Interesting answers to the question posed to Ask MetaFilter today.

Of course, it begs the question of whether in fact “so many lawyers” actually do use WordPerfect. Do you or folks at your firm? If so, why? . . . [more]

Here’s a website that was long overdue: Stephen Fine has started a Canadian site that features alternative law jobs — jobs other than in the straight practice of law within a firm. From the ‘about’ page of Alternative Law Job:

Created by lawyers, for lawyers, our job posting board caters exclusively to lawyers seeking the following career opportunities:

• In-house, government and non-profit counsel positions;
• Law related careers;
• Non-legal careers;
• Opportunities to join start-ups and small businesses.

Stephen’s clearly aiming to get into the U.S. market as well, though at the moment all of the postings are for Canadian positions. . . . [more]

 My best friend Nera is so happy about this news!

The Globe and Mail had an article this week about animal law classes being the cool new area of study at Canadian law schools. About six Canadian universities currently offer animal law classes, and the University of Toronto and Queen’s University will join this group when they start offering the classes this fall. The article reviews common topics that are covered in these classes (veterinary malpractice, custody, animal rights and personhood) as well as mentions some Canadian cases from the past that have focused on animal law.

 For more information . . . [more]

Last year in May Steve Matthews mooted the idea of a virtual law firm and sparked interesting comments, a couple from folks who were in such practices. Now big hitter Craig Johnson has teamed up with some others to make a big splash with their Virtual Law Partners, based in San Francisco. From the bouncy (but effective) website, it seems that they’re aiming at individuals, families and perhaps small businesses.

Law.com has a piece on the startup, which will fill you in on the fees, the predictions, etc. — but not on who else is doing the virtual . . . [more]

If you look at the BBC’s news website, the headline item is the Khadr interrogation video released as a result of Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Appellants v. Omar Ahmed Khadr Respondent – and – British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario), University of Toronto, Faculty of Law – International Human Rights Clinic and Human Rights Watch Interveners, in which the court held that

The appellants must disclose (i) all records in any form of the

While we have mentioned situations where important provisions have been dropped into miscellaneous statutes, the NYT, Volokh and the ZDNet blog is reporting a quite extraordinary case where the litigants and the US Supreme Court appear to have completely overlooked a relevant statutory provision¹, for a couple of reasons:

it got dropped into an elephantine budget measure for military appropriations
the major legal databases apparently scant the relevance of military law

Both sides and the Judges involved in a recent U.S. Supreme Court judgment missed the applicability of an explicitly on-topic Act of Congress: the military justice provisions

Ann Sherman has presented a study on self-represented litigants in the Supreme Court of P.E.I. to the Community Legal Information Association of that province. The executive summary is available here, and a PDF file of the whole report can be had here. . . . [more]

Small footnote to the SCC’s recent decision in Simpson v. WIC and Mair.

LeBel J’s concurring judgment mentions blogs:

[73] This is all the more true in an age when the public is exposed to an astounding quantity and variety of commentaries on issues of public interest, ranging from political debate in the House of Commons, to newspaper editorials, to comedians’ satire, to a high school student’s blog. It would quite simply be wrong to assume that the public always takes statements of opinion at face value. Rather, members of the public must be presumed to evaluate comments

An odd sort of an announcement today about a White Paper on the implications of Web 2.0 for the legal profession, but without any indication how to find the white paper.

Here is the press release:

Collaborative Network Addresses Emerging Legal Issues

2008-06-26 21:58:06 –

– nGenera, together with California law firm Folger, Levin & Kahn, and Legal OnRamp, today announced that they had collaborated to use a wiki tool to author a sophisticated white paper on legal issues presented by new Internet technologies, including wikis themselves. . . . [more]

From the Canadian Judicial Council press release:

The Canadian Judicial Council has released a report on reforms undertaken across Canada to make it easier and more affordable for Canadians to seek justice in the courts. The Chief Justice of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, who also heads the Council, has identified access to justice as one of the most important challenges facing the justice system today. …

This report, which was undertaken by a sub-committee of the Council’s Administration of Justice Committee, is based on records developed at its request for the new Inventory of Reforms created by

Thanks to our friends at Spada’s new Swordplay site for links to an article at the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology on INFORMATION INFLATION: CAN THE LEGAL SYSTEM ADAPT which asks, how do vast quantities of new writing forms challenge the legal profession, and how should lawyers adapt?

It’s written by George L. Paul, a partner in Lewis and Roca, LLP and Jason R. Baron, Director of Litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

The piece is well worth your attention. . . . [more]

The Court has spoken, and it has said that BCE won.

This is all that is said:

The appeals from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Numbers 500-09-018525-089 and 500-09-018527-085, dated May 21, 2008, heard on June 17, 2008, are allowed with costs throughout. The decision of
the Court of Appeal is set aside and the trial judge’s approval of the plan of arrangement is affirmed.

The cross-appeals from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Numbers 500-09-018524-082 and 500-09-018526-087, dated May 21, 2008, heard on June 17, 2008, are dismissed with