Levine Engages in Shameless Self-Promotion (and Speaks of Himself in the Third Person, to Boot)

What is a blog if not an opportunity to implicitly or explicitly convince the wary that you have something valuable to say, and then say it? Or, at least, show that you want to say it, and are willing to brazenly ignore the possibility that no one cares what you think? That's my myopic conception of a good blog, as it would be much less fun and I would not be able to practice typing if it weren't.

So, with that conception in mind, I point you to a recent article from the Los Angeles Times on the legality of Internet gambling, specifically poker, in which I was quoted. It's a very interesting area, from both a substantive and procedural perspective, and it remains to be seen how the law and courts will sort this out. There is no question, however, that it will be sorted out, as the growth in the online poker world is astounding and it's a matter of time before the courts and Congress begin to definitively answer these questions.

Additionally, a recent practice commentary that I authored on the personal jurisdictional impact of cease-and-desist letters, published in the New York State Bar Association's Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal and entitled "The Potentially Perilous Cease-and-Desist Letter," can be found on this very website. Just go here and scroll down a bit. From a litigator's standpoint, it's surprising that a cease-and-desist letter, in and of itself, would raise any jurisdictional issue, but, alas, some courts have said that they do.

I hope that you find both pieces informative and interesting, or at least that they help you answer any questions about what I'm doing here.