2010 Year in Review

Everyone is doing it, and I stole this from Darcey.

1. What did you do in 2010 that you’d never done before?
Went to Las Vegas, twice! Took a two day solo beach vacation. Became part of the law firm ruling class. Drank Chartreuse, which is terrible. Attended basketball and baseball playoff games (football to come in early 2011). And this one other little thing that I can't blog about because it's WAY too personal.

2. Did you keep your new year’s resolutions, and will you make more for next year? Lord, I don't even want to remember my resolutions, but I'm sure I didn't keep most of them. I didn't save money or lose weight, although I didn't gain any either (and that was a big concern throughout the year.) I know I wanted to try a half marathon by year end, but yet again it didn't happen. Maybe in 2011.

3. Did anyone close to you give birth?
At one point this year, I knew eight women who were all pregnant. It has felt like an oppressive plague bearing down upon every woman I know. Two have given birth, one 10 weeks early and the other on time. Six more to go between February and June! I have never been more careful about taking my pills in my entire life.

4. Did anyone close to you die?
No, although we thought both of my grandparents might at various times this year. I listened to "Fairytale of New York" on the drive to my parents' house for Christmas and started crying at the line "and an old man said to me / won't see another one," because it made me think of my grandpa. I doubt he will make it to next Christmas. My grandma, however, will probably live to be 100.

5. What countries did you visit?
Sadly, just the U.S. on my dancecard this year. I'm hoping 2011 will include New Zealand.

6. What would you like to have in 2011 that you didn’t have in 2010?
A stable, serious relationship with a boy with crinkly eyes, a nice smile, and an IQ in the triple digits. And a victory at my trial in May.

7. What dates from 2010 will be etched upon your memory, and why?
January 31st (not sayin' why). September 1st, the day I was made Of Counsel by my firm. November 27th, the FSU-UF football game I attended with my father. December 20th, an amazing birthday celebration and bluegrass show at Diesel that I attended. December 27th, the epic Falcons-Saints game that I attended.

8. What was your biggest achievement of this year?
Working really hard, becoming a key member of my team again, and being rewarded by elevation to Of Counsel and a nice raise. A close second would be finally cutting a toxic situation out of my life for good.

9. What was your biggest failure?
I really tried to recapture my 2009 success on Weight Watchers and using the treadmill, and I just couldn't find the time. I have to find a way to make this a part of my life again next year.

10. Did you suffer illness or injury?
I was sick once or twice early in the year and in October with colds. I had UTIs in April and December. Nothing major, though, thank God.

11. What was the best thing you bought?
My new iPad. Easily. A customized Falcons jersey that brought someone special to me
great joy was a close second.

12. Whose behavior merited celebration?
Far too many friends to list here...and I have to give major props to my boss, who forced the firm to make me Of Counsel mid-year when they initially had told her I'd have to wait until sometime in January. She steamrolled it through like a champ.

13. Whose behavior made you appalled and depressed?
More Republicans than I care to count. A coworker who nearly made someone quit with particularly vitriolic criticism. The voters of Georgia.

14. Where did most of your money go?
Mortgage, car payment, veterinarian bills, and traveling. I spent a LOT of money on my two gambling trips this year. (But worth it.)

15. What did you get really, really, really excited about?
Vegas, and the Braves, and the Falcons, and FSU football. And a boy...sometimes.

16. What song will always remind you of 2010?
I'm not sure I can associate a song with this year. Maybe the gospel choir singing in Samuel L. Jackson's "Rise Up" commercials for the Falcons?

17. Compared to this time last year, are you: a) happier or sadder? b) thinner or fatter? c) richer or poorer?
a) Happier, not that I was unhappy at this time last year. But things all feel on the right track for the most part. Kitty health issues are the only thing worse than this time last year.
b) Exactly the same.
c) Richer, but not by much.

18. What do you wish you’d done more of?
Exercise, definitely. And cooking at home. And saving money. And snuggling my kitty, which I now feel like I will never have had enough of.

19. What do you wish you’d done less of?
Eating and drinking. And spending. Moderation is the theme in 2011.

20. How did you spend Christmas?
We had my entire family over for dinner in the early afternoon, with me and my mother cooking all morning to prepare. Then everyone left because of the snow, and we watched Star Wars together and just basked in the beauty of my first White Christmas ever.

21. Did you fall in love in 2010?
No. I'm scared to fall in love right now.

22. What was your favorite TV program?
Dexter, probably. Mad Men, True Blood, Project Runway and Chuck are up there too. The Walking Dead was my favorite new show.

23. Do you hate anyone now that you didn’t hate this time last year?
Hate is the wrong word. Reached a place of lacking in any emotion towards...yeah, that.

24. What was the best book you read?
Probably the Blind Side. I only read 3 or 4 books this year.

25. What was your greatest musical discovery?
Langhorne Slim. I'd heard his stuff before, but his live show at the Earl back in the fall was a total revelation. Also, exposure to older Neko Case was an amazing gift to my life this year.

26. What did you want and get?
Laid. :) Also, travel with good friends, an iPad, a new HDTV for the guest room. And more time with my grandparents even though it was touch and go for awhile.

27. What did you want and not get?
Relationshiped-up. :( Also, the benches in my front porch to finally be built, a clean bill of health for my cat, and most frustratingly...closure.

28. What was your favorite film of 2010?
I cannot even remember what movies I saw this year. Crazy Heart? That was probably my favorite.

29. What did you do on your birthday, and how old were you?
I was 35. I went to dinner with my friend Jen, then went and got a little crazy at the bar with a boy.

30. What one thing would have made your year immeasurably more satisfying?
To have gotten back into regular exercise and lost another 20 pounds. I felt more accomplishment from that one feat last year than I did from making Of Counsel this year.

31. How would you describe your personal fashion concept of 2010?
Same as it ever was. When I like it, I know it.

32. What kept you sane?
Alcohol and good friends.

33. What political issue stirred you the most?
I cannot even think about politics this year, it has been so disheartening to watch everything fall apart.

34. Who did you miss?
My best friend Samantha.

35. Who was the best new person you met?
Paul. (Technically we first met in late 2009 but just once, the rest was all this year.)

36. Tell us a valuable life lesson you learned in 2010.
There is really so little that I absolutely cannot do.

37. Quote a song lyric that sums up your year.
From Guster's "Do You Love Me":
I wanna wake you from your dream
I wanna know who you're talking to
when you're singing in your sleep
I wanna find out what it means
This song has been stuck in my head for weeks.

Jukebox Wars

For the last month or so, ATL Malcontent has been counting down the 10 most annoying songs ever. So far, his list includes:

#10: Bush--Glycerine

#9: John Denver--Thank God I'm a Country Boy

#8: Darryl Worley--Have You Forgotten?

#7: Genesis--Tonight, Tonight, Tonight

#6: The Rembrandts--I'll Be There For You (aka the theme from "Friends")

#5: Soundgarden--Black Hole Sun

#4: Five for Fighting--100 Years

#3: Hootie and the Blowfish--Only Wanna Be With You

#2: Kenny Loggins--(Highway to the) Danger Zone

#1: R. Kelly--I Believe I Can Fly

I can't really disagree with any of the choices on the list, though I do generally like Soundgarden and also find Danger Zone to be hilarious in its awfulness. But then, I tend to find really awful music pretty funny overall.

Reading this list reminded me of an old bar trick some friends and I used to engage in about a year ago (maybe longer...the days in bars all blend together.) We never gave it a name, but I hereby christen it Jukebox Wars. I was talking about this just this past Friday night, after some friends were deliberately playing awful music in a nearly-empty Diesel, which was led off with the hilariously bad "Into the Night" by Benny Mardones. (Any song that begins with "She's just 16 years old / leave her alone they say" is gonna be uncomfortably awful by definition!)

Jukebox Wars started when the bartenders at Moe's and Joe's were bored and annoyed one Saturday night and started deliberately playing bad music in the hope of annoying patrons. They took turns seeing how bad they could make the songs, which as I drunkenly recall included the Spice Girls, New Kids on the Block, Chumbawumba, and that "Who Let the Dogs Out" song. Undaunted, my friends and I began doing battle to top their selections. For whatever $5 will buy in terms of download credits on the jukebox, we would pick our slate of the worst songs in the world. We quickly discovered that our lists were largely generational--the bartenders' songs were heavily from the 90's, mine were largely from the late 70's or 80's, and others' were from the 60's or 70's. Many of those in that last category I had never heard before, so I didn't have the same negative visceral reaction that others in the bar often did (such as when I was beaten with the selection "Season in the Sun." Dammit.)

I can't remember all 10 of the terrible songs I played, but I can remember most. They included Dan Hill's "Sometimes When We Touch," Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby," Taylor Dayne's "Love Will Lead You Back," Starship's "Sara" (a personal most-hated song for reasons I have described elsewhere...if you play it for me I will punch you in the throat), Alabama's "When We Make Love," and that goddamned "Breakfast at Tiffany's" song that makes me want to gouge out eyeballs. Just pulling together those links has made me think I should have won this damn battle...that's how bad those songs are! But alas, based upon the votes of others in the bar, I was defeated by even worse songs.

I also can't remember all the terrible songs that the person who beat me played, but I do remember some of the submissions of others included Muskrat Love, We Built This City, the Pina Colada song (which I unabashedly love), and Baby I'm a Want You.

The one song that both I and my competitor wanted to include, but couldn't because it was not available for download on that jukebox, was Convoy. This is quite simply the worst song of all time--listen and see for yourself! If ATL Malcontent doesn't make this #1 on his list I will be so disappointed.

So, this makes me wonder...what are your all-time top 10 worst songs ever? Feel free to leave a list in the comments. (Nothing that I have listed here is off-limits simply because I included it.)

A Threat or a Promise? McBerry's Libel Claims

Recently the word "libel" has been thrown around a lot in the Georgia blogosophere in connection with one fringe gubernatorial candidate who allegedly had a past predilection for the young ladies. Very young ladies.

Ray McBerry was a teacher in the late 1990's when he got to know a student at his school fairly well. She moved on to a different high school, and to hear her and her parents tell it, she began a romantic relationship with McBerry that led to him leaving teaching and having a judge order him to stay away from the girl. To hear him tell it, he was just counseling the girl after her parents made her end an interracial relationship, and her parents got the wrong idea and now they are all defaming* him all over Georgia.

Meanwhile, a few weeks before the girl and her parents' story hit the pages of "respectable" media, the SWGA Politics blog threw its skirt over its head and called McBerry a child molester. When informed that the law in Georgia does not apply to victims over the age of 16, and that this girl was 16 when the alleged sexual contact began, the blogger in question basically said he didn't care because McBerry was a teacher and teacher-student sex is still some form of crime, even if not meeting the legal elements of child molestation. (Side note: it's unclear whether this is even accurate, since the girl claimed the sexual contact only occurred once McBerry was no longer her teacher, as she had moved to a different school.)

McBerry threw a hissy fit of his own the other day, and started making threats of litigation against online outlets and individuals. Some wondered if one target for a libel suit might be SWGA Politics itself. But despite all his bluster, I would bet a cool Benjamin that McBerry never files any sort of defamation lawsuit against anyone. Why?

1) Defamation suits are expensive, time-consuming, and generally not taken on contingency by the attorneys who file them. This means McBerry would probably have to pay a lawyer by the hour to file the lawsuit, unless he intended to proceed pro se (in which case he might as well not even bother). McBerry hasn't exactly been lighting up the fundraising in his gubernatorial race, and I don't think he's rolling in the dough personally either. Even litigating on the cheap is likely to cost upwards of $25K to take such a case to trial, which brings us to the next problem...

2) The targets of such a suit, for the most part, are judgment-proof or close to it. What assets do either the girl and her family, or the proprietors of SWGA Politics, really have to satisfy any judgment rendered against them? Lawyers are especially wary of taking such cases on contingency when they strongly suspect at most their clients will obtain a moral victory, but no real cash. Why spend $25K to win an apology and a judgment that allows you to garnish someone's wages until the end of time? Now, any media outlets that report the allegedly defamatory statements could also be sued, and would not be judgment proof by any means, but the standards for a libel suit against a newspaper are higher and they have more defenses. They also have more and better lawyers who have defended cases like this before. Does McBerry want to take on the AJC and the big firms that represent it? I doubt it.

3) Truth is a defense in defamation cases. I make no allegations about McBerry's veracity or the propriety of his past behavior. (See, I know how to stay on the good side of the defamation line!) But if the girl and her family have evidence to support their allegations, which it sounds like they might based upon the apology letter they have already produced, then they could defeat any defamation action simply by showing that McBerry really did the things they claimed he did. Even if they don't have evidence, if a jury were to determine that the girl and her parents were telling the truth, McBerry would lose. And on the way to presenting evidence of truth or falsity to a jury, the parties would have to engage in embarassing discovery in the form of depositions of those McBerry or the girl talked to about their relationship, people who may have found them in compromising positions, etc. Not exactly the sort of character evidence an aspiring politician wants to see put down on the public record, even if he did eventually prevail at trial.

4) Potentially, McBerry would have to show "actual malice"--knowledge the story is false, or reckless disregard for its truth or falsity--in order to prevail. There is little law out there on the question of whether blogs enjoy the same first amendment protections as "traditional press" like newspapers in defamation cases, so this one is sort of a guess. The Supreme Court famously ruled in New York Times v. Sullivan that in order for a newspaper to have libeled a public figure, it must have shown actual malice--meaning either the newspaper knew a published statement was untrue or showed a reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. McBerry is arguably a public figure by virtue of qualifying as a candidate for Governor. The question is whether the blogs that published this story showed reckless disregard for the truth of the story or knew it was false. Now, as discussed briefly above, if the story is true then McBerry has no case. And if the bloggers who published the allegedly defamatory statements are protected by Sullivan to the same extent the AJC and other traditional media outlets are protected, then McBerry would need to prove that they showed a willful disregard for the truth of this story, which is a high burden and highly subjective because it relies upon the knowledge and intentions of the publisher of the libel.

I could write an entire series of posts on whether Sullivan applies to bloggers, and whether it should, but that is a post for another day when I have more free time. For now, if we assume it applies, then it makes a tough case to prove nearly impossible.

And that, my 3 readers, is why Ray McBerry's threats to sue will never be more than threats.

* I prefer to use the term "defamation" to cover both libel and slander, because people often erroneously use the two terms interchangeably and having one term that covers both is less confusing. Generally speaking, libel is written while slander is spoken, though the expanding definition of publication has led to libel also governing internet postings and TV/radio broadcasts. In the instant situation, the news stories containing the statements of the girl and parents about McBerry would be governed by libel laws, while the girl and her parents' actual spoken statements about McBerry would be governed by slander laws. However, because this gets confusing in a situation where slander is published in a potentially libelous news story, I'll just use defamation for both. The only real differences are that libel requires "publication" of the defamatory statement, slander requires actual damage to reputation through the spoken defamation, and there are some libel protections for press reports involving public figures as described above.

What happens when you ignore "objective reality"

You may recall my little spat with Atlanta Progressive News' Matthew Cardinale last November over a misleading story he wrote about Kasim Reed's representation of the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain. In the story, Cardinale implied that Reed currently represented Cracker Barrel (my review of the docket showed he withdrew from the case in 2001 when he was still a young associate) and that he was defending Cracker Barrel against race discrimination claims brought by the NAACP (in fact it was a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the NAACP filed an amicus brief). It took me all of half an hour reviewing the federal court's PACER docket to find that his story was full of misleading implications and omitted context. So, I called him a lazy biased fucking douchebag, which apparently offended his delicate sensibilities.

But Cardinale is SO committed to his irresponsibly slanted form of yellow journalism masquerading as progressive thought that he just fired one of APN's writers for insisting on a pursuit of "objective reality" (which apparently is pretty unwelcome at APN.) Ignoring objective reality in favor of a progressive slant is what allows Cardinale to write a story all about how Cracker Barrel is a big old racist company and Kasim Reed defends them in cases brought by the NAACP, while leaving out that this one case happened 9 years ago, had nothing to do with allegations of race discrimination, and the NAACP only played a tangential role. It also means that the stories coming out of APN must be viewed with an extremely critical eye, because there is no telling what facts have been emphasized or omitted depending on whether they do or do not support Cardinale's progressive vision.

I've long had concerns about APN's ethical integrity, only some of which I have publicly voiced on this blog. (Having friends in politics and journalism, and not wanting to throw stones without being sure *I* had a fully-sourced understanding of "objective reality" has caused me to hold my tongue when perhaps I shouldn't have.) The fact that Cardinale would and did fire a reporter for wanting to find the truth in a story does nothing to ease my concerns. Instead, it tells me exactly how it was possible to justify to himself the story he decided to tell about Kasim Reed last fall. Take any "news" reported by APN from this point forward with a massive heaping dose of salt...for we now know the rules of the game they are playing, and "objective reality" is not their goal.

And what a decade it was...

Everyone's doing not just year-end lists, but end of the decade lists...and it has me feeling seriously nostalgic for my 24-year-old self. When the clock struck midnight on New Year's Eve 1999, I have no idea where I was (either Boston or Orlando) but I know I was about to graduate from law school and embark into real adult life for the first time ever. I had a sweet job at a big firm lined up, a boyfriend who'd asked me to marry him, and the whole world was ahead of me.

Of course, a funny thing happened on the way to perfect bliss. I got laid off from that law firm job 2 years later, I broke up with the boyfriend/fiance after finally realizing it was never going to work, and I spent months unemployed and terrified I had lost everything. And then I spent years building back to the life I wanted and hoped for, first in a small decrepit apartment in the North End where rats ran by my bedroom window every night, then getting a job at a small firm making half my former salary and barely scraping by, then on my parents' intuition and some tremendous luck buying a condo in Jamaica Plain. I spent the middle of the 2000's treading water in this way, until I realized I just wasn't going to find what I was looking for in Boston. And even though it was the scariest thing I have ever done, and perhaps the scariest thing I will ever do, I decided to quit my treading water job and leave my little condo in J.P., and move to Georgia to be closer to my family and start a new life.

The last four years have been full of highs and lows, but mostly highs. I arrived with no job, living in a small house in a small town where I only knew my aunt and uncle. I got my current job, which has been great in a lot of ways (and burnout-inducingly awful in others.) I bought my house, which has been great in a lot of ways (and terribly expensive and frustrating in others.) I made a large, wonderful and supportive group of friends that far eclipses anything I have experienced in life to this point, and who make me absolutely certain Atlanta is where I was meant to be. I have almost everything I want in life, with the glaring exception of a partner to travel through it with me.

But, if you had asked me back in 1999 where I expected to be in a decade, I would have assumed it was probably right about here. I would be at a big law firm trying to decide whether to bury myself in work and push to make shareholder, or seek greener less stressful pastures in an in-house position, government work or academia. I would be living in a house that I love, with a cat, but not married or with any children. (Somehow I knew those things would always be difficult to come by for me.) I would be closer to my family as they get older and as we need each other more. And I would be mostly happy, but still never satisfied, and always striving for more.

As I sit here and think about where I want to be on the stroke of midnight on December 31st, 2019, I am not sure what to hope for or expect. I will be 44. I would love to believe I will be a happy wife and doting mother by then, but know it becomes less likely with every passing day. I hope I will be firmly ensconced in a legal career that provides at least a little prosperity and prestige AND a liveable schedule. I hope I will have renovated my house into what I envision it to be, or sold it and moved to a new project I can keep working on. I hope I will still have this wonderful circle of friends who I adore and draw so much strength and joy from. I hope I will find time and money to enjoy life a little bit more than I currently manage to squeeze in. And I hope I will finally find peace and contentment so I can finally plant roots and be happy where I'm at, rather than always searching for something more. But, I know myself too well, and this last one is least likely of all. The road goes on forever.

Motion to Scrap that whole "trial" brouhaha so we can watch some football

I'd have titled this post "Only in Alabama," but apparently something similar has happened in Louisiana a time or two as well. Lawyers in a case currently set to begin trial on January 4, 2010 in Jefferson County, Alabama have filed a Motion for Continuance, asking the Court to postpone the trial of the case until February or later so that they can attend the national championship game in Pasadena to cheer on their beloved Crimson Tide.

In addition to their own plans to attend the game, the movants cited as additional grounds that many of the witnesses will also be attending the game. They also argued that any Jefferson County jury pool is going to be too distracted with the impending national championship game to actually pay attention to trial anyhow, perhaps resulting in prejudice to the parties. (Hey, I didn't write these shitty arguments, I just paraphrased them for you.)

Apparently their opposing counsel are Auburn fans, however, so they refused to consent to a continuance. Luckily for the movants, the judge is also of the crimson persuasion and is almost certainly going to grant the request.

I have to say, even if Florida State had magically made it back to the national championship game this year, if I were set for trial on the Monday before the game I would never in my wildest dreams move for a continuance just so I could attend the game. And never in my wildest dreams would I expect a judge would actually grant this sort of thing. But maybe that's why I don't litigate in Jefferson County, Alabama...

NY, NY a wonderful town

I'm leaving tonight for three days in New York for a conference, and it couldn't come at a better time. Just yesterday I was lamenting on the phone to someone that I really didn't want to go, because I hate the networkingfest that these conferences inevitably turn into. We spend all day in presentations that we don't pay attention to, and then all night drinking and eating with potential clients. I come home more exhausted than when I left, with fewer billable hours and a few extra pounds.

BUT, since others have chosen today as a good day to blow up the Georgia GOP, and since I have serious reservations about the methodology being utilized, I'm quite happy to have an excuse to be off the grid until this mess blows over. Why do I have reservations, you ask? Because I have always been bothered by the media utilizing the reporting of rumors on blogs or the internet as sufficient basis to run with a story they otherwise couldn't run with because they lack sufficient independent verification and sourcing. No sooner did Erick Erickson put up his post telling all the tales that everyone wanted to hear about various Georgia Republican lawmakers, and he was saying on Twitter that a reporter told him that was giving the media the cover to run with the stories they'd been holding back. I'm willing to bet a shiny nickle those stories won't be about the underlying allegations themselves but will instead be couched in terms of "there are rumors on the internets that..." This sort of backdooring of otherwise unpublishable rumors without independent verification makes me sick. It's not even the story itself that bothers me, it's the way in which it is being brought to light suddenly now, after months of people holding back because nobody could nail down first-hand verification.

But, I have already lost the battle on that one, so I might as well head out of town for a few days to let the brouhaha blow over. Since my friend Samantha has brought me back burritos from Anna's Taqueria that I will get from her when I see her tonight, I can't complain too much. That is already guaranteed to make for a wonderful week. Maybe it will even snow a little, just so I can really get into the Christmas spirit. A girl can hope.

Reminder: Virtual Candidate Forum Today

As I posted about on Friday, the Committee for a Better Atlanta's Virtual Candidate Forum is today from 4:30 to 7:00pm. Already, some great questions have been posted on CfaBA's website, and I am sure even better questions will be asked during the live forum itself.

Here is the schedule of candidate question sessions, if you want to ask questions or just see what each has to say:

4:30 pm Kasim Reed (Mayor)
4:45 pm Amir Faroki (City Council Post 2 At-Large)
5:00 pm Clair Muller(City Council President)
5:15 pm Ceasar Mitchell (City Council President)
5:30 pm Mary Norwood (Mayor)
5:45 pm Liz Coyle (City Council District 6)
6:00 pm Alex Wan (City Council District 6)
6:15 pm Aaron Watson (City Council Post 2 At-Large)

Depending on how much I get to participate and whether it ends up as interesting as I'm hoping for, I may have a summary up later tonight for those of you who can't make it.

Questions for the Candidates?

In what I can only assume was a complete and total mistake (calling me a "prominent blogger" makes me question your judgment!), the Committee for a Better Atlanta has invited me to participate in a Virtual Mayoral Forum next Tuesday from 4:30 to 7pm. The event will be hosted live on CBA’s online community at http://www.betteratlanta.org/. I have been asked to pass this information on to you, my 12 readers, so that you can submit questions for Norwood and Reed during the forum. If you aren't comfortable submitting your own questions and you want me to ask the candidates something, put it in the comments, or email me at sarawara@gmail.com if you are not comfortable posting your question for all to see.

In addition, you should tune in on Tuesday, since this really is a fairly cool concept and probably will be a little more interesting than the standard televised debates.

The Committee for a Better Atlanta will also be allowing us to pose questions to the City Council candidates in the various races that have gone to runoff--Clair Muller vs. Ceasar Mitchell for the Council President slot, Amir Farokhi vs. Aaron Watson for At Large Post 2, and Alex Wan vs. Liz Coyle for District 6. So please pass along questions for them, if you have them, as well.

If nothing else, it is nice that even local politics are embracing the power and opportunities of social media. I still am surprised I was included in this because I feel like a blogging peon, but want to give everyone the opportunity to participate. So have at it!

Let a Lawyer Show You How It's Done

(This post will be a refutation of the factual assertions made by Atlanta Progressive News in two articles about Kasim Reed's representation of corporate interests in employment litigation. The background stories are here and here. I have pulled up the very same PACER dockets from which these stories were allegedly researched, except I bothered to actually read them all the way through and understand what they mean. In a separate post, I will share my strong feelings as to why it is complete garbage to make a political issue out of who a lawyer has represented.)

Dear Atlanta Progressive "News," if you weren't such lazy, biased f*cking douchebags, this is what you would have reported about Kasim Reed's representation of various corporations in employment litigation:

Kasim Reed's background

Reed was admitted to the bar in 1995. He initially joined the Atlanta law firm of Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, where he was an associate in their employment litigation department. In that role, he represented a variety of corporations in cases brought against them alleging various types of employment discrimination, unfair employment practices, and the usual sorts of claims that employment litigators are called upon to defend. After a few years at Paul Hastings, Reed left for Holland & Knight, where he continued to practice employment litigation. It is not clear if he is still a current H&K employee, or if he is either on leave of absence or has left the firm to concentrate on his mayoral race. My guess is that he will have left H&K for good if he is elected.

First, APN tried to make an issue out of Reed's biography no longer appearing on the H&K website:

According to a 2006 article from the Black Commentator, the job description for Mr. Reed published on Holland & Knight's website read: "M. Kasim Reed represents employers in employment law matters, including sex, age and disability discrimination, civil rights litigation, and contract-related disputes… He has extensive experience representing employers before various state and federal courts, as well as before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other federal and state administrative agencies."

Incidentally, since that time all references for Reed have been apparently removed from Holland & Knight's website, which is unusual, especially when a firm should be proud to have a former employee running for Mayor of Atlanta.

It is not rare at all for law firms to remove the biographies of attorneys from their websites. It happens whenever an attorney leaves a firm. It happens if an attorney goes on leave. In fact, contrary to APN's assumption that H&K would want the good press of a former attorney made good on their site, I have never heard of a big firm keeping a biography of an attorney who has left the firm on their website. This argument by APN is just stupid.

Reed's Representation of Cracker Barrel

APN then attempts to stir up a storm of controversy over Reed's representation of the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain in employment litigation. As many people know, Cracker Barrel was sued for discrimination in a variety of contexts and venues over the last few decades, and did not have the greatest run of PR during that time period. APN dedicated almost an entire article to community activists and well known (and paid) Norwood supporters acting shocked that Reed would dare represent Cracker Barrel when everyone knows they're racist bad guys. And APN is correct that Reed is listed as an attorney for Cracker Barrel in the Serena McDermott case, filed in 1999. But here's the rest of the story, as deduced from the very same PACER federal court docket information that APN claims to have reviewed:

Reed was counsel of record from 1999-2001 for Cracker Barrel, in Fair Labor Standards Act case brought by a class of employees. Though the case was brought by the NAACP, and though Cracker Barrel has been sued before for discrimination, the Fair Labor Standards Act is not a race discrimination statute. The lawsuit in question sought payment of unpaid and overtime wages, based upon allegations that the employees were made to work "off the clock," putting in more hours than they actually were compensated for and accruing time that was not compensated as overtime.

In other words, Reed did not defend Cracker Barrel in any sort of race discrimination case, or ANY type of discrimination case for that matter. Shame on APN for suggesting otherwise by quoting various individuals in their article to talk about past allegations against Cracker Barrel, without making the distinction between those cases and the one case Reed worked on.

In addition, Reed worked on the McDermott case from 1999-2001. The case continued until 2005, but PACER shows he was terminated from the case on 10/16/01. He was also one of twelve different attorneys who appeared on behalf of Cracker Barrel in the litigation, according to PACER. He was a 5th-7th year associate at the time of his involvement in this case, so it is not fair to suggest that he was lead counsel or necessarily even had a significant role in crafting the defense of Cracker Barrel to this major class action litigation. Attorneys can be added to the docket of a case whenever they appear for purposes of signing a few pleadings, appearing at a deposition or hearing, or to take over temporary responsibility for another attorney. Chances are good in a case of this magnitude that many firm associates were called upon to work on the case at various times, and Reed's role may have been very small. Neither of the two articles contain any followup research by APN to review the actual pleadings in the case to attempt to deduce if Reed was signing pleadings, if he was appearing at hearings or conferences, or if he had any significant involvement in the litigation. (I have not done that yet myself, but may do so if people continue to try and insist that he was lead counsel on this case and that it somehow should matter to his mayoral chances.)

APN also apparently did not contact the Reed campaign and give them a chance to respond to the allegations that Reed defended Cracker Barrel in cases brought by aggrieved workers. (There is no reference in either of the two articles about the Cracker Barrel case that APN sought comment from Reed or his campaign.) Presumably, Reed's campaign would have provided this sort of clarification of the actual scope of his role, however vast or limited, and it would have provided the article with proper context. But proper context does not appear to be what APN was after.

Kasim Reed's Other Employment Litigation Matters

Apart from the Cracker Barrel case, APN also reported about four other employment litigation cases in which Reed was counsel of record. I've checked those dockets as well. In the case in which he represented ATC Healthcare, Reed was counsel for the defendant from 2/13/97 until the case was terimnated in 9/16/98. In the case against The Hayman Company, Reed was counsel for the defendant from 12/11/96 until the case was terminated on 5/27/97. In the case against Parsons Brinckerhoff, Reed was counsel for the defendant from 2/14/96 until the case was terminated on 3/31/98. In each of these cases, the defendants were represented by additional counsel beyond Reed, and he was only a junior or midlevel associate at the time. He was almost certainly assigned to these cases and working under the direction of a partner who actually made the strategic decisions for the direction of the case.

To act like Reed was calling the shots and standing up to defend these companies in these cases when he was probably just a BigLaw minion is either disingenous, or demonstrates complete lack of understanding for life as a BigLaw employee. Since I am a BigLaw employee, in my next post I will explain exactly why it is ridiculous for APN to expect Reed or any other law firm attorney to refuse representation of companies that have been accused of race discrimination or other bad things, and why it is even more ridiculous to hold those past representations while a BigLaw associate against Reed the mayoral candidate today.

Advice to the 1999 me

Inspired by this post at Extraface, I'm thinking what 3 things I would tell myself 10 years ago if I could travel back in time and give some quick advice. I think they would be:

1. Appreciate your 24 year old figure and work harder to keep it:

When I was 24, I was always dieting and unhappy with my body. That's a shame, because when I look back now or showing pictures of myself 10 years ago to people, I realize that I looked damn good. If I had only discovered my inner exercise fiend a little earlier, I might still have that figure. If I had appreciated it more when I had it, I probably would have had the courage to show it off a little bit more than I did while I was in a serious relationship. Only after we finally split up in 2002 and I had to go out on the town again as a single lady did I fully embrace the joys of occasionally tramping it up. I lost so much time! Which brings me to #2...

2. Dump that loser fiance of yours and go have more fun:

In December of 1995 I began dating a man who I would live with for nearly six years. We even technically got engaged in 1999, but we never made any sort of move towards actually planning a wedding. I'm not sure exactly when I realized it wasn't going to work out between us, but I don't think I had a clue by 1999. That was the year that I let a really great opportunity slip by when a guy named Tom who was a law school classmate basically suggested that we dump our loser boyfriend and girlfriend and get together ourselves. I turned him down, and I have regretted it for a decade. Even without that regret, once I did split with the 6 year guy, I had lost so much time in the dating and having fun department! I would have been SUCH a tramp if I had been single for the last half of that six years, instead of a girl with a relatively small number of notches on the bedpost. At the time I would've told you that I loved my fiance and thought we would be together forever; I couldn't imagine life without him. But with the benefit of hindsight 34 year old me could go back to 24 year old me and say "in a couple years you're going to start meeting men who you will love more than you ever loved this dweeb, and more than you ever believed possible. And when you do, you want to be available and ready."

3. Prepare yourself for true adversity, and know that you will make it through intact:

In August of 1999 I had just finished my summer associate position with the firm that I would eventually join after law school. I was high as a kite thinking of all the money I would make, and I didn't see a storm brewing. A year later I would graduate and go off to a firm with no work for us young associates, and then a year after that a national tragedy would cause the economy to go into freefall. I would lose the first real legal job I ever had through no fault of my own and be completely devastated. If I could go back and tell 24 year old me to prepare for that, I would not say to choose a different firm or practice area or anything like that. But I would pass on the knowledge that I would survive and eventually get back to doing what I wanted to do, and would be all the better for having made it through the first real crisis of my life. There were times when it felt like everything had been irretrievably ruined, and I would have benefitted from knowing that it would eventually be okay.

So, what would you tell yourself 10 years ago if you had the chance?

Read this post

There are stories like this all over the country. If you don't have one of your own yet, unfortunately you probably will at some point. This is why people want change, now.

The blueprint

Last night, I did not make it to Rep. Hank Johnson's town hall meeting on Healthcare due to work obligations and reports that a crowd of over 1000 were expected. The actual attendance numbers were likely well north of 1000 based upon on the ground reports, but the event overall turned out to be a mostly respectful discussion rather than the sort of bail-money-necessitating fruforal we worried it would be on Twitter. In fact, I'd dare say after reading the various reports catalogued below that Rep. Johnson may have just laid out the blueprint for other Democrats on how to do this townhall thing the right way.

Here are others' reports from the event:
Griftdrift's official writeup and Gonzo notes
Blog for Democracy's liveblog and next day impressions
Creative Loafing's Andisheh Nouraee gives his take from the madness outside
AJC's account

And here are some fantastic photographs from Josh D. Weiss.

I'm happy to see that Atlanta managed to have a lively discussion without any of the violence or truly scary behavior that has marred other town halls. Way to do our city proud, folks.

Be Heard

By now you have undoubtedly read the stories of Town Hall meetings and other public forums held by Congressmen that have devolved into protests, fights, and chaos. Well, if you want to see what all the fuss is about, you can come to Rep. Hank Johnson's town hall meeting on healthcare tonight:

Monday, August 10 from 7 to 9 p.m.
Georgia Perimeter College Clarkston Campus
Cole Auditorium/FineArtsCenter
555 North Indian Creek Drive
Clarkston, GA 30021

Why would I voluntarily go to such a fruforal, you might be wondering? Because I think it is important for everyone to make their opinions on this important issue known, not just those who are willing to yell the loudest to shut down debate.

We know what the tactics will be in this fight--creating the appearance of overwhelming opposition, relying upon supporters to be too confused or lazy to counter, and by spinning half-truths and outright lies in the media in order to scare people. It is time for those of us who want to see real change to do a little work to get there. I'm standing up and making the effort. Will you?

I love the internet

Earlier this week, the birther folks who believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya thought they had a humdinger of a smoking gun. They received a birth certificate showing that Obama was born in Mombassa, Kenya. It took less than two days for the internet to find the source document from which it was generated, an Australian birth certificate posted online at a geneaology website. Internet sleuths are so badass!

But, the only thing I love better than good sleuthing is parody, so you can imagine my joy and cackling when I discovered that someone has already put up a Kenyan Birth Certificate Generator. I love the internet!

Cheaters Sometimes Win

As a diehard Red Sox fan, I was crushed to read yesterday that both Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz tested positive for banned substances in 2003. Manny wasn't all that surprising given his suspension this season, but Big Papi was a huge blow. Ortiz was the heart and soul of that 2004 team that broke the curse, and now everyone would assume it was fueled by the juice.

Jmac at Beyond the Trestle argues today that it's not really cheating if everyone's doing it. While I get the point he is trying to make, I still think it's despicable and worthy of punishment. I also think that trying to defend this behavior as "well, everyone was doing it" will only make Red Sox fans look like idiots willing to break that curse at any cost. It reminds me of this great Bill Simmons column that he wrote after Manny's bust back in May.

Yes, many of us who prayed we would see the curse broken in our lifetimes would probably gladly say, just like Bill's dad, "I'd do it again!"...even dirty. But we should hate ourselves for thinking that way. Really, does it matter that we "broke" the curse if we had to do it on the backs of guys who had career years under mysterious circumstances and who we now know were potentially still playing on the residue of 2003 juicing? If we found out that the entire team was playing with corked bats for the 2004 season, would we be OK with that too? Even though I love the New England Patriots and don't really believe they only won three Super Bowls because they taped other teams' signals, I still recognize that I can't defend that behavior to the rest of the league's fans. Similarly, I am not about to try and defend a juicer even if he happens to be my favorite current Red Sox player.

And as for the others who will now assert that the two Red Sox titles in this decade are now tainted, all Sox fans can do now is hope that enough information about other users comes out that EVERY title in the steriods era ends up tainted. Then, we can hopefully get baseball and its fans to recognize that we either have to accept that performance enhancing drugs are part of the game and have changed it forever, or get them to commit to cleaning up the game at any cost and start testing players religiously throughout the season. This crisis threatens to ruin not just the relief of Sox fans, but all of baseball if it continues on its present path.

Disgusting

This will be the last and only time this blog links to Peach Pundit.

This is simply disgusting. I refuse to associate myself in any fashion with a race-baiting crazy person or any site that he runs.

It would be nice if the Republican party had the same no-tolerance policy for hateful crazy, but the sad events of the past few weeks have proven otherwise. Given that 28% of them also believe the complete whackjob nonsense about Obama being born outside the U.S., they deserve all the decades of wandering in the wilderness and being forced to pander to a lunatic fringe base that they're about to get.

Anyone who makes excuses for or is willing to tolerate the insanely offensive shit spewed at Peach Pundit today is also on my ignore list. I'm done with you folks.

Defamation by Twitter

It was bound to happen sooner or later: someone casually states on Twitter that a person or a business has done something awful to them, not considering for a second that the person or business might see the tweet and take issue with it. But that person or business does see it, decides it is false and defamatory, and brings a lawsuit because now that tweet is out there for the world to see on the internet. If anything, it is surprising that it has taken this long for the first "Defamation by Twitter" lawsuit to come to light.

A woman in Chicago complained that her property management company apparently believes residents can safely sleep in moldy apartments. The property management company has now sued her because her Twitter feed is public, so in essence she "published" the allegedly defamatory statement about the management company on the internet.

Defamation laws vary by state, but in essence the elements are these:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff
(5. Where the subject of the statement is a public figure such as a politician or celebrity, he or she must also prove "actual malice" on the part of the person making the statement.)

There are several defenses to a defamation action, but the big ones are:

1. Truth of the statement is an absolute defense
2. Privilege: the statement was made in a legal or legislative proceeding
3. Opinion: statements that clearly express opinion as opposed to statements of fact are usually not defamatory, but it must be proven that a person hearing the statement would have appreciated that it was opinion.

For purposes of this case, it is unlikely that the woman who made the allegedly defamatory statement on Twitter can prove that the management company really does believe mold is not harmful to its residents. Thus, she is going to have to show that a reasonable reader of her Twitter feed would have interpreted her tweet as a statement of her opinion rather than fact.

There are two takeaways from this story for everyone who uses Twitter:

1. Consider carefully any derogatory statements that you make on Twitter about another person or entity, and if you don't feel reasonably certain that you can prove them to be true, then be sure to express them clearly as your opinion only.

2. If the management company is successful in this suit, the measure of damages will be tailored to how many people saw the tweet. A private twitter feed would have likely prevented the lawsuit altogether, and for anyone who wants to insulate themselves from legal liability for the things they say on twitter, taking your twitter feed private is probably the smart way to go. However, because this woman has a public feed, the question will be how many followers she has. The more followers who had her allegedly defamatory tweet show up in their feed, the higher the potential damages. This is one time that being popular isn't a positive thing.

Update: a pdf version of the Complaint is available here, courtesy of the Chicago Bar-Tender Blog.

Interestingly, the Complaint alleges that this was defamation per se, which if true would eliminate the need to prove damages because they are legally presumed. Illinois recognizes defamation per se when it falls into the following categories:

1. Accusing someone of committing a crime;
2. Stating someone has a "loathsome communicable disease" (generally this applied to STDs);
3. Stating someone cannot perform or lacks integrity in performing his or her employment duties;
4. Attacking someone's professional ability or reputation; and
5. Accusing someone of adultery or fornication.

Horizon is attempting to use #4, an attack on its professional reputation, as the basis for per se defamation in this case.

Kenya smell the crazy?

Slowly but steadily over the past few weeks, the so-called "birthers" (people who believe Barack Obama was not actually born on U.S. soil and is therefore ineligible for the presidency) have picked up recruits to their cause. Just this week, both CNN's Lou Dobbs and right wing fire breathing radio host Rush Limbaugh signed on to the rumbling hordes demanding proof of citizenship.

But Gawker has a damn good point: even if you believe that the birth certificate that Obama's campaign produced last year was faked or created after the fact, how do you explain the birth announcement in the Honolulu paper that's been available on microfiche for decades?

Regardless, I agree with what Marc Ambinder wrote yesterday. The rise of this movement is more problematic for Republicans than Democrats:

Republicans have to be extra careful. If they give credence to the birthers, they're (not only advancing ignorance but also) betraying the narrowness of their base. If they dismiss this growing movement, they might drive birthers to find more extreme candidates, which will fragment a Republican political coalition.

Check it out

The fine folks over at Blog for Democracy asked me to join their team writing for their /law blog, and today I finally made my first post. (I've had a sick cat for the past week and have been way to stressed out to write much, so I took my sweet time in getting the lay of the land and figuring out how to use Movable Type.) Go check it out.