. . . for anny

garden butterfly--
the child crawls, it flies
crawls, it flies...

 

spring rain--
a child gives a dance lesson
to the cat

 

piano practice
our scowling child plays
Ode to Joy 

from piano practice, by Tom Painting, bottlerocket press

 

• from dagosan:

baker's dozen 
of hovering stars 
- Anny's thirteen!

[dag, 06-04-04]   

.   . . . . . still too cute for words

      

# Posted by David Giacalone on 6/4/04; 4:00:23 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

 

 David G. Lanoue is a haiku guy and wrote the novel Haiku Guy.   

He is the translator of The Haiku of Kobayashi Issa (an online collection of

over 5000 haiku by the Japanese master). David is generously sharing his

haiku and zen insight with us. His About Haiku web page deserves frequent

visits, and the Haiku-a-Day feature puts the great Issa in your mailbox daily. 

the old priest dines

                his wine

                just wine

 

from the thin curve: The Red Moon Anthology of English-Language Haiku 1999 

(edited by Jim Kacien and the Red Moon Editorial Staff)  

 

worm

then

no

worm. . .

zen

master

finch

from The Red Moon Anthology of English-Languarge Haiku (1997)  

 

 Prof. Lanoue's 2nd novel is "The Laughing Buddha"  You can read Chapt. 1.

 

 

• from dagosan:

digital age --
at the keyboard watching  
aging digits

    [dag, 02-06-04]     

     

# Posted by David Giacalone on 6/3/04; 6:59:21 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

 

muted dawn

an abandoned hubcap

holds the rain

 

his death 

added to her litany

of complaints

 

 from snow on the water: The Red Moon Anthology of English-Language Haiku 1998

(Edited by Jim Kacian and the Red Moon Editorial Staff). Click for information on the book,

on Tom Painting, and on the Red Moon Press

 

# Posted by David Giacalone on 6/2/04; 11:59:21 AM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

The third installment of Jim Kacian's Haiku Primer

is now available, here.  To read all installments to date, click here.

For a layman's perspective, try dagosan's intro to haiku.

 

   

family album--

the black and white

of my youth

 

                          

three-quarter moon--

imagining she can feel it

move inside her

 

 

by Jim Kacian, from pegging the wind: The Red Moon Anthology of

English-Language Haiku 2002  (Red Moon Press; edited by Jim Kacian and

the Red Moon Editorial Board)  Click here for information on the Anthology. 

 

# Posted by David Giacalone on 6/1/04; 11:51:43 AM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

Michael Dylan Welch: Honored Guest

 

old folks' home

                             the square of light

                                  crosses the room

 

 [Click here to see the original, full-color photo and poem.]

 

 

you squeeze my hand

how still the sky

after fireworks

             [Click here to see the original, full-color photo and poem.]

 

From Open Window - an online collection of paired haiku and photographs by Michael Dylan Welch. 

 

 

• from dagosan:

gold star nana   
holds one small hand
remembers another
                               [dag, 05-31-04]

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/31/04; 2:28:58 PM - Trackback [1] Comments [0]

 from the thin curve: The Red Moon Anthology

lazy afternoon--

the digital temperature sign

rises one degree

                         by Michael Dylan Welch

 

 

lift bridge

the broken flow

of tourists

               by Tom Painting

calm night

the moon broken

by the oar

                by Jim Kacian    

 the thin curve: The Red Moon Anthology 1999  

• from dagosan:

coatless   
the late Spring day
colder than it looked
                               [dag, 05-30-04]

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/30/04; 12:53:24 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

. . honored guest: jim kacian

a letter from a prisoner--
the wide spaces
between words

 

 

 

from pegging the wind: The Red Moon Anthology of English-Language Haiku 2002 

(Red Moon Press; Jim Kacien, Ed.)  Click here  for information on the book. 

Learn about Jim Kacian and read the first installments of his Haiku Primer.

 

• from dagosan:

New Guinea   
dad rather not 
talk about it
                               [dag, 05-29-04]

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/29/04; 11:59:50 AM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

Michael Dylan Welch: Honored Guest

 

  

      gridlock
         on the freeway--
the skywriting drifts                                          

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/28/04; 1:59:52 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

family plot
the gravedigger
severs a root

solicitation
the wildlife activist
flashes her teeth

from the loose thread :The Red Moon Anthology of English-Language Haiku 2001 (edited by Jim Kacien, and the Red Moon editorial staff).  Click here for information on the book, and here to learn about Tom Painting.

 

• from dagosan:

silently  
she lures me to the kitchen -  
peeled tangerine
                               [dag, 01-03-04]

 

                          
    almost dusk
    driving while distracted
    by tree after tree
                                  [dag, 02-23-04]

• Browse our Haiku Resources Page.

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/27/04; 1:32:32 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [2]

•   More precisely, I will stop all forms of commentary and preaching at this weblog as of this posting -- from now on, we're grumping-out for good, and focusing exclusively on haiku, and related forms of poetry.  Given our history of frequent name-changes, you can just call this weblog f/k/a . . ..

1. I'm unable to maintain an opinionated, topical weblog without obsessing and overweblogging.
2. my health is noticeably and chronically worse than it was pre-weblog (when it wasn't exactly great)
3. nothing ethicalEsq, prof. yabut or any other alter ego could achieve is worth further jeopardizing my health further
4. on the other hand, haiku is good for my body and soul, and good for lawyers (and other hyper-busy, over-stressed Americans), too.

  The very-public soap opera of my many weblog hiatuses, retirements, and reformulations needs to end.  As my wise physician, Joe Hayes, has often said, "David, you're like an alcoholic who thinks he can go into a bar and have Just One drink."   Cold turkey appears to be my only safe relationship to punditry.  Please don't try to lure me back with flattery or new coping strategies.

With 220,000 page hits in 52 weeks, I'm immensely grateful to my weblogging friends -- colleagues, visitors, frrequent commentors, et al.  Thanks to all the webloggers who have pointed to us so frequently, and said some pretty darn nice stuff about ethicalEsq.  [No more eulogies, the ones last November were enough for a lifetime (or two).] 

 

I'm finally going to have time to visit other weblogs consistently, and to enjoy small pleasures away from my laptop, which have been sorely neglected this past year.  Soon, I'll have more energy, too.

  You are all invited to stop by frequently for a haiku moment.  I'll be spotlighting the works of top-notch English-language haiku poets, presenting special materials [such as the serialized preview of Jim Kacian's How-to Primer, with new installments the first of each month], updating our Haiku Resources Page, with its links to haiku sources, and humbly offering -- and always re-editing -- my own small poems.  This is not goodbye.  It is a sigh of relief.

• Speaking of haiku from dagosan, a routine medical visit today yielded this first-draft lament:

lovely new nurse: 

ID flipped over

under her smile

         . . . .[dag, 05-26-04]

P.S.   By Memorial Day, we'll have haiku moved into the body of the weblog as befits our new focus.  Until then, please check out HAIKUesque in our Margin.  Don't forget, the extensive ethicalEsq Archives and Resources will continue to be available at this site.

P.P.S.  More serendipity: The article For Some, the Blogging Never Stops (about addicted webloggers) appeared on the New York Times website this evening.  Thanks to TalkLeft for pointing to the article and to Pandagon's spirited reply.   Update: (05-30-04): "Hello, I'm Ernest, and I'm a blogaholic."  My e-buddy Ernie Svenson says he "speaks in blog," too, and wonders if he needs to seek counseling.  From a distance, it appears you've got the blog-disease well under control, Ernie.  You may think in Blog, but you don't seem to eat, drink and breathe it -- instead, you leave plenty of time for real food, drink and fresh air.

  BEWARE: Punditry, preaching and prolixity below this point.

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/26/04; 10:58:53 PM - Trackback [1] Comments [1]

All the recent jabber on weblogs about lawyer marketing has left skepticalEsq in an entrepeneurial mood, and he offers this money-making idea for an extra profit-center in your law firm:

  Fake IDs for Baby Boomer and Greatest Generation Birthday Gifts.  These make great gifts for every AARP-ager, but will be especially appreciated by folks who are aging either very gracefully or very poorly. Think how impressed strangers will be, when your faker "proves" that he or she is a decade older than shown on that pesky old original birth certificate or driver's license!

Immigration and p/i lawyers may already have the necessary machinery in-office; and solos working out of their homes probably have cameras and laminators around the house.  Of course, techie lawyers will be able to help establish electronic IDs for up-agers.

  We think aging-up is already going on across the nation, but here's your chance to cash in on it.  Listen to the chatter at office and cocktail parties.  See how often you hear variations on "wow, you don't look a day over . . . "  Baby Boomers loved fake IDs as kids.  Their vanity and competitiveness will make Aging-Up irresistible as they see themselves faring poorly on the WPQ (well-preserved quotient).  There's money to be made here, for the niche-marketing law firm.

• Disclaimer:  Aging-Up ID services are offered for entertainment and other lawful purposes only.  Obtaining Senior Discounts on a fraudulent basis is considered by the pyj gang to be both tacky and inappropriate. 

P.S.   Do you think Bob Dylan wanted an Aging-Up ID for his 63rd birthday yesterday?  Let's face it, he looks pretty darn good for 75!

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/25/04; 12:29:03 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

In his thirty-minute speech tonight, President George W. Bush did nothing to squelch the rumors (started here) that his current Exit Strategy is to find a transitional government that will ask for a pull-out of all coalition forces after June 30th.  Indeed, he stressed that the new government would have "full sovereignty," while giving no pullout timetable (See Reuters, "Bush Tries to Allay Mounting Doubts Over Iraq," 05-24-04)

• Hmmmmm.
• Update (05-25-04):  Somebody needs to remind TChirs at TalkLeft that Colin Powell has already told the nation that we would pull out American troops when the new Iraqi government asks us to do so.  All the vagueness about a withdrawal timetable will just make it easier for the Aministration to say it's surprised when the new government asks us to leave, and we "reluctantly" acquiesce to their full sovereignty.

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/24/04; 10:30:04 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [4]

"[Canfield] says firms don't need explicit policies. He likens political campaign fund raising to collecting money for a charity. 'It's not different than having a partner going around raising money for the United Way,' Canfield says."

  There's no difference between collecting for a favorite charity and asking an associate to give money in support of Bush or Kerry or their respective parties?   I bet that any mediocre lawyer (or grade school student) could come up with some very good reasons why the analogy is far from perfect -- not at all on all fours (with or without a leash). 

• Should we be concerned that Election Law expert Canfield is currently the Chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Election Law?  The Committee states its Mission to be "representing the Association’s commitment to ensure that the nation’s election laws are legally sound and are drafted to permit the broadest, least restrictive access by Americans to the ballot box."

"You don't want to give people the impression that this is something that they need to do," Kilberg says. "It's fairly common sense that you don't solicit people who report to you or someone over whose career you have influence. It wouldn't be fair."

• See Votelaw's post quoting Kappel on how easily a corporation can violate the anti-facilitation rules under the Federal election campaign laws.

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/24/04; 9:59:52 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

  As for the nannyism, see the concurring opinion of Justice Pariente [apt name] in Florida Bar v. Bryant, 813 So.2d 38 (Fla. 2002), where the judge recommends the total prohibition of sexual relationships between a lawyer and client during the lawyer-client relationship (leaving no loophole for prior relationships -- nor even mentioning spouses.)   Justice Pariente favorably quotes a law review article stating:

Even an arguably "consensual" relationship could end up with a client alleging she was coerced or manipulated into the relationship. An express rule would protect the client from the attorney and the attorney from the client, thereby preserving the integrity of the legal profession.

The revised rule provides that a lawyer may not "engage in sexual conduct with a client or a representative of a client that exploits or adversely affects the interests of the client or the lawyer-client relationship."  Rule 4-1.8(i).  New language provides examples of offending conduct, including demanding sexual relations as a condition of representation, coercing or intimidating a client into acquiescing to sexual relations, or allowing the sexual relationship to cause the lawyer to render incompetent representation.  New language in the Comment provides that a "client" means not only an individual but "a representative of the client.. 

  On the subject of ninnyism over lawyer advertising, see our recent posting, concerning the current legislative push to ban virtually all advertising that "solicits" litigation.  Instead of caving to this legislative pressure to further limit advertising, the Florida Supreme Court chose to remove many restrictions on television and radio advertising, while banning features that are "deceptive, misleading, manipulative, or . . . likely to confuse the viewer," and insisting that all statements that are required to be included in lawyer ads be "clearly legible if written or intelligible if spoken aloud." 

• The requirement that verbal and visual portrayals or depictions be "objectively relevant to the selection of an attorney" is eliminated.  (Former Rule 4-7.2(b)(4).
• The requirement that illustrations be "directly related and objectively relevant to a viewer’s possible need for legal services" is eliminated.  (Former Rule 4-7.2(c)(1).)

As sunEthics explains, under the new rules, "A non-lawyer spokesperson may speak or appear in TV and radio ads, provided the spokesperson 'is not a celebrity recognizable to the public' and makes 'a spoken disclosure identifying the spokesperson as a spokesperson and disclosing that the spokesperson is not an attorney.'" (New Rule 4-7.2(b)(2).)

  One final issue: Fla. Bar Rule 4-1.5 has also been amended to provide that a lawyer’s costs must be reasonable, and listing factors to be considered in determining reasonable costs.  sunEthics points out (emphasis added) that:

This new rule can benefit lawyers in at least 2 ways.  First, it contains a "safe harbor" provision specifying that a lawyer’s costs "shall be presumed reasonable" when there is a written attorney-client contract "in which the method is established for charging costs."  Amended Rule 4-1.5(b).  Second, new language in the Comment to Rule 4-1.5 approves the practice of lawyers using charges for "in-house costs" (such as "copying, faxing, long distance telephone, and computerized research") and "in-house services" (such as "paralegal services, investigative services, accounting services, and courier services") as profit centers.  Amended Rule 4-1.5(a), (b) and Comment.

•  The lawyer should not take advantage of the "captive" nature of the client as a customer of in-house services and costs.  Using an analogy to candy: the price should be similar to that found at your local drug store and supermarket (including mulit-packs and bulk discounts), and not like the cost at the counter of a movie theater.

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/23/04; 11:29:20 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [5]

  

  You can find a good summary of their findings (and even an important chart), in a Harvard Monthly Q&A (May 2004).  Their insights include:

• We will eventually return to full employment. But it will be full employment with a different set of jobs—the jobs lost to computerization and to other countries are not coming back. This is the essence of the book—how computers are driving long-term change in the U.S. job market and in the skills the job market now demands, and how the right kind of education creates the essential skills for success in future job markets.
•   We argue that the jobs growing in number share two general skills that computers cannot replicate. One is expert thinking the ability to solve new problems that cannot be solved by rules. (If the problem could be solved by rules, a computer could do it.) The second general skill is complex communication, the ability not only to transmit information, but to convey a particular interpretation of information to others in jobs like teaching, selling, and negotiation.
  • Carpenters, plumbers, and mechanics and other craftsmen can’t be off-shored—they have to work at the site of the problem. But more important, their work can’t be automated because they constantly encounter new problems for which they have to construct new solutions—they are constantly applying expert thinking skills.
• Lliteracy and math are critical skills necessary to acquire the knowledge to be an expert thinker in any field. The skills needed to be good at complex communication and expert thinking can be taught in any subject area: English, history, science, etc., and need not compete for space in the curriculum.

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/22/04; 5:01:14 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

  The law firm of Lamere & Schaeffer put the finishing touches on some excellent work product early this morning -- and as usual, senior partner Andrea did virtually all the labor.

Congratulations Andrea and Evan on the birth of Samuel Lamere Schaeffer.  As Evan reports:

Vital statistics: 8 lbs., 4 oz.; 21 inches long. In reviewing a draft of this post, Andrea said I should also be sure to add that Sam is "very beautiful."

Surely, there will be nothing "standard" about Samuel.

Update (05-24-04):  Speaking of long-expected, eagerly-awaited work product, congratulations to Bob Ambrogi on the completion of the second edition of his classic: The Essential Guide to the Best (and Worst) Legal Sites on the Web, Second Edition, which is due in June, but available to order right now.

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/22/04; 12:07:18 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

. . plan of exit?

• Hasn't Woodward been reading Klau, or Dow, or thou?
• I hope John Kerry and his advisors are thinking hard about Sovereignty As Exit Strategy, and just what it would mean for our nation, our politics, our allies, and the people of Iraq and the Middle East.

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/22/04; 12:45:46 AM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

. . 

The very visible NYC law firm of Wilens & Baker -- known for its 1-800-DIVORCE, 1-800-BANKRUPT and 1-800-IMMIGRATION subway ads -- has received public censure "for engaging in a pattern of rude, neglectful and demeaning conduct toward clients."  Partner Lawrence M. Wilens was also censured individually.  (NYLawyer/NYLJ, High-Visibility NY Law Firm Censured, 05-21-04)

According to the NYLJ article:

"The violations arose in connection with the firm's representation of several immigration clients between 1998 and 2002. When these clients or their relatives, many of whom spoke little English, visited the firm's offices to inquire about their cases, employees would refuse to discuss the cases unless overdue or additional fees were paid. Those who were unable to pay were often yelled at and ordered to leave."

  In its unanimous, per curiam decision, the Appellate Division, 1st Department, was unmoved by WB's arguments that the censure should be private, due to the efforts made by the firm to improve its behavior -- including anger management classes -- and procedures; its sending of (rather vague and circumspect) apology letters; the refunding of fees to the complainants; and the garnering of character references from prominent corporate and criminal lawyers .  In Matter of Wilens and Baker (2004 NYSlipOp 04077, May 20, 2004) the court stressed:

"In our view, it would be particularly inappropriate to impose private discipline against an attorney or law firm that engages in a pattern of misconduct involving rude and discourteous behavior to clients-conduct that strikes at the very heart of a lawyer's or law firm's relationship to the public." 

The Referee found that the respondents had "conducted themselves offensively with their clients... and also acted in intimidating ways to obtain additional or due fee payments," and that consequently, "[they] should face the consequences of public knowledge of what they have done, notwithstanding their real and sincere efforts at reform." The Referee also found it appropriate to impute to the WB firm the misconduct of its name partner.

It rejected an argument that being rude was not worthy of public censure, because it isn't neglect of legal matters in the "classic sense."  The court retorted: "this argument overlooks the prejudice and anguish caused by their pattern of threatening to cease working on their clients' cases until additional legal fees were paid."  Significantly, the court also stressed that (emphasis added):

Disciplinary sanctions serve both deterrent and punitive functions . . . and although respondents' reforms of their office procedures likely will assist in preventing future violations, they do not serve the punitive purpose of demonstrating that such unbridled misconduct will not go unpunished.

The pyj gang agree with the 1st Department -- public censure is most appropriate, and "respondents' misconduct likely would have warranted the more severe sanction of suspension," had WB not taken such significant reform efforts.   We hope other firms are duly deterred.

•   We disagree with the Referee, however, to the extent that he suggests that public censure is more appropriate for high-volume law practices than for classier firms.  Per NYLJ, the Referee stated "All of us at the bar who practice in more discrete [sic] realms, subject to far less exposure, are in a sense 'represented' by our colleagues who choose to take on such a volume of clients, advertise on subways and in other ways reach out to the public."    Okay, but the public (and the non-elite bar) would like to see that "more discreet" law firms are held accountable, too.
• Afterthought (05-22-04):  We try not to be catty around here, so we didn't directly mention the Referee's malaprop "discrete" last night.    But, we do have to chuckle at the fact that "discreet" means both showing self-restraint and "Free from ostentation or pretension; modest."

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/21/04; 11:55:45 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [2]

It's easy to be cynical about lawyers, when the ABA eJournal publishes articles like When Less Is More: Lowering Client Expectations Can Increase Satisfaction, Referrals  (by Jill Schachner Chanen, 05-14-04).  The article begins:

"David Ward has a novel approach to rainmaking: If clients expect less from their lawyers, they will be even happier if the result turns out better than they had anticipated. These happy clients will then in turn be more willing to refer others, resulting in more business for the low-expectation lawyer.

"That’s because client satisfaction is directly tied to expectations, says Ward, a lawyer turned law-firm marketing professional in Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif."

   So, Ward and similar legal marketing "gurus" suggest ploys like quoting a far higher fee than you expect to charge, and estimating longer project completion (or even phone call return) times than you anticipate.  Very shrewd.  It's probably sold a lot of aluminum siding and used cars.

 

We've fretted over lawyer marketing and branding before at this URL.  [E.g, Brand Lex (03-04-04); Spoofable?  (03-03-04)]  And, we had hoped to do a lot less of it.  But, this latest tripe makes us wonder when Tin Men -- either Danny DeVito in the Levinson film, or Jack Haley in the first half of The Wizard of Oz -- became role models for lawyers.  This expectation manipulation is what the FTC had in mind in its Guides Against Deceptive Pricing  ("where an artificial, inflated price was established for the purpose of enabling the subsequent offer of a large reduction . . .  the purchaser is not receiving the unusual value he expects").

 

  Even our mascot, Donkey O.T., is braying in disbelief that otherwise ethical lawyers would attempt to explain why there's not really any deception involved.   It's scary that people who can pass a bar exam would think such advice amounts to marketing wisdom, and are willing to pay for it, or sponsor and attend seiminars espousing these strategies.

• P.S. A simple test:  If you'd be embarrassed to tell your client your marketing strategy, it's probably unethical (even if not a technical or obvious violation of any particular rule of professional conduct).

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/20/04; 10:30:51 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

"Dmitri Shubov, 31, of San Francisco was charged with three counts of unlawful access to store communications and one count of making false statements, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Stolper said Wednesday. He faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted."

LegalMatch matches lawyers with potential clients, and has been controversial with many attorneys and bar groups, often for its marketing methods and high upfront fees.  See, e.g., MyShingle's take; Matt Homan's post, Why I'll Never Use LegalMatch; as well as ethicalEsq's discussion (which, this evening, we were surprised to find copied onto the LegalMatch site.)

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/20/04; 7:30:35 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

Defending lawyers is pretty low on our priority list.  But, a recent piece at Overlawyered.com was just so unfair, that we need to take our e-friend Walter Olson to task, and try to set the record straight.  Walter might not be a lawyer, but his posting Damage caps for me, but not for thee (May 13, 2004) proves he can parse words misleadingly with the best of them. 

• The effect, as was predictable, is that others are calling lawyers hypocrites in a situation -- the creation of Client Protection Funds paid for by lawyers -- where the legal profession deserves at least a little praise (along with some encouragement to do more).

After correctly noting that the organized bar seldom supports capping victim recovery fees, Walter reports (our emphasis):

  "It turns out, however, that the bar enthusiastically supports the capping in nearly every state of one particular form of compensation, namely, the compensation of clients who are embezzled from or otherwise defrauded by their lawyers. In Pennsylvania, for example, the official Pennsylvania Lawyer Fund for Client Security (more) caps damages payable to defrauded clients at $75,000, although the loss actually sustained by the victimized client often runs far higher than that.   Columnist Don Spatz of the Reading, Pa. Eagle notices the irony: "Even if you can prove your lawyer stole $200,000 from you, you're out of luck. There's a cap. ... I haven't heard lawyers worry about caps taking away those victims' rights." ("First, lawyer, heal thyself", Reading Eagle, Mar. 24, 2004, at HALT site)."

Walter goes on to (sort of) "explain" and then dismiss the legal profession's position:

"In a number of states, it should be noted, lawyers impose an effective cap of zero on this particular kind of claim, by the simple method of not having established any collective client protection scheme at all. And there is a certain very plausible logic to that position: why after all should rank and file attorneys be asked to clean up the messes left by their errant brethren? Is a lawyer his brother's keeper?  It's just that this argument would sit better were the leaders of the bar not constantly denouncing the medical profession for its alleged failure to police itself." 

  If you didn't already know what kind of fund and claims Walter is talking about, you'd be very likely to incorrectly conclude (like the fighting docs did when reading the original Reading Eagle column) that lawyers had supported and states had imposed limits on the amounts that injured legal clients could receive in malpractice claims or litigation against their lawyers.  That's not at all what is happening.  Walter is referring to lawyer Funds for Client Protection (or Client Security).  You should know:

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/20/04; 4:52:14 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [2]

A Texas appellate court won't let divorce lawyer Mary McKnight appear at trial for Bill Sanders, because the client "did carpentry work on McKnight's Dallas law office to help defray the fees he incurred in his divorce proceedings."  According to the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas, the arrangement turned the lawyer into her client's employer, and thus a witness on issues relating to "Bill's abilities to care for the minor child or pay child support." (Texas Lawyer/NYLawyer, Lawyer Ousted From Case for Not Taking Cash, May 19, 2004)

The memorandum opinion in In re Joyce Elizabeth Sanders turned to Texas disciplinary Rule 3.08 for guidance in determining disqualification of counsel, since McKnight was being called as a witness by opposing counsel.  The court reasoned:

"After reviewing the record, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to disqualify McKnight from acting as trial counsel for Bill. McKnight's testimony as an employer relating to Bill's abilities to care for the minor child or pay child support, and her possibly adverse testimony about when the employment began leads us to conclude a fact finder may be confused or mislead by McKnight's dual roles."

The writ would allow McKnight to continue to act as counsel for Bill on pretrial matters and, if the requirements of 3.08(c) are met, other attorneys with McKnight's firm may act as advocate for Bill in any adjudicatory proceeding in this case.  In a strong Dissenting Opinion, Justice Whittington argued: 

The “employment” referred to by the majority is the performance of handyman jobs that Bill Sanders did for Mary McKnight after hours to help defray the cost of attorney's fees. The record before us supports the trial judge's determination that any confusion caused by McKnight's testimony regarding Bill's completion of the jobs for her would be de minimis.

        Additionally, disciplinary rule of professional conduct 3.08 should not be used as a tactical weapon to deprive the opposing party of the right to be represented by the lawyer of his or her choice because reducing the rule to such a use would subvert its purpose. . . . That is precisely what happened in this case.

The Texas Lawyer article points out that the decision "troubles some family law attorneys who say the opinion could kill a long tradition of bartering between lawyers and low-income clients."  Lawyer McKnight says it will "have a detrimental effect on solos and small-firm lawyers who sometimes accept services in exchange for representing clients who have no other way to pay them."  

• According to the article, Bill Sanders had been billed more than $100,000 in legal fees in this bitter divorce, and had performed about $25,000 in handyman and carpentry services.

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/19/04; 1:59:21 PM - Trackback [1] Comments [3]

As we noted on May 1st, the legal profession in America spends Law Day congratulating itself.  In Australia, lawyers spend Law Week seriously working to make the profession and the entire justice system operate "efficiently and in the public interest."

[A]n Australian Academy of Law should be established “as a high priority, to bring together the various strands of an increasingly fragmented profession—judges, barristers, large firm solicitors, small firm solicitors, professional associations, students and academics—to focus attention on issues of professional identity, ethics and public service."

  An article from Australian News (Laws Schools Out of Touch, 19 May 04, via law.com NewsWire In Brief) notes Weisbrot's belief that "the level of repetitive detail" was turning eager young students into time-servers late in their degrees, and explains (emphasis added):

Professor Weisbrot . . . said a recent study by the commission, Managing Justice, found that while the profession had changed dramatically, the teaching of it was still too much "chalk and talk".

"If what you're doing is teaching law students to remember rules from cases, you're not giving them much of an intellectual skill.  You'd be better off teaching them the people stuff and then teaching them how to do all the legal research they need to do to find the law in every particular context.

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/19/04; 9:37:04 AM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]

About an hour ago, I received a much-forwarded email from a very good friend of mine.  It irked me.  Here's my Reply email to her, which I hope is self-explanatory (and persuasive):

Subject: DON'T BUY GAS ON MAY 19TH

Dear [Old Friend],

 

I hate to sound like a grump, but I must ask you not to send me any email message that asks to be forwarded "to everyone you know," or any similar kind of chain letter.   There are lots of reasons, but the most important to me are

(1) they are a spammer's or pervert's dream -- the email address of every single person in the entire chain becomes available to everyone who receives the email message.  I bet you care about that for yourself, and I definitely do for me.

 

(2) almost every single one of these chain letters is either false, futile or f-ing-stupid.

I just checked out the May 19th Gas Out email message at Urban Legends.com and pasted their information below.  (It contains their usual, useful analysis.)  If you plan to send this material to someone else, please don't just hit Forward; instead, paste it into a new message, so that my email address and name aren't distributed further. 

 

Thanks for your patience with me. Email and internet hygiene (along with common sense) are important!

s/David

Don't Buy Gas on May 19th   [from UrbanLegends.About.com]
 
Yet another variant of the 'Gas Out' chain letter, this one urging consumers to boycott gas stations on May 19th to 'send a message' to the oil companies 

Description:  Email chain letter
Circulating since:  May 2004
Status:  Ill conceived
Analysis:  See below   

Comments:  With U.S. gasoline prices at a 13-year high, it's understandable that consumers are fed up and hankering for relief, but it's fair to ask whether mass-forwarding yet another "boycott gas" chain letter will achieve the desired result. Based on past experience, the answer is: not likely.

There are two glaring flaws in the approach:

1. A successful boycott requires a sustained, organized effort by a large number of participants; randomly circulating a chain letter amounts to no organization at all. And we know from past attempts that no matter how many people jump on the bandwagon, actual participation in email-driven boycotts is spotty and ultimately negligible.

2. It's illogical. Refusing to buy gasoline on one particular day of the month won't affect the oil companies' overall sales or profits. Why not? Because everyone who skips buying gasoline on May 19 will be filling their tanks on the 20th. An effective boycott would require consuming less fuel, not just buying it on one day instead of another.

The claim that a one-day boycott would result in an industry loss of over $4.6 billion is a pure fabrication, by the way. According to Euromonitor International, the total sales of petroleum products for all U.S. gas stations in 2002 was $205 billion, which works out to just over a half-billion dollars a day.

Update:  1-Day Gas Boycott Is Just a Lot of Hot Air - "A one-day boycott may make you feel like you're standing up to Big Oil, but in reality, it won't do much, despite what the email promises." (Detroit Free Press, 18 May 2004)

I know my readers are too knowledgeable to fall for Chain Letters and meaningless boycotts.  Don't forget to go to hoax protection sites like Urban Legends and Purportal.com, when you aren't sure whether you've been sent a lot of cyber b.s. 

# Posted by David Giacalone on 5/18/04; 5:29:05 PM - Trackback [0] Comments [0]