This morning, I had the pleasure (ok, not really) of sitting and waiting for an hour while a court reporter was procured who could record our oral argument. So I sat and I watched. And I came to realize that I was in the place where dreams died, where hope is buried. I realize that sounds melodramatic but I was in a courtroom where every case but mine was what we in NY call a Domestic Relations case, a matrimonial part, a divorce and custody case.

The room was so weird. I don't do matrimonial work and IÂ’m so glad.

People start off married, usually, in the ordinary course, with great hopes for the future and dreams about the lives they are going to build together. This is part of the American dream, the fantasy wedding, the perfect spouse, then maybe some children and picture perfect Christmas cards with the beautiful children and Golden Retriever every year on the front.

Those dreams die in the matrimonial part. People come to bury their marriages, their hopes, their dreams, to fight over the issue of the marriage (the children), to battle over money and possessions. They start from love and end up in bitter hatred. I said to the Court Clerk, who I've come to know from before this Part was a matrimonial part, how can you stand the pain in this room? And he looked at me, surprised, and said, "I don't and I'm here every day".

The people in that room were interesting. There were lawyers and litigants. The lawyers seemed, many of them, to know each other. I guess it's a small bar, even in NYC. The lawyers were on friendly terms with each other, and that's to be expected when they're not in front of the judge trying to tear each other's hearts out. But the litigants. . .

The litigants were different, although democratic in terms of social class. First, every woman client in that room, whether her marriage was officially pronounced over by the State of New York or not, had taken off her wedding band and engagement ring. Every one. And I looked, out of curiosity. Second, the room ran the gamut of types of people -- young blond Upper East Side looking women; older people; young people who looked too young to be married; a woman in the uniform of the US Postal Service and she was sitting next to a much older man in a suit and tie who was wearing what must have been a $10,000 watch (and yes, I kind of know these things). Very democratic in that sense, as all the problems were washed up equally in front of this judge's bench.

And the hatred, hiding as indifference, the aggressive indifference as people there were ending their relationships. They would refuse to look at each other, even as they had to pass within inches of each other. Why, I wondered. Two of them were there to fight over custody, neither of them in the full flower of youth anymore, why couldn't they behave like adults, I wondered. How badly had they hurt each other that it came to this?

The postal worker sat next to me for a little while. I think she was not represented by counsel and I guess she took time off from work to attend this session of the Court. She looked so sad.

And one woman, one woman hovered behind her attorney as he made his argument to the bench. And she crept ever closer as he spoke, until, when the judge made a ruling, she stood behind him and buried her face in her hands and began to cry, very quietly. And no one in the room batted an eye as she almost silently wept, except for the lawyers there with me on the commercial case. We don't usually see clients cry. But then, we don't usually hang out in a place where dreams go to die.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 02:21 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 673 words, total size 4 kb.

I am just totally slammed today. Running around, working with four other lawyers in my office, trying to get a pleading put together that will survive a motion to dismiss, a very technically complicated pleading in a very complicated case involving several different judicial fora. Still no time, therefore, to report back on Washington D.C., other than to say it was a great trip.

Played hookey this morning from work and accompanied the Girl Child to her "art show" at pre-school. That was great fun and I got to be the adoring dad and take pictures of her posing in front of her creations.

Then I went to work and went right back down the rabbit hole. C'est la vie.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 03:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

This is shaping up to be a very bad year, demands of practice wise. This week alone:

*I am preparing a major adversary proceeding complaint arising out of a bankruptcy as special counsel to the trustee in bankruptcy;

*I have been approached by another lawyer, a friend from the train, who wants to refer me a potentially huge case involving really arcane issues of property law -- she said, and I thought this was nice, that she's tried to explain this case to three or four other lawyers and so far I'm the only one who has been able to follow the bouncing ball; and,

*I believe that I will be retained today in a piece of international litigation that will make every other case I've ever worked on in my whole life look like a rounding error and has the potential to consume me like a monster.

The rest of the year is suddenly looking like it's going to be exceptionally busy.

Oh, and I'm supposed to go to Guatemala again tomorrow on the dawn patrol flight for the weekend. Expect blogging to go real light for the next couple of days.

And now if you'll excuse me, I have to go call some economists. I also need to consider having my head examined.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:37 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Is there any chance you can tell us why you are calling economists? I have a certain interest in that area, and it would be interesting to see how your world and theirs overlap. Also, thanks for all the London Architecture photos. They are beautiful.

Posted by: tex ritter at May 04, 2005 12:59 PM (YtqTh)

2 Well, sounds crazy...but better than the alternative, I'm guessing!

Posted by: Kelly at May 04, 2005 04:17 PM (KcwX7)

3 Oh, yeah, much better than the alternative. It's been dead at work for almost a month now. Hey, customers, where IS everybody?!

Posted by: Tuning Spork at May 04, 2005 10:59 PM (CsMXV)

4 The best way to slog through a mountain of tasks? One. Thing. At. A time. (Oh, and a really great support staff. LOLL! You knew I was going to go there, dincha?! : wink If you need any assistance (and I can be of any) please don't hesitate to holla! xoxo

Posted by: Margi at May 05, 2005 01:13 AM (lWAiX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I am not a generalist as a lawyer. I am a specialist, practicing in the field of complex corporate litigation, often dealing with complicated and expensive financial matters, sometimes frauds. There is a lot of law I don't know diddly about. In fact, there is more work that I don't do, way more, than work that I am qualified to do. For instance, the list of things I have no experience in would include, but is not limited to, family law, matrimonial, personal injury, medical malpractice, tax, entertainment, patent, trusts and estates, criminal law (except for white collar), and, construction law. I could go on, but you get the idea, right?

That long preamble was intended to explain why I have never seen a "Citation", as the document is called, from NY State Surrogate's Court. The Surrogate's Court is the Court which deals with the probate of wills and the administration of estates. As an aside, the building in NY City is flat out gorgeous and if you have the chance, you should stick your head in. Anyway, one of my colleagues is working on a contested will case. Bitterly contested and I won't go into the details here because, inter alia, I don't really know them. But my colleague came in to show me this Citation because it starts with the following language:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
By the Grace of God Free and Independent,

And then it continues by telling the reader what the Court is ordering you to show up and argue about. But I was struck by this lovely opening language in the caption. By the Grace of God Free and Independent. Isn't that lovely and quaint and maybe even antiquated as a formulation? Even if we are free and independent, although maybe less so since the feds aggregated all sorts of powers to themselves and expanded the role and power of administrative agencies and delegated all these quasi-legislative powers with little oversight to them and then created all of these unfunded mandates. . . Well, you get the idea. I'm going to stop here.

Still, I like it. By the Grace of God Free and Independent. That has quite a ring to it, doesn't it? I wonder when they started using this style.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:31 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I've long thought New York was the only other State in the Union with the arrogant sense of self-pride to match Texas. I have to agree that that is a very nice bit of ceremonial Deism and patriotism there.

Posted by: JohnL at April 07, 2005 01:19 PM (YVul2)

2 I was struck by those same words many many years ago, which I read on a replica of parchment at a City Hall exhibit. It was on a document signed by John Jay, in the late 1790's, appointing our city's first mayor (can't remember his name). Having temporarily lived in countries where military rule and dictatorships were the form of government, has made me cherish and highly value all our freedoms which are daily taken for granted. Thanks for the walk down memory lane.

Posted by: michele at April 08, 2005 08:04 AM (ht2RK)

3 The mayoral appointment michele is recalling was to Richard Varick, but he was not the first mayor. The first mayors were appointees of the Royal Governors-General, and it is from the form used by these royal appointments that we get "The People of the State of New York, by the grace of God free and independent..." formula. It used to be (as it still is in Canada) that the sovereign was the monarch, who needed to be evoked when certain common law forms were used. When our revolutionaries deposed the king but kept the English common law system, we had to replace the traditional “"George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France (yes, he claimed to be King of France too!) and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc." with something more in line with the revolutionary ideology of “popular sovereignty.” We quickly (by at least 1777, when I’ve seen militia officers’ commissions so styled) came up with the “The People of the State of New York, by the grace of God free and independent..." form. I dig it too! The original of the appointment michele recalls is now on the market for $25,000 (see http://www.raabcollection.com/detail.aspx?cat=0&subcat=155&man=31

Posted by: new_yorker at July 29, 2005 02:49 PM (siim4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I need it to be yesterday. I need for the partner who had the other half of the brief in opposition to which we were preparing a reply brief, to have come to me yesterday to say that he needed me to pick up an extra point to write on, not today. I need to have him be responsible, like I was, and have gotten his shit done three days in advance, like I did. I loathe the last minute brief. Especially when we had over two weeks and dick all else to do but this critically important brief. I'm just hunting for a break.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 03:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

You know that you need a quick break when, in the middle of working on a $40 million dispute, you realize that Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious has fewer syllables than tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and that you want, in your reply brief, to define T.I.W.P.E.A as Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious because you think that it might be quicker to type.

Such that, your sentence, "[t]he proposed amended verified answer with counterclaims states a good claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage", might read instead as, "[t]he proposed amended verified answer with counterclaims states a good claim for Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". What do you think? Think the judge'd like it?

More coffee? check.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:56 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

That someone is not me. I am not snowed in at home, I regret to report. Deeply regret to report, I should say. Instead, I am sitting at my desk and ignoring anything that doesn't bear a label: Caution, contents under extreme pressure and may explode, you dumbass, thus causing malpractice, if you don't attend to said contents, you understand? In other words, I am sort of catching up on long neglected matters which need tending to, prodding, or kicking.

Part of that tending to will be that big ass brief I have to put a reply in on. I don't really like big firm litigation tactics. They kind of suck, for the most part. They throw bodies at issues and attempt to overwhelm with the shotgun, scattershot approach instead of the rifle. I prefer the rifle. I prefer a targeted argument, the most effective argument, not every argument I can possibly think of thrown up without discrimination.

One thing I do find useful from big firms, though? Their legal research and citation. Yeah, pretty much I can rely every time on the big firm litigator to cite cases that are more helpful to me than they are to him/her. With some firms, I can begin my research from their cases.

Let me explain a little about computerized legal research. Cases are summarized by the West Group into headnotes. Headnotes describe the legal proposition advanced by the case. Before computers, you really used to research by headnote. I am of the generation of lawyers who learned to do legal research pre-computers. Let's say you want to find a case that says that to allege a particular kind of business tort, interference with pre-contractual relations, you have to allege that you would have gotten the contract with a certainty. Now, with computers, you can do the following search for the proposition: "certainty" /s "contract" /p interference. That brings up any case that uses certainty and contract in the same sentence and has interference in the same paragraph. Easy, right?

Well, no. You see, American jurisprudence is really based on the facts of each case. The facts decide what legal principles are applied to each situation. So, if all you do is the search and you find your quote and you cite it to the Court and move on as happy as a clam (although why clams are reputed to be happy is beyond me), then you have not really done your job. Big firm lawyers do this all the time. They cite the little bit and move on to the next point.

Then I come along and I read the whole case. And I get to find that in the following paragraph, the court goes on to say that despite the fact that you need certainty, no where in the history of American jurisprudence was a plaintiff required to establish that he could prove his cause of action in his complaint. Kind of an important, maybe even critical, distinction, no?

There was all sorts of other really useful stuff in this case. When I cite a case to the Court, I tend to read the entire case first and only cite it if the whole case is good for me. Takes a little more time in terms of legal research, but really makes all the difference and you are left knowing that your brief and your legal citation is bullet proof. That is peace of mind when you are in front of the Court on oral argument.

I am looking forward to seeing what other useful gems await me in this big firm brief.

But I still wish I had my snow day.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 02:47 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 622 words, total size 3 kb.

Let me just observe, after breaking the tax code in the hot sun all day, and then reading the "Regs", that I am so glad that I did not elect to take an LLM in Tax and specialize in the area. I am only blogging now, in fact, because I feel like I've hit a wall and need a break.

I listened yesterday morning to a former treasury official say that the United States deserves a tax code that looks as if it was created on purpose. Hear, hear. Can we get any volunteers to re-write the Code? And the Regs?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 03:54 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

The world of law is a small, if not confined world. You practice, especially in big cities, among an ever changing cast of characters but often in front of the same judges. It feels closed and sometimes insular. The same names pop up, again and again. If you meet someone new, you can usually find a common point of reference, a school, a case, another lawyer, pretty quickly. In this regard, I doubt that the practice of law is really very different from, say, the world of high yield bonds. Especially at the higher end of things. But back to law.

In my world, reputation is everything. Again, I doubt that is a unique situation. For instance, diamond traders live by their reputation. And so do I. So, when I get a compliment from another attorney, a sincere compliment not a I'm blowing smoke up your ass so you'll drop your guard a bit and I can either slip one in or manipulate you, I'm pretty darn pleased.

I found one today in my email box as a lawyer I know from previous litigation sent me a referral. In this email, he described me as "wickedly smart" and possessed of a "mildly professorial demeanor", which he assures me and the potential new client he means as a compliment.

It is so nice to shine, just a little bit, even if no one outside of my insular little world really knows about it. Or cares. But I know and I can enjoy his little description. It is awful nice to be appreciated. Even nicer if the potential new client signs up, of course!

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Seriously. You know that you should consider applying for federal emergency disaster relief for your desk when the only way you can find your cell phone is to engage in autotelephonation and then it still takes you what feels like 5 minutes to find it buried in the mounds of paper on your desk.

Actually, I think I just saw the Governor go by in a helicopter as he came to inspect the disaster that is my desk.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:53 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You actually put your phone down? Seriously? Mine is always in my hand. Always. Makes typing hard

Posted by: Helen at January 26, 2005 12:59 PM (uFX1z)

2 When it came time to choose which kind of computer I wanted the school I work for to provide, I should have asked for a Dell rather than a Mac (the choice compatable with the majority of the people I work with). If I had gotten a Dell, that powedery black finish would have shown up so much better in th eblizzard of white paper on my desk. I brought a pile of papers home with me one night, and didn't realize my computer was in among them.

Posted by: Mandalei at January 26, 2005 03:22 PM (LcyhB)

3 sometimes it is just better to sweep it all off into the trash and start over (if only we could)

Posted by: standing naked at January 27, 2005 05:40 AM (IAJcf)

4 Autotelephonation, eh? Is that legal?

Posted by: GrammarQueen at January 27, 2005 02:53 PM (glf8i)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here's the call you hate getting from a client at any time of the day, really, but particularly first thing in the morning:

Guess what? I've just been made the subject of a Federal indictment. What are we gonna do?

One of my colleagues just got that call, now.

Oh, joy.

[cynicism]You really hate it when that happens to a client who has been sooo good about paying his or her bills.[/cynicism]

In all seriousness, I'm truly bummed. I like this guy a lot, actually.

UPDATE

Actually, the call came from the client's wife to say that her husband had just been taken away, in handcuffs, by six Federal agents.

No word on whether the agents were singing: "Bad boy, bad boy, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you. . ." Seemed tacky to ask her, really.

Federal indictments suck.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 08:42 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm way jealous that Jan at Secular Blasphemy got to this story first.

The group of prospective jurors was summoned to listen to a case of Tennessee trailer park violence.

Right after jury selection began last week, one man got up and left, announcing, "I'm on morphine and I'm higher than a kite."

When the prosecutor asked if anyone had been convicted of a crime, a prospective juror said that he had been arrested and taken to a mental hospital after he almost shot his nephew. He said he was provoked because his nephew just would not come out from under the bed.

Another would-be juror said he had had alcohol problems and was arrested for soliciting sex from an undercover officer. "I should have known something was up," he said. "She had all her teeth."

Another prospect volunteered he probably should not be on the jury: "In my neighborhood, everyone knows that if you get Mr. Ballin (as your lawyer), you're probably guilty." He was not chosen.

The case involved a woman accused of hitting her brother's girlfriend in the face with a brick. Ballin's client was found not guilty.

"[H]ad all her teeth". *Snicker* I'd also be concerned if I was Mr. Ballin who has the reputation in the community for the counsel of choice for those who are guilty. I thought it was a nice touch for the article to note that Ballin got this guy off.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 08:32 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

1 You know, as soon as I saw that this was a story about those crazy people in Tennessee, I just had to cover my eyes and hope for the best. I still remember when an F-16 went down in Nashville, and the only person they found with whom to do an interview was a barely competent man who had been "lyin' nekkid in the bed with his girlfriend and up and thowed her crosst t'other side of the room". My mom was barely able to speak coherently when she saw that on CNN, she was so mad--noone likes to be guilty by association! There will be no smashing people in the face with bricks at my Nashville weddin'. We're civilized people, and will use folding chairs instead

Posted by: Mandalei at January 19, 2005 09:24 AM (LcyhB)

2 A popular joke in my neck of the woods about Lake County in Northern California, which has an extraordinarily high rate of methamphetamine use and production combined with the highest rate of residents on SSI in the state goes like this: Q. What do you get when you have five people in the bar at Konochti? A. A full set of teeth!

Posted by: Mark at January 20, 2005 08:02 AM (mk4dk)

3 Excellent & amusing tales, as usual, RP. That said, I would venture that the emotion you felt was envy, not jealousy...

Posted by: GrammarQueen at January 21, 2005 12:10 PM (X3Lfs)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The judge signed my Order to Show Cause and required me to serve it today on the client. That's why things have been so quiet here today. In any event, the Order is returnable before the Court on the 23rd, at which point I hope she will let the Firm out of representing the client. In the meantime, the entire action is stayed. That means she froze everything pending the hearing on the 23rd. I always ask for a stay pending the hearing and determination of the motion, but the court attorneys who review these filings always take out the part about the determination of the motion. Either way, I'm just glad she signed it.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 02:37 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

I had an 8:30 meeting with the client who owes the Firm a lot of money in legal fees. I explained that we could not represent him anymore. The meeting ended on an acrimonious note. I have spent the next several hours preparing an Order to Show Cause which I will present to the Commercial Division Support Office to ask the Court to stay the action to permit the client to get new counsel and to let our Firm out of any further representation.

I suppose I ought to be tougher than this, but some of the things he said I found particularly wounding. Greedy? No, unfair and untrue. I am not greedy. I do expect that bills for services rendered will be paid. I do put my clients' interests first because I am a fiduciary and I understand what that means. I don't, however, work for free and nor does the Firm. The way he called us greedy, however, left me and everyone else in the Firm thinking that the only word he left out was "Jew". It was just said in that kind of way. Maybe I'm overly sensitive here, but the impression struck me the instant he spoke it.

Breakups are messy and this one will be no exception, especially if the Firm chooses to sue the soon to be ex-client to recover the legal fees and expenses he owes.

I feel as if I've had better days, truth be told.

UPDATE

I have just returned from Court where my Order to Show Cause was accepted for filing by the Commercial Division Support Office. It has to be reviewed first by a court attorney to see whether it can be accepted, you see. As with all of these things, she told me that I'd have to come back and pick it up tomorrow morning, which I will do after my Federal Court conference across the street is over. But I tried to take it up to the judge today anyway. I pulled the court attorney to one side and explained that the reason I rushed down here, and why I don't want my name associated with the case for any more time than it absolutely has to be, is that at the conclusion of my meeting with the client today, he called me a "greedy", then he paused, "Neeeew Yoooork lawyer". When I told her that, her head shot up and she said, "gee, the only word missing from that sentence was Jew, wasn't it?" She promised to do what she could to help me get out. She also let out a bit of a whistle when she saw how much was owed.

I didn't think I was imagining it.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 12:30 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 2 kb.

I skipped merrily down to the train station this morning to take the 5:56 a.m. train to work. It gets me to my desk by right about 6:30. This was good today. Why? Because it is really nice to have a little bit of extra time when you find out that there has been a change of plans and you are going to be cross examining the former Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee today with respect to his reports and the calculation of a credit in the bankruptcy in the context of a hearing on damages.

Gotta run!

Posted by: Random Penseur at 08:46 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

Sorry so quiet today, but I got to work late after staying home to be with the kids while my wife fled the house early for a long day of job interviews. Keeping fingers crossed!

When I finally got to work, it was only to discover an email from a very good client. My client, also my friend, had been the victim of a vicious assault by a store owner's employee. He had been struck in the head with some unknown object, hospitalized for two days with swelling in the brain, and suffered significant blood loss. He was almost killed. He wants me to help him sue the owner and anyone else we can think of for damages caused to him and consequently to his business (since he isn't there to run it).

I have been feverishly doing legal research on all of the finer points of tort law this morning -- vicarious liability, negligence (maybe for the hiring practices), etc.

I have never taken a personal injury case before and have sworn I never would. However, I feel a great sense of personal outrage and motivation here. Time to make somebody pay, I think. I can't help the healing, but I can help the recovery.

Did I mention that my friend let his medical insurance lapse and will have to cover all the medical bills himself?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 11:35 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 1 kb.

What do you think, assuming you are not a lawyer, about what the practice of law is? I think that there are many different images. Maybe you think it is like television, all Ally McBeal or LA Law -- lots of well dressed people running about like idiots and arguing with judges. Maybe you think it is the movie image of Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird or Tom Cruise in a Few Good Men. Maybe you have the used car salesman image of the sleazy personal injury or insurance defense lawyer. Maybe it is the tweed coat wearing law school professor image or the ivory tower Supreme Court litigator who sits high above and contemplates serious issues. What else? Maybe the grizzled old criminal defense lawyer or the young earnest prosecutor. Maybe the crusading environmental lawyer or the terribly serious public interest guys with the long hair and earrings who still think that smoking weed is consistent with the oath they took upon admission to the Bar.

Reality? Pretty much nothing like the above descriptions. At least, not in my practice. No, in reality, even at the big firms, a lawyer is a small business operator. He sells services to individuals and to companies and then he tries to get paid for them. Some of the services are measured by the amount of time spent performing them and those are charged on an hourly basis. That hourly basis charge is a very expensive way for an individual to purchase legal services, especially the services I provide -- complex corporate litigation and dispute resolution. Litigating by the hour is a terrible way to go, for most. In fact, just out of curiosity, how much do you think my firm charges out my time at? I'll be interested to see what you come up with.

I spend some of my time dealing with the frustration of making sure my clients pay the firm for the services we provided. I do a good job for my clients and usually obtain pretty good results, but there is no guarantee about anything and I have had some bad decisions and bad results. But, those bad results don't mean that the client is relieved of his obligation to pay his bills. And if the client doesn't pay me, what can I do? I can't stop performing services because I am a fiduciary to my client. I can make a motion to the court to be relieved as counsel but that is not a guarantee that I will be relieved. I may be stuck with this client, as I am probably stuck right now, with a client who has a $40,000 plus bill and has not given me anything on it but empty promises and mumbles.

It is annoying to be lied to about your bills.

So, no, instead of thinking of a lawyer as an Armani suit wearing guy who spends his days yelling at judges, think instead of a small business owner who struggles to get paid. And also sometimes yells at judges, if they get lucky.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 10:54 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 528 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I may not be a good participant here, since my wife is a corporate attorney, but she cites legal services in the LA-NY market as $500 and more per hour. I'm curious, though: to what extent does an ordinary small businessman qualify a potential client? A realtor, for instance, is going to make some effort to avoid wasting time showing a house to someone who has bad credit or obviously can't pay. Someone who gets embroiled in a lawsuit and then is a deadbeat over the fees ought to have some kind of a paper trail that suggests this might happen. Or no?

Posted by: John Bruce at December 01, 2004 12:38 PM (RXzI7)

2 No fair since I'm a lawyer, but based on rates here in the middle of the country and my knowledge that you're as old as I am, I'd bet you bill out at $600 or more in the New York market. A great compliment (at least I take it as such) with which I am paid on a regular basis is: "I can't believe you're really a lawyer."

Posted by: JohnL at December 01, 2004 01:40 PM (YVul2)

3 I think you bill for between $650 and $725 per hour. If you are a junior partner(I don't think you would have hit partner, yet.), you might bill for less in hopes for a larger bonus. I would also assume that you have to bill 60 hours a week.

Posted by: Azalea at December 01, 2004 02:26 PM (hRxUm)

4 I find those amounts staggering! It's hard to feel much sympathy for the legal profession when those are the rates they charge for their services. That said, I can understand the frustration of not being paid for your services, as well. And being forced to continue to provide them. That's gotta suck!

Posted by: Mick at December 01, 2004 02:57 PM (VhRca)

5 $600 an hour is kind of staggering, I agree. Although I do know attorneys who bill out at that rate. But $750? That is really over the top. No, John Bruce was the closest, although he was just a titch on the high side. Maybe the firm ought to adjust my rates! That was an interesting question you posed, Mr. Bruce, and I will try to answer it in a post later as opposed to a in the comment section.

Posted by: RP at December 01, 2004 09:44 PM (X3Lfs)

6 $16 an hour here. I'm in the wrong business.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at December 01, 2004 10:03 PM (HOezO)

7 Well, TS, keep in mind that the hourly charge does not go directly to my bank account but instead to the firm. The charge is what the firm rents me out at. I certainly don't see anything at all like that figure in my check. In fact, when I was a baby lawyer, I ran the numbers once to see what I was actually being paid an hour and was so depressed that I vowed never to perform that calculation again!

Posted by: RP at December 02, 2004 09:48 AM (LlPKh)

8 RP, I just applied the 150-200% premium that seems to reflect the difference in costs between anywhere in Texas and NY City. Most partners in big firms around here bill in the $300-400 range, so I just multiplied by 1.5 to 2.0 and came up with the $600 number. Your point about the money going to the law firm is a good one. If I ever left in-house practice and stayed with the law, I doubt I would go back to a firm, as I could make a comfortable living undercutting law firm rates and providing GC-for-hire services. I know a few lawyers around here who do just that.

Posted by: JohnL at December 02, 2004 10:39 AM (YVul2)

9 Well, John, all you'd need then would be someone like me who could provide the corporate litigation side and you'd have a nimble, full service, boutique! Hey, we could be on to something!

Posted by: RP at December 02, 2004 10:49 AM (LlPKh)

10 I mentioned this post to my wife last night, and she was a little puzzled by the implication (as I see it) that you have to do your own collection. She works with a lot of ex-white shoe law firm types from downtown LA, and she doesn't think they have to do their own collections. What's the point of working for a firm if you have to do all your own non-legal work? Or is your firm just cheap????

Posted by: John Bruce at December 02, 2004 11:49 AM (je4Eg)

11 Well, ultimately every lawyer is responsible for making sure that his or her client is paying the bills. This is doubly true at a small firm like the one I'm at. A lawyer who takes on a client and is not involved with the collection side of the relationship, especially if there is a problem, is not cheap, he's stupid. The first time a lawyer will hear about a malpractice claim from a client is when the client stops paying the bills and the lawyer presses the issue. You need to be involved with that process if you were the contact point on the case or transaction. No, the lawyer who doesn't stay involved in the economics of the lawyer/client relationship is exposing himself needlessly to the client and risks having others strain the relationship. It isn't cheap, it is good practice.

Posted by: RP at December 02, 2004 11:57 AM (LlPKh)

12 "Real" Lawyerin defined: Six million hours of tedium followed by six seconds of sheer terror. That's if you're lucky enough to get to enter a courtroom. I actually think those rates are pretty moderate; considering the area of the country and firm size/specialization, etc. A lot of it depends on the support staff as well. When I worked for the immigration law firm, we did "flat fee" arrangements and that was the last time I saw those deals. I, for one, LOATHE billable hours -- especially when *I* had to come up with them. Of course, that was my brief stint as LA to a family law/criminal attorney. Sole practitioner. Asshole. He was a great attorney to his clients but a complete and utter jerk to his support staff. And I had more billable hours than HE did. Don't let this get around but: I actually like those that choose the profession. Mostly. Except the above-mentioned jerkoid. And those like him. The reality is: lawyers are just like everyone else. There are "good guys" and "creeps." And it's been my experience that you get what you pay for.

Posted by: Margi at December 02, 2004 07:09 PM (rKX9f)

13 I think you have a pretty accurate picture of it, Margi, which is not a shock. I detest keeping track of my time on the hourly billing thing. I am also very bad at it.

Posted by: RP at December 03, 2004 12:18 PM (LlPKh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Today is the day I push to complete the remaining *cough* 10 hours of Continuing Legal Education. Streaming video is my friend under these circumstances. I can sit here, blog a little, learn a little, clean my desk, etc.

For your information, because I know you care, here are the following classes I'm taking today (and maybe tomorrow morning):

*Evidence & Objections: Laying Foundations for Introducing and Raising and Rebutting Evidence (2 hours)

*The Irving Younger CLE Series: Hearsay (Younger was a legend of the trial bar) (3.5 hours)

*Inadvertent Disclosure: I Didn't Mean to Read It, I Forgot What It Said - Can I Stay in the Case? (2 hours of ethics credit)

*What Every Lawyer Should Know About LLCs and LLPs (4 hours)

Can you feel the excitement? Is it crackling over your internet connection?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 11:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Actually, the LLCs and LLPs are something I've been curious about. Can I sit in and 'splain it to ya later?!

Posted by: Tuning Spork at November 29, 2004 09:38 PM (A6e6g)

2 Wow, you read the whole post! Maybe, as a reward, I'll email you some of the materials for the course.

Posted by: RP at November 30, 2004 08:51 AM (LlPKh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Proximate cause is a legal concept that you find in tort cases and in securities fraud. It is a requirement that there be a causal link between the wrong alleged and the damage caused. It is sometimes thought of as the "but for" test. But for the actions of the defendant, plaintiff would not have been damaged. Here is a not very illuminating definition.

In any event, I saw in the New York Law Journal today, a story about proximate cause that really caught my eye. I quote (because I don't know how long that link will be good for):

A piece of grilled shrimp flung playfully by a Japanese hibachi chef toward a tableside diner is being blamed for causing the man's death.

Making a proximate-cause argument, the lawyer for the deceased man's estate has alleged that the man's reflexive response -- to duck away from the flying food -- caused a neck injury that required surgery.

Complications from that first operation necessitated a second procedure. Five months later, Jerry Colaitis of Old Brookville, N.Y., was dead of an illness that his family claims was proximately caused by the injury.

But for the food-flinging incident at the Benihana restaurant in Munsey Park, N.Y., Colaitis would still be alive, attorney Andre Ferenzo asserts.

"They set in motion a sequence of events," he said.

Alleging wrongful death, Colaitis' estate is seeking $10 million in damages. The complaint includes claims for pain and suffering and loss of consortium.

Benihana has denied all of the complaint's material allegations. In other papers filed with the court, defense attorney Andrew B. Kaufman also questioned whether Colaitis was trying to avoid the flying shrimp or catch it in his mouth.

* * *

When the chef flipped a piece of shrimp at Colaitis, he allegedly ducked away, injuring two vertebra in his neck. Doctors reportedly told Colaitis that if he did not have corrective surgery, another injury to the same disks might leave him paralyzed.

The first operation was in June 2001, six months after the Benihana dinner. A second procedure was performed two weeks later.

In succeeding months Colaitis developed a high fever and problems with his breathing and memory. He died in a hospital five months after the second surgery, on Nov. 22, 2001.

A contributing cause of his death, Ferenzo said, was a blood-borne infection. Justice Mahon's decision also listed respiratory failure and renal failure as causes of death.

Neither side has sought to add the doctors or hospital where the surgery occurred, New York University Medical Center, to the case. Colaitis died at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn.

Arguing for partial summary judgment, defendant's attorney Kaufman challenged the plaintiff's ability to prove proximate cause. In court papers, he said that Benihana cannot be liable for Colaitis' death because of a break in the chain of causation between the first or second procedures and his death five months later.

"Essentially, as the plaintiff's decedent died of an unidentifiable medical condition, the plaintiff will be unable to establish that any alleged negligence by Benihana proximately caused his demise," Kaufman wrote.

In denying defendant's motion, Justice Mahon held that whether the tableside events caused Colaitis' death would best be resolved at trial.

I think that the defendant has a pretty good argument here and I am shocked that no one has brought the hospital in. Unless, of course, he did not die from any malpractice. I don't know about this one. Interesting issue.

UPDATE:

Thanks so much for the link from Robert at the Llama Butchers! After you linked, Robert, I went ahead and did a little legal research (2 minutes and 40 seconds, according to Westlaw, actually), and I include below a discussion of the concept of proximate cause from a very recent opinion. So, click on Extended Entry if you want to see what the Hon. Herbert Kramer has to say about the concept in connection with a case involving Philip Morris, cigarettes, and the issue of comparative fault. The case is called, FRANKSON v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, 4 Misc.3d 1002(A), 2004 WL 1433008 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. June 24, 2004). more...

Posted by: Random Penseur at 12:43 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1458 words, total size 9 kb.

1 I'm just glad he didn't die from a ruptured bowel. Coilitis...bowels... Ah, foo. Another 6 months in purgatory.

Posted by: Jim at November 23, 2004 03:20 PM (tyQ8y)

2 Sokay, Jim. I've got a reserved Party Table in Hell. Pack light. The express train is crowded. Oh, and Jim? BIFURCATE BIFURCATE BIFURCATE! Vicarious liability? I love it when my husband talks "radio talk" to me. Do you and Robert talk tort reform to your significant others? Inquiring minds wanna know. 0 )

Posted by: Margi at November 23, 2004 06:19 PM (MAdsZ)

3 No, Margi. I stick to "tart reform" with the Lovely Wife. I think I'm not a fan of proximate cause. In both of the vehicle cases there I would have decided against the driver. If you know the car is broke it is your responsibility not to drive it until it's un-broke. If you do drive it then it's your bad. If you are drunk and drive into a utility pole you are responsible for whatever happens. Period, end of story. Guess I'd make a lousy judge. Probably a decent magistrate though.

Posted by: Jim at November 24, 2004 09:48 AM (tyQ8y)

4 I think you'd hate being a Magistrate, Jim. Mostly, they hear discovery disputes. That is not the height of intellectual excitement. No, I see you more as an appellate judge, telling the trial judge he was wrong! Margi, I almost never talk law to my wife. She is not a lawyer and she usually doesn't permit that kind of language in the house!

Posted by: rp at November 24, 2004 10:03 AM (LlPKh)

5 I have always said that I would SUCK as an attorney because I can see both sides of an issue. Case in point: while working for an immigraion attorney, I researched, composed and filed a brief with the INS on behalf of a gay Brazilian citizen. The brief was in support of an Asylum claim. Basically, I was asserting persecution on the basis of sexual orientation. I sweated that decision more than any other in my (addled) memory. Why? Because anyone with half a brain would argue that if hate crimes against people of alternative lifestyles was persecution, then, by God, we got enough of that right here in the good ol' US of A. The ONLY thing in my favor? The Immigration Judge we were appearing before was the only judge (at the time) to grant asylum based on sexual orientation. Did I mention that my client won?! That was one of the best days of my entire life (the birth of my children notwithstanding). Anyway -- not sure where I was going to go with this but I wanted you all to know that I'm not ALL about the double-entendre. ;o) xoxo

Posted by: Margi at November 24, 2004 03:45 PM (MAdsZ)

6 We know that you are not always about the double entendre, no matter how good at it you may be. You ought to be proud of that result. I'd be proud, too.

Posted by: RP at November 26, 2004 04:44 PM (X3Lfs)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

These deposition excerpts courtesy of the blog Margi turned me onto some time ago. Thanks, Margi! I thought they were very funny.

The following exchanges were in depositions of bitterly contested divorce suits:

Q. Isn't it a fact that you have been running around with another woman?

A. Yes, it is, but you can't prove it!

....

Q. Did you ever stay all night with this man in New York?

A. I refuse to answer that question.

Q. Did you ever stay all night with this man in Chicago?

A. I refuse to answer that question.

Q. Did you ever stay all night with this man in Miami?

A. No.

....

Q. Isn't it true that on the night of June 11, in a prune orchard at such and such a location, you had relations with Mr. Blank on the back of his motorcycle?

(there was a complete sentence for about three minutes; then the wife replied.)

A. What was that date again?

....

Q. What was the nature of your acquaintance?

A. Oh, there wasn't no nature to it, nothing like that, at all. No nature to it. We were just friends, that's all.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 02:42 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.