At the movies: Woman at War

What should you do when your boss wants to fire you, you can’t get your old job back at Dairy Queen, and your retirement savings are good for the rest of your life provided you drop dead pretty soon?

Answer: go to the movies.

So we went to see “Woman at War  at the local arthouse. Shazzam! Under the façade of  a respectable, middle-aged chorus director lurks Halla, a ninja eco-saboteur toppling electric pylons with a bow and arrow. Pursued across the treeless Icelandic highlands by an evil miniature drone, Halla shoots it with an arrow, hauls it down and smashes it to pieces with a rock. The audience is too hip to actually cheer, but you can feel the vibe.

She’s doing this to make Iceland unattractive to foreign heavy industry predators drooling over its unspoiled natural resources and aching to install their climate-changing junk. She climbs to the roof of a government building and flings out a thousand copies of her manifesto: “We are the last generation that can stop our war against the Earth.” The passers-by grab the papers and take selfies.

The government, who’s ready to sell off Iceland to Chinese investors, responds by portraying Halla as a terrorist threat to democracy. Not surprisingly, the movie is controversial in Iceland, according to the star Halladora Geirhardsdottir. “We all have an activist inside of us that isn’t active,” she says.

But despite the serious theme, it’s basically a comedy with touches of magic realism. A semi-imaginary trio playing tuba, drums and keyboard follows Halla on her quest, like the encouraging spirits in “The Magic Flute.” A hapless Cantinflas-like Spaniard on a bicycle keeps getting arrested by mistake. At one point Halla foils the heat-sensor surveillance plane by hiding under the corpse of a long-dead sheep. And thanks to Iceland’s comprehensive DNA database, the high-tech police analyze a drop of blood and triumphantly arrest Halla’s flakey yoga-teacher twin sister as the perp. (Identical twins have the same DNA).  “Namaste,” says the sister, bowing to the brutal-looking jail guard shoving her into a cell. “That means I salute your true inner self.”

Meanwhile, Halla is in the Ukraine adopting a war-traumatized orphan. Who says a movie can’t have everything?




Posted in Satire and parody, Satirical cartoons | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Squawk is condemned

  A couple of years ago we published “Are you a cissy?” , a spoof of a compulsory training inflicted on us by the boss’s wife who announced a mandatory policy of quizzing our clients about gender issues. On first contact, no less.

No doubt it’s impolitic to make fun of silly decrees when they emanate from the boss’s wife. So we weren’t too surprised that the boss got mad as a wet hen when she saw our blog on the Company email.

But we were surprised at how wildly misread our blog was by people in our office who call themselves appellate lawyers. Granted, they were new hires, but surely to get the job they had to show some ability to read and comprehend prose.  The howls of uninformed indignation that went up! “Offensive!” “Harassment of a protected class of individuals!”  “Lack of respect and compassion!”  “An ugly slap/laugh in the face!” “Management (or the union?) should step in!” “A huge distraction from doing my job today!”

They were especially adept at the “I’m-only-thinking-of-our-clients” pieties: “Reflects back on my colleagues and I [sic], and our clients.” “Clients may read this thinking this is the view of, or even condoned by, [us], and judges may, as well.”

A couple of the most zealous tyros spent hours huddling with the Proskauer Biglaw enforcer and kept watch over the teapot to keep the tempest brewing. For the last two years.

On Friday, the Star Chamber handed down the judgment:

The Committee finds that the blog post violated the EEO Policy because it was reasonably understood by the complainants to denigrate persons based on characteristics protected under the Policy and the City Human Rights Law, namely, gender identity and expression. As several of the complainants observed, the blog post demonstrated not just a lack of respect and compassion for, but outright hostility toward trans and gender non- conforming clients. By making jokes at their expense, the blog post can reasonably be interpreted to denigrate the concept of gender identity and ridicule the notion that questions should be asked of clients designed to ascertain and respect their gender identities. These messages are reasonably interpreted as derogatory toward persons in a protected class. It should be noted that the City Human Rights Law expressly states that the deliberate mis- gendering of a client (such as by deliberately using an incorrect gender pronoun) is an act of discrimination subject to penalties under the law. 

In addition, the blog post denigrated clients by using stereotypes to paint our clients in a disparaging light. Particularly offensive was attributing the use of racially charged language such as “homie” and “call me Killer” to the pretend client. 

Although the blog post was evidently an attempt at humor, the EEO Policy explicitly states that inappropriate conduct or language meant as a joke can lead or contribute to harassment. 

You are required to attend the next training on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) that we will provide for the staff of the Criminal Appeals Bureau. This date will be provided to you as soon as it is scheduled. Failure to attend could be grounds for further discipline, including termination. 

Further, you are warned that the content of any future blog post you elect to share on our email system will be reviewed to ensure that is comports with both our internal policies and the law. Should your blog post violates [sic] our polices again, this will be grounds for further discipline, including termination. 

For anyone morbidly interested, here’s the whole thing: Complaints and judgment Appellate Squawk

“Mad-eyed from stating the obvious,” we explain for the last time that what we’re “denigrating” is not the downtrodden, but Wifey’s notion that we should pry into our clients’ sexuality when it has nothing to do with their case.  And yeah, most clients — in fact, most people –not having had the benefit of Sogie training, may well consider it offensive to suggest that they’re “gender non-conforming” unless they’ve chosen to say so.

Now that the boss has avenged her wife’s honor and promoted the toadies to supervisors, we’re inclined to let it drop. As George Bernard Shaw said, “Never wrestle with a pig. You just get yourself dirty and besides, the pig likes it.”

On the other hand. . . what’s so bad about mud wrestling? Maybe we’d like it too.

Posted in Law & Parody, Satirical cartoons | 12 Comments

Justice Thomas decries Court’s latest “defendant-always-wins” rule

 Our company boss-persons recently decreed that the office’s 50-year archive of vintage appellate briefs must go. We sadly watched as giant blue bins were loaded to the brim with typewritten pre-computer gems of scholarship and advocacy, condemned to be recycled into toilet paper. But let’s face it, a losing brief is already trash. Imagine the size of the dumpsters at the Appellate Division!

But we keep writing briefs anyway. What for?

Well, maybe if there were no appeals, the criminal process would look like this:

Judge: Your client is obviously guilty or the police wouldn’t have arrested him. I order him to take a plea.

Defense counsel and prosecutor (combined into one person to conserve scarce judicial resources): Yes, Your Honor, consider it done.

Judge: And waive his right to appeal. I never want to see that shmo again.

Combined counsel: Yes, Judge.

Judge: The sentence is a prison term of 500 years to be followed by 100 years of post-release supervision.

Defendant: But I didn’t plead guilty! And I’m only charged with spitting on the sidewalk!

Judge: Ha, ha, what are you going to do about it?

But thanks to the noble army of appellate lawyers indignantly waving our tiny arms and threatening judges with a one in gazillion chance of getting reversed, plea proceedings look like this:

Judge: Youunderstandthatbypleadingguiltyyougiveupyourrighttogototrial andholdtheprosecutiontoitsburdenofproofcrossexaminethewitnesses callwitnessesonyourbehalfandrequireaunanimousverdictbyajuryoftwelve. Void where prohibited, some restrictions may apply. Do you understand?

Defendant: Um.

Judge: And you have to waive your right to appeal.

Defendant: Um.

Judge: Your bargain discount sentence is a prison term of a mere 100 years, to be followed by 100 years of post-release supervision.

Defendant: Huh?

Some nitpickers whine that the plea process is an assembly line. Like assembly lines are bad!  Even the crummiest factory has inspectors who weed out the three-armed sweaters and two-headed barbie dolls. So what’s wrong with having appellate lawyers inspect the guilty pleas and appeal waivers coming off the conveyor belt?

Plenty, fumes Justice Thomas, dissenting in Garza v. Idaho (2019), where Justice Sotomayor floats the radical notion that if a client asks his lawyer to file a notice of appeal, the lawyer should just do it.  A notice of appeal is nothing but a form that takes five minutes to fill out telling the court that the client wants to pursue an appeal. It doesn’t commit the lawyer to anything. But because Garza’s lawyer refused to file it, Garza lost all opportunity to appeal. Sotomayor found this to be ineffective assistance of counsel.

Another “defendant-always-wins rule!” cries Thomas.  Garza had no right to appeal! He pled guilty, signed an appeal waiver and that’s that!

But Sotomayor (former Bronx prosecutor) points out that some rights are nonwaivable, even with an appeal waiver.  And some plea proceedings, we’re here to tell you, aren’t too different from our parody. So a defendant has a perfect right to have his lawyer file a notice of appeal, even after an appeal waiver. He can always decide not to follow it up if getting the plea vacated means risking a longer sentence.  As the Idaho defense lawyers argue in their friendly brief, the worst that can happen is that some appellate lawyer has to write an Anders brief showing why there are no “non-frivolous” issues. But it’s not okay to refuse your client’s request to file a notice.

Thomas, after kvetching that this amounts to imposing “mechanical rules” on lawyers (as if lawyers were a bunch of Montessori kindergarteners), goes on to rail against the whole notion of any constitutional right to counsel. Back in the good old days when children could be hanged for stealing a piece of cheese, the right to counsel meant only that an accused couldn’t be prohibited from having a lawyer, “not as a guarantee of government-funded counsel.”

According to Thomas, the Supreme Court has been tobogganing down the slippery slope ever since Gideon v. Wainwright to the point where indigent criminals can demand not only counsel, but effective counsel! Imposing a crushing burden on taxpayers! Why! exclaims Thomas, the Federal Government’s budget for defense counsel is over $1 billion!

Apparently not realizing that $1 billion is peanuts to us taxpayers forking out $25 billion for a wall.

Posted in Criminal Defense Appeals, Law & Parody, Satirical cartoons | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Let’s make suppression hearings great again!

   . . . even if they never were.

(This is a re-creation. Yesterday’s post disappeared under mysterious circumstances after being published).

Ever since Justice Frankfurter’s outraged account of the Sacco and Vanzetti case (a marvelous model brief on how to call courts and prosecutors crooks and liars without actually saying so), judges have scrambled to declare their disapproval of eyewitness identifications. “Proverbially untrustworthy!” “Scientific studies!” “Wrongful convictions!”

Blah, blah, blah. In the world beyond commencement addresses and Law Day speeches, how often does a judge throw out these proverbially untrustworthy identifications? Especially when made by a cop? About as often as a judge’s car gets towed from in front of the courthouse.

New York allows (sometimes) for a pretrial hearing to determine whether it was the eyewitness who told the police “that’s him!” or the other way around. But for all the chin music about due process, the rigged process guarantees that just about every “identification” will go unsuppressed.

(Scene: Courthouse conference room. Defense counsel and prosecutor sit at opposite sides of the table with their case files).

Prosecutor: Your client is charged with conking a woman on the head and purloining her purse. She picked him out of a lineup six years later. Her identification will be admitted at trial and she’ll tell the jury that she recognizes him in court.

Defense counsel: Not if the judge finds the lineup suggestive.

Prosecutor: The term is unduly suggestive. Duly suggestive lineups are okay.

Defense counsel: I assume she’ll testify at the hearing about how she was able to recognize him after six years.

Prosecutor: In your dreams.  I  don’t even have to tell you who she is, much less have her testify.  My only witness will be the detective who conducted the lineup.

Defense counsel: That’s ridiculous! Of course he’ll say everything was constitutionally tickety-boo. How is the judge supposed to make an independent determination without hearing from the eyewitness?

Prosecutor: According to People v. Chipp, that “would enable defendants to harass identifying witnesses and to transform the hearing into a discovery proceeding.”

Defense counsel: My client is a 70-year old homeless man who doesn’t even have a phone. Don’t you have to make some kind of showing that he’s likely to harass the witness and transform the hearing into a discovery proceeding?

Prosecutor: Nope. There’s an irrebuttable presumption that anyone accused of a crime is going to off the witness.

Defense counsel: (sigh) Okay, let’s talk about the buy-and-bust case. Of course you’ll be calling the undercover cop who allegedly bought drugs from my client.

Prosecutor: Certainly not. According to the Court of Appeals, that would allow suppression hearings to be “used as tools to pressure the prosecution into accepting a plea more favorable to the defendant in order to avoid compromising the undercover’s safety or the integrity of pending investigations.”

Defense counsel: “Pressure the prosecution,” that’s a good one.

Prosecutor: I’ll say! Ha, ha, ha! If you must know, I’ll call someone from the arrest team. They were eating donuts in a nearby car when they got a radio transmission with a description of your client.

Defense counsel: Transmission from who?

Prosecutor: What does it matter? Whoever sent it must have known that your client sold drugs, why else would they have transmitted the description?

Defense counsel: What kind of cockamamie reasoning is that?

Prosecutor: Court of Appeals. People v. Ketcham. Need the cite?

Defense counsel: No, I need a drink. (Hastily) But I’m sober as a judge. You’re required to turn over whatever notes or recordings the donut-eating cops made of the transmitted description.

Prosecutor: Ha, ha, that’s why the cops didn’t make any. But you can be sure the description fit your client or they wouldn’t have arrested him. Anyway, there’s no chance of a mis-i.d. They found pre-recorded buy money on him. Look, here’s the money and here’s the photocopy. You can see the serial numbers match.

Defense counsel: But there’s nothing to show that the photocopy was made before the arrest! They could have just taken his money and photocopied it afterwards.

Prosecutor: What are you, some kind of cop-hating nut? How could you even think of such a thing?

Defense counsel: Instead of “buy-and-bust,” they should call it a “take our word for it” operation.

Prosecutor: So go talk to the Chief Judge. I hear she’s in town giving the keynote speech on eyewitness misidentification for the Wrongful Convictions Conference.

Posted in Criminal procedure, Judges, Law & Parody, Satirical cartoons | 2 Comments

Chief to judges: dissent at your own risk.

Does your boss stifle dissent? You’re not alone! The fearless Judge Saxe, retired from the First Department, reveals that Chief Judge Flowerpot refuses to let judges stay past retirement age if they’ve written too many unsuccessful dissents.

Used to be that if an appellate judge turned 70 and wanted to keep working, she was automatically given certification to stay on the bench for a few more years unless totally gaga.

But in a shockingly candid, no-holds-barred account, Saxe discloses that when he came up for certification, Judge Tom, his immediate boss, asked for his “batting average.” This turned out to be code for “how many of your dissents persuaded the high court to reverse our judgments?”

“Say what?” or the functional equivalent thereof, queried Saxe.

“There’s a new sheriff in town,” explained Tom, referring to Chief Flowerpot (former suburban District Attorney). She wants to discourage “unnecessary dissents.”

“The topic became the talk of the lunchroom at the First Department for days,” relates Saxe. Even the under-70 folks felt “in the cross-hairs.”

Scene: First Department lunchroom.

Judge #1: (age 69 ½) Oh no, not chicken à la king again!

Judge #2: (age 69 ¾) This could be our last meal together, Bucky. I told you not to dissent about the algae in the swimming pool.

Judge #1: Yeah, well you shouldn’t have dissented about transporting umbrellas across state lines. What are you going to do with the rest of your life?

Judge #2: Arbitration, I guess. Same boneyard for retired judges that you’re going to.

Judge #3: (age 42)(gulping his jell-o salad) Golly, I guess I’d better compromise my principles and go along with the majority every time.

Judge #1: You got it, sonny.

Judge Android, evidently the latest victim of the Flowerpot Decree, pointed out that lawyers “are often disheartened by the courts’ seemingly cursory disposition of the appeal in the brief unsigned memorandum decisions.” (Ya think?) Dissents, he asserts, help “dispel the impression that the court is merely cranking out a ‘result.'”

Well, there are different kinds of dissent. Our favorite, naturally, is “the-majority-didn’t read-the-defense-brief” type:

Majority: Contrary to the defendant’s idiotic contention, the People are not obliged to call every police officer involved in a buy-and-bust operation. Notwithstanding that he was in Philadelphia at the time of the buy, the sergeant who testified to the confirmatory identification was highly trained, experienced, knowledgeable, professional, seasoned, veteran, candid, handsome, savvy, mustard-keen, right-stuff, old hand and brimming with credibility. The People are not obliged to call every. . . oh wait, we already said that. Affirmed.

Dissent: Defendant was alleged to have sold drugs to an undercover, who told another undercover, who told another undercover, who told the desk sergeant on the day shift, who told the janitor, who told the desk sergeant on the night shift that one of the guys in the lockup was the drug seller. The court denied defendant’s request to call the janitor. I don’t call that a confirmatory identification no matter how experienced the sergeant was. What was he doing in Philadelphia anyway?

Moreover, to explain the absence of drugs, the court allowed him to testify that since drug dealers are adept at hiding drugs, it may reasonably be inferred that anyone arrested without drugs is a drug dealer. When defense counsel objected, the court asked the witness, “Officer, isn’t it a fact that you wouldn’t have arrested him if he weren’t selling drugs?” This was one lousy suppression hearing and I “respectfully” dissent.

Then there’s the “I-write-separately” type:

I agree with the good and wise majority that the People need not call every police officer involved in a buy-and-bust operation. Or any witnesses at all, for that matter.  I write separately to note that judges are woefully underpaid and deserve a big fat raise. Every time one of these white-shoe lawyers gets up to argue, I can see him derisively thinking, “I make more than you, your Honor.” It’s not fair.

Finally, there’s the “sore loser” dissent:

Hah! So the majority overturns the deeply considered verdict of twelve taxpaying citizens and allows this recidivist criminal to yet again strain the scarce resources of the court system by getting yet another trial. Obviously the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. After all, a subsequent search revealed drugs in his pocket.

And as for Judge Flowerpot’s policy: does the AARP know about this?


Posted in Criminal Defense Appeals, Judges, Law & Parody, Satirical cartoons | 2 Comments

Is a trial a search for the truth?

Every now and then, a judge will declare that a trial is “a search for the truth,” or, in one drunk driving case, a sober search for the truth.  The judge continued, “In the search for truth, no man has yet been harmed,” quoting a Stoic philosopher who was evidently never a criminal defendant, or if he was, had no priors.

What would a trial look like if everybody had to search for the truth?

Prosecutor: Ladies and Gentlemen, the truth is we really don’t know whether the defendant is guilty. Oh, sure, he’s been indicted, but we all know that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. It’s just that somebody has to pay for this terrible crime.

Defense counsel: Objection!

Judge: Overruled. Ladies and gentlemen, the truth is that when I overrule an objection by defense counsel, it’s because I don’t like her. She’s as charming as a porcupine on a bad hair day.  Plus, I have an opinion about her client’s guilt. How could I not, when I presided over the suppression hearing?

Prosecutor: (continuing) I had to spend days rehearsing my witnesses, a pathetic bunch of crybabies and losers, to make them get their stories straight. My police witnesses, of course, don’t remember a thing about the incident except that every gun is in plain sight, every defendant has glassy eyes and emanates the odor of alcoholic beverages, and every hassle with a civilian results in substantial pain and physical impairment to the cop, forcing him or her to take three years of paid leave.

Defense counsel: Ladies and Gentlemen, the truth is my client is a truculent hooligan who thinks he knows more about the law than I do because he has 49 misdemeanor convictions. The rest of my opening statement will be taken verbatim from “Mauet on Trial Technique.”

Judge: Ladies and Gentlemen, remember how we spent two weeks on jury selection because we had to kick off everyone who couldn’t accept the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard? The truth is that nobody in their right mind ever asks for that kind of certainty. “Beyond a reasonable doubt,” what does that even mean? (collapses with laughter).

Defense counsel: (joining in) And you know why my client doesn’t testify? Because he did it! Yes, he took up two seats in the subway!

Prosecutor: Ha, ha, ha, truly a bullshit crime. Your tax dollars at work.  But you’d better convict, or my boss won’t get re-elected.

As Alan Dershowitz explains, there’s truth. . . and then there’s truth.

Posted in Criminal law, Law & Parody | 5 Comments

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Aussie Style

One of our worst moments as an appellate squawk was sitting in an Alabama courtroom watching a lawyer hand over his former client’s entire file to the prosecutor.  The idea being that if a defendant argues on appeal that his conviction was due to his trial lawyer’s screw-ups, all bets are off, attorney-client confidentiality-wise. It supposedly becomes A-ok for the lawyer to help the prosecution nail down his former client’s conviction.

Fortunately, since this Alabama lawyer had done almost nothing in this capital case, there was almost nothing in his file. Ha, ha!

Even here in client-centered New York, the turncoat school of representation has its adherents. There was the Bronx hack who furnished an affidavit to the People explaining that the reason she hadn’t consulted a DNA expert was that she knew her client was guilty. Very annoying, since post-conviction testing of the purportedly incriminating swab showed a complete absence of his DNA.

Then there was the young lady who blogged and tweeted, while the appeal was pending, that her client was a rapist. In a purely he-said-she-said case, where he’d plausibly testified that it was a consensual transaction with a hooker. After a defense that combined the cluelessness of “My Cousin Vinny” with the zeal of a fried egg, the lawyer ended by effectively telling the jury not to believe her client.  Perhaps she was distracted by her simultaneous participation in a film being made about the trial by a women’s-rights advocate to promote the Manhattan DA’s Sex Crimes Unit. The blog breathlessly lauds the film, which shows her client weeping as the judge derides him at sentencing. With a defense lawyer like that, who needs a prosecutor?

But for anti-client lawyering, nothing beats the Australian attorney known only as 3838, who spent years as a registered police informer against her clients.

Although her information enabled hundreds of her clients to be convicted, the police somehow managed to keep the Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) in the dark about where it was coming from. Until a journalist broke the story about “Lawyer X, a prominent barrister who was recruited and registered as an informer.” An official investigation confirmed that she was indeed making a practice of ratting out her clients.

Her motive? “Charismatic, brash and witty, she loved a drink with cops and crims alike,” someone later explained. “She wanted to be wanted.”

This was a fair dinkum barbecue stopper, as they say in Oz. The OPP, shocked, shocked, concluded that the resulting prosecutions and convictions were “unsafe” and that the convicted persons had to be told. But Lawyer X and the cops demanded suppression of the investigation report, arguing that disclosure would create an “almost certain” risk of her being offed by disgruntled drug kingpins. Lawyer X flatly refused a witness protection program, since that would have put a damper on her drinking with cops and crims alike.

Too bad, said the Australia High Court. A lawyer grassing on her clients while pretending to defend them has committed “a fundamental and appalling” breach of her obligations, corrupting the entire process “in a manner which debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system.” The convicted persons have to be informed, the Court concluded, and if Lawyer X refuses to be put in a witness protection program, “she will be bound by the consequences.” Or, as we say in Brooklyn, snitches get stitches.

The public comments in the Sydney Herald’s account of the scandal show that some people cared less about the debasing of fundamental premises of the criminal justice system than putting away drug kingpins. An understandable reaction, given that many of the crims were serious baddies who gunned down families in public, hardly the done thing even in Australia.

Our reaction is, how in the world did Lawyer X manage to fool all of her clients for all that time? Are kingpins really that dim?

Scene: Prison visiting room. Sounds of “Waltzing Matilda.”

Kingpin: G’day, Counselor. I’m sittin’ in this boob miserable as a bandicoot. Strewth, what are you doing?

Lawyer X: (fumbling under her blouse) Er, nothing, I think my bra strap broke.

Kingpin: Looks like I got the rough end of the pineapple being stuck with a Sheila lawyer.

Lawyer X: Testing, testing? Okay, it’s running. Um, I mean, my bra strap is fixed. The time is 2:30 p.m., and I’m in the counsel visiting room with Joey “Manslaughter” Gaboomba.

Kingpin: Why are you telling me this? I can see you’re here.

Lawyer X: Just a silly legal formality.

(loud acoustic whine from Lawyer X’s chest)

Kingpin: What’s that?

Lawyer X: Heh, heh. I shouldn’t have had that chili for lunch. Let’s talk about your case. Where were you when Bigfoot was shot?

Kingpin: Miles away. Camping by a billabong under the shade of a coolibah tree.

Lawyer X: With a bonzer alibi like that, it’s a fair go at trial. Who was Bigfoot?

Kingpin: A banana-bending lillywhacker from Queensland interfering with my bizzo.

Lawyer X: What bizzo?

Kingpin: We train kangaroos to deliver cocaine across state borders. Nobody ever thinks of searching a kangaroo.

Lawyer X: (fumbling under her blouse again) Bloody oath, it’s disconnected. Listen, could you write down a full description of your bizzo? Where you get the cocaine, how you launder the money and all that?  Oh, and the names and addresses of everyone involved?

Kingpin: No worries. Anything else I can do to assist in my defense?

Lawyer X: You could tell me how you rubbed out Horsie last year and what similar future plans you have.

Kingpin: (admiringly) Fuck me dead, it’s the ant’s pants to meet a lawyer who’s interested in me as a person for a change. Most lawyers don’t give a flying didgeridoo about their clients’ achievements and aspirations.

Lawyer X: Reckon I’m taking client-centered lawyering to a new level.


Posted in Criminal Defense Appeals, Criminal law | Tagged | 1 Comment