Why Search Isn't Perfect - Yet & Finding a Lawyer On-line.

Finding lawyers on the web can be a problem. Of course we have the Rominger Legal Attorney Directory, and it works for the states where we have volunteers, but putting shameless plugs aside, with all the web sites out there, you would think it would be easy. Think again.

Try it. Type in personal injury attorney in google (or click the link). The results are mainly a clump of directory sites. Most of them have links, and some even lead to practitioners in the geographical area you are looking for. Try revamping the search to get local, and you get most of the same directories. It almost seems that the name of a law firm is required to find a law firm site, and if you know their name, you might already know their number.

Anyhow, the point of this all is that even Google is not the perfect way to find counsel. So far it is just the perfect way to start a search for counsel. But I think this will change soon.

You don't think that Google Analytics is free just because a large corporation wants to do no evil, do you? Do you know what Google Analytics is? It is a repackaged version of Urchin, which is a powerful web tracking software that allows web site owners to follow the flow of a visitor through their web site. A web master can literally follow a web user, or more importantly, statistically significant groups of them, as they navigate a web site. We can watch where they go and how they get there, so to speak. We can find entries, exits & destinations, and feed this information back into our web designs.

Now if you could do that across hundreds of thousands of web sites, and follow people from your [Google's] search results, to where they ultimately navigate, you can ultimately feed this data back to improve the search results. That is to say that if most users leave Google to go to something.com for the search word "sprocket" and then navigate from something.com to widget.com, why not send them to widget.com in the first instance, and skip the middleman? The user says, gee just what I was looking for!

So, bringing it back to attorneys, once Google has assimilated the clickstream, Google will "know" that when I type Harrisburg Criminal Defense Attorney, I don't want lawyers.com, findlaw.com, or hg.org, but rather an actual attorney. That is the end all of knowing the clickstream. Once a search engine can anticipate your destination, and deposit you their without the 10 clicks in between, search will have arrived.

Santa Clause Acquitted - Christmas in the Clear!

In a holiday miracle, New York Judge Henry Harper has refused to find an elderly gentleman incompetent, after the Federal Government recognizes that he is Chris Kringle. - December 24, 2005 - special to Rominger Legal by Percivel Humpledink, US Editor.


Few Judges relish the notion of appointing plenary guardians or ordering the infirm into the hands of the geriatric care establishment. Just this afternoon, Judge Harper was spared this fate when Postmaster General Frank C. Walker ordered all 14.8 millions pieces of mail addressed to Santa, and being held in USPS vaults awaiting shipment North, be immediately sent to Chris Kringle c/o Macy's, Herald Square, New York , NY.

According to attorney Benjamin Matlock, this triggered an important legal principle, called Federal Preemption to force the State Courts to recognize Macy's Santa as the one true Santa. Matlock explained that this legal device is usually reserved for the use of large corporations, who have lobbyists who purchase it from Congress, mainly to prevent local rabble rousing and muck raking. He said using Federal Preemeption to protect the rights of an individual is unprecedented, and expects that if this trend continues it will be promptly abolished by way of the 14th Amendment.

Mr. Kringle, in response to the judges ruling said, "Ho ho ho... ..Merry Christmas, and to all a good night". In an exclusive interview, granted to this correspondent, Mr. Kringle added that he was really happy about the ruling, as he had checked the menu at his previous residence, a "Rest Home" on Long Island, and that they were "only serving fruit cake for dessert."

Macy's in apparently trying to find a use for all the envelopes, notes and letters they now possess, most of which are marked with colored wax. At least one employee has suggested shredding all 14.8 million letters for use as confetti and ticker tape, but there are no parades currently planned which would require such a large amount of paper baubles. Space has been found for all of Kringle's mail, but according to warehouse workers, there won't be room to store next years mail too.

--- Editors may end story here ---

Judge Henry Harper has warned that this is the last year that he will become involved in this matter. He said from the bench, just before retiring to chambers, "every year around this time Macy's hires someone to play Santa, and every year I'm asked to commit this kooky, yet benevolent old man, and every year the Postmaster saves the day. I just wish next year somebody make a talkie out of it".

Copyright 1943 - 2005 - Rominger Legal Reports.

Do Stem Cells Deserve the Death Penalty

When it comes to human life, We can't help but wonder what society places the greatest value upon. Is it keeping everyone alive at any cost? Or is it some lesser imperative, that allows for a cases by case analysis? Or is it a belief structure that allows for heroic efforts to save some lives, yet which requires the deliberate obscuration of the value of others?

We can't answer the question. But we can respond to what we perceive as an uncertainty in the collective will in this matter. Take for example stem cells. We have citizens who consider such cells (or their source) to be sacred life, and morally beyond the grasp of the experimentalists. And we have others, equally vested with credential and opinion, who would say disregard the source, (or the meaning) and say study and experiment away.

Move to another area of societal concern, the Tookies and the Nixons, and we find those very same citizens seemingly swapping moral ground, to argue for or against the deliberate removal of a being in existence, in a disconnect with their positions on stem cells. The death penalty divides and cleaves society at a ninety degree angle to stem cells.

My point is simply this (taking editorial authority, and not necessarily speaking for the we any longer), if one is opposed to the the taking of life for any reason, or not so opposed, choosing when it is appropriate to exercise one's belief, seems to be an act of hubris. The moral, policy, and legal implications of either choice is immensely complicated, and claiming certainty is either disingenuous or ignorance.

The Catholic Church is a good example of a morally consistent belief. Rome believes life is sacred. All life. So they oppose abortion, cloning, and the killing of convicted murders. Of course on this side of the Atlantic many purported followers find this consistent philosophy hard to swallow, and make line item vetos to the same.

I don't often agree with Peter Singer(burger anyone?), but I have taken the time to read some of his books, and he argues that one of our biggest problems is a lack of clarity and consistency in our moral thinking. While I cannot agree with his ultimate conclusions, he has no problem showing the reader how fluidly inconsistent many of society's precepts, moral or otherwise, truly are.

Take the death penalty. While many believe in an eye for an eye, and argue for quick executions, an interesting question exists. What if in 20 years we find a way to remove major mental defects in such a way as to say turn a sociopath into a normal guy.

We routinely warehouse people in vegetative or invalid like states, hoping to find a "cure". Why not warehouse prisoners, in case they might also be cured? Of course some of them may also be innocent too, but that is a different part of the debate. For our example assume them guilty. Are they truly healthy? Do we know they cannot be cured? (not reformed, cured) Should we hold off on executions until we are certain rehabilitation by medical cure is just a liberal pipe dream?

I didn't stake out my personal beliefs in this article. My sole purpose is to remind myself (and maybe everyone else) that these choices are not easy, and resolution is confounded by our inability to adopt and practice truly consistent belief structures.

Socrates says a just man is one who seeks to do justice at all times, even if he doesn't always make the just decision. I believe we must all seek to find a framework of beliefs which will create a unified understanding of the value of life, and how that value must be applied and weighed on a day to day basis. I'm also certain we won't always get it right, but we will be just.

No Fair Review - How Courts Increasingly Dodge the Issue with Waiver

A good appeal goes bad.

Fundamental Fairness requires that aggrieved parties be given a meaningful appeal from court actions. So does the doctrine of Due Process and a host of "cherished" legal doctrines. Nonetheless, such is not always the case.

Over the last few decades Courts have found that crowded appellate dockets can be cleared by invoking the doctrine of waiver, or otherwise disposing of cases without reaching the merits. While it is true that in many instances, that the parties are to blame, as they have failed to adequately brief an issue, or clearly preserve an issue on the record, it is also increasingly true that in many instances courts duck decisions with mechanical interpretations of waiver, and by setting up legal speed bumps to appeals.

By way of example, in Pennsylvania, in order to appeal a civil jury verdict, a party needs to file, and will be strictly limited by the content of; a post trial motion raising all the issues; a 1925(b) statement, sometimes including a brief; and finally the appellate brief itself. Failure to raise an issue in the first instance, or to serially re-raise an issue at each step, will be found as waiver and abandonment, and appellate review will be denied.

This movement is not without hisorical parallel. Old English Courts once had a strong fascination with the strict adherence to procedural form over fairness and fair recourse, with the resulting injustices leading to the creation chancellors in equity. We should learn from them.

We realize the Courts do more than eat Lotus, and that vague or imperfect appeals can clog the system. Yet, Appellate courts must try to reach the merits of each case whenever possible, even while requiring the parties to adhere to the rules of procedure. The litigant's fortunes should not rise or fall on the vagaries of the system, the torpescence of their lawyers, nor the courts desire to trim the docket.

Alito Update. A little more on the nomination.

As you may know from our previous post, we predicted Alito would be nominated. We want to add a caveat. After talking to a person much smarter than us (law school professor), we are constrained to warn that trouble maybe on the horizon for the Alito nomination.

This learned person pointed out that Alito may have broken the law when he failed to recuse himself from three cases. See for example...

Alito: Recusal promise was too 'restrictive' By Jim Drinkard and Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY - WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito said Thursday that he was "unduly restrictive" when he promised the Senate 15 years ago to remove himself from court cases involving two firms in which he has investments. - READ MORE

The applicable statute - TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge, says;

§ 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
Release date: 2005-09-29

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.

(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:

(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;

(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;

(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;

(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.

(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.

(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

We are inclinded to agree that an issue exists. So does the RNC, at least if you consider talking points an indication of concern. The fine point will be whether or not, " the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest".

That is a question of fact, which will be ruled upon by the Senate. And they are not an independent judiciary.