Ride the Lightning

Cybersecurity and Future of Law Practice Blog
by Sharon D. Nelson Esq., President of Sensei Enterprises, Inc.

More on Da Silva Moore and Judge Peck

May 7, 2012

First, I want to correct myself (a frequent occurrence). Judge Peck will rule on the Motion for Recusal and his decision may then be appealed to Judge Carter.

If you haven't been following this thread, please look at the last two weeks of RTL to see where we have been. Unless there is a major development, I am closing this thread but I did want to include a note recently received from a reader which asks some excellent questions:

Like the others, I will only speak off the record . . . and really I only raise questions:
 
1)   How exactly do the critics expect these elaborate conferences (and so many of them) to exist?  Do they think that LegalTech is sustained by the fees that people pay to attend?
2)   Let’s look downstream from a successful recusal motion, if it should come to that.  Do we really want a world where the judges cannot speak at conferences?  Or have to pay their own way to attend?  Do people realize how much money most of them are giving up by sitting on the bench instead of remaining in private practice?
3)   I understand the complaint of extra-judicial knowledge coming into the Predictive Coding decision, but do really want a world where the judges do not educate themselves on the issues that are going to come before them?  The very use of technology carries with it an inherent education as to how it will work.  So, do we want to make sure that the judges do not use technology?  How far are willing to carry this?  Should they be banned from using technology?  Email?  Fax?  IBM Selectric?
 
As usual, I am of no assistance in resolving issues, merely kvetching about the state of things.
 
I thank the author of that note and, no worries, I think kvetching is an art form.
 
There is a balance to be struck between the excellent points raised by the author and the creation of an appearance of what many have called "cozy relationships." If the answers were easy, we would not all be asking so many questions with an insistence on anonomity.
 
Another reader wrote:
 
"It's too hot and given the polarization there's not much upside for going on the record."
 
And a third indicated that he had information not on the record but was not going to write a word "without institutional cover."
 
Maxwell Smart would be right at home – we have Cones of Silence everywhere.