Behold the Awful Price of Ethics Violations

Posted by wlansden | Filed under ,
By James Bowden

Writers for a certain network television show take note: an attorney in Tennessee has not only been disbarred for violating the rules of professional responsibility – he’s also on his way to jail.

The attorney’s ethical transgressions run the gamut, including (among many other things) assorted failures to keep clients informed, sharing the profits and losses of legal practice with a non-lawyer, and that mortal sin of professional responsibility – mishandling client funds.  The story as to how he landed himself with a stint in the clink, however, is even more tragicomic: after his license was suspended on February 24, 2009, the offending attorney somehow managed to rack up 50 charges of criminal contempt for practicing law without a license and holding himself out to the public as an attorney by July 24, 2009.  The maximum sentence available under Tennessee law is $2,500 plus ten days in jail for every contempt charge, or 500 days.  The Tennessee Supreme Court took pity on him due to his being disbarred, however, and reduced his jail time to 50 days.  For those of you keeping count, that means that disbarment = 450 days in jail.

Denying the Board of Professional Responsibility’s Motion to Strike the wayward attorney’s brief for failure to comply with the Court’s instructions the Tennessee Supreme Court added: “although the Court is inclined to agree with the Board’s recitation, having the brief remain in the record is the best way to evidence its deficiencies.”  Ouch.  A stinging bench-slap like that would leave the most hardened transgressor chastened, right?  Nope – reached for comment following the Court’s order, he was sporting the glasses with rose lenses: “I think I did a good job for 99 percent of the people I represented."  Exit, pursued by a bear.

Currently rated 5.0 by 4 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Web 2.0: Twitter User Gets Slapped with Libel Suit - UPDATE

Posted by wlansden | Filed under , ,
By Brian Malcom 

We first reported about a tweet causing a stir in Illinois in July 2009.  A young woman implied in a tweet that her apartment was moldy and the realty company that owned the property did not seem to care.  The realty company sued the tenant for libel, but they may have only made matters worse with no real recovery to show for it.

The ABA Journal is reporting that a state judge has dismissed the complaint against the tweeting tenant.  "[The Tenant] was represented by lawyers from The John Marshall Law School's Center for Information Technology and Privacy Law.  They had argued in a motion that her tweet was "opinion" and "rhetorical hyperbole.""

The judge dismissed the complaint against the tenant, because the complaint was too vague.  Both parties argued the significance or impact of tweeting as a form of publication in their respective filings with the court.

Happy tweeting.

Currently rated 5.0 by 4 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Driving Me Over "The Deep End"

Posted by wlansden | Filed under ,
By James Bowden

As I’m sure everyone is aware, yesterday was a significant date in the history of American law.  Oh, and ABC premiered a new TV show, too, quite appropriately named “The Deep End.”  Interested in detailing how closely the trials and tribulations of the telegenic foursome of new attorneys featured on the new show tracked the actual experience of law firm associates, I assembled a panel of similarly telegenic young lawyers for a viewing of the series premier.  Sorry, ABC, but we’ve got a bit of a problem.

There are, of course, the inaccuracies that are the necessities of any drama.  First-year associates negotiating directly on behalf of and representing clients alone in court on their second day of practice?  Not so much.  Billy “Prince of Darkness” Zane “marshalling the partners” to give the boot to a partner whose name happens to be on the firm’s letterhead for (gasp!) supporting pro-bono work?  Not likely - Marshalling partners is like herding cats across the Gobi Desert: the real Prince Of Darkness might struggle to marshall four partners to go for coffee, let alone for a casual act of regicide.  Celebrating the day’s victories over shots every night at a bar featuring a pool stocked with bikini models?  That is a completely false allegation – mostly.  And all the bawdy stuff?  Our firm is more Emma than Pamela.  The dialogue is a little bit less than lawyerly, too.  Still, after laughing hysterically about the hiring partner’s confession that he is motivated mostly by a love of “cashmere and corn liquor,” we all admitted that we do, in fact, like cashmere.  And then we topped off our glasses of whiskey.

The big problem, however, is that the artistic license that Hollywood has taken portraying the legal profession in “The Deep End” is a license to kill.  The conflicts that drive the plot unabashedly operate in complete (and perhaps deliberate) ignorance of the rules of professional responsibility.  The part where the managing partner knowingly allows an associate to represent a pro-bono client against an existing client?  No.  The same managing partner going one giant leap further by ordering that the pro-bono client’s interests be thrown under the bus in favor of the existing [paying] client?  Giant, angry, flaming Rule 1.7 no.  Legal-malpractice-with-a-side-of-sanctions-and-reputational-suicide-while-your-risk-management-partner-beats-you-to-death-with-a-redwell no.

And therein lies my real issue with the show: by ignoring the existence of the rules of professional responsibility, it falsely portrays the legal profession in a light consistent with that of the legal profession’s most cynical detractors.  What makes it worse is that the show seems to play to the idea that there is no consequence to an egregious ethical shortcoming, which is certainly not true.  So ABC: I’m going to send you a copy of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.  Please, please read them and try again.

Currently rated 5.0 by 6 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

What Can Lawyers Do for Haiti?

Posted by wlansden | Filed under , ,
By James Bowden

I know that there is an easy answer to this one: donate money.  Despite the great recession and the fuss that has been made about the collapse of the legal market, attorneys often still earn very competitive wages.  We really should be able to give a little bit to help when crises arise – but that is not what I am talking about.  Making a cash donation feels particularly anemic, even if it is what aid organizations would prefer.

Doctors, EMTs and professional first responders, law enforcement officers, nurses, aid workers, and others certainly have skills and experience that are directly translatable to crisis management.  Even some of the newscasters who are reporting on the evolving tragedy are finding ways to help.  Maybe discretion is better part of valor here, but it is a little bit frustrating that my training in wilderness first aid and my experience as a white water raft guide would likely be far more useful than my license to practice law were I to find myself at the scene of a disaster.  For guidance on what I could do as a lawyer to assist in a humanitarian crisis, I looked to Lawyers Without Borders, an organization dedicated to “supporting the rule of law, economic development, peacebuilding and sustainability in the legal sector” through pro bono service across the globe.  Their recommendation was, admittedly, less than I’d hoped for.

So are lawyers professionally incapable of adding value in these situations?  Certainly not – lawyers clearly are actively working to help the victims of last week’s earthquake at all levels, through advocacy, philanthropy, and leadership.  Their contributions may seem less immediate, but are no less noteworthy; they just get less dust on their boots in the process.

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Good Idea - Bad Idea: "I think the record should reflect that the witness is vomiting."

Posted by wlansden | Filed under
Good Idea:  Effectively managing a witness under cross examination through incisive questioning, thereby advancing the interests of your client.

Bad Idea:  Frightening a witness under cross examination to the point that the witness barfs. Right there. In the courtroom. Over and over again.

This actually happened during a murder trial in Winnipeg, Manitoba.  It should be pointed out that the witness (a) was testifying against his own cousin and (b) has irritable bowl syndrome AND acid reflux, which is a gastroenterologist’s way of saying “game over.”  The judge [mercifully] allowed the jury to go home early.

Currently rated 5.0 by 4 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Is Discovery the Red-Headed Step-child?

Posted by wlansden | Filed under , ,
By Eileen Burkhalter Smith

Query: Are discovery responses of a party admissible as evidence, if offered by that party? Your response will surely be “for what purpose?”  But, does it matter?

I have touched on a similar topic before here concerning pleadings.  I think we can all agree that pleadings are admissible in a trial.  As I said in the earlier post, pleadings are allowed in part because they are “court records” and contain “adjudicative facts.”  See Federal Rule of Evidence 201.  Should discovery responses fall under this rule?

In a recent trial, I asked a party representative a question—the exact question that had been asked of my party in interrogatories.  My party representative was poised to give the same response we had provided to the interrogatory about four years ago.  The other side objected and argued “relevance;” sustained.  Without considering its actual relevance, I wonder if this would have worked if the roles had been reversed?  Would the evidence have been kept out if I had wanted to prevent it—evidence asked of a party representative which had been provided in interrogatories?

I am really not sure of the answer, nor what it should be.  I think a pleading or discovery response (which, incidentally, in some courts, would have been a pleading) is different than deposition testimony or documentary evidence.  It is a response of a party which was prepared and signed.  Who’s with me?   

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Hell Hath No Fury Like An Assistant's Wrath

Posted by wlansden | Filed under ,
By Brian Malcom 

Be nice to your colleagues and staff, and don't use them to perform unethical or illegal tasks.

One lawyer in New Jersey is learning this lesson the hard way.  David Gross, a former president of the Association of the Federal Bar of New Jersey and a prominent product liability attorney in New Jersey, is facing disbarment for allegedly failing to share a $50,000 check with his firm partners.  Apparently, Gross's secretary, Claudette McCarthy, refused to do work for Gross's wife, also a lawyer at the same firm.  Gross also called McCarthy a "[expletive] idiot" and refused her vacation request.

For payback, McCarthy revealed the check to Gross's partners at Budd Larner four years after he received it in 1998, though she had been told in 1998 to keep it a secret.

Check out the ABA Journal for more.

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Working with Regulators: Seven Lessons

Posted by wlansden | Filed under ,

By James Bowden 

A securities offering which I worked on recently required me to communicate frequently with a representative of a Self-Regulatory Organization (SRO). As all things are for a new attorney, it was a learning experience. Here are seven little nuggets of wisdom that I took away from the experience. [I know, “not another list!”]

1) Be prompt (because the person you will be working with will be). I’ll admit that I was skeptical when I sent the first package of correspondence to the catch-all SRO email address; I figured that I wouldn’t hear back from them for weeks, if at all. Wrong: I sent the first email late in the afternoon and a voicemail was waiting for me when I arrived at the office the next morning (see #3). Throughout the process I found that I could expect a response consistently within two hours. How often do you hear back from opposing counsel in two hours? Probably not often. Also, if you are a securities practitioner and your caller ID registers a 202 area code don’t let your assistant answer for you. It’s the Feds -  pick up the phone!

2) Do your homework. Know every aspect of the issue you are working on and every law/regulation/rule implicated. Believe me, your regulator does know, and they will call you, on the phone (see #3), and ask you about every single law/regulation/rule that you overlooked. “UHHHMMMMM …” is not a particularly satisfying answer. Oh, and DO NOT ask your regulator if there is any law, rule, or regulation that allows you to do what you are trying to do – and if you do, don’t be surprised when the answer is “No.” Or worse.

3) Forget about email. It sounds strange in our email-based world, but regulators use the telephone. I only received three emails from the SRO over the course of the deal: two stating simply, “thanks,” and one confirming that the review was complete.

4) Silence is not consent. Don’t try to pull the old, “If I don’t hear otherwise, I’m going to assume that you are cool with all of this.” Trust me, your regulator will not be cool with all of this

5) Do not seek approval. At least as far as securities regulators go, regulators do not  “approve” of anything. They are like the father of every woman I’ve ever taken on a date. They may not have an objection. They may agree to take no action. But they do not “approve.”

6) Don’t play hard-to-get. Regulators are not supposed to be obstructionists – you shouldn’t be one either. Work through the issues they raise with them. They are listening. Good tip: lead off by explaining your understanding of the laws, rules, or regulations and then confirm that your regulator shares the same understanding. Here’s another good tactic: when they ask you a question, try to restate their question as you understood it before you try to respond. This has the double benefit of giving you time to think about the answer and making sure that your answer will be responsive without being overly broad.

7) Be polite. OK, I learned that one in kindergarten, but I still think it is important. Here’s the thing – regulators tend to be underpaid and overworked. Sympathize with them. Or, if you aren’t the sympathetic type, commiserate with them over the weather. They had to commute across the frozen tundra this morning just like you did. The conversation will make both of your days that much more enjoyable. 

Currently rated 3.6 by 8 people

  • Currently 3.625/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5