Category Archive: Celebrities and the Law

/ / /

Prince’s Least Favorite Subject: Estate Planning

Continuing a year that has been unkind to music legends, Prince passed away a few weeks ago. As you probably have heard by now, it appears that the late artist did little or no estate planning before he died. Unfortunately, this could pose an array of legal issues going forward. This post is dedicated to the basics of estate law — we’ll look explore those basics through the lens of the particular issues facing Prince’s heirs.

/ / / / /

Celebrities Who Don’t Have a Law Degree (But Should)

Any idea what the brilliant Natalie Portman would be like as a lawyer? Perhaps Emma Watson? Maybe David Duchovny? With their degrees from some of the most prestigious universities (*cough * Harvard, Brown, and Yale *cough*) there’s no doubt they could all double as impressive legal professionals.

/ / / /

For Aspiring Lawyers, the Whitey Bulger Trial is Must-See TV

If you’ve been following the Whitey Bulger trial, you know that its goings-on are the stuff usually reserved for the cinema or television screen. Lifelong subterfuge, murdering rivals, being pursued by one intelligence agency while working for another, and any other number of incredulities litter the trial’s landscape.

For those unfamiliar with Monsieur Bulger, some of his life is loosely chronicled by Jack Nicholson’s character in The Departed. For those who haven’t had the pleasure of watching that particular film, suffice it to say that Whitey was a bad, bad man.

The most recent development in the Bulger trial would make a Law and Order writer drool over her keyboard.

/ / /

A Look at the LSAT Flaws in the Oscar Pistorius Case

As those of you who have been following it know, the Oscar Pistorius case has been pretty crazy. A few weeks ago the South African Paralympian fired rounds through a closed door, killing his model girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. Pistorius maintains he thought she was an intruder, while the prosecution is claiming that it was a crime of passion. No one can say for certain at this point, but using LSAT logic we can deconstruct some of the claims that are being thrown around. Claims such as:

There have been allegations of abuse prior to this; he therefore killed Steenkamp purposefully. – Just because he was abusive before doesn’t actually prove that he murdered her. Does it make it more likely? Maybe. But just because something is more likely, that doesn’t show that it’s definite. Relevant data can strengthen a claim, but that doesn’t imply sufficiency to know that that claim is in fact certain.

/ / /

Katie Holmes: Scientology Nightmare to Law School Dream

If you’re anything like us, you probably spend all your downtime from the LSAT keeping up on the hottest celebrity gossip. So you were probably as excited as we were when you read on the infinitely-reliable and relevant Showbiz Spy that recent divorcee Katie Holmes is maybe heading to law school. Maybe!

The gossip website scored a hot interview with everyone’s favorite famous celebrity insider: “a source.” Mr(s). Source claims that everyone’s favorite Scientology apostate is now headed to the welcoming arms of law school. Holmes’ father is a lawyer, and they’re even thinking of going into practice together! Sound fishy? Well, it shouldn’t. This all came from “a source!” And with sentences like “Sources say the actress — who last year divorce [sic] Tom Cruise — is planning a career change away from “acting” and spellings like “in-terest,” we know we’re dealing with journalistic integrity of the highest degree.

/ /

Charlie Sheen: Oh the LSAT Fallacies

It’s important to keep up with the latest developments in the world, but we also need a break. That’s where my man Chuck Sheen comes in to save the day. Mr. Sheen is a proud alumni of the high school I attended, and I feel compelled to follow up on any developments to make sure us local Santa Monicans are doing all right. Plus, the details of Charlie Sheen’s absurd shenanigans provide entertainment, as well as LSAT enlightenment, for us all.

As you study for an exam that tests your ability to reason and to recognize formal logic, Chuck’s “high jinks” can also provide you with immaculate, untainted examples of fallacious reasoning in their purest form. Here are a few:

/ /

Roman Polanski: “Rape-Rape” and LSAT Fallacies of Causation

I thought I was a veritable Thurgood Marshall when I pointed out the apparent disproportionality of Plaxico Burress’ sentence when compared with other celebrities who’ve acted badly. And then someone at the justice department decided it was time to reel in Roman Polanski. Gold. Solid gold. I’ll just set the stage quickly, as I’m sure

The Confusing Case of Plaxico Burress

Apologies for my inattention to this blog. I got married (to a lovely girl) in Kauai and then got swine flu. I’m happy to report that the former was a much more pleasant experience.

The following doesn’t really pertain to the LSAT directly (or even indirectly), and because any attempt to relate it might seem disingenuous, I won’t try. But some familiar news has irked me and the people I ask don’t resonate my concerns, so I’m going out to you, our loyal MSS readers. You’ve probably considered this in passing, but in the way many thoughts are, it was likely lost in tumult of your daily life.

I’m talking, of course, about the sentencing of Plaxico Burress, the (former) New York Giants wide receiver.