INSIDE LEGAL BLOGS AND CHAT BOARDSSPONSORED BY JUDGED

1.800.973.1177

PAGE �

INSIDE LEGAL BLOGS AND CHAT BOARDSSPONSORED BY JUDGED

A new video game has sparked public outcry

and threats of lawsuits. Sounds familiar, right?

But this time, the violent video game isn’t

about beating up hookers or stealing cars,

it’s about killing infidels and non-believers.

And it’s not militant Muslims; it’s an army of

born-again Christians taking to the streets

and slaying anyone who refuses to convert to

Christianity. It’s called “Left Behind: Eternal

Forces,” and it is hilarious. In his Talk2Action blog Jonathan Huston offers up a really

funny news story about a new video game

based on the religious extremist novels and

straight-to-video film series Left Behind. In

the game, players attempt to convert or kill

non-Christians in a post-apocalyptic New York

cityscape. Conservative Christian attorney Jack

Thompson cut his ties with the Left Behind

people after learning of the violent video game.

Thompson has made a name for himself in

the media over the last few years, crusading

against rap music and video games. He is

now threatening a lawsuit against the game’s

manufacturers, his former allies, Tyndale

House. It is unclear what the grounds of the

lawsuit would be. This game has to be seen

to be believed. It actually looks pretty fun.

Here is a review of the game, complete with

screenshots.

Evan Schaeffer’s Legal Underground reported

on an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that will

require all attorneys to submit their total

number of annual pro bono hours in order to

renew their licensure. While the ruling may

appear to be innocent, Carolyn Elefant over

at MyShingle thinks it is a subtle jab at solo

practitioners and small firms. Big firms will

report far more pro bono hours than they really

performed, supposes Elefant, while small

firms, who actually do far more pro bono work,

won’t be able to report as many pro bono hours

as the large-firm attorneys. She’s also against

the ruling on philosophical grounds. While Don

Burnett at the Legal Ethics Forum praises the

ruling as highlighting the importance of pro

bono efforts, Elefant believes it’s all a bunch of

sound and fury signifying nothing. After all, the

ruling doesn’t require attorneys to do more pro

bono work or reward excessive pro bono work.

It only offers a pat on the back for those who do

any pro bono work at all. With legal aid for the

poor still lacking, Elefant doesn’t think lawyers

deserve a pat on the back yet.

A number of law bloggers are up in arms over

the recent New York State Bar regulations

governing attorney advertising. As mentioned

in the Judged Law Firm News, the measures

were meant to better protect the public.

Some are saying the restrictions don’t help

anybody. Between Lawyers takes dead aim

at the judges and attorneys who worked so

hard to pass the new amendments. According

to Between Lawyers, the regulations limit all

attorney advertising to the point that an ad

from a lawyer could never effectively bring in

new business. They also see the restrictions

on Internet commerce as retrogressive. Kevin

O’Keefe of LexBlog sees the amendments as

a death knell for the legal profession. He finds

the limitations, including regulations on font

sizes in printed ads, completely foolish.

The Washington Post has reported that

University of San Diego School of Law

Professor Junichi Semitsu has been tapped to

serve as the Dixie Chicks official blogger for

their current national tour. While it’s doubtful

that his new MSN blog will be very scholarly,

it’s the latest in a series of high-profile gigs

for law bloggers. Inside Legal Opinions has

compared Semitsu’s appointment as the

official Dixie Chicks blogger to other recent

law blogger upgrades, including Underneath Their Robe’s David Lat taking the reins over

at Wonkette and the big book deals offered

to bloggers Jeremy Blachman and Melissa

Lakfsky.

The law blogosphere is abuzz with analyses,

commentary, and criticism of the U.S. Supreme

Court’s decision in Hudson v. Michigan. The

case involved Michigan’s so-called knock-and-

announce requirement, which forces police

officers serving a warrant to announce their

presence and wait before entering a home.

The High Court ruled that while it’s all well and

good to knock and announce, the rule doesn’t

necessarily have to be enforced. Cato@Liberty

sees the decision as a poor interpretation of

the Fourth Amendment’s protection against

unlawful search and seizure. He takes special

offense at Justice Scalia, who has professed

his belief in Constitutional originalism so many

times in the past, but now sees the Fourth

Amendment as needing revision. Orin Kerr

takes delight in pointing out that a staunch

originalist like Scalia would take the side of

the ‘living Constitution’ crowd. The Agitator

also singles out Scalia for derision. Scalia’s

assertion that the police force is capable of

governing itself and independently ensuring

the protection of each citizen’s Constitutional

rights prompts The Agitator to ask what the

Justice is smoking.

Next week, we will return with another death-

defying feat of law bloggery. We’re going to

jump the shark. Be there!!

Inside Legal Blogs[By Jeff]

This week, we fling ourselves full-speed against the brick wall that is the law blogosphere. No cowards allowed! We’re like

Evel Knievel, except instead of motorcycles, we deal with law blogs. And instead of danger, we face knowledge. So I guess

we’re not all that much like Evel Knievel; but we do have a red, white, and blue polyester jumpsuit with a cape.