View Single Post
  #1  
Old 11-29-2007, 10:25 PM
Howard Treesong Howard Treesong is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Theoretically Indeterminable
Posts: 997
Default Ask Howard Treesong About Law or Lawyering

I for one thought yesterday's thread about the Texas vigilante was thought provoking and thought a more general law thread might be in order. My background: I received my law degree from Duke in 1989, after which I clerked for a federal judge in Atlanta. A federal court of appeal handles appeals from every kind of case: criminal, civil, habeas, INS, you name it. I then started practicing for a huge national firm with a small office in Los Angeles, where I remained for sixteen years. I litigated a fairly wide range of commercial cases (contract, antitrust, commercial tort, copyright, product liability and even a little IP), making partner along the way. A year and a half or so ago, I jumped ship and now manage litigation for a piece of a huge company you all would recognize. My expertise is primarily in litigation, but any questions re career tracks, law practice, or substantive areas are fair game. I'll stay away from overtly political issues (like Guantanamo) even though they might be law-related. My general political leanings are right-libertarian, to the extent that matters.

Flame on! Ask away!

To start the discussion off, I'll relate today's big law news item: the indictment of Richard "Dickie" Scruggs. Scruggs made a ton of money on plaintiffs-side asbestos and tobacco litigation. He is Trent Lott's brother in law. The indictment arises out of a fee dispute over a Katrina case; Scruggs stands accused of paying a state judge $50,000 through an intermediary for a favorable ruling. He is also accused of defying a court order to return certain documents in a separate Katrina case, although that for now is separate from the indictment.

Let me also observe that I thought the vigilante situation was not clear cut. I do not think we should live in a society that permits theft or robbery without significant risk to the perp; at the same time, anyone who is not troubled by the shooter's actions and judgments takes a rather too cavalier view of the value of human life.
Reply With Quote