Early-Week EQs

Some interesting bits from around the web.  Some new, some older (and waiting to get a post):

1. I’m not entirely convinced this is a matter of legal ethics, but it’s so interesting (from a gadget and electronics perspective) that I had to post it. College students in the District of Massachusetts were sued by several record companies and the Recording Industry Association of America for making illegal Internet music downloads in Capitol Records Inc. v. Alaujan. A number of interesting rulings came down this summer – including refusing to allow the defendants to rely on a “fair use” defense, refusing to allow webcasting of hearings, and requiring lead defense attorney (Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson) to show cause why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for posting deposition excepts on the web.  You can read a few articles here and here.
2. Our colleagues over at Practical Ediscovery.com are always doing great stuff (and funny too – this picture cracks me up), but I thought their treatment of Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 973 A.2d 390 (N.J. Super. A.D., 2009 WL 1811064 (N.J. Super. A.D.) was particularly well done. After Scott v. Beth Israel Medical Center, 17 Misc. 934, 847 N.Y.S.2d 436 (2007) (which held that communications made using a company’s email system between a plaintiff and her lawyer were not privileged in view of the company’s no personal use and email monitoring policies coupled with the plaintiff’s awareness of those policies), I have wondered whether the result would have been different if the plaintiff had used a third-party email provider (like Yahoo! or Gmail) — the Stengart case suggests so, and as a result that case (or at least the Practical Ediscovery post) is a must read.
3. As a former public defender, cases like this never cease to interest me. A high-ranking criminal judge in Texas is facing charges filed by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that she intentionally denied a condemned man access to the legal system. Here are a few paragraphs from the article:

On Sept. 25, 2007, Judge Keller put in a 10-hour workday and went home around 4 p.m. to meet a repairman. That morning the United States Supreme Court had effectively suspended lethal injection as a manner of execution by accepting a challenge to its constitutionality in a Kentucky case.

Largely on the basis of the justices’ action, lawyers for a Texas death row inmate were putting together an appeal to stave off execution. An assigned duty judge was waiting at the courthouse for any last-minute appeal on the inmate’s behalf.

Around 4:45 p.m., the general counsel of Judge Keller’s court called her to relate a request to file paperwork after 5 p.m., the usual closing time for the court clerk’s office. Judge Keller replied that the clerk’s office closed at 5 p.m. A few hours later, the inmate was executed.