Whisker & Co. Law Group

Blog

  • Opinion Letter: Is the Lap Ours?

    Dear Client, you asked whether the lap of a seated human constitutes common property. In a word: it does not. In more words, as is the custom of this profession, it constitutes a revocable licence, granted by the human and exercisable by the cat at any time of the cat’s choosing.

    Where a lap is vacated while occupied, the cat may claim the displaced warmth under the Doctrine of Residual Heat. Where the human stands up suddenly, the cat should object, vocally. We recommend this opinion be read aloud, in a low voice, while standing on the relevant knees.

  • Seminar Recap: The Laser Dot and the Law of Pursuit

    Last Thursday’s seminar drew a crowd of 48 cats and one confused pigeon, who had come for the free snacks. Our speaker, Associate Marmaduke Pounce, addressed the legal status of the laser dot, which we now classify as an intangible chattel.

    The central question: can one possess a thing that cannot be caught? The panel concluded that possession is nine tenths of the chase. Audience questions included whether the dot has a landlord, and whether the human holding the pointer should be named as co defendant. Both were taken under advisement, and the pigeon left before dessert.

  • Estate Planning for the Nine Lives Client

    Many clients assume that having nine lives simplifies estate planning. It does not. Each life requires its own will, and the assets, chiefly a bed, a toy mouse, and a bowl, must be divided in nine ways.

    Partner Hortensia Clawford recommends a living trust, which would pass your favourite sock to a named beneficiary upon the death of any one life. She cautions that most clients are by their fifth life too old to remember where the sock is. Our estate planning package begins at 11 tins and includes a notarised paw print, which is mostly decorative.

  • Pro Bono Clinic at the Shelter: A Year in Review

    Once a month, Whisker & Co. attorneys volunteer at the Maplewood Cat Shelter, offering free advice to residents awaiting placement. This year we advised 63 cats on topics ranging from the right to a window to the enforceability of a sad face.

    Marmaduke Pounce personally assisted a one eyed gentleman named Admiral, who is now living with a retired schoolteacher and holds the title to the good armchair. Associate Poppy is still working on the case of a kitten who insists the shelter’s mop is his mother. We have declined to rule on the matter.

  • Contract Review: What You Are Really Agreeing To At Dinner

    When your person fills your bowl, a contract is formed. Consideration is the purr. Acceptance is the first bite. The terms, however, are rarely read, and often changed without notice.

    We recently reviewed a bowl placed at 6:02 in the evening, where the previous clause provided for 6:00. This is a material breach. We advise clients to refuse the meal, sit beside the bowl with a look of profound disappointment, and file a complaint by walking in front of the person at knee height. This remedy has historically succeeded in 97 percent of cases.

  • Annual Partners’ Retreat: Minutes

    The retreat was held on the upper landing from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m., with a break for a nap that lasted from 10:15 until 3:55. Present were Mewsley, Clawford, Pounce, and Gerald, who counted towards quorum on the grounds that he was there.

    Resolutions passed: that the firm shall acquire a second sunbeam; that the word ‘no’ be removed from all internal documents; that Tuna, our receptionist, be promoted to Director of First Impressions, with no change in duties. A motion to adjourn was carried by a unanimous snore.

  • Midnight Zoomies and the Right to Quiet Enjoyment

    Several clients have asked whether sprinting through a hallway at 3 a.m. is permitted under the Right to Quiet Enjoyment. We confirm that it is. The right, properly understood, belongs to the cat, and applies to whichever hours the cat considers to be quiet.

    The humans in the household may argue that they are also entitled to enjoyment, quietly. Respectfully, we disagree. They are asleep, and cannot enjoy what they are not awake to experience. A person who is unconscious has, in our view, waived all claims for the duration. Please run in good conscience, preferably over their stomach.

  • Client Spotlight: Mr. Pickles v. The Bath

    Our client, Mr. Pickles, was recently subjected to a bath without a hearing. He was lifted, carried, and placed in warm water by a single adult, in what we consider a textbook violation of due process. At no point was he given notice, nor an opportunity to argue that he was already clean.

    Associate Marmaduke Pounce has filed for damages in the amount of six tins of salmon pate, plus emotional distress. A settlement offer arrived on Monday in the form of a towel and a treat. We have rejected the towel and are considering the treat, which we may keep as evidence.

  • Seeking Injunctive Relief Against the Vacuum Cleaner

    The firm has this week filed for a permanent injunction against the defendant, a Hoovertron 3000 owned by the household of our client Mr. Biscuit. The vacuum cleaner has, on at least 41 documented occasions, emerged from a cupboard without notice and made an unreasonable noise.

    We argue that the defendant is an attractive nuisance, a loud nuisance, and, in the words of our client, a monster. The defence has stated that the machine is merely doing its job. We note that it has never once asked permission to enter a room, and that its job is to take things from the floor, which are ours.

  • Summer Intern Programme Concludes With Minor Incident

    The firm’s six week internship concluded on Friday with a closing ceremony, a small cake, and an incident involving the cake. We would like to thank our three interns: Biscuit, Poppy, and a kitten named Sir Reginald who is nine weeks old and has not yet been admitted to anything.

    Highlights of the programme included filing 112 documents in the wrong drawer, drafting a contract that consisted entirely of the letter M, and a mock trial in which the defendant was a sock. The sock was acquitted. Biscuit has been offered a full time position, subject to passing the bar, which is on the second floor.