Today's New Blawg

Ed Poll writes LawBiz Management, in connection with his law business consulting firm ("LawBiz") in Venice, CA. Ed's posts examine a variety of business concerns of interest to lawyers, including billing, profitabilty, finance, and marketing:

The biggest Web question for small-firm lawyers today isn't whether to have a homepage - just about every lawyer who wants a place online has one by now - but rather how to evaluate whether that Web site is effective.

Ed "has practiced law for 25 years, was the CEO and COO of several manufacturing businesses and has been a consultant to small and large law firms for 15 years."

Note Well

Howard came through with the answer to my question yesterday: may members of the general public now take notes while attending argument before the Supreme Court of the United States? Yes. "Supreme Court Groupies, Take Note!," Tony Mauro, 5/5/03:

The U.S. Supreme Court's hoary and inexplicable policy against note-taking by the public in the Court chamber — which Blackmun first complained about in 1988 — has been overturned.

Its demise came without fanfare and without public notice, but Court public information officer Kathy Arberg confirmed last week that sometime last November the policy against note-taking was "no longer enforced" by Court Police officers.

Mauro credits Ted Metzler of the Supreme Court Blog with the discovery, and cautions Supreme Court visitors to continue to watch where they put there elbows.

Today's New Blawg

David C. Sarnacki and friends write Domestic Diversions:

Welcome to Domestic Diversions, a collaborative weblog based in Michigan and focused on relationships, families and family law. As we walk upon this new path, we hope to unfold petals which advance the mind, arouse the heart and amuse the spirit. We hope that a bit of our souls may meet along this path.

This new site is an eclectic mix of law, policy, family, poetry, and practical suggestions—fun and useful.

Ravioli, With A Generous Side Of Justice

As always is the case with this annual event, The Italian American Lawyers Association dinner last night with the California Supreme Court was great fun. Some highlights:

• Though it may be some time yet before anyone Stealth Discos a sitting member of a high court, it was a treat to join our table companion Justice Moreno for a phonecam shot. (That's me left front, trying hard not to do Justice Moreno lasting injury with my unborn child.)


• Chief Justice Ron George took the opportunity to lay to rest once and for all the rumor that the reason none of the members of the Court ran for governor was their inability to garner support from 65 registered voters. It turns out the Justices are constitutionally prohibited from serving as governor during their term of office, even if they were to resign the post for the purpose. (Sounds like someone actually researched this, hmm?)


• The recently released California plain-English jury instructions are in the public domain (although the "official publisher" is LexisNexis).


• The Court periodically is hearing argument in locations other than San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, and broadcasting these sessions through an outreach program with local high schools. (Example: Fresno.)


• A good tiramisu was had by all.

The Modern Court

Tony Mauro's Legal Times article of today's date ("Oral Arguments Commence at U.S. Supreme Court") describes how digital recording and electronic briefs are being incorporated into the daily business of the Supreme Court of the United States:

Before the session began Tuesday, technicians were testing the Court's sound system, which for the first time is making digital recordings of Court arguments — in addition to the reel-to-reel tapes used for the last 48 years. The test of digital recording is meant as a backup to the traditional system, which has produced low-quality recordings on occasion in recent years.

"It's a small step but an important one," says Northwestern University political science professor Jerry Goldman, who first noticed the deterioration in sound quality and urged the Court to try digital taping. If the experiment is successful, Goldman, whose Oyez Project Web site carries audio of past Supreme Court arguments, believes the digital recordings will be much easier to work with and could be more quickly accessible to the public.

The other development — this one on the Court's Web site — will make available to the public the merits briefs in cases scheduled for oral argument. The Court still requires parties to file printed briefs, but also asks them or their printers to file them electronically as well. The electronic versions are being made available at www.supremecourtus.gov through a link to the American Bar Association's publication Preview, which provides summaries and material on upcoming high court cases.

"It's a cool public service, and we're glad to be able to offer it," says Preview editor Charles Williams.

(Links added; too many.) Speaking of progress, if memory serves I believe (?) Eugene Volokh mentioned during the Weblogs and Law discussion last Sunday that the restriction on note-taking by public attendees at Supreme Court arguments has been lifted. Can anyone confirm and/or provide more information?