So I’m thinking about whether it is legal and/or advisable to sell my old 1L outlines to the hoard of current 1Ls that would undoubtedly pay dollars for a customized outline.  There was a service called TakeNote @ Cornell that produced custom class notes on red paper, designed to foil would-be photocopiers.  (They hired TAs to take notes during that class that you undoubtedly skipped because of your subscription to Takenote Example of Intro to Wines TakeNote).

So I ask - Would be infringing upon a professor’s copyright?

The concept of copyrighting a lecture (technically, a live performance) was briefly addressed in my copyright class.  Additionally, an excellent law review titled “Note: ‘Profiting At My Expense’: An Analysis of the Commercialization of Professors’ Lecture Notes” by Ashley T. Barnett - 9 J. Intell. Prop. L. 137 (Fall 2001) discusses the issue of commercial note-taking services, advocating that additional protections should be adopted.

Does federal copyright law prevent a commercial note service from copying a lecture delivered by a professor? The answer is: it depends. The legality of buying and selling lecture notes or of posting lecture notes on the Internet seems to be a gray area of the law. In essence, the answer to this question depends on the lecture meeting the fixation requirement, ownership of the lecture, and the nature of the lecture . . . .

[For protection to be afforded federal copyright law requires a] Modicum of Originality and Fixation in a Tangible Medium of Expression. . . .  In regard to originality, courts have set a very low standard to meet this criterion. . . .

To the extent that a speech, lecture, or other vocal performance is not reduced to tangible form, it is outside the scope of the 1976 Copyright Act. Protection exists if the author reduces the lecture to writing or to any tangible form (i.e. a recording), before the lecture is given.
9 J. Intell. Prop. L. 137, 147-53.

So a continuum is established between a completely fixed and pre-written professor’s speech (protected) and a completely improvised live speech (unprotected).  Often, however, professors will have pre-written outlines or case notes and lecture based on that general framework.  Ms. Barnett provides an example -

a history professor may outline his lecture in the chronology of the events that led up to World War II, and then add his own personal experiences during the delivery of the lecture. If the written portions of the lecture meet the other requirements of copyrightability, then the lecture will probably be considered fixed to the extent that it is written down.

1.2.3.4. - You can’t copyright facts?

Feist has declared, however, that you can’t copyright facts.

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), that is.

Feist dealt with the whether a company (Rural) properly had a copyright in their telephone white pages.  For more check out this fact summary from Oyez. In a clear and well-reasoned opinion, Justice O’Connor taught us that “The sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author.”  And while the Court recognized that the white pages were theoretically copyrightable, properly categorized under the “compilations” standard of Section 103 of the Copyright Act of 1976, Rural’s white pages was not sufficiently original to merit protection mainly because they just listed the names, addresses and telephone numbers in alphabetical order.  There was not even a “modicum of originality.”

The Court also made clear that the facts and ideas can never be copyrighted.  This is the idea/expression dichotomy that is central to copyright law (basically, ideas ? ©, expression = ©).  In Feist, the names/addresses/telephone numbers do not “owe their origin” to the white pages publisher; that is, they were “discovered” and not “created.”  So this information is deemed a fact, and not the subject of copyright.

History provides the most clear example of a fact - dates/times/events ect.  Analogizing to the outline context, it’s clear that a professor cannot have a copyright in the substance of caselaw.  What is a “fact” in the legal context.  In other academic contexts, like biology or history, the definition is simple.  But often the interpretations of a holding or application to analogous situations depends upon the individual professor’s expression.  And copyright is designed to protect expression.  The line becomes blurry very fast, and I certainly don’t have any answers to these questions, but they seem worth considering.

What About The Other Stuff?

But I said before that the white pages were theoretically copyrightable?  A “compilation” is defined in Section 101 as “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works.”  So the “preexisting material” is the white pages data and the ‘legal facts.’  The white pages and the professor’s creative expression of selection/coordination/arrangement is protectable.

The Feist Court broke down the statutory text for us, and highlighted the importance of #2 in its analysis.

The statute identifies three distinct elements, and requires each to be met for a work to qualify as a copyrightable compilation: (1) the collection and assembly of preexisting material, facts, or data; (2) the selection, coordination, or arrangement of those materials; and (3) the creation, by virtue of the particular selection, coordination, or arrangement, of an “original” work of authorship.

The expression, aka layout in alphabetical form, of the white pages was not given protection because it was insufficiently creative, failing to meet a very low bar.  I would guess that most professor’s lectures are original enough to meet the statutory definition, and they are the work of independent creation (they have not been “copied”).  Additionally, a compilation is not required to be a collection of copyrightable works.  The statutory text’s inclusion of “facts” and “data” make it clear that a copyright can exist in a compilation of information that is itself non-copyrightable.

Some Concluding Thoughts

Recognize that there are two distinct questions involved in my outline-selling problem.  First, whether a copyright can/does exist in a professor’s lecture.  The primary issues involved here are sufficient fixation, and defining the scope of the protected expression.  I think we’ve answered to the extent that the professor’s expression is protected to a limited extent.  This protection, however, would likely be described as thin protection, which might only protect the work from verbatim copying.

Second, whether the commercial use of my outline constitutes infringement of the professor’s copyright.  The primary issues involved here are include the similarity between my outline and the professor’s lecture/live performance, the extent that I incorporate the professor’s expression verbatim, and defining where the protected expression ends and my expression, in processing lecture and turning it into notes, begins.  There’s also the problem (which I purposefully haven’t dealt with) regarding the scope of copyright protection in a law textbook or commercial outline.

I think that to the extent that I am reproducing my professor’s expression verbatim (which I do when I transcribe lecture) is protected.   As is often the case, however, the scope of a person’s copyright is not clearly delineated until an infringement lawsuit is brought.  So you don’t really know what you have.

Additional considerations include whether my professors would have a problem with it?  A quick survey suggests that the answer is “no” but “that doesn’t mean I’m endorsing it.  Advice includes “watch out for public outcry or backlash” and “don’t break any other laws” (tax/university policy), but it appears to be permitted by the PSU Honor Code.

Faulkner Press v. Class Notes - (Filed Apr. 1, 2008 in N.D. Fla.)

Hat tip to Professor Brian Holland for alerting me to this lawsuit.  On April 1, 2008, the Gainesville Sun reported:

Faulkner Press, which publishes books authored by numerous UF professors, filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Class Notes, the parent-company of Einstein’s Notes.

The suit alleges that Class Notes republished and profited from lecture notes that belonged to a UF associate professor, in addition to republishing copyrighted practice questions that appeared in a book authored by the faculty member and published by Faulkner.

“This case is aimed at establishing that it is not OK to repackage and market for profit intellectual property belonging to professors without their permission,” said Jim Sullivan, an attorney representing Faulkner Press.

Also see this  Wired Blog Article & The Future of HigherEd - lawsuit info from Plaintiff Faulkner Press, copy of the Complaint, Defendant’s Study Aid Website.

• Herring v. United States (07-513), on whether courts must suppress evidence seized during an arrest made as a result of faulty information provided by another law enforcement agency
• Arizona v. Gant (07-542), on whether police must show a threat to their safety or the preservation of evidence to conduct a warrantless search of a car whose occupant was recently arrested.

So I was wondering if argument actually influences the decisions of the Justices.  Interesting article from the Yale Pocket Part - an online publication of the Yale Law Journal. Frederick Liu’s Citing the Transcript of Oral Argument: Which Justices Do It and Why analyzes empirical data from 1994-2007, examining the number of citations to the oral argument transcript that are included in opinions.

Liu also details how Justices use oral argument.

The three main reasons Justices cite the transcript are: (1) to describe an advocate’s affirmative position; (2) to record an advocate’s concession; and (3) to note an advocate’s representation of the record or facts.

Regardless of political affiliation, Tina Fey’s grand return to Saturday Night Live to impersonate Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin has people on the floor laughing.  Professor Adler @ Volokh Conspiracy wakes up earlier than I do, and linked the 3 Fey-as-Palin sketches on this blog post with a poll (Palin - Couric is currently leading.

Palin & Hillary Press Conference

Palin interview with Katie Couric

VP Debate - Palin/Biden

I was wondering if Fey would be breaking any laws if she impersonated Palin and staged a public rally.  I know it’s a crime to impersonate a police officer, so it would likely be similarly illegal to impersonate an acting governor.  But would there be a First Amendment parody exception?

The real Gov. Palin

Jacksonville Ordinance Code § 26-57 provided at the time of these arrests and convictions as follows:

“Rogues and vagabonds, or dissolute persons who go about begging, common gamblers, persons who use juggling or unlawful games or plays, common drunkards, common night walkers, thieves, pilferers or pickpockets, traders in stolen property, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons, keepers of gambling places, common railers and brawlers, persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object, habitual loafers, disorderly persons, persons neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming houses, or places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served, persons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children shall be deemed vagrants and, upon conviction in the Municipal Court shall be punished as provided for Class D offenses.”

Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 158 (1972).

“Four of the defendants, an interracial group of friends, were arrested for “prowling by auto” while driving to a nightclub, one defendant was arrested as a “vagabond” while waiting for a ride, two were charged with “loitering” while walking on a sidewalk, one was arrested as a “common thief” after being ordered out of his car in his girlfriend’s driveway, and the last was charged with resisting arrest and “loitering” after being identified by a policeman as a generally opprobrious character.” (Lexis)

The opinion, authored by Justice Douglas, has some great quotes about the finer points of vagrancy:

Luis Munoz-Marin, former Governor of Puerto Rico, commented once that “loafing” was a national virtue in his Commonwealth and that it should be encouraged. It is, however, a crime in Jacksonville. . . .

“Persons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children” — like habitually living “without visible means of support” — might implicate unemployed pillars of the community who have married rich wives. . . .

Persons “wandering or strolling” from place to place have been extolled by Walt Whitman and Vachel Lindsay. The qualification “without any lawful purpose or object” may be a trap for innocent acts. Persons “neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting . . . places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served” would literally embrace many members of golf clubs and city clubs.

Walkers and strollers and wanderers may be going to or coming from a burglary. Loafers or loiterers may be “casing” a place for a holdup.  Letting one’s wife support him is an intra-family matter, and normally of no concern to the police. (Yes!).

found guilty late Friday on all 12 counts stemming from a confrontation in a hotel room last year, including armed robbery and kidnapping.

Mr. Simpson now faces 15 years to life for the kidnapping charge as well as a minimum of at least another 10 years in prison on the other charges. His attorney, Yale Galanter, said he would appeal.

Ted Stevens - No Mistrial (Yet!) but Williams & Connolly are good.

OJ Simpson - Not Guilty (Yet!) but the jury is out.

The Washington Post and the Legal Times have the story of D.C. District Judge Sullivan’s harsh words for the Prosecution in the criminal case against Ted Stevens.

WaPo -

After a surprise revelation Wednesday night that Justice Department lawyers had not disclosed the potentially exculpatory information, the ruling followed a hearing on the matter late yesterday.

“Although the court is persuaded there is a . . . violation, the court is not persuaded that dismissal of the indictment or mistrial is the appropriate remedy,” said U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. He added that the government’s actions had broken his trust in the prosecutors and ordered them to give Stevens’s attorneys copies of all witness interviews.

“The court has no confidence in the government’s ability” to meet its obligations to ensure a fair trial, he said.

. . . .

The potentially exculpatory material involves remarks by the executive, Bill Allen, a key prosecution witness, to FBI Agents that he believed Stevens would have paid for the renovations if Allen had billed him. Attorneys for the government did not disclose those remarks to the defense until late Wednesday.

The chief of now-defunct Veco is a longtime friend of Stevens’s and had sought the senator’s help with company projects. Stevens, one of the most powerful Republicans in the Senate is running for reelection to a seventh full term.

Sullivan said Allen’s information is not entirely new — prosecutors had previously summarized his views in a September letter to the defense — and noted that the defense can stress it when Stevens’s attorneys cross-examine Allen.

But Sullivan ruled that government prosecutors had violated a critical requirement that they turn over potentially helpful information to the defense. Prosecutors said they would report Sullivan’s finding to the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which could begin an investigation of the government legal team.

For background information about the trial, the NYT has a convenient archive of Stevens articles here.

In other news - juror deliberations have begun in the OJ Simpson robbery case.

Interesting Time story about Yale Galanter, Simpson’s criminal defense attorney since 2000.  Galanter has helped Simpson with

“a federal drug raid on Simpson’s home in 2001, a ticket for speeding in a manatee zone in 2002, a domestic violence call to his residence in 2003, and his participation last year in the writing of a fictional account of the murders of his former wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman.”

SCOTUS Blog also reports that Gregory G. Garre was confirmed as the new Solicitor General.  Sounds like a pretty exciting job getting to be America’s top litigator.

According to sources in the Justice Department and Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate on Thursday confirmed Gregory G. Garre as United States Solicitor General.

. . . .

Garre argued five cases before the Supreme Court last term: for the respondent in Gomez-Perez v. Potter (06-1231) and Munaf v. Geren (06-1666); as amicus supporting the respondent in Board of Education of New York v. Tom F. (06-637) and Baze v. Rees (07-5439); and as amicus supporting the petitioner in Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn.

Now, don’t get me wrong, WordPress.com is great, but we’re really excited about the new features we’re able to provide by hosting our own blog.² We now have a lot of freedom to pretty much do whatever we want with the site, and we’re definitely open to feedback.

Why not try out the new wall-esque widget and tell us what you think?

Note: The blogroll will be fixed tomorrow.

1. if you’re not an RSS subscriber — and if not, why not subscribe?
2. For instance, footnotes! What’s a blawg with law review editors without footnotes?

Students Rejoice in …

The new building will indeed be awesome.

Update: 9-29

NYT Article - Pirated Arms Freighter Cornered by U.S. Navy

NAIROBI, Kenya — The American military on Monday tightened the naval noose around an arms-laden freighter hijacked by pirates, sealing off any possible escape in a standoff near the craggy Somalia coastline

Lt. Nathan Christensen, a Navy spokesman, said that “several destroyers and missile cruisers” had joined the American destroyer that was already tailing the hijacked vessel and that the pirates were now surrounded. He would not specify the exact number of warships or what they would do if the pirates refused to surrender.

“Our intent is for the ship not to offload any of its cargo,” he said, referring to the 33 battle tanks and large supply of grenade launchers and ammunition now in the hands of a band of pirates.

______________________________________

NY Times has this Reuters article about Somali pirates.

Somali pirates demanded a $35 million ransom on Saturday for a Ukrainian ship they had seized which was carrying 33 tanks and other military supplies to Kenya, a maritime official said.
. . . .
Pirates have captured more than 30 vessels off Somalia this year, making its waters the most dangerous in the world and threatening a globally important shipping lane between Europe and Asia. The gangs seek, and often receive, large ransoms.

The International Chamber of Commerce has this Piracy Map - which details actual and attempted attacks, with historical data back to 2005.

This USA Today article (July 21) describes the substantial costs involved, and United States’ efforts protecting against piracy.

Armed attacks on cargo ships, oil tankers and cruise ships are estimated to cost more than $1 billion a year, says Peter Chalk, a senior security analyst at RAND Corp. “Piracy does affect U.S. commerce. It is to the economic interest of the United States that the sea lanes are as stable as possible,” Chalk says.

Piracy in Nigeria is leading to a drop in oil shipments because shipping companies are reluctant to risk ships, cargos and crew, he says. “That has implications for U.S. strategic energy supplies.”

. . . .

The Lourdes Tide, a supply ship working for a U.S. company, was attacked in Nigeria on May 13 by armed pirates who demanded a ransom. Pirates released the vessel and 11-person crew June 16.

. . . .

The bold pirate attacks along the African coast come as attacks decline in a key Asian shipping lane.

The U.S. military says it donated equipment, coordinated joint training exercises and nudged Indonesia to cooperate with its two maritime neighbors, Singapore and Malaysia. It wanted the three countries to get control of the Strait of Malacca, an important waterway for oil shipments, cargo and cruise ships.

“It’s as critical a chunk of water as exists anywhere in the world,” says Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command.

As a rational consumer of goods (law firms) who is in the process of making an important choice (2L summer employment), I’ve been reading a lot about how the recent bailouts of Fannie/Freddie and AIG, and failures of Bear Sterns and Lehman Bros. (hereinafter “1929″ or “the crisis”) will change the legal landscape.  Recognizing that my future as a litigation associate will be significantly impacted by this crisis, even if I don’t specialize in financial services, is an important first step.

I believe that law students should be aware of the business world to be better able to serve their clients, and see two major consequences of the current financial crisis: (1) Firms will change their employment practices, and (2) Clients will demand more of their firms.

The Shrinking Legal Employment Market

My advice for 1Ls - study harder, for 2Ls - job search smarter (diversify), for 3Ls - pray.  There’s no doubt that the top large law firms will be directly affected by these business failures. Above the Law conducted a survey of associates in major markets to gauge their reactions.  It’s a great post which includes lolcat photos, and highlights that many firms have already laid off employees (Cadwalader being the prime example).  A generally shrinking legal market results in fewer summer associate positions, and more competitive summer classes resulting in “no offers” being handed out because of accounting reasons, not just because you spilled wine on a partner.  Face it, there are a ton of good lawyers out there.

The Am Law Daily has an article profiling the opinion of Alan Pomerantz, a reputable financial services lawyer. His view is a little bleak -

What’s going on at large law firms right now?
Everyone is nervous. And it’s not a good thing to be a lawyer and to be nervous. There are certain practice groups that are doing extremely well, but anything that needs debt to function is shut. It’s a tough world out there right now. And there are no jobs. The people who got laid off [earlier this year] probably have jobs already. But for the next crowds, there are no jobs. It’s an incredibly shrinking market.

How are firms planning to absorb the new law school graduates they’ve just taken on?
It’s going to accelerate a firm’s decision-making [process] on people. It used to be, “Well, he or she is doing good work, so let’s keep them around a bit longer,” but now it’s, “Let’s get rid of them.” If you can get it done cheaper, and you’ve already committed to [first-years] and you don’t want to pull commitments, get rid of [upper-level associates]. And what is truly horrible, is that some firms–I’m not mentioning any and I know it’s not here–are telling [associates] that they’re being let go because their work isn’t good, instead of saying to them, “We don’t have work.”

So the solution to this problem from a job search perspective is to make yourself the most hireable candidate.  For 1Ls, recognize that your grades are what define you, and put in the work.  2Ls need to recognize that personal connections also get you jobs, especially in a bad market - so network.

Clients Will Demand More of Their Firms

An insightful comment from the Above the Law survey -

Others expect that weaker budgets will mean lower billables:

As the economy continues to tank, our clients grow increasingly less lenient with the number of hours and rates charged for various services. While in a strong market clients prize quality over expense, in these less fruitful times, clients are placing greater value on lower costs.

So recognize this as a junior associate, and make client reassurance one of your goals for the year.  Find ways to prove that your firm is delivering on both quality and price points (or that the quality is worth the price) and you’ll retain more business.

But Don’t Panic

I think law students should be concerned, but also recognize that the vast majority of American companies aren’t going anywhere, and will still need legal representation.  Granted, there will be less financial services transactional work, but that means more complex litigation (shareholder suits, bankruptcy litigation ect.).  Another tip would be to research employers, and if concerned with job security down the line, recognize that a firm like Morgan Lewis might be a safe bet.  Morgan was just ranked #1 by the ABA “in a Corporate Counsel survey of law firms most often used in Fortune 100 litigation last year.” Any firm with similar breadth makes them secure when a particular section of the legal market tanks.

And while the comments on most blogs are worthless (ATL especially), I found this one thought provoking - “As a 2L at GULC, I’ve made the decision to scrap the firm gig and go along with most of my classmates to become a Westlaw rep.”

6. “Background Noise on the Phone”

Okay, so it’s debatable whether this one belongs in this collection as the hilarity comes from a source other than the deposed. But it’s still amusing, right? This is why I always hate being on conference calls. Is there a polite way to tell some random guy to shut his kid up? I don’t even want to consider whether there is a polite way to tell someone to stop pleasuring themselves and/or others.

5. Thank God for Rape Shield Laws

In this long clip, a junior associate is set up by his firm with a fake, ridiculous deposition. I don’t know whether I love or hate this firm for setting up this elaborate situation. The only thing that remains certain is that this guy has some awesome frames.

4. “Would You Object if I Wear a Mask Over My Face?”

I’m actually really excited about this video because it’s the extended version of the one that I found last year.

The following thoughts occur to me:

1. Why does this guy already have a mask?
2. Was the standard “beep” soundbyte unavailable to the person that leaked this video? Car effects? Really?
3. Are these people HIS clients?
4. Did the masked man commit a tort? Is this negligence? Battery? I think not, which makes me a bit sad.

3. “You Have a Case of Insipient Verbal Diarrhea”

Professor Holland told us a long story about this deposition, most of which I forget. Maybe if we’re lucky he’ll post a comment about the history. I think it has something to do with the guy off-camera being some powerful figure in the area. Either way, old guys fighting is inherently funny. Unless you make it into a movie and continue to milk an already dying franchise. I also like how the lawyer eggs the deposed on and then talks about how outrageous the situation was.

2. “Was That a Yes Or a No?”

If you ever had any doubt that this nice old man would put it back where it was, you probably won’t after watching this clip. Unfortunately, it didn’t have much to do with the question. Arguably, neither did the trailing expletive.

1. “Not Without My Formula Sheets”

Yes, I certainly saved the best for last. The science/engineering people out there will almost certainly facepalm after seeing this, but everyone can appreciate it. This clip brings up two memories.

1. Professor Holland decided to make the last day of class into a fun competition for Twix and Starbucks cards. The very last question was presented on a powerpoint slide, and was a relatively intimidating looking (though ultimately fairly easy) derivative question. I’m was sitting there attempting to remember the chain rule, when Mr. Weist buzzed in with the correct answer, which was of course, “Not without my formula sheet.”

2. After the original class, I decided to track down this guy. I came across a motorcycle group’s webpage, where his obituary was posted. Now, I’m not saying this is funny at all, but he died recently in a motorcycle crash. Sometimes I wonder whether it was due to a conversion miscalculation.

Well that’s it for the ridiculous deposition list. Do you have a favorite that I didn’t cover? Post it!

Document reviewers celebrated on Monday when the House passed S. 2450, a bill designed to add Federal Rule of Evidence 502 - “Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver.”  The main point, as described in this point of law article, is that since the production of privileged documents during discovery acts as a waiver to that privilege, firms are spending a significant amount of time on privilege review to ensure that documents don’t slip through and destroy their case.  FRE 502 would remove this barrier, serving both judicial economy and junior associates’ sanity.

(b) Inadvertent Disclosure- When made in a Federal proceeding or to a Federal office or agency, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a Federal or State proceeding if:

(1) the disclosure is inadvertent;

(2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and

(3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including (if applicable) following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).

And Josh - Happy Large Hadron Collider Day - I know you’ve been waiting for this for a long time.

Legal Geekery contributor Kim told me about the entertaining website of Marque Lawyers, who seek to revolutionize the legal industry.

MARQUE exists!  We are Australia’s newest law firm, and we have the single ambition of completely changing the way that law is practised.

We do not charge by the hour. We do not charge you when we pick up the phone or send you an email. We do not charge you for photocopying or travel time or any of that kind of stuff. We invest in long term relationships with our clients, and we measure the value of our services in the same way that you do. We have a lot to offer, and we provide it in a way that doesn’t hurt.

There’s a lot more, but that’ll do for starters.

So I laughed for a bit, but then recognized that the firm has a pretty sweet address for a non-traditional fee structure.  Granted they’re up-and-coming, but that section of Sydney is somewhere I’d like to practice.

And because of the the ongoing job search, I’ve been visiting a ton of firm sites recently, and have stumbled across some pretty great designs.

Gibson Dunn - traditional styling, motivational text & artistic lawyer photos

Cravath - great use of black and white flash animation

Morrison & Foerster - best domain name

Arent Fox - offers industry podcasts

Mintz Levin - coolest firm map (click to expand photo)

I think my hotel room is haunted . . .

Wired Blog has this great story about the cartoon above that was distributed to 50,000 students to teach them that file sharing was illegal.  It seems to me that cartoons would be the best way to get substantive legal information across.

[The cartoons were] produced by the National Center for State Courts, a nonprofit describing itself as an “organization dedicated to improving the administration of justice by providing leadership and service to court systems in the United States.”

But the story line here is a miscarriage of justice at best — even erroneously describing file sharing as a city crime punishable by up to two years in prison.

. . . .

“The Case of Internet Piracy,” however, reads like the Recording Industry Association of America’s public relations playbook: Download some songs, go to jail and lose your scholarship. Along the way, musicians will file onto the bread lines.

“The purpose is basically to educate kids — middle school and high school-aged about how the justice system operates and about what really goes on in the courtroom as opposed to what you see on television,” said Lorri Montgomery, the center’s communications director.

During my freshman year (2001) at Cornell, around fifty students were busted for downloading music via Kazaa. Given the unrepresentative sample size of two people whom I knew, the punishments ranged from no punishment to twenty-five hours of community service. 

My how times have changed.