November 30, 2012

Jordan Rushie:

Jordan’s commentary:

Earlier this year, Crystal Cox claimed that the WIPO endorsed her practice of the buying domain names of her enemies, Google-bombing them with her rants, and then offering to clean it up for a fee. Crystal gained notoriety when she did this to Marc Randazza, his wife, and their three year old daughter.

At the time, Crystal may have been right, as she beat Proskauer in a WIPO dispute for proskauerlawfirm.com. However, today the WIPO found that “Basically, for a price, [Crystal Cox] would undo the injury to the Complainant for which she was responsible for having created in the first place.” Accordingly, Crystal Cox’s “egregious conduct clearly constitutes bad faith under the Policy.”

BOOM.

Originally posted on The Legal Satyricon:

Those of you who recall this post about Crystal Cox will find the following document of interest.

Randazza v. Cox – Decision D2012-1525

Naturally, I would find the opinion to be a good one, as the Panel found in my favor. However, the Panelist seems to have really gotten the whole point of Crystal Cox’s extortion scheme — something that prior panels dealing with her failed to do. See Joseph Leccese v. Crystal Cox, WIPO Case No. D2011-0679 and Allen Fagin v. Crystal Cox, WIPO Case No. D2011-0678. In those cases, either the Complainant didn’t communicate the facts adequately to the Panels, or the Panels were just lazy in their analysis.

In this case, the Panelist got right to the heart of the matter.

Highlights from the opinion:

In this passage, the Panel lays out in pretty clean terms, Cox’s extortion scam.

Respondent’s actions in registering and using the disputed…

View original 356 more words


ABA Blawg 100 —We’re big time! (And alphabetically right above Popehat.)

November 26, 2012

We are Popehat’s hat.

We made the 6th Annual ABA Blawg 100! Per our official ABA Blawg 100 profile:

Simple Justice’s Scott Greenfield calls Jordan Rushie and Leo Mulvihill “two kid lawyers with moxie, a sense of humor and a serious focus on what it means to start out in the practice of law.” These relatively new lawyers joined forces* early this year to blog and practice in their own small shop. In posts, they (mostly Rushie) log the unwritten rules they are gradually learning from experience and other practitioners about trial practice and finding clients.

Words of high praise from one of the internet’s foremost curmudgeons.

Thank you for the nomination — now vote for us here. [ed. - We're under "Trial Practice." Go figure.]

*The way this is written makes us sound like the Superfriends. Jordan would be Aquaman.

Update November 27, 2012: Eric Turkewitz has some nice words for us:

But the Blawg100 list does have value in that it can point readers to new blogs that they might not have noticed before, such as the Philly Law Blog — by two young lawyers with a fearless candor, acknowledging that they are young pups that are just learning. These are the kinds of guys that mentors love, the type who ask questions, work hard and don’t try to bluff with bad answers.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. We’re honored to be in the Blawg 100 list with you.


I always tried to avoid Traffic Court…

November 22, 2012

…but I had no idea how bad it really was. The Chadwick Report is damning, to say the least. It’s 35 pages long, but certainly worth the read.

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!


Will You Be My Friend? — Young Lawyer Edition.

November 20, 2012

“No.”

People hate lawyers. That’s the trope at least.

The fact of the matter is, though, that at some point in your legal career, someone will hate you. And their hate will run so deep that they have to tell others just how much you’re a terrible shark/shyster/scumbag/bottomfeeder.

Now, back in the days before the series of tubes, it took a while for these whisper-down-the-lane rumors to be spread about town. But now, in the age of the internet, no one knows you’re a dog. And even internet dogs can type mean things.

There recently appeared in this blog’s comments a scathing rebuke of our firm by a person whose real name, IP address, email address, and Facebook account, I will mercifully redact. Note: I have never represented this person, nor have I ever met them, as far as I know.

Image

While looking up a local bar’s phone number, I noticed an identical negative review on the Google Places page for my firm. There was a different (::cough:: fictitious ::cough) name used, but the similarities are striking:

Image

In all fairness, his dog wanted custody over his bitch’s puppies, and I don’t do family law.

Webber Calvan? Really? That’s not even a good fake name. “Maxx Hornball,” now, that would have been funny.

But thanks to the wonders of the internet and my powerful investigative skills, I’ve determined that attempted-blog-commenter a.k.a non-client reviewer “Webber Calvan” is the friend of an opposing party in a case where I’m counsel. Swell.

Note: This is the second time I’ve had non-parties to litigation personally attack me or my firm’s online reputation. I presume that it will continue to happen from time to time.

When I first read the comment on my blog — which was never actually posted to it because we moderate all comments — I simply laughed it off. Then I saw it was posted on my former Google Places page, and I thought a bit more about whether to respond. What better platform than Twitter to take a quick poll?

Image

Popehat offered sage advice: “The negative review is self-evidently stupid. Hellfire likely to generate Streisand Effect. Prudence, not grace.”

So here’s my prudent response: That old saying “you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs” — the legal equivalent of that is “you can’t do a good job as a lawyer without pissing some people off.”

Young lawyers, you will find that you make enemies as you continue in your legal careers. One day it might be a judge. Another day, it might be the prosecutor. Some days, you might irritate some person who thinks it’s a bright idea to try to write negative reviews about you on the internet.

You know what? Lawyers make friends on the weekends.

So, Mr/Ms “Weber Calvan,” to use the words of a wise French statesman:

I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!


Never expect to get through a Commonwealth office quickly…

November 19, 2012

I went down to my local Office of Vital Records today to request copies of a death certificate for an estate I represent. I figured it had to be easier to drop into the local vital records office, pay the fee, and turn in my already-filled-out form than to pay Reed Elsevier a service fee and wait the 10-15 business days. Besides, I was going to be downtown anyway to stop at the Recorder of Deeds and Criminal Justice Center for a ARD hearing for a DUI client. Might as well drop by.

Boy, was I wrong.

I got off of the El at 8th Street. I went upstairs, and walked a few blocks to the Department of Vital Records. After successfully making it through security, I walked into the office.

And was met with a waiting room that probably bested the DMV’s.

 

I saw a sign “Please take a PINK number”. Just like the deli. So I did. “34”.

The “Now Serving” sign displayed “67”. Great. 60-some people in front of me. 

So I did what I should have done earlier that day. I whipped out my phone, opened up my browser, and ordered the dammed thing online. I left the Department in less than 10 minutes.

That’s the last time I go to get a record in person from the Department of Vital Records.

Today’s young lawyer pro-tip: save yourself the time and order the damn things online.


To Catch a Possum

November 14, 2012

Tuesday, 6:45am:

Wife: “Jordan… I heard a scratching sound when I was making my coffee. I think an animal is trying to get in our house! I’m scared. What if it breaks in and eats our cats??!!!”
Jordan: (puts on sweatpants and slippers. Uh, I should probably wear shoes for this. Dress shoes will have to do. Okay, sweatpants and dress shoes. I guess I need weapons or something. Gun? No. Knife… okay. Shovel… sure). “I’ll deal with it. Just go to work.”

[Walks outside]

Wife: “You look ridiculous wearing sweatpants, dress shoes, and carrying a big knife and shovel. I really should get a picture.”
Jordan: “Yeah, I’m feeling a little less than manly…”

I see the little guy has burrowed partway under my back door. He’s stuck there trying to get away from me. I could stab him but I don’t have the heart to do it. So I let the little guy chill there and went to work. When I got home, he was gone, but I’m pretty sure he was under my house now.

Not sure what to do, I decide to set a trap:

Today I wake up to this:

…now what?


Judge Leo Sorokin is tired of troll Marvin Cable’s lies, denies ex-parte discovery

November 7, 2012

Originally posted on Fight Copyright Trolls:

Judge Leo Sorokin
Magistrate Judge Leo Sorokin
(Massachusetts)

Thanks to Jason Sweet and Dan Booth for the hilarious news, a must-read order denying ex-parte discovery re-requested by copyright troll Marvin Cable in Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-79 (12-cv-10532-GAO), Discount Video Center, Inc. v. Does 1-29, et al. (12-cv-10805-NMG), and Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Does 1-36 (12-10758-GAO).

While two major posts are promised and overdue¹, I cannot help posting Magistrate Sorokin’ssmackdown ruling dismantling Marvin Cable’s copyright troll cases: a good excuse is that it does not take a lot of my time, as the document is self-explanatory, easy and fun to read.

Read the embedded order below. A couple of teaser quotes:

The Plaintiffs’ proposal — i.e., that the Court permits the Plaintiffs to subpoena the names of the subscribers and that the Court then leave it to the Plaintiffs to figure out the rest pursuant to…

View original 766 more words


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,441 other followers