Gibson Les Paul Sticks It To The Man With New Model

New Gibson Les Paul commemorates government raid and property seizure.

In August 2011, federal agents raided Gibson Guitar Corp.’s facilities SWAT-style.  To seize wood.  For alleged violations of foreign exporting laws that the foreign governments declared not a violation.

Some declared the raid to be a political hit job since Gibson’s CEO gives to Republicans while other CEOs of musical instrument purveyors support Democrats.  Regardless, Gibson resolved the issue with a financial penalty and donation to a federal agency for some BS research project.

To commemorate the shakedown, Gibson has released the Government Series II Les Paul. The fingerboards on these guitars include wood returned to Gibson from the U.S. government after the resolution of the matter. The guitars also sport a distinctive “Government Tan” finish and a bald eagle graphic on the pickguard.

This is a topic near and dear to me as a Gibson Les Paul owner myself.  I have a black 1986 Les Paul that I bought in high school.  I bussed a lot of tables at a local restaurant to afford that guitar.  It was my first professional grade guitar.  It is still one of the best in my collection.

In the words of a musical group that does not use guitars:

Gibson USA: Government Series II Les Paul - Government Tan
Gibson USA: Government Series II Les Paul - Government Tan

Fight the Power!

Bitcoin Regulation Urged In New York Hearing

Bitcoin regulation the subject of FINANCIAL hearings in New York. This is my surprised face.

I have been fascinated at the way Bitcoin seems to be going mainstream. My practical side recognizes the risk that governments will not let Bitcoin be Bitcoin. Governments are not in the business of allowing uncontrolled currencies to roam free. See, for example, here and here.

Now comes news that financial regulators in New York and California are exploring ways to regulate the elecctronic currency.

Bitcoin
Bitcoin regulation seems to be underway in New York and California.

In hearings by New York’s top financial regulator, law enforcement officials practically declared Bitcoin to be a financial dirty bomb.

“Mr. Zabel went through a list of six ways in which virtual currencies are more prone to crime than current forms of money transfer, including the ease with which money can be laundered over borders at the click of a mouse.”

There was the predictable noise about not discouraging growth while limiting illegal activity.

“Mr. Lawsky has indicated that Bitcoin is becoming popular enough that regulators need to create regulations that can encourage its growth but limit illegal activity. . . but there has also been a growing list of serious crimes committed in the Bitcoin network, which government officials have struggled to clamp down on.”

Well, one high profile crime ring, anyway.

The law enforcement officials disputed the contention of Bitcoin defenders that Bitcoin is no worse than other currencies for illegal activities. This despite the fact that those testifying were the ones able to nab Bitcoin-denominated criminals.

“Mr. Zabel was involved in the team that tracked down Ross Ulbricht, whom the authorities contend is the owner of the Silk Road online market, where drugs and child pornography were available. Mr. Ulbricht used a so-called Tor network to obscure himself, the authorities said, and Mr. Zabel said it was only after overcoming “substantial hurdles” that his office found Mr. Ulbricht.”

Well, there are hurdles in any investigation and prosecution, as Law and Order has taught us, such as the anonymous use of cash.

However, the unclear status of Bitcoin’s legality continues to be a pressing issue. For those already creating businesses in that space, expect rent-seeking and proposals for regulations that protect more established players.

““Regulation could be a good thing,” said Fred Ehrsam, the co-founder of Coinbase, the largest middleman for Bitcoin transactions.”

 

Law Grad Working In Retail Seems to Miss Some Opportunities

Law Grad Working Retail offers cautionary tale of bad decision and bad attitude.

Business Insider recently highlighted the “Law Grad Working Retail” blog about a hard luck law school graduate without a job forced to sell cologne in some kind of department store.  He clearly feels the job is beneath him.

“I am too good for this job. You know who else is too good for this job? EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON THAT WORKS HERE. Retail jobs fucking suck. What’s up with all these idiots white knighting minimum wage retail jobs? If you don’t think this work is dehumanizing then you are insane.”

He says that he’s “liveblogging the loss of my last shred of dignity” and discussing his job and coworkers.

He claims that he went to a top 50 law school, was on law review and had a second year summer associate position, but he did not get a job offer.

It is both difficult and easy to feel sorry for anyone who went to law school in or after 2009.  It is easy because they are entering the worst long-term job market for attorneys that many of us have known or will know.  It is difficult because after the disastrous 2007 and 2008 economies, it should have been clear to anyone being honest with themselves that the market for new law school grads would be extremely difficult.  Even now, there is still a huge glut of legal talent that will take years to balance.

If we assume that even part of his writing is honest, there is a personality issue at play.  A combination of a bad job market and a personality case make for bad job prospects.

Here is something all law students should understand when interviewing.  If your school is good enough, and especially if you got the summer associate position in the first place, it is assumed you have the intellectual ability to do the job.  However, the interviews and summer associate position test your personality.  If working with you is miserable because you are annoying, lazy, ethically questionable or otherwise unpleasant to be with, people will NOT want to spend hours upon hours with you in a conference room reviewing documents.  People will NOT want to take the chance that they will get excuses instead of work product.

He said in his blog that he hasn’t taken the bar exam.  However, he has co-workers asking legal questions.  It seems he is missing an opportunity to rise above a job he feels is beneath him.  Get a license and a laptop and you can be in business.  You do not need the other trappings of an office in a high rise.

“This blog is not about complaining that I can’t get a legal job. Where in the fuck did I ever say that? I haven’t taken the bar so I’m not even trying to get a legal job. But up until the bar exam I applied for thousands of legal jobs and couldn’t get shit. Since the bar exam I’ve applied for hundreds of non-legal jobs and have come up empty. It’s not like I’m gonna pass the bar and suddenly everything is going to be fine. I have plenty of friends who did pass the July bar and don’t have jobs. Stop saying “he hasn’t even taken the bar!” like you found some kind of gotcha against me.”

Here is where is he so misguided.  No, getting the license is not going to make everything “fine.”  However, it is a prerequistite to the practice of law.  Since he did not get hired out of law school, he needs to pass the bar to even be considered for any type of legal job.  He had a probationary period with a law firm that may have carried him through the exam, but for some reason it did not work out.  I seriously doubt anyone else will take the same chance.  No one is going to hire him as an attorney without it.

My guess is, even if his stories are true, he is really an aspiring writer.  Fine.  However, there are a number of red flags here for anyone who would consider hiring him, and it makes his lack of job offer from the firm where he spent his second summer understandable.

That said, his writing is somewhat entertaining.  His co-workers sound like interesting people, and their stories will make you continue reading through the various posts.

In any respect, I wish him the best of luck.  For aspiring lawyers, use it as a cautionary tale. Credentials are just the beginning. Personality and attitude also matter.

Going Solo Unexpected Rules – Attorney Requirements for Maintaining a “Bona Fide” Office

Going solo in the Freelance Economy requires that you follow requirements for where, not just how, you do business.

Going Solo Risk – Delaware attorney suspended for, among other things, not maintaining a “bona fide” office

The ABA Journal recently reported on a disciplinary case where the attorney received a two-year suspension for not maintaining an exclusive office space, among other things.  Delaware requires attorneys to maintain a “bona fide” office for the practice of law in Delaware.  The respondent did not, and being available by phone is simply not enough to comply with the rule.

 

“Barakat’s lease does not include any designated office space that is exclusively his. Rather, the employees of the landlord collect Barakat’s mail and greet any visitors Barakat may have. The building security guards direct visitors to the fourth floor, where a receptionist is stationed during normal business hours. Under this arrangement, Barakat is entitled, for additional fees, to rent a conference  room or office space, and utilize secretarial, reproduction, facsimile, word processing, and shipping services. The landlord’s billing records (the “Occupant Ledger”), and the testimony of two employees who work on the fourth floor, evidence that Barakat’s presence at 901 North Market Street is “sporadic and unscheduled.””

For attorneys going solo, or anyone entering the Freelance Economy and working from their home, this case should be an eye opener.  Licensing requirements for office space are just as important as practical realities in choosing where to set up shop.

In reading the case, we don’t want to get too hung up on the office requirement since the attorney at issue was deficient in this administration in other matters, such as safeguarding client funds (a very big ethical issue, as you non-attorneys may guess) and lying about these issues in response to prior inquiries.

However, for the purpose of setting up your business, make sure where you practice complies with licensing requirements and ethical obligations just as much as how you practice.

Online Contracts – How Deceptive Is Too Deceptive To Form A Valid Contract?

Online contracts obtained through deception may be easier than you’d think, despite a 9th circuit opinion knocking one down.

Link:  Lee v. Intelius Inc.

Have you ever purchased something online only to find recurring credit card charges for something you don’t want, didn’t ask for and never heard of?  A recent 9th circuit decision shows the limits of clickthroughs to create binding contracts and the risks for consumers who click without looking.

Background

A plaintiff purchased an online background check from Intelius.  After the purchase, the website offered $10.00 cash back for a survey, which also asked for an email address with a statement that entering the email constitutes  an electronic signature and authorization to charge/debit their account.  The plaintiff was not asked to reenter his credit card information.  Following an additional click, which included a statement on the website for the background check, the website said that the click constitutes an agreement to “Offer Details” and authorized Intelius to pass the plaintiff’s information to “a service provider of Intelius.”

It turns out that the service provide was Adaptive Marketing, a third party, not part of Intelius and not mentioned by name on the website.  The additional efforts were actually to purchase a monthly service from Adaptive.

The Court’s Reasoning

The arbitrator clearly saw the process to be a misleading set up to get purchasers of Intelius’ background checks to subscribe for Adaptive’s services.  The description of the process was “designed to deceive.”  However, this did not settle the matter.

It is clear that an electronic “signature” can be legally sufficient under Washington law even if it is not clear under what circumstances a “click” constitutes a signature.

However, the law reuires that the “essential elements” of a contract be set forth in writing, including the identification of the parties to the contract.  Adaptive claimed that the parties need not be named and cited cases regarding companies doing business under assumed names.  However, nothing on the website identified Adaptive as the party with whom the plaintiff was contracting.  In addition, it was ambiguous at best that anyone other than Intelius was involved.

The Result

The arbitrator ruled that a contract had not been formed.

Lessons

This case was not as consumer friendly as the holding suggests.  Just adding “Adaptive Marketing” in some manner on the website may have been enough to justify enforcing the contract.  If the court was looking to say “We will look closely at circumstances where there is simply no way the user is purchasing some bogus subscription,” it did not exactly make a strong statement.

Even confusing and deceptive language and formatting on a website can induce the formation of an enforceable contract.  However, all of the elements of a contract must be present, not just “as suggested by.”