Solving a Mystery

     Has Wikipedia taken the mystery and wonder out of life?
     Consider this footnote from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week in Arlington v. Federal Communications Commission :
     “This is not a typographical error. CTIA – The Wireless Association was the name of the petitioner. CTIA is presumably an (unpronounce­able) acronym, but even the organization’s website does not say what it stands for. That secret, known only to wireless-service-provider insid­ers, we will not disclose here.”
     If I were snide – which I am – I might say this explains why Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion, doesn’t know much about a lot of things. A quick click to Wikipedia would have answered the question.
     I prefer to think the justice just didn’t want to give away the answer (and I won’t either). After all, the Founding Fathers didn’t rely on the Internet.
     A more interesting mystery, not solved by Wikipedia, is the team lineup on this ruling. Scalia wrote for a group that includes Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan. The dissenters were Roberts, Alito and Kennedy.
     How does that happen?
     It’s a mystery and a wonder.
     Now a riddle: what do loved ones and your smartphone have in common?
     If you go to the mysterious CTIA website, you’ll find a link to a YouTube video called “The Five Stages of Losing a Smartphone.”
     Cute, right?
     Note that there appears to be an “uncensored” version of the same video.
     Can you spot what was censored?
     The blonde can be dumb and she can cuss, but sitting on a bar and admiring the bartender requires censorship.
     Or is this a clever ploy?
     A readily available “censored” version did make me watch it twice.
     
     Lawyer Discipline: Here’s another question for you: Would you hire a lawyer who had appeared “in a state of undress” in a movie?
     For most of us, the answer would be a pretty emphatic YES!, but I know at least a few of you may feel otherwise.
     Still, I think it shows pretty poor judgment to hold that sort of thing against a lawyer. That’s why I’m not surprised that a lawyer in Indiana who did try to hold that (and hold himself) against another lawyer was suspended for three years by an Indiana Disciplinary Commission.
     OK, that wasn’t the reason given for the suspension, but clearly the guy deserved discipline for showing that kind of lousy business sense. The ruling, In the Matter of Arthur J. Usher, IV , contains this sentence:
     “Respondent attempted to convince the attorney that Jane Doe’s appearance in a horror film in a state of undress would have an adverse effect on the ability of Bose (a law firm) to retain and/or attract clients.”
     My guess is that this Bose firm just got a significant increase in business.
     
     Lawyer Undiscipline: I love to say I told you so.
     Several decades (or was it millennia?) ago, when the California Bar started requiring continuing legal education classes, I wrote that they wouldn’t do any good.
     I was a cynic even when I wasn’t ancient.
     Diane Karpman, ethics columnist for the California Bar Journal, writes in the May issue that “there is no empirical evidence that MCLE makes a difference in the services we provide to our clients.”
     I told you so.
     Later in the column, Karpman notes that some lawyers have been caught cheating on MCLE compliance reports.
     Hee, hee.
     I bet those are the guys we thought needed the ethics classes.

%d bloggers like this: