Introduction

Welcome to my new blog, First Appearances! You’re probably thinking, Girl, didn’t you just change the name of your blog like, last week? Why, yes, yes I did! So what’s up with this new change? Focus, as in, I have decided to find some. I have been writing about whatever happens to pop into my head on any given day—some fashion, some food, some beauty, some movie reviews, some celebrity gossip—with absolutely no consistency whatsoever. I had previously decided to narrow my focus to fashion, entertaining and rando tutorials, when I had a thought. It was one of many thoughts, but I kept thinking about it. And then I started ruminating about it while I was running. And I kept flushing it out. I’m a lawyer, but in over 100 blog posts I had not once written about the law or legal news other than to make a passing (usually pop culture-related) reference. This was not by accident. I had previously vowed not to speak of it. I have changed my mind. So why the change?

In my recent, unemployed adventures, I have had a lot of time to sit down and enjoy . . . The View. As I was watching one day, the ladies had two legal analysts from ABC talk about recent events (i.e. search warrants in the Baby Lisa case, Conrad Murray, LiLo’s latest . . .). I thought, as I usually do when I watch a legal analyst on television, I could do that! Yet I don’t. And I haven’t. And the reasons are quite stupid. Despite the fact that I attended law school, graduated, passed the bar in the state of Washington (where I used to practice), worked as a judicial clerk for one year, practiced law for three years, and participated in multiple intern/externships at both state and Federal government offices, I don’t actually feel qualified to deliver an opinion on current legal events. Or at least I didn’t feel qualified before. Then I spent an afternoon in my happy place: Target.

As I was standing in a line that was way too long, two older gentlemen in front of me were having a conversation. I suspect that one or both of them had their hearing aids turned down, because they were not using their indoor voices. The conversation went something like this:

Old Man 1: And then, get this! The guy breaks into his house, he’s standing there in the living room and the [homeowner] shoots him! That guy had the stones to sue [the homeowner] for shooting him!

Old Man 2: Unbelievable.

Old Man 1: Can you believe that?! Now you and I know that’s entrapment, but the system today . . .

Old Man 2: Everything’s all messed up today. Hell in a handbasket . . .

I couldn’t take it. I tapped Old Man 2 right on his bony shoulder and said “Um . . . no. That’s not entrapment. First, entrapment is when law enforcement or a government agent uses fraud or undue persuasion to get someone to commit a crime so that it can later be prosecuted. Clearly not what you are talking about here. And second, entrapment is a defense for criminal prosecutions—not civil lawsuits. Whether it is smart to sue someone for shooting you when you broke into that person’s home is another matter entirely. But that’s not what you are talking about here.” Okay. So I didn’t actually say that, but I thought it really loudly. And then it occurred to me: EVERYONE in this country thinks that he or she is qualified to be a legal analyst and NO ONE really knows what he or she is talking about. And if everyone else can talk out his or her respective ass, then why can’t I? I’m actually trained! So, from time to time, I may also offer opinions on legal headlines. It’s my blog and I can do what I want, right? So here we are. All the snark of Bolsas y Besos now with half the calories! Come on in, have a seat. I'm glad you're here! Pin It