It’s become fairly common knowledge that the power couple, Frank and Jamie McCourt, who have run the Los Angeles Dodgers since 2004, are going through a bitter divorce, with the ownership of the team waiting in the balance.
A recent article in the Chicago Tribune has taken a deeper look into the divorce, specifically at the judge presiding over the case. The judge’s demeanor is especially relevant in this case, as many divorce cases, because there will be no jury and the judge will solely determine the outcome.
The judge for the case is Scott Gordon, a former police officer and a man described repeatedly as “no-nonsense”.
The Tribune article began by describing a telling scene between Judge Gordon and attorney for Frank McCourt, Steve Susman.
Susman is one of the most well respected attorneys in America, and is ranked as one of the top 10 trial lawyers in America.
Susman suggested to Gordon how to number the exhibits for trial, and during the third attempt at explaining the ordering, Gordon cut off Susman.
“You’re from Texas?” Gordon asked. After Susman responded with an affirmative head nod, Gordon continued, “It’s a fantastic state… The last thing I would do in Texas is tell a Texas ... Read more..
The dedication of Eckstein Hall next Wednesday will feature Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Archbishop of New York Timothy M. Dolan, and United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, as described in this press release issued by the University. The event will begin place at 2 p.m. in the area between Eckstein Hall and Gesu Church (or Johnston Hall). I hope (and expect) that many will want to join us. Those interested should register by sending an e-mail to universityspecialevents@marquette.edu and plan on arriving early.
Read more..
Peter M. Brant and his soon-to-be ex-wife and former super model Stephanie Seymour have been in an extravagant divorce to end their 15-year marriage.
When Brant met Seymour, he was a billionaire and know for his vast art collection and his very own polo team. She was a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model and the ex-girlfriend of a rock star.
The divorce is gearing up to be one of the biggest. According to an article in the New York Times, when the trial begins on September 20th, the divorce will have caused more than 12,000 pages of public divorce documents, and millions of dollars in lawyer’s fees.
According to the Times, the divorce “[a]t the most basic level… has turned into a case of ‘he said, she said,’ with charges ranging from infidelity to rampant drug use.”
A clear oversight by Brandt has made the divorce even messier: he didn’t have a prenuptial agreement. This means that his net worth of $500 million is left to be divided by the court system, instead of being decided upon in advance.
The ultra-famous, or infamous, depending on your view, real estate mogul Donald Trump has expressed his attitude that Brant should have had a prenuptial agreement.
“I ... Read more..
Editors’ Note: As each new 1L class begins its legal education, our thoughts often turn back to our own first few weeks of law school. This post begins a new series on “What I Wish I Had Known When I Started Law School.”
I went to law school for all the wrong reasons. When I started in Georgetown’s part-time, evening division, I had been doing real estate development for four or five years. I was a client before I was a law student. I became quite annoyed that my attorneys seemed to be patronizing me. They spoke a language that was foreign to me. I decided to go to law school to find out what the mystique was all about and, hopefully, to emerge as a better developer.
About six weeks into law school, I realized that I was “turned on” by my studies. I told myself that I knew that I had played a lot as an undergraduate at Penn, but I had never before been intellectually excited by school. I told myself to slow down and enjoy the journey. I did just that and it changed my life. After law school, I gave up my real estate business and clerked on the U.S. ... Read more..
I was glad to see that Bruce linked to the fascinating debate on the nature of legal education prompted by Brent Newton’s article claiming that law professors “preach” what they don’t “practice.” I’ll comment later, although my general view, as someone who has much more practice experience than the typical full time legal academic, I think its an issue that is often drawn too starkly and that requires a nuanced response.
But today I want to talk about Law & Theology (10 am on Friday mornings in 204 for anyone who wants to add a seminar) and Glen Beck. Newton argues that law schools overemphasize “theoretical, increasingly interdisciplinary scholarship” and courses. But Glen Beck has put law (0r at least politics) and theology smack into the middle of the public debate. In this fallen world, we may have to take that where we can find it.
I am not a Beck fan and I don’t watch his show, but he does have this penchant for raising interesting issues, even as he oversimplifies and often misstates them. (Kind of like a student who spots the issue but, even if she gets the result right, flubs it.) For example, President Obama’s roots in, and return to, ... Read more..
