BAR APPLICANT SEZ: I HAVE A DISABILITY THAT PREVENTS ME FROM BEING TRUTHFUL, BUT THAT SHOULDN’T PREVENT ME FROM BEING ADMITTED TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW
The parodies write themselves, don’t they?
Actually, I can’t say it any better than the Supreme Court of Georgia did (their decision is linked in the ABA Journal article linked above):
“[The applicant] essentially asks for a waiver of certification, or an accommodation from being subjected to an examination of his character and fitness, based on an alleged inability to be truthful, accurate, and forthcoming in his bar application disclosures and his professional dealings.”
Via TaxProf Blog.
If you are interested in how businesses work, then you should be interested in how corporations work (no, that's not redundant).
On the subject of how corporations work, I have read several articles about Senator Warren’s proposed Accountable Capitalism Act. I think the best commentary I have read is the series by Professor Bainbridge, in which he explains several measures by which this proposed legislation would (1) radically change, and (2) profoundly harm, large American corporations. Highly recommended.
RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE SUGGESTION BY THE MAYOR OF LANCASTER THAT HIS TOWN PROHIBIT EMPLOYERS FROM REQUIRING MALE EMPLOYEES TO WEAR TIES
Mind your own business.
Don’t you have anything better to do?
I doubt there are many businesses in Lancaster that require male employees to wear ties.
I’m probably playing into this mayor’s hands with this post, because he's getting attention.
He managed to get the Los Angeles Times to not only publish a story about this lame idea, but even publish his photo with it.
He’s not just a lawyer, he’s “well-known litigator.”
The United States Supreme Court has been made up of nine justices since 1869. The law that makes it so is in “an Act to amend the Judicial System of the United States,” adopted by the United States Congress on April 10, 1869. The citation is 16 Stat. 44, which contains Chapter 22 of laws of the Forty-First Congress.
It took me about fifteen minutes to find a copy of the actual government record.
Authoritative information is readily available, so don’t believe what anyone says just because it sounds like they know what they’re talking about.
REALLY, DON’T THREATEN YOUR CITIZENS WITH LEGAL ACTION BECAUSE THEY MADE NEGATIVE COMMENTS ABOUT YOUR TOWN
I have written a couple of posts recently about a smackdown administered to a town in Iowa that had its attorney threaten a citizen with legal action because the citizen wrote disparaging comments about the town. If you want to read the town’s abject surrender after it was sued by the ACLU on behalf of the citizen, Lowering the Bar has posted the injunction that was agreed to by the town, as well as the complaint.
This item goes all the way back to 2005, but since Lowering the Bar has a random posts sidebar, I had the good fortune to spot it. (Yes, I have again been reduced to trolling Lowering the Bar for material.)
The line I am talking about, which I could recite from memory without having even seen the linked post, was this: “Loosen up Sandy baby, you’re too tight.”
No disrespect to a (retired) Supreme Court Justice is intended by this post. Judging from the conversation related in the highly entertaining interview excerpt quoted in the linked post, I don’t think the Justice felt disrespected by the original line, or at least she was able to see the humor in the situation.
I HAVE MY DOUBTS ABOUT WHETHER THIS TAX AVOIDANCE STRATEGY WILL WORK – SOUNDS LIKE FORM OVER SUBSTANCE TO ME
Taxpayer operates a business that is not eligible for a favored tax treatment because of the nature of the services performed. Taxpayer creates two entities, one of which does the work that is not eligible for favored treatment, and the other of which claims all of the profit from that work. That way, all of the profit supposedly qualifies for the favored tax treatment.
Will that work? I think that falls into the category of form over substance. I don’t think it will work.
I was surprised, and mildly interested, to learn that Arizona is one of the five states with the lowest first time pass rates for its bar exam. The rate is under 65%, lower even than California, which I would have guessed would be the lowest just because it has a reputation for having a low pass rate, and a high number of applicants.
The five states with the highest first time pass rates have rates of almost 84% up to almost 87%.
I think the 65% pass rate for Arizona (that’s for 2017) is lower than it was when I took the bar exam over thirty years ago. I wonder why it’s lower now, and why it’s so low overall?
I think I may have linked to this before, but it’s worth re-reading. Professor Bainbridge explains the law defining the obligation of corporate directors to maximize return to shareholders, while at the same time recognizing the broad latitude accorded to directors in determining how to best meet that obligation. It’s a worthwhile read, and not too long or opaque.
Why do advocates feel compelled to blatantly overstate their case? It may fool the uninformed, but it undermines the advocates’ credibility with people whose opinions matter (such as, in the situation I’m going to reference in a second, the county supervisors and the judge presiding over their lawsuit). Some examples from a muckraking article that appeared at AZCentral.com on February 28:
The “gravity of pollution from [the egg farms is comparable to the water contamination in] Flint, Michigan, where dangerous levels were found in the drinking water?” The pollution from the egg farms is ammonia in the air. That’s really as harmful as lead in the drinking water?
Egg farms “are now factories – they are manufacturing plants, there’s no bones about it.” An agricultural operation pollutes to the same degree as a manufacturing plant? Never mind that there’s no comparison between an agricultural operation and any manufacturing facility using chemicals. Let’s just talk about smell. Have you ever lived near a paper mill?
And finally, no, Tonopah and Arlington are not “on the western edge of metro Phoenix.” They are closer to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, west of Buckeye, than they are to Buckeye, a historically (and currently) agricultural community that could be considered on the western edge of metro Phoenix.
Now, none of those overstatements are from the residents who are complaining about the egg farms in western Arizona. They are from advocates. But as an advocate, I’m here to tell you that overstating your case to that degree is not effective advocacy.
The situation with the egg farms doesn’t sound like it implicates the hoary, and confusing, legal concept know as “coming to the nuisance.” I’ll have to discuss that some other time.
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.