As a result of this article about the option that some California prisoners have of paying for better prison conditions, there has been quite a bit of comment around the blogosphere about the fairness of providing such a perk. Heck, even the judge in Paris Hilton’s revocation of probation hearing felt compelled to deny Paris the “pay for a better prison” option in sentencing her to 45 days of jail time.
However, given the abysmal condition of most jails in the U.S. and the intractable political problems that prevent those conditions from being improved, I found Rick Garnett’s comment on the issue particularly insightful:

What should we think about these “upgrades”? Certainly, one could hardly blame one convicted of a “relatively minor” crime for wanting to take advantage of this option. And, these upgrades might well provide a useful source of revenue. I wonder, though: Why stop at $82.00 per day? I would think that corrections agencies could fill their “upgrade” cells while charging substantially more. What if it turned out that many of those convicted of “relatively minor” offenses were willing to pay, say, $1000 per day — or $10,000 per day — not to avoid the loss of physical freedom associated with punishment, but to avoid the non-trivial risks of being harmed by other inmates? What would this willingness tell us about the extent to which we are failing in (what I take to be) our obligation to protect those we incarcerate?
I assume we don’t want to say that these risks are “part of” the punishment that is justly imposed upon those convicted of crimes. So, if someone buys their way out of those risks, it is not — is it? — that they are buying their way out of duly imposed “punishment.” But, once we acknowledge that there are non-essential, unpleasant incidents of punishment that we *are* willing to allow people to pay to avoid, then how do we justify imposing those incidents on those who cannot (or simply do not) pay to avoid them?

Given how much this blog addresses issues relating to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the following announcement is timely:

[Stephen Bainbridge’s] Complete Guide to Sarbanes-Oxley is now shipping from Amazon.

Amazon’s Product Description:
Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in response to major corporate and accounting scandals–and many consider the act to be the most significant change in corporate governance and securities regulations in the past seventy years. SOX requirements have brought about far-reaching changes for public corporations, private corporations, and nonprofits. Every manager and director should be aware of how the business landscape will be affected.
The Complete Guide to Sarbanes-Oxley answers in nontechnical language such questions as: What does SOX mean to me now? Do I have to worry about it? How much legal and accounting help do I need? What information technology requirements will I face? If you’re a business owner, you need The Complete Guide to Sarbanes-Oxley!

As SOX turns 5, this up-to-date guide gives you a complete picture of how the statute has been implemented and continues to evolve.

Given Professor Bainbridge’s insight on SOX, any attorney or auditor providing advice to public companies on corporate governance or accounting issues would be well-advised to read this book and have it handy as a reference resource.

Peter Lattman reports that my old friend, former Houstonian and current Las Vegas criminal defense lawyer extraordinaire David Chesnoff had an interesting morning this past Sunday after the De La Hoya-Mayweather fight Saturday night in Las Vegas:

Las Vegas police arrested HBO Chairman Chris Albrecht early Sunday morning for allegedly assaulting a female companion. He was taken into custody at about 3 a.m. Sunday after police reportedly saw him engaged in a physical altercation with his girlfriend outside the MGM Grand Garden Arena, where they had attended the Mayweather-De La Hoya fight, carried by HBO. Hereís the story from the WSJ.
Itís surely not the first time a powerful business executive or celebrity has found himself in Las Vegas and in need of a good lawyer. And it appears that Albrecht found one in David Chesnoff, a Sin City criminal defense attorney.
ìLike anything else, there shouldnít be a rush to judgment,î Chesnoff told the WSJ, adding that he was still ìgathering facts.î
And weíve gathered some facts on you, Mr. Chesnoff. The 51-year-old Suffolk Law grad has a roster of celebrity clients, according to a 2005 story in the Review-Journal (link unavailable). Chesnoff has reportedly developed a something of a sub-specialty in shotgun Las Vegas weddings, helping Britney Spears annul her 55-hour marriage back in 2004 and representing Nicky Hilton in her attempt to maintain control of her wedding photos. He was also part of a team of lawyers that unsuccessfully argued Martha Stewartís appeal, and described the domestic doyenne as an old friend. Finally, befitting a Las Vegas lawyer, Chesnoff plays professional poker.

As you might expect, just listening to David’s stories during our periodic golf games is quite entertaining. ;^)

Looks as if I was wrong that CBS doesn’t have at least a colorable argument that it had grounds to terminate Don Imus’ contract for cause. This NY Times article reports that CBS has refused Imus’ demand to pay him the balance of the compensation under the contract and that Imus is preparing to sue CBS for terminating Imus’ contract for cause. Apparently, CBS is relying on a provision of the contract that appears to shift some termination risk to Imus if he made a controversial statement on the air that placed the network at risk of regulatory sanction.
Although different jurisdictions have varying standards for deciding such cases, CBS would have a tough case to make if Texas law controlled the dispute. CBS encouraged Imus’ offensive statements for years before his insult of the Rutgers women’s basketball team blew up in Imus and CBS’ collective faces. My bet is that the case is settled before too long with Imus taking a small discount for what he is owed under the contract in the settlement. But not before the lawyers on both sides take their cut. ;^)

In this WSJ Law Blog post, Paul Davies of the WSJ Law Blog passes along this Chronicle article about Beaumont plaintiff’s attorney Brent Coon issuing a subpoena to the editor and a reporter of a new weekly paper called the Southeast Texas Record, which is bankrolled by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform in Washington to promote an tort reform agenda (the Chronicle’s Mary Flood has more). Coon’s purpose in issuing the subpoena is that he believes that the editor and the reporter of the newspaper were attempting to taint jurors in one of his pending asbestos cases with regard to the newspaper’s April 2 inaugural issue. “This shameful propaganda machine is deceptive and demonstrates a willingness to misrepresent fact,” Coon complained as he was charging that the editor and reporter might have committed a “criminal act.”
Sounds as if Mr. Coon is better at pursuing plaintiff’s cases than Constitutional Law. The editor and the reporter’s writings are clearly protected free speech under the First Amendment. Not even a close call. Even in Beaumont.

Famed Houston plaintiffs’ lawyer John O’Quinn is used to doing the targeting in the lawsuits in which he is involved. But in the bizarre world of litigation swirling around the estate of the late Anna Nicole Smith, O’Quinn has become the target.
Howard K. Stern, a former attorney and companion of Smith, filed the defamation suit on April 13 against O’Quinn in federal district court in the Southern District of Florida. Stern bases his lawsuit on allegedly defamatory statements that O’Quinn made to the media while representing Smith’s mother in connection with litigation in Florida and the Bahamas that erupted after Smith’s death from a drug overdose earlier this year. Stern is alleging defamation and false light/invasion of privacy causes of action against O’Quinn, taking dead aim at O’Quinn’s multi-hundred million dollar net worth. This press release was issued by Stern’s lawyer, L. Lin Wood, a lawyer out of of Atlanta.
In the event this one makes it to trial (highly doubtful, in my view), it sounds ready made for Court TV.