Remember that stupid post I wrote about some article on some site that suggested that defendants were better off with private lawyers (a particular private lawyer, actually) than public defenders because pd’s are overworked-underpaid-useless-etc?

Turns out one of my two readers also writes a blog for the Seattle Weekly and the post was picked up there and the enterprising author sent the law firm in question an e-mail.

It took two days, but we now have some idea of what happened: Lovik & Juhl (the law firm) say they didn’t write the piece, nor did they pay anyone to write it. From the statement they sent to the Seattle Weekly:

I really haven’t a clue who may have written this (we have no staff, just two attorneys, neither of whom publish on any site like the one you have linked to here.) My guess would be that one of the services we use to try and drive traffic to our website has done this to try and make themselves appear more valuable to us. We have recently cut ties with at least one agency that we found were using fake names to give us “client reviews.” I didn’t feel right about that, either.

Lovik says the most likely culprit is a guy they hired to redesign their website. But the lawyer says he’s “just a kid.” And doesn’t want to reveal his name nor hurt his reputation based on what he sees as a misguided attempt to help the firm.

I have received e-mails from this young “kid” and I, too, am not going to name him. There’s no point. There was a lesson to be learned here and it seems that everyone has learned it. For Lovik & Juhl: outsourcing marketing = outsourcing ethics and reputation. I, for one, have learned that I really shouldn’t give a crap.

So, here’s what I’ve done: I deleted the content of the previous post and replaced it with a link to this one. If someone with better SEO knowledge tells me that it would be preferential to delete the original post in its entirety, I’m willing to consider it.

In the meantime, I would recommend that Messrs. Lovik and Juhl read Mr. Bennett’s post above and join us in the blawgosphere the right way.

Exhibit B.

It seems to me that someone thought they were being artistic. The pictures, to be honest, aren’t half bad. It’s the subject matter of the pictures that is extremely questionable. Here are the worst offenders:

• Family Violence
• Sex Crimes (a tear? really?)
• Rape and Sexual Assault (I mean…I don’t…)
• Child Sexual Assault and Internet Solicitiation (wouldn’t a picture of a cop on a computer have been more appropriate?)

So, after looking at these I bet you’re curious what they have for the rest. The rest are as unimaginative and boring as these are offensive and stupid. Here’s Murder and here‘s [I have to warn you: that image is really, really gross. No nudity or anything, but..just...be careful and do not blame me for clicking on it] what it should have been. Here’s violent crimes, but  I think this would fit better with their theme. The only one that I think really works in money laundering (hey! someone’s got a sense of humor!).

Update: An intrepid reader provides a picture of what real money laundered money would look like. I want to swim in it.

Update-Update: The Texas Tornado points out that it’s a findlaw website, but someone still had to approve the damn thing.

Anyway, somebody better take screencaps quick before they change the images.

I have to ask: What is wrong with people?

H/T

Or something.

…radio silence to bring you this update:

The world has ended.

In the defense interview the prosecutor and the victim advocate decided to place Stilson on top of the table during the interview. It was such a surprise to the child (and the defense attorney) to see Stilson snoozing on the table that the child came out from under the table and everyone petted him during the interview. Under these circumstances the child did a much better job describing what had occurred and it was a fairly pleasant experience for everyone.

It is also less likely that a defense attorney would engage in aggressive questioning when a dog is seated or lying in between the attorney and the witness.

If the witness and facility dog have not had a previous experience together, be sure to arrange for them to have at least 45 minutes to interact and play with one another before the interview begins.

Yeah.

And almost get arrested in the process:

click to enlarge