentieth anniversary with a full week’s worth of coverage.  As you know, in the past, we have featured interviews with Hollywood celebrities on the anniversaries of the release of their legal themed films, including an interview with the writers and producers of the 1991 film Class Action last year this time last year.  However, for this occasion, we’ve gone all out. This week, we’ll be posting  interviews with members of the cast and crew, our own thoughts and memories of the film, and links to other bloggers’ anniversary thoughts.

We are particularly excited about this project and offer the following preview of what to expect this week:

Later Today

“My Cousin Vinny – More Than A Movie.”  In this piece, writer Nick Farr explains how My Cousin Vinny changed both his life and the outcome of a 7th grade student council election. (Yes, you read that right.).

“Lessons Learned From Vincent L. Gambini.”  In this piece, our newest contributor, Rob Green, offer six practical lessons that lawyers can glean from watching the film. If you think about it, the film is its own continuing education course with many practice tips contained therein.  In fact, we should probably all get CLE credit for watching it again, don’t you think?

“Review: Vincent LaGuardia Gambini Sings Just For You.”  Did you know that years after the film’s release, Joe Pesci released an album in character as Vinny? Rob Green somehow found a copy of this long forgotten album and drafted a review.  Spoiler alert: the album is not for the faint of heart.  Or the faint of ears, for that matter.

Tuesday, March 13

Interview with Director Jonathan Lynn. You know Jonathan Lynn’s work.  He directed Clue, Trial & Error, and a number of other beloved films.  What you might not know is that Lynn once studied law at Cambridge. In this interview with Nick Farr, Lynn recalls the shooting of the film and the funniest moment of its production.

Wednesday, March 14

Interview with writer/co-producer Dale Launer.  You also know Launer’s work.  He wrote Ruthless People and Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. In his interview with Nick Farr, Launer, as the creator of the Vinny character, shares his memories on how he developed the character and brought him to life.  Launer also reveals the details of the planned sequel that never made it into existence.

Thursday, March 15

Interview with cast member James Rebhorn, who played George Wilbur, the prosecution’s automotive expert witness from the FBI.  Rebhorn, a veteran character actor, has played many lawyers, judges, and jurors over the course of his career, and he shares his memories of the film and thoughts on the craft with our editor, Jim Dedman.  “Seinfeld” Alert: Rebhorn also played the district attorney who prosecuted Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer in the “Seinfeld” series finale, so of course we asked him about that, as well.

Interview with cast member Mitchell Whitfield, who played Stan Rothenstein, one of two murder defendant clients represented by Vinny.  Whitfield would go on to play Barry, Rachel’s former fiancee, on “Friends.”  Whitfield spoke to our own Steve Buckingham about his memories of the film, its place in cinema history, and of course, what it is like to kiss Jennifer Aniston on a sitcom set.

Interview with cast member Raynor Scheine, who played Ernie Crane, the eyewitness whose testimony Vinny demolishes due to the presence of dirty windows and vegetation in his field of view. Scheine, a denizen of both the stage and screen, shares some behind the scenes memories with our own Nick Farr.

Friday, March 16

My Cousin Vinny Links.  We asked a number of our favorite law bloggers – including some  heavy hitters in the legal blogosphere – to rewatch the film and provide their thoughts on the film twenty years after its release.  They’ll be posting their reviews throughout the week, and on Friday, we’ll provide links to all of them and post excerpts from each of their posts for your review and commentary here.

As the days proceed, we will activate the links to this content above.

If there is one thing we loathe, and we mean really despise, it’s the exasperating “Objection!” television lawyers make unaccompanied by any other statement clarifying the basis of the objection.  Television lawyers, according to this Tampa criminal justice lawyer, seem to believe that if they merely yell the word “Objection!” with some exaggerated sense of annoyance, disdain, or self-righteous outrage, then the television judge, impressed by the level of indignation apparent from the face and voice of the objecting attorney, must therefore rule on his or her behalf.  However, we all know that such objections are rubbish, as they do not preserve any error whatsoever on appeal.  But screenwriters don’t know that, and accordingly, the world is a terrible place indeed.

Sure, sure, we understand that television lawyers play by a different set of rules than do real litigators.  In that simplified world of television courtroom drama, trials are quick and easy, closing statements last only two minutes, and lawyers speechify beyond belief.  To get the hang of how lawyers behave in reality, you must learn more about Whitney S. Boan, P.A. We believe that these irksome television objections occur so often, so frequently, that they must be stopped, and we here at Abnormal Use have got to stop them.

Accordingly, we now call upon Hollywood screenwriters to write follow up justifications for all objecting television lawyers.  These follow up clarifications can be short and quick so as to not disrupt the narrative flow of the television program.  For example, a lawyer can “Objection, hearsay!” or “Objection, badgering the witness!” or even, for the sake of the old school practitioners, “Objection, res gestae!”  Sure, these objections may be just as deficient as the use of the single word, but at least it would be some type of improvement from one we typically see on such programs.  Let’s at least make these objecting television lawyers seem somewhat competent, eh?  Perhaps the most ambitious among those screenwriters will instruct their characters to offer even more substantive objections, citing rules, cases, or courtroom custom.  Then, perhaps, we at Abnormal Use could once again watch legal dramas withour frustration.

(As an aside, we must share a remark made by our evidence professor many years ago indicating that only television lawyers say “Objection, ask and answered” and that the proper objection for practicing litigators is “Objection, repetitious.”)

In fact, we’d also like to see television judges do a bit more than respond with single words, as well.  On many shows, you will only hear the judge say “Sustained!” or “Denied!” If you are lucky, maybe the judge will say something like “I’ll allow it” or “Move along, counselor,” but that’s it.  Come on, television judges! Apparently in the Hollywood legal television program Mad Libs employed by screenwriters, that’s about all they can permit a judge to say on screen.  We can do better!

Okay, dear readers.  It’s early January, and you are just now returning vacation, and unfortunately, you are probably not reading your favorite products liability law blog.  So, today, we’ll talk about something frivolous:  our recent attempt at a pop culture interview (although one somewhat related to the practice of law).

As you recall, last month, our fearless leader Mills Gallivan authored a post commemorating the thirtieth anniversary of the great 1981 film, Absence of Malice.  Mills remarked upon the film’s greatest scene, the one featuring Wilford Brimley as the U.S. Attorney cleaning up the mess the other characters made throughout the film.  Mills rightly noted that the scene is the film’s best. He also explained why that scene continues to resonate with lawyer viewers even three decades later.

But, as you know, we here at Abnormal Use occasionally like to spice things up with interviews with our favorite pop culture figures, particularly when an anniversary is involved.  Way back in March of this year, we interviewed the writers and producer of the 1991 film Class Action (which you may remember starred Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as father/daughter lawyers on opposite sides of a products liability case).  In preparation for Mills’ Absence of Malice piece, we sought interviews with some folks associated with that film.  First, we contacted Kurt Luedtke,  the screenwriter, who declined our request.  (We should note for the record that Mr. Luedtke declined personally, not through his representation, and did so in perhaps the most polite fashion we have ever encountered here at Abnormal Use.)  Next, we requested an interview with Brimley himself through his representation.  We thought it might be fun to ask the actor who created the film’s most memorable role.  As sometimes happened, we sent several requests to his representation and heard nothing back – not a single response.  This is not unusual, and quite frankly, not unexpected, as we are just a two year old law blog on the East Coast and we doubt Hollywood agents and PR officials consider us of much value to their clients’ careers.  However, we have had some limited success in the past and thought we would give it the old college try.  But after a few unreturned attempts at contact, we gave up.

Then it happened.

You wouldn’t believe what happened.

One day I returned to my office from lunch and found a voicemail waiting for me.  There’s nothing quite like the feeling of walking into your office and seeing the red light on your phone lit, as that could mean many things, not all of them good.  But, at the end of the day, there’s nothing unusual about a voicemail, so we picked up the receiver and dialed our password.

And we listened to the one voicemail that was waiting for us.

From Wilford Brimley.

In his unmistakable voice.

And in the voicemail (now lost to history), Brimley related that he had gotten a “letter from you people” and was calling in response our request.

Although the voice was most certainly that of Brimley, we couldn’t believe it.  We thought that perhaps one of our colleagues or Abnormal Use writers was playing a joke on us and impersonating the actor.  (Prime suspect:  Steve Buckingham.)  However, our investigation led to the inescapable conclusion that the voicemail was in fact from Brimley himself.  Apparently, his representation or agent or whomever had forwarded our request to him, and he called us directly.

But he did not leave a number.

There was not a way to contact him back because he did not leave a number.

Attempts to reach him again through his agent were unsuccessful.

If only we had been at our desk on that particular day we could have done an impromptu interview with Brimley himself.

But it was not to be.

Alas.

Rather than link a series of Christmas themed legal news stories, today, we here at Abnormal Use thought we would explore something a bit more cheer inducing and suited to the holiday at hand. So, to celebrate the occasion, we asked three of our contributors to share their thoughts on the movies they cherish most during the holidays. (We tried this once on Halloween, so we thought, why not for Christmas?)

Steve Buckingham: There are two movies that stand out in my mind as perennial feel-good classics: A Christmas Carol and It’s a Wonderful Life.  One is the story of a bad man’s redemption; the other is a story of a good man’s redemption.  And what could be more inspirational around the holidays than that?  It’s a dynamic duo of warm-fuzzies.

But I’m not really a warm-and-fuzzy kind of guy.  So why am I drawn to these stories?  I think it’s because I see so much of myself in both Ebenezer Scrooge and George Bailey.

Some of you may be thinking, Whatever, Buckingham.  Don’t flatter yourself.  You’re not interesting enough to be a character. Fair enough.  But I have this theory — it’s more of a working hypothesis — that Scrooge and George have a lot in common.  So much in common, in fact, that it was the same basic personality trait that led to each of their downfalls: Duty.

You can see it in Scrooge’s early life.  As a young man, Scrooge was engaged to a lovely young filly.  The relationship eventually fell apart because Scrooge was working all the time.  Some may say that Scrooge’s ambition was his downfall.  But I think that misses the mark.  If we could talk with Scrooge, we would learn that he pushed himself so hard because he felt the weight of being responsible for not only himself but potentially for a wife and kids.  Scrooge believed it was his duty to be self-sufficient, and if he had a family, to be a provider for them.  But Scrooge was not willing to take on the responsibility of family until he was financially secure.  Instead, Scrooge ended up in social isolation.

We can also see duty at work in George Bailey.  All his life, George made decisions with others in mind, even if his choice came at great personal sacrifice.  George’s duty was to serve his community, and at times, to save his community.  This, of course, resulted in George bearing the weight of responsibility for not only his family, but also his friends and neighbors.  That weight had been accumulating for years, and then suddenly, it became crushing.  To the point where George thought that the world would be better off without him.

Most men, if they’re being honest with themselves, will admit to feeling the very same pressures, sometimes just as strongly.  Our identities are hard-wired to the concept of duty, and more importantly, to the belief that we have done our duty, whether to our friends, our families, our jobs, our communities, whatever.  It is a wretched thought to think that we have not lived up to those expectations.  And so we can look at George and think, Man, I’ve been there.  I know exactly what he’s going through.  Or we can look at Scrooge and say, I’m not that bad, am I? But with either character, it can be like looking into a mirror.  Sometimes you like what you see; sometimes you don’t.

The enduring lesson of A Christmas Carol and It’s a Wonderful Life is that our fulfillment comes from the relationships we build and the good that we do in the time we have.  In the midst of life’s pressure, it’s hard to keep that truth in mind.  But what better time than the holidays, when you’re surrounded by folks you love and who love you, to remember why it was we worked so hard this year and why we’ll do the same the next.

Nick Farr: No Christmas is ever complete without a screening of National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation. Aside from its comedy, what makes the film truly special is how it resonates with viewers.  While you may have never had a Christmas filled with quite so many shenanigans, you can relate to the Griswalds.  We all appreciate the stress of planning the perfect family holiday gathering.  We all have that one crazy family member you question how he cross-pollinated with the family tree.  We all struggle with putting aside external pressures to enjoy a little family time at home.  Above all else, we all know that at the end of the day somehow it all works.

Many Christmas movies have been made depicting the archetypal Norman Rockwell family.  Those films fail to show all of the hard work that goes in to making the perfect Christmas.   What makes a real family is working through all of the chaos to get to the family photo. Christmas Vacation, while taking the chaos to the extreme, reminds us why we work so hard to try and make everything perfect.  Family.

Jim Dedman: Buckingham goes for meaning, Farr goes for laughs. But they’re both wrong. There is only one truly perfect Christmas film. As a matter of law, the best Christmas movie is, quite simply, Die Hard. Summary judgment granted. Happy holidays, everyone!

Today is an anniversary of sorts.  One year ago today, on December 6, 2010, we published what was to be a ground breaking, at least for us, interview with the actor who played one of pop culture’s most flamboyant attorneys, Jackie Chiles, the television lawyer from “Seinfeld.”  The character, now infamous, was played by actor Phil Morris.

Last year, he was kind enough to agree to an interview. Needless to say, we were overjoyed.

It took some doing.  We spent six months courting his agents and representatives to arrange the interview.  As fate would have it, Morris was reviving the “Seinfeld” character for a series of Internet videos on Funnyordie.com. Accordingly,  he was looking to promote himself on Internet websites and blogs.  We are sure glad he was. It was a perfect storm.

That success emboldened us a bit, and throughout 2011, we sought out additional interviews with pop culture figures.  In January, we ran an interview with Michael Sardo, the executive producer and creator of the USA television series “Fairly Legal.”  In March, we ran an interview with the writers and creators of the 1991 film Class Action.  We even interviewed Mark-Paul Gosselaar and Breckin Meyer, the two leads from the TNT program “Franklin & Bash,” although for that one, we must confess we were part of a larger press conference call rather than a one-on-one interview.

Spoiler Alert: We have some big things in store for you in 2012.

But it all started with Morris.  We even asked him about one of our favorite topics, the McDonald’s hot coffee case:

AU: What about people filing these lawsuits for burning themselves on hot coffee?

MORRIS: Well, we’re so litigious in this society, too much. It’s way beyond the pale. So that’s where I kinda jump off from Jackie. I certainly wouldn’t put stock in a lot of that stuff. I think, it’s just, we’ve gotten away with way too much here in the United States in terms of the legal ramifications of everything. I think, again like I said, beyond the pale. Jackie is an opportunist. So anything like that is manna for him. But personally, I think we’re really hurting ourselves and shooting ourselves in the foot. Not only are we giving our legal system a bad name, but we’re abusing it! We’re misusing those bits of legal power that we have – we’re fortunate enough to have in this country. It kind of drives me crazy.

So, if you would, take a look back at our fateful interview with Phil Morris from one year ago today.

(And while you’re at it, check out this brand new interview Morris gave to The Onion AV Club just last week!)

Dear Abnormal Use:

I have been a faithful follower of your blog since its inception back in 2010.  You bring unprecedented personality to the perilous world of legal blogging.  The interwebs would be a sad place without your daily presence.  Your work is greatly appreciated.

I am writing to you, however, not to sing your praises.  Rather, I wanted to advise you of a horrible oversight made on your blog.  In March, you compiled a list of the top songs about lawyers, judges, and attorneys.  After recently re-reading that post, I noticed that you omitted the classic album of Bob Noone & The Well Hung Jury, “2nd Helping of Chicken Suit for the Lawyer’s Soul.”  I respect Abnormal Use tremendously and can only assume this omission was inadvertent.  Mistakes happen.  I understand.  I am not trying to get a negligent associate fired.  I only want to give you time to correct your mistake before the ABA Journal announces its top legal blogs of 2011.

It is almost laughable that a mistake of this magnitude could occur.  “Chicken Suit” contains 14 Grammy-caliber tracks and not one was mentioned by your blog.  How could you forget “Why Don’t We Get Drunk & Sue”?  The song is the perfect blend of Jimmy Buffett and dramshop laws.  How can you include Metallica’s “And Justice For All,” but omit “My Lawyer’s Back”?  Someone is going to get in trouble for this.

Bob Noone is not just a singer – he’s an attorney-singer.  He graduated from the West Virginia School of Law in 1983 and is currently  Of-Counsel at the firm Bucci, Bailey, & Javins, LC in Charleston, West Virginia.  He doesn’t just write great legal music.  He lives its.

I must admit that as I write this letter, I find myself growing more agitated that your editor could allow this error to occur.  You champion yourself as being a top-tier legal blog, yet you fail to acknowledge “Cover of the A.B.A.”  The song has a distinct message – you can’t be famous until you find yourself on the cover of the ABA Journal.  You of all people should know this.  You were named one of the Top-100 blawgs by the publication last year and have requested that we nominate you yet again.  How dare you bite the hand that feeds you.

Here’s your problem.  You became too enamored with the so-called “music” of Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen.  Last time I checked, Dylan and Springsteen never took the Bar Exam.  Guess who did?  Bob Noone.  Noone knows the law.  In order to write about the law, you have to experience the law.  Listen to “Every Minute Must Get Billed,” and tell me it doesn’t bring a tear to your eye.  For the record, Axl Rose knows as much about being a lawyer as Toby Keith knows about war.

Let’s put our differences aside.  Your mistakes are easily corrected.  If you can’t include “Chicken Suit” in its entirety, just give me one song.  “Lawsuit Riot”?  “My Will”?  “Probation Polka”?  The choice is yours.  Ignoring this letter is the only way you can go wrong.

I like you.  I really do.  But for the love of all things sacred, give Bob Noone and the Well Hung Jury the respect they deserve.

Sincerely yours,

A Concerned Reader

In the wake of Steve Jobs’ death, Apple investors and fans could use a little good news.  Well, they recently received some, in the form of two rulings against Samsung. On October 18, The Sydney Morning Herald reported that a federal court in Australia had granted Apple an injunction against Samsung, preventing Samsung from selling its tablet device “Galaxy Tab 10.1” in Australia.  Apple alleged that Samsung infringed on “two of its patents relating to touch screens and the gestures that control them.”

As the article points out, this suit says a lot about the two companies, especially about Apple’s perception of the Samsung device as a true competitor to its iPad.  It also puts Samsung in a difficult position with the holiday shopping season — a season that retailers would like us all to believe starts on Labor Day this year.  For its part, Samsung’s statement in the aftermath of the ruling makes reference to the fact that it has filed a cross claim against Apple, alleging a violation of Samsung’s wireless technology patents.

Here in the United States, Samsung is also running into IP trouble with its Galaxy tab.  As reported by Reuters, after the ruling in Australia came out, “Apple then filed a request in July to bar some Samsung products from U.S. sale, including the Galaxy S 4G smartphone and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet.”  A U.S. District Court judge ruled that the Galaxy infringes on Apple’s patents but, interestingly, also stated that Apple is having troubles establishing the validity of those patents.

We would have loved to be at this hearing.  Reuters’ article gives this little tidbit about that proceeding, which was undoubtedly not good news for Samsung’s attorney:

At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan [Samsung’s lawyer] if she could identify which company produced which.

“Not at this distance your honor,” said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away.

“Can any of Samsung’s lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?” Koh asked.  A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.

Ouch.  Not a good few days for Samsung.