Thread re: why appeals are fun, with a corporate law detour.
When I was a corporate lawyer, the only part of the work I really enjoyed was hanging out with the buyer's or seller's in-house counsel while trying to close the deal. One month I had to learn how UPC codes work 1/
so that I could write a side-agreement to help transfer the codes for a line of retail items to the buyer. I ended up asking the lawyer for all their manuals just so I could bury myself in them.
I also had to help move a machine cross-country once. I got to know the guy who /2
Basically had made the machine. He knew everything about how it worked, how to disassemble, it, etc. Total blast.
Anyway, back to my point - and this is an #appellatetwitter oldie - there's a lot of that work for a generalist appeals lawyer like me. /3
I get cases in different subjects all the time. My job is to try to learn them as well as I possibly can. The story of Lisa Blatt wandering around with customs agents to figure it out is always in my head - lawprofessors.typepad.com/appellate_advo…. /4
Honestly, I probably lose a butt-ton (technical term) of money doing this work, because I can't always bill for it. But it's central to what I do. And it's really fun and great. The goal isn't to be an *expert.* You can't be. But you should try to know the most in the room. /5
Anyway, I've done a bunch of this work recently. It makes me happy. Thought I'd share for those thinking of heading in this direction.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Re: all the debate about architecture. This is the Houston federal courthouse. One of my few real trolls is saying “this is bad” because a totally non-zero number of my friends love it.
By contrast I love the Austin courthouse and am invariably told I am a fool by both the architect snob guys and the classical is the only way guys.
I argued a case in Salt Lake City and also love theirs.
OK, I had held off commenting on the New York "symbols of hate" statute, which purports to ban "symbols of hate" in some circumstances. As everyone else has noted, it is obviously unconstitutional. But I hadn't seen the text, which is bananas. 1/
Problem 1: symbols of hate isn't properly defined. Note where it says "not be limited to" in 146(2). So, in the hands of extremists of one type or another, the following could suddenly become such: the christian cross, a muslim crescent, a BLM sign, whatever PETA's logo is.
This problem, in my preliminary view, renders even Section 146(1) (which mostly is about the Government's own speech) pretty suspect. I'd need to think about it further. /3
I try not to be (too) cruel, but I have rather enjoyed the meltdown of people complaining that the bookies paid out on the Biden bets and took the pro-Trump money.
Also, please let there be litigation - it would be a live-tweeting bonanza.
My favorite so far is this fellow with the top hat. He seems upset.
Really interesting oral argument in the Second Circuit yesterday about whether baseball's alleged tolerance of electronic sign stealing creates a claim for fantasy baseball players. The appellate panel is ... skeptical.
the Yankees' team President, who is a lawyer, argued personally that the district judge erred in deciding to make a letter about the Yankees public (this was a side issue). He was... too casual, but ok. His position is going to lose however.
I'm a lawyer that reads nearly every Supreme Court opinion, and yet I would have told you "River Master" was made up before I listened to this case. docs.google.com/viewer?url=htt…
Disappointingly, the River Master does not appear to have the power to make horses appear in the river's froth and wash away Nazgul.