Lawyerly, or Lawyerish, Blog Roll

Here are some posts on the trial from lawyer-oriented blogs:

1. A list of relevant past posts, from White Collar Crime Prof Blog.
2. Notice taken of the trial from How Appealing, a blog devoted to appellate law. (Yes, it's a safe bet that at least one will be filed.)
3. From "Precedent: The New Rules On Law and Style," a poll page. As of the time of this writing, the vote is 27 for "Conrad will lose" and 12 for "Conrad will win."
4. A short item from "Lawbeat." A more recent one, with a complimentary comment on Slate's coverage, is here.
5. A post from "Trial Ad Notes" referencing an article about jury selection "For a Lord." Might be worth reviewing once the jurors' identities are unveiled.
6. "The Trial Of The Century - That You Never Heard Of," from "In Re," which differentiates Conrad Black from none other than O.J. Simpson.
7. A brief reference to an International Herald-Tribune article [the same NYT one linked to in this post, presumably] at "Criminal Defense Lawyer Perjury."
8. A week-old, propagated Associated Press story about the trial at "Lead Counsel Corner."
9. An item posted March 14th about the start of the trial from "Paper Chase."
10. A brief post, from the blog "Trial Lawyer," referencing an article that wonders if the defense team would prefer "jurors with a sense of style??"
11. Another brief post, of much more recent posting time, from "Law News," which now has another post devoted to the trial.
12. A post from the biggie, the Wall Street Journal Online's "Law Blog." It begins with this short-term-memory twister: "The lawyer for the former lawyer at Hollinger International accused the company’s outside lawyers for mistakes made at the company."
13. A quick announcement of the trial from "New York Trial Lawyers," which links to the article "Conrad Black trial musters an army of defense lawyers" in the web version for the "National Law Journal" over at Law.com.


To wrap up, here's an oddity: a brief note on the trial from "Certified Public Accountants." Also, here's a post from an accountancy blog that's less odd: a March 19th write-up from "Accountancy Matters."