By Carlyn Kolker

 Whatever happened to signing on the dotted line?

2/10/12

We have to admit, we always thought that lawyers in particular -- especially ones who deal with, say, housing contracts -- would be pretty careful to make sure they signed the papers before they announced a deal. Not so in the $25 billion mortgage settlement announced on Thursday between five big U.S. banks and state attorneys general, the Justice Department and the around the country. The settlement documents aren't actually finalized and available to the public, reports the American Banker. They are supposed to be posted to nationalmortgagesettlement.com, but they aren't there. "Some who talked to American Banker said that the political pressure to announce the settlement drove the timing, in effect putting the press release cart in front of the settlement horse," American Banker reports, citing unnamed sources.

He who laughs last

2/10/12

On the campaign trail, presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has not held back when it comes to his opinions on judges and the courts. Among other moves, Gingrich has said he would abolish the 9th Circuit and ignore Supreme Court precedent.

But the GOP hopeful has saved special scorn for U.S. District Judge Fred Biery in San Antonio, whom he has called an "anti-religious, dictatorial bigot," as the San Antonio Express has reported. The reason for Gingrich's anti-Biery ire: In May, the judge ruled that a San Antonio school couldn't include prayers at its graduation ceremony. Biery's decision was reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said that Biery was restricting students' free speech rights, saying the students were not "school-sponsored," according to Reuters. The case settled on Thursday, with the school district saying it would prohibit employees from displaying religious symbols at graduation, but allowing for students to pray.

In a three-page order (hat tip: Texas Lawyer, Associated Press) approving the settlement, Biery got a chance to perhaps get back at all the critics he's faced throughout the litigation. "What This Case Has Not Been About," Biery titled the first section. "The right to pray. Any American can pray, silently or verbally, seven days a week, twenty four hours a day, in private as Jesus taught, or in large public events as Mohammed instructed." Instead, writes Biery, the "real issue" is "does the United States Constitution allow a government entity elected by the majority to use its power to tax and its agents and employees to support and promote a particular religious not held by a minority?"

After a brief section approving the agreement, Biery leaves off with a "personal statement," or, er, some might call it a benediction, as it were: "During the course of this litigation, many have played a part:

To the United States Marshal Service and local police who have provided heightened security: Thank you.

To those Christians who have venomously and vomitously cursed the Court family and threatened bodily harm and assassination: In His name, I forgive you.

To those who have prayed for my death: Your prayers will someday be answered, as inevitably trumps probability.

To those in executive and legislative branches of government who have demagogued this case for their own political goals: You should be ashamed of yourselves.

To the lawyers who have advocated professionally and respectfully for their clients respective positions: Bless you."

A bond court judge's sentence is criticized

2/10/12

An unusual sentence by a Florida judge in a domestic violence case has raised concerns in the domestic violence community. Instead of requiring the accused to post bond, Judge John "Jay" Hurley of Broward County, Florida, required the man, Joseph Bray, to treat his wife to a night out of bowling, a meal at Red Lobster and counseling. "It was a minor accident," Judge Hurley said, in explaining the bail conditions, according to the Sun Sentinel, which also posted a video of the court hearing. The Sun Sentinel called Hurley's order "whimsical." The Wall Street Journal Law Blog delved into the "creative" sentencing, which noted that it was not aimed at shaming the defendant.

But now Hurley is being criticized by local domestic violence advocates, who say he was making light of a serious charge. (Police had arrested Bray after an altercation at home; his wife claimed she shoved her against a sofa and grabbed her neck). "To make light of what is a growing and very serious public safety issue here in our county demonstrates a lack of understanding around the issue of domestic violence," the group Women in Distress wrote in a letter to Hurley, according to NBC Miami. Hurley declined to comment to NBC.

What's in a name?

2/10/12

We've talked recently about children defending their parents' name. This looks like a little bit of the reverse: parents defending their child's name -- even if the child in question is barely a month old. The New York Post, citing the Washington Post, notes that hip-hop stars Beyonce and Jay-Z have filed to trademark the name of their daughter, Blue Ivy Carter. Um, why you ask? In case they want to release any products bearing their daughter's name -- and, hey, this is America -- to make sure no one else profits off the name. Sounds like they got themselves some good legal advice: two previous trademark filings by fashion and fragrance houses for the name have already been denied, the WashPo reports, on the grounds that consumers would be confused by their products, which also predicts Beyonce and Jay-Z's request is likely to be granted. Whew.

A big day for cameras in courts. Or was it?

2/10/12

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11 to 7 on Thursday to allow cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court. The bill, which is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, now goes to the full chamber for consideration, Reuters reported.

But, for supporters of cameras in the courts, the victory may be illusory: Similar bills have gone nowhere. ABC's Ariane De Vogue reports that 10 similar bills have been approved since 2001, but none has been passed out of the full Senate. And the Supreme Court has resisted efforts by the Senate, the public, the media, advocates, and anyone else who has an itch to see the inner workings of One First Street. So expect this latest effort to flop, too.

Jane Kirtley, a media law professor at the University of Minnesota, says that while there have been various efforts, both legislative and informal, since the 1980s to get cameras into the Supreme Court, none has succeeded.

Moreover, she says, there is a huge separation-of-powers issue that suggests it is unlikely that a congressional bill to force cameras into courts could even have any force -- even if it did pass.

"I believe there should be cameras in the Supreme Court, but the bottom line is I don't think Congress has the authority to force the courts to do this," says Kirtley. The judicial branch, after all, essentially makes its own rules on how it operates. "I always wonder whether an attempt of Congress to force this on the court is just going to encourage the justices to dig in their heels even more," says Kirtley.

It's a question of the psychology of the Justices. "Are they thinking, 'Oh, hey, we should be thinking about this more?' Or they thinking, 'Who are they to tell us what to do?'" asks Kirtley.

The best path, she says, may be to wait until support from younger Supreme Court justices changes the court's attitude from within.

Ironically, as Kirtley points out, state courts at both the appellate and trial levels are opening up more than ever to the notion of cameras in the courts. Stateline.org, a publication of the Pew Charitable Trusts, reports that all 50 states have expressed at least a willingness to have cameras in the courts, and in the past year Pennsylvania, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Illinois have become more camera-friendly. Thirty-seven states put webcasts, video, or audio arguments from their highest courts online, Stateline says, citing the National Center for State Courts. Just don't go looking for those kinds of recordings from the feds anytime soon.

Summary Judgments for Feb. 9

Summary Judgments for Feb. 8

Summary Judgments for Feb. 7

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal