The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times

The Morning Wrap: We'll Always Have Paris

Paris is Liberated! It doesn't quite have the same ring to it as it did in 1944. But the heiress is out and swearing she's a changed woman. For instance, she now plans to use only organic cranberry juice in her cosmopolitans. Can we go back to our regular lives now?

Searching for Action: Google is complaining to the feds about Microsoft's business practices, particularly its search function embedded into Windows Vista.  That's so 1996!  Now we just need a Clinton to run for president.

Pay No Attention:  The Post continues its series on Dick Cheney, the Wizard Behind the Curtain. And that's why the Scarecrow is doing time in Gitmo.

One Last Gasp: It's High Noon (again) for the immigration bill in the Senate. Its supporters are pessimistic.

Feeling Feint: The government last Friday dropped charges against 12 of 16 KPMG employees in its tax shelter prosecution after a federal judge found constitutional violations in the case.  But this article from the New York Law Journal suggests that this all just a set-up for a clean appeal.

Uh, Yikes: This is one flipped-out, scary dude. (Note: The link is not a picture of Rosie O'Donnell.)

What Do You Have Against Science? Germany remains thumbs-down on Scientology.  But if it had to ban a Tom Cruise movie, couldn't it have been Vanilla Sky?

Calling KG: The Lakers are reportedly in talks to acquire Kevin Garnett from Minnesota in a bid to placate Kobe Bryant.  (If the Celtics are involved, then anything is possible.) If that doesn't work, the team is considering bringing in this guy.

You Got Punk'd

Harper’s Washington editor Ken Silverstein says he won’t deny that lobbying firm APCO Worldwide is good at what it does--lobbying for an array of companies ranging from World Wrestling Entertainment, to the CVS Corporation.

In fact, Silverstein won’t deny much of anything, even that he falsified documents and lied to APCO to get his story.

The reason? Silverstein told NPR he wanted to know how far lobbying firms could and would go in order to satisfy foreign sovereignties. “These firms are able to operate under the radar screen. . . we wanted to expose that,” Silverstein said.

Expose it, they did. But lobbying tactics weren’t the only things questionable in Silvestein’s article.

Washington Post columnist Howard Kurtz commented today on how Silverstein’s actions--lying to the firms, and not asking for comment after--put his journalistic ethics on shaky grounds.

Silverstein contacted two lobbying firms as Kenneth Case, supposedly an executive for the London-based Maldon Group. Silverstein went so far as to purchase a London cell phone number and have a Web site created for the fictitious firm.

Kenneth Case, or rather Silverstein, then met with APCO and fellow lobbying firm Cassidy and Associates, under the guise that the Maldon Group was seeking services for its client, the government of Turkmenistan, a dictatorship apparently noted for its less-than-scrupulous commitment to human rights.

The story broke in the Harper’s July 2007 issue. According to Silverstein, the firms were eager to represent the government, regardless of its oppressive image.

Ironically, for a journalist concerned with the ethics of lobbying firms, Silverstein never told the lobbying firms who he really was, and he never contacted the firms for comment before the story appeared.

“They never called us to say, 'You got punked,' "APCO spokesman B. Jay Cooper told Kurtz.

Silverstein’s questionable tactics for gathering information may rival those of MTV’s Punk’d host Ashton Kutcher, but don’t expect the Kutch to go gallivanting around K Street anytime soon. With seven movies currently in production, he’ll probably leave the lobbying high jinks to journalists.

Blog Watching, Supreme Court Edition

The blogs aren't standing idly by as the Supreme Court hands down decisions that have implications for First Amendment rights, as bloggers on both the left and right see free-speech protections as integral to their role in the political discourse. Some blogs are applauding the campaign finance decision, but the Morse v. Frederick decision (and the Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation decision, in some circles) caused a good amount of consternation. A few reactions:

• "Apparently the founders were in favor of every kind of speech except those that got in the way of government aims. If Larry Flynt’s case went to the court right now, he would be a convict."
  
• "Roberts has signaled early in his tenure as Chief that he is more interested in crafting the widest possible consensus on the Court than in issuing sweeping decisions. That he was only able to get a bare majority for such a tepid ruling, therefore, would seem to indicate that this was as far-reaching as the Justices were willing to go."
  
• "This new excuse, justifying bans if they can be linked tenuously to “imminent unlawful action” will surely provide a useful tool for those who want to ban every political expression they disagree with. After all, when every political disagreement can be found “offensive” and linked by some contorted logic to “hate speech”, then they can now be banned as leading to “hate crimes”, right? "
  
• "We should've thrown BCRA out entirely but this is a good start. In fact, the Roberts Court rectified the error of the Rehnquist Court."
  
• "There are plenty of instances in which vulnerable people have been proselytized with public funds, faith-based grants have been blatantly politicized to further a partisan agenda, religious ministries are treated as just another special interest group competing for grants from the federal government, and extremist groups most American would find offensive have sought and received assistance from taxpayers. All of these things happened, and five Supreme Court justices just made it harder for Americans to challenge the practice in court."
  

Read any good blogs on the topics? Feel free to link to them in comments.

Legal Tender: Record Charity

Charitable giving in the United States has reached a new record. In 2006, donors gave an estimated $295 billion, according to new data released today by the Giving USA Foundation. This amount surpasses the 2005 donations of $283 billion.

Giving by individuals is largest single source of donations -- about 75 percent. Religious congregations receive about 33 percent of gifts; education is also popular at about 14 percent.

"About 65 percent of households with incomes lower than $100,000 give to charity. This is higher than the percentage who vote or read a Sunday newspaper," said George Ruotolo Jr., the chair of the Giving Institute, in a statement.

Legal Aid Gets a Lift

The D.C. Bar Foundation has awarded even more grant money to fund civil legal services this year. In addition to the $2.9 million in public funding the group doled out this April, the foundation last week announced an additional $2.1 million in private funding. The amount nearly doubled this year compared to last, with the bulk of the funding going to 29 of the District’s legal-aid groups.

And in a move that will help coordinate the varied legal service providers, more than $100,000 has been allocated for centralized intake programs, including a pilot call center. Another $200,000 goes toward helping poverty lawyers pay off those pesky law school loans.

They Agree About the Pants

Business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and tort reform [opponents] like the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) supported a ruling by Judge Judith Bartnoff to dismiss the case against a D.C. dry cleaner. The case revolved around Judge Roy Pearson Jr., a D.C. administrative law judge who sued the owners of a dry cleaning business for $54 million over a pair of pants.

"From the beginning, this $54 million lawsuit over a pair of lost pants has been the epitome of a frivolous lawsuit. We applaud the court's decision to dismiss it, and believe that it sent a strong message in ordering Judge Pearson to pay the defendant's legal bills," said Lisa Rickard of the U.S. Chamber Legal Reform Institute in a statement. (The judge ordered Pearson to pay legal costs and will decide on fees later.)

AAJ echoed the Chamber’s sentiments and has even gone so far as to call on the D.C. Bar to conduct a disciplinary investigation of Judge Pearson.

And the groups aren’t stopping there. AAJ is encouraging its membership to contribute to the dry cleaners’ legal defense fund, and the Chamber is holding a fundraiser on July 24 to help defray their legal expenses.

—By Anna Palmer

John Roberts? Never Heard of the Guy

Newsweek has come out with the latest poll of common knowledge that Americans are too stupid to know. And it’s the usual grim story: Asked to pull a name out of a hat (no multiple-choice help), 18 percent of Americans came up with the name of the latest “American Idol” winner. (Um, Jordin Sparks.)

But only 11 percent could name the chief justice of the United States. (It’s John Roberts. Add a Jr. if you’re being picky.)

A “charitible” aside to Newsweek: In a story about what dunces we all are, you should probably spell-check that first paragraph.

Judge Loses Pants Suit

The saga, it seems, is over. D.C. administrative judge Roy Pearson Jr. won't be getting the $54 million he sought for the pair of dark-colored trousers he claimed were misplaced by a local cleaners. Nor will he be getting the $500,000 in attorney fees he sought for representing himself in the two-day trial that attracted dozens of international journalists to D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff's courtroom.

Judge Bartnoff ruled today that the Chungs, who own the dry cleaners that Pearson frequented over the years, did not violate the Consumer Protection Act and that Pearson would not receive anything from them. Bartnoff also awarded the Chung family the costs of defending the suit. Bartnoff's ruling was one that some lawyers had already forecasted, with some saying that her general posture in the courtroom (subscription required) was a telltale sign of how she would rule today.

According to both parties, the million-dollar suit wasn't really about the pants. For Pearson, it was about what he called a fraudulent "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign in the Chungs' store window. And according to the Chungs' attorney, Chris Manning, Pearson's pant suit was less about a pair of pants and a sign and more about his need for cash to pay other legal fees after his 2003 divorce.

Pearson's suit may cost him his continued judgeship. He has served two years as an administrative judge but is now up for a potential 10-year reappointment. According to the Examiner, Pearson's boss has changed his mind about reappointing Pearson because of the pants litigation.

Southwick Removed

Just more than a day after conservative groups upped the ante by trying to push Leslie Southwick's confirmation process for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit into high gear, a Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that the nomination be withdrawn from the agenda. The move comes after Southwick was on the agenda for three weeks in a row without coming to a vote. We're still working on nailing down which Republican lawmaker put the kabosh on Southwick, but all signs point to Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who voiced his frustration in trying to round up the votes just two weeks before.

For more on the battle surrounding Southwick's nomination, click here.

Legal Tender: Universally Overvalued?

The world's stock markets are "universally overvalued," writes financial adviser William Bernstein. In an article this month on his Web site Efficient Frontier, Bernstein argues that "today's terrain is a vast, flat steppe consisting of stocks everywhere selling at around 20-25 times trailing earnings. Thus, at best, we're looking at low single-digit returns. And that's with earnings inflated, I might add, by questionable accounting and the peak of a global economic boom."

Bernstein also points with concern to the quickly expanding universe of exchange-traded funds, which allow investors to track narrow market sectors. "As the splinters get thinner," he argued, "they grow sharper, and the odds of folks hurting themselves with these pointed objects now approach one hundred percent."