Slaw

We’re used to thinking about search engine optimization (SEO) as a tool for law firms’ general web presence. But a growing opportunity, still under many firms’ radar, lies with a slightly different approach: practice group SEO, tailoring SEO tactics for specific practice areas within the firm. In many respects, practice focused SEO has the potential to be substantially more effective than the firm’s larger SEO strategy, which is often (necessarily) broad and less aligned with the services provided.

Let’s look at an example of how practice groups typically use search engines to improve business development. A patent law practice group, for instance, would start by selecting a phrase representative of one element of the group’s services — say, “patent licensing Canada.” The first step is to identify how often people type this phrase into Google each month; for illustration purposes, we’ll make it 3,000, or 36,000 annually. The practice group could respond to this information by positioning an on-subject paper, service page, or website at the top of the Google search results. Over the course of a single year, those 36,000 searches represent a consistently strong opportunity to showcase that group’s expertise. 

Repeat this scenario for any portfolio of related phrases, and a practice group will boost its exposure in front of its desired audience. Consequently, the group’s members will also improve the number of qualified contacts they receive and increase their ability to generate new relationships and potential work.

There are some specific techniques that law firms can employ to improve their “practice group findability” on the web. Here are some recommendations:

1. Conduct keyword research on niche service areas. It’s important to know the number of monthly searches conducted for a specific area of practice. With a strong grasp of the terms and phrases people use, groups can determine some key strategic information:

(a) whether there’s demand for a subject online: confirm if a “hot topic” really is popular, or if a casual industry phrase is worth more focused attention. 

(b) preferred phrases: which phrases are used most commonly? Are you using language that’s too sophisticated, or not sophisticated enough? 

(c) preferred keyword order: Search engines deliver different results based on the word order of your search. Knowing these variations can change your approach; see the next entry on selecting titles.

2. Select the best titles for publications.  Choose titles for group articles and papers based on the results of your keyword research, directing attention to both volume (frequently searched) phrases and keyword order. And remember to be descriptive: practice groups that choose descriptive titles have an opportunity to be found. 

3. Set up microsites for practice groups. Examples include blogs, FAQ collections, and single-subject websites. By selecting a domain name that matches a high-volume search, a website can be more subject-focused, and consequently will perform strongly for that subject in the search engines.  

4. Create a “deep link” strategy. Many websites (LinkedIn or Google Profiles, for example) allow you to link back to webpages on your site. Rather than sending these links to the firm homepage, practice group members should, whenever possible, point links to:

(a) their practice group web page, or

(b) their personal lawyer profile page.

5. Create Service Pages. These are sub-pages to the practice group homepage. The group would identify niche service areas and create dedicated webpages (or from an SEO perspective, “landing pages”) for that service offering. These pages expose more depth about the group’s expertise and create more opportunity for search traffic. These pages are optimized for their subject, and can deliver targeted page titles based on keyword research. 

6. Conduct new article and publication outreach. When your practice group releases a paper, video, article, or any publication, to whom can you send it? Remember that incoming links are “votes” in Google for higher search-engine rankings. Practice groups should spend some time identifying who they know online: bloggers, industry writers, media, or anyone who can help expose content publishing by the group.

7. Use keywords (authentically) in the body text. Once you know the high-volume search phrases, you must use those phrases within the text you write. This shouldn’t be done in an excessive manner, but do consider using using target phrases once or twice within the body of your writing.

8. Place subheadings on practice pages. Breaking up larger text blocks is a natural writing technique online anyway, so if you’re adding section headers, consider aligning those headers with your volume phrase targets.

These techniques, when used consistently within and across practice groups, should generate the right kind of site traffic and yield measurably improved business development results. 

As of yesterday, foreign lawyers seeking admission to the English and Welsh bar as solicitors via “a shorter alternative route to qualification” must meet the requirements of the new Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme Regulations 2010. One feature of these is the identification of certain jurisdictions as “recognised”; only lawyers from these jurisdictions may take the shorter route to qualification.

Curiously, as of September 1, no Canadian jurisdiction is on the list of recognised jurisdictions, which contains Namibia, Turkey, Israel, and dozens of others. Neither, I should add, is any US state other than California.

According to Legally India, a spokesperson from the governing UK Solicitors Regulation Authority said, “The SRA conducted a survey of international Law Societies and Bars at the end of April . . . ” (Surely the SRA means “foreign,” rather than international.) It would appear, then, that none of the Canadian law societies or the national federation responded to the SRA in time. Their leisurely pace may mean that few if any Canadian lawyers wish to be admitted to practice in England and Wales. Or it may simply reflect the summer lassitude that slows us all down. An admittedly brief attempt to get information about this from the Law Society of Upper Canada failed; no one I was able to speak to knew anything about the survey.

Post written with the collaboration of Adam Gorley, B.A. (Phil.)

On Tuesday, August 31, 2010, the Canadian Press reported that a Montreal man filed a motion for leave to bring a class action suit against the Community of the Clerics of St. Viateur in Montreal and the Raymond-Dewar Institute (also known as the Institute for the Deaf and Dumb) and its priests. Serge D’arcy claims to have been a victim of abuse by pedophile priests while attending the institute between 1967 and 1972.

The applicant is requesting authorization to bring an action for himself and all who were physically or sexually abused by any member of the religious group while residing at the institution.

D’arcy is requesting $600,000 for himself, but the total amount of the class action could amount to several hundreds of thousands of dollars for each victim, since it requires an amount of $100,000 as moral damages, plus amounts in compensation depending on the nature of the acts committed. The institute housed about 280 youth per year at the time.

It was only after learning that a friend was also a victim of sexual abuse by the teachers at the institute, and that there were several other victims of similar abuses, that D’arcy took these legal steps.

The documents filed before the Superior Court reveal details about the acts allegedly committed on at least two young boys who are deaf and dumb, which included fellatio, fondling and masturbation. The applicant claims he began to suffer physical and sexual abuse from members of the religious group who taught and worked at the centre about one year after his admission. The abuse continued between the ages of 9 and 15.

The applicant states in the documents that he “experiences a sense of fear, anguish and shame. He kept a big secret, well hidden, for fear of being judged, and not knowing how or whom to tell” [translated from French].

The applicant and his lawyer believe that because of the physical and sexual abuse, the applicant has undergone numerous direct consequences, disorders and damages that have completely disrupted his life, leading him to become an alcoholic and drug abuser for several years and to contemplate suicide on three occasions.

According to the claim, the institute did nothing to protect the vulnerable residents under its care from abuse by priests, and the organization deliberately concealed these abuses to protect the clergy and the organization’s reputation.

Well, I hope the applicant and any others who join the suit find some form of solace and closure, because these types of cases can drag through courts for years and add to the pain and shame felt by the victims.

On a grander scale… Claims of sexual abuse by priests are not isolated. Stories of abuse have circulated privately in society for ages. However, in the last several years, many claims have become public and made headlines in Canada and around the world. In the United States, 11,750 allegations of child sex abuse have so far featured in actions settled by archdioceses—in Los Angeles for $660 million and in Boston for $100 million. Some dioceses have gone into bankruptcy.

Some legal experts claim that a jurisdiction’s statute of limitations should prevail, and that in many cases it is too late to sue. But according to certain psychologists, it takes a long time for victims of abuse to come to terms with what happened to them, and even longer to be strong enough to face their abusers. Does that mean the victims’ “window” to see justice and protect future victims (because the abuses continue to this day) from the same horrible ordeal should close?

Some claimants want a higher level of accountability for the abuse: The Pope!

However, according to some lawyers, Pope Benedict XVI is immune from any lawsuits “as the head of a foreign state” (the Vatican). It seems in 2005, a test case in Texas failed because President Bush took up the Vatican’s cause and claimed sovereign (i.e., head of state) immunity on the pope’s behalf. Despite such claims, the international criminal court views the pope as a spiritual adviser, and not an immune sovereign.

According to the Guardian.co.uk:

Head of state immunity provides no protection for the pope in the international criminal court. The ICC Statute definition of a crime against humanity includes rape and sexual slavery and other similarly inhumane acts causing harm to mental or physical health, committed against civilians on a widespread or systematic scale, if condoned by a government or a de facto authority. … If acts of sexual abuse by priests are not isolated or sporadic, but part of a wide practice both known to and unpunished by their de facto authority then they fall within the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC—if that practice continued after July 2002, when the court was established.

The story of sexual and physical abuse at the hands of priests is sad for too many reasons, the main of which is the thousands of victims who had no say in the events that led to the abuse and who might never live normal lives. In Canada, Aboriginal children did not choose to attend church-run and government-funded residential schools, from which came countless stories of abuse. And parents involved with Catholic Church activities have trusted and continue to trust their spiritual leaders with their children, with sometimes devastating results.

The story is also sad because of the institutional apathy or secrecy that allowed the abuses to happen around the world. In Canada it was (and is) not only the Catholic or Protestant Church on its own, but also the federal government (in the case of the residential schools) that allowed these abuses to occur. Both the church and the government had some knowledge of the abuses taking place within their institutions as they were taking place, but both decided to ignore or hide them and essentially allow the abuse to continue.

But besides apologies, what kind of answer can anyone give for these irresponsible and inhumane actions?

Well, the Canadian government has tried offering money along with its apology to victims of abuse at residential schools, which seems to be the only way that large institutions understand how to make amends these days. The Pope also apologized for its part in the residential school abuses, and many have accepted that apology as genuine.

The Pope has also made apologies to other groups around the world for the abuses perpetrated by Catholic priests and other church employees over the years. And as mentioned, various dioceses around the world have made large settlements to groups in class action lawsuits.

And, of course, victims and their families usually look for criminal charges against the perpetrators or their employers or higher-ups. Numerous priests face jail time, and organizations have gone bankrupt, but no one has pinned anything on the Pope just yet. (In the case of the residential school system, the politicians and bureaucrats who were responsible for the program are no longer around.)

But do these gestures mean anything if the institutions offering them don’t change the conditions that caused the abuses in the first place? I mean, it’s all well and good to collect half a million dollars for abuses, but will that money prevent others from suffering abuse in the future? And sure you can put an abuser behind bars, but will that prevent others from committing the same abuses? Would it make a difference if the Pope were put in prison for his role in protecting abusive priests and employees of the church?

It might not, but a trial involving Pope Benedict and other church officials might expose information that could help victims understand better what was happening to them and their church—and possibly open up a path to organizational growth, moving past the scandals. But that doesn’t seem likely to happen. The Catholic Church is claiming diplomatic immunity, and besides, large institutions like the church, governments and corporation rarely face the same type of intense scrutiny before the courts that individual perpetrators do, and as a result, the whole story of such large-scale events rarely comes to light.

Should we be satisfied with these meagre portions of justice: imprisonment for individual perpetrators, grand apologies and cash settlements? Or do these acts just reinforce the status quo, without leading to any meaningful change? Does the law allow for justice beyond these common measures? Do we even know what sort of justice would satisfy victims of broad-based scandals? (And I think it’s fair to say that in a small way all Canadians are victims of events such as happened in the residential school system, since we all pay for the reparations, and many will lose trust in our government and other institutions.)

All I can say that justice is a work in progress, and while I fear we have reached an impasse in that work, I know there are many who continue to push for openness and truth. And through their efforts, we will increase our understanding of how victims relate to their victimizers, and how to heal harm their actions cause, and allow victims, victimizers and society as a whole to move on in trust.

The World Treaty Index began life in 1974 and has been in more or less continuous development since that time, as the output of the database moved from print to various electronic formats. Now it’s managed by researchers from the University of Michigan who have given it a new web interface. (See also the explanatory article on Computational Legal Studies.)

The WTI contains only metadata, as it were, about the treaties, and not the texts themselves, which likely can be found in other online databases, such as the United Nations Treaty Collection. Even so, the database is large enough, containing information on nearly all treaties formed during the latter part of the 20th century, which is to say more than 70,000 documents. The Index lets you search by country, laterality (e.g. bilateral, multilateral), date and date range, topic, and keyword in the treaty title. Thus, for example, a search for [Canada] and [bilateral] returns 1277 results (the first of which is a treaty signed in 1946 with the United States on Storage and Loading Facilities at Prince Rupert), each with its associated treaty number and source for text.

As well, results of a search are graphed, letting you see easily, for instance, that Canada’s peak period for bilateral treaty making was in the mid 70s:

click image to enlarge

The WTI lets you download the entire database, if you would wish to run it locally, and a CSV file of your search results.

Over the past couple of years, I have noticed that organizations engaging in outsourcing activities are increasingly willing to rely on service providers’ standard service descriptions. The main driver of this trend appears to be tight budgets. At a time of economic uncertainty, there is less capacity for rigorous review of a service provider’s standard service descriptions and service levels. Lacking internal resources, customers are increasingly relying on service providers’ expertise to fill in the gaps. A second factor may be a form of complacency. As customers accumulate a history of positive experiences with successful outsourcings, they may become less vigilant about potential problems in new outsourcing relationships. In any event, it is clear that many customers are willing to accept service providers’ assurances that the standard descriptions and service levels “work for all customers.” 

However, customers do so at the peril of the outsourcing.

A few years ago, the foregoing observation would have been superfluous: it would be harder to think of a more obvious requirement in the context of an outsourcing. While organizations engage in outsourcings partly to benefit from the expertise of the service provider, it is clearly essential that both parties ensure that their expectations for the outsourcing are fully aligned. While service providers are generally experts on the services they provide and the manner in which they provide them, customers need to understand how their internal organization will use and rely upon the services and how this may differ from other customers of the service provider. The expertise of the service provider should inform the customer’s needs, but not determine them. 

Ultimately, the customer needs to dedicate sufficient resources to ensure a full appreciation of the services that are being contracted (including service levels and the consequences of any service level failure). Generally, this is a two-step process involving:

1. understanding the organization’s needs without reference to the service providers’ services; and
2. understanding any discrepancy between the organization’s needs and what the service provider is willing and able to provide.

The second part of this analysis will result in discussions between the customer and the service provider which will prove useful in understanding the service provider’s ability to meet the customer’s requirements and its ability to problem-solve – including obtaining assistance to mitigate the impact of any discrepancies that are found to exist.

How much time and effort does it take to perform this type of analysis? Often, more than most organizations think will be necessary. But the time and effort involved will help the organization better understand its needs and ensure that its expectations are reasonable and achievable. Like any necessary preparation work, however significant the time and effort required may be, it is unlikely to compare to the time and effort required to resolve the situation if the analysis is not performed and the parties subsequently find that their expectations are inconsistent. Having said that, the ease and effectiveness of available exit strategies can be considered when determining how much time and effort should be spent in performing an analysis of the services offered (however, if an organization is not spending the necessary time and effort to perform an analysis of the services it will be outsourcing, one has to wonder whether it has spent sufficient time analyzing exit strategies). 

While service providers may argue that their expertise allows them to offer “off the shelf” outsourcings, few customers consider themselves to have only “off the shelf” requirements. It follows, therefore, that only the customer will be fully competent to determine whether the proposed terms will meet its needs and that it will be well worth its time and effort to do so. 

The Canadian Bar Association’s new Partnership Toolkit is a comprehensive collection of information aimed at lawyers trying to navigate the oftentimes confusing and difficult path to partnership. Lawyers will find a wealth of advice here in the form of self assessments, audio podcasts and articles in both web and PDF formats.

The site can be navigated in an interactive and animated menu style as well as a traditional series of links. Some of the highlights of the Toolkit in include:

• A self assessment questionnaire to help you decide if partnership is right for you.
• An audio podcast by two coaches who help lawyers develope the skills they need to becomes partners.
• 15 things to think about before signing a partnership agreement.
• Money matters, such as how partners can define their financial goals and how to achieve them by retirement
• An audio podcast by three lawyers who describe their experiences making the transition from associate to partner.

This are just a few samples among the many resources this Toolkit offers. If moving onto the partnership track is something you’re considering, or if you’re already on it and are looking for great advice, be sure to visit the CBA Partnership Toolkit at http://www.cba.org/cba/partnership/main/

Cross posted at Avoid A Claim

This post concludes a series of post on the subject topic:

• Presentation of the CCCT IntellAction Working Group on Court Web Site Guidelines (21 Jan 2010)
• Presentation of the Working Group selection of principles included in the subject guidelines; principles 1, 2 and 3 explained (The Right Information for Specific Audiences, Empowerment, Timeliness – 17 Aug 2010)
• Presentation of Principles 4, 5 and 6 (Notification, Content, Security – 20 Aug 2010)
• Presentation of Principles 7, 8 and 9 (Bilinguism, Accessibility, Interactivity – 25 Aug 2010)

As always, your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Principle #10: Viability

Viability is a large concept and embodies several ingredients:

• Cost effectiveness in the long run, or Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
• Effectiveness of the web site platform in delivering the desired features and characteristics
• Efficiency of the web site platform in delivering the desired features and characteristics
• Sustainability of the web site platform (i.e. the underlying Web Content Management System): is it being kept up to date? Are security patches issued on a timely basis? Is the upgrade cycle regular? Is there a large base of knowledgeable developers that are familiar with the platform?
• Flexibility of the web site platform: is it providing a way to easily customize the site to add or modify features that are not part of the core Web Content Management System? Is an Application Programming Interface (API) available and easy to leverage?

All these facets of viability need to be assessed when selecting a Web Content Management System (WCMS) to power the court web site.

Principle #11: Simplicity

Last but not least, the overriding, overarching important principle of simplicity.

In the context of the present guidelines, simplicity should guide courts when they are making the following decisions:

• What Web Content Management System (WCMS) should the court select to power its web site?
• How much customization of the selected WCMS should occur to address the full range of requirements and desired features?
• How much integration between the selected WCMS and corporate applications / legacy systems should be implemented?

When Information Technology is concerned, complexity is a disease, especially when it comes to Web Content Management Systems. Courts should make technology decisions that will result in a simple environment for content creators, content consumers and web site custodians.

Customization and integration often lead to complexity. Governments and large organizations with well-funded Information Technology budgets routinely invest large sums of money to add customization and integration to their initial IT investments. This leads to several, well-known problems in the long run. For example, when a specific version of a Commercial-and-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) enterprise software is customized to provide additional features and integration with corporate systems, the requirement to re-customize and re-integrate is bound to re-occur for every release of a new version of the COTS software, often costing millions of dollars to organizations that have made those initial choices. This need for additional customization and integration typically allows the software to meet 98% of the requirements instead of 80%, for example.

Courts should carefully evaluate, before heading into the direction of expensive integration and customization, whether the additional upfront and recurring costs is worth the additional features of the web site? This question should be evaluated only after alternative means to meet the additional features have been considered. In many cases, human workflow adjustments can accommodate very well the requirements that are not met with the core Web Content Management System, in a much more cost-effective manner.

Most of us realize that merely deleting a file doesn’t really remove it from the hard drive or other storage media it resides on.  (For some background on this issue see a post I wrote a while back.)

Given how we use digital devices today – both for work and personal use – we can’t just abandon this issue to our firm IT staff.  Our personal computers at home, our phones, copiers, memory sticks and ipads all probably contain our own personal information, or personal or confidential information of others.  We need to manage that not only while we use those tools – but when we dispose of them as well.   Pulverizing them into dust – aka destruction to the smithereens level – is not always an option.

This Microsoft article is worth a read, as it explains the issue, has some suggestions to reduce the risks, and links to some disk erasing tools.

What’s the best thing about Wikipedia? It’s a source that’s “good enough”. It’s an excellent way to get up to speed when all you really need is general or background knowledge. And the price point is so attractive! But would I rely on Wikipedia exclusively? Doubtful … and I certainly wouldn’t rely on it in an important situation without checking primary sources. 

Some wikis are now appearing as sources of legal information. I was fascinated to read the recent post on this site about the new tax wiki established by Professor Ben Alarie, of the U of T Law Faculty; its objective is to provide an unofficial forum for making known the current views of the CRA and the demands of Canadian income tax law. They describe their content as follows: “Official Interpretation Bulletins do not have the force of law. This is true of the following wiki version as well.” 

Meanwhile, out on the west coast, Vancouver lawyer Michael Drew has created legaltree.ca, described on the site as “a collaboratively built website with legal research resources maintained by the site administrators, and legal literature contributed by lawyers in the Canadian legal community.” The site’s best feature is its excellent bibliography of secondary sources. 

One area of the site is devoted to user-generated content. It contains some digests of Supreme Court of Canada cases, at least one great article on heading to chambers for the first time, and some other short articles. This part of the site includes a tab for “books”. The site says that it will have books on specific legal topics, authored by Legaltree users. But although the site states that legaltree.ca invites authors to submit proposals, no books have been published yet. 

Other sources such as lexpubli.ca and jdsupra.com aim to provide free online precedent services. 

How will wikis and other collaborative sources fit into the world of legal publishing? Are they “good enough” as information sources for the practicing bar? Will they ever be more than sources for learning about an unfamiliar topic quickly and conveniently? 

Another way of looking at this question: as more and more legal information is available for free on the Internet, will the market for legal publications be eroded? The big question is: will the market for legal publishing continue to pay for curation (also known as quality control)? I strongly believe that lawyers are willing to pay for authoritative legal information; in other words, the information has to be more than just “good enough”. 

Jason Wilson’s thoughtful column looked at this topic from the 30,000 foot level. My comments relate to curation from about 1,000 feet. 

What does curation mean for us at CLEBC? When we publish a BC practice manual, it means finding an editorial board of experts in the area; working with them to develop a table of contents; finding great authors to write the book; and then carefully editing all the submitted chapters. 

When CLEBC editors review chapters, they ask: have we covered the correct material? Is there enough depth? Is there too much depth? Is coverage consistent across the whole book? Is there duplicate material? Is authority provided for every proposition? Is the authority accurate? Can the editor (the first reader) understand what the author is saying? 

When all that’s been done, the editorial board reviews the book to verify that it is accurate. As you can imagine, editorial boards made up of knowledgeable, senior, lawyers, sometimes from opposing sides of the bar (plaintiff and defence, for example), with the occasional helpful judge thrown in, will usually have strong opinions about the content of the book. Not only does this combination make for lively meetings, the process ensures that the content of our publications is as authoritative as it can be. 

There’s one final aspect of quality control: our team of copy editors and production staff comb over the manuscript to ensure that the grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct, that the case and statute citations are accurate and included in reference tables, that an index is prepared, and that the publication is attractive and easy to read. 

(Note that every step in this curation process is also needed for material published on the web (with some differences on account of the different format)). 

Over the course of my two decades in legal publishing, I’ve learned that most lawyers are strongly motivated to “give back” to the legal profession. However, these wonderful volunteers are only too happy to leave the organization and management of these projects to legal editors (who serve as project managers). Part of our curation process not only ensures the quality of the material provided, but also that material is submitted on time, and that it receives the widest possible distribution. (This is entirely as it should be; it makes much more sense for our authors to be practicing law rather than chasing down their fellow authors to enforce deadlines, for example.) 

The final result is a lengthy, comprehensive, well-written, and most importantly. authoritative and reliable publication. I’m very proud that our practice manuals are regularly cited by the BC courts; here’s a recent example. 

Will we be supplanted by something that is “good enough”? I continue to believe that lawyers will continue to pay for the curation work we do, mostly because the final product is authoritative. After all, I don’t believe any lawyer wants to use a wiki for research, only to have the judge look over her glasses and say “What’s your authority? … I don’t think so, counsel”. 

One of my favourite funny memories of time spent in Germany is of a moment in the square of a small town when a chant went up from among the layabouts that decorate these public spaces: “Johnson! Johnson! Johnson! . . . ” And, lo, here came Johnson strolling from behind some building naked as a jaybird. Hausfraus — it was shopping time — turned away, moved away, and this Moses parting the bourgeois sea, not acknowledging his claque, which kept up the chant, sauntered free. But as he approached the fishmongers, where I was watching from, (with some uneasiness, I have to add: the notion of a naked man in a fish shop seemed somehow . . . ) the ta-ti-ta-ta of the cop cars was heard and within moments Johnson was gone with the guys in green.

For a law blog, though, the question raised by the Johnson episode might be quo warranto? It may be that the Germans have a law against public nakedness, like our Code s.174 which makes it an offence to be nude in a public place “without lawful excuse.” Note, though, that the consent of the Attorney General is required for a prosecution under this section; this may or may not inhibit the police from using this section to arrest our Johnsons. If it does, there’s always the offence in the next section of “openly [exposing] or [exhibiting] an indecent exhibition in a public place.” (I have to say I might enjoy defending someone on this if only to make fun of “openly . . . exhibiting . . . an exhibition”.)

But in some places things are more gnarly. Scotland, it seems, is one of those. From the blog Jack of Kent we learn that former Royal Marine Stephen Gough, who rejoices in the nickname the Naked Rambler, and who keeps getting arrested, is now doing time in a Perth prison for breach of peace and contempt of court. Seems he showed up for trial sans kilt, which earned him 21 months inside. The BBC carried the story at the time of his sentencing. Because he’s a stubborn man, and because it seems that the sheriff is as well, he keeps fighting the law and the law keeps winning: he’s been re-arrested a number of times mere moments after being released. As the entry on Jack of Kent points out, he’s potentially facing a life in jail.

All of which led to a discussion on that blog about what business the law has telling people what to wear — or to wear, come to that, making for an interesting read, as usually happens with posts on Jack of Kent, I might add.