Welcome back to Free Speech Friday here on Lawyers & Liquor, where we discuss the concepts, cases, and limitations behind the system of speech in this wonderful country – namely the United States of America – and learn some neat shit about free speech jurisprudence and concepts together. I’m your constitutionally inept attorney host, the Boozy Barrister, here at the behest of the Free Speech Friday sponsor, Quack Quack Honk Designs!
In case you don’t know who that is, Quack Quack Honk Designs is an awesome independent art studio and artist set up in the wilds of Michigan that provides a large number of original works in adorable and neat styles. I have several of their prints decorating my office for when I go home and wash off the blood of my litigation enemies before settling into my den with a nice plate of cookies to and listening to old sing along story tapes, and you can too if you visit their storefront or drop into one of the many upcoming art show appearances to peruse their works! If you do, though, be sure to tell them that a drunken, angry, profane lawyer sent you their way.
In past editions of Free Speech Friday we’ve discussed the founding of the First Amendment and how it seemed to be the clearest thing in the world until, you know, it fucking wasn’t. We’ve also talked about how John Adams and his administration went out of their way to shit all over the constitutional protection to say what you want free from government interference. But today we’re gonna veer away from the historical to talk about something we need to recognize before we go too far down the rabbithole of what you can say without getting smacked upside your loose-lipped head by the giant dick of justice. That’s right, today we’re going to talk about situations where the right to speak freely is sharply curtailed, not by a desire to silence the speaker but because of the malicious and detrimental effect some types of speech can have on the subjects – especially when the speech is enough to set someone’s pants on fire. Today, we’re going to delve into the defamatory world of slander and libel. But first, a disclaimer.
Continue reading “Quack Quack Honk Presents Free Speech Friday: Defamation and Paul the Pud Pulling Youtuber”
Welcome back to Lawyers & Liquor on this the first posting day of the year 2019. I, the Boozy Barrister, hope you all enjoyed your evening of watching the clock count down to midnight and your holiday spent in the office behind a locked door frantically catching up on all of the end of the month shit that you’re expected to do as a practitioner of law.
Last time we discussed CLE hours, and that kicked me off in a whole new thing we’ll continue today. Meanwhile, I finally verified that the CLE hours I gained over the past weekend by sitting in a crowded room and listening to people drone the fuck on and on about topics that were, at best, barely within the wheelhouse of the type of law I practiced.
And isn’t that just about the truth of the matter? I mean, the whole purpose behind the CLE program is to make sure the public received services from attorneys that have remained up to date on the practice of law and the requirements related thereto. You certainly don’t want some dipshit counselor who may or may not believe Reagan is still president citing case law that’s been overturned for two fucking decades, right? So, I mean, making attorneys scramble like chickens with their heads cut off every year to get those hours together, that’s a good thing, right? It keeps us honest.
First, never use the words “honest” and “attorney” together again, people will think there’s something wrong with you. Second, the mandatory CLE requirements are, in and of themselves, problematic even when looked at in the light of their alleged purpose of ensuring attorneys remain up to date on the law. And we’re gonna talk about some of those problems today.
Continue reading “Constant Low Effort, Part 2: The Practical Problems with CLE Requirements”
Welcome to the jungle on another amazing Monday, in fact the final Monday and the last day period of the opening of the pits of Hell that has been the year 2018. Because, you know, amongst the continuing social and political divide, an economy and stock market that’s acting like an adrenaline-addicted bungie jumper, and the now regular unmasking of horrible people whose thin facades of respectability led us to respect, the year has actually passed us by. Here on Lawyers & Liquor the year has passed mostly in silence and delay as injuries, staffing issues, and a significant increase in the number of duties at my job have forced me to don the mantle of the Boozy Barrister less often and actually, you know, focus on the practice of law for the benefit of my clients. So, yeah, I mean, I guess I’m sorry for not being here more because I actually felt like eating during 2018.
But more than not updating the site, being busier than hell during this past year has made it damn near impossible to stay up to date throughout the year on one of the basic requirements for practicing law. You know all know I mean those goddamn courses required of pretty much all practitioners no matter where you may be within these wide and wild United States of America. Except, of course, Maryland, which apparently decided attorneys there need no mandated courses to remain up-to-date on the law which, fun fact, is the same reason lawyers in Maryland still wear wigs and address the court as “M’Lord” prior to going outside and giving a crisp red apple to the horses they ride to the courthouse. But for those you not initiated into the ranks of the practicing lawyer, be you the fetal law student of the lowly Muggle, or simply the Baby Lawyer who’s currently exempted from the annual requirements of your bar by virtue of your absolute worthlessness to the practice in general right now, you cannot possibly know the struggle of the Continuing Legal Education (“CLE”) requirements imposed on us real lawyers by pretty much every state bar an attorney is licensed to practice under. And, folks, those courses are a real pain in my large, flabby ass.
Continue reading “Constant Low Effort, Part 1: CLE Requirements and You”
Welcome to another Furry Friday here on Lawyers and Liquor, where our updates are as infrequent as our stability. As always, this Furry Friday is brought to you by FurPlanet, the premier furry book service thingy. Look, they print furry stuff, like books and prints and comics and shit and it’s all pretty nice. You should definitely go and check them out as I don a giant badger head to talk about a legal issue that is somewhat related to the Furry fandom or, in other ways, somehow relevant to the interests of giant animal people.
Like today’s topic, which has been one I’ve, admittedly, been working on for a while with little headway as other shit started seeping into my schedule of traveling from place to place and, you know, actually engaging in the practice of law. Namely, this one is for those of the canine persuasion and the historical discrimination that has resulted from the fining and otherwise punishing of Paul the Persistent Poodle for doing what comes naturally to members of that particular persuasion: engaging in the artistic Awoo. More specifically, the imposition of a $350.00 fine or, conversely, the requirement of a license to engage in the vocal demonstration of all that defines a person as a “good doggie” at 4 in the morning as neighbors may be trying to get a little shut-eye. And buckle up, folks, because we have a lot to go over with this. So much, in fact, that we’re going to be breaking the Legalization of Awoo into several different parts over a few Furry Friday posts because, let’s be honest, there’s some world building to be done here.
Continue reading “Furplanet’s Furry Friday: Legalize Awoo – The Case of Aycee v. Howler, Part 1”
Welcome to Lawyers & Liquor, your now infrequent home for legal crap that comes out of my mind, with that being the mind of the Boozy Barrister though frankly these days does it really matter? I mean, is anyone really reading this for the author or is it more for the frankness and cursing that comes with it? Does anything I write here even matter to the extent that it helps some of those dipshits with degrees and not much else in their forlorn foray into the practice of law as a profession? Hell, nobody listens to me when I’m acting as an attorney, why the hell should they listen now?
Jesus on a Ritz Cracker, that’s about as maudlin as we can get, eh? That motherfucker has some mental problems from the sounds of things. Maybe some depressive episodes, a bit of anxiety, just one of those people that need an ear to listen to them and tell them everything’s gonna be okay. Right? And who better to provide that ear and shoulder to cry whiskey-soaked tears on then you, dear reader of the newly minted attorney variety, right? I mean, you’re a lawyer which means that, obviously, you’re an authority on a wide variety of topics. Surely you are the appropriate person to let me vent all of my emotional and mental turmoils on and spread oil on the troubled waters of the soul.
No. The answer to that rhetorical question is “no,” asshole. Or even “No, Asshole, Esq.” Either way the answer is a loud, resounding, and unequivocal “no.” Because being a lawyer qualifies you to do one goddamn thing: practice law. It does not qualify you to do any other form of service for your clients you dipshits. And that’s the point of today’s post: What being a lawyer isn’t.
Continue reading “Not Your Therapist – The Specific Role of An Attorney”