Your humble appellate blogger working on his next article
A special welcome to anyone arriving here after reading my article in the June issue of Citations, the Ventura County Bar Association’s monthly publication. Maybe “iPad Judges” are Not Such a Good Idea is my adaptation of my post last month of the same name, citing studies showing that readers tend to comprehend and retain material better when reading from paper than from a screen. (The article is also scheduled to run this month in the Appellate Law Journal from Counsel Press.)
I’ve since posted some comments on a related issue: whether laptops help or hurt students in the classroom.
It is about time I get back to blogging about the law. Don’t be a stranger!
(By the way, if you still have your paper copy of Citations, make sure you check out the back cover. [No, it’s not about me.])
You youngsters out there may not get the Rolling Stone reference (a big, big, song in the early 70s), but it is an irresistable one for me to make in announcing my newest article, because the article is featured on the cover of the August 2008 CITATIONS (along with my picture, to the great misfortune of the magazine’s subscriber base). CITATIONS is the monthly magazine of the Ventura County Bar Association (full disclosure: I am on the editorial board).
The article is about my experience during my first year or so of blogging. I thought it was timely, given a recent California Lawyer column that advised solo and small firm lawyers against blogging except in rare circumstances.
As the title, “The Blog and Short of It,” suggests, it hasn’t all been a bed of roses. But the downside of blogging is not so bad, either. Click on the magazine cover at right for a PDF download of the August 2008 CITATIONS.
Oh, and let me extend a welcome to any any CITATIONS readers who may be visiting as a result of the article. Come back soon.
I have an article in this month’s issue of CITATIONS, the monthly magazine of the Ventura County Bar Association, and for which I serve on the editorial board. The article is an expanded version of this post on Cruz v. Ayromloo, 155 Cal.App.4th 1270 (2d Dist. Oct. 3, 2007).
The article, titled“Pro Bono Attorney Fees” Is Not an Oxymoron, highlights the Cruz court’s dictum on the recovery of attorney fees in pro bono cases and examines the implications of that reasoning for future cases. You can download a PDF copy of the article here.
That’s the title given by the Los Angeles Daily Journal to my article, which it published in its November 19, 2007 issue, regarding U.S. v. Larson, the en banc Ninth Circuit’s confusing “resolution” of the perceived split of authority on the standard of review in Confrontation Clause challenges based on limitations on cross-examination. The article (PDF link) grew out of this blog post giving my initial impressions about the case on the day it was published. I followed up that post with another providing links to some other blog coverage of the case.
I am finally able to provide a copy of my article published in the September 2007 issue of Santa Barbara Lawyer. The article, which grew out of this blog post, is an examination of the historical and existing rules regarding the appealability of an order denying a statutory motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 663 to vacate the judgment and enter new judgment. It also proposes a resolution of the confused law on that issue. (Just in case the Supreme Court was looking for my advice.)
I know, I know. Geeksville.
The magazine still is not available online, but I scanned the article and have posted it for download. Click on this title of the article to access the PDF copy of An Appealing Vacation . . . of Judgment: City of Los Angeles v. Glair May Force a Clarification of Appellate Jurisdiction.
By the way, PDFs of a few other past issues of Santa Barbara Lawyer are available here.