1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Insurance case is ‘but a speck in the recesses…

Judiciary

Insurance case is ‘but a speck in the recesses of interstellar space,’ high-profile appeals judge writes

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 3:07 pm CDT

In a span of less than a week, a conservative federal appeals judge has written two opinions that are getting attention—for taking a tough stand against the mistaken deportation of an immigrant in one case and for waxing philosophical in another case.

In an April 17 opinion, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III took the Trump administration to task for “asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process.”

Wilkinson wrote the “blistering” opinion for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia of Maryland, according to the New York Times.

Abrego Garcia was deported to a prison in El Salvador in Central America because of an “administrative error.” The case is Abrego Garcia v. Noem.

Now, Wilkinson is getting attention once again for an April 23 opinion in an insurance dispute involving a man on a lawn mower struck and killed by an underinsured motorist, according to Above the Law and the Judicial Notice newsletter at Original Jurisdiction.

The 4th Circuit held that the man’s estate was entitled to $150,000 under the plain terms of the man’s underinsured motorist coverage—and nothing more.

Wilkinson engaged in “existential, metaphysical musings” at the end of his opinion, according to Judicial Notice.

Here is what Wilkinson wrote: “What after all does it matter? A single, seemingly ordinary, rather technical insurance case. One among the many hundreds of rulings judges make each year.

“What does it matter? A case but a speck in the recesses of interstellar space and in the four-plus billion years since our solar system’s birth. What does it matter, this case deserted by both space and time?

“To be human is to live in the here and now. This small case extracts courageous meaning from the vast impersonality in which it resides. Its immediacy confounds infinity; its passions light the dark. We have given it our best; the litigants have given it their best. The trial court has done the same. We do not overlook for a moment the tragic passing of the insured but neither can we ignore the contract under South Carolina law that defines the insurer’s obligation.”

The insurance case is Owners Insurance Co. v. Walsh.

Wilkinson, 80, was appointed to the 4th Circuit by former President Ronald Reagan, the New York Times reports in a story about his background. He is the “son of a patrician Virginia banker,” an Army veteran and a law grad of the University of Virginia.

He delayed his legal education after one year to unsuccessfully run for Congress in 1970 as a Republican. After law school, he worked as a law professor and in the U.S. Department of Justice.

On the bench, the New York Times reports, Wilkinson has “a long track record of conservative rulings under his belt, having criticized rulings establishing abortion rights while writing approvingly of a broad conception of presidential power.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Vacation, mistaken filing led to order to…

Trials & Litigation

Vacation, mistaken filing led to order to show cause, lawyers for MyPillow CEO say

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 29, 2025, 2:29 pm CDT

Human error led lawyers representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to file a draft document with incorrect case citations instead of the final version, according to a response to a federal judge’s order to show cause.

The lawyers didn’t realize that they had filed the wrong document, an early draft without corrections, until questioning 55 days later by the judge, according to their April 25 response.

Law360 has the story.

U.S. District Judge Nina Y. Wang of the District of Colorado had ordered the lawyers on April 23 to show cause why they shouldn’t be referred for discipline. Wang said she identified “nearly 30 defective citations” of cases, including citations to cases that don’t exist, in the lawyers’ Feb. 10 brief.

Lawyer Christopher I. Kachouroff said in a declaration his co-counsel filed the draft document instead of the final version that they “had carefully cite-checked and edited.” At the time, Kachouroff was on a one-week vacation to Mexico, where there were “limitations on internet service.”

But what happened wasn’t clear, Kachouroff said, when he was questioned in court by Wang. Kachouroff was “taken by complete surprise” because he was unaware of the mistake, he said in the declaration.

“In the face of the court’s detailed questioning, I was utterly flustered and embarrassed, and due to my ignorance of what was going on, found myself at a loss for words,” Kachouroff said.

Kachouroff said he routinely uses artificial intelligence to analyze the structure and the logic of legal arguments. He does not, however, rely on AI to do legal research or find cases.

“Regardless of whether I use AI in a particular pleading,” he wrote, “I always conduct verification of citations before filing.”

Kachouroff and his co-counsel, Jennifer T. DeMaster, are seeking leave to replace the draft document with the correct one.

Lindell is being sued for defamation by Eric Coomer, a former executive with Dominion Voting Systems. He alleges that Lindell and his related companies are “among the most prolific vectors of baseless conspiracy theories claiming election fraud in the 2020 election.”

Lindell allegedly amplified false allegations that Coomer may have been involved in a rigged election and a criminal conspiracy, leading to “credible death threats” against him and banishment from the elections industry, Coomer’s second amended complaint alleges.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Benchmark data can prove to be invaluable when making decisions about the future of your law firm. Understanding how others in the legal profession are using technology to streamline workflows and increase revenues can make all the difference.

That’s where the recently released 2025 Legal Industry Report from AffiniPay comes in. This report, published annually, offers insight into how legal professionals from firms of all sizes and practice areas are approaching and benefiting from technology adoption. Over 2,800 legal professionals were surveyed for this year’s survey, which covers a wide range of topics, including artificial intelligence adoption, financial management software choices and the continued shift to remote and hybrid work environments.

The data reveals notable trends surrounding legal professionals’ technology choices and outcomes, including how software adoption impacts firm profitability and how remote work choices are changing the landscape of law practice.

Increased interest in AI adoption

With generative AI continuing to make headlines, it’s not surprising that the data shows that interest in it has increased since last year’s report. For example, in 2024, 31% of legal professionals reported using generative AI tools for work, up from 27% in 2023.

Interestingly, the rate of adoption varied across firm size and practice areas. Immigration practitioners led generative AI usage, with 47% incorporating it into their daily workflows. Other practice areas, such as personal injury (37%), civil litigation (36%) and criminal law (28%), also reported high usage.

Despite the individual growth rates, the survey showed that legal-specific generative AI adoption at the firm level slowed slightly. Only 21% of firms reported using AI in 2024, down from 24% in 2023. This decline is likely due to firms being in the exploratory phase—testing AI tools in specific use cases or pilot programs, rather than fully integrating the technology. The overall sentiment shows that while AI is still being explored, many firms are taking a cautious and measured approach.

At the firm level, civil litigation firms reported the highest generative AI adoption rate, at 27%, followed by personal injury and family law firms, at 20% each. Trusts and estate firms and criminal law practices had lower adoption rates, at 18% each. Immigration firms reported the lowest adoption rate, at 17%.

Overall, the data shows that for those who have adopted generative AI tools, they are relying on them quite often. Among frequent users, 45% use AI daily, and 40% use it weekly. The most common tasks accomplished with it include drafting correspondence (54%), brainstorming ideas (47%), conducting general research (46%) and summarizing documents (39%).

Financial management tools for profitability and stability

Survey data also highlights how firms are increasingly adopting financial management software to improve financial workflows. In particular, legal-specific accounting and bookkeeping software has become a key tool for many firms. Respondents indicate that 37% of their firms have legal accounting software built into their firm’s practice management system, while 16% said it’s built into their firm’s billing software. Another 11% use software that is integrated with, rather than built into, their firm’s law practice management platform, and 16% reported adoption of a stand-alone legal accounting tool.

The survey data shows that legal accounting and bookkeeping tools have notably increased efficiency, with nearly 26% of firms reporting one to five hours reclaimed per month. Another 17% reduced workloads by six to 10 hours, 7% saved 15 or more hours each month, and 4% recovered a whopping 11 to 15 hours.

Another valuable tool for improving workflows is legal billing tools. The legal professionals surveyed (80%) relied on invoicing software, with 27% saving one to five hours per month, 16% saving six to 10 hours, and 12% saving 11 or more hours. The end benefit of the time saved using legal accounting and billing tools? Significant gains in productivity and profitability.

Growth of online payment processing

The report also highlights the increasing adoption of online payment processing software, with 82% of respondents sharing that their firms accept credit and/or debit card payments in 2024, up from 78% in 2023. This adoption has resulted in time savings and financial impact. More than a third of respondents (35%) saved between one to five hours per month using online payment systems, while 14% saved six to 10 hours. Also of note is that firms accepting card payments reported improved collection rates, with 59% of firms noting that their collection rates increased “somewhat more” or “significantly more” each month.

The growing use of online payment solutions is indicative of a broader trend toward automating tedious and time-consuming administrative tasks that were previously manual. By offering more payment options, firms are not only improving their financial stability but also freeing up time to devote to more client work and firm growth.

Remote and hybrid work adoption

Finally, the report addressed remote and hybrid work, which has become a staple for many firms. About three-fourths of survey respondents reported using cloud-based remote working tools, with videoconferencing (79%), e-signatures (78%) and e-filing (76%) ranking the highest.

Additionally, the data showed that the hybrid work model has gained traction in the legal profession. According to the survey results, 28% of firms operate fully in office, while 21% use hybrid schedules for all team members. Another 19% of firms are fully remote, and 18% adopt hybrid schedules for some staff members.

Just as remote and hybrid work continued post-pandemic, so too did participation in virtual court proceedings, with 34% of respondents attending virtual hearings a few times per month, 21% a few times per week and 5% every day.

Even so, preferences for in-person appearances remain strong, especially for certain types of proceedings. Half of respondents prefer to avoid virtual hearings, followed by jury trials (45%), bench trials (43%) and motion arguments (39%). However, practice areas significantly impacted these results.

For example, trust and estate professionals were more likely than the overall average to prefer virtual litigation proceedings, with only 36% opting for in-person jury trials, followed by bench trials (35%) and motion arguments and depositions (at 30% each).

In contrast, civil litigation and personal injury lawyers showed a stronger preference for in-person proceedings, with 56% each favoring jury trials, and 46% and 49%, respectively, choosing in-person depositions. Similarly, criminal law practitioners also leaned toward in-person proceedings, with 59% preferring hearings, 58% jury trials, 55% bench trials and 49% motion arguments.

Immigration lawyers, on the other hand, were less likely to prefer in-person litigation, with below-average preferences for motion arguments (26%), status conferences (22%) and depositions (19%).

In conclusion

The AffiniPay 2025 Legal Industry Report highlights a range of preferences and trends within the legal profession. While generative AI remains a focus, the data shows that firms are also adopting proven cloud-based technologies for billing, payments and remote work, highlighting an increasing reliance on specialized tools that enhance efficiency, save time and improve financial outcomes.

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is the principal legal insight strategist at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @nikiblack, or she can be reached at [email protected].

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Former George Mason University law prof says…

Verdicts & Settlements

Former George Mason University law prof says he’s ‘fully vindicated’ after ‘relatively modest’ defamation suit settlement

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 12, 2025, 2:59 pm CDT

A former professor at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School has reached a settlement in his defamation lawsuit against two former students who alleged that he abused his power to initiate sexual relationships with them when they were law students.

Professor Joshua D. Wright settled with Elyse Dorsey and dropped his claim against Freshfields counsel Angela Landry, report Law.com, Law360 and Reuters.

His suit, filed in Fairfax County, Virginia, circuit court, had sought $108 million in damages.

The articles identify Dorsey as a Kirkland & Ellis partner, but the law firm’s website page for her appears to have been removed.

Dorsey’s settlement “provides Wright with a relatively modest amount of compensation and allows Dorsey to continue speaking out,” Law.com reports. Wright filed a motion to end the litigation last week.

Wright had maintained that the relationships were consensual, and the two women were “scorned former lovers.” In a statement released to Law360, he said he is “relieved to have been fully vindicated. The evidence has made it undeniably clear that the relationships in question were consensual from the start. I remain fully committed to defending my reputation and will not hesitate to take further legal action if necessary to hold accountable those responsible for false accusations.”

The two defendants said they were pleased with the development.

A statement by Dorsey’s lawyer said the settlement will exclusively be paid from insurance “and constituted less than 0.3% of the damages professor Wright sought in the litigation,” according to Law.com.

“Settling this case was a difficult decision, but it allows me to continue my advocacy work without the distraction or continued trauma of ongoing litigation,” Dorsey said in a statement cited by Law.com.

Wright has the option of refiling his claim within six months against Landry. Her lawyer, Stacey Rose Harris, told Law.com that the dismissal “obviously speaks for itself.”

“Parties ‘vindicated’ in litigation don’t voluntarily dismiss their own claims on the eve of trial,” Harris said.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Supreme Court will decide whether family…

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court will decide whether family can sue over mistaken raid by FBI SWAT team

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 28, 2025, 11:49 am CST

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether the U.S. Constitution prevents a family from suing the FBI for its mistaken 2017 SWAT team raid of their Atlanta home.

At issue is whether the lawsuit is barred by the Constitution’s supremacy clause and by a liability exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act for federal employees’ discretionary acts undertaken to advance federal policy.

“If the Federal Tort Claims Act provides a cause of action for anything, it’s a wrong-house raid like the one the FBI conducted here,” the cert petition filed by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, argues.

The Institute for Justice represents the plaintiffs, Curtrina Martin; her son (represented by Martin); and Martin’s partner, Hilliard Toi Cliatt.

The family members were awakened before dawn one morning in October 2017 by a flashbang grenade exploding in their living room. Martin’s 7-year-old son was separated from his mother while officers stormed the bedroom with guns drawn, according to the institute’s Jan. 27 press release.

Cliatt pushed Curtrina Martin into the closet and was reaching for his shotgun when an FBI agent threw him to the ground. FBI agents soon realized that they had raided the wrong place.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta ruled against the family in an unpublished decision in April 2024.

The Federal Tort Claims Act was enacted in 1946 to waive U.S. sovereign immunity and allow damages for certain torts of federal employees when there would be liability under the same circumstances in the state where the acts happened, according to SCOTUSblog and the government’s petition opposing certiorari. Most intentional torts, however, were not allowed.

The law was amended in 1974 to make clear that intentional actions of law enforcement officers could be the basis of suits, according to the Institute for Justice.

“But the FTCA includes a host of exceptions, and circuit courts can’t agree on when they apply,” the press release said.

The 11th Circuit ruled against the family on two grounds. First, the appeals court said intentional-tort claims covered by the law enforcement amendment—for false imprisonment, assault and battery—were nonetheless barred by the supremacy clause because they concern acts with some nexus to furthering federal policy.

No other circuit has taken this position, according to the Institute for Justice.

“The 11th Circuit has created a unique supremacy clause bar to the FTCA that overrides congressional intent,” the cert petition says.

Second, the appeals court barred claims for torts falling outside the law enforcement amendment—for trespass, interference with private property and infliction of emotional distress. The 11th Circuit held that the claims are barred by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, which bars claims arising from a government official’s performance of a duty or a function that involves discretion.

The appeals court reasoned that FBI agents had discretion in preparing for execution of a warrant, and their decisions are susceptible to policy analysis.

The courts are “badly split” over the discretionary function exception, the cert petition says.

The case is Martin v. United States. The SCOTUSblog case page is here.

Publications covering the cert grant include SCOTUSblog, Law.com and the Washington Post.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge dropped from now-sealed suit…

Judiciary

Federal judge dropped from now-sealed suit over alleged underage drinking at his home

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 6, 2025, 9:31 am CST

A federal judge has been dropped from a December lawsuit alleging that “significant underage drinking” happened during a 2023 party at his home, leading to a fight that significantly injured a partygoer.

Plaintiff Alex Wilson sought to drop as defendants U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the Central District of California and his wife in a Dec. 30 request filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Law360 reports. The request was granted the same day.

Wilson had alleged that he was injured during the fight outside the judge’s home when he was struck from behind, and he hit his head and body on the curb. The alleged assailant, who was a minor at the time, remains a defendant in the suit, along with his parents, according to Law360.

Wilson’s lawyer sought to drop Scarsi and his wife from the suit without prejudice, meaning that they could be added as defendants in the future. They were accused of negligence and premises liability.

The Scarsis were dismissed from the suit after they said the complaint had included personal identifying information that put them at risk. The suit has since been sealed, according to Law360.

Judge John J. Kralik of Burbank, California, was assigned to preside in the case in December, according to the court docket.

Scarsi is an appointee of President-elect Donald Trump during his first term in office. Scarsi oversaw a criminal tax case against Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, before the elder Biden issued a pardon to his son.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Giuliani contempt decision blocks him from…

Tort Law

Giuliani contempt decision blocks him from doing this, putting his Florida condo at risk

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 7, 2025, 10:34 am CST

Disbarred lawyer Rudy Giuliani is “in dire jeopardy” of having to turn over his Palm Beach, Florida, condo to two Georgia election workers who sued him for defamation after a federal judge held the former New York City mayor in civil contempt Monday, according to a report by Politico.

U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Southern District of New York barred Giuliani from presenting evidence on the primary defense that would allow him to keep the Florida condo after he failed to provide information that would help determine whether the property was his primary residence, Politico reports.

Liman’s decision allows him to draw negative inferences about Giuliani’s Florida residency, report the New York Times and Law.com.

The trial on whether 80-year-old Giuliani is entitled to keep the condo is scheduled for next week before Liman. At issue is whether the condo is Giuliani’s homestead entitled to protection under the Florida Constitution.

Publications with coverage, in addition to Politico, Law.com and the New York Times, include Reuters, the Associated Press and CNN.

The election workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, won a $148 million defamation verdict against Giuliani after he accused them of election fraud in the 2020 election. Giuliani was formerly a lawyer for President-elect Donald Trump.

Giuliani had claimed in now-dismissed bankruptcy proceedings that his New York co-op apartment was his homestead residence, which protected a portion of it in bankruptcy proceedings, according to a Dec. 27 decision denying Giuliani’s motion for summary judgment. After the bankruptcy dismissal, Giuliani declared Florida to be his domicile.

The contempt finding was for Giuliani’s failure to provide evidence about his primary residence, according to the New York Times.

Giuliani did not turn over full names of his doctors or provide a full list of other professional service providers, leading the judge to conclude that none was in Florida before Giuliani changed his residence there in January 2024, the AP explains. Liman also barred Giuliani from presenting testimony or electronic communications to establish the Florida homestead.

Giuliani could also be held in contempt separately for failing to turn over property, the New York Times says.

Giuliani has already turned over designer watches and a 1980 Mercedes-Benz convertible. He is also moving to turn over his Manhattan apartment in New York City. He did not provide a framed jersey of baseball player Joe DiMaggio, however, which he said he can’t find. Nor did he turn over his grandfather’s pocket watch, which he pulled out during the hearing Monday, saying he fears that it will be lost.

The liability verdict was delivered in a trial held only to determine damages after a different federal judge entered a default liability judgment against Giuliani for failing to provide meaningful discovery. That federal judge, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District of Columbia, has scheduled a separate contempt hearing against Giuliani for Friday for alleged violation of an agreement not to make new defamatory claims about the election workers, Politico reports.

Giuliani said in his podcast Monday evening the New York court’s request for information was “enormously burdensome,” and he had already released “hundreds and hundreds of pages of discovery.” according to reporting by CNN. He said he didn’t have to testify because the judge “had already made up his mind.”

Giuliani’s spokesperson, Ted Goodman, released a statement. Freeman and Moss “might be happy to fight to take away Mayor Giuliani’s most cherished personal belongings, including his signed baseball jersey of his childhood hero and his grandfather’s pocket watch, but they can never take away his extraordinary record of public service,” Goodman said.

I have always been interested in mistakes, also known as errors, blunders or, in my best legalese, boo-boos.

I am especially interested in historical iconic mistakes. I just read that the city of Bologna, Italy, has two towers, “le due torri,” both closed to visitors because they also are now leaning. Welcome to Pisa II. What gives?

I visualize the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Surely, it would not take legendary architect Frank Lloyd Wright to notice that it was not rising according to plan. None of us would allow our houses to be built like that without at least emailing the builder at one point and saying, “I don’t know. When you get a chance, please drop by and have a look.”

I Googled to see if anybody had ever sued but saw nothing even remotely resembling The Municipality of Pisa v. the Tower Pros. Then again, maybe there actually was a lawsuit along these lines, perhaps unreported. I imagine the legal decision emanating from some district court judge might look as follows.

Justice Alto:

This is an action for breach of contract by the city-state of Pisa (“the plaintiff) against the Tower Pros, Inc. (“the contractor”).

Facts

In or about the year 1173, the plaintiff hired the contractor to construct a large tower about eight stories in height in Pisa’s main square next to the cattedrale. It was a term of the contract that the tower be of good workmanship and be fully functional, as a campanile, i.e., a bell tower, within one year. The contractor’s principal, Mario di Genoa, assured the plaintiff that the job would be completed in one year “as sure as the world was flat.” The city’s eager mayor, Paolo Pisano, proudly announced at the groundbreaking ceremony, “This tower will be great for our economy, attracting thousands of visitors annually.”

Unfortunately, the tower was not completed until 1372. Even worse, rather than being straight, it ended up leaning about 5 degrees—or about 4.5 meters—off perpendicular.

The court heard from a number of witnesses and also considered evidence from depositions and other writings from people no longer around.

I note that His Worship Paolo Pisano noticed after about year one that construction consisted only of the digging of a few spades of earth. He sent a messenger to di Genoa querying the apparent slow rate of construction. Di Genoa’s response was that he was busy doing some minor renovations at the Coliseum in Rome, and he would resume working on the tower in Pisa on the following Tuesday.

The two main issues in this case are delay in completion of the work and quality of workmanship.

Delay

The contractor argues that any delays were not the company’s fault.

It claims that its chief architect, Antonio Grande, suffered a nasty accident as he fell off the scaffolding, resulting in major delays. It was not an uncommon occurrence for architects to fall off scaffolding. But the court notes from the archival records that at that point, the scaffolding was only about 1 meter high. I reject the argument that for years the architect was unable to resume his duties due to an alleged disability of post-traumatic stress disorder brought on by a fear of heights. I find this argument to be a crock of bologna.

The defendant further pleads that the construction project was hampered by frequent wars between the city- states, including Siena, Lucca and Firenze. It alleges that there was no sense in trying to build a tower only to have some hordes come by and knock it over.

In my view, the war excuse is mere speculation. True, workers were in short supply due to being conscripted, but I find the contractor did not do enough to address the problems. In fact, about 70 years before completing construction, it placed a sign at the tower’s entrance reading, “Not hiring now.”

The contractor further pleads that the project suffered delays due to the Great Plague. Its current principal claims that many of its workers refused to show up for work. He argues that the head of the mason’s guild, Mauricio di Milano said, “No way my men are going near that tower. Did you see those black blotches on the foreman’s face?”

I take judicial notice that hardly a century goes by in Europe without the continent being visited by a plague. In one century alone, we all got hit with many strains of Bubonic, including Alpha, Beta and the most severe, Parmigiana.

I accept the plague as a reason to cut some slack for the defendant taking a bit more time than one year to complete the project.

Which gets us to the problem of the leaning tower.

Workmanship

The plaintiff alleges that the tower is off perpendicular by 5 degrees. It says thousands of people have been flocking to Pisa in the past few years, and they all laugh at and ridicule the tower. The mayor says he has received dozens of letters from people offering to sell his city the Venetian Rialto Bridge.

The defendant argues that the plaintiff condoned the tower’s looks, taking about 200 years to start this court action. It testified that after the tower was about two stories high, it leaned a bit, resulting in the designated bell ringer, Marco de Medici to say, “Hey, I’m not climbing up this thing until you straighten it out.”

The mayor and his councilmen claimed they would look at the tower under construction occasionally when they came out of the neighboring tavern, and it looked straight to them.

Regardless of whether there was some condonation, the defendant argues that any claims are barred given the expiry of limitation periods. Section 3 of the Limitations Act notes:

“Parties have two years to initiate any claims for road accidents, medical malpractice and construction of faulty towers.”

I find that the plaintiff is caught by this statute because it was dilatory in commencing this action.

The case is dismissed. Counsel have 14 days to provide written argument for legal costs. Please do hurry; the courts may close down because there is a rumor that we are about to be attacked by the Duke of Verona. A plague on him.

---

Marcel Strigberger, after 40-plus years of practicing civil litigation in the Toronto area, closed his law office and decided to continue his humor writing and speaking passions. His latest book is First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe. Visit MarcelsHumour.com, and follow him at @MarcelsHumour on X, formerly known as Twitter.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Dive into our favorite long reads of 2024

Year in Review

Dive into our favorite long reads of 2024

By Lee Rawles

December 23, 2024, 9:35 am CST

The end of the year will hopefully bring you some downtime for leisure reading. We’ve curated a list of some of our favorite web and print long reads from 2024. There’s a mix of popular features and some under-the-radar stories that you may have missed. In keeping with the theme, it’s a long list.

In 1991, personal injury lawyers Zachary Bravos and Todd Smith took on the strangest medical malpractice case of their careers—a case that led them to tales of satanic cults, child abuse and cannibalism.

As anyone who pays attention to current events knows all too well, Taylor Swift has become ubiquitous. And in at least two law schools, she’s the subject of a class available to students wanting to gain practical knowledge about the law by studying her various legal entanglements and how she emerged stronger.

There are law firms in which Carrie Garber Siegrist, a senior associate in the Washington, D.C., office of Goodwin Procter, might have had to be secretive about her diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, also known as ADHD. But at Goodwin Procter, Garber Siegrist says, she feels embraced and supported.

The Kentucky Derby has long been known as “the fastest two minutes in sports,” but the 150th Run for the Roses on Saturday will take place without Muth, a horse some say may have been the fastest in the field this year.

Pete Pontzer’s story is a reminder that lawyers can have meaningful and fulfilling lives after retirement. However, as Pontzer quickly admonishes, there are some important steps to take long before leaving a full-time legal career.

Serious injuries have occurred when exuberant football fans engaged in the time-honored revelry of making goal posts a trophy of a significant or improbable win. Some of those harmed have sought to lay blame and seek compensation. In several such cases, it took referees in black robes to sort it out.

Now in its 25th year, the esteemed literary magazine’s weekly competition features a wordless single panel cartoon. Contestants submit a caption for the image. The publication’s editors choose their three favorites from the 5,000 to 10,000 entries. Online public voting—with generally more than a half million votes cast—determines the winner. There is no cash prize for winning, but the bragging rights are priceless. Wood is the contest’s most successful participant—by a lot.

An increasing number of law schools around the country are offering cannabis law courses, but some professors think that even more are needed. “We’re still playing catch-up.”

Many public service attorneys had an overwhelming feeling that massive student loan debt would travel through life with them. But many of those attorneys got relief in the past year, thanks to recent changes to the federal government’s Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

Critics argue that “excited delirium” has no medical foundation, and that its origins are plagued with racism. The term’s role in high-profile police misconduct cases has prompted major medical organizations to repudiate its use.

There has been an explosion of AI-generated music featuring the living or resurrecting the dead. But as artists push the limits of parody, fair use, right of publicity, infringement and authorship, there is one overarching question: Is any of this stuff legal?

Immigrants coming to the U.S. face legal uncertainties along with difficult living conditions and the pain of family separations. Yet a hope that opportunities will outweigh the travails is strong with many new arrivals. That’s something lawyers who help immigrants understand well—including those who are immigrants themselves.

Each state sets its own rules for formerly incarcerated people who want to practice law. In Kansas, Mississippi and Texas, for example, no one with a felony can practice law. But even for those who live in less restrictive states, there are other hurdles to overcome.

“People are like, ‘Why did you go to law school?’ I tell them, ‘I’m setting up a joke that I’m going to tell in 14 years. I’m a planner,’” Liz Glazer says.

While progress has been made in the past 25 years, members of the Asian American and Pacific Islander communities continue to be underrepresented at the highest levels of the legal profession.

Most dog moms and cat dads accept the hard truth that they will likely outlive their beloved animals. But what happens when pets outlive their humans?

Millennials are more willing than prior generations to switch jobs to achieve a work environment that fits their needs. However, they can “run up against a wall” with billable hours.

Innocence clinics usually don’t work with clients convicted of minor offenses. They focus on more serious crimes where the stakes are much higher: people on death row or those serving life sentences for murder or sexual assault.

Netflix’s Hell Camp: Teen Nightmare, released in December 2023, sounds like a cheesy 1980s slaughter-fest horror film. Sadly, the events relayed by the documentary are far from fiction.

It isn’t often that a bipartisan group of U.S. solicitors general gather in public to discuss their unique role in the legal system and even gripe a little about the U.S. Supreme Court. But that’s what happened recently in a packed hotel ballroom before the ABA 2024 Litigation Section Annual Conference in Washington, D.C.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Tune in to our favorite podcasts of 2024

Year in Review

Tune in to our favorite podcasts of 2024

By Lee Rawles

December 23, 2024, 9:57 am CST

The ABA Journal staff have conversations with fascinating lawyers every day. But in our podcasts, you get to listen in on some of those discussions.

In partnership with Legal Talk Network, we produce the monthly Legal Rebels Podcast, hosted by Victor Li, a Journal assistant managing editor, and the semimonthly The Modern Law Library, hosted by Lee Rawles, a Journal assistant managing editor. Here are our favorite episodes from 2024.

Legal Rebels Podcast

What does the future hold for licensed paraprofessionals?: Much has been made of the gigantic access-to-justice gap in this country. According to a 2022 study by the Legal Services Corp., 92% of Americans do not receive any or enough help for a civil legal need. There are many reasons for this.

Tests into and out of law schools—what’s changing and why: Not much can strike more terror into the hearts of aspiring lawyers than the LSAT and the bar exam. Right now, these tests are having a moment.

Will generative artificial intelligence (finally) spell the end of the billable hour?: With the advent of generative artificial intelligence tools that can perform tasks in minutes but might take lawyers or legal professionals hours, could we finally see the end of the billable hour?

The future of DEI programs in the legal industry: The lack of diversity when it comes to race, gender, sexuality, disability and social class within the legal profession is nothing new. However, the last decade has marked a gradual increase in diversity across all fields.

The Modern Law Library

Horse-loving lawyer left the law to help run a Colorado ranch: Ami Cullen grew up loving horses and competing in hunter/jumper events. But when it came to her career, she decided that law would be her calling. She graduated from law school and began work with a law firm in Maryland working on medical-malpractice cases. Then a visit to a Colorado dude ranch changed everything.

‘The Originalism Trap’ author wants to see originalism dead, dead, dead: Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba K. Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record.

‘Watchdogs’ author has no regrets about choosing civil service over the NBA: Glenn Fine’s career-long crusade against corruption might have its roots in his college days. As a point guard for the Harvard basketball team, Fine had his personal best game Dec. 16, 1978, the same day that he interviewed for—and received—a Rhodes Scholarship. He put up 19 points against Boston College, including eight steals, and the team nearly eeked out a win against the favored Boston players. A remarkable day.

James Patterson dishes on his new legal thriller, ‘The #1 Lawyer’: James Patterson has written bestsellers in many genres. But as he tells the ABA Journal’s Lee Rawles in this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, he has always been fascinated by legal thrillers, courtroom dramas and crime novels. He even considered becoming a lawyer—before his literary career took off.

‘The Lawyer Millionaire’ author shares the 7 biggest money mistakes lawyers can make: Finances are a fraught area for many attorneys. Despite a high earning potential, new lawyers often start out with a financial disadvantage because of the opportunity cost of the years devoted to school and bar prep, coupled with high student loans.

How to strike up conversations that build your book of business: Networking is something that comes naturally to some people. But if the idea of talking to strangers makes you break out into a cold sweat, there’s help and hope, says Deb Feder, author of the book After Hello: How to Build a Book of Business, One Conversation at a Time.