GW Law... Skills... Donations?????

So today I received from my law school (that would The George Washington University School of Law, formerly the National Law Center at The George Washington University) sent me a plea for donations that starts like this:

GW Law gave you the skills you need.

Now we need your support.

The first sentence is perhaps the most inaccurate I have ever read. On the letter, they list a series of skills including:

Research, Evaluate, Argue, Represent, Listen, Discover, Write, Persuade, Serve, Represent, Listen, and Discovery

Inside, they continue their malarkey by stating,

GW Law provides today's students with a stimulating learning environment like the one that prepared you for the legal path you chose.

Excuse me while I try not to gag on the rest of the letter. It's about as divorced from reality as a Hamas press release.

Yes, I did graduate from that institution. However, other than using Shepards (the book not the utility on Westlaw), I defy them to point to one skill they helped me develop.

Nothing taught at GW Law has been of any use in my legal career. It sure as hell did not help me with the bar exam. Why? Because bar exams questions are either state specific or are weird creature of so-called "common law" that exists only within the four corners of the MBE and the Performance Test. For all that, I had to pay another outfit an absurd amount of money to prepare me to take the bar exam, since none of the law taught in law school was of any use!

I certainly did not learn how to write there. That was pounded into me by a bunch of priests and lay teachers back in high school. As a matter of fact, my writing actually got worse for a while because I was having to write according to their style. A style which was taught which had the virtue of being neither very good, nor of a style that judicial clerks would enjoy reading.

I did not learn how to run a law practice. Nothing in any of the courses prepared me for client relationships (except for the dry recitations of the model ABA rules... but that hardly counts). Nor did they offer any course which discussed the merits of various methods of constructing a retainer agreement.

Now, to be fair, GW Law did offer a way to learn how to engage into alternative dispute resolution. However, when I went there, many moons ago, in order to get in that program, you had to try out and be selected. Another of the "chosen" activities (much like moot court and the various law reviews). Otherwise, you didn't get to play. Basically, when I was there it was a joke if you didn't already know what you were doing.

What skills does one use as a lawyer? Critical thinking. Communication. Oral Advocacy. Effecting and powerful writing. So far my alma mater is 0 for 4. Or as Kruk would say, a golden sombrero.

But you know I did learn one thing. I learned that the administration there would go to any length to protect the reputation of a professor, even if meant screwing over an entire section's grades. But then again, I suppose I knew that from both my undergraduate and graduate education.

Now, surely, GW must have been good for something, right? Well, since I've been there the school has managed to barely hang on to 20th spot in the law school rankings after falling as low as 28th at one point. Basically, after I left, the ranking went down, essentially de-valuating my diploma among image conscious law firms.

Not only did the value of the degree go down, but GW Law's career development yahoos ... er I mean professionals... did next to nothing in helping me find employment during and after my time there. By next to nothing, I mean they gave me a pamphlet on how to use the office and then became extraordinarily disinterested when I informed them that I had little interest in working for a big firm (e.g. Latham & Watkins). After convincing them that I really, really did not want to spend all my waking hours working for a law firm that would demand 2000 billable (as opposed to hours worked) per year, they decided I was not worth their time.

For all this, I had the privilege of paying an obscene amount of money. Money which, in my opinion was wasted on professors who did not give a damn about who they were teaching, administrators who made things exceedingly difficult because they could not be bothered to know their own policies, and career development people who simply could not give a damn about anything other than getting out of their office as quickly as possible.

And once again this year, they beg for more money to continue this ridiculous farce called law school. To make matters worse, GW Law is not the only law school that has these problems. People who want to be lawyers would be better served by doing an apprenticeship with a lawyer. At least then, they would learn how something useful about being a lawyer.

Unfortunately, law schools long ago got into bed with the various bar associations and convinced them that only they could produce competent lawyers. Too bad no one remembered that most of our best lawyers for first century and a half managed to do pretty well for not going to law school, like Justice Robert Jackson (although he did do a year at Albany Law School, but did not get a diploma).

So how about this GW: I will donate to you when you refund my tuition, with interest, I will start making donations of an undisclosed amount for five years.

Tales From the Deposition

So my wife was working from home today, taking a telephone deposition. And I partially heard some of the testimony, which triggered the memory of a deposition I was taking a few years ago.

As a little bit of background, this was a case where the plaintiff was alleging he was injured because of exposure to asbestos. All he could show at the time were pleural plaques on his lungs. Pleural plaques may, or may not, be a pre-cursor to a more serious asbestos-related disease. But developing them does not always mean it will happen.

So the guy we were deposing this one time was in his mid-50's and a former insulation worker. He was a little overweight, and talked with a sort of affected southern-accent (even though he was from Northern California.) Along with the deponent, there was his attorney, and about 30 defense attorneys who think they've heard and seen it all at asbestos depositions.

But anyways, this was the exchange:

Angrybell: Can you tell me how you knew the material was made by...

Deponent: Are you asking why I brought this case?

Opposing Counsel: Sir, just listen to the question before you answer.

AB: Not really, I just want to know..

D: You want to know why I brought this case? I'm gonna tell you!

AB: Sure, tell us.

D: I can't walk to my truck no more without getting winded. I can't hunt no more. And I can't mount my wife without getting winded! I have to stop and take a break when I get on her!

OC: I think we're going to take a break off the record.

AB: Sure.



Co-Counsel: Well, I guess that takes care of damages.

Other co-counsel: Failure to mitigate! His wife won't get on top!

These are the types of conversations I have

So this morning, I was talking with co-counsel in case. Now, Co-Counsel has another case and was asking me a question about a type of motion. So I sent Co-Counsel an example, one that I had filed in another case a few years ago. This is what followed:

Co-Counsel: Great, now that I have this I can finally lose my demurrer virginity.

Angrybell: Your demurrer virginity?

Co-Counsel: I've never done one before. As a matter of fact, when I do this one, I think there isn't a type of motion I haven't done before.

Angrybell: Really? Have you done a motion seeking quo warranto?

Co-Counsel: Nope.

Angrybell: Then you haven't lived.

I hate mediation

Last week I had a mediation in a case that had been dragging on for the better part of two years. Things in the case had spun wildly out of control since I had entered the case. No sooner had we cut the head off one party, two others sprung into existence. And they were all filing cross-complaints. And this was as the discovery cut-off was passing.

However, I have to say this, I hate mediation. I mean, I really, really, really despise the process. It's not that I don't like mediators (well all of them anyways). Its not like I don't want settle the case. Its the fact that, in my experience, defendants use the lack, or the pending, mediation to refuse to seriously discuss settlement. Its as if defense counsel has lost the ability to meaningfully discuss ways to resolve a case without having a $875.00 per hour sitting with them.

Its pathetic.

But yet it is the way the game gets played.

Added on to that, there is the bonus that defense will invariably start with low ball offers and contesting everything so that the first few hours are a waste. And this is in cases where there is clear liability. By the time you get to serious settlement discussions, you've already wasted $2200.00.

In this case, we'd already been through the mediation process. 4 glorious hours sitting in a conference room while the co-defendants (back when there was a manageable number) rejected our initial demand and refused to send over a counter until we had dropped our demand. And then screamed we were negotiating in bad faith for failing to do so. And then there was the whole bit where apparently the neutrals were so neutral that they lied to both sides.

Well, I suppose its better than a judge twisting my arm.


Although I really, really, really hate mediations, my co-counsel and I was finally induced to recommend it to the client when the offered to pay the entire bill for the mediation. So we get there, and waited for 2 hours before we were able to even give a demand in the case. Apparently there multiple defendants, instead of trying to settle the case with us, were trying to establish dominance over each other in the room in which they had been sequestered in.

My co-counsel managed to finish reading the entire Mother Jones (cover to cover) before getting half-way through The New Yorker before that nonsense was sorted out. I ran out of my regular blogs to read on my handheld and had to start trying new stuff out.

Eventually we got down to sending offers to the other side. At which point another melt-down occurred in the other room. They were shocked the know that after the last mediation (which happened before a lot of evidence had come to light) that our settlement number had gone up. Shocker, I know. But what to do when new witnesses are found to testify about how bad the defendants were.

After a series of this nonsense, we managed to settle out one client (who from what I can tell just gave up and said paying us was better than having to be in the same room as the rest of the defendants).

And the fun went on from there. What was supposed to be a three hour mediation turned into an all-day ordeal. The case settled, but I'm going to have to wait just a little while to tell you the rest of the story.

This Is What They Talk About At Big Firms?

So my wife, Mrs. Angrybell, works at a rather large firm in the city. Today, she forwarded me the following exchange between her and her cohorts on one of the teams that she works on that defends, what she terms, a Great Corporation Accused of Great Wrongs.

From: Mrs.Angrybell
To: Waldo; PassiveAgressiveIrishman
Re: This Just In

Our FearlessLeader is going to be out of the office Monday thru Wednesday next week.

Mrs.Angrybell

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: PassiveAgressiveIrishman
To: Mrs.Angrybell; Waldo
Re: This Just In

Where's he going? He only shares his intimate secrets with you, Mrs.Angrybell, because you are special.... :-) [of course, maybe you just heard this tidbit from FailedStandupGirl [ed. note, she's the secretary for Mrs.Angrybell]

PassiveAgressiveIrishman

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mrs.Angrybell
To: PassiveAgressiveIrishman; Waldo
Re: This Just In

As I have told you I am the last Airbender - special, unique, telepathic with powers to save humanity. :) I have divined that he's headed to Boston for a science primer with SuperNerdGeekLawyer.

Mrs.Angrybell

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PassiveAgressiveIrishman
To: Mrs.Angrybell;Waldo
Re: This Just In

Why does Han Solo need to travel to see Yoda when he has Obi-Wan in the adjoining office?

PassiveAgressiveIrishman

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mrs.Angrybell
To: PassiveAgressiveIrishman; Waldo
Re: This Just In

Dude, Han Solo is some rogue pilot. He is not a jedi. Somewhere in the universe a science fiction fan just died.

And its more than likely that someone billed around $300 per hour to one of the Great Corporations Accused of Great Wrongs for this. Sigh.

Well, it made me laugh

So yesterday I was in trial. The case ended in a settlement. But the part that made me laugh was when we, meaning my clients, myself, and my co-counsel, were walking to lunch.

There we were, walking down the hallway at the court house. Co-Counsel and I were loaded down like pack-mules with all our trial gear (we didn't have a courtroom at that point). When I saw another lawyer standing down the hallway whom I had not seen in a long time. It took me a minute to realize who it was, but then I realized it was a lawyer I used to work with back at my old firm of Working For Better Money.

I saw him. He saw me. And turned his back at me refusing to look at me until I had gotten on the elevator.

As soon as we were passed, I couldn't stop chuckling to myself. Co-Counsel asked me what was so funny. So I told her

Angrybell: "You see that guy who keeps turning his back to us in the black suit?"

C0-Counsel: "Yeah."

AB: "That's Mrs. Angrybell's ex-fiance."

C0-Counsel: "Oooooh scandal!"

So of course, once I got off the elevator I had to whip out my cellphone and call Mrs. Angrybell. I told her what happened. Her responses made me laugh.

Mrs. Angrybell: "Did he say anything to you?"

Angrybell: "No, just turned his back to me."

Mrs. Angrybell: "Well why didn't you go over and offer to show him pictures of Angrybabybelle?"

So since I didn't share with him, I figure I'll share with you all.



Isn't she cute?

Are My References That Obscure?

Granted, I was using a legal-esque pop culture reference. But then again, I was making it to another attorney. It all started as we were preparing for an upcoming trial, trying to agree on the order that we would have the witnesses testify. Finally we came to a witness I'll call Jack. And here's what follows:

Angrybell: So this witness Jack, ...

Co-Counsel: He's a terrible witness. His memory is awful.

AB: So will he remember what he heard?

CC: He'll be lucky to remember his name. He's not going to remember anything.

AB: But we'll keep him on the witness list.

CC: Definitely. He told our client's he heard everything. Maybe the other side will think that his memory is better than it is.

AB: So he's our Airman O'Malley witness. Cool.

CC: Airman O'Malley? What?

AB: Airman O'Malley and Airman Perez... you know ...

CC: Is this another of your pop-culture references?

AB: It's from A Few Good Men....

CC: Never seen it.

And in my head I've got Shawn Spencer saying "These are classic references I'm making here". Alright, maybe not for everyone but for lawyers... C'mon.

Mrs. Angrybell Has A Theory

So my wife has a theory on how I get my clients. She is convinced that there is a website somewhere where all my clients go and discuss who to hire as a lawyer.

And we're not talking about Avvo.

First I should explain. Many of my clients have issues. These aren't your "difficult-because-they-are-demanding-types-client" issues.

I could only wish.

Rather, a large portion of my clients have been ... well..

Crazy is the polite way of saying it (although I think Mrs. Angrybell would describe more than a few of them as "bat-sh!t loony"). Complete with certifications that they are indeed.. well... crazy.

So Mrs. Angrybell has come up with a theory, especially in light of the fact that lately there has been an uptick in calls for my services from these .... crazy... potential clients. She believes that there is a website devoted to helping... crazy... folk find lawyers. Somehow, my name must be on there with a bullet.

At least, that is what Mrs. Angrybell thinks is the reason for why none of my clients seem to be ... well.. not crazy.

My mother would be so proud.

Google's Latest

So I started hearing about it yesterday. And quite frankly, I dismissed it as not being that big. However, now that I'm looking at it, I have to say I'm sort of blown away.

And yes, this is a geeky thing.

So what am I talking about? Google has gone and added legal opinions to its Google Scholar options. Now, big firms, and even not so big ones, usually spend an exoritant amount of money on Westlaw or Lexis. And for good reason. Westlaw and Lexis do give a good product. They also include a number legal treatises.

However, for smaller firms and solos, the cost is pretty high. Especially when you don't need it that much. At the times I really need the information, I tend to go to the law library (yes, its a hassel and yes, its ludditey) but its more cost-effective (barely) than paying what Westlaw and Lexis demand.

On the other hand, there are a lot of times when I just need a case or two. And there has been a few other sites that give you the cases. However, their search engines are well... kinda sub par. And their version of sherphardizing is, well, lousy.

But from my little test this morning, Google seems to have improved on all that.

Now I just wonder how long its going to last before they start charging for it.

The downside to this is that more people will think they can be their own lawyer now. And yes, it is true what they say about someone who is their own lawyer. They do have a fool for a client.

Now that's what I call chutzpah

Don't you hate it when there is a good story, but you can't tell it? This is one of those situations.

Let's put it this way, once upon a time I had a client. This client was for referred to me by [classified agency]. I worked for this client. I did very good work in concert with another attorney for this client. We got this client more than they could hope for given the situation that they were in when they were referred to me and this other attorney.

So what was our thanks? The threat of a malpractice suit. To this day I'm still not sure what the malpractice would've been, but this client was threatening me with a malpractice suit.

Today I got a phone call. It was the same client, the one who would threaten me with a malpractice suit, asking if I would be happy to represent him in another action.

Talk about chutzpah!

So Is This My Problem?

The answer is most likely, and emphatically, a resounding: YES.

And yet, it is how I feel.

What am I talking about?

Let's back up and explain a bit. I belong to an organization. Except, that it is not an organization, at least according to the agreed upon rules, that I am supposed to admit belonging to. Why? Because they are afraid that they will get their collective files subpoenaed and used in court. Which is fairly ludicrous because if someone wanted to subpoena all the stuff that gets mentioned on its list-serv, what they would find are dicussions about a particular area of law. Occasionally some nasty comments are made, but really, they are not actionable (remember, truth is a defense).

However, recently they have been having this thread about psuedonyms which are used by some of the members in their emails. And how that is a VERBOTEN! "If ve do not haf your true identification, with a blood oath with each email, ve cannot verify that the emails hast orriginated from you!"

So what is my problem? Its stupid bureaucracy. Bureaucracy that favors form over functionality. I swear the people who run this particular organization take themselves far, far too seriously. Not to mention the fact that they apply the rules to everyone, but never to themselves because they can always justify their actions with some exception they've created out of whole-cloth.

So right now, I'm working my way to getting expelled I think, because I'm objecting to this whole thing. It's stupid. It's been used against me in the past (even though my emails originally had my initials in them, were always signed by real name - unlike many of the others - and were clearly linked to me).

I fracking hate people like that. Its like a red flag to a bull.

Why Me?

So I have this case. And I have had to associate in counsel from another state to deal with issues in that state. Lets call this attorney Attorney S. He bills by the hour.

That is understandable.

What is not is how he is such a freakin' slow talker. By the time he has 3 words out (usually taking him 2 minutes) I know where the sentence is going and am tryign to finish it for him!!!!!!

Add to that he is a slow worker. And a very, very conservative guy. Attorney S is the equivalent of General McClellan. He has the slows. I feel like asking him if I can borrow his bar card so that I can somethign done over there rather than wait for him to finish his next sentence.

G-d save me from this!

The Good and The Bad

So for the first time, another lawyer has made me their first call for when they were in trouble (as opposed to "can you cover this hearing for me"). The short of it is an attorney I know is having their work questioned on an old case. They are bringing me in to help defend their work.

The bad: I'm reading the case right now. I'm sorry they got involved in this mess. The client that is now turning on them... very bad news indeed.

But still, got to look on the upside of things.

So Somehow Its All My Fault

So I have this case that I am working on with another attorney. We subpoenaed some records from a witness who did work on what Rumpole would call "the locus in quo". The witness, a company, got their records together and sent us copies of the records, keeping the originals.

No problem there. Pretty straightforward.

So since the defense in the case is being ridiculously unreasonable about settlement (Mrs. Angrybell's translation: what good defense counsel is supposed to do for their clients), it looks like we are going to have to depose someone from this company. So we sent out the deposition subpoena requiring them to send someone to be deposed and to bring copies of the records (including any that might not have been covered in the original request) .

No problem there. Pretty straight forward.

Now the witness company is saying that they cannot bring the records. Apparently, in between copying them for us pursuant to the original subpoena and their receipt of the new subpoena, they have lost every single document related to this case. Every. Single. One.

And because they have lost every single document related to the locus in quo, they are blaming us. Somehow, its our fault that they lost the paperwork between the copy machine and the file cabinet in their own office.

All completely logical of course. All my fault.

Surrender Along The Volga

So we kicked ass at the last hearing. We had the experts lined up to show that the other side had manufactured the whole dispute.

And our clients went and caved. Full. Total. Surrender. Over our strenuous objections.

It's going to be called a deal. The only one getting a deal is the other side. And the worst part of it, there is almost a guaranteed second fight in the future. One in which my client has already shot himself in the foot by making this deal!!!!!!

My co-counsel and I are choking back the vomit every time we have to talk to the other side while we finalize terms of our client's surrender.

All I can say is at least I'm getting paid off of this one.

As Mrs. Angrybell says "Stay Consistent In Your Lie"

Apparently, there are some particularly stupid lawyers in the world. Alas, today there is one less among that crowd.

The California Supreme Court recently voted to disbar an attorney. His sin? While serving on a jury in a medical malpractice case, Francis Fahy, a solo practitioner, changed his vote. Now, jurors are allowed to do that when they do it based on the evidence.

Mr. Fahy, apparently, did not. He did it so he could get back to his practice after a month long trial and ten days of deliberation.

That's bad.

Then when the judge in the case polled him about why he had changed his verdict, he lied to the judge, saying that he had changed his vote based on the evidence, not because he wanted to get back to his practice.

Even worse.

But then, after he had already dug himself halfway to China, apparently Mr. Fahy developed what I would have to guess is a bit of remorse for what he had done. So what did he do? He signed a sworn declaration as to why he changed his vote to support the losing party's motion for a new trial.

From even worse to stupidity.

Here's the opinion that came from the lower State Bar proceedings that lead to the California Supreme's voting 6-0 for disbarment.

As Mrs. Angrybell said, "Stay consistent in your lies at least!"

So what has Mr. Fahy done about this? He filed a civil rights lawsuit against the State Bar and California Supreme Court for violating his civil rights. Of course, with his history, including being previously suspended for missapropriating client funds, I'm not sure he's going to get much traction with it.

We have very few requirements in this country. We don't have the draft anymore. So when you get called for jury duty, just do it and be thankful we have juries. Don't screw someone over because it inconveniences your schedule.

Shoot-Out On the Volga

Yeah, maybe I'm beating a dead horse with the titles, but I don't care.

Yesterday was the first (or depending how you view it, the third day) of the trial in my Stalingrad case. The judge decided he was going to really reign us lawyers in and really get this thing done in an afternoon. All the expert testimony was going to be done in record time. The cross examinations would be crisp, clean and to the point. The rest of the evidence would come in on declarations as much as possible.

If you are saying "Huh?" at this point, you are not alone. Essentially what should have been a short, little matter taken care of in 20 minutes decided back a few months ago, has now blossomed into a full bench trial. By refusing to make decisions earlier in this matter, this judge has effectively lost control over how long this is going to take.

So after the judge made these pronouncements in chambers, he let the other side put on their case (which is correct since they are the ones who initiated the matter). This started with a non-expert witness (despite what the judge had instructed us to do, mind you). All this person could testify about was that they had received certain documents. They could not verify where they came from, just that they had come to this witness. Basically, a waste of everyone's time since we had offered to stipulate that the witness had received them if they would stipulate that the witness could not say where they actually originated from or who had authored the documents.

The only good thing that came out of this witness' testimony was when I lead her into talking about another document. For technical reasons, it was very important that the witness authenticate the document. The witness did. The only problem is, no one except my expert and I understand just what this witness testified to the time. Everyone else in the courtroom was scratching their heads. The judge looked like I'd just handed him the tower chiefs' log books from Gitmo and Andrews Air Force Base.

Next up was the first part of the main event: the other side's expert. The experts were ordered by the court to deal with a series of emails. They say we sent them and should be bound by them. We maintain that we did not send most of them, and certainly none of the ones which should bind my client.

They did their direct of the expert (whom I'll Prof. A). Prof A has a long history of computer security work, publishing, and giving talks in addition to testifying. All credentials are super, but I'm getting the feeling he is transitioning more into being a professional expert. And why not, the pay is much better.

But there was a problem with his work on this case. He had gotten sloppy. After testifying as to the standards of how it should be done, Prof A then testified that he did not do that. And I got to have fun with that (and had to resist going into Vincent LaGuardia Gambini mode, finger and all). One of the big discrepencies has to do with telephone calls. One service provider has records of calls being received from a certain number. Another service provider, the one who provides the number to my client, has no record of those calls going out. When I asked Prof A about this, he said that it just meant that the service provider was sloppy in its billing.

Sloppy in its billing? 37 times? This was followed up by another fine nuggest that Prof A said in response to whether the discrepancy was due to someone using a spoofing program for VoIP calling. His response was that it was highly unlikely. And yet, it was more likely that a service provider, on a set minute plan, would miss all those minutes of talk time to a number on a another service provider's plan (and no, there was no Fave 5 or Circle of Friends garbage in either person's phone plan).

Basically, by the end of their expert's testimony the only thing which was reasonably certain was that emails were received. Calls were received. But the origins of both could not be truly ascertained from the information which he examined.

From our perspective, nothing could be better. Our whole position has been: we never sent them and never made the phone calls which the other side says proves that we should be responsible for what came later. If the calls and the emails are not authentic, then my client cannot be held responsible for what happened next.

And this is before we get into our defense.

So all in all, really good day. So what does my client want to do? Does the client want to hammer home and go for the win?

Yeah, if only that were what my client now wants. Essentially, and without going into details, my client wants to surrender.

In the meantime, we get to prepare for the next day of trial: about 2 months from now. Oy gevalt.

What I have learned amid the ruins...

A lot of what is going in the case I am going to try tomorrow deals with computer records, emails, and telephone calls. Before I started this, I had a vague understanding that none of the above were that secure.

After wading through the stuff in this case, I now wonder why I even bother having a password for any of my email accounts. Or how anyone can ever believe a phone bill. Basically, with the right information, and a little time to work, a knowledgeable person can alter the heading information on email (sort of a "you could be Markinson" thing). Which my expert did. He has me emailing President Obama telling him that I stole a cheeseburger from him sometime prior to the election. And it works.

As far as standards of examination goes, it looks like there are almost none. Meaning, you could have two experts talking about emails, their origins, and how they migrated, and get two completely different results. And both experts, with straight faces, would be able to say that they were using practices that are generally accepted. Even the expert in the case for the other side, who was referred to by my expert as the "kind that geeks like me put up on their wall", is on record saying that the current methodology needs improvement because it just not accurate enough.

Great. So if I tear him apart on that, then my guy is just as much screwed. Lovely.

Then, the deeper I look into this, the more absurd this whole thing becomes. Let's step back for a second. One of the things that is very important when it comes to documents in the legal setting is their authenticity. In the bad old days, you had to produce the original. Copies were verboten. But as copying technology got, the more you could use copies, so long as the original was still in your possession.

Now, along comes the personal computer explosion in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Suddenly there is something new out there: digital documents and digitally stored originals. How do you verify the authenticity of this then? There's no hard copy, and each time you open the document, you subtly change it.

Well, flash forward to today. Its 2009 here in California and we just, finally got around to defining how opposing parties can get access to electronic data. Prior to this, there simply were no standards. Of course, now there is going to be a flood of litigation to establish the meaning behind the black letter law (not a bad thing, but still will be annoying for a while).

So here we are today and back to the problem in hand. With correspondence in a format that is inherently lacking in real security. And we have to establish which documents are authentic, and which are frauds. Can anyone say problem?

Oh yeah, this is going to be a joy tomorrow. Two experts. Completely opposing positions. And did I mention the judge thing? Oh yay.

Другой симпатичный день в Сталинград!/Ein anderer reizender Tag in Stalingrad! (Excuse the translation.. it might be off.. apologies if its terribly rude.)

Sort of my state of mind as I prepare for another round on the Volga

Pre-Dawn On The Volga

If you've been following my missives, you know that I have become involved in a Stalingrad-type case. The other side has puffed and huffed... and quite frankly have been endlessly amusing to me (it's sad when people with bar numbers haven't the brains to open up a Rutter Guide).

However, at the same time, I know that at the end of the day they will most likely win. And that just rubs me wrong. The reason they are going to win is not so much that they are right. It's just that the standard of proof for this particular type of action is so unbelievably low, that it's virtually impossible for them to lose.

And that's even with the documents showing that there is some seriously wrong in the state of Denmark (yes, its 5 am and I am mixing my metaphors). For example, I am looking at their evidence. It basically proves what we've been saying all along (i.e. that someone else is really the culprit). What's even better, the evidence was not even generated by my side, their side, our experts or their experts. Its information that is coming from 2 third-party sources who have no reason falsify the information (they would actually be losing money if they did).

Yet, despite this, and a host of other reasons, I am not very sanguine about our chances at trial later this week.

Damn it, I hate being Von Paulus in this situation.