Mediaboss Marketing

The Supreme Court hears a case on March 29 that will test whether there is any real limit to the frighteningly invasive power of the IRS.

In Polselli v. IRS, the high court will resolve a matter of statutory interpretation on which circuit courts have disagreed.

NEGLIGENT IRS MISSES DEADLINE TO ACCOUNT FOR OWN MONEY

The case involves disputes about two complicated, badly written subclauses in the same section of a law governing IRS authority. Although the language is confusing, the question itself is plain. If the IRS is investigating Person A, may the agency rifle through the accounts of others who keep records pertaining to, or doing business with, Person A, without telling those others and without giving them a chance to convince a court to quash the search?

In a more rational legal regime, the Constitutions Fourth Amendment would be directly at issue. The amendment bars law enforcement agencies from warrantless searches of houses, papers, and effects, but the Supreme Court has treated the IRS as something other than law enforcement, ruling in 1964 that the agency need not meet any standard of probable cause to obtain enforcement of [IRS] summons. Never mind that, for ordinary taxpayers, the IRS is just as fearsome as the local sheriff.

A pair of further Supreme Court cases seemed to expand the IRSs summons power too far, so Congress worried the agency could go on what the court called 'fishing expeditions' into the private affairs of bank depositors. In direct response to those decisions, Congress adopted 26 U.S.C. 7609, requiring the IRS at least to give notice to people whose records it is trying to obtain. In doing so, however, Congress created an exception so that the IRS need not inform direct targets of its suspicion, to stop the targets from hiding evidence of wrongdoing in the meantime.

The entire reason Congress created section 7609 was to protect third parties (rather than direct targets) from IRS invasion without notice. Still, the exception it provided is horribly written. Its not just word salad, but word salad blended into a smoothie. The exception says the IRS need not provide notice of summonses issued in aid of the collection of (i) an assessment made or judgment rendered against the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued; or (ii) the liability at law or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person referred to in clause (i).

Appeals court judges themselves repeatedly said they had trouble making sense of what Congress wrote. Unfortunately, two federal appeals courts ruled that the in aid of language essentially reopens the door for the IRS to search almost anybodys account having any nexus to the targeted persons account, as long as the IRS asserts the third-party search is in aid of its investigatory powers. Again, this is a search without notice to the third party.

Not only do such third-party searches without notice violate the IRSs own published Taxpayer Bill of Rights (right No. 8), but they also pose massive problems for businesses, as laid out in numerous examples in an amicus brief from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, filed against the IRS. To name just one example, an expansive reading of IRS powers could put attorney-client privilege at serious risk if the IRS demands access to an attorneys files as well.

Unlike the other two circuit courts, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (for once) got this matter right. It decided that to read the subsections of section 7609 the way the IRS does would mean that what was intended as a limited exception would swallow the rule itself. Why would Congress create a legal provision to narrow the scope of IRS power and then create a subclause that expands its power beyond even what it had been previously? Of course, thats illogical.

Alas, two of three judges on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled otherwise, which is why the case is now before the Supreme Court. In dissent, conservative Judge Raymond Kethledge offered good sense. He noted that the Supreme Court consistently makes clear that judges should not interpret a statutory provision so as to render superfluous other provisions in the same enactment. To say the exception is bigger than the rule itself obviously would render the rule, and Congresss entire point in section 7609, superfluous. As Kethledge wrote, it would maul the bulk of section 7609.

Enough is enough. The nation was founded on a conception of limited government, with the governors accountable to the people. The IRS, for whatever reason, already is, for most intents and purposes, accountable to almost nobody. In section 7609, Congress quite obviously tried to put at least some guardrails on the agency. For the Supreme Court to allow the IRS to break those guardrails should be anathema.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

See more here:
Supreme Court should protect third parties from IRS fishing ... - Washington Examiner

More than a week after a U.S. Park Police officer shot and killed District teenager Dalaneo Martin, members of his family said theyve yet to receive official documentation about the encounter that ended Dalaneos life.

As family and friends of Dalaneo, affectionately also known as Debo, continue to demand information about the officers involved, they remain adamant about letting the world know the whole truth about their son, brother and nephew.

Debo was goofy. He could get under your ski, but he would give you his socks [and clothes] off his back, said Dalaneos mother Terra Martin on Sunday at the culmination of a march that started at a Shell gas station on the 3300 block of Benning Road in Northeast and ended on the 300 block of 36th Street where Dalaneo was pronounced dead eight days earlier.

Martin, flanked by Dalaneos siblings, friends, along with his significant other and their infant son, spoke about Dalaneo and his affinity for fashion, video games and swimming.

The grieving mother also recounted her last Facetime conversation with Dalaneo, the night before he was killed, during which he told her that he would pick up his six-month old son, Jordan, from her house in the morning. Since he had his baby, he tried to change his life, Martin said. It was all about Jordan. He has his baby four days out of the week and he was on it.

According to a U.S. Park Police spokesperson, U.S. Park Police officers arrived near 34th Street and Baker Street in Northeast at the behest of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) who received a call about a stolen vehicle.

Soon after arriving at the scene, a U.S. Park Police officer entered the backseat of the car as Dalaneo was sleeping.

Dalaneo woke up and pulled off, allegedly dragging another officer several feet. The car Dalaneo was driving then crashed into a house on the 300 block of 36th Street. Dalaneo, 17, was pronounced dead at the scene. Authorities said they recovered a gun in the vehicle.

On Sunday, family members said they learned that the officer in the car with Dalaneo shot him six times, with five of those bullets entering Dalaneos back. They also cited an anonymous witness who said they saw park police officers encroaching on Dalaneo as he was sleeping in the car, and one of them later choking him.

On March 22, four days after Dalaneos death, MPD Chief Robert J. Contee III said that an internal affairs investigation was underway. The findings will go to the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia.

The U.S. Park Police didnt return the Informers inquiry about the identity of the officers involved in the shooting.

For family members and friends who spoke about their lost loved one on Sunday, Dalaneos death incited fury about whats been described as the emotionless and callous rhetoric used toward alleged perpetrators of crime who are gunned down by police.

In the days leading up to the march and vigil, other people, including Katrice Fuller-Whitaker, took to social media to speak about the Dalaneo they knew. Years earlier, Fuller-Whitaker and other adults at Monument Academy Public Charter School in Northeast worked with Dalaneo, a special-needs student with a bubbly personality and love for his siblings.

Fuller-Whitaker said Dalaneo showed persistence in the face of housing insecurity and government-mandated separation from his family.

After Dalaneo left Monument Academy PCS, Fuller-Whitaker maintained contact with him and his family. Nearly a year ago, she saw her former student, who expressed interest in applying to a trade program that would equip him with the skills needed to financially support his soon-to-be newborn child.

Fuller-Whitaker told the Informer that, upon learning about Dalaneos death, she pondered why the U.S. Park Police officer who killed him on the morning of March 18 chose not to wake Dalaneo up from his slumber. She said failing to do so triggered the trauma-induced paranoia that Dalaneo had been struggling with throughout his childhood.

As Fuller-Whitaker and her colleagues mull over how to memorialize their former student, she continues to think about the countless other special-needs students who, because of a misunderstanding of their condition, have been funneled into the juvenile justice system or killed by aggressive police officers.

Because were in the population, were thinking of SPED (special education) first, Fuller-Whitaker said.

When a child matriculates [to school] with disabilities that manifest [in different actions,] nobody thinks about how that ends up in a situation when cops shoot first and ask questions later, she added. We are quickly penalizing these children because we dont want to do the work.

Dalaneos death counts among the latest in the string of police-involved killings that have taken place over the last few years.

Last year, MPD shot and killed Kevin Hargraves-Shird and Lazarus Wilson in two separate incidents. In 2021, AnTwan GIlmore, like Dalaneo, was killed by police after they found him sleeping in a car.

During the earlier part of March, MPD Sergeant Enis Jevric was charged with a federal civil rights violation and second-degree murder for the fatal shooting of Gilmore.

Months earlier, in October, the U.S Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia had also dismissed 90 gun and drug cases involving seven members of a crime suppression unit who are currently under investigation.

Contee recently told the Informer that improper searchers, what he described as Fourth Amendment violations, only tell part of the story about why cases dont lead to prosecution. He said that there are other situations where victims of crime are unable to properly identify their alleged perpetrator.

However, when officers dont correctly execute searches, MPD confers with the D.C. Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the U.S Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia to identify opportunities for retraining.

Meanwhile, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D), Contee and leaders of other local agencies have collaborated to expand the presence of District police at Metro stations and nightlife corridors.

Much to the chagrin of local activists, some D.C. council members have followed suit with the introduction of legislation that reverses the reduction of school resource officers, increases the local police force and creates economic incentives for police officers.

Bowsers FY 2024 budget proposal also allocates funds for an additional 200 officers.

In this climate, some activists, like April Goggans, said that she and her comrades face an uphill battle in rallying support for victims of police-involved shootings.

Earlier this year, Alaunte Scott, a 22-year-old Black man, faced a fate similar to Dalaneo during a situation involving local and federal law enforcement officers. During an on-foot pursuit in February, officers of the U.S. Marshals Service shot and killed Scott on the 4300 block of 3rd Street in Southeast.

In a statement, MPD said that Scott wielded a firearm during the chase, which compelled officers to shoot him.

In the aftermath of Scotts deadly encounter with U.S. Marshals and MPD, Scotts family members hosted a vigil and balloon release at Ft. Dupont Park in Southeast. They later protested in front of D.C. Superior Court on Indiana Avenue in Northwest in demand of accountability for the police officer who shot and killed Scott.

All the while, Goggans, a core organizer with Black Lives Matter DC, has counted among those whove stood on the front lines in solidarity with Scotts family.

Over the last decade, Goggans and her comrades some of whom have since formed other groups have made similar moves on behalf of other Black people shot and killed by local and federal police forces in the District.

While there had been much enthusiasm for the cause in the aftermath of George Floyds 2020 murder, Goggans noted the increasing difficulty these days in garnering local support for those who die during encounters with MPD.

She said that people who are frustrated and desperate for immediate solutions for violent crime often have not only dismissed victims of police-involved deaths as troublemakers deserving of their fate, but fallen victim to talking points circulated by Bowser and Contee.

The word that comes out of Mayor Bowser and Chief Contees mouths is guns, Goggans said as she described what she called Bowser and Contees strategy to avoid public scrutiny. People assume that if a person got shot, they deserved it; they were doing something they werent supposed to do. Theres no vigil that the community comes to for people killed by police. Its just families and activists, she added.

Its rarely folks who live in D.C. Even if they do come to the vigil, they likely wont come to the protest. Its wild to me because if youre a Black person born and raised in D.C., you know there are jump outs and things that have been happening for generations.

With Congress recent bipartisan takedown of the Revised Criminal Code Act and ongoing efforts by House GOP members to reverse local police accountability measures, Goggans said that Black residents rights have been further jeopardized.

Thats why Goggans has her sights set on educating residents about how the infusion of local and federal police negatively affects majority-Black communities. She said she wants to build an infrastructure that includes a large number of community members who are immediately and continuously responsive to acts of police brutality.

For Goggans, its a matter of countering Bowser, Contee and the rise of an ultraconservative, pro-police constituency that wants to penalize Black people.

Chief Contee and Mayor Bowser are banking on people grieving and people scared as a result of community violence so they can have the same talking points and push out harmful stuff, she said. Theres a moral dilemma [people have] that if theyre fighting police violence, that somehow theyre saying that community violence is not important.

See the article here:
Family Members Challenge Narrative About Teenager Slain by Park ... - The Washington Informer

In 2019, someone called the police on Elijah McClain a 23-year-old Black man from Aurora, Colorado because they thought he looked sketchy wearing a ski mask in August. McClain had anemia, which caused him to feel cold even in warm weather.

Though he was doing nothing wrong, the police subdued him with a dose of ketamine that proved fatal. The story is an encapsulation, according to Jamelia Morgan, of what happens far too often when people of color with disabilities encounter law enforcement.

Race and disability should not become pathways to police violence, she said. Thats at the core of our agenda: preventing a confluence of racism and ableism from impacting the day-to-day lives of people, especially people of color with disabilities.

Morgan, a professor at Northwesterns Pritzker School of Law, recently launched the Center for Racial and Disability Justice (CRDJ), which will promote justice for people of color, people with disabilities and people at the intersection of those identities.

In an interview with Northwestern Now, Morgan describes her motivation for founding the center, explains the relationship between race and disability and lays out her vision for the centers work going forward: Im excited about the possibility of powerful and effective collaboration with Chicagos rich ecosystem of activists and organizations to enact change, she says.

Why did you decide to pursue a career in law?

I grew up in Los Angeles in the early 1990s; I was seven when Rodney King was beaten by LAPD officers, spurring the LA uprisings. My interest in being a lawyer stems from some of the social movements of that period and their focus on policing and Black communities. Its sobering, of course, to note that were still dealing with many of the same issues.

As a Black woman, I also had family members who were impacted by the criminal legal system. To me, lawyers seemed to be the only people with a handle on that system who were able to secure justice in some cases. So, after growing up amid injustice, I had a desire to use the law as a means of responding to community harm.

What led you to found the CRDJ?

Before law school, I read Michelle Alexanders book, The New Jim Crow. That book gave voice to things that Id experienced regarding people caught up in the criminal justice system; its impact within Black communities; and the racial caste system in America. So, from my first days practicing law, I was thinking about the barriers and injustices that my clients were facing.

In law school, I participated in legal clinics that gave me the chance to defend clients for the first time. We interviewed and filed lawsuits on behalf of a number of individuals with disabilities who were incarcerated in Connecticut under conditions that failed to meet their medical and mental health needs, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

That work sparked my interest in disability law and inspired me to take a class on the topic, which opened a whole new perspective on anti-discrimination law. That became the framework which continues to inform my work today.

Why do you see disability justice, criminal justice and racial justice as intertwined?

The intersection stems from a combination of public policy that has failed low-income people with disabilities and the criminalization of mental illness. For decades, there has been a lack of investment in a robust healthcare system and infrastructure to meet the needs of people with chronic health conditions like mental health needs who cant afford quality healthcare.

When people lack support systems, they often end up in emergency situations where they need crisis care services. This often leads them to encounter police officers instead of trained mental health personnel. Many of the people who have been killed in encounters with law enforcement have had psychiatric diagnoses or disabilities.

Finally, we know that theres both a lack of investment and an over policing problem in many Black and Latinx communities. So, people of color with disabilities are disproportionately likely to have encounters with law enforcement for multiple reasons. This is incredibly troubling.

When you think about stories like Elijah McClains, what broader issues do you see at play?

This story illustrates what happens so often to Black men with disabilities: Theyre marginalized in two different ways. Its imperative that we think about how Black men are rendered vulnerable to policing, and why their identity is constructed as threatening, confrontational or noncompliant. Disability can result in non-normative expressions and behaviors which are in turn constructed as a basis for criminalization. In McClains case, there were clear violations of the Fourth Amendment, but we need to think broadly about the pathways that led to his killing.

Why do you feel its appropriate and important to have the center here in Chicago?

Chicago has a very rich history of organizing for Black movements. Its been the home of many leading racial justice organizations that have been thinking critically about the intersection of law and social change for decades, including important work to combat police violence. The disability rights movement has also always had a home here, with some leading organizations headquartered in the city.

Efforts are underway here to redirect law enforcement away from mental health crisis situations and instead have trained mental health personnel respond to reduce the risk of violence. Much work remains to be done in this and other areas, such as expanding the ability of people with disabilities to live independently. Many institutionalized disabled people who could live independently in the community are still fighting for the ability to do so via lawsuits. Im excited about what we can accomplish on these issues by working with community partners.

Where are you hoping to take the center over the next few years?

For now, weve kept our vision broad: Were interested in tackling all issues at the intersection of racial and disability justice in a way that promotes human thriving for all people of color. Were currently developing our strategic priorities, a process that I hope will incorporate community voices. But in our first year, were going to focus on three specific areas.

The first is crisis care. Because of the criminalization of disability, and psychiatric disabilities in particular, we need better ways of responding when people experience mental health crises. Well be weighing in with policy briefs and legal scholarship in that area.

The second area is healthcare discrimination. Were working with a team of terrific doctors at the Feinberg School of Medicine on research dealing with ableism and disability-based discrimination in healthcare settings. Implicit bias can affect the provision of services, so well be working on ways to develop more inclusive clinics. For example, we can educate and raise awareness among instructors through things like licensing or educational requirements.

The third and final area of focus is access to the courts. Well conduct research and develop technical manuals to support the creation of accessible courtrooms where not only criminal defendants, but civil litigants are able to access and understand court documents. The physical space of the court also needs to be accessible to all persons with disabilities. Were looking for a jurisdiction that will allow us to use one courthouse as the demonstration site for an inclusive and accessible courtroom experience.

Continue reading here:
Preventing racism and ableism from impacting people's daily lives - Northwestern Now

Nearly a half-century before Rahul Gandhi, his grandmother, former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, too, was disqualified from Parliament also as a consequence of a court decision. The comparison, however, ends here.

Indira was disqualified by a single-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which found her guilty of corrupt electoral practices in the elections of 1971. The decision by Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha which was stayed and subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court would be the trigger for Indira to declare the Emergency, which would change the politics of India forever.

The case was filed by the Lohiaite leader Raj Narain of the Samyukta Socialist Party after he was defeated by Indira in the election to the Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat in March 1971. Raj Narain challenged Indiras election on grounds of alleged corrupt practices under Sections 123(5), 123(6), 123(3), and 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which relate to the hiring of vehicles for the purpose of ferrying people to polling booths, exceeding the election expenditure limit, appealing for votes on the basis of religion, and using government functionaries for the furtherance of her election prospects respectively.

Narain alleged that Indira, along with her former Officer on Special Duty (OSD) and election agent, Yashpal Kapur, had spent more than the amount prescribed under Section 77 of the RP Act, read with Rule 90 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.

Justice Sinha found Indira guilty of corrupt practices under Section 123(7) of the RP Act. The misuse of police and Army personnel, judges, magistrates, and gazetted officers falls under the ambit of this subsection.

The court observed that Indira had used the services of Kapur, along with the Rae Bareli District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police to set up a stage, loudspeakers, and barricades for her election campaign. Indira had appointed Kapur her election agent after he had resigned from the Prime Ministers Secretariat on January 13, 1971, well before she started her campaign, but the Secretariat had not notified his resignation until January 25 of that year. Also, on January 7, when he was still a gazetted officer, Kapur had given speeches in favour of Indira.

The court concluded that Section 123(7) had indeed been violated and on June 12, 1975, ruled that Indira was guilty of having committed corrupt practice by having obtained the assistance of gazetted officers in furtherance of her election prospects.

Consequently, the Prime Minister was disqualified from Parliament, and from holding any elected post, for six years from the date of the decision.

Indira appealed her disqualification before the Supreme Court. The court was on vacation at the time, and on June 24, 1975, a single-judge Vacation Bench of Justice V R Krishna Iyer gave a partial stay on the High Courts order. It allowed Indira to continue as PM, but barred her from voting in parliamentary proceedings and said she could not draw her MPs salary. (Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) vs Raj Narain & Anr)

The day after the SCs interim order, on June 25, 1975, Indira declared a National Emergency on grounds of internal disturbance under Article 352 of the Constitution. During the period of the Emergency, Indiras government passed the Thirty-Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, which introduced Article 329A, which said that the elections of the Prime Minister and the Speaker cannot be challenged in a court of law.

On November 7, 1975, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by then CJI A N Ray unanimously upheld Indiras 1971 election, setting aside the rulings of the Vacation Bench and the Allahabad High Court.

Article 329A was omitted by the Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978, passed by the Janata government.

View post:
As Rahul Gandhi has to leave Lok Sabha, remembering Indira Gandhis disqualification 48 years ago - The Indian Express

I knew that arming teenagers with the ability to understand the difference between hearsay exemptions and exceptions would boomerang on me as a parent already locked in daily arguments about truth-telling. And yet, thats what my husband and I did once our children were old enough to participate in high school mock trial competitions.

Our past lives as prosecutors and civil defense attorneys gave us some measure of cool with our children, who were already dispensing advice to middle school classmates about the constitutionality of school disciplinary measures.

But my transition to corporate work and my husbands later focus on municipal law eventually made our careers too abstract for them. Mock trial gave the four of us a common language, which my husband and I were desperate to rediscover with two teenagers who were busy figuring out how to carve out a distinct space for themselves outside their parents world. I originally thought wed find that connection through music, but we are never going to convince our children of the objective superiority of 90s hip-hop and R&Band attempts to do so only made us feel old. (We did gain some credibility with them by pointing out the direct connections between rap lyrics and the quest for racial justice.)

My husband and I both speak courtroom, but adding angsty, awkward and unintentionally hilarious teenagers to our world enhanced our appreciation for the industry and our children. Our son was clinical in his approachhe wanted to understand the rules of the game and then happily went off to play it. Our daughter was initially much more wary about getting involved in the family business, even though she is instinctively prone to passionate argument, if life experience was any guide. Given her enthusiasm for writing and her gift for satire, she poked fun at and reveled in the geekiness and the hyperspecificity of the mock trial universe, to the point where she is now writing a screenplay about the experience.

So, while our childrens interest in participating in this sport (my word) was not a surprise, I was somewhat self-aware that this would awaken the stage mother in methey had to win, given their parents backgrounds, right?

Having competed in, coached and judged mock trial and moot court competitions throughout high school and law school, I appointed myself lead counsel for the childrens legal education. We explored the hypothetical contours of the rules of civil and criminal procedure and walked through scenarios that compelled the introduction of character evidence. We distinguished a defendants traits that are pertinent to an alleged crime from other crimes, wrongs and acts that are admissible to prove motive, opportunity and other limited issues.

The sessions backfired immediately. Our children quickly pointed out that leading questions on cross-examinations echoed the way we questioned them, and they challenged that we were improperly using their prior bad acts against them. I received my comeuppance as a working mother when our son told me he wasnt available for a call because he was in trial.

During the pandemic, we found ourselves dressed similarly in suit jackets, dress shirts and pajama bottoms as we argued about who would get the good room for oral argument. (Our children were not persuaded that real cases and actual adversarial proceedings should be given priority.) Opening statements echoed throughout the house.

But life lessons quickly surfaced too. Practicing lawyers and judges presided over rounds, and our children learned that a sustained objection may mean that while the objection was technically correct, the judge may still disagree on the objecting partys interpretation of the rule or argument. Being right on the law did not equate with winning the case; there are no appealsonly pivots in the theory of ones case.

It was undeniably gratifying that the children would seek our counsel on at least some things. Because of her newfound interest, our daughter even decided to clerk for me when I judged one round in a law school classroom outfitted as a courtroom. She was pleased to sit next to me on the bench to track evidentiary objections and exhibit admissions. I leaned into the opportunity to require her to call me Your Honor, even if it was only for several hours.

I learned to cheer them on as an actual parent and not rise from my seat in the audience to address an objection they missed. I was nervous before each fictional murder or negligence case, and I celebrated and mourned outcomes as if actual criminal convictions and liability findings were at stake.

Losses stayed with us for weeks, and we talked about alternative ways to approach the trials well past competitions. Our children shocked and amused us by seeking our unsolicited advice and, in the same breath, schooling us on trial strategy. It was admittedly eye-opening to hear about how they leverage emojis and social media posts as evidence.

I expected that our childrens appreciation for moot court to lag behind mock trial, which often had the guilty-pleasure appeal of a scripted reality television show. In contrast, moot court simulates formal appellate argument and can feel like an often-interrupted soliloquy in a play. Lawyers present legal arguments to a panel of judges with no witness testimony.

There isnt another high school extracurricular activity that tests a teens simultaneous ability to speak extemporaneously, to weather frequent interruptions from judges, to gauge from verbal queues and body language when a line of inquiry had ended, and to pick up where they left off in their argument.

Teens unsurprisingly feel strongly about the lyrical way the Supreme Court describes which First and Fourth Amendment rights teenagers shed when they arrive at the schoolhouse gate. The exercise of having teenagers defend their rights to adultswhile pretending to be experienced appellate lawyersmade for even more passionate and sometimes comical arguments as they tried to distance themselves from the teens and children they are.

Moot court personalized their understanding of the Constitution better than any civics lesson, as they argued about the intersection and divergence of constitutionality, fairness and justice.

These experiences brought me and my husband back to the early years of our practicewe fell in love with the courtroom and with each other at around the same time, and sharing our affinity for our work with our children felt like the logical next chapter of our own narrative.

Perhaps we should not have been surprised that the best way for our children to get better acquainted with who we are aside from being their parents was to enable them to understand our own approach to litigation. Some families play tennis together; we apparently get revved up by arguing about who has met their burden of proof.

Although we have enough jokes about the world having too many lawyers, one could argue that the world can never have enough good advocates. As I watch our children argue a pretrial motion or deliver a closing argument, I am filled with optimism for the future of the profession.

Anna Newsom is executive vice president and chief legal officer for Providence St. Joseph Health, a Catholic, nonprofit health system serving the Western United States. She previously held several leadership roles at the Travelers Companies and was a partner at the law firm Mendes & Mount. She started her legal career as a prosecutor in the Bronx district attorneys office in New York.

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at Your Submissions, Your Voice.

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journalor the American Bar Association.

Read more from the original source:
A real defense of fake trials and a love letter to my family - ABA Journal