In a recent blog post entitled “Blogging rules,” Mark W. Bennett, a Houston, Texas-based criminal defence lawyer, writes about the perils of blogging (or “blawging”) about your client’s cases and concludes:

Over at the blog Defending People, in a post entitled, “The hunting of justice (an agony in eight fits),” Mark W. Bennett, a Houston-based criminal defence lawyer quotes Clarence Darrow on justice:

The recent Ontario decision Kay v. Caverson considers the test for reopening a civil trial after the plaintiff has rested. In Kay, the plaintiff moved under Rule 52.10 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, which reads:

The recent Ontario Superior Court decision in Salus Marine Wear Inc. v. Queen Charlotte Lodge Ltd. highlights the continuing plight of Canadian conflict of laws jurisprudence and the perplexing inability of counsel to properly brief the court on the analytical distinction between jurisdiction simpliciter (i.e. whether the court may assume jurisdiction) and forum non conveniens (i.e. whether the court should assume jurisdiction).

On April 1, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave in the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Crookes v. Newton, presenting a welcome opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify the nature and scope of online intermediary liability in Internet defamation cases.

The aphorism “Where you stand is where you sit” means that one’s philosophy and opinions are necessarily shaped by one’s job or profession, which fits well within the ongoing debate over the proper role of lawyers in the adversarial system.