All the best.
All the best.
Thanks to everyone for the great advice in response to I am a twit ’cause I don’t know whether to twitter–help me! I have decided to use Twitter in the manner suggested by Rebecca Lefler. That is I have linked a Twitter account with this blog platform. If I have done everything correctly, when I post something on this blog a notice should go out via Twitter. I have taken Ryan Killian’s suggestion that I use “@JudgeKopf” to identify myself on Twitter.
I have also considered whether I will generate original tweets or respond to tweets from others. For now, I won’t. There are several reasons for this. However, I will see how things play out. If, after I have some experience, I think that this very “short form” medium is worthwhile for original content or that it would be useful and not too time consuming to respond to others, then I might change my mind. But, for now, don’t expect a tweet from me that is anything other than a WordPress generated announcement of a post (again, assuming I configured the two systems correctly).
You’re advice was generous and helpful. I truly appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge.
PS. I have one additional request for help. If you receive an announcement of this post via Twitter, please let me know by commenting here. That way I will know whether I configured things properly.
Judge Israel Leo Glasser is a long serving senior district judge in the Eastern District of New York. He was awarded the Bronze Star during the Second World War and later served as a law school dean. Among other things, he is known for presiding over the trial of John Gotti.
The judge has written an opinion that reminds district judges like me of the importance of admitting when you are wrong. Judge Glasser has done so in a graceful opinion that makes me extremely jealous of the judge’s ability to write clearly, candidly, and beautifully. Put simply, the opinion represents judging at it best.
After a seven-day bench trial, Judge Glasser was convinced that the doctors at the VA negligently caused a grossly overweight cab driver to die an excruciating death. He awarded the widow $5 million and the three children a total of $900,000.
After the judge heard the post-verdict motion and arguments, he decided that the $5 million award was perfectly correct but that he was wrong to have awarded the children so much money. Judge Glasser reduced the award of $900,000 to $50,000 per child.
The judge explained his error in convincing detail. Then, he wrote the following:
I am conscious of the plea made by Oliver Cromwell to the Church of Scotland in 1650 that Learned Hand believed should be engraved over the portals of every courthouse in the land, viz.: “I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken.” Dillard, The Spirit of Liberty XXIV (1952). I have thought and I was mistaken. The award I made to the children was egregiously excessive and is hereby modified by awarding each child the sum of $50,000.00.
The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary quotes a lawyer who describes Glasser as “a judge’s judge.” I can see why. Thank you, Your Honor, for reminding the rest of us of the singular importance of intellectual honesty to the role of judging.
PS Not that it matters much, but Judge Glasser was born in 1924.
*Ashby Jones, with The Wall Street Journal, has my great thanks for suggesting that I look into this case.
*How Appealing, Friday, August 30, 2013,posted at 01:45 PM by Howard Bashman.
Law professors and federal judges (me in particular, as evidenced by this blog) frequently suffer from the same amusing problem of egotism. Thus, reading Professor Adam Winkler’s pompous lecture of Justice Ginsburg for telling the New York Times that she was not resigning made me smile.
His article in the Daily Beast is entitled Time For Justice Ginsburg to Step Aside to Save Her Legacy. According to his law school profile, Winkler is a “specialist in American constitutional law” at UCLA.
Given the Justice’s clear and firm statement to the Times that I blogged about here, I wonder what Professor Winkler thought he was accomplishing by essentially telling Justice Ginsburg that a UCLA law professor was unwilling to take her “no” for an answer?
I can see Ginsburg now. “Oh, my God, Adam Winkler thinks that if I don’t resign my legacy will be tarnished. Since I’m an old woman, I desperately need the advice and counsel of a 46-year-old ‘specialist in American constitutional law’ from Hollywood. So, let’s whip up a letter to Barry and tell him to line up some smart law professor like Winkler to replace me.” That’s the ticket.
In response to my recent post soliciting advice about whether I should use Twitter in conjunction with this blog, Vince Powers, a really good Nebraska civil trial lawyer, made the following comment and suggestion:
Why not institute a Motion day every week.? Let lawyers practice their craft of persuasion and as sometimes happen, talk about events in the community and in their lives.
Cyber Court is not good for the parties or the lawyers, and I wonder how it is for the judges? While I don’t know for sure but I think trial judges like the interaction with lawyers. Tweeting face to face without smart phones, its all good.
If opposing lawyers actually have to meet now and then, its becomes harder to be rude and obnoxious as opposed to the easy ability to insult in faceless emails and legal papers. As Cyber Court grows, so does the decline in civility. Prosecutors and defense counsel see each fairly often, I bet they they get along much better that the many civil attorneys who just read emails that begin “I will seek sanctions unless….”
Another civil trial lawyer strongly agreed and wrote:
I couldn’t agree more with Vince’s comment above about the benefits that would come about if the court instituted a motion day, or even just scheduled intermittent status conferences so that the practitioners had an opportunity to (a) see each other, and (b) see their Article III judge before the first day of trial. (It also is crazy to me that the Article III judges require the magistrates to handle pretrial conferences; they have no authority to do anything, and an opportunity is lost to work through some critical issues that will now possibly be sprung on the Article III judge for the first time at trial).
In addition to the reasons Vince mentioned above about the value of a motion day, I also think that it would enable the parties to buy into the process more so than is now possible. While there are many sophisticated corporate parties in federal court, there are also many unsophisticated parties who don’t understand the process. It is much easier for them to accept defeat, or a harsh ruling, if they were able to walk into the courtroom, see the judge who is deciding the issue, and see their counsel argue on their behalf. When decisions are made based on papers alone, it is hard for many unsophisticated clients to accept those rulings. And frankly, it is also hard for some of the sophisticated clients to take, when they don’t know if the Article III judge understood the issue, or if a law clerk decided the issue and it received only brief attention from the judge.
I suspect that the inability to actually appear in court, and the inability to see your Article III judge before the first day of trial, is one of the reasons why civil filings have fallen off over the past decade.
No doubt it would take an investment of time from the bench to make this work, but I think it would be a wise investment…
These comments are serious. They deserve a serious response.
I don’t believe a “Motion Day” is practical in the District of Nebraska. Here is the short list of my reasons why I think that is so:
To sum up, we Nebraska Article III judges have a great gig. We are certainly not overworked. But in my opinion we don’t have time to hold “Motion Days” either.
Yesterday, while the lawyers and the jury were out having lunch, I conducted a sentencing in an immigration case. I was able to complete sentencing in a new world record time of about four minutes. It was an immigration case. Since the guy had been in custody for several months, everyone knew the sentence would be time served with no supervised release to follow. That’s essentially what the Guidelines called for. Indeed, the government agreed that such a sentence was appropriate. The defendant apologized but noted he had returned to the US to support his three children who were American citizens. He did so working on a garbage truck. Anyway, ICE will now pick him up, and since he waived a deportation hearing, off he will go across the border on a bus. If I were him, I would quickly return to continue to support my kids. I would dive a little deeper into the shadows, but I would return. The present drill seems pretty useless. But what do I know.