The median salary for most first-year associates is barely hovering at $145,000.

Unless you work for Bickel & Brewer of course.

The Dallas, Texas-based litigation firm is paying its 2013 first-year associates a base annual salary of $185,000, according to ALM's Tex Parte Blog.

That's a whopping $134,946 more than the median household income in 2011, according to the Census Bureau.

"The goal here is always to be ahead of the curve," founding partner William Brewer said of the firm's massive offers, according to Above The Law.

Given the fact that most first-years at big corporate firms only make $160,000, we'd say Bickel & Brewer has achieved its goal.

DON'T MISS: New Survey Shows Why Lawyers Are Terrible At Doing Business >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

One of Apple's controversial mobile patents, the "rubber banding" patent, has been invalidated by the United States Patent Office, Florian Mueller of Foss Patents reports.

The "rubber banding" patent is being rejected because it lacks novelty, says Mueller. Mikey Campbell at Apple Insider adds that the patent is being rejected because there is a similar patent from AOL, and it's not clear Apple added much with its rubber banding patent.

The "rubber banding" patent covers a rather minor action on Apple products. If you open Safari and scroll to the top of the page, then pull down, you see a background behind the web page. When you pull down on the page, it's like it's attached with a rubber band. This doesn't work only on Safari, it's across iOS apps. While it's a minor action, it's one of the small touches that makes iOS fun, and natural.

The invalidation is not final. Apple can still appeal the decision.

However, if the ruling stands, it would appear to impact Apple's $1 billion patent ruling over. Samsung has already submitted this news to the judge ruling over Apple's case with Samsung.

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

More than half of recent law grads are out of work or have jobs that don't even require a law degree, according to a recent survey.

But that doesn't mean they regret racking up as much as $200,000 in law school debt.

The Kaplan Bar Review surveyed recent law grads this summer and found that 62 percent of unemployed grads still believe they'll get a job in the next three months, The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reported Monday.

This is apparently despite the fact that only 55.2 percent of 2011 grads were employed this summer in legal professions.

Out of the 700 or so grads surveyed by Kaplan, 37 percent gave their education an "A" grade and more than half gave it a "B" grade.

And even though many legal industry watchers are calling law school a "scam," even unemployed grads don't seem to agree. Nobody gave their law school experience a failing grade.

DON'T MISS: Law School Tuition Is About To Jump To The Most Outrageous Levels Yet >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

No one in his low-key Brooklyn neighborhood would have guessed this father of four was allegedly a pimp responsible for running four brothels in Manhattan.

Fort Greene resident William Thomas is accused of not only operating brothels in the Financial District and Midtown East, but also running raunchy sex websites featuring pictures of naked, busty Asian women, the New York Post reported Tuesday.

Thomas, 42, worked in IT for Compuware in New Jersey before divorcing his first wife and moving to New York to date a string of Asian women, the New York Post reported, citing unnamed sources.

He has been operating the prostitution ring since at least September 2011, according to the Post, which cited a criminal complaint. The illicit business catered to "white collar Johns," DNA Info reported.

Neighbors and family alike were shocked at Thomas' arrest but his son wasted no time throwing his dad under the bus.

"Awesome dad! way to make the thomas family proud.," Thomas' 11th-grade son Noah Thomas tweeted. “My dad is the upcoming story on nbc news if anyone wants to watch . . .Pretty surreal to hear your dad’s name on the news in connection to a massive prostitution ring bust. had to happen eventually i guess.”

Police busted Thomas' business after an undercover cop posed as a John and was allegedly directed to one of the ring's four brothels, according to the Post.

DON'T MISS: Detroit Police Chief Accused Of Affair With The Same Woman Who Brought Down The Last Police Chief >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Facebook's main source of revenue — its "Sponsored" ads — has put it in the middle of a proposed class action lawsuit. 

An NFL merchandise retailer accused Facebook, its ad partner adSage, and a number of alleged knock-off goods sellers of false advertising in a complaint filed Monday.

New Mexico-based Krystal's NFL Shoppe says Facebook displayed ads for seemingly authentic NFL products that were actually Chinese knock-offs.

"Nike NFL Jerseys $21" and other ads even appeared on Krystal's Facebook page – leading people to believe Krystal's sold the knock-offs, according to the complaint.

Krystal's says in its suit that counterfeit goods makers are using both the credibility of legitimate merchandisers and Facebook itself to turn a profit. The company is suing on behalf of all makers of official NFL merchandise.

Facebook and adSage did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.

These aren't the first allegations of customers being targeted by websites selling fake jerseys. 

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has already shut down 70 websites selling sports goods, which allegedly violated the Lanham trademark law, according to Deseret News.

SEE ALSO: Here's GM's 'Tasteless Ad' Featuring Einstein That A Judge OKed >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Prompted by the fatal shooting rampage at a suburban Milwaukee spa, two local lawmakers are pushing legislation to tighten enforcement of gun rules in domestic violence cases.

But it's unlikely their proposed changes would have prevented 45-year-old Radcliffe Haughton from buying a handgun just two days after his estranged wife obtained a restraining order against him. He used the gun to shoot seven women at the spa, killing his wife and two others, before fatally shooting himself.

Still, Sen. Lena Taylor said the shooting highlights the need for better enforcement of laws that require restraining order recipients to surrender their weapons.

"Across Wisconsin there are inconsistent standards, or sometimes none at all, for the collection of weapons owned by domestic abusers," the Milwaukee Democrat said Monday as she and Rep. Penny Bernard Schaber pushed for the bill.

Haughton opened fire at the Azana Day Spa around 11 a.m. Sunday, just three days after his estranged wife, Zina, obtained a four-year restraining order. He was ordered to turn over all of his firearms to a county sheriff, though it's unclear whether he turned in any weapons.

But he bought the .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun used in the attack from a private owner on Saturday, according to police in Brown Deer, the Milwaukee suburb where Haughton lived. The seller did nothing illegal, however, because Wisconsin law only requires background checks and a 48-hour waiting period from gun dealers, not from private individuals.

Three of the victims remained hospitalized late Monday.

Taylor's legislation calls for requiring individuals who are subject to a restraining order to surrender their firearms within 48 hours or face arrest. The bill failed to pass in 2010, after the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups fought it.

Tony Gibart, policy coordinator for the Wisconsin Coalition against Domestic Violence, supports Taylor's bill but admits it may not have done anything to stop Haughton.

"We don't know what would have prevented this situation," he said.

Jeff Nass, president of Wisconsin Force, an NRA-chartered state association, said such a law would have done nothing to prevent Haughton's shooting spree.

"It's just one of those things that make some people feel better," Nass said. "It's just like a restraining order. We know how effective those are. The tragedy is, it's hard to understand how people think and what deranged people do."

Court records show that Haughton had terrorized his wife for years, including threatening to throw acid on her face, dousing her car with tomato juice and slashing her vehicle's tires.

The former car salesman was charged with disorderly conduct last year after police responding to a 911 call saw him point what appeared to be a gun at his wife from a window at their home. Officers took cover, and a 90-minute standoff ensued. It ended peacefully.

But police said Monday they were never able to confirm a gun was involved because Zina Haughton wouldn't allow them into the couple's home. The charge against Radcliffe Haughton was later dropped when a police officer failed to appear in court.

Police said the officer asked the prosecutor to reschedule but the prosecutor refused. A call to the prosecutor Monday evening seeking comment rang unanswered.

According to court records, Zina Haughton had told police her husband didn't own any guns. But she was concerned enough about her safety that she got a police escort when she went to the house earlier this month to pick up a few items.

When she drove to work after picking up the items, her husband was waiting in a car outside the spa. He leaned out of the vehicle and, in front of her and two co-workers, slashed her vehicle's tires, according to court documents. He was later arrested.

In her request for a restraining order, filed in that case on Oct. 8, Zina Haughton wrote that her husband had threatened to kill her if she ever left him. He also at various times had threatened to throw acid on her face and burn her and her family with gas, she claimed.

"His threats terrorize my every waking moment," Zina Haughton wrote.

___

Associated Press writer Gretchen Ehlke in Milwaukee, and researchers Lynn Dombek and Rhonda Shafner in New York contributed to this report.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The ex-CIA officer who blew the whistle on secret rendition and waterboarding programs has pleaded guilty Tuesday to a single count of revealing the identity of a covert officer, the Justice Department announced.

But activists like Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer who works for the nonprofit Government Accountability Project, argue that the reason John Kiriakou is facing two and a half years in prison may have more to do with him talking about the CIA's torture program than confirming the name of one of the agents involved.

Kiriakou, 47, worked as a CIA operative between 1990 and 2004 and took part in operations to capture al-Qaeda suspects in Pakistan. In a 2007 interview with ABC he described the CIA's Rendition, Detention, Interrogation (RDI) teams and the waterboarding on al-Qaeda suspects.

In January Kiriakou was charged with four counts, including the disclosure of the name of the RDI program chief and the role of another CIA employee in classified activities regarding "black sites." 

But a former government official with close ties to the case told Kevin Gosztola of Firedoglake that at least ten individuals in the human rights community and several journalists knew about the chief before Kiriakou confirmed the name—which didn't become public until last week—to ABC journalist Matthew Cole in August 2008.

The official added that the CIA was “totally ticked at Kiriakou for acknowledging the use of torture as state policy” and hoped to make an example out of him.

Kiriakou is the first person linked to the controversial "enhanced interrogation" program to be prosecuted.

He is the sixth whistleblower to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act by the Obama administration, although the two counts under the World War-I era law have been dropped with the plea.

SEE ALSO: The 'Enhanced Interrogation' Techniques Used After 9/11 Came Straight From This Military Manual >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

A 19-year-old American man told the Associated Press the NYPD paid him to collect names of John Jay College students studying Islam and trick Muslims into saying incriminating things.

Shamiur Rahman, who's of Bengali descent, gave the AP a whole host of incriminating statements against the NYPD, which the news organization backed up with Rahman's text messages and cellphone records.

The entire AP story is worth a read but here are some of the most damning claims:

• Rahman says he earned up to $1,000 a month for ratting out the Muslim community.

• The department allegedly said its strategy was "create and capture" meaning Rahman was supposed to create a conversation about Jihad or terrorism and send the suspect's response to the NYPD.

• Rahman admitted to taking pictures inside mosques and eavesdropping on imams.

• He monitored the Muslim Student Association at John Jay College, reported on the group's meetings, friended group members on Facebook, and recorded the meetings.

• But the worst claim is when Rahman admitted he "misinterpreted what people had said. For example, Rahman said he would ask people what they thought about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, knowing the subject was inflammatory. It was easy to take statements out of context, he said."

Rahman stopped working for the NYPD earlier this year and told the AP he plans to move to the Caribbean.

The NYPD did not immediately respond to a request from Business Insider for comment on Tuesday.

DON'T MISS: Fed Reserve Bombing Suspect Almost Let Islamic Law Stop The Attack >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

While many Americans will go out to vote on Nov. 6, millions of U.S. citizens will be forced to stay home because they broke the law.

Some states allow felons to vote after their release, but a few bar them from voting forever. 

This infographic, released Tuesday, uses 2010 data from the ACLU and the nonprofit ProCon to break down what disenfranchisement looks like for felons in this country.

There's cluster of red states that bar the highest number of felons from voting, and two states allow felons to vote even when they're locked up.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

A recent Quora thread asked how it felt to murder someone and the answer given by a current inmate at San Quentin State Prison startled us with its honesty and emotion.

Tommy Winfrey is serving at least a 25-year sentence at San Quentin on a second-degree murder charge.

He wrote on Quora he killed a man when he was 19 years old and did so because of the "immense peer pressure to go through with the murder."

Winfrey was a drug dealer at the time and wanted to uphold his reputation.

"My lashing out cost another human his life. I am ashamed to admit it, but at the time I felt a great weight was lifted off my shoulders when I pulled the trigger," Winfrey wrote about what it felt like to cost another man his life. "I felt like I had finally stood up for myself. I was completely irrational. I realize now it is like my friend David Monroe always says, 'hurt people, hurt people.' I was really hurting and I didn’t know how to ask for help."

Winfrey said he justified his crime for as long as he could but eventually admitted to himself that he had done something terrible.

"I feel sadness over murdering someone," he wrote on Quora. "I feel I have robbed my victim’s family of the most precious thing in life. I feel immense sorrow for this. I feel I have robbed my family out of truly ever knowing me."

He called the murder the "worst mistake" of his life.

We can't be completely sure the person who answered is actually Tommy Winfrey, an inmate at San Quentin, but his Quora profile confirms the information given in his answer.

To find out more about what it's like to commit a crime and spend time in prison, check out Business Insider's series The Faces Behind America's Prison Crisis. You can read the first story here and read the second story tomorrow.

DON'T MISS: FORMER PRISONER: My Only Choice Was To Join The Aryan Brotherhood >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

It barely took a month for three New York Supreme Court judges to decide nude dancing is actually an art form and not just a sleazy way to spend a Saturday night.

Too bad they were in the minority.

Last month, Nite Moves in Albany argued its entertainment was an art form and shouldn't be subjected to state taxes.

But the court took no time at all to strike down Nite Moves' clever legal maneuver in a 4-3 ruling.

In order to qualify as tax-exempt, Nite Moves needed to prove it had to charge admission fees for its performances, which it likened to choreographed dances. 

But, in the majority opinion, the court found Nite Moves failed to prove the dances were choreographed works of art. The court also rejected the club's argument that its "private room" fees were the same as admission charges.

But this is the real money quote from the majority, via Above The Law:

"If ice shows presenting pairs ice dancing performances, with intricately choreographed dance moves precisely arranged to musical compositions, were not viewed by the Legislature as “dance” entitled a tax exemption, surely it was not irrational for the Tax Tribunal to conclude that a club presenting performances by women gyrating on a pole to music, however artistic or athletic their practiced moves are, was also not a qualifying performance entitled to exempt status. To do so would allow the exemption to swallow the general tax…."

But some of the judges fought back, saying there was no difference between "highbrow dance and lowbrow dance."

DON'T MISS: Brooklyn Family Man Busted For Allegedly Running A Wall Street Brothel >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Google is gearing up for a potential antitrust suit from the Federal Trade Commission, or so it seems. 

The company has already spent $13.1 million on lobbying in the first three quarters in 2012, compared to the $9.7 million it shelled out in all of 2011, according to The Hill, which cited disclosure forms filed Monday.

Among the major firms Google has hired are Holland & Knight, Podesta, and Raben, which account for half a million dollars of Google's lobbying expenses, according to OpenSecrets.org.

Under pressure by the FTC's continued antitrust investigation and looming lawsuit, Google spent $4.2 million in Q3 compared to the $2.4 million it did in the same quarter last year, according to Politico.

The FTC is trying to figure out if the search giant manipulated the ranking of its search results in order to give its products — YouTube, Google Maps, and Google Shopping — an unfair advantage over rivals.

Microsoft, one of Google's biggest critics and search engine rival, by comparison, only spent $1.9 million over the past three months, according to The Hill.

SEE ALSO: Whistleblower Pleads Guilty To Outing A Chief Of Bush-Era 'Enhanced Interrogation' Program >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The state of Florida is set to execute a mass murderer tonight who's been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

A federal appeals court issued an eight-page order Monday allowing the execution of John Ferguson, who believes he's the "prince of God" and will come back to earth after his execution, the ABA Journal reported.

The decision prompted a rare comment from American Bar Association president Laurel Bellows, who said the federal courts need to "fully review his insanity claims" to make sure his execution is Constitutional.

"To do otherwise would be to risk terrible miscarriage of justice," Bellows said in a statement.

A lawyer for Ferguson, who was convicted of executing eight people in the 1970s, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency order to delay the execution, CNN reported.

The nation's highest court has called the execution of the insane a "miserable spectacle," Ferguson's lawyer, Chris Handman, pointed out to CNN.

SEE ALSO: San Quentin Inmate Reveals How It Feels To Kill Another Human Being

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

One woman claims the ladies of "The Talk" stole her show pitch from 2008.

Angela Wilder, ex-wife of Los Angeles Lakers' James Worthy, is suing CBS under claims that she registered a show she registered with the WGA in 2006 named "The Mothers' Hood," a show for mothers that discusses day-to-day issues in their lives.  

In 2008, Wilder claimed to have met with executive vp of reality and syndication programming at Sony Television, Holly Jacobs, to discuss her show idea, but it was ultimately rejected. 

Two years later, "The Talk" surfaced.  

Since its unveiling, the CBS daytime series has been touted as a mommy-version of "The View." The female talk show idea was credited to co-host Sara Gilbert after "joining a mommy group and realizing that all moms have topics they need to talk out." 

The problem is that Wilder made her show pitch to Sony and a similar show popped up on CBS. 

Wilder claims because of Sony's distribution deal with RelativityReal "CBS had direct and easy access to Wilder's treatment and her confidential intellectual property while they were in the development stage of The Talk." 

According to The Hollywood Reporter, CBS isn't worried in the least. 

"It’s one thing to get sued over a project that was pitched to us but quite a stretch to be sued over a pitch that was made to somebody else. Ms. Wilder’s alleged offering to Sony played absolutely no part in the creation of The Talk. We’ll vigorously defend this case and expect to prevail.”

Wilder is suing Sony for allegedly distributing "The Talk" idea without compensation. She's also suing both CBS and RelativityReal for unfair competition and civil conspiracy.  

By itself, you can't sue over an idea. Section 102 of The Copyright Act of 1976 clearly states original expression of ideas, not ideas themselves are protected. 

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." 

Essentially, if you invented "The Talk," you would have invented "The Talk." 

Since Wilder claims to have registered her show idea, the courts can find this an expression of her idea. From there, it would have to be determined whether that idea was shared.

SEE ALSO: James Cameron's first project since "Avatar" >

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

While the public mostly sees the nation's Supreme Court justices mulling health care or political campaign funding, they still manage to lead a (mostly) regular life.

That life includes spouses you rarely hear about.

One of the spouses even— and you would never guess who — cooked dinner, once a term, for a justice's clerks.

Jane Sullivan Roberts

Jane Sullivan Roberts is a partner at the Washington legal search firm, Major, Lindsey and Africa. She graduated from the College of the Holy Cross in 1976. Clarence Thomas is another alumnus of the school, who graduated only five years earlier.

Mary Davis Kennedy

Mary Davis, a schoolteacher, married Anthony Kennedy in 1963. They have two sons and a daughter, according to encyclopedia.com.

Martin Ginsburg

Martin Ginsburg was a Harvard Law graduate and a Georgetown Law professor specializing in tax law. An interesting fact is that he used to cook a meal for his wife's clerks once per term, according to this book on the high court. Martin Ginsburg passed away in 2010. 

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

YESTERDAY during the foreign-policy debate, Mitt Romney promised that as president, he would indict Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, for incitement to genocide. One of Mr Romney's senior advisors explained he had been referring to an indictment at the "World Court"—presumably meaning the International Criminal Court in The Hague, since the International Court of Justice doesn't carry out criminal prosecutions of individuals. I've been covering the international courts in The Hague for over a year, and I've never heard of any case remotely like this being brought there; so my first thought was that this was the sort of campaign nonsense nobody should pay any attention to. But then I thought, why not have a quick go at trying to understand what Mr Romney might have meant? Would it actually be possible to charge Mr Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide?

So I called up Guénaël Mettraux, a lawyer I've previously talked to while covering the trials of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, and Ratko Mladic, the former Bosnian Serb military leader. Mr Mettraux has served as counsel for several defendants at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and has consulted for the International Criminal Court and for the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. He is the author of "Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial" and "The Law of Command Responsibility". (I should note that he has a somewhat hard-bitten perspective on the way the international court system works, and thinks that the interests of relevant nation-states play a large role in deciding who goes to trial.)

Anyway, to summarise his answer: it's not impossible. It's just very, very unlikely to work. Here's a lightly edited transcript of our interview.

MS: Do you have a take on whether it would be possible to charge Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide?

Guénaël Mettraux: It depends on the political will. Knowing the place of Iran in the world, the chance is close to zero. But look, every international criminal-law case depends on the alignment of the political stars. It's not a matter of wanting to do it, or of the merit of the case, it's whether it’s politically feasible.

MS: So how would that actually work?

Guénaël Mettraux: There are two possible routes. One would be a national tribunal, a prosecutor in a national court who is willing to take on that case. Many jurisdictions could claim universal jurisdiction over such a crime. It might be in a country where there were people who could claim they were victims of the crime. Or alternatively, you would have an international tribunal that would be competent. There, you have two possibilities. Either you have an ad hoc tribunal [like those set up to prosecute war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda - ed.], or else you would have a referral by the UN Security Council to the International Criminal Court to investigate the alleged crime of Mr Ahmadinejad.

MS: So you could in fact bring a case like this?

Guénaël Mettraux: Well the problem with the crime in question is, you’d have a hard time establishing that anyone truly is a victim at this stage. It’s highly theoretical, but imagine you have an Israeli citizen who is also a French citizen, or a group of them. They could go to the prosecutor of the ICC saying we are victims of Mr Ahmadinejad’s crime and we are citizens of a state party to the ICC, and therefore you have the power to investigate since the crime in question has no particular geographical location—a little statutory annoyance.

[Ed. note: This part requires a bit of elucidation. Under the Rome statute establishing the ICC, the court has jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of any states that are parties to the treaty. The problem is, neither Iran, Israel, or the US are parties to the treaty. The court can also investigate alleged crimes committed anywhere, if they're referred by vote of the UN Security Council. But if America were unable to get the security council to approve a referral and nevertheless wanted to launch a case, Mr Mettraux wrote me in a subsequent email, it would probably need to do two things. First, it would need to claim that incitement to genocide was a crime with no geographical location, which could be said to be committed anywhere where the incitement was heard or broadcast. Then, since America is not a party to the Rome statute, it would need to find a proxy, either a state party or a citizen of a state party, to initiate a case.]

Guénaël Mettraux (cont'd): An added issue with the crime of incitement is, it’s exceptional that it’s charged without the crime having actually been committed. If you look, for example, at the international tribunal for Rwanda, incitement to genocide was charged as a backup to charges of actual commission of genocide. If you can’t prove the defendant actually committed or otherwise contributed to genocide himself, you charge him with incitement. Charging without actual commission is theoretically possible, but you would have a hard time proving that the crime was committed and worth prosecuting.

MS: But private individuals can actually initiate such charges at the ICC?

Guénaël Mettraux: No, in the sense that they can’t force a prosecution. They can send information to the prosecutor asking them to take steps to investigate the crime. They can’t as citizens request the authorities to commence criminal prosecution. They can formalise a complaint to the prosecutor, and if the prosecutor is satisfied, they could theoretically take on such a case. The prosecutor has the competence to initiate a case proprio motu (ie, on his own initiative). But the fact is, the prosecutor of the ICC has never done that up to this point. To date we have two sets of cases before the ICC: either a referral by the UN Security Council, as in Darfur or Libya, or a referral by a state party itself, as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or the Central African Republic.

MS: And the fact that Iran is not a party to the ICC doesn't affect things?

Guénaël Mettraux: Well, the fact that Iran isn’t a party to the Rome statute means one route of jurisdictional competence is closed. So you can’t rely on that. But if you were to find a number of perpetrators or even victims who were nationals of a state party, subject to the little legal trick discussed before—namely, incitement to genocide is committed on the territory of any and every state, you could imagine initiating it on that basis. Creative, but where the mind is keen….

MS: So, the point of this article is... [Explains Mitt Romney's quick reference to indictment in yesterday's debate]

Guénaël Mettraux: Very interesting! So now I can call up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and offer him my services as defence counsel at the ICC!

Click here to subscribe to The Economist

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Harvard Law School admission process is expanding, and with that, comes the need for more preparation.

Starting next year, the law school will interview applicants via Skype — phone interviews were the norm before — and will increase the number of applicants interviewed from 1,000 to 1,200, according to The Harvard Crimson. 

So what should a Harvard Law hopeful do in one of these Skype interviews? Andrew Lu, from FindLaw, compiled what we think are five good tips to a successful interview:

• Make sure what the interviewer sees behind you on the walls — books and posters — are that of a Harvard Law student. In other words, don't leave anything embarrassing up.

• Dress as if you are at an actual, physical interview. Look presentable and don't wear what you do an everyday basis at home — unless you wear a shirt, tie, and dress pants or a dress all day long.

• Don't gesticulate too much. Expressive hand gestures are fine in person, but over Skype, they crowd the computer screen and come off as just too much.

Head over to FindLaw for more tips on how to ace your Harvard Skype interview.

SEE ALSO: They Don't Have Jobs But Recent Law Grads Still Think Law School Was Worth It > 

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Brad Newman was only 11 when he got locked up for beating up another kid.

But he was already acting like the man of his family.

Newman, now 41, says he spent his childhood in Indiana getting into trouble for just trying to survive.

He says he stole food for himself and his brother because his mom was too busy chasing her boyfriends to care for her kids or teach them how to make responsible decisions.

• FACES OF THE PRISON CRISIS: Brad's story is the second in our series about what it takes to live through prison. You can read the first story here. Look for the third installment next week.

"People just need to understand [kids] need to be taught now how to go about their lives before it's too late and they fuck their lives up," he said.

At the age of 11, Newman was sent away to the Indiana Boys School in Plainfield.

But, in reality, the "school" was anything but. It was actually the place judges sent minors who committed anything from major crimes to delinquency or "incorrigibility," according to Indiana's Commission on Public Records.

Newman was put away for hitting somebody in the face with a baseball bat.

As someone used to controlling his own life and looking out for himself, Newman said he had a hard time adjusting to guards who controlled every aspect of his life from the time he woke up, to the time he got to eat, to the time he went to bed.

"They try to strip you down, break you down mentally," Newman said of the boy's school. "I just learned not to trust nobody like I used to."

Newman then spent his childhood in and out of the prison system.

"I felt like I was more comfortable with being locked up," he said.

But that doesn't mean it was easy for a young boy to realize he spent more of his childhood behind bars than he did living with his family.

"They had to live their lives and work me into it," he said of his familial relationships.

He said he was never raped or forced to join a gang and do anything against his will because that type of stuff didn't happen in a boy's school, and was much more prevalent in an adult prison.

And as someone who has lived through both the juvenile and adult prison systems — he was locked up in 2000 for two counts of robbery and again in 2005 — Newman knows firsthand kids don't belong with the general adult population.

"My life probably would have been worse because I would have learned more different types of things to do to get in trouble," Newman said of what would have happened if he had been locked up in an adult prison. 

"Locking kids up in an adult prison system is not a good idea," he said.

Now, after a long life in prison, Newman is a free man and works as a dish washer in a restaurant in Indianapolis.

"I'm 41 years old and I'm washing dishes for a guy that just turned 30," he said.

Still, he says he's grateful for the work and is trying to turn his life around — something that includes fighting for custody of his son so he can teach him to make good decisions that will positively affect the rest of his life — something Newman says he never learned as a child.

"Kids are little people," Newman said. "They're the future of America, we can't neglect them. We need to correct them before it's too late."

DON'T MISS: FORMER PRISONER: My Only Choice Was To Join The Aryan Brotherhood >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

You'd think the status of women working at Biglaw firms would have improved at least marginally in the past seven years.

Well, you'd be wrong.

The National Association of Women Lawyers has been tracking the lives of Biglaw women for the past seven years and its most recent report, released this month, paints a pretty depressing picture.

The worst takeaway from the report is the fact that women still only make up 15 percent of equity partnership.

Equity partners are part owners of the firm and are entitled to part of the firm's profits.

And that dreaded 15 percent hasn't improved at all from the 2011 or the 2010 reports, according to The Careerist.

So it comes as no surprise women still aren't nabbing the top spots. Only four percent of the 200 firms surveyed had firm-wide female managing partners.

It was marginally, albeit only marginally, better last year when five percent of firms reported having a female managing partner, according to The Careerist.

The report is full of similar maddening statistics. But we're too depressed to go on, so we'll let you check out the rest for yourself.

Now Check Out Which Texas Firm Is Paying Unprecedented Salaries To Its First-Year Associates >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

A lonely law executive has been jailed after stealing £205,000 from her firm in order to "buy friends."

Ruth Turner, 46, pocketed the money from Kundert Solicitors in Coventry in a sophisticated scam between 2009 and 2011.

She used it to improve her social life by lavishing new friends with expensive meals out, shopping excursions and a trip to a Neil Diamond concert twice in one week.

Prosecutors said she did so because she had felt like a social outcast for most of her life.

The elaborate fraud went undetected by colleagues but finally came to light when Turner confessed to police last year.

She was jailed for three years at Coventry Crown Court after admitting abusing her position as a company executive to siphon funds.

Ian Ball, prosecuting, said Turner had used the money to “buy friends” had struggled to pay spiraling debts.

He said: "She found by taking friends to lavish events, shopping, meals, that she was suddenly popular.

"The money was going out as quickly as it was coming in, spending some money on the house, taking friends out and going to live concerts including Neil Diamond twice in one week."

She told police she had stolen about £400,000, but due to lack of evidence she could only be charged for £205,000, Mr Ball said.

Passing sentence, Judge Richard Griffith-Jones described the offense as a "serious abuse of trust" that risked harming the company in a tough economic climate and put colleagues' jobs in jeopardy.

He told Turner: "You were doing it out of greed, and you weren't really being as generous as you felt when you were treating friends with this extravagant lifestyle because it wasn't your money to be generous with."

The court heard she used the completion of house sales to cover up her frauds and transferred up to £21,000 a time into her own bank account.

The financial loss to Kundert Solicitors has left the firm facing doubled insurance premiums and a £100,000 investigation bill.

Turner, from Hinckley, Leics, started work at the company as a secretary in 2006, progressing to the role of conveyancing executive on an annual salary of £36,000.

Her fraud was only uncovered when she left the firm last September before handing herself in to police and showing them statements revealing the transfers.

Turner, who has a son at university and was the primary carer for her 75-year-old mother, admitted the charge at an earlier hearing.

Graham Russell, defending, said she was "driven to desperation" against a background of an abusive relationship, financial problems and mental health issues including depression and compulsive behavior.

He said his client felt so ashamed of what she had done that she attempted suicide before handing herself in to police.

"Many people who suffer depression find themselves engaging in some form of compulsive activity,” Mr Russell said.

"I would suggest, having in mind the abusive relationship she was in, having in mind that she was having difficulty with compulsive eating and compulsive drinking, that would go some way to explaining the compulsive stealing and compulsive spending."

A Kundert Solicitors official who attended the hearing declined to comment outside court.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »