The Atlantic magazine posted Susman’s letter, which was sent to an author whose latest satirical novel included a stylized Jack Daniel’s logo on the cover. Susman’s letter tells the author that the company is “flattered,” but it patiently and politely explains why Jack Daniel’s is interested in protecting its trademarks. Susman goes on to request that the book cover be changed for any future reprinted versions – something the author has since agreed to – and offers to provide financial assistance if the author decides to revise the already-printed copies, which he declined.

Susman and her letter have been earning praise from media outlets across the country, from the original story in The Atlantic to NPR’s Weekend Edition. Her supervisor at Jack Daniel’s told the ABA Journal that the company has always relied on the “nice approach” and described the media’s interest as “amazing.”

While the letter demonstrates that the stereotype of litigation-happy lawyers is not true, it also shows that the best lawyers – like the best generals – never use more force than necessary to accomplish the immediate task at hand. 
 

Cynthia Creed, 51, had just been released from jury duty on June 12 when she sent a message to a co-worker that read “Call the courthouse (1201 Congress) Tell them there is a bomb . . . Pleeese.” Yes, you read that correctly. A 51-year-old woman who already had performed her civic duty by showing up and being excused for jury service somehow decided to send a joke about a courthouse bomb to her co-worker using a text message. The co-worker responded by calling the authorities, who understandably descended on the downtown courts building with bomb-sniffing dogs and a team of concerned deputy constables. As the search for a nonexistent bomb was taking place a couple blocks away, Creed sent a follow-up message to her co-worker that read “Just kidding.”

Her misguided attempt to be funny landed Creed in the Harris County lockup facing charges of filing a false report and $5,000 in bail. No word yet on the costs involved for the local courts after having to prematurely dismiss more than 200 jurors, or for the many parties whose cases were not heard because of the misplaced joke.

As ridiculous as it seems, we’re now wondering whether potential Harris County jurors will be instructed in the future not to send fake bomb threats related to their jury service. Good grief.

You hear a lot about lawyers behaving badly, but for every lawyer who misbehaves, there are many more doing great things for the profession whose efforts, unfortunately, don’t grab the headlines.  Two of those lawyers will soon be honored by The Texas Center for Legal Ethics for promoting the highest standards of professionalism and integrity in the legal profession.  

Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Harriet O’Neill and Houston appellate lawyer Kevin Dubose recently were named the 2012 recipients of the Chief Justice Jack Pope Professionalism Awards, which will be presented on June 1 by Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson at the Annual Texas Supreme Court Historical Society Dinner in Austin (for more information, contact Bill Pugsley at the TSCHS at tschs@sbcglobal.net).

Former Justice O’Neill, who served on the Texas high court from 1998 until her retirement in 2010, is a longtime champion for pro bono representation for low-income victims of domestic violence in Texas. Mr. Dubose is responsible for the concept, initiation and execution of the project that culminated in the creation of the landmark Standards for Appellate Conduct, which became the nation’s first set of ethical standards for appellate practice in 1999.

The Pope Awards are named for former Texas Supreme Court Justice Jack Pope, who recently celebrated his 99th birthday. One of founders of TCLE, former Justice Pope was the inaugural recipient of the Pope Award in 2009. And, like this year’s honorees, he has spent his entire career – in his case, 75 years – working to promote professionalism and high ethical standards in the legal profession.
 

Thomas Corea of Dallas’ Corea Trial Group filed the claim seeking $1.4 million after CBS affiliate KXTA allegedly failed to forward nearly 60 percent of the calls the station received during episodes of “Ask the Lawyer With Tom Corea,” which cost the firm $2,750 per 30-minute episode. According to the complaint, Corea received more than 1,200 calls during the initial episodes of “Ask the Lawyer” before the phone lines seemingly went dead. The lawsuit says Corea discovered the reason for the decline when his sales rep at the TV station provided a list of all the “Ask a Lawyer” calls the station received during the times when the program aired. When Corea compared that list to one assembled by his call center, he found that only 44 percent of the incoming calls actually were transferred to his office, according to the allegations.

Some media pundits have mocked the lawsuit as a situation where a “TV lawyer” is simply experiencing sour grapes, but Corea’s petition tells a different story. The filing explains that Corea secured an agreement with the station beforehand to ensure that representatives from his office would be able to answer each call in order to guard against callers receiving potentially erroneous answers to legal questions and to prevent any appearance of impropriety or, worse, barratry. Corea also says in the lawsuit that both he and the station agreed that a high number of calls was the only reason for the lawyer to purchase the “Ask a Lawyer” spots in the first place, so the agreement basically became worthless once the call volume cratered.

So all the media hype essentially boils down to a contract dispute between two parties, which ultimately will be decided based on the actual language of the agreed contract. The fact that one of those parties was a lawyer and the other was a TV station is all that was necessary to turn this somewhat mundane contract case into a media firestorm.

What do lawyers and judges think about “technicalities”? Consider the words of former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jack Pope, a legendary judge and co-founder of the Texas Center for Legal Ethics. While writing the opinion in Goodman v. Goodman, 236 S.W.2d 641,645 (Ct. Civ.App. San Antonio, 1951), Justice Pope made this astute and profound observation:

“While we are in accord with the liberal interpretation of rules relating to children, we do not understand that any of these authorities hold that the due process clauses of the State of Texas and the United States are mere 'technicalities' which are to be respected when property is at issue, but suspended when a child is the subject of controversy. . . .  When we commence dispensing with rules of law and practice in the name of child welfare, we would do better to name specifically the right and the procedure that we deem fit for discard rather than to state broadly that we are to disregard technicalities. A technicality too frequently upon inspection turns out to be nothing more than a clear, certain, positive and unequivocal rule that stands in the way of the complaining party. It too frequently is a form of loose name-calling which should be carefully weighed, particularly when the alleged rule enjoys a respectable lineage associated with human freedom as we know it. The United States Constitution is a galaxy of legal technicalities. They have been collected and embodied in the supreme law of the land so they may be preserved from the zeal of persons who would justify the means by the end.”
 

Pro golfer Phil Mickelson does have the resources, however, and he recently did everyone a favor by using a portion of his considerable fortune to take a hardline stance against tawdry, anonymous online allegations against him.  In November, one or more people began using the pseudonyms “Fogroller” and “Longitude” on the Yahoo! Sports website to assert that Mickelson had fathered an illegitimate child and that his wife had an affair.

The pro golfer responded by filing a complaint against a Canadian Internet service provider, which has agreed to reveal the anonymous commenter’s identity, according to media reports. The broader implications of Mickelson’s action are unclear, but as his attorney told reporters: “If we can stop one person, then it’s one less person who can get away with this.”

Mickelson’s legal battle is just the latest example of a well-heeled sports star relying on the courts to help create new parameters for online conduct. Former Dallas resident and current professional basketball standout Chris Bosh famously won a 2009 federal court claim over the rights to the online domain bearing his name. A California judge awarded Bosh his domain and 800 additional domains that used the names of other pro sports stars. In turn, Bosh returned them to their rightful owners for free.

Sports heroes are sometimes criticized for making vast fortunes for merely playing a game, but the actions of both Mickelson and Bosh – and the persistence and creativity of their lawyers – may well end up making the Internet a better place for everyone.

But when asked point-blank about the effect of politics on the Court’s decision-making, Scalia strongly reiterated a consistent theme of other Supreme Court Justices, even those who often vehemently disagree with him. He said politics don’t affect decisions at all; what the public and media regard as political ideology is really what Scalia describes as the “fault line” of theories of constitutional interpretation, or the vast differences in philosophical approach to constitutional issues that that each individual Justice brings to his or her judicial opinions.  Scalia says his philosophy is to follow the “original meaning” of the Constitution, which he contrasted with others’ support for a “living” Constitution that allows for constitutional principles to adapt to specific situations not anticipated by the Founding Fathers.  

The debate over the proper approach to constitutional interpretation will rage on long after we are all gone, but a primary reason we have nine justices with lifetime appointments is the hope that many viewpoints will be at the table when these fundamental and long-lasting decisions are made.  Having judges who feel removed from politics is a good thing. The alternative is much worse. 
 

A lawyer is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. . . .   A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the administration of justice and of the fact that the poor, and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford adequate legal assistance, and should therefore devote professional time and civic influence in their behalf. 

Crystal Cox, a self-described “investigative” blogger, was sued for defamation by investment firm Obsidian Finance Group after she posted numerous negative comments about the company and its co-founder, Kevin Padrick. Cox argued that calling Padrick a “thug” and a “liar” on her blog was protected under Oregon’s shield law – which allows journalists to keep their sources secret – because she obtained the information from a confidential source.

Criticism of lawyers is pretty common, but sometimes the critics take a position so out of left field that you don’t see it coming. 

Predictably, some news accounts are already covering the opinion less like the lengthy legal analysis it is and more like three judges who are simply weighing in on the nation's bitter red/blue political divide.  The Washington Post seemed genuinely surprised that judges aren't behaving as expected -- assuming you believe, as the Post apparently does -- that all judges are active partisans:

That’s how Amanda Culbertson explained her resignation as a supervisor at the Houston Police Department’s crime lab while testifying regarding serious problems at the lab during pretrial hearings in a recent DWI case.  Defense attorneys Dane Johnson and Jordan Lewis had called Culbertson to the stand to bolster their claim that the crime lab equipment used to conduct blood-alcohol tests was faulty, and the evidence against their client should be thrown out.   

One legitimate lawyer complaint about media's coverage of our profession is the lack of attention to the good things that lawyers do.  That is why the The Dallas Morning News deserves special kudos for giving a thumbs up to the Texas Bar Foundation in recognition of the group's fine work on behalf of our justice system.