Today I have some war stories about my experiences with a lawyer who will soon not be a lawyer anymore — because he just pled guilty to conspiracy and perjury charges and will soon have to retire from the legal profession.

My stories are for the paid subscribers. This is one of the more personal posts I have done — and frankly, it’s not one I would want to put out to the general public. But I think it will be entertaining for the elite. Here is a taste: a side note I provide about objections:

A note about my objections: the shooter was wearing long sleeves. [The lawyer] should not have been able to ask these questions about the appearance of the skin on the shooter’s forearms, without first establishing that the witness had the ability to see the skin on the shooter’s forearms. In such cases, “lack of foundation” is a valid objection. Because judges often don’t understand foundational objections unless you spell out what is lacking, in my objections I sometimes specifically describe the foundation that is lacking. Technically, this is a “speaking objection” (an objection that conveys more to the jury than a dry “Objection! Foundation!” would), and such objections annoy some judges more than others. As a lawyer, you have to make a judgment call, and balance your confidence (or lack thereof) that the judge will understand your foundation objection against the judge’s likely annoyance at the speaking objection.

Elite subscribers may access the post here. You may become a member of the elite here.