Monday, February 2, 2026
Happy Groundhog's Day for those of you who celebrate
Everyone knows today is Groundhog's Day. Not as many will also know that today is Candlemas, the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus, and the absolute, final end of the Christmas Season.
After today, if your Christmas decorations are still up, you will have earned the stink eye you get from your neighbors and/or the HOA.
On the other hand, it's not quite the end of the Holiday Season. After all, the Super Bowl isn't until Sunday... and we still have Lincoln's Birthday, Presidents' Day, and Casimir Pulaski Day to look forward to.
I don't pretend to know which rudely awakened rodent is the better prognosticator. But I can, and do, predict -- with absolute certitude and overwhelming sadness -- that those of us who live in Illinois must endure six more weeks of political commercials. The primary -- and also the Feast of St. Patrick -- is six weeks from tomorrow. Not even the promise of Casimir Pulaski Day can make six more weeks of political commercials tolerable....
Wednesday, October 4, 2023
Natural gas stove ban would be great... if only it actually slowed consumption of natural gas
I'm not Andy Rooney, but I'm feeling cantankerous and curmudgeonly these days and, like the late Mr. Rooney, I'm not afraid to tell you about it.
This item on 'X', the site formerly known as Twitter, caught my eye the other day. I reposted it, in fact:
Effective ban on natural gas in new buildings on Johnson's to-do list https://t.co/7oVvU1hOXW
— Crain's Chicago Business (@CrainsChicago) September 28, 2023
I remember way back -- a couple of months ago at least -- when talk of progressives coming for our gas stoves was dismissed as another manifestation of reactionary paranoia. But don't worry: I'm not going in that direction....
Although it would be nice if we could consult back issues of major newspapers on some objective, third-party website, where we could track down and resurrect the assurances in this regard that were provided by so many worthy pundits. Something like what Nexus used to be... and is no more. I wrote a while back (in my long-winded, slow to the point, but unfailingly polite way) about how the removal of content from Nexus threatens all of us -- but this post is not about my Orwellian anxieties either.
Instead, let us stipulate, after the intellectual fashion of this era, Burning Fossil Fuels Bad, Electricity Good.
(Ideas more complex than this tend to give people headaches or at least hurt peoples' feelings.)
And, if we just accept this stipulation, we don't have to pretend that we buy the 'safety' justification for a natural gas ban. Nobody died when functioning gas appliances had pilot lights, and most gas appliances, and certainly all gas stoves, haven't had pilot lights for about a generation. (We can discount the occasional gas explosion -- otherwise you'd have to start toting up how many die from electric appliances that short circuit.) Besides, our pretexts are always good; it is only their pretexts that are bad.
So, we're all on board now, smug and secure in our righteousness... only... well... it's just... there was this other thing on my desk... and I've been trying to figure out how to reconcile this with our cause:
The company that provides my electricity is required to send me a disclosure every so often, letting me know how my electricity is produced. This is the most recent disclosure.
It has a lovely pie chart. Lovely, that is, until you see that the biggest single slice of the pie is natural gas. Forty two percent (42 really is the ultimate answer, isn't it?) of my nice, clean electricity comes from burning natural gas.
Another third comes from nuclear energy -- and we're all against that, aren't we? -- and still another 18% comes from burning coal.
I understand if you need to sit down for a few moments at this point.
Now, it would be great if we could get all our electricity from wind or solar power... I've got family in Florida that has solar panels on their roof generating so much electricity that, even after running the household, charging their two electric cars, and charging their electric golf cart, the household usually has some spare electricity to put into the electrical grid every month.
But the key words in the preceding sentence are "in Florida." The occasional hurricane notwithstanding, they don't call Florida the Sunshine State for nothing. Meanwhile, here in Chicago, there are long stretches where the Sun is not seen. Winter, for example. So my energy disclosure reveals that only 1% of my electricity comes from solar power.
Bummer.
So if I parade my virture by getting rid of my gas-fired stove, my new electric stove will still get 42% of its power from burning natural gas... and still more from nukes and coal besides. Which would be worse, right?
It's almost as if making sound policy in the grown-up world isn't as easy as mouthing the 'correct' slogans -- e.g., Burning Fossil Fuels Bad, Electricity Good. But that can't be right, can it?
Friday, September 29, 2023
The only way I can think of to get my money's worth out of this....
(Thank you.)
It will come as no surprise to most of you that the actual amount owed on said car loan at any given time was something of a moving target. The monthly bill contained a specific payoff amount, but only if you paid that amount on one specific day, and probably at one particular hour, whilst standing on one foot whistling a tune to be named later. The makers of the loan were extremely cautious, lest they lose a single penny of accumulating interest.
I'm not complaining, mind you. I needed the car. I needed the loan to get the car. The dealer sold me the car and arranged for me to get the loan from the car manufacturer. When I took the money, I took all that came with it.
But, finally, after what seemed like a very long time (because it was in fact a very long time), my monthly payment and the payoff amount came within shouting distance of each other. I tried my best to calculate, as near as I was able, the exact amount including the last penny of juice that the lender could squeeze from the loan, and added in another $5 besides, and I put that final payment in the mail.
Yes, Millennials and Zoomers, I am fully cognizant of the fact that I could have much more precisely calculated the exact payoff amount if I'd only paid on line.
I do pay most of my bills that way. But this bill I paid by mail. There's more psychic satisfaction, in my opinion, in putting a check like this in the mail than in clicking a couple of buttons on the keyboard. Anyway, that's a collateral point, at best.
My goal was to pay off the loan with this one final negotiable instrument (look, Millennials and Zoomers, you learned about checks in high school consumer ed, even if you have never written one, and you probably got a refresher when you covered the UCC in law school, so stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about).
I fully understood that the car might yet be re-po'd if I were even a penny short. So I tried to go over the exact amount due. But I also tried to come as close as possible to the exact amount.
And you know what? I succeeded.
When the final check cleared, I was 61¢ ahead.
Pretty good, I thought.
Time went on, and all the required paperwork trickled in confirming that I had actually repaid the loan in full (and 61¢ of then-some), but the overage was not refunded. I did not stress. I did not even care if I got stiffed out of my 61¢ windfall. I was a solo practitioner for the last 20 or so years: I've been stiffed out of lots bigger amounts owed than 61¢. Lots, lots, lots bigger.
I was fine... until I got this:
You are looking at a "prepaid Mastercard" issued by Chrysler Capital, as a part of a program administered by North Lane Technologies, Inc. Pre-loaded, allegedly, with my 61¢. According to the materials to which this card is affixed, if those 61 sweet centavos are not residing physically within the card, they are held at or transferable to Sunrise Banks, N.A.
I've fuzzed out the individually identifying numbers in this picture because I don't want this windfall to fall into the clutches of the Russians. Or the North Koreans.
And, as you can see, all I have to do to tap into this largesse is activate the card and obtain a PIN, either by calling a 1-800 number, visiting the North Lane website (not the bank where the money is waiting), or downloading the North Lane Mobile App.
Because, obviously, one can't be too careful when dealing with these enormous sums.
TikTok seems positively reputable compared to this, doesn't it?
And I haven't even mentioned the $3 monthly fee yet....
Yes, there's a $3 monthly fee that accrues starting in the month following the card's expiration date... you know... if there's anything left on the card after the stated expiration date. Let's see... $3 deducted from a 61¢ balance... I'm a lawyer, so the only math I can do is dividing by three, but I don't think that works very well....
But, OK, assuming that one is willing to sign up for this card -- we'll call it merely registering, of course -- but, either way, necessary, of course, to get the PIN -- allowing all these companies access to one's identifying information, how many places can there be where one can use a debit card with 61¢ on it?
I can just see the happy faces of the cashier and my fellow customers at my local Jewel, were I to pull out this card as the week's groceries are totaled up -- here, let me put the first 61¢ of this on this card right here....
But what really annoys me about this card -- aside from the fact that these 61¢ were brought so tantalizingly close to my grasp, and yet so cruelly kept just beyond -- is that it must have cost a heck of a lot more than 61¢ to deny me that modest sum in this manner.
That, and the obvious fact that someone got paid to come up with this scheme to keep refunds from being paid. Wouldn't it have been a whole lot simpler to just keep the money and not tell anyone? It certainly would have been cheaper to write me a check for the 61¢....
Monday, April 24, 2023
Waiting for a telephone call from an oil change place....
I'm not Andy Rooney, but I'm feeling cantankerous and curmudgeonly these days and, like the late Mr. Rooney, I'm not afraid to tell you about it.
And right now, too, since I'm effectively prevented from doing any of the other things that I am supposed to be doing right now while I wait for a phone call.
The Millennials and Gen Zers are already rolling their eyes at this point: OK, Boomer. Nobody makes phone calls anymore.
But -- let me quickly interject -- I agree with that sentiment. I am indeed in total accord with same. I resorted to a telephone call only as a last result.
All I wanted to do was make an appointment for an oil change for the family vehicle. As a true modern person would, I visited the website of said oil change place for that express purpose.
Admittedly, I used a desktop computer and not my phone. The young people may be asking what's a desktop? In 20 years, or maybe in only 10, that may be a serious inquiry. I hope not, but it may. Right now, however, it's just heckling.
I prefer to see what I am doing, and the larger screen of the desktop affords me a better opportunity for this than does my phone. Also, I can type. Therefore I can fill in the blanks on a website form faster and more efficiently on a desktop than most Millennials or Gen Zers can on their phones, even with their amazing thumbs. My thumb is not nearly so nimble. Consider the desktop as a sort of accommodation.
I have successfully scheduled oil changes on this site previously. On a desktop. Without incident. So (anticipating the follow-up line of heckling here) I did know how to use the site, thank you. I fully expected to repeat my previous accomplishment on this occasion without undue difficulty.
Yet my expectations were not realized.
The website loaded fine and I specified the services I needed with no difficulty. But for some reason, though I could select a date for my appointment, I could not select a time. The drop down menu would not drop down.
I tried clicking around a few different ways. I got out of the site and started again, but ran into the same problem.
But I did not despair. Nor did I yet resort to a phone. The site was not working properly in Chrome, so I tried Firefox instead.
But I ran into the same problem again, and at the exact same spot on the form.
It was only then that I determined to make an actual phone call.
I called the telephone number specific to the location where I hoped to obtain service.
But, of course, that's not where the phone was answered. The company I was trying to deal with has several locations in the Chicago area. Apparently calls directed to any one of these are answered at some central location.
I explained myself to the person answering.
"You are attempting to schedule this appointment for our Niles location, is that right?" she asked.
Yes, I did not say, that is why I dialed the number for the Niles location. I did not say this because this response sounded more snarly than sunny, no matter what reading I gave that line in the privacy of my own head. I realized it might have seemed hostile. I did not mean to seem hostile.
But, now that I knew this was some central location, after confirming my intent to reach the Niles store, I proceeded to explain the website issue. She said she'd have someone look into that right away.
No, I don't really think she'll actually tell anyone about that either.
Anyway, she tried to ring the Niles store while I waited. But, she said apologetically, the manager must be on the phone because there was no answer. She asked for my information, so the manager could call me back when he was free. I dutifully provided it.
And now I'm stuck here waiting for the phone to ring so I can accomplish the two-minute scheduling task that I undertook about two hours ago.
At some point, obviously, I have to go on with my day. But I asked for this phone call... and so, I think, I must be honor-bound to wait some time for the call to be returned.
What were the rules in college? If the teacher failed to show on time, the students were free to leave, but only after waiting a sufficient interval. Was it 10 minutes for an assistant professor and 15 minutes for a full prof?
Well, I've waited one whiny essay for the manager of the oil change place. Surely, that should be reasonable.
Except... well... if he calls and I don't answer... then I have to call back and start the whole process over, don't I?
I hope they get that website fixed soon....
Saturday, January 7, 2023
Robot to provide legal advice in traffic case: Should the guild feel threatened?
Ms. Leffer's article notes that, "DoNotPay is also reticent to disclose case specifics because what they’re doing is likely in violation of courtroom laws and protocol."
Not just "likely," actually; it's a dead-cinch certainty in Illinois and probably in most places. Apparently, though, DoNotPay has found a jurisdiction which allows hearing impaired persons to use phones with Apple AirPods to amplify the proceedings. If Mr. Roboto (that's a Styx reference, not a sexist lapse) ever wanted to be a real lawyer, he might have a hard time with Character and Fitness should these shenanigans come to light. Ms. Leffer's article quotes DoNotPay's CEO, Joshua Browder, as saying the court will "definitely not" be aware of these arrangements -- so the company is setting out to deceive the court.
And, of course, actually whispering what to say in the client's ear would get any human lawyer sanctioned on the spot.
Leffer's article says DoNotPay is also planning a second stunt involving a speeding defendant facing a Zoom trial. "In that instance," she writes, "DoNotPay is weighing the use of a teleprompter vs. a synthetic voice — the latter strategy Browder described as 'highly illegal.'" Actually, neither strategy would be open to a human lawyer. At least more than once. If said lawyer were caught.
So these tests (or "experiments" as Browder calls them) would appear to confer a huge, as well as unfair, advantage for the AI over a similarly-situated human attorney.
But I wonder....
It seems safe to assume that the human test subjects that DoNotPay has recruited for these exercises have been carefully screened; like news anchors or sports broadcasters they would have to relay the AI-provided information seamlessly, without any perceptible delay as new instructions are received. Moreover, these first subjects would be strongly inclined to follow the direction provided by their robot lawyers. (And incentivized to follow that advice, too: DoNotPay promises to pay any fines that may result from adverse determinations.)
Having a direct, albeit surreptitious, audio channel into a typical client's cranium might prove a more mixed blessing for man or machine alike.
But let's put that aside for a moment.
A post by Anugraha Sundaravelu about these "experiments" on Metro.co.uk, claims that Browder's "ultimate goal is to have his app replace lawyers altogether in order to save defendants money" (the DoNotPay website is careful to note, on the other hand, that "DoNotPay is not a law firm and is not licensed to practice law").
But to determine whether non-lawyer robots could really replace living, breathing lawyers, said robots should be subject to the same strictures as the people they would supplant. So -- for a fair test -- no whispering in the defendant's ears. The robot and the defendant can chat outside the courtroom, as people do with their human lawyers, but not inside the courtroom. And certainly not after every question asked.
Real, unscreened clients routinely ignore their human counsel's advice and instructions -- at least until things go south -- at which point the lawyer is usually blamed for failing to provide what he or she has desperately tried to provide right along. Would robots really fare better?
I'd bet against it. And a disembodied AI can not even hunch over and cover its face in frustration as the client torpedoes his or her own case.
For the foreseeable future, at least, lawyers should have no fear of AI-replacements.
Wednesday, December 21, 2022
If it ain't broke, don't replace it -- even if it is avocado
I can't credit the originator of this work, but I tracked this image down this morning on a site called MemeZila.com.
In The Free Press this morning Walter Kirn offers a more literary, and therefore lengthier, take on this fundamental truth. In Kirn's essay, O Holy Crap, the indestructible appliance is a citrus juicer, not a sickly green refrigerator (marketed as "avocado").
But the idea is the same: After introducing us to his immortal juicer (it dates to about 1940, he has determined), Kirn recounts a host of appliances, large and small, all purchased with the best of intentions and often from the very tip-top shelves (Kirn has enjoyed some material success as a novelist) that have wound up consigned to the local landfill, exposed as mere gewgaws and gimcracks, and all too soon. He writes:
It’s important to get to the essayistic part, where I ask what it means when the objects in our lives demoralize us in a blizzard of malfunctions that seem to be hastening by the month. But it’s also important—to me, emotionally—to bury the reader in details of the unceasing material disappointments I’ve faced. Disappointments of the sort we will all be facing en masse in a few days. Merry Christmas!I could also cite several examples of my own seemingly indestructible appliances, surviving long past their freshness date. I won't, of course, because, well, karma. Don't tempt fate; that's my motto.
But I have to admit that the idea of older things lasting longer and working better than their newly-minted, would-be replacements is one that has become increasingly appealing to me as time goes on. I can't imagine why....
Tuesday, April 5, 2022
Admittedly, there have been times when such a motion might have seemed like a good idea
But, as Kevin Underhill reports, in this post on Lowering the Bar, the above motion (since retitled in a more vague and genteel manner by whoever manages the efiling docket for the Missouri court in question) was filed pro se.
Friday, August 13, 2021
I don't think I'll be applying for this position....
I get lots of emails every day, some of which I actually want to see. I've been added to any number of political emailing lists because of the judicial elections stuff I write about here (and, mostly, on page one). Somewhere along the line I started getting emails from Daybook, which purports to list political jobs, not just in Cook County, but across the country and, as seen above, around the world.
The timing of this listing seems less than optimal.
But, no, it's not something that has sat and lingered -- I checked. When I clicked on the link in the email I found out that the job was just posted yesterday:
Somebody should tell those nice folks at the American Embassy in Kabul to turn on CNN or something.
Thursday, August 5, 2021
In which the experienced lawyer provides excuses for not being headhunted
I closed my downtown office early in 2019 and started working from home. Thirteen and one-half months later, the rest of you did this also, albeit involuntarily.
When I closed the downtown office I had a plan – a hope, anyway – at least an aspiration: Free from as much of my monthly overhead as humanly (and contractually) possible, I would be (as I put it then) more “nimble,” better “able to pivot,” and “more readily able” to “respond to any opportunities that may arise.” I would wind down my ‘retail’ practice and try to find some different work – in a bar association, perhaps, or some trade or professional group – some setting where my interest in writing, and my 41 years of litigation experience, concentrated in insurance defense and coverage, might be put to good use.
Instead, 2020 happened.
But, OK, 2020 is over, finally, and most businesses are finally starting to emerge from the shadow of last year’s COVID-19 shutdowns. I don’t think even the now-resurgent Delta variant, or the Delta Plus variant, or even the new Lambda variant is going to shut us down completely again and, besides, I have my own genuine, unforged vaccination card and a variety of face masks that I can wear... somewhere.
But where?
I’ve been on LinkedIn now for close to a decade. I have well over 500 connections, several of whom I’ve actually met. LinkedIn is quite useful for finding out about first-time judicial candidates and some of my kids have told me that they have received contacts from headhunters, finding them through their LinkedIn profiles.
Oddly enough, despite 41 years of experience, I have never found it necessary to fend off headhunters on LinkedIn.
Part of that may have been my own fault. It turns out there’s a setting on LinkedIn where you can discreetly signal your availability for a career change. (Like scent-marking by leopards or ring-tailed lemurs, only more sanitary.) You can even post your CV. I did both of these a few months back... but still no headhunters.
It seems, however, that my, um, experience level isn’t the only problem. There’s a language barrier, too.
I’ve officially been a solo practitioner now for 18 years. The vast majority of my time, before that, was spent in a small firm. As a result, I never learned to speak more than a few words of Corporate. I found the job descriptions in want ads incomprehensible long before LinkedIn came along.
Initially, I didn’t understand this to be a serious problem. But the dangers of my linguistic limitations were made clear to me a few years back when I took a deposition in an insurance coverage case.
Now you ordinarily don’t need or want depositions in coverage cases; that, for me, has always been one of the attractions of that sort of work. But, in this case, after reading the depositions of the eyewitnesses in the underlying case, it became apparent that I would need to ask some questions that had hitherto not been asked.
One of the witnesses was a 20-something with a marketing degree from DePaul. I don’t think he was yet working when he was deposed in the underlying case. So I had no idea what was coming.
While mine was a limited scope deposition, I asked, as I always ask, basic foundation questions. I do this simply to get a “feel” for how the witness handles non-controversial answers, so I can see whether, or how, the witness’s demeanor may change when we move to more contested areas of questioning. Easy stuff – usually – name, age, address, highest level of education, by whom are you employed, what do you do for them.... Every lawyer who has ever taken a deposition does something similar.
Except, in this case, a half hour into the testimony, I still hadn’t penetrated the mystery of what this young man was doing to earn his daily bread. I thought it had something to do with wine and retail stores, but that was all I could figure out. My every attempt at clarification failed utterly. It was too late to call Berlitz. I was drowning in a sea of jargon, but I had to move on.
Fast forward, then, to a few months ago when I tried to tell LinkedIn what sorts of jobs I might be looking for. I waded through the possibilities. I was disappointed that there was no specific category for Eminence Grise. Eventually, I thought that “Researcher” looked promising. Not this kind of Researcher, of course:
But I have picked up some research skills over the years. Not only have I used Westlaw and Lexis, I have even used books. Books in libraries. You can’t write appellate briefs without knowing something about research. So that seemed reasonable.
The other seemingly attractive possibility was “Consultant.” Actually, over the years, I have been asked to consult on cases for other lawyers, sometimes even getting paid for it. And the term “Consultant” implies a certain discreet distance from the stomach-churning battles of day-to-day, retail practice. As a “Consultant” maybe I could employ my experience in setting policy and general direction, perhaps in an educational context. Or so I thought.
From that day to this LinkedIn has sent me at least two emails every day, one with job listings for “Researcher,” the other with listings for “Consultant.”
“Consultant,” I now know, often means “salesman.” In fact, if the emails I’m receiving are any indication, consultant almost always means salesman. The terms are paired together so frequently that they are becoming redundant. Someone should notify the Oxford English Dictionary.
The daily LinkedIn emails have suggested still a third reason why I’ve not been contacted by headhunters, despite my ‘signaling’ availability. In addition to my, er, experience level, and my lack of fluency in Corporate, it seems headhunting firms must be terribly understaffed at the moment. This ad, for example, seeking a “Senior Sales Consultant,” turned out to be for a job as a headhunter. A brief excerpt:
We differ from other firms, by working on localized, specialized, and targeted searches for selective clients, partnering with them to headhunt the best passive talent in the industry.
I wonder whether cold-calling may be involved: Reaching out to find “passive talent” sounds suspiciously like calling people who haven’t lit the available-signal on their LinkedIn profiles....
Headhunting firms may also be looking for new headhunters by soliciting for “Researchers,” too. At least if the ad I recently received for a “User Experience Researcher” is indicative.
From the title, I thought this might be a solicitation for the person that you might talk to if you agreed to stay on the line and answer a brief survey after placing your order for a new refrigerator, or, perhaps, a sandwich (every industry seems to be doing this of late). But I was wrong again. Reading the description, I learned that this staffing (i.e., headhunting) firm was telling applicants:
You will work in the Research & Insights Team to conduct strategic and tactical research to help shape the vision for what the future of selling should be.
I’m going to have forget about looking for work as a researcher. I don’t have the first clue about the difference between “strategic” and “tactical” research.
But it’s an ill wind that blows no good.
I may have found out what that marketing major was doing back when I attempted to depose him.
One of the ads I got recently (for a “Consultant” position) was really for a liquor salesman:
As a Sales Consultant, you will cultivate and grow account relationships to maximize the sales of supplier Wine brands through effective planning, selling execution and communication resulting in the achievement of company and supplier objectives.
If you share our passion for exceeding customer expectations and being on a winning team – and have a car to drive to our customers’ locations – then come join our fun, family-based culture.
I’m not at all certain how one can be passionate about customer expectations; I’ve had clients that drove me crazy but I’m pretty sure that’s not the same thing. Even with my lack of corporate business experience, I’m pretty sure that C-suite jobs don’t generally require applicants to have their own cars to drive to sales calls. Their own yachts, maybe, or airplanes. But not cars. And the successful applicant would be well advised not to have too much “fun” sampling the wares on offer.
Anyway, a lot of the jargon in that ad reminded me of what I think that DePaul marketing major was trying to explain to me back in that coverage case. So I may have learned something from this experience. But I haven’t turned my new-found knowledge into gainful employment... yet.
Thursday, January 7, 2021
Spell-check is one of the greatest inventions of the 20th Century...
...this amusing bit of doggerel nothwithstanding.
However, on a more serious note, this poem illustrates the danger inherent in uncritical reliance on, or unthinking acceptance of, just about anything. Even something as useful as a spell-checker, or the media.
Friday, March 27, 2020
Laughter is the best medicine...
And, if you're not sick, an effective vaccine would do you far more good than even a hearty chuckle.
At the present time, however, we have neither a vaccine to prevent, nor medicine to treat COVID-19. We can merely laugh at our fears.
In this post, therefore, I've collected a number of posts that appeared on Facebook or that I shamelessly stole from others who were aggregating these gags for their own selfish purposes. I can't credit the original creators of this content because I don't know who they were.
But I do know that all of these made me smile. Perhaps some will make you smile as well.
Kind of funny, isn't it, how reality has a way of undermining expectations?
When the schools shut down, this one struck me as 100% true. But, then, my wife, and one of my sons, is a teacher.
But parents are nothing if not resilient...
Fortunately for the future of the world, teachers are not permitted to simply declare victory and retire.
Still, standards and fashions may of necessity be revised on account of the coronavirus shutdowns. Hopefully, however, not to this extent:
When the history of this unhappy time is written, academics will be puzzled by the fact that, to address the threat of a respiratory disease, American consumers hoarded toilet paper.
Yet this is what happened, and the Internet made fun of it accordingly:
We can all hope that this is not an accurate prediction of how a future monument to this time may look:
There are any number of TP-related jokes. Just this morning I saw this one online: Last night someone TPd my house -- and now it's worth $875,000.
I don't think this will work with TP...
...but I believe it is a proven method for starting a potato plant. My ancestors thrived on these... before the blight. If things don't get better soon, we may have to remember how they did it.
It's all too easy to get depressed, watching the news, and reading social media accounts. We are supposed to be hunkering down in our homes -- but first responders and medical personnel aren't allowed to shelter in place. They must brave the storm despite critical shortages of personal protective equipment. Some solutions to ease the PPE shortages will work much better than this, but none will be sillier:
Social distancing is nothing new to me. People have crossed the street to avoid me for years. But it can be hard to handle for some.
Newspaper horoscopes used to be prepared months in advance. If this had really been prepared some months ago, it would have been quite impressive:
Pets were overjoyed when the work from home orders came out.
But even for Man's Best Friend, too much of a good thing can become a problem....
There are very few places that we can go during the lockdown, and the grocery is one of them. This church sign offers shoppers a tip from the Old Testament that is very relevant.
Somebody else was channeling their inner Steven Wright when they posted this gem:
They said a mask and gloves were enough to go to the grocery store.But even though the grocery store is a permitted destination, it is not necessarily a safe place to go. In fact, you are only as safe at the grocery as the store's least careful customer. That's why this one made me laugh so hard. That, and the fact that I am of a certain age and level of nerdiness:
They lied. Everybody else had clothes on.
I initially thought to close this collection with something snarky, like this:
But this seems more appropriate to the seriousness of the times:
If you're supposed to stay home, stay home. And if you can't stay home, because you are keeping the rest of us fed, or keeping us safe, God bless you. Either way, be well.
Thursday, October 31, 2019
What are lawyers afraid of on this snowy Halloween?
And he would not hesitate to regale me with the gory details of whatever horrible horror movie he'd just watched.
I was uninterested. If I ever wanted to get scared, I told him, all I had to do was look at my checkbook. Or browse through the stack of unpaid bills on my desk.
But that's just me. Like Michael Binkley in Berke Breathed's cartoon strip Bloom County, we all have our own well-stocked Closets of Anxieties. Each of our Closets has different monsters within.
Still, it has occurred to me that there are certain types of monsters that commonly lurk under many lawyers' beds or in our respective Closets of Anxieties. Herewith then, for your Halloween fright, my suggested list.
Clients. Don't get me wrong. There are many clients out there who faithfully follow our well-researched, well-intended advice and who don't hesitate to honor our bills upon presentation. God bless these wonderful people. They come into our lives for a while -- weeks, months, even years -- and we help them through what they need help with and then they move on, and we move on, the better for having known each other. Maybe we even exchange Christmas cards.
But I'm not talking about that sort of client.
There are some clients who make up 10% of your practice -- and take up 90% of your time. When they don't follow your good advice, and they never do, it is somehow your fault for letting them. Or confusing them into doing whatever they intended to do in the first place.
There are clients who will challenge every billing entry, fight you over every single one, and yet, somehow, despite this exertion, or perhaps because of it, find themselves too weak to lift a pen and write you a check. Or they develop carpal tunnel. Or they suddenly go on an extended trip -- with no access to checkbooks. They also tend to suffer from amnesia; they often forget their solemn promises to pay the moment the words escape their lying lips.
And they'll withhold vital documents from you -- so you look like an incompetent, or a lying fool, or worse, to the court and opposing counsel when discovery comes due. And then they'll be offended that you're asking them, again, to give you what they should have given you when you first asked. Even if you're asking for the 37th time. And all the while they'll moan, "What am I paying you for if I have to do all this work?" And you'll bite your lip, maybe even drawing blood, trying not to say, "Well, first of all, you're not paying me...."
When you finally cut your losses with these parasites, and withdraw from the case or otherwise discharge the client, you calendar the date that the statute of limitations expires. That date will come, eventually, and go -- but the client will be forever burned in your memory, and take up residence in your personal Closet of Anxieties.
Opposing counsel. Our Supreme Court wants us to be nice to our opposing counsel. The Court even has a Commission that is meant to spur civility and cooperation among counsel. For the most part, the energies of this Commission are not needed, at least in my experience. We are all doing a job for our clients, doing our best. We understand and appreciate that our opponents must do the best for their clients, too. It's not personal. We may not be inclined to sleep together (as lawyers had to do when riding circuit back in Lincoln's day) but we are generally courteous to one another and sometimes even willing, after a long day of professional sparring, to seek out a beaker of nectar together.
But I'm not talking about that sort of opposing counsel.
There are some who graduated from the Scorched Earth School of Law. No civility commission on earth can rein in these terrors who badger, belittle, bother, and berate on every point, no matter how trivial. I recall a case in which I had an opponent who was a partner at a national, silk-stocking (or do you say white shoe?) firm. I was, he told me with a sneer, a mere state court lawyer. Until that moment, of course, I had thought it an honorable profession, but he disabused me of that notion forevermore (/snark).
He and I had to draft a protective order -- and nothing I came up with was good enough. Not nearly good enough. No matter how prolix, no matter how obscure, no matter how impenetrable the prose, no matter how convoluted the syntax, he needed it worse. Finally, after beating me up for a time he deemed sufficient, he favored me with a draft of an order that he deemed suitable. It said in 12 or 15 single-spaced pages the same thing I'd tried to say in three or four paragraphs. So when we next met -- a week or so later -- it was in the judge's conference room -- just before we were to step up and hopefully this time not disappoint her again about our lack of progress in arriving at a protective order -- I gave him back his own document, duly signed and ready for entry. I had surrendered unconditionally, changing not so much as a comma.
He took the sheaf of paper from me with evident disdain and quickly glanced at it. With a contemptuous sneer, he threw it back at me -- it was not nearly good enough, he said, not nearly good enough. (Ultimately, however, the judge thought his document, the document he'd prepared and forgotten about, sufficiently sufficient.)
Or there was this other gentleman, also a big firm lawyer. He had not yet made partner, and probably never would, because he had never tried a case. His sole job was to go to depositions and object.
To everything.
I wasn't in the room when this happened; I was in another office in the suite. But I heard it -- this guy had a booming voice -- and I later saw the transcript:
Q. What is your name?It went downhill from there.
BY MR. [LOUD GUY]: Objection. If you are so ill-prepared as to begin a deposition without even knowing the deponent's name, this deposition will be terminated immediately.
Mr. Loud Guy and the Big Firm Draftsman are in my Closet of Anxieties along with several others. They have counterparts in many attorneys' closets, too.
Judges. You might think that a judicial blogger would not have any judges in his Closet of Anxieties.
But you'd be wrong. As with clients and opposing counsel, most jurists are fundamentally nice people. All judges were lawyers once, and most of them remember what a pain in the neck the practice of law can be.
But some either never knew or seem to have forgotten. There are a few of these in my Closet of Anxieties, too, along with their unrealistic deadlines, usually in cases featuring uncooperative clients. There's a natural force at work here somehow, something like magnetism, only much more malignant.
I could go on... but then you wouldn't need to buy my book, would you?
I think a lot of lawyers have the first draft of that book they've been meaning to write since forever tucked away in their personal Closet of Anxieties. In my Closet I suspect Mr. Loud Guy and the Big Firm Draftsman take turns reading passages from this yet-unwritten book. The one finds everything in it objectionable; the other finds it not good enough, not nearly good enough.
Happy Halloween.
Thursday, May 17, 2018
Blogger rants about Blogger
I'm not Andy Rooney, but I'm feeling cantankerous and curmudgeonly these days and, like the late Mr. Rooney, I'm not afraid to tell you about it.
The immediate cause of my grumpiness is Blogger. Not a blogger, mind you, not some individual spewing his or her opinions into a largely indifferent Internet, but Blogger the blog publishing service that has been a Google brand since 2003. These guys:
Generally, I like Blogger. From 2006 until this afternoon, I've put up 2,667 posts on Page One of this blog and (since 2008) another 459 (this is post #460) here on Page Two. Blogger is in my price range -- free -- and it has been fairly easy to use. Despite the fact that I'm no 'techie', I've been able to insert photos and graphics and embed videos and customize my text -- it's not WordPerfect, mind you, but it's not bad.
However, lately, Blogger has made my blogging life miserable -- and today provides a perfect illustration.
Over the past 10 years I've covered Cook County judicial elections in some detail. I've got some substantial archives built up. Put it this way, if there is news about Cook County judicial candidate Joan Smith, and I want to do a post, the first place I look for background is my own archives. Until recently, I could put Smith's name into the search box on my "All Posts" page -- something you don't see -- and, presto!, I'd have every post I'd ever done in which her name was mentioned.
Recently, though, Blogger messed this function up. Now, searches only go back four years or so. Well, Smith may have run unsuccessfully for a subcircuit seat in 2010; that datum might be relevant to my current post. She might have been appointed to a seat in 2012; I'd have a biographical sketch in the post about her appointment that I could update for my new post. But Blogger's search was no longer producing these results.
The first time I noticed this, after some time-consuming work-arounds, I dutifully pressed the "send feedback" button (see below) that resides in the lower right hand corner of my screen when I create a post.
I sent my feedback -- hey you've made it impossible for me to properly search my archives! -- and resumed my daily activities. I didn't expect to hear back from anybody at Blogger -- and I didn't -- but I harbored some small hope that my concern might be addressed and my search function restored.
It wasn't.
Today I wanted to pull up information about persons receiving appointments -- I knew I had a lot of background in my archives on at least two of the three appointees -- but all the stuff I wanted predated 2014 and so was left out of the search results. Once again, I figured out how to work around my problem -- but it took a lot of time that I shouldn't have had to waste.
Blogger has no customer service number -- no 800 number for bloggers to call -- and I suppose I understand that no one would be eager to volunteer to field calls from little old ladies who can't figure out how to publish videos of their adorable kittens playing with yarn. Or from 'political theorists' living in their mothers' basements who would just accuse the call-taker of being in on the conspiracy anyway.
But an email address might be nice. So there could be a paper trail. And maybe even an eventual response from an actual human.
I did try and peruse the "Official Blogger Blog" to see if I could puzzle something out. I learned more changes are coming -- but I can't tell if they'll create new problems for me -- I don't think so -- but nothing about why the internal search function was rendered useless.
I could push the send feedback button again, of course. But, as Einstein didn't say, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
I probably won't hear from Blogger now either. But my grousing about this has already made me feel better. And maybe someone from Blogger will see this -- something about 'spiders' searching web pages -- and fix the problem. Which is all I really want anyway.
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
The night I bothered Mike Royko at the Billy Goat
I was a big fan of Mike Royko from a very young age. I'll pause here while any Millennials in the audience decide if the unfamiliar name is worth a Google.
(Are we ready to move on, kids?)
It was a rite of passage when, as a first year law student, I could pick up my very own copy of the Daily News on my way to the 4:42 express train, where I’d sit next to my father and nod off, just like nearly everyone else in the car – but never, in my case, before reading Royko’s column.
The Daily News didn’t make it all the way through my first year of law school.
My law school extracurricular was Blackacre, the Loyola Law School newspaper. It was where old Loyola Phoenix editors went to die. I was never the editor of the Phoenix, but I was on the editorial board during my undergraduate years. I would eventually become co-editor of Blackacre along with my old Phoenix colleague, Phil Zukowsky.
Although we would usually slake our thirsts at Pippins or whatever they were calling Streeter’s Tavern in those days, Phil and I would occasionally venture south on, and under, Michigan Avenue to the original Billy Goat Tavern. We’d have a drink or two and read the walls and hope to run into Mike Royko. We didn’t.
Fast forward to the late 1980s: Royko had moved to the Tribune. Zukowsky was well on his way to becoming one of the leading lights of the tax bar of Dayton, Ohio. I was no longer taking express trains; I’d married and bought a house in Norwood Park. I was working in an insurance defense practice. I was only writing motions in those days, or discovery responses. But when Phil came through Chicago on this particular occasion, we decided to revisit the Billy Goat.
I don’t remember who spotted Royko first but, as I recall, Phil had more sense than to bother a legend taking his ease. I didn’t. No doubt a tad more eloquent than usual (after a couple of drinks) I intruded upon the great man and his companion, introducing myself and professing my sincere appreciation for his work.
Mr. Royko was unimpressed.
I think gruff and crusty were his default attitudes. I think my intrusion brought him down a couple of notches from there.
I don’t remember all the exact words used – if he included a profanity or two it was certainly his right, given that I was interrupting his evening – but the one thing I do remember, clearly, was that he called me a “yuppie.”
Yuppie was a fighting word insofar as I was concerned. I live in Chicago, I responded angrily, I have three kids (this puts the encounter somewhere between the Fall of 1987 and the Fall of 1989), I drive a Plymouth K-car – with a stick shift – and I do not own a pasta maker!
Roughly 30 years later, I can better imagine what must have been going through Royko’s mind: How can I make this crazy person go away? But, at the time, I thought his reply a complete vindication: “OK, kid, you’re not a yuppie.”
And Royko got what he no doubt wanted as well: I went away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For more (and no doubt better) about Mr. Royko, and other things, consider this Neil Steinberg blog post from 2016. Steinberg re-ran the post this morning.
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Recovering lawyer posits plausible reason for nasty anonymous comments
For the cartoon-challenged, the above is yesterday's installment of Pearls Before Swine, drawn by recovering lawyer Stephan Pastis, a cartoon which runs in about half the newspapers left in the country, including our own Sun-Times.
























