Be Careful What You Search For In Google

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say
can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an
attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you
cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government
expense.”

Apparently, the Miranda Warnings might need an upgrade. Here’s something those US SC Justices didn’t cover: Google search terms and search results in your hard drive (I know, I know, that was in 1963 – no Google yet). Robert Petrick, on trial for the murder of his wife, might find himself in trouble because of the contents found in his computer. Among other things, Petrick allegedly used the search words “neck snap break” and “hold” before his wife was killed.
Read more about the story here.

At least here in the Philippines, we don’t have the same problem. Ask about Miranda and the police will immediately respond in this manner:

Suspect (or perpetrator, depending on whose point of view): Ser, hindi pa
ako na-mi-Miranda. [Sir, you haven’t given me my Miranda
rights.]
Police: Anong merienda
merienda!?!!! Sinuswerte ka! Tumahimik ka diyan at pirmahan mo na lang
itong confession kung ayaw mong masaktan. [What snack are you talking
about!? You’ve got to be kidding! Just shut up and sign this
confession if you know what’s good for you.]
Suspect (or perp): Pero
ser kailangan ko munang ma-Miranda! [But sir, I need to be
Mirandized!]
Police: er, suspect> Etong meriendahin mo, ulol! [Try eating this, idiot!]

You get the picture.

Who Let the Dogs Out? (Let Sleeping Dogs Lie)

The Florida Bar recently ruled that the ad put up by law firm Pape and Chandler is an affront to the legal profession (read the Reuters article here). The ad features a drawing of a pit bull with a spiked collar used as the logo of the firm (see the ad below). An earlier article touching on this appeared in law.com while discussing the crackdown on lawyer ads.
Speaking as a dog-lover first and a lawyer only second, I say this ad is an affront to pit bulls and apologies (to the dogs) are in order. In fact, my source of concern is not the logo or its use of the pit bull as their symbol. Rather, I think the Florida Bar should be more concerned with the firm’s web site and the pictures there (see a sample image to your right [no, not to your right side, I mean the right side of the screen …. facing you …. just look at the darn picture]). With every sort of pun intended, the state bar appears to be barking up the wrong tree especially considering that an earlier decision by a Florida judge declared said advertising as protected free speech. Here’s a link to the PDF copy of the decision. Legal ethics and good taste are distinct issues but are sometimes mixed up. Better stick with the former (which, however lacking, should be innate to lawyers) where the rules are set rather than the more nebulous concept of what is tasteful (and which, unfortunately, does not come as naturally to members of the bar). The rule of thumb would be, if there is disagreement such that opinions vary and the bar is divided – it would most probably be because we’re dealing with matters of taste rather than the ethical standards of lawyers. I’d like to think, this time speaking as a lawyer first, that we have a fair amount of understanding with regard to what is unethical – or at least enough to agree on something. The rest can be treated as white noise.