Recently in Insider Tips Category

Myth #10: Finally, with the banking and mortgage mess, we've had a crisis that won't be blamed on the lawyers.

As evidenced by emergency warning from the California State Bar, it appears that more than a few of the less scrupulous members of our profession have found ways to prey on those in desperate need. Who says lawyers are blood-suckers?

Myth #9: Legal ethics forbids many romantic relationships with clients, but sleeping with a client's spouse will probably not lead to problems.

Respect for the profession, combined with ethical rules barring relationships that create conflicts of interest, seem reason enough to abstain. If not, perhaps a $1.5 million jury verdict on tort and contract claims will make it crystal clear.

Myth #8: The smoking gun email I inadvertently produced can't hurt my client because it's privileged.

Although Rule 502 of the Federal Rules of Evidence attempts to reduce the waiver of privilege through inadvertent production, it won't help you if you don't take reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and promptly attempt to rectify the error. It also can't help you if you are in state court unless the disclosure came in a federal proceeding. Unfortunately, once the black cat is accidentally let out of the bag, it will often bite you.

Myth #7: In my brief, I can minimize any bad facts or contrary law by putting quotation marks around them.

It is tempting to believe that the written equivalent of air-quotes might neutralize bad facts, contrary rulings, or even ideas with which you simply disagree. But as "disbarred" anti-video game activist Jack Thompson taught us, the technique does not always prove "effective."

Myth #6: Even judges can be held to account for taking kickbacks for each juvenile they send to private detention centers... right?

Perhaps not. It looks like judicial immunity might protect Luzerne County Court Judge Mark "Cash for Kids" Ciavarella, along with others, from private suits stemming from what some have called "one of the largest and most serious violations of children's rights in the history of the American legal system."

I'm not sure what to think of this.

I received a press release from Dr. Noelle Nelson today arguing that attorneys should take the style of Twitter tweets into account when writing their opening statements to juries.  Dr. Nelson argues that juries of today are used to a different way of communicating than juries that attorneys became used to 10 or 15 years ago.

Attorneys representing defendants accused of cybercrimes received another weapon in their arsenals after a recent Supreme Court decision, according to computer forensic hardware maker Voom Technologies.

The decision from the Supreme Court's latest term, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, held that the trial court's admission of the prosecution's certificates by laboratory analysts in a drug case was in error since it violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers. 

The decision didn't limit itself to drug cases, nor did it restrict the scope of the ruling to any particular field of forensic analysts, according to Voom's release.  Justice Scalia, delivering the controlling opinion of the Court, noted that "[t]he same is true of many of the other types of forensic evidence commonly used in criminal prosecutions," which leads Voom's CEO David Biessener to believe that the decision applies to computer forensic experts as well as drug lab analysts. 

This means that defense attorneys can demand testimony from computer forensic experts at trial, and can challenge any lack of testimony on appeal.  Going forward, defense attorneys will have new methods at their disposal to challenge cybercrime charges on behalf of their clients.