?? LWIL #124: Tattoo Copyrights, License Plate Readers, FTX Fraud, and More
What's on the docket this week:
Featured Story
"Utah Bar Exam? Nah, Let’s Just Skip to the Good Part!"
Utah is ditching the “one size fits all” bar exam in favor of a more hands-on approach to licensing new lawyers. Under a proposal now up for public comment, law grads from ABA-accredited schools could skip the bar exam if they complete 240 hours of supervised practice, a few extra courses, and a mini-exam akin to the Multistate Performance Test. This move echoes recent steps in Oregon, Washington, and Arizona to redefine how lawyers earn their stripes, despite a chorus of “we’ve always done it this way” grumbling from traditionalists. With early success from a COVID-era diploma privilege program backing the change, Utah is opening the door to a new generation of lawyers who may just learn more from real-world experience than the same old multiple-choice drill.
Are you in the market for a home this year?
If you're a lawyer, there is a special type of mortgage available just for you - JD MORTGAGE?.
JD MORTGAGE? connects you with lenders offering low to no down payment mortgages designed specifically for lawyers. We find the lenders that allow jumbo loan balances, relaxed debt-to-income ratios and typically do not require private mortgage insurance (PMI). Connect with lenders here.
?? IP/Transactional
Tattoo Artist Wins Copyright Claim, But Gets Zero Damages
The Alexander v. Take-Two case showcases the uncertain terrain of copyright law when it intersects with tattoo art and video games. Tattoo artist Catherine Alexander successfully argued that her custom designs on wrestler Randy Orton, featured in Take-Two’s game, were reproduced without her consent. Despite winning on infringement, Alexander ultimately walked away empty-handed after the jury’s $3,750 damages award was nullified by the court due to a lack of concrete evidence supporting her claim of economic harm. The court’s fair use analysis zeroed in on Take-Two’s “Create-a-Superstar” feature, where players could apply Orton’s tattoos to other characters, a move that likely tipped the scales against fair use. The court, however, admitted there was no established market for licensing tattoos in games, undermining Alexander’s damages claims. This case leaves video game developers on alert, hinting that tattoos might become a new IP battleground—although proving actual damages might remain a tough task. Ultimately, this verdict suggests creators, from tattoo artists to tech giants, might want to clarify IP rights upfront to avoid the next copyright tangle.
?? Litigation
Closed Hearings For Brothel Clients
In a case that raises significant questions about transparency and privacy, Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court is deliberating whether men accused of soliciting services from an alleged brothel should have the right to a closed courtroom during their hearings. The defense argues that a public hearing would inflict “unfair” reputational harm, as even being associated with such accusations could damage careers and personal lives irrevocably. Opponents, however, argue that public accountability in judicial proceedings is paramount, particularly in cases implicating potential community harms and issues of public morality. The court is tasked with weighing the defendants' privacy rights against the public’s right to open court proceedings, a balance that could set a precedent for cases involving personal reputation versus public access. If the court leans toward privacy, it could signal a shift in judicial openness, especially in cases involving allegations of moral impropriety. This clash of individual privacy against courtroom transparency might just add another layer of intrigue to Massachusetts' evolving legal landscape.
?? Legaltech
License Plate Readers
A growing debate on privacy is spotlighted as automated license plate readers (ALPRs) increasingly capture political messaging on bumper stickers, raising concerns about how data collection could impact free expression. ALPR systems, designed to track vehicle movements, are also collecting data on vehicles with political signage, creating a scenario where personal beliefs could be monitored en masse by government entities. Legal experts worry this data may be used beyond traffic monitoring, potentially encroaching on First Amendment rights. Civil rights advocates argue that even incidental collection of such data could deter individuals from expressing themselves freely if it means risking government scrutiny, a chilling effect hardly conducive to a democratic society. While defenders of ALPRs argue that the technology improves law enforcement efficiency and safety, the implications of using this data to indirectly gather personal political affiliations pose new questions for legal standards around privacy and surveillance. This case may eventually reach courts, where a clash between technological capabilities and constitutional protections could reshape the boundaries of privacy in public spaces.
?? Criminal/Politics
Caroline Ellison Gets 2 Years For Covering Up FTX Fraud
Former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison received a two-year sentence for her involvement in concealing financial misconduct related to Sam Bankman-Fried’s now-defunct FTX exchange, marking a major legal development in the ongoing FTX saga. While Ellison admitted to manipulating financial records and misleading investors, her sentence was relatively light, likely due to her extensive cooperation with prosecutors in building a case against Bankman-Fried. The legal focus has shifted to the strategic trade-offs between penalties for culpability and rewards for cooperation, as Ellison’s insider knowledge proved invaluable for investigators aiming to dismantle the fraudulent scheme at FTX. The court’s leniency reflects a balancing act, where Ellison’s critical testimony took priority over her direct involvement in deceptive financial practices. Observers note that this case underscores the complexities in white-collar prosecutions, particularly in emerging sectors like cryptocurrency, where legal frameworks are still evolving to address large-scale financial fraud.
?? Finance/Econ/Regulatory
California Bans Sell-By and Best Before Labels
California has become the first U.S. state to ban “sell-by” and “best before” labels on food, aiming to curb the significant food waste generated by date confusion. The law addresses a consumer perception issue where items marked with non-uniform dates are often prematurely discarded, despite being safe to consume. Legislators argue that these labels are notoriously vague and misleading, neither denoting food safety nor spoilage. Under the new law, companies can use a “use by” date, indicating when food may become unsafe, or an “expiring” label to mark quality rather than safety. Legally, this shift sets a precedent for other states and signals a step toward the elimination of "sell-by" dates that encourage wasteful disposal practices without true safety benefits. By regulating these labels, California hopes to guide consumers more clearly, reduce waste, and potentially challenge the food industry's established—but questionable—dating practices.
?? Ethics
I think it goes without saying, if you steal $600 million, you’re gonna get disbarred.
Discipline: Disbarred.
Until next week, adjourned.
Keith & Tracey
p.s. - please send me your stories, news, & tips for inclusion in future editions [email protected]