It’s annoying – having your opponent on a major appeal not only preserve specific issues, but go on to add to its notice of appeal some boilerplate purporting to “incorporate by reference” who knows how what or how many issues allegedly raised by anybody at any stage of the litigation. To us, that sort of
Yeah, it happens. None of us are perfect. We have been given the following correction to the recent guest post on the upcoming changes to deadlines under the federal rules:
Thanks again for publishing my guest column. Unfortunately, part of it was wrong. Neville Boschert, a sharp lawyer in Jackson Mississippi, pointed out
Charles R. Beans, of Goodman McGuffey Lindsey & Johnson, LLP, in Atlanta, contributed the following guest post. We thank him for his contribution, and present his words:
“Just another stupid thing that I done wrong.”
— Goldfinger, “Counting the Days” © 2000.
[Okay, okay. We started with lyrics from Goldfinger. But now
Herrmann’s book, The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law, has a chapter about “couth” that discusses, among other things, communicating by e-mail.
He’s now had two reactions to that chapter that he just has to share.
First, right after the book came out, an inside counsel offered this rant about lawyers communicating with clients by e-mail:
This is a practical – some would say, impractical – post. One of the blogging duo is currently involved in one of the more headache-inducing aspects of mass tort litigation, the process of putting together motions in limine. So he’s got a few gripes.
The other half has been there and done that. In
There’s a new case in our Drug Preemption Scorecard this week, and we don’t mean Herrmann’s brilliant win in Dobbs (although you can be sure that’s there as well). The new case is Gourdine v. Crews, 2006 WL 5277412 (Md. Cir. June 28, 2006), aff’d on other grounds, 935 A.2d 1146 (Md. App.
Lawyers: Stop reading now!
No! Really! We mean it!
This post is a very — as in very — basic guide to the litigation process, meant only to help the press (and interested others) understand the next post that we’re putting up. And you’ll understand that next post without reading this one.
So click away
We’ve decided that we’ll start the new year by being avuncular.
Well, okay, pompous.
Somehow, a few folks have decided that the two of us – guys with faces that were made for radio and voices made for the shower – know something about law firm marketing. And we’re certainly occasionally asked by others at