Since I'm between appointments, I'll just note a couple of things in passing.

   
• The Connecticut Bar has made plain that it is a combination in restraint of trade using the formalism of state regulation of attorneys as justification for something that is purely a business practice. The CBA refused to allow MJP on grounds that

  "Connecticut is a high-cost state. Competition from lawyers in low-overhead states makes the practice of law a race for the bottom we cannot win," wrote Cava, of Zeldes, Needle & Cooper in Bridgeport. "Having built reputable practices, can our members afford the inevitable reduction in compensation they will have to absorb to remain competitive with the bottom fishers from 49 other states?"

  Can you say "price fixing"? See? I knew you could! At least this is more honest than a purported concern for inability to regulate lawyers from out of state…

   
• Speaking of regulating lawyers, how much do you want to bet that at most one or two scapegoats will take the fall for this conflict of interest? Even my dog spotted this one. But then, she's smarter than the average 1L—when given a choice among several books to chew on, she always chooses the most "literary" of them.
   
• Speaking of unjustified monopolies in the law, LLRX discusses the Stanley (founder of FindLaw)/West fiasco (scroll down past the bigass graphic). I couldn't put this in a work of fiction, because fiction has to be at least plausible and believable.
   
• The IPKAT notes that, due to droit morále, women can't wait for Godot. OK, so author's moral rights have a downside, too.