One of the reasons that I became an attorney is that I felt it was (is!) an honorable profession that helps make the world a better place. One of my law professors described my legal education as both a sword & a shield. The shield is so you can defend yourself, or your clients, from wrongs that may be committed against you or them. The sword is so you can go an actively smite wrong doers that may have harmed you (or them), or attempted to do so. I like that idea. While I am a live and let live person by nature, I cannot stomach people who try and take advantage of others. Someone needs to be willing to stand up to the wrong doer.
So, it always saddens me when I hear of lawyers behaving badly. As attorneys, we have ethical obligations to be honest, fair, etc. Because we are officers of the court, and due to the nature of our training, we must adhere to a higher standard. There's little that is very tricky--most of the ethical rules are pretty common sense. Nevertheless, every month there are new reports released of lawyers doing something fundamentally wrong.
The latest I saw (in The Daily Transcript this week) is a law firm that is being sued by Yelp for allegedly using its own employees posing as clients to write positive reviews on Yelp about their own firm. OK, back one step: you've heard of Yelp, right? It is a website that will give you the scoop on good restaurants, doctors, solar panel providers--you name it, Yelp may have a category for it. Moreover, Yelp reviewers (Yelpers?) are normal people who tell you about their experiences, and you get to take their opinion for whatever it is worth. Frankly, some of the reviews are pretty bizarre, but hey--give their opinion whatever weight you think it merits!
Now, if your a law firm, you might think that you'd know better than to write bogus reviews about your own firm, right? Right?
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Something Old
Some of you--my faithful readers!--may remember that almost exactly a year ago I was up to my ears helping defend a man accused of murder. I can't believe it has been a year--it went so quickly!
Oh, the case had all of the drama of a movie, or something you'd see on TV. You may remember from my earlier posts that although we did not get the defendant acquitted, the jury was hung 10-2 in favor of acquittal. I think a very telling thing about that trial was that post-trial, the judge presiding over the case dropped the bail from $750,000 to $30,000, and waived any travel restrictions against the defendant. He was literally free to travel to any state or country he chose.
Now, the defendant has gotten on with his life. Without getting into too many personal details, let's just say that he and his wife are reunited again after his long incarceration, and they are happier then ever. I feel GREAT having played a role in helping end his two-year incarceration over a crime the evidence shows he did not commit.
Nevertheless, the District Attorney has neither refused to drop the charges, nor has she or her office pursued a retrial. This was a cold-case to begin with (1992!), and the DA has a reputation for trying to clean up old cases. However, it is unconscionable to me that in light of the DNA evidence, in light of all the testimony, that the DA should even consider retrying this particular defendant.
Maybe it is time to let this case become history--or else the DA needs a new theory on who actually committed the murder.
Oh, the case had all of the drama of a movie, or something you'd see on TV. You may remember from my earlier posts that although we did not get the defendant acquitted, the jury was hung 10-2 in favor of acquittal. I think a very telling thing about that trial was that post-trial, the judge presiding over the case dropped the bail from $750,000 to $30,000, and waived any travel restrictions against the defendant. He was literally free to travel to any state or country he chose.
Now, the defendant has gotten on with his life. Without getting into too many personal details, let's just say that he and his wife are reunited again after his long incarceration, and they are happier then ever. I feel GREAT having played a role in helping end his two-year incarceration over a crime the evidence shows he did not commit.
Nevertheless, the District Attorney has neither refused to drop the charges, nor has she or her office pursued a retrial. This was a cold-case to begin with (1992!), and the DA has a reputation for trying to clean up old cases. However, it is unconscionable to me that in light of the DNA evidence, in light of all the testimony, that the DA should even consider retrying this particular defendant.
Maybe it is time to let this case become history--or else the DA needs a new theory on who actually committed the murder.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Something New
Six months--how they go by in a flash! Well, I may have taken a break from blogging, but the world is still moving. Happily, today's news indicates we're moving a step forward into the 21st century. The EPA just released NEW proposed rules for carbon limits for NEW power plants. This is good news. These rules would make it extremely difficult to get a new coal-fired plant approved, due to the amount of CO2 released from the burning of coal. Natural gas facilities, and of course renewables (wind, solar, etc) would have a much easier time passing the standards. The new rule caps CO2 emissions at 1100 lbs of CO2 emitted for each megawatt hour of electricity produced.
Why pick on coal? Simply put: coal is responsible for more CO2 emissions than other sources. In 2012, coal fired plants accounted for 18% of the energy consumed nationwide, but were responsible for 31% of energy related carbon emissions.
Anyone who watches television has seen ads for "clean coal technology." (Also known as Carbon Capture and Sequestration, or CCS). Unfortunately, CCS is an idea that hasn't really left the drawing board--yet. The problem with capturing and storing CO2 on a large scale is that it is currently unfeasible for two major reasons. First, from a logistical standpoint we lack the infrastructure to capture, transport, and store, significant amounts of CO2. Further, the energy required to do so negates most of the energy generated in the first place. It makes little economic sense.
Could that change in the future? Certainly. A few new coal-fired plants are being built in the U.S. and Canada that may be able to capitalize on technological advances. Interestingly the coal industry that promotes clean coal technology is fighting the new EPA rules--because even the coal industry cannot say if these new plants will actually be successful.
The EPA is doing what it can to limit the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and it is going after one of the biggest sources of CO2 with these new regulations. The next step will be tightening the regulations on existing power plants, especially the handful of oldest, dirtiest plants that are responsible for such a disproportionate amount of the CO2 emitted in the US.
Why pick on coal? Simply put: coal is responsible for more CO2 emissions than other sources. In 2012, coal fired plants accounted for 18% of the energy consumed nationwide, but were responsible for 31% of energy related carbon emissions.
Anyone who watches television has seen ads for "clean coal technology." (Also known as Carbon Capture and Sequestration, or CCS). Unfortunately, CCS is an idea that hasn't really left the drawing board--yet. The problem with capturing and storing CO2 on a large scale is that it is currently unfeasible for two major reasons. First, from a logistical standpoint we lack the infrastructure to capture, transport, and store, significant amounts of CO2. Further, the energy required to do so negates most of the energy generated in the first place. It makes little economic sense.
Could that change in the future? Certainly. A few new coal-fired plants are being built in the U.S. and Canada that may be able to capitalize on technological advances. Interestingly the coal industry that promotes clean coal technology is fighting the new EPA rules--because even the coal industry cannot say if these new plants will actually be successful.
The EPA is doing what it can to limit the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and it is going after one of the biggest sources of CO2 with these new regulations. The next step will be tightening the regulations on existing power plants, especially the handful of oldest, dirtiest plants that are responsible for such a disproportionate amount of the CO2 emitted in the US.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)