Reuben Guttman

  • December 12, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Reuben Guttman, Founding member, Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC

    *This piece was originally posted on Huffington Post.

    Our nation has survived a sordid past from slavery to the internment of Japanese citizens. It even survived a duel between a sitting Vice President, Aaron Burr, and the former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton that resulted in the Secretary’s untimely death. President Franklin Roosevelt tried to “pack the Court” as a counter measure to the “nine old men” who threatened his New Deal legislation. The republic even lived past Watergate and a President who used the power of the office to suppress dissent.

  • October 25, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Reuben Guttman, Founding member, Guttman,Buschner & Brooks PLLC

    *This piece was originally posted on Huffington Post.

    There is a scene in the movie Private Parts – the life and career of Howard Stern – where NBC officials, committed to dumping the shock jock, check out the latest ratings and learn, to their dismay, that the DJ’s popularity has rocketed. Pouring through the data, they find that the “number one reason” people tune into Stern is because they are waiting to hear what he will say next.

    For all the time that Donald Trump spent on the Stern show, this may be the one lesson he learned. From North Korea’s “rocket man” to “crooked Hillary,” and a dash of Ryan and McConnell bashing, people tune in to this President to hear what he will say or tweet next. For their part, the members of the news media seem to fixate on Trumpian commotion.

  • October 19, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Reuben Guttman, Founding Member, Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC

    *This piece was originally published on Huffington Post.

    As President Donald Trump takes on the National Football League (NFL) and challenges players for kneeling during the national anthem, I am reminded of two athletes who made headlines four decades ago but whose names have perhaps faded from the American psyche.

    It was the fall of 1968. Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy had lost their lives to assassin’s bullets earlier in the year. Across the nation, college campuses were fraught with unrest from antiwar and civil rights protests. A strong showing by upstart candidate Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary forced the withdrawal of incumbent President, Lyndon Johnson, in his race for re-election. The nation was one month away from the Nixon Presidency.

  • July 13, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Reuben Guttman, Founding Member, Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC

    In this era of electronic information, a large part of what we do or think is recorded in real time through emails, tweets, cell phone photographs, videos and Facebook. If electronic information can be secured through document requests, subpoenas or civil investigative demands, there may be little more to learn from direct witness examination other than testing theories, authenticating records and getting a better sense of the personalities that are the subject of the investigation. While this was not the paradigm for the Watergate investigation of yesteryear – occurring at a time when there were no emails or even an internet – it is the paradigm for the current investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

    And so, on June 11, 2017, Donald Trump Jr. released an email chain that Senate and Department of Justice investigators will undoubtedly learn about anyway. Why did he do it unprompted? Perhaps it was out of panic. Perhaps he thought that releasing some emails would cause investigators to refrain from seeking all of his emails through a subpoena. Or perhaps it was a manifestation of the self-destructive impulses that also prompt his father’s unpredictable conduct.

    A review of the few emails that Mr. Trump Jr. disclosed allows us to envision how investigators might use them.

  • June 30, 2017
    Guest Post

    *This piece originally appeared on The Global Legal Post's blog on June 30, 2017

    by Reuben Guttman, Partner, Guttman, Buschner, & Brooks

    Legal academics are sniffy about practitioners who teach. But, says Reuben Guttman, this outdated view does a disservice to the legal profession.

    Scholarship means academic study or achievement. It is word without rigid limitations except perhaps when it comes to law schools which more and more are interpreting the word “scholarship” to mean theoretical endeavor not directly connected to the practice of law. This may seem odd but it is quite true. Today the word "scholarship" seems, in part, used as a pretext to discriminate against those whose academic endeavours favour the actual practice of law. Surprisingly, those whose work entails writing case books, legal treatises, or teaching classes on trial advocacy, are not what law school insiders call scholars. This means they are not favoured for tenure track positions or prestigious chairs. Sometimes they are relegated to the title of "professor of practice," which means that their endeavors are so connected to actual legal work that they cannot just be known as a professor.