This week, we are very proud to play host to the blog carnival for everyone interested in law, Blawg Review. Trust Matters readers, please say hello to the nice visitors from Blawg Review. Blawg Review readers, welcome to our little sandbox and please make yourselves at home.
A Bit of History
It was two years ago and change that we played host to Blawg Review #150, so it’s high time we hosted again.
Not only that, but the famously anonymous Ed. (short for ‘editor’) of the Blawg Review is simultaneously hosting this month’s Carnival of Trust. Touching, and appropriate, as Ed. played an enormous role in getting the Carnival of Trust off the ground at its inception.
But enough about common lineage. Let’s start with the post “Trust and Compliance” by Doug Cornelius, where he pretty much nails the distinction between those two key concepts (with a Jennifer Hagy cartoon for good measure). Which comes first? Does one cause the other? Is one a necessary or sufficient condition for the other? When do we need trust, and when compliance? Doug is crisp, succinct, and I think solidly right.
And wait—what’s this? More common lineage: Doug just happens to have hosted last month’s brilliant Carnival of Trust as well. It’s getting all incestuous around here.
Moving right along. Eric Turkewitz at the New York Personal Injury Law Blog gives some lessons on blogging etiquette and just plain class, and displays said class himself by using Walter Olson as an object example.
David Kopel at The Volokh Conspiracy went to the movies and was inspired to write Understanding Inception. Two of the 60 comments sum it up: “Fantastic analysis of the movie,” and “the analysis was better than the movie.” Which raises an obvious conundrum—to go see a meta-movie, or to just read the meta-review? Maybe I’ll just sleep on it.
Also in The Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh covers the law’s struggle with that age-old riddle, Q. when is a rape not a rape? A. when it’s religiously permitted. The lower court agreed; the appellate court reversed. 262 commentators continue the debate in the Green Room; hurry and you’ll be #263.
David Lat at Above the Law has the Quote of the Day: What Crawled Up His Robe?
Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice has a different spin on the same case, in Unexplained Removal For Unfortunate Hostility (Update: Explained, Sorta). Judges are hostile all the time, says Greenfield—to the defense, that is. But why the unprecedented removal of a judge—is it for being hostile to the government? SG is suspicious. A novel position for SG, but hey just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean… And he just may be right.
Criminal Defense Attorney Mark Bennett at his law blog Defending People re-invents the concept of Inbound Marketing for lawyers: nothing makes you so credible as recommending others along with yourself. Read his Small Lesson. A lesson not just for lawyers, or even marketers, but for the Manual for Living Life.
Criminal Defense Attorney Mark Bennett, on his Social Media Tyro blog asks ‘which do you want–reputation or exposure?’ They’re not the same.
Want your blog to drive traffic to your website? Kevin, at Real Lawyers Have Blogs, asks the right question: Why Would You Want That?
Can you tell when someone’s lying? That debate will continue unabated, but here’s a small cool part of the puzzle from Keene Trial Consulting, in We Know Liars When We See Them. Folks who watch the TV show Lie to Me do not get better at telling when someone else is lying; but they do get a lot more suspicious about everyone. Want to empanel a jury of conspiracy freaks? There you go. You’re welcome.
As long as we’re on the subject of not-nice behaviors, Dan Harris at China Law Blog raises an interesting question about bribery. Does Your Home Country Even Care? He notes a recent report on how actively home-countries enforce anti-bribery laws on companies doing business in China. Interesting to see which countries are high- and low-active countries; interesting, Canada, eh?
Big fish, little pond? Or little fish, big pond? Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog has the answer: New Study: Forget the Rankings, Just Bring Home Straight A’s
Apparently HLS students agree with Jones’ blogpost above, being as how they’re all atwitter over a nonchalant attitude toward grades by a prof and the administration. Read Elie Mystal at Above the Law: Grading Shenanigans at Harvard Law School? Spring Evidence Students Confronted ‘Irregularities’. Hey no problem; just send them a copy of that study, Sander & Yakowitz’s paper, I’m sure they’ll get over their bad Harvard selves and see the light.
Frank Pasquale at Concurring Opinions helps distinguish between being Anti-Business and Anti-The Worst Businesses. There’s an added bonus in a lengthy comment to that post by Patrick O’Donnell.
What’s the penalty for offering to take sexual services in barter as payment for legal services rendered? In New Jersey, it’s a one-year suspension. Bobby Frederick, of South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog, seems to think that’s odd. Fuggedaboudit, Bobby.
Walter Olson (not a lawyer, but the proprietor of the oldest "lawblog" Overlawyered) writing on the law at Cato about the ADA and the Chipotle Grill Experience. What does the ADA filing mill have in common with patent trollery, copyright mills, and “citizen suit” filings? They’re all like the sausage factory; pretty ugly inside.
Speaking of ADA, did you see last week’s Blawg Review #274 at LoTempio Law Blog, marking the 20th anniversary of the American’s With Disabilities Act?
In closing… Insurance lawyer George M. Wallace blogging personal interests on his "fool in the forest" blog.
And that’s it. Many thanks to Ed. for the honor and privilege of once again hosting the Blawg Review. Followers of law blogs and regular readers of Trust Matters will find more great links to blogs worth reading in the last Carnival of Trust, hosted today by the Editor of Blawg Review. Enjoy!
For a free copy of the eBook "Selling to the C-Suite," email me, Charlie, personally and I'll send it along to you.
This post hasn't been filed away yet