there's something fishy...

i'm originally from North Jersey (or at least, i consider it North Jersey; Creeper, who's from AC has disputed me on this) and so i know predominantly North Jersey towns e.g. Montclair, Parsippany, Livingston, Hoboken, Fort Lee, etc. My current employment is in Bridgewater, NJ, which i consider Central Jersey, and is thus out of my "comfort zone" of known NJ.

something i've noticed about Central Jersey is the reedonkulous prices for everything! the gas prices are a hefty .20 more per gallon and food prices are equivalent to a NY lunch (around the $8 range, and that's the cheap side!). i thought it might just be the town i work in, but i attended a deposition today in Morristown and was forced to stop to get gas and it was the same price! although, a caveat for Morristown is that it's a very business and yuppie-oriented area so they might just jack up prices because the population can afford it.

who does Central Jersey think it is? NYC? i don't think so.

while pondering this, i received the daily newsletter from one of the partners which references notable published cases in NJ. it's usually a good idea to skim them regardless of the content or relevancy to what our firm does, but today, one case really stuck out: Levinson Axelrod v. Heyburn, 09-cv-5627.

after reading about the substance of the suit, i just had to check out the actual website. as the article stated, the original link has been enjoined but the alternate one still exists: Levinson Axelrod Really Sucks. the contents of the site are, as the title states, all about bashing Levinson Axelrod. bashing sites aren't new and sometimes they're not even that entertaining, and i have to admit, i haven't really perused all of it. but i gotta admit, this former associate, Heyburn, has some real balls to do what he did. the legal community isn't that big so you never want to burn any bridges or be known as an "asshole" or "difficult". hence, no one really says anything really disparaging against anyone else (aside from personal discussions within a firm-you never really discuss personal opinions with other counsel because you never know who they know).

but Heyburn: BALLS. GIANT BALLS.

i'm not sure who i think is ultimately right but the concept of the case is interesting. there's no doubt that each side has valid arguments regarding the impact of the site and i'm not sure about the relevant legal arguments since i'm not familiar with that aspect of the law. but, once again, blogs are getting ppl into trouble.