Adam Liptak - the Journalist-Lawyer

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

For those of you who scour the pages of the New York Times may be familiar with Adam Liptak. His reporting on US Law and the US Supreme Court is extraordinary. I came across an insightful interview on Scotusblog.com with Mr. Liptak which made me google him to check his credentials. For example I had no idea he was a lawyer in addition to being a law journalist.  Apparently the Journalist Lawyer is now a new sub-field in this profession. More and more newspapers want the reporting on law to be done by professional lawyers like Mr. Liptak.

New York Times v. Sullivan

Facts of the Case 

Decided together with Abernathy v. Sullivan, this case concerns a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. L. B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed; and a defense claiming that the ad was truthful was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors. Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment.

New York Times' editorial on State Rights argument in the Health Care Reform debate

Editorial

Health Care and the States

Published: November 22, 2011

In reviewing the constitutionality of health care reform, the Supreme Court said it would consider the legality of the Medicaid expansion included in the reform law. The question seems narrow, but it could have significant implications for redefining Congress’s spending power.

The only appellate court that even addressed this question, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, rejected the constitutional challenge. Having taken up the question, the Supreme Court should affirm that ruling. It would be a serious mistake for the court to use this case to restrict Congress’s authority by placing any additional requirements for the commitment of federal money.

The Constitution’s spending clause gives Congress the power to pay debts and “provide for the common defense and general welfare” of the country. In 1987, the Supreme Court held that when Congress provides money to a state, it has broad power to require states to meet conditions related to the money — as long as the spending serves the general welfare and meets other restrictions.

New York Times on the gap between theoretical learning and practical application

What They Don’t Teach Law Students: Lawyering

Laura Pedrick for The New York Times

Drinker Biddle & Reath, a Philadelphia firm, trains its new associates to be lawyers. Here, Matthew McDonald, a partner, passes out instructions.

By DAVID SEGAL

Published: November 19, 2011

PHILADELPHIA — The lesson today — the ins and outs of closing a deal — seems lifted from Corporate Lawyering 101.

Josh Anderson for The New York Times

Updating is needed, says Edward Rubin, ex-dean of Vanderbilt Law.

A Possible New Curriculum

What do corporate clients wish associates were taught in law school?

• A better understanding of modern litigation practice, which is about gathering facts and knowing how to settle a case.
• Greater familiarity with transactions law, including how to draft, evaluate and challenge a contract.
• Deeper knowledge of regulatory law and the ability to respond to a regulatory inquiry or enforcement action.
• Basic corporate legal skills, like how to perform due diligence.
• Writing skills. Partners at law firms say they spend a lot of time improving the writing of their first- and second-year associates.
• A stronger grasp of the evolving economics of legal practice, which will rely less on leveraging the time of new associates and more on entrepreneurship.

US Supreme Court's latest term: Defending Free Speech and Big Business

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

It is instructive for lawyers everywhere to read the media commentary on the performance of Bush appointee Justice Roberts' court in the term that just ended.

I was especially struck by New York Times' commentary yesterday. Adam Liptak wrote in the aforesaid newspaper:

The Supreme Court term that ended Monday was marked by accomplishment and anticipation. The court continued its work on two signature projects of Chief Justice John Roberts: defending free speech and curbing big lawsuits. And it dropped occasional hints about the blockbusters on the horizon... In cases involving the nation’s largest private employer, Wal-Mart, and the nation’s second-largest cellphone company, AT&T Mobility, the court tightened the rules for class actions and made it easier for companies to do away with class actions entirely by using form contracts. All of the decisions this term were scrutinized for clues about the arc of the Roberts court as it settles into a period of consolidation and awaits a series of colossal cases, notably the challenges to the health care law championed by President Barack Obama. This term was significant, but the next one may include the most important clash between the Supreme Court and a president since the New Deal.