Daily Archives: July 6, 2007

Big Law and NOLA: Should more be done?

1 Reply

456px-katrinaneworleansflooded.jpg

 Slate has this powerful piece today about the state of the criminal justice system in New Orleans and the role of big law in assisting its resurrection.

Law firms are the cavalry of the legal world. Disaster strikes, and the firms, with their thousands of lawyers and millions of dollars, ride into town to clean up the mess. But what happens when the cavalry doesn’t show?

That’s the situation in New Orleans, where almost two years after Katrina, the criminal-defense system is still in a state of emergency. Public defense was never the city’s strength: When the levees broke, there were about 7,000 criminal defendants waiting to see a state-appointed lawyer. Immediately after the storm, the city jailed roughly 5,000 of them, many on shaky legal grounds. Most remained locked up for over a year before speaking with a lawyer. The public defender’s office is slowly working through the backlog, but is still overwhelmed. It’s a situation public defenders bitterly call “Gitmo on the Bayou.”

The initial help did arrive: law students taking trips down to NOLA; public defenders from other states spending months helping out. However, as the article points out, that is a piecemeal and slow process. So whither the money and clout of Big Law?

To be fair, big law has done a lot for the region. Firms donated thousands of hours to the legal rebuilding effort, sending lawyers down to help with FEMA appeals, small-business recovery, and Road Home grants. The Mississippi Center for Justice, a Jackson-based nonprofit founded in 2003, convinced 19 law firms to donate 8,100 hours last year, adding up to a value of $3 million. Most of this work, however, has been on civil matters.

So as the criminal justice system goes to waste; defendants sit in jail for over a year without once talking to a lawyer; judges find the funding system unconstitutional, can Big Law do anything to help? The article suggests that Big Law can file a lawsuit.

Firms are great at impact litigation. Be it a suit against a city, state, or large public institution, firms have pushed the law forward in amazing ways through large-scale litigation. They can do the same in New Orleans. The current system raises some serious constitutional questions.

Hence the question: they can, but should they? I think yes. They have the resources – financial and personnel – and there is no greater service than assisting the community. The criminal justice system in NOLA is a travesty and someone – anyone – should do all they can to help. Gideon’s promise needs to be fulfilled.

The WSJ blog has more and PD Stuff has lots of coverage of New Orleans.

Technorati Tags: ,

tattoo or not to (tattoo)

1 Reply

mac_pc.png

That is the question. Scott of Simple Justice writes about this LA Times article (via Carolyn Elefant) regarding the impact of body art and expression in today’s workplace.

Once associated with drunken sailors, felons and Hells Angels, tattoos have gone nearly mainstream, putting employers in a bind. How to write rules that won’t alienate un-hip customers on the one hand or eliminate talented workers on the other?

Different standards have emerged. A pink rose discreetly inked on an ankle might pass muster at a hospital but not a day-care center; an eyebrow stud will be viewed as charming at one store and a blemish at another.

Law firms are also taking notice:

Many law firms also prefer conventional looks, as Nicole Wool discovered. Six years ago, on her second day as an associate with an L.A. entertainment firm, one of the older partners took her aside and told her to take out her tongue stud.

“I felt so embarrassed,” recalled Wool, 32, who now works for Dr. Tattoff, a chain of tattoo removal studios. “It made me feel like I’d done something bad.”

Being of the more conservative persuasion, Scott writes:

Sexy or rebellious? Well that’s a message I want to send as a lawyer, and receive as a client. After all, who cares if my lawyer is a dope, as long as he’s sexy. There is a message here, but not the one intended by the nice fellow with a half dozen piercings. It says “I’m self-indulgent and immature.” Put aside the sorry reality that there’s nothing worse than some old tattoo on some saggy old body part that nobody will ever be able to look at without retching at some point in the future. It’s like wearing bell bottom pants in the ’60s, but never being able to take them off. Your judgment will forever be showing. Your poor judgment.

I have to say I agree. While I personally am not against these forms of self-expression, I don’t think they have a place in the courtroom. Whether we like it or not, we are treated differently by people based on how they perceive us. In our line of work, it is imperative that we are seen in the best light possible. Most of the times, we are in Court on behalf of someone else and if we are to be presenting someone else’s case to a judge, a jury or a prosecutor, then it behooves us to put our best foot forward. We engage in a profession – a serious profession, and must treat it as such.

As my generation would say: Cover that sh*t up.

Previous coverage: A while back, I considered whether we have a “look”.

Please select one

  • Non CT pd (22%, 140 Votes)
  • Non CT other (19%, 122 Votes)
  • CT pd (18%, 114 Votes)
  • Non CT other lawyer (13%, 81 Votes)
  • CT other lawyer (10%, 61 Votes)
  • CT other (10%, 61 Votes)
  • Non CT prosecutor (3%, 19 Votes)
  • CT prosecutor (3%, 19 Votes)
  • CT judge (2%, 12 Votes)
  • CT lawmaker (2%, 10 Votes)
  • Non CT judge (1%, 5 Votes)
  • Non CT lawmaker (0%, 1 Votes)

Total Voters: 642

Loading ... Loading ...