Jon Katz in the News

My tireless blogging colleague Scott Greenfield has written repeatedly about (partly) consumer-driven lawyer ranking site AVVO (whose spelling can mistakenly be seen as "awo", depending on how closely one's computer screen places the vees in the word).

Having learned about AVVO from Scott's site, I answered the site's information questionnaire. Eventually, after my questionnaire information and a few client reviews, I was given a ranking of 9.4 out of ten, or "superb". Although I am happy to receive such recognition, the rankings system does not sound scientific.

On July 15, a Maryland Daily Record reporter called me for an article that appeared today, curious about her assertion that "Searching for a Maryland lawyer brings up Katz near the top of the list." If you do not want to be misquoted or distorted out of context, do not speak with a journalist; knowing this frequent risk, I still ordinarily speak freely with journalists about matters not involving my clients, with possibly the most stark example of unprofessional interviewing of me coming form the insensitivity of a reporter (and/or his news organization) engaging in what I thought was sensationalism by telling me on camera rather than off that Deborah Palfrey had killed herself, and then seeking comment -- without ever pausing the camera -- when I had nothing to do with the case.

The reporter's somewhat minor distortion in this AVVO article is in writing that I have "suggested that clients write positive reviews" on AVVO. In reality, I was answering her question about how people ended up writing the handful of AVVO reviews about me, by saying that in the past when clients thanked me deeply for my service, I would offer for them the option of sending me an anonymous testimonial for me to post to our website if they wished, and now add the option to post an AVVO review. The AVVO review is a convenient way for a client to eliminate me as the middleman in getting feedback posted.

In any event, the article confirms that AVVO's name comes from avvocato, which is the Italian word for lawyer. Curiously, whether or not intentionally, the French word for lawyer, avocat, also is the word for avocado, which is one of my favorite foods. Early on when my law partner Jay Marks and I hosted a call-in Spanish radio show "Legally Speaking: Where your cause is our cause" I got the moniker "gato" for cat/Katz, which then led to the less frequent moniker of "abogato", blending abogado for lawyer and gato for cat. The equivalent in Italian would be avvogatto.

Finishing on this tangential discussion of the word lawyer, a very persuasive, dedicated, and intelligent longtime Amnesty International activist who spoke at the invitation of my law school's Amnesty International chapter started out by saying that the law is an ass, because, in his view, it is slow and plodding to achieve beneficial change. He then asked "If the law is an ass, what are lawyers?" I did not get around to asking him if he meant assh--les, but he had me in stitches nevertheless, even though I thought such a view was hyperbole taken from frustration with the legions of lawyers who to this day focus heavily on money and little on fairness and justice. (Only a few years ago, a colleague who includes criminal defense in his practice very seriously asked if I agreed with his view that the law practice is all about making money; I strenuously disagree with him.) My laughter in response to the Amnesty International activist came in the context of  having expected that part of my law studies would involve learning the language of the oppressive enemy, so that I could more successfully battle that enemy.

In any event, AVVO probably presents serious challenges to the once predominant Martindale-Hubbell legal directory, which is driven by rankings purportedly based on peer reviews, and expanded listings arising from payments for the inclusion. (Disclaimer: Our firm pays for such a listing.)Then again, the Internet has created substantial competition throughout the for-profit sector, including shaking the previous predominance of yellow page directories.  Jon Katz

 Image from Library of Congress's website.

As I have said previously, journalists are fallible humans, so lawyers should resist the temptation to treat them as confidants.

One reason to beware of talking with journalists about a client's case is the risk of being misquoted, whether by direct misquote (e.g., the reporter writing that the lawyer said his "client is guilty" when actually the lawyer said his "client is not guilty," or by being quoted out of context (e.g., where the reporter quotes the lawyer as saying "All the suspects are guilty," where the lawyer actually says "All the suspects are guilty except for my client."

Sometimes a reporter misquotes a lawyer based on what the lawyer says in court, rather than on the basis of an interview, which means that merely declining an on-the-record interview does not automatically protect against misquotes. As a for instance, yesterday I was in court for the Westboro Baptist Church case, seeking a stay of the enforcement of the $5 million judgment pending the outcome of my clients' pending appeal. The judge ended up granting the motion as to my clients the Westboro Baptist Church and its pastor Fred Phelps, Sr., after I agreed for a lien to be placed on their respective real property, whereby my clients will retain the right to contest the enforcement of the lien on legal grounds should the defendants lose on appeal. How, then, did a Daily Record reporter (who spoke with me after the hearing, which conversation I kept off the record) get this result so wrong by erroneously reporting that I consented to freeze the church's assets? Perhaps he was listening to the J. Geils band earlier in the morning, and got confused.

I found the article with this misquote on google news, and left a voice mail with the reporter asking him to correct the error. I confirmed that, the First Amendment zealot that I am, it will remain but a request.

If this is the worst misquote that I ever experience, I will be fortunate. My favorite conceptual artist, Joseph Kosuth, had a riveting exhibit in the early 1990's entitled "A Play: The Herald Tribune, Kafka and a Quote." The foregoing quote does seem Kafkaesque. Jon Katz.

ADDENDUM: Later in the day on April 4, the Daily Record met my request to fix this misquote, by changing it online to saying that the judge "eventually obtained consent from Katz, of Marks & Katz LLC in Silver Spring, for the liens, pending appeal." I don't know whether the print version of the newspaper will carry a correction notice.

 Image from Library of Congress's website.

Recently I learned that a legal affairs writer suggested, on the Maryland Daily Record's blog, that I might have been among Maryland's top 2007 legal newsmakers in terms of having "the greatest impact — positive or negative — on Maryland law or the Maryland legal community", for my defense of the First Amendment in Snyder v. Phelps, et al. In this litigation, and as detailed here, I defended the Westboro Baptist Church and its pastor against counts of defamation (count dismissed on summary judgment), intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy for church members' very strong messages (quite the understatement) while picketing on a street in Westminster, Maryland, before the funeral proceedings for a soldier killed in Iraq. 

I did not know how much of a grain of salt to take with the suggestion that I might be one of Maryland's top 2007 legal newsmakers. On the one hand, the rigor of the list is brought into question by the writer's inclusion of Paul Minnich alongside my name, even though it was two of his co-counsel who were the only lawyers at trial for the plaintiff and at the depositions; perhaps mistaken identity took hold, possibly all the more from the parties having been subjected to a gag order throughout the trial. On the other hand, I am more than happy for the recognition, to the extent that it recognizes my ongoing fight for robust First Amendment rights, so that perhaps others will be influenced to join the same fight. The irony is not lost on me that during my fight for the First Amendment in this case, all lawyers were gagged from speaking with the press about the case, until after the jury returned its verdict. Jon Katz.

ADDENDUM - Pending before the Maryland federal trial court in the Westboro Baptist case are timely-filed post-trial defense motions including a motion to reduce the jury verdict, and a motion to stay the judgment pending appeal.

Last year, I spoke on a criminal continuing legal education panel where a lawyer who had a high-profile case said "No publicity is bad publicity."

Think again. Journalists are humans, and should not be treated as confidants; fortunately, with some reporters, one's guard does not need to be skyhigh, but caution needs to be used with unknown reporters, even when they come from exalted news organizations. Over time, I have experienced the real value of never hesitating to say with a smile to journalists: "Off the record", "I will not be commenting on that right now, because...", "You should seek a different interviewee, because my opinion does not match the viewpoint you seek," and "You appear to be trying to get an inaccurate soundbite from me through seeking a yes or no answer to a convoluted question." 

Substantial self control often is needed to decline the publicity (not all publicity is good publicity, including for one's client) of being on television or radio, or in print. In dealing with the press, less is more; it is wiser to selectively choose which interviews to accept, even if no interview requests will ever follow the declined interview invitation.

This posting follows up on my November 30, 2007, discussion of the highly subjective nature of lawyer rankings on the one hand, but my welcoming recognition in rankings and the media, nevertheless. The Washington, D.C., area, is an incredibly competitive market for providing legal services. Such free publicity helps us avoid spending much on marketing, and to focus our time on serving our clients and our revenue on quality support staff.

In that regard, Super Lawyers recently added me to its Maryland criminal defense attorneys list. Fewer than fifty other Maryland criminal defense lawyers also are on the list, plus seventeen more for drunk driving and white collar criminal defense (which I also handle). Super Lawyers seeks advertising revenue from its ranked lawyers for display ads; our firm has never paid Super Lawyers a dime, so we have no display ad.

Concerning the Maryland listing, Super Lawyers explains: "Maryland Super Lawyers is published in January in a special advertising section in Baltimore magazine, which reaches 194,000 readers, and in Maryland Super Lawyers magazine, which is delivered to more than 25,000 readers, including Maryland lawyers, the lead corporate counsel of Russell 3000 companies and the ABA-approved law school libraries. Super Lawyers names the top 5 percent of Maryland lawyers, as chosen by their peers and through the independent research of Law & Politics. 2007 Maryland Super Lawyers based on the survey of more than 21,000 attorneys across the state."

Super Lawyers' selection process does not sound very rigorous. Scott at Simple Justice heavily pans the Super Lawyers list and the AVVO list.

Flying in the face of the First Amendment, in mid-2006, the Committee on Attorney Advertising appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court, concluded in its Advertising Opinion 39 that: "[A]dvertisements describing attorneys as 'Super Lawyers,' 'Best Lawyers in America,' or similar comparative titles, violate the prohibition against advertisements that are inherently comparative in nature, RPC [Rule of Professional Conduct] 7.1(a)(3), or that are likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, RPC 7.1(a)(2)."

The latest developments that I could find on this New Jersey matter are from mid-2007, as follows in reverse chronological order. If you have more recent information, please send it my way:

- Law.com provided an update on the then-pending court controversy on June 19, 2007.

- The Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus/friend-of-the-court brief opposing Opinion 39, and providing a useful chart on how the different states treat comparative lawyer advertising. This is particularly noteworthy when considering that the FTC is not always a friend of the First Amendment, including its active role to regulate cigarette advertisements (with Congress banning cigarette television commercials in 1970).

- Curiously, an official May 2007 announcement from the New Jersey State Bar Association mentioned that its new treasurer had been included in the Super Lawyers list.

- In January 2007, the Maryland Daily Record reported that the large Venable law firm decided not to be included in that year's Maryland Super Lawyers list: "The [New Jersey] ethics panel decision is, of course, not binding on lawyers in other states, but Venable decided it 'should be given some consideration,' firm counsel G. Stewart Webb Jr. said. New Jersey's lawyer advertising rules are based on the model rules followed by other states, he pointed out. 'We basically decided prudence dictated we should not participate in the survey while the issues were still out there,' Webb said." Even though a final court decision on New Jersey Advertising Opinion 39 still seems pending, ten months later, on November 29, 2007, Venable issued a press release entitled "14 Venable Lawyers Named to Washingtonian Magazine’s 2007 List of D.C.-Area’s Top Attorneys," which is a list that has included me twice in a row since 2004. It does not appear that touting a Washingtonian top lawyer listing would be any more permissible under Opinion 39 than touting a Super Lawyer or Best Lawyer listing. Is this a matter of changed policy at Venable, or a case of one hand not following or controlling what the other hand is doing?

- Super Lawyers' online position on the matter is here.

Commentary and information from 2006 on New Jersey Advertising Opinion 39 follows, in chronological order:

- Law.com provided extensive coverage of the story on July 25, 2006.

- The Associated Press reported in August 2006 that the New Jersey Supreme Court stayed Advertising Opinion 39 pending litigation over the matter.

- On August 1, 2006, Law.com provided information about the lawyers hired by Super Lawyers and the Best Lawyers directories against Advertising Opinion 39.

- On September 15, 2006, the New York Times covered the story.

- On November 17, 2006, Law.com reported on the New Jersey Attorney General's backing Opinion 39, but also supporting flexibility on lawyer advertising.

So it goes. Jon Katz.

Washingtonian Magazine has renewed my Top Lawyers ranking in its December 2007 issue at page 145. When Washingtonian last published such a ranking, in 2004, I was included for the first time in that listing. 

Washingtonian calls the list "800 Top Lawyers" with the following description: "Here are Washington's best -- the top 1 percent -- in 26 legal specialities." Washingtonian further describes the list: "This is the fifth time that The Washingtonian has compiled a list of top lawyers. It is created primarily by peer recommendations. We asked, by telephone and e-mail, some 1,000 attorneys who (excluding themselves and members of their firms) the top practitioners in their fields are and whom they would hire to represent them in a range of areas."

Why should I even be speaking of this ranking? The magazine admits it is subjective. On the other hand, I like that a magazine as mainstream and widely-read as the Washingtonian gives exposure to such lawyers as myself who focus on doing good with the law, rather than on pleasing the mainstream.

Do I like the publicity that this ranking brings our firm? Certainly, just as I also like putting my AV-rating and media appearances on the back of my business card. The Washington, D.C., area, is an incredibly competitive market for providing legal services. Such free publicity helps us avoid spending much on marketing, and to focus our time on serving our clients and our revenue on quality support staff. Of course, I get a kick from media exposure, always tempering it with the knowledge that silence is sometimes the best substantive response to the media.  Jon Katz.

Camera image from U.S. Geological Survey website.  

Tomorrow morning, July 31, FoxNews channel 5 in Washington, DC (not national FoxNews) will interview me about the developments in Michael Vicks's dogfighting prosecution, whose case I discuss here. The interview will last up to five minutes, will start no earlier than 7:00 a.m., and will end no later than 8:00 a.m.

Only using the television to watch DVD's, I have no cable and no decent broadcast television connection. If you're in the Washington, DC, area, and think I am worthy, please feel free to set your VHS recorder to tape the interview. It goes without saying that I will be deepl;y grateful for such a kindness.

Have a great week. Jon Katz.

Photo from website of U.S. District Court (W.D. Mi.).

Two days ago, the New Orleans Times-Picayune called to interview me about the recent disclosure by alleged D.C. Madam Deborah Jean Palfrey -- who I think is gravely mistaken to be talking publicly about her case, let alone in such depth -- that she expects to have Louisiana Senator David Vitter testify at her trial. The resulting article and my quote are here.

I have written many times that prostitution should not be criminalized, particularly when the police and prosecutors have plenty to do with more serious crime, and particularly when police and prosecutors need to spend more time evaluating their cases so that they do not prosecute the wrong people. I have also argued to legalize marijuana and to heavily decriminalize other drugs, not only for civil liberties reasons, but also to eliminate an overgrown and overly unjust criminal justice system that runs rampant on the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to obtain a just bond, the right to receive a fair santence, and the list goes on.

As revealed by the online filings in Ms. Palfrey's federal case in the District of Columbia (available through the PACER website), her assets have been frozen pending efforts to forfeit her property as alleged gains from alleged prostitution crimes. Perhaps frustration over her frozen assets influences her decision to speak out so publicly about her pending case. Jon Katz.

ADDENDUM 1: Yesterday, ESPN.com interviewed me about the prosecution in Richmond, Virginia, federal court for alleged dogfighting crimes against Atlanta Falcons star Michael Vick. I anticipate that the story will include quotes from me about the grand jury process in the case. I will post a link to the story after it is uploaded.

ADDENDUM 2: The ESPN interview referenced in Addendum 2 above culminated in this opinion piece that includes quotes from me.

Vlogger Paula Gloria found me recently through my link to an interview with Bhagavan Das and her.

Overlapping my blogging today about Bhagavan Das, Paula and I have recently traded a couple of e-mails about Bhagavan, including how I learned about him through Ram Dass's  Be Here Now. She sent me this link to an upcoming broadcast that includes Paula's brief discussion (starting at minute four) about me and my detailed personal links page, and her intrigue that all this comes from a lawyer.

By now, our website and blog are very extensive and in depth (with less depth and breadth to my personal website), through an accumulation of over seven years of work. Jon Katz.