Jacob Sullum (of the often excellent Reason Magazine) makes note of a prosecutor in Arizona who places DUI offenders’ names, mug shots and BAC levels online. Sullum concludes that the prosecutor is “imposing extrajudicial punishment, based on his unilateral conclusion that the penalties prescribed by law for DUI offenses provide an inadequate deterrent.”

Publicizing records that are, by nature, public is normally fine by me. But the prosecutor seems to have created, in a sense, a DUI offender registry. Appearance on sex offender registries is a matter determined by law, not the whim of prosecutors. Also, Mothers Against Drunk Driving won’t endorse the idea:

“Some parts of the Web site are good because they are informational and trying to provide the victim’s perspective,” said Misty Moyse, the spokeswoman for the group. However, she said, “M.A.D.D. would not want to be involved in calling out offenders. We are interested in research- and science-based activities proven to stop drunk driving.”

(crossposted at catallaxy.net)

Merry Christmas! The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the “most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore” in 2000.

The simple question is whether we, as voters, can be constitutionally compelled to presented government-issued ID in order to vote.

Stephen Colbert’s ThreatDown recently included a law firm’s ad that included, yes, bears. In the ad, a bear is holding a small child, as if to suggest that the firm has struck the right balance between, I suppose, bloodthirst and coddling. The fair and balanced ad critique from a WSJ law blog reader:

“As long as Bingham is allowed to advertise with a bear holding a baby, personal-injury lawyers should be able to do whatever they want.”

Clever as the ad is, it really is no different than the woman who morphs into a tiger for an ad I’ve seen in Louisville. It’s not much different from the ads featuring another local plaintiff’s attorney lifting a car. That ad, I believe, is syndicated among dozens of lawyers across the country.

I wonder, though, if Bingham thought to include the standard disclaimer at the bottom of its ad, “Not an actual client. Also, bear is not a member of the bar.”

(crossposted at catallaxy.net)

The old joke goes something like this: If you go to law school, graduate, sue the school for providing a poor education, represent yourself and then win the case … did you really deserve to win?

The cases detailed here may not be quite as clear cut.

A group of students filed a $120 million class action against the American Justice School of Law in Paducah, Ky., on Nov. 17, citing allegations that include tax fraud, false representation to the American Bar Association, racketeering, scheming to defraud students and obstruction of justice. Rust v. American Justice School of Law, No. 5:07CV-191-R (W.D. Ky.).

Late last month, Adam Key, a second-year law student, sued Regent University School of Law, a private Christian school in Virginia Beach, Va., claiming violations of his right to free speech and religion after getting expelled for posting a critique in an online university forum. Key v. Regent University, No. 4:07-CV-04060 (S.D. Texas).

On Nov. 14, John Valente, a second-year student at University of Dayton School of Law in Ohio, filed a complaint against his school, citing negligence in dealing with exam software. Valente v. University of Dayton Law School of Law, No. 07-9593 (Montgomery Co., Ohio, Ct. C.P.).

It’s far from being a trend (yet!), but shouldn’t we expect a more costly legal education to generate demands from those students who slog it out to be chosen from an ever-increasing pool of applicants?

Law school tuition has been increasing at a considerable clip. And if you don’t graduate, it doesn’t matter to you if the value of the degree has risen twice as fast. You’re not a lawyer. (”Don’t Like Your Grade? Sue Your Law School,” The National Law Journal, Dec. 18, 2007.)

Update: I’m not a lawyer, either.

(crossposted at catallaxy.net)