by Cristin Johnson

Earlier this month, America was consumed by media coverage of the ten-day manhunt for rogue former-LAPD officer and suspected murderer Christopher Jordan Dorner.  As a case study, the Christopher Dorner saga invites an unconventional conversation, exposing a variety of questions that comprise the main themes of Professor Thane Rosenbaum’s seminar on “Human Rights, the Holocaust, and the Law.”

Dorner initiated his campaign for revenge through social media, publishing an online manifesto on Facebook in which he vowed to wage warfare against the alleged racism and corruption pervading the LAPD.  Surprisingly, Dorner has garnered social media support from those sympathizing with his motives.  Proponents have depicted the LAPD as a caldron of hate.  Some were already skeptical of law enforcement and their treatment of minorities, infamously exposed twenty-two years ago following the Rodney King verdict and subsequent LA riots.

Waves of advocacy for Dorner continue to infiltrate social media outlets.  From “trending” hashtags (#TeamDorner) to Facebook groups entitled “We Are all Chris Dorner,” social media participants have lionized Dorner, praising him as a hero partaking in a crusade against a corrupt, racist establishment.  This was an act of revenge against the system by someone who allegedly suffered wrongs, raging against injustice.  But this goes beyond society’s seemingly primal desire to side with the underdog.

Initially, I was disgusted by those championing Dorner, which I perceived as promoting violence and the disrespect of human life.  This must be yet another example of how technology detaches people from the actual lived experience.  Through online identities, we have created an anonymous forum through which people may spiritually injure each other.  Has technology really diminished our capacity for empathy?

Despite these unanswered questions, we can’t ignore Dorner’s manifesto by simply dismissing it as evidence of a deranged lunatic, or a distraught man suffering from mental illness.  Instead of disapproving of Facebook “fan pages” and Twitter encouragement, we must ask why so many on social media have proclaimed support for a man accused of four revenge killings.

Social media buzz demonstrates how focus has strayed from that which typically dominates media coverage of such atrocities.  Here, we have not confined the analysis exclusively to the violent aftermath of the gunman’s rage.  We must continue to examine the nature and causes of such aggression in order to protect against similar episodes of frontier justice in the future.  By focusing on the motivation behind the atrocity, we begin to recognize the unacknowledged hurts Dorner purportedly suffered.  To deny is perhaps the most mortal of all wounds, and the most immoral of all injuries.

It’s commendable that social media has acknowledged Dorner’s alleged spiritual violence.  However, even if Dorner’s claims are true, the fact remains that this was an unjust retaliation, a grossly disproportionate revenge.  In order to be moral, revenge must be proportionate.  We must safeguard against such institutional injustice.  By recognizing spiritual harm and emotional injury, we can provide victims with a platform through which to air grievances, thus diminishing the need for vigilante justice.

by Erin G.

On February 14, 2013, yet another news story surfaced of an international superstar being charged with a serious crime.  Oscar Pistorius, a paralympian, who had become a symbol of overcoming adversity in his native South Africa and around the world, has been accused of murdering his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.  Steenkamp died after being shot four times through the bathroom door at Pistorius’s South African home.

On Tuesday, Pistorius denied that he willfully killed his girlfriend, claiming that he shot Steenkamp through the bathroom door with a 9-millimeter pistol because he believed that she was an intruder.  In a statement read by his lawyer, Pistorius said, “I fail to understand how I could be charged with murder, let alone premeditated.  I had no intention to kill my girlfriend.”  Yesterday, the media has reported that the South African police found testosterone and needles at Pistorius’s home when they went to investigate the shooting last week. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-murder-charge-bail.html?_r=0.

Despite having both of his knees amputated as an infant after being born without fibulas, Pistorius became a global icon when he ran with able-bodied individuals in the 2012 London Olympics and was a champion at the 2012 Paralympic Games.  Pistorius, who was given the name Blade Runner because he ran on carbon-fiber blades, has been featured in Nike advertisements.  In one of the Nike advertisements he presciently stated, “I am the bullet in the chamber.”

The Pistorius story comes in the wake of Lance Armstrong’s recent admission to doping and can be added to a laundry list of criminal accusations against all-star athletes: Ben Roethlisberger was accused of sexual assault and rape, Kobe Bryant was accused of rape, Michael Vick was accused and convicted of bankrolling a dogfighting ring, O.J. Simpson was charged but acquitted of double murder, and Ray Lewis was charged with two counts of murder and felony murder.

As the case against Pistorius proceeds, it will likely be compared to the O.J. Simpson case, which led to harsh criticism about the ability of the legal system to hold athletes accountable under the law.  Critics have repeatedly argued that our culture’s obsession with professional sports has disrupted the efficacy of the justice system.  The Pistorius case will force us to address whether all individuals are truly equal before the law, or whether this principle requires a qualifying asterisk for athletes.

by Philip K.

When people plan their estate with their attorney, they usually discuss matters concerning their home, business, savings, and other assets. However, they should consider examining their digital assets as well. The Social Media Revolution has transformed the way we share ideas and interact with others. Now, with smartphones, we are always connected to this virtual world. On these social media websites, we write about our daily routine, post viral videos, express political views, and keep in contact with family and friends. These social media websites are catalysts for new content and trends, constantly introducing users to a new genre of media. Personal profile webpages have become a reflection of society, culture, and more importantly, ourselves. And chillingly, these imprints never leave the cyberspace.

The Social Media Revolution not only created a cultural phenomenon, but it also created a lucrative market for electronic “gifts” and social advertising. Personal profiles of popular personalities have proven to be tremendously profitable and valuable. For instance, a celebrity’s Twitter webpage with millions of “followers” possesses incredible influence in shaping and marketing new products and movies.

These developments raise many legal questions when the owner of the profile dies: Who can terminate the profile? Who owns the contents stored in the profile? Who has access to the password? These pertinent questions remain unanswered even as social contents have come to play a vital role in our society and culture. Social media websites have failed to discover a simple way of identifying deceased users. As a result, many accounts and profiles continue to operate as usual even after the death of the owner. In 2012, an estimated 500,000 deceased Americans left their Facebook profiles; many of these profiles remain intact because there is no simple way to declare someone “dead.” Indeed, the fragmentation of these individual websites has created an even more complex environment. Each social media website and email provider requires different verifications to transfer online content to an estate.

Ambiguity in this area of the law poses serious questions as more people upload valuable content and information onto websites. For instance, if I take a photograph and upload the image to my social media website, the digital image becomes my property. Theoretically, I control the distribution of that image. If I die and my contents do not pass onto an estate, ownership of those contents becomes ambiguous. Who grants permission to use my social contents? Who deserves the royalties (if any)? Who can erase my content? Further, if my social media webpage remains open, visitors can “steal” images from my website without consent.

The frequency of hacking has added a new twist to this legal conundrum. If a deceased individual’s profile continues to exist without regulation, a hacker can potentially steal the deceased user’s information to commit fraud. Just last week, Facebook announced that hackers broke into Facebook employees’ laptop, giving the hackers the potential to compromise sensitive information of more than 1,000,000,000 Facebook users. Additionally, Twitter announced a few weeks ago, that hackers gained access to 250,000 user accounts, names, and email addresses.

The way we socialize is changing exponentially faster than the legal system. For instance, legislation on cyber-bulling is only now gaining traction. Similarly, I believe that lawmakers must acknowledge the lack of clarity on how to handle social content after death. Specifically, we need to align the various social media website and email providers with respect to what happens to content and password after death. Forcing all websites to follow a standard path will lead to less ambiguity and dampen privacy concerns. It will be equally important to educate the public about the importance of discussing online content and password during estate planning.

by Johanna G.

It has become increasingly clear that job prospects for law graduates has been on the decline since the economic bubble burst of 2008. Around five years ago, a graduate would have come out of school with the big possibility of attaining an entry-level position at a firm with a six-figure salary. In today’s market, that possibility seems less likely, especially when looking at the 2011 employment statistics for recent law school graduates. This has made the legal community analyze the reasons behind the trend.

Many analyzing the problem state that legal jobs have decreased because of hiring practices in law firms. During recent years, law firms have limited their hiring numbers. They are almost exclusively hiring law graduates who come from certain top schools, and who have graduated at the top of their classes. The decrease in the amount of graduates hired has disrupted the confidence law students once had in attaining work. The amount of work previously available at law firms was especially important for the majority of law students who needed to incur great debt in order to finish school. The decrease in work availability has also allowed employers to lower starting salaries, which has promulgated the debt problem among law school graduates even further.

When job availability and salary amounts started decreasing, the problem of debt repayment began to surface. The increase in debt with the inability for students to pay it off led to a look at the cost of tuition. According to the American Bar Association’s website, the average law school increased by more than fifty percent in the past decade. (For the complete ABA law school tuition statistics: ghttp://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/statistics/ls_tuition.authcheckdam.pdf )

The increases in tuition and decrease in job availability and salary prompted a decrease in law school applications. The 2013 law school application cycle has produced the lowest number of applicants in the last thirty years. (Law School application and hiring statistics: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/law-school-applications-are-collapsing-as-they-should-be/272729/ ) This has spurred law school administrations and state courts into action. The New York State Courts are in the process of deciding whether or not to allow law school students to take the bar exam in their second year of law school. This would allow students to start their practices earlier and lower the amount of debt they incur. Law School administrations are beginning to debate whether a third year of law school is necessary, and whether tuition costs can be reduced. The initiative by law school administrations to cut costs and reduce the length of time might have come a little late, but will help the economic burden law students have to endure.

However, these changes will not happen overnight, and in the meantime law students will still be struggling with job prospects and debt repayment. What does this mean for the future of the legal community? The legal community might continue to see a decrease in the amount of people interested in the legal field, which would not necessarily be a good thing. The United States is a very litigious country that already faces problems with unequal legal representation. A continuous decrease in the amount of people in the legal field might lead to a greater inequality in legal representation. Hopefully, the pending changes to the legal field will help rectify this inequality.

By Diana D.

More than 30 states have enacted some version of the Son of Sam law, named after the infamous New York serial killer, which generally bars convicted felons from profiting from their crimes. New York goes even further by creating a new category for “funds of a convicted person” that exceed $10,000. Though there are some narrow exceptions for earned income and child support payments, money from many kinds of sources can trigger the statute, including inheritances and legal judgments for civil rights violations. Whenever a person convicted of certain crimes receives over $10,000, the Office of Victim Services freezes the money and notifies the victims of crime, who then have 3 years to bring a tort suit, even after the statute of limitations has expired. And we’re not talking small change– to get an idea of the money frozen since the Son of Sam law was expanded in 2001, check out this link: http://www.ovs.ny.gov/FormsandPublications/AnnualReports/2012AnnualReport/TableOfContents/NewYorkSonofSamLaw.aspx  If the victim’s suit is successful, he or she may be able to reach not only the newly received funds, but all the assets of the convicted person.

For example, take the case of the man that inspired the shift in the law. David McClary was convicted of murdering a police officer. While serving his sentence, he brought a civil rights action based on his solitary confinement for 4 years within the prison. The reduced jury verdict in his favor would have granted McClary over $200,000. The legislature added the funds of a convicted person provision before he could collect the judgment, and the statute of limitations was extended. The police officer’s family later won a judgment of $100 million against McClary, wiping out his civil rights award and leaving him with a staggering civil liability. (For one particularly vindictive take on this lawsuit, check out the New York Post article at http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_o6SS4DQd3minVBBC1WyxQJ)

Victim’s rights advocates have welcomed the expanded Son of Sam law. After all, in many cases the criminal defendants that caused their injury are judgment-proof, making it impossible for the victims to recover any money damages within the limitations period. While prison sentences may satisfy a convict’s “debt” to society, our sense of moral justice demands that the victims get at least some compensation for their losses, particularly where the criminal profits from his crimes.

But is that moral imperative really the same when the money comes from other sources wholly unconnected to the crime? There must be a point where civil damages for the victim become more about the societal vengeance than the justice-based legal system. When a convicted felon recovers damages for civil rights violations like excessive force by police or corrections officers, should he be required to wait an extra three years for compensation, and risk losing it altogether, while his former victims dangle a lawsuit over his head? This may be one area where the political implications have come to outweigh our moral sense of right and wrong. At what point do we cross the line between ensuring adequate compensation for crime victims and victimizing the perpetrators?

by Alexandra E

Move over Law and Order, now here is something catching the eyes of
audiences with its heart-pounding, jaw-dropping legal stories and not
so legal solutions, Scandal.  A political thriller television series
focused on the life of a sexy smart black attorney, Olivia Pope, and
her team of associates, including a former black ops turned computer
hacker, a litigator and an investigator.  Partially based on the life
of former President Bush’s administration press aide, Judy Smith, we
wonder if this is really what is going on in Washington, D.C., and if
so where can we sign up.

Enough to make an attorney’s hair stand on end, Olivia Pope does not
defend justice nor does she abide by any code of professional ethics.
She states, “we are the judge and the jury, the media and the public
opinion.” Her self-pronounced duty is only to serve the client and by
nearly any means, this often verges on criminal conduct if not
downright illegal.  In just two seasons, we’ve seen Pope & Associates
tampering with crime scenes, buying time from the United States
Attorney’s Office, sleeping with coroners to get autopsy reports,
getting a woman exonerated for allegedly bombing a building and saving
the President’s career by lying to the American public.  We ask
ourselves, what makes this show so juicy if we know it is so wrong.

While providing audiences with a peek at a different kind of lawyer,
it’s unclear whether such attorneys, do in fact, exist.  Moreover, if
they exist, what does this say about our colleagues and our
profession?  The better question is have lawyers changed or has the
publics’ views of them changed?  Or is this just a fluke, an attempt
to change our picture of the legal system and the attorney’s role in
it from upholder of justice to gladiator by any means?  Perhaps, we
need to take a second and reflect on what the law has been and will
always be and not get caught up in the hype.  Lawyers have a
professional duty and it includes upholding the law.

by Eddie C

A class action law suit was filed in New Jersey last year regarding red light traffic cameras. In that law suit the lawyers argued that fines issued before July 25^th 2012 in eighteen of New Jersey’s municipalities should be retracted as the timing of yellow lights weren’t officially recertified until that day. A settlement for the case was reached by December where the plaintiffs received 6 dollars each from the 4.2 million dollar settlement while the attorney pocketed over $1 million.

That same lawyer is now representing the New Jersey plaintiffs suing the Subway franchise. The Subway lawsuit was sparked by a Facebook post of a “foot long” sandwich measuring only eleven inches. As a result, two New Jersey men visited a wide number of Subway restaurants within the state of New Jersey to find that all the sandwiches they sampled were in fact slightly less than the “foot long” length advertised. They subsequently filed a lawsuit under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud act, alleging that the Subway brand violated consumer rights.

The plaintiffs from the Subway and the Red Light Camera lawsuits may not know how congested our court system is, but their attorneys should. While the plaintiffs may truly believe they are seeking justice for the general public, it’s hard to believe that the attorneys who agreed to represent them are doing so to protect the interests of general consumers.

If this suit goes through, we have to ask – will a suit against McDonalds’s for the weight of its quarter pounder be next, and where do we draw the line?

by Eddie C.

In a recent episode of the hit legal drama “Suits” the protagonist, Mike Ross, is assigned to defend a client’s 17-year-old son after he admittedly committed a hit and run after driving home from a party.  The victim later died in a hospital as a result of the accident. Although the boy maintained that he was sober the entire time, Mike Ross later discovers that the driver was under the influence of Marijuana at the time of the accident. Troubled by his own memory of losing his parents to a drunk driving incident, Mike compromised his ability to act in the best interest of his client and as a result, he disclosed privileged information to the opposing counsel.

One case that contrasts to the course of action in this episode of “Suits” is the famous Buried Bodies Case. In this case, a murderer discloses the burial site of his past victims to his attorneys. In contrast with Mike Ross’s actions, these attorneys rigidly upheld this privileged information despite pleas from the victims’ families.

This famous case paired with the recent “Suits” episode I watched forced me to evaluate the legal profession on a moral scale. It challenged me to consider the boundaries in which we as lawyers make decisions in this chosen career path. Where do we draw the line between following our morals versus our professional responsibilities?

As lawyers, we are advocates, protectors, and upholders of justice. We are discouraged to allow our own personal, emotional, and spiritual judgments dictate our actions in the courtroom. We must always act in the best interest of our clients and our firm. But in the case of Mike Ross and the Buried Bodies Case, we must ask ourselves: is justice cheated if we ignore our moral instinct to do what is “right” with what is expected?

While I believe that most attorneys in these situations would and SHOULD respect client-attorney privilege, it begs me to ask myself and my legal counterparts: are we actually protectors of justice when we carry out our relentless professional obligations? Or are we just pawns in a rigid legal system?

*(The Buried Bodies Case summary is available at http://www.lawtimesnews.com/200804214000/Commentary/Lake-Pleasant-bodies-case)

by MDG

A U.S. District Judge, BP, and the Department of Justice recently
illustrated a fascinating aspect of our criminal justice system: if
you want to plead guilty to eleven felony counts, two misdemeanors,
and an obstruction charge and avoid facing any time in prison, the
answer is to simply be a corporate entity.

Three years ago this April, the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf
of Mexico, causing an incredible amount of economic and environmental
damage that gripped headlines and placed BP in the national psyche as
public enemy number one. Often overlooked, however, is the fact that
eleven men working on the Horizon died as a result of the rig
malfunction. Although BP pleaded guilty to eleven felony counts in
addition to two misdemeanors and an obstruction charge, the company
recently escaped any true criminal liability when a U.S. District
Judge approved a settlement in which BP would pay $4 billion in
penalties rather than stand trial for its criminal negligence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21244916.

There may be some very compelling and logical reasons as to why it
made more sense for BP to pay a penalty rather than face the usual
criminal liability. Perhaps, as a corporate entity, it was unclear who
would face the charges brought against the entire corporation. Maybe,
in paying a $4 billion penalty, BP could provide more aid to the
victims’ families and others harmed by the oil spill. Ultimately, it
makes no difference whether these or any other offered explanations
truly represent sound legal policy. What matters a great deal more,
however, is that judicial approval of BP’s settlement allowed any
individual associated with the company to avoid prison time, depriving
the victims and their families of a chance at justice, while also
granting the corporation rights no individual could ever dream of.

Could any of us imagine the pain in a judge explaining that the
criminal negligence leading to our family member’s death could be paid
off by a fine rather than jail time? Would such an outcome even be
possible for anyone not involved in a multi-billion dollar
corporation? Although BP issued an apology to the victims and their
families, it’s clear that simply paying a penalty in lieu of facing
prison time has not been enough. Chris Jones, brother of one of the
eleven victims, commented on the approved settlement by proclaiming BP
“the real winner,” stating the company “got what they wanted.”
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/BP-s-plea-eases-its-burdens-weighs-heavy-on-some-4233833.php.
The sentiment that BP was the “winner” rather than the victims speaks
volumes, making it clear that for at least some of the victim’s
families, a forced apology and a paycheck wasn’t enough to erase the
criminal behavior that led to the death of their loved ones.

by Gabby C.

Instagram is the primary photo-taking and photo-sharing tool for lots of people these days. In 2012, Business Insider reported that more than 1 billion photos were taken using the application, with more than 5 million photos uploaded daily – a number that is likely growing every day (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-honigman/100-fascinating-social-me_b_2185281.html).

In the last few months, Instagram has been under some heat for changes in its Terms of Service (http://instagram.com/legal/terms/). Questions were raised with regards to ownership of photos and policies in relation to the repurposing of user images.  But most recently, users have begun to complain about new procedures with regards to
suspended accounts. Several technology news sources reported that some users, who are suspected of violating Instagram’s Terms of Service, were asked to verify their identities by uploading a photo ID that must (1) be government issued; (2) show the user’s name, picture and birthday; and (3) be in color.  In addition, users are asked to “cover
up” any personal information irrelevant to identity, such as addresses and license numbers (http://www.http://gizmodo.com/5979258/instagram-is-asking-users-to-prove-their-identities-with-government-ids).

Instagram’s reasons for doing so remain unclear – considering users are not required to display or use their real names to identify their photo-streams. Nor do their Terms of Service outline exactly what violations would warrant this result. On the one hand, there could be certain advantages in limiting anonymity online, given the rise of cyberbullying and online harassment; however, Instagram’s Terms of Service already prohibit this behavior. It has also been suggested that this could be seen as a means to verify users are at least thirteen years old. But at the same time, there are other, less invasive ways they could use to verify age.

In any case, this raises major privacy concerns. To some extent, the age of privacy online is almost nonexistent; however requesting user identification seems like a step too far. Online shopping doesn’t even require proof of identity to use a credit card.