Above Water

Lately, I have been swamped. I have been thinking mostly about the nuances of administrative law and of pleading. The reasons for both of these things will likely be public in the next few weeks.

Today, however, I wasted an enormous chunk of the day. Illinois recently imposed a requirement that lawyers engage in Continuing Legal Education. I understand and applaud the idea behind this new rule. The bar wants to be certain that lawyers are aware of developments in the law. It is a means of protecting the public. Almost every other state bar has a CLE requirement. I get that.

The problem for me and--judging by my visitor data--probably you, is that your run-of-the mill CLE is not particularly useful for a customs lawyer. Today, I spent three hours listing to several speakers talk about evidentiary issues that arise in trials, making objections, preserving the record, etc. I am sure it was a great seminar. The people around me were taking copious notes and laughing knowingly every time someone mentioned the name of a local judge. There was lots of discussion about Illinois Rule 213.

The problem is that the seminar was probably most useful to Cook County tort litigators. I learned a lot about the admissibility of medical records. Well, "learned" is too strong of a word. I heard a lot about that. I could not tell you what I heard. It was not useful for me. The speakers did not address the Federal Rules of either Evidence or Civil Procedure and I am willing to bet that I was the only person in the room admitted to the U.S. Court of International Trade. Also, the material was not really general enough to be applicable to what we do.

Of course, the flip side is that if we ran a local CLE program on some juicy topic like liquidation by operation of law or the deemed export rule, only 10 people would show up and six would be in the wrong room.

I don't do wills, speeding tickets, or real estate transactions. Today, listening to lots of war stories about the Cook County courts, I was reminded why. Apparently, if I am not intimately familiar with Illinois Rule 213, everyone is better off that I stick to what I know. Remind me to bore them with stories of suspension disposition calendars and protestable events.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'm envious of your CLE commentary. I wish we "licensed" brokers had a CLE. It would give us more credibility and increase our status within the trade community.

So from someone who wished we had it, don't be discounting the fact that you need it. Imagine if you pased your bar in the 1980's and there was no CLE. So much of the law has changed, specially in Customs law.

I gather you are not one of those you just puts the books away after learning, but I'm sure some in the profession stopped "continued learning" after school. I'm sure their work demonstrates that too!
Oct 13, 2006, 8:13:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more