Articles Posted in 2011

I want to follow up on a previous post I wrote back in October that, in part, discussed open access in scholarship and The Durham Statement.  As a reminder, and for those of you who might be new to this party, The Durham Statement, “calls for all law schools to stop publishing their journals in print format and to rely instead on electronic publication coupled with a commitment to keep the electronic versions available in stable, open, digital formats.”

An article was published recently as a part of The University of Georgia Law School Research Paper Series, “Citation Advantage of Open Access Legal Scholarship,” which helps to further promote the proposition that opening up this secondary source material in digital format provides real benefits. Not only does this advance the greater philosophical principals of knowledge as a human right and a public good, but open access can positively impact the work and reputation of law faculty by supporting their professional goals to get their work published and, more specifically, cited, which is now a common benchmark used in tenure review.

Last week’s threat of a federal government shutdown had this country in a tizzy over political gamesmanship. Which benefits would be cut?  Federal funds for women’s healthcare, including abortions? Would military families endure missing paychecks and delayed life insurance payments for loved ones killed in action? A last-minute ‘compromise’ meant that one of these happened.

But who was targeted? Women.

I’m sure you’ve heard by now: the government is going to run out of money and “shut down” if Congress can’t agree on a budget before midnight tonight. Yes, Courtney, but how will it affect me?

Plenty of outlets are covering how this will affect the general public. Let’s talk about what our readers care about.

Last week, The New York Times published Arriving as Pregnant Tourists, Leaving with American Babies, a report that offered an interesting peek at a San Gabriel maternity center that catered to pregnant mothers from China. While the article focused on the immigration law aspects of this practice, I wanted to delve into some other issues that were not covered.

Medical Tourism

Medical tourism, or the practice of securing medical services in another state or country, is a serious business. Major American hospitals, including Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Cleveland Clinic, Stanford, UCSF, Duke, and Massachusetts General Hospital, have programs dedicated to international patients seeking state-of-the-art care. Some hospitals even have dedicated maternity services for international patients. These programs offer hospitals an avenue to expand their revenue base by serving patients willing to pay full hospital costs by themselves. In an era of diminished public funding and renewed threats to Medicare, these premium paying patients may well end up subsidizing the cost of care for many of us.

Recently, our Justia friend (and my Law Librarian-Hero) Mary Minow mentioned that she traveled to Sacramento to testify in front of the California State Senate on Senate Bill (“SB”) 445.  The proposed bill seeks to amend the California Public Records Act by updating  privacy protections for public library patrons as it pertains to the use of computers and online resources.

While I’ve been able to spend some more time reading up on the Bill, and I encourage you to all to do the same, I actually wanted to focus this post on citizen (i.e., not lobbyist) participation as it applies to the drafting of state and federal laws.  The reason Mary was up in Sacramento voicing her support for SB 445 is because she won a “There Oughta to be a Bill” contest, sponsored by California State Senator Joe Simitian.  Senator Simitian has sponsored this contest since 2001 and, to date, 16 winning ideas proposed by California residents have been signed into law.

Last month was Mad March Legalness over at Justia. Here’s a rundown of last month’s highest scoring lawyers on Justia Answers, and our most popular Onward blog and Facebook posts.

Justia’s Top 10 Legal Answerers for March

1. Paul Overhauser: 4,140 points, 75 answers!
2. Burton Padove, 3,615 points, 76 answers!
3. Andrew John Hawes, 1,060 points, 21 answers

Dear Bieber Nation:

We are trademark counsel for Justia Inc., the well-known free legal research resource service provider. Our client is the owner of the Justia service mark, which is protected by federal and state intellectual property laws, including the Lanham Act, and state common law and statute.

It has come to our attention that the teen pop sensations Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez have infringed on our service mark by adopting the celebrity couple moniker “Justia,” following in the tradition of pop culture couples such as Brangelina and Bennifer.

Twitter libel (‘twibel’) cases are growing. Courtney Love just paid $430,000 to settle a twibel case filed by a fashion designer who accused the rocker of defaming her in a series of tweets with incredible accusations.  A Welsh politician in the U.K. recently admitted to twibeling his city council opponent on election day. The cost of his settlement? Damages of £3,000, plus £50,000 in legal fees.

Although we’re not aware of any twibel case that went to verdict, we’re confident that day will inevitably come.

The recent news that the Lillian Goldman Law Library at Yale launched a pilot program allowing patrons to “check out” Monty, a therapy dog, got me thinking about other possible ways dogs have worked their way into law-related venues.

For instance, if you know one thing about Justia, it’s that we have our own posse of pups at work, so in that regard I guess we’ve got “legal portal offices” covered in any possible list.  (But to be clear, even though on the internet no one knows you’re a dog, the Justia pups did not write this post. . .)

Dogs can also be found in law offices, courts and even the California Governor’s office.

Bless her heart. This month, Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) introduced the Retirement Security for Today’s Four-Year-Olds Act of 2011, which seeks to curb the next generation’s sense of entitlement. This bill seeks to change the definition of retirement age under the Social Security Act to 70, as of January 1, 2069. The title is a bit misleading since it affects more than today’s four-year-olds. People turning 70 in 2069 were born in 1999, meaning they will be turning 12 this year. Yes, another grievance for today’s pre-teens to add to the long list of injustices that have befallen them. I’m sure Dick Clark will be long gone come New Year 2069, so as the New Year’s Eve Ball descends down on Times Square, he should be spared the collective whine: I want to retire and I want it now!