Legal Ethics Forum

"Resigned with chargees pending" may require confession or "no contest" plea in California

The California State Bar is considering a rule that would drastically change the practice of resigning with discipline charges pending.  If ultimately approved, the new rule would require lawyers to either concede misconduct or plead no contest.  (Unfortunately, the Daily Journal doesn't provide internet access, so I will provide a link once the American Lawyer Media covers the story.)  According to the State Bar, the current practice allows the accused lawyer to "hide the nature and extent of his misconduct."  Of course, the current practice also allows for efficient disbarment.  Whether this change would incent lawyers to contest claims remains to be seen.  About half the states have rules similar to the one that California is proposing.

I like a good earthquake -- but I hope everyone's OK

I hope no one was hurt.  More news as it arrives.  Here's the map.  I had guessed 5.5 and it looks like I'm pretty close.  [edit]  It appears to be the Calaveras fault.  The Hayward fault, which is adjacent to the Calaveras, runs only a couple hundred yards from the UC-Berkeley law school.  (The law school buildings are just to the left of the "STAD" on the photo.  And, yes, the Hayward fault runs from endzone to endzone.)

Yagman and Lerach to jail for how long?

In the news today two famous California lawyers -- Bill Lerach and Stephen Yagman -- are said to be heading to jail.  Yagman, the fearless civil rights lawyer and gadfly, famous for his intemperate attacks on the judiciary, was convicted of hiding assets in the bankruptcy process for himself and his firm and the government has asked that he serve nine years in jail.  (If you ever want to shock your legal ethics students, read them the footnote from In re Yagman that quotes his description of a sitting federal judge.)

Lerach, who pled guilty to participating in kickbacks to class reps, faces one to two years.  While we're at it, we might as well mention Lynne Stewart, who was sentenced to 28 months -- but the government, which sought an insanely high 30 years for her, has appealed that sentence.

How does an american attorney charge more hours?

Our readers ask and we do our best to answer.  Answer: by working longer hours, or leveraging the work with more associates. (I assume, and hope, that the implicit assumption of the question was "how do American lawyers legally charge more hours?")

News articles: Lawyering styles of the presidential candidates; US firms in London to disclose financials?

Here's an interesting NYT article by Adam Liptak on the lawyering careers and lawyering styles of presidential candidates.    . . . .    American Lawyer Media reports that US firms with UK offices may have to publish financials.  (nod to Concurring Opinions)

Laurel Terry's site for "Global Legal Practice Resources"

Laurel Terry, a professor at Penn State, created this "Global Legal Practices Resources" page.  We hope to have a post from her soon, but in the meantime head there to find source documents for comparative studies of the legal profession.

And, in a similar vein, Brad has reminded us of the call for papers for the Third International Legal Ethics Conference.

Stadium Naming Rights, Super Lawyer Ads, and Obscenity

I recently read two stories about lawyer advertising, this one about $20,000 ads in the "Super Lawyers" publication and this one about an Indiana law firm that spent more than $500,000 for naming rights in a football stadium.  The two marketing ploys seemed pretty similar to me, but only the Super Lawyers ads have gotten the attention of the legal ethics advertising police: New Jersey's Committee on Attorney Advertising claimed that such ads are "likely to create an unjustified expectation as to results."  Thankfully, the New Jersey Supreme Court stayed the enforcement of the opinion, but there are ongoing hearings in New Jersey to decide the issue once and for all. 

Personally, I don't see how the public is any more likely to have unreasonable expectations after reading a "Super Lawyers" ad than after seeing a law firm's name in a prominent place in a football stadium.  Obviously, stadium naming rights are not indicative of quality or ethics, as anyone who used to go to Enron Field surely knows.  But the public is savvy enough to know that.  And I don't see how an ad in a publication called "Super Lawyers" is any different.  Indeed, there is simply no decent empirical data to suggest that lawyer advertisements of this sort cause any unjustified expectations among potential clients. 

Ultimately, bar disciplinary authorities review lawyer advertising using a standard that makes Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" test seem clear.  In fact, I bet I could do a better job predicting what Justice Stewart would have considered to be obscenity than guessing what New Jersey would view as misleading advertising.  Now that's truly obscene.

For a profession that spends its time developing and refining the law, we can do a whole lot better than the current haphazard approach.  We should start by allowing lawyers to market themselves with the same freedom as other professionals and then focus on issues that truly matter to the profession, the public, and the justice system. 

Another day, another dollar

John's excellent posts  from the Lawyering at the Edge conference reminded me of a time, before I was seduced by economics, when I wanted nothing more than to be a criminal defense lawyer.  I had the great good fortune to spend a summer working for the late Vince Fuller, best known for winning the acquittal, by reason of insanity, of John Hinckley. 

Vince was a gentleman in the fullest and best sense of the word.  Despite his stature, there was no pretense, no hint of pomposity, to him.  He treated his work as a job.  The job had the dignity of honest, hard work; no more, no less. 

After the Hinckley verdict, Vince was quoted as saying only "another day, another dollar."  I was not sure what to make of that when I first heard it.  Some media reports portrayed it as the height of cynicism.  After working for Vince for a little while, though, I interpreted the comment as saying, in essence "This is what I do for a living. It's not  political commentary, and it's not a social movement.  It's a job." 

I would never begrudge any criminal defense attorney whatever orientation to the job they need to take to get it done, but I have always thought the jobbist approach has a lot to recommend it.  "Another day, another dollar" is not an inspiring slogan, but it is a sound philosophy.

DM

Practical experience and law school teaching

This article from the Harvard Law Record (by way of Nuts & Boalts and Volokh) suggests that practical experience disqualifies a person from teaching in law school.  People often ask me if that isn't especially true about law professors who teach legal ethics, but in my experience lots of them have deep knowledge about practical lawyering if not deep experience doing actual lawyering.

In Wisconsin, legal ethics isn't always boring

Or so it seems (via Volokh).

Call for Papers: Third International Legal Ethics Conference

The organizers of the Third International Legal Ethics Conference have posted a formal call for papers on the conference website.  The organizers have done an outstanding job, and this is shaping up to be a terrific conference.  The overall conference theme is Integrity in Legal Practice, but there are several sub-topics, which will be used to organize the papers into streams.  Stream topics include Character and Virtue in the Professions, Empirical Research on Lawyering, Ethical Decision-Making in Everyday Practice, and Gender and the Legal Profession.

In addition to academics from all around the world, there will be many practicing lawyers and judges from Australia and elsewhere in attendance.  One of the keynote speakers, for example, is the Honourable Paul de Jersey, AC, the Chief Justice of Queensland.  Other invited speakers include Deborah Rhode (Stanford, U.S.), David Luban (Georgetown, U.S.), Kim Economides (Exeter, U.K.) Julian Webb (Warwick, U.K.), and Allan Hutchinson (Osgoode/York U., Canada).

Maybe someone in attendance will live-blog the conference for LEF, as John Steele did for the Hofstra conference.  I'd volunteer, but I expect I'll be out enjoying the beach at the lovely Sheraton Mirage Resort and Spa.

Law Professor Attire and Classroom Culture

A forthcoming law review article by Professor Erik Jensen suggests, with a humorous flair, that law professors dress too informally.  Professor Jensen urges legal academics to return to the more formal attire of previous generations, and he even proposes a "Uniform Uniform Code" that would require clothing of sufficient formality that it would not "embarrass our mothers."  (I said it was humorous!)  A summary of the article can be found here.

I've actually given this issue some thought, especially recently.  Until this year, I wore a suit and tie to every class.  This year, I have gone increasingly in the direction of a sport coat with no tie.  The move happens to coincide with my having gotten tenure (readers are welcome to insert their jokes here), but I believe my move in the direction of increased informality is actually more consistent with my pedagogical goals.  Let me explain.

I think that law school can be very intimidating.  In my experience, it is hard to transform a classroom of 100 students into a positive, affirming learning environment.  One way to accomplish the task is to create an informal atmosphere, which starts with titles.  For example, I have students indicate on a seating chart how they want to be called, and they always choose to be called by their first names.  And so that's what I do.  I also tell them that they can call me by my first name if they choose, and some of them do so.  My theory is that they will be on a first name basis with most of their superiors and mentors, so why not me? 

I believe that my attire can also contribute to this informal, less intimidating classroom environment.  A person in a suit, in my view, is more intimidating and appears to be more distant than someone in a sport coat. 

Of course, if I dress too informally, that could send the wrong message, too: I don't take the students seriously.  So in my mind, I strike the balance by wearing dress pants, a button down shirt, and a sport coat without a tie. 

Coming back to Professor Jensen's attempt to regulate the attire of law professors, I personally agree that our attire sends students a message and that if we dress too informally, it can send the wrong message.  But because attire has a pedagogical value, it is also something that should not be regulated.  As academics, we value our academic freedom, including the level of formality that we employ in the classroom.  Because our clothing is part of the culture that we create, I say it is not an appropriate subject for academic regulation, absent truly extraordinary circumstances.

What do you all think?  And putting aside the question of whether legal academic attire should be regulated, what do you all think is the ideal attire for a law professor?

KPMG ACR DQ

In the KPMG case the a lawyer has been DQd from what appears to be either (1) a brief and early attorney client relationship with one of the other defendants -- who's now a cooperating witness, or (2) participation in a joint defense agreement.

I certainly understand that the first rationale would support a DQ. Once you have an ACR with a client, you can't be adverse in the same matter (without consent). But perhaps someone with more knowledge of conflicts in criminal cases can explain whether mere participation in a joint defense agreement can be a disqualifying event when one of the participants flips to state's witness. If so, wouldn't that give the flipping defendant far too much power to DQ other lawyers?

(The KPMG case is the one where the govt allegedly cut off some defendants' access to legal fees to which they were entitled. The judge bought the argument and dismissed the charges, and now the govt is appealing that. So the case also raises the issue of whether the federal govt is "taking out the opposition lawyers.)

Here's the blurb from the WSJ law blog: "Last month, the feds asked the judge to explore potential conflicts of interest by Bauer and David Scheper, a lawyer for ex-KPMGer Robert Pfaff, as a result of a joint defense agreement they may have reached with David Amir Makov, who is now a cooperating witness in the case and is expected to testify in the trial. The feds then asked the judge to preclude Bauer from cross-examining Makov based on evidence that he had acted as counsel to Makov in the early stages of the investigation."

Bill Henderson explains the "gaming" of law school transfers

Over at Empirical Legal Studies, Bill Henderson once again sheds light on how the profession really works.  This time: law school transfers. 

"Until Proven Innocent" & a lawyer for the situation

On the flight back from the Hofstra conference, I got about 200 pages into Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor, Jr. and KC Johnson.  It's a jaw-dropper page after page.  You could teach an entire seminar about legal ethics with just this text.  At pages 46-49, you see a classic example of a lawyer trying to be a "lawyer for the situation," in the Brandeisian sense.  It was a lawyer who helped Duke make problems go away and who tried to be ""unofficial legal advisor to everyone [i.e., to all the Duke lacrosse players]."

Our Bloggers on the Podium

Two of our bloggers, John Steele and Andrew Perlman, gave individual presentations at the conference.  They were both superb, both in substance and in presentation.  If anyone ever needs a guaranteed excellent speaker who can hold and inspire an audience on the subject of Lawyers' Ethics, you need look no further.  Roy Simon and I are deeply grateful to both of them.

Lynne Stewart at Hofstra Ethics Conference "Lawyering at the Edge"

[[I will recap later tonight.  Short version: Stewart evaded the key facts.  Law students did a terrific job with their questions.  Hofstra must be proud of them, and I'm glad she spoke to them.  There was no spoon-feeding, cheerleading, or indoctrination.  There were lots of good, tough questions -- most of which were from law students.]]

Beginning in five minutes. [My comments will be in brackets. Comments by Lynne Stewart (LS) will not have brackets  I will be paraphrasing and using her actual words when possible.]

[Professor Roy Simon introducing LS by reading what the sentencing judge wrote about her background.  Per the judge, she repped poor, unpopular, disadvanaged; performed a public service to clients and the nation in doing so.  However, she aided terrorists.  She has been disbarred.  Conference organizers care about education of students.  LS speaking should be unique opportunity to learn.]

LS thanks Hofstra for standing up for free speech.  Some universities don't do that.  Ward Chuchill has been deserted by his university.

LS paused when she read that she was invited as a cautionary lesson.  That gave me pause.  But the govt has already sent the bigger cautionary lesson. When a brave lawyer like Ron Kuby won't take certain criminal defense cases, you have to wonder.  Are we preventing criminal lawyers from operating?

Talking privately to clients is primal to the attorney client relationship.  But now we have an exception to that relationship.  We cannot simply accept the govt's definition of what a criminal lawyer is.

When I was sentenced, 1,000 letters came in, from bigwigs and from prisoners alike.  Judge Koetel read each letter.  That's what led to the statement the judge made, that Professor Roy Simon quoted.

I can also say we've filed 350 page brief on appeal.  Govt filed 500 page brief.  Many issues are raised.  Govt basically reworked their summation but didn't answer the main problem: the huge weight of evidence that applied only to the co-defendants and not as to LS.  It was prejudicial.  It included huge images of Osama Bin Laden.

"Lawyering on the edge"  You don't always ask yourself that about what you do.  You more wrestle about what you didn't do.  [Note: Professor Simon will return to this comment in his concluding remarks.]  I urge the law students and lawyers as well to remember your personal statement on your law school app.  You didn't say you went to law school just to make money. Remember also criminal defense is the only part of profession that deals with your clients being locked up in cages.

I didn't like all my clients.  But you still do your best for them.

Sometimes you want to convince your client to take a deal.  But when the courts get too anxious for pleas, some judges want to push cases too fast.  But don't let them prevent you from providing effective assistance.   You might have to say "I haven't had a chance to provide effective assistance."  If you say that, the judge will be mad at you.  But we need to do more of that.

The lawyers in Gitmo are very constrained in their representation right now.  Lawyers can't discuss personal issues with the client now, by reg.  When that is happening, it's time to say "no more."

Josh Dretel represented David Hicks at Gitmo, and refused to proceed, because his representation had been so restricted.  Dretel did stand up.

In the final analysis my case deals with client-centered lawyering. [?!]  We are vulnerable as to what we can do now.  My client, Sheikh Omar, who was passed to me by Ron Kuby [Kuby yells: sorry!  Laughter]

We have an Islamo-fascist view, perpetuated by the press, but to sit down with him, . .   . .  Rahman has been diminished.  SAMs are for singled-out convicts.  He was singled out.  The SAMs were not court orders.  They were regs.  We three lawyers [Clark, Jabara, Stewart] were given "leeway" to do some lawyering.

[She suggests that Clark wasn't prosecuted because of his class advantages.]

I should have been more aware that the government will get you. Yes, I was client centered, and I'd do it again but do it differently.  This was no secret clandestine thing.  It [what she did for Rahman] was done openly.  [??]  The tapes showed we weren't surreptitiously.  Guards were listening in to the conversation.  That happens often.  So you do insulate the client from the prisoners.

Most lawyers don't see constitutional issues.  I say that about ethical considerations.   Be alert for them.  Make your decisions.  Stand by your decisions.  The line is there.  The govt can move that line.  They allowed me to go back in and waited for 2+ years to arrest me. 

Stand up.  We need people to stand up.  It's a time to stand up.  It may not be the underground railroad but we are under attack.  Please stand up.

[Question from Monroe Freedman: I referred to you as a cautionary warning.  You were apparently interviewing your client along with the interpreter.  The interpreter might have involved instructions to be given to a terrorist group that might kill.  You put on a show to make it seem you were asking questions.  In fact, you were taped.  You were taped as saying "I should get award for this performance."  One of my questions is that video taping a client conversation intrudes on Bill of Rights protections. The problem is that in the future, the govt will cite your behavior in defense of the intrusions.  You have done disservice to criminal defense to 5th Am and 6th Am -- illustrated by Kuby's prior statment that he won't take certain cases anymore.]

There was little time, so we had the interpreter talk directly to the client.  There was nothing untoward that was said between Yousry and Rahman.  [??]  I knew what would be said in advance, but didn't want guards to think it was improper [so I pretended to be involved in the conversation].  My remarks were unfortunate wisecracks.  It appears to be one thing [ie, what govt claimed].  My defense was full of "might have been's".  No violence happened.  I said to judge I had done disservice to the profession by allowing the govt to come in -- but I tell you that the reality it didn't happen [as Monroe described it].

Live blogging the presenters before the Lynne Stewart presentation

UPDATE: I will start a new posting devoted just to Stewart, up above.

Internet connectively permitting, I will be live blogging the Lynne Stewart presentation at the Hofstra "Lawyering at the Edge" conference.  Her talk is scheduled for 4:05 pm, ET.

Update: By coincidence, Richard Mauro, the current speaker, has flashed up on the screen his own booking photo.  He was interviewing witnesses in a capital defense case when the local prosecutor decided to have him arrested for "witness tampering."  The police report of his accuser unambiguously impeached the accusation to a degree like I've never seen before.  Mauro was very impressive.  It takes nerve to do capital defense and although that's not my calling I'm glad that guys like Mauro step forward.  It appears to be a severe case of the government trying to "take out the opposition" rather than litigate on the merits.

UPDATE 2: Ron Kuby is up now.  He starts with two hypos: one where you would have to lie to get yourself acquitted from a false accusation, and another where that would be true for your client.  Kuby says that thinking about that helps you realize how desparate criminal clients are.  You recognize the "spark of humanity" in that person.

Kuby says that if you decide to put on the lies, you have crossed the line.  So, he says, you need to cross the line, if at all, intelligently and knowingly.  To do that, you need to know what the lines are.

If you get a letter from the DA saying, "the witness doesn't want to talk to you," you should ignore the letter (and not bring it to the judge), because the DA doesn't rep the witness, and hence you don't know that you'd be violating the no-contact rule.

If your client proposes to structure paying you cash in several small payments, each of which is just below the limit for financial reporting. Answer: don't rep that client!

If you as a lawyer decide that an act is forbidden, don't decide whether to do it or not based upon some assessment of the probable consequences.  [I think he meant "of the chance that the government will view your conduct in the future in the same way they tend to view that conduct today."]

You must understand how the government will view you; don't assume your self-vision will govern how you will be treated by the legal system.

The government rarely if ever frames a lawyer.  "They" will misconstrue, misinterpret, etc., to get lawyers but Kuby hasn't seen pure fabrication of an entire claim against a lawyer.

"I'm not telling you that you should not break the law."

Moral people occasionally face the question of when to disobey immoral laws.  If you reach that point, make your decisions knowingly and intelligently.

The fight for decency is perennial.

Said he personally won't lawyer under the new SAMs.  Others will.

[My note: Kuby answered questions in a straight-up way.  Very candid.]

Federal Circuit Concludes Patent Malpractice Claims "Arise Under" Federal Law

In Air Measurement Tech., Inc. v. Akin Gump, __ F.3d __ (Fed. CIr. 2007), the court held that district courts had subject matter jurisdiction over patent malpractice claims between nondiverse parties.  The defendants had removed the case from state to federal court, contending that the suit "necessarily depends on a resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law" because the plaintiff, an aggrieved patentee had to establish that the claims were valid, infringed, and that but for the defendant's negligence, certain defenses under patent law would not have been available to accused infringers.

I've dealt with this issue in various contexts, and the answer deserves clarification from the Supreme Court. (Why, for example, did this appeal go to the CAFC?  There's an interesting question there, alone!  Do other appeals have to?)  I'm hoping the Supremes take this one up, as it's an interesting question and one in need of a definitive answer.

Law: 40% less depressing than selling fast food

A new study suggests that while the legal profession may be somewhat depressing, it's not nearly the worst.  (How's that for a left-handed compliment?)  At least we aren't required to ask our clients, "Would you like your legal fees super-sized?"

The Qualcomm Hearing

Magistrate Judge Major heard 5 hours of argument yesterday regarding possible sanctions against Qualcomm and its outside counsel, the Heller & Day, Casebeer firms.  Judge Major showed complete mastery of a lengthy and complex record; in some cases she knew it better than counsel. There is no doubt the case has received and will receive the consideration it deserves.

Copyright threats in C&D letters

Here is a link to an account of a cease and desist letter written by  Donald Morris of a firm called Dozier Internet Law.  The letter complains that a website defamed Dozier's client, DirectBuyCd.  The letter concludes by asserting copyright in its contents and claiming that republication would subject the recipient to further causes of action. (Public Citizen's response is at the bottom of the page, and here is the Dozier firm's reply.)

The copyright threat is not incoherent, but neither is realistic.  William Patry thinks it is misuse, which is a defense to infringement.  I agree, and I believe reproducing the letter is fair use, along the lines of the 9th Circuit's conclusion that Jerry Falwell's reproduction of Larry Flynt's parody of him was fair use. (796 F.2d at 1156).   

I do not know how often C&D letters assert such a threat.  (Click here for a threat letter including a similar notice, sent to "The Smoking Gun" regarding its exposure of James Frey.)  But I agree that the practice is contrary to the purpose of copyright law, and in some cases might deter recipients from shedding light on C&D letters that go too far.  Such letters may disrupt legitimate free expression, so they should be subject to scrutiny.  That means the practice of asserting copyright to keep such letters hidden should be stopped. The question is how.

Stoneridge argument: reading the tea leaves

Stephen Bainbridge comments on the oral argument in the Stoneridge case, which will either recognize or quash a new liability theory for lawyers and other professionals. 

Billable Hours -- A Story and a Question

To follow up on last month's post about the problems associated with billable hours, I recommend this very nice article about a Boston law firm that has taken these problems to heart and eliminated billable hours entirely.  The story is worth a read.

On a related note, I was chatting with a colleague about a particular billable technique that is both troubling and supposedly common.  The idea is that some lawyers bill for all of their hours in the office after 5:00 regardless of the time actually spent working on a client matter.  For example, if the lawyer leaves work at 8:00 p.m. and spent 30 minutes eating dinner (and did not work during dinner), the lawyer bills three hours, not 2.5 hours. 

This position was justified to me on the grounds that it is similar to travel time.  In the travel context, the lawyer is away from the office to serve a client's needs and may have trouble servicing the needs of other existing clients.  Accordingly, the lawyer is allowed to bill the time, even if she sleeps during the entire plane ride.  In the same way, the lawyer is supposedly making a similar sacrifice when she stays late to work on a client matter and so can bill for all of the time in the office.

The problem is that, unlike the travel context, where the lawyer is traveling because of the client's needs, the late-working lawyer is not necessarily staying late because the client demands it.  Rather, the lawyer is choosing to work on one particular client's matter at night, because she worked on some other matter during the day.  Put another way, it is often mere happenstance that a particular client's work gets done at night instead of during the day.  Why should the client have to pay more money simply because the work got done after 5:00? 

Lynne Stewart portion of Hofstra conference won't get CLE credit

According to comments here, the Lynne Stewart presentation won't count for CLE credit.  I expect it'll be a terrific conference and I'm looking forward to hearing Stewart.  As I've said elsewhere, this will be the third time I've heard a convicted lawyer speak, and the other two were illuminating.

Bill Henderson with more great data on law firm life

Pay and Workweek Differentials by Law Firm Size, courtesy of Bill Henderson, who continues to provide us with great data compilations on the legal profession.

Discovery abuse: have we entered an era of "hang a jaywalker every so often"?

I had grown pessimistic about the legal system's ability to police discovery abuse.  The Fison's case makes for great reading, but as far as I can tell it didn't reverse the tide or create a counter-trend.  Then we had President Clinton lying and fudging under oath in a civil case.  That hardly set a good example.

There is now room for guarded optimism.  We've had two cases where massive penalties are being exacted for discovery abuse: the Perelman v. Morgan Stanley and Qualcomm v. Broadcom.  It's easy to see why these cases might force reforms: money.  Lots of it.  Money that must be paid out by some combination of big clients, law firms, and insurers.  No doubt all three of those institutional players will be adjusting tactics and strategies to avoid these monetary catastrophes.  And the surest route to safety is to keep accurate records of all the steps you've taken to comply with discovery requests and then produce the discovery.  Once it becomes a matter of monetary self-interest, behavior changes.

Judges sometimes get this issue wrong, fail to understand the difficulties of e-discovery production, get frustrated with the long slog through the intricacies of electronic discovery issues, and simply tee off on a lawyer as a shortcut.  But who can disagree that discovery abuse happens routinely?  I'll go out on a limb here and predict that these cases signal a trend for the better in discovery abuse.  We won't know for a few years if I'm right or if it will be back to business as usual.

Boalt no more?

The hot rumor from Nuts & Boalts is that "Boalt" is being phased out in favor of "Berkeley."  I heard rumblings a few months ago, and am glad to see the rumor in print.  I hope it's true.  It's a stronger trademark.  "Boalt" is weak and confusing -- which doesn't help Berkeley students interviewing with employers who don't routinely hire from Berkeley.

I'll pass on this anecdote about the connotations of "Berkeley."  About a week ago, the internets were briefly raging with a (pseudo) scandal about whether Lynne Stewart should speak at the ethics conference at Hofstra.  Fox News wanted to find someone to speak in support of the idea and they tracked me down.  The producer asked me, as I recall it, "You want Lynne Stewart to speak and you're from Berkeley, right?"  I could see where that was headed!  After appropriate clarifications (I've been critical of her, it's a give-and-take conference mostly for specialists, I'm just a semester-by-semester adjunct at Berkeley (and actually live in the town with a school named after Leland Jr.), etc.) the topic shifted to whether my views were too nuanced for the piece.