By Bahar Azhdari

In St. Joseph County, Illinois, those who are called to jury duty can only get out of serving due to, “hardship, extreme inconvenience, or necessity.” That sounds like a pretty high hurdle to me.  Putting myself in the position of one who were to shirk her civic duties, I have tried to come up with some good excuses.  I don’t think that catching up on the past four episodes of the final season of “LOST” carefully saved to my DVR would count in the court’s mind.  Other than that, I am at a loss.

It looks like Railton Loy, however, has a better excuse.  Mr. Loy doesn’t believe he should have to appear for jury duty – and Judge Roland Chamblee Jr., the person who gets to make the call – agrees.  What is Mr. Loy’s hardship?  What is the source of his extreme inconvenience?  Well, it ends up that he is a little bit of a racist.  And by “a little bit of a racist” I mean that he is the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.  Oh, and he apparently planned to show up for jury duty wearing his full KKK regalia.  And, in case that was insufficient, he called and left a message with the court pointing out that he couldn’t be fair “unless the defendant was white.”  Judge Chamblee wisely allowed Mr. Loy’s deferral.  According to Judge Chamblee, "I saw no reason to subject the criminal justice system to Mr. Loy as a juror." (subscription required).  Truer words were never spoken.

Still, while Mr. Loy is not going to be serving on a jury any time soon, it seems that he is no stranger to the inside of a court room.

Good Idea: Exercising your First Amendment right to express your opinion on the actions of elected officials.

Bad Idea: Using online social media to call for the assassination of the President of the United States (@really?!whatwereyouthinking?!!)

I’ve avoided linking to full text of the twitter feed that one particularly foul-mouthed twit[erer] managed to post, suffice to say that his ill-advised threatening outburst wasn’t an isolated incident. It was more like four back-to-back, profanity-laced, not at all isolated incidents.

You’ve heard the "dos" that we have learned from the YLB’s first year.  Now, here are the “don'ts”:

By Brian Malcom

While "attractive nuisance" would be a terrific band name for a bunch of law students who are wannabe rock stars, it is also what a Georgetown law professor is calling laptops in the classroom.  In case you missed it, Washington Post has the story here.

Apparently, the professor has shaky confidence in his ability to sustain the rapt attention of his audience while the Internet and solitaire are tempting their wandering eyes.

I can't imagine why.  I know my mind never wandered to espn.com when we were discussing the Rule Against Perpetuities in law school.  Why would I care about my March Madness bracketology when the Testator's heirs' interest in Blackacre is hanging by a measuring life?  Why?!

Another problem with laptops in the classrooms, according to the professor, is that they can be used to spread rumors.  I know I got all of the juciest gossip in law school during class and straight from the professor's mouth.  This piece of logic ignores the fact that PDAs are just as capable at spreading rumors as laptops and even more portable.

Despite this insult to the students' ability to manage their own attention spans, some students support the ban on laptops in the classroom.  Most say they are more engaged in classroom discussion and could concentrate easier.

What are your thoughts?

Brian Malcom

No good deed goes unpunished, especially those done in violation of copyright law.  Copyrights & Campaigns posted about this very subject last week.  

Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson led a defense team for a graduate student at the university pro bono.  The student was ordered to pay $675,000 for unlawfully downloading 30 songs on the Internet.  (Yes, that is $22,500 per song).  Here's hoping he really likes the songs. 

A while ago, the plaintiffs in the case filed a motion to compel seeking evidence regarding the posting of seven songs to a public website.  The federal district judge granted the motion to compel in June 2009.  The plaintiffs then filed a motion for costs and fees under Rule 37.  The motion for costs and fees is available here.  No opposition was filed. 

Last week, the judge also ordered the defendant and his attorney, Professor Nesson, to pay the costs and attorneys fees for the motion to compel filed by the plaintiffs.  Professor Nesson apparently posted some songs at issue in the case on his blog, with a public link for anyone to download the songs. 

The Lessons: 

1. If you find yourself in a lawsuit concerning illegal downloading or distribution of copyrighted material, do not -- I repeat, do not -- post a link for everyone and their cousin to download the material for free;
2. Respond to motions that seek to tax costs and fees against you and your client; and 
3. Pro bono can cost you.