The Seventh Circuit has an interesting new sentencing decision, United States v. Carter, which nicely illustrates the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Gall v. United States. Robert Carter, the husband of defendant Virginia Carter, embezzled money from his insurance business over several years. There is no indication that Virgina Carter participated in the embezzlement, but she likely had some knowledge of what was going on. Eventually, for reasons that are unclear, she sought a divorce. Following the advice of her lawyer, who did not know that much of the family income was illegal, Carter attempted to take control of the couple’s liquid assets by transferring them into her own individual bank accounts. Normally, this would be a sound tactical move in a divorce setting, but, by virtue of the criminal origin of the assets, Carter thereby became a money launderer. Following conviction, she faced a recommended sentence of 87-108 months in prison under the federal sentencing guidelines.
Cross posted at Workplace Prof Blog:
Michael Connolly (Univ. of Surrey (UK)) provides this not-so-good news for disability rights advocates from across the pond. Michael’s analysis, “The House of Lords Narrows the Meaning of Disability-Related Discrimination,” appears in Green’s Employment Law Bulletin (Emp LB 2008 Issue 86 August 2008 1-5 ISSN 1352-2159) and is available on Westlaw.
Here’s a taste:
Blogging among legal academics was for a long time virtually unheard of, the province of a few (seemingly oddball) hobbyists. Then, with the remarkably successful efforts of Brian Leiter, Stephen Bainbridge, Prawfsblawg, Concurring Opinions, Moneylaw, and many others, legal-academic blogging became more mainstream. While the extent of blogging’s utility is still debated, and while blogging still remains a gratuitous undertaking rather than a formal faculty duty, blogging’s potential as a medium for serious legal discourse can no longer be doubted. Outside of law, blogging’s success has led some organizations to consider recognizing blogging’s value in an official way: by making it mandatory. Will law schools follow suit? Can and if so under what circumstances should law faculty be expected to blog as part of their formally defined duties?