| |
KinsellaLaw Web Log
• BLOG ARCHIVES
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Confessions of a Law School A**hole:
Going paperless, scanning and chunking, I came across this oldie but goodie from a patent lawyer buddy of mine, Steve Mendelsohn. 
Friday, March 25, 2005
Re: "Doctor" Lawyer?:
Previously I whined (2) about lawyers using the title "Dr." simply because they have a JD degree. As I noted, More annoying than "attorney-at-law" is the practice of some attorneys of using the title "Doctor." Although there is apparently some dispute over this, I view it as misleading, cheesy, unseemly, and self-embarrassing for a lawyer to refer to himself as "Doctor" such-and-such. In addition, the law degree is usually a Juris Doctor (J.D.), yet many lawyers insist on calling it a a "Juris Doctorate", I suppose out of ignorance or to make it sound more impressive. (Note: a few law schools apparently do use "Juris Doctorate" on their diplomas—improperly, in my view.) Some dude alerted me to this May 2004 opinion of the Professional Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court of Texas, which considers the question, May a lawyer use, in connection with his or her name, the titles "Doctor," "Dr.," "Doctor of Jurisprudence," or "J.D." in social and professional communications? The Committee says that previously, in 1968, the Committed "issued an opinion concluding that a lawyer in most circumstances could not ethically use titles such as "Doctor," "Dr.," or "J.D." "... orally or in writing, professional or otherwise ...." because such use was self-laudation prohibited by Texas Canon 24 ...." In other words, you couldn't say "Dr. Kinsella" because it was too crass.
But now that the bar approves legal specialization and lawyer advertising, "the stated basis for Opinion 344 no longer exists." So, calling yourself "Dr." might still be crass and it might still "tend[] to lower the tone of the profession," but this is simply no longer prohibited.
The Committee goes on to ask whether the use of Dr. as a title for a lawyer is contrary to rules "that prohibit any form of communication that is false or misleading." The Committee concludes that the use of the title "Dr.," "Doctor," "J.D." or "Doctor of Jurisprudence" is not, in itself, prohibited as constituting a false or misleading communication. The Committee recognizes that other professions, such as educators, economists and social scientists, traditionally use title "Dr." in their professional names to denote a level of advanced education and not to imply formal medical training. There is no reason in these circumstances to prohibit lawyers with a Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from indicating the advanced level of their education. They do say that in some contexts--e.g., where a lawyer is advertising "for legal services in connection with medical malpractice", then the use of the title "Dr." might be misleading if it implies that the lawyer is a medical doctor. But in general, since the lawyer does have a Juris Doctor, and since most people would not think "Dr. Smith" implies an M.D. (since many non-M.D.'s, such as Ph.D.'s, are referred to as "Doctor"), it is not misleading for a lawyer to use the title Doctor.
Now, I do not disagree with this. I still believe it is cheesy, unseemly, self-embarrassing, pompous, and pathetic--it is just that these things are not prohibited by lawyers' ethical rules, nor should they be. I suppose I agree that it is not misleading; when I said previously I think it's misleading, I meant that I believe it implies the lawyer has a post-JD degree--a "real" legal doctorate. The Committee apparently did not consider this possible issue, but whether "Dr." is misleading in implying medical specialty.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
communications problem:
I recall we had this problem in one of my electrical engineering courses, studying packet communications between computers. Unfortunately, I've forgotten the answer and it's driven me nuts for years. If anyone knows, email me.
You have 2 armies, on opposite hilltops. They are allied against an enemy army in the valley between them. Sometimes the 2 armies send runners to send messages to each other. The runners sometimes get killed--say, 1% of the time. So you can't be 100% sure a message makes it to the recipient.
Now say they 2 armies can defeat the enemy if they attack togehter, but if attacking alone, eihter one will lose. Army 1 wants to attack at sunrise. So they send a runner to 2. But the dilemma is, Army 1 needs to get a message back knowing Army 2 got the message and will attack too. Army 1 can't assume 2 gets the message since the runner might be killed.
Now Army 2, even if it gets the first message, and wants to attack, wants to be sure 1 got the reply, so 2 does not attack alone.
The question was: is it possible to arrange a communication scheme, given a less than 100% chance of message success, so that they can both attack?
It seems to me NO, but I wonder. It seems to me that to attack you have to have 100% certainty your message made it, and so does the other guy. This must be impossible. You can have an arbitrarily high confidence if you do enough handshaking, I suppose, but you can never be sure. Anyone know if I'm right?
Sunday, March 06, 2005
There's No Such Thing as a Free Patent:
My latest IP article: There's No Such Thing as a Free Patent, Mises.org, Mar. 7, 2004.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Daddy's Latest Patent:
6,859,481: Optically-pumped multiple-quantum well active region with improved distribution of optical pumping power.
|
|
