SCOTUS opens door to sports betting | Verdict sets off courtroom brawl | Proposal drops admission test mandate

Latest Headlines

From the ABA Journal

Accused man has the right to insist his lawyer refrain from conceding guilt, Supreme Court rules

May 14, 2018, 9:46 am CDT

Supreme Court strikes down federal law that bans sports betting

May 14, 2018, 9:26 am CDT

After jury convicts him, man punches his lawyer and a courtroom brawl breaks out

May 14, 2018, 8:52 am CDT

Federal judge accepts guilty pleas from lawyers in $4M phony billing scheme

May 14, 2018, 8:00 am CDT

Your Voice: Abandoning law school admissions testing would harm students, not help

May 14, 2018, 7:00 am CDT

Former New York Assembly speaker is convicted in retrial based on law firm referral fees

May 11, 2018, 4:45 pm CDT

ABA Journal wins best Web News Section and other national honors at 2018 Azbee Awards

May 11, 2018, 3:09 pm CDT

Nixon Peabody seeks to benefit the poor with its solar panels

May 11, 2018, 2:16 pm CDT

ABA Legal Ed council approves proposed rule change to end admission test requirement

May 11, 2018, 1:19 pm CDT

Morgan & Morgan apparently settles suit alleging its ads are misleading

May 11, 2018, 12:14 pm CDT

Harper Lee's estate settles litigation over Broadway adaptation of 'To Kill a Mockingbird'

May 11, 2018, 11:47 am CDT

Democratic report criticizes 'breakneck pace' of judicial confirmations, lack of diversity

May 11, 2018, 11:02 am CDT

Michael Cohen brought top client to BigLaw firm; other consulting clients have regrets

May 11, 2018, 9:59 am CDT

Question of the Week

We want to hear from you

Do you read novels?

Do you have any favorite legal novels? Can reading literary fiction help lawyers develop more empathy? Or do reading such works warp your mind a little bit? Answer in the comments.

Read the answers to last week's question: Should SCOTUS arguments be livestreamed?

Featured answers:

Posted by Sigmond333: "[The] fact that releasing it early this time didn't cause problems doesn't mean anything because nobody knew it was going to happen. If it's livestreamed, the court will never get through arguments on significant cases because they will have protesters shouting out the whole time, which the media will show, causing more protesters the next time. If they are only streaming audio, it might not be such a problem."

Posted by splyb: "Yes, absolutely. The argument that cameras and audio gear would be overly intrusive and distracting was never a good argument to begin with, but now it is utterly absurd. Playing to the cameras? Doubtful, and those that do will pay a steep price."

In the Magazine

From the May 2018 issue

Legal prey

Increased enforcement of immigration laws raises scam risk

Changing minds

4 strategies for effectively implementing a mindfulness program

This Week's Featured Blawg

From our Blawg Directory

Notice & Comment

The blog seeks to facilitate dialogue between legal scholars and practitioners about regulatory law—including administrative law generally, financial regulation, corporate law, environmental law, bankruptcy law and tax law.