Deliberations

It looks like animal law is continuing to grow in popularity. As I perused various news sites looking for weird law-related news, my eyes glimpsed this striking headline: “Court bans Rolling Stones tattoo for pony.”

As a former equestrian and permanent horse lover, of course I had to click on the story. It appears that a fellow in Germany wanted to tattoo the rock band Rolling Stones’ signature logo of the “Tongue and Lips” on his pony’s bum.

That, for a variety of reasons, is repugnant – not the least of which is that I don’t understand people’s obsession with the Rolling Stones, with the exception of a few key songs. (Sorry, Dad.)

Read the story here.

In interesting animal law news: A new program at the University of Florida is training veterinarians in forensic science to investigate cases involving animals. Motivated by her experience investigating football star Michael Vick’s dog-fighting ring, one vet has created a course called “Animal CSI.”

Read the story here.

- By DIANA SMITH, Staff Writer

Welcome readers to the wonderful world of blogging. This is a first for Lawyers Weekly.

Our readers are invariably engaged in the throes of hammering out important transactions, writing up briefs, appearing in court, meeting clients, and Lord knows talking on the phone.

Since you may not have had time to venture into the blogging world as reader or writer, I thought I would use this opportunity to educate you on a few conventions that have evolved in the blogosphere’s brief history.

The conventions to which I refer, of course, are abbreviations.

As lawyers we are no strangers to abbreviations.

We have, for instance, in no particular order: PTD (a plaintiff lawyer’s dream); TTD, TPD and PPD (types of WC disability – WC being workers’ compensation); PI (personal injury); MVA (car crash); Id. (find the previous citation); DWI (driving while an idiot), aff’d (punted), v. (the source of division in all the world), co., corp. and inc. (clients who can afford hourly billing); s.ct. (pay attention); dist. (vaguely significant); et al. (a firm with lots of partners); infra (see below); and of course sic (something I must have attempted to spell).

OK, now take a deep breath. Here are the abbreviations you need to learn to understand blogs: lol (lots of laughs), lmk (let me know), thx (thank-you), J (you’re welcome), btw (by the way), jk (just kidding), byob (I’m not paying for your drinks), cu (bye bye), @%^$ (same meaning in the law), wtg (way to go!), wb (Kotter), f2f (face 2 face), ibtd (really, a lawyer begs to differ?), gj (good one), kfc (lunch is served), loml (my sweetie), rsvp (you better let me know or else), oimactta (objects in mirror are closer than they appear – jk, that’s not one).

So there’s a primer. Study up, study hard, and ‘til next time: bc (be cool).

- By Paul Tharp, Staff Writer

OK, I’m borrowing this from the ABA Journal, but that’s because the question is a must-ask: What’s the most inappropriate thing you’ve heard a judge say in court?

The question stems from a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said a convicted drug dealer should be re-sentenced because the judge in the lower court made “out of bounds” remarks during sentencing.

When the defendant, Jose Figueroa, stated he was a good family man, presiding U.S. District Judge Randolph Randa said, “Even Adolf Hitler was admired by his family. Adolf Hitler loved his dog. Yet he killed 6 million Jews.”

Randa made inappropriate remarks about Figueroa’s culture and his native Mexico, the Journal went on to report.

So I ask you, South Carolina practitioners: What’s the worst thing you’ve ever heard a judge say during proceedings? Did you do anything about it?

Feel free to comment below.

By DIANA SMITH, Staff Writer

The U.S. Supreme Court is under fire for writing too much – but not saying enough.

A front-page article in the New York Times last week focused on criticism that the U.S. Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. often issues unwieldy opinions – including one that is roughly the length of The Great Gatsby – that don’t clearly address issues raised.

The article points out that Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that held segregated schools were unconstitutional, was less than 4,000 words long. In 2007, the Roberts court published an opinion in Parents Involved v. Seattle that contained a whopping 47,000 words.

The median length of opinions reached an all-time high last term, the Times reports, and lower courts are complaining that they don’t contain clear guidance.

 - By SYLVIA ADCOCK, Staff Writer