Law School for Legal Consumers?

Posted on June 14, 2013 by

William & Mary Law School is now offering a course titled “Introduction to the U.S. Legal System,” which teaches how judges and lawyers think and other information about the U.S. legal system.  In a June 5, 2013 Law Technology News article titled Taste Law School Before You Buy!, Monica Bay reports that the course, which has a $2,799 price tag, will have an online component and three-days on campus.

English: Frederic Lederer, director of the Cen...

English: Frederic Lederer, director of the Center for Legal and Court Technology, at William and Mary Law School in Va., discusses new state-of-the-art audio & video technology recently installed in the Guantanamo Office of Military Commissions courtroom. The technology enables this courtroom to function on par with modern federal courtrooms in the U.S. (JTF Guantanamo photo by Army Spc. Shanita Simmons) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Fredric Lederer, William & Mary Law School Chancellor Professor at Law and Director of Center for Legal and Court Training, says the goal of the program is to provide a basic understanding of the law and legal system to non-lawyers:

The program will address the mechanics of law, how law is made and modified; the role of trial and appellate courts; functions and perspectives of judges, lawyers, and court administrators; and the nature of civil and criminal litigation, administrative law, and alternative dispute resolution. It will include introductory material about a number of substantive legal areas.

Although the price seems steep, the concept of educating non-lawyers in the law and legal system is a great idea.  LPR envisions a time when videos about all aspects of the law are available free online.  What a great resource for legal consumers that would be!

You’ve got options.  The Center for Legal Practice Reform can help you navigate the attorney/client relationship and level the playing field.  Call LPR today for a free consultation – (301) 351-7970.

Posted in Reform | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

“Perceptions of Justice Toolkit” – A Guide Toward Improved Court Perceptions

Posted on June 8, 2013 by

This new guide, the brainchild of Wisconsin Court of Appeals Staff Attorney Christina Plum, includes a toolkit that addresses facilitating conversations about the public’s perceptions of the courts.  On May 29, 2013, in a post titled Justice May Be In The Eye Of The Beholder, But Can We Talk About It?, the American Bar Association blog, Around the Bar, reported on this new guide and the benefits of facilitating these conversations through events:

Process of perception, approach and framework ...

Process of perception, approach and framework of perception (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Research shows many factors affect the perceptions of court users and the public, and those perceptions are crucial to understanding, as well as having confidence in, the system of justice. Individuals are less likely to access a system they do not trust, and impressions of bias are hard to overcome. Conversations about court perceptions can help local court stakeholders understand the barriers to justice.

The toolkit addresses why events should occur, and it looks at the advantages of different event formats (town halls, panels with experts, court personnel and users, etc.).  The toolkit also suggests topics for events:

Suggested topics include procedural justice (the extent to which court users perceive the judicial procedure was fair); the user’s experience from beginning to end; the perceived effects of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, age and sexual orientation on the administration of justice; and the local impact of public outreach (whether judges and lawyers participating in public education programs improves understanding of the legal system).

Hats off to Ms. Plum and all of the courts that take her advice and hold these events.  LPR is hopeful that in the course of these perception events, the court personnel listen to the public’s comments and perceptions with humility and introspection.  Misperceptions should be corrected, but correct perceptions should be acted upon.

Posted in Reform | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Attorney Tip #3 – Bill Padding Could Lead to Prison

Posted on June 1, 2013 by

For the legions of attorneys who meticulously bill their time and expenses, LPR applauds your honesty and integrity.  This cautionary tale is for those who work in firms with attorneys who engage in improper billing, those who think there is no harm adding time here and there, and those who believe their law degree is a license to steal.

English: Photo of Wifredo A. Ferrer, United St...

English: Photo of Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (2010 – Present) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On May 3, 2013, Wifredo A. Ferrer, the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and the Miami Field Office of the FBI, issued a press release titled Two Defendants Charged In Theft From Seminole Tribe. Those two defendants, Frank Excel Marley III, an attorney, and his paralegal, Maria Hassun, are charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and theft. They are accused of defrauding the Seminole Tribe of Florida by inflating the amount of billable hours and billing for travel, conferences, meetings and phone calls that did not take place.  Inflated and falsified invoices were allegedly submitted by email, US mail and fax.  If convicted, the statutory sentence is 20 years in prison for the mail and wire fraud conspiracy count and five years for each of the nine counts of theft from the Tribe.

Should this inditement lead to a conviction, legal consumers will be empowered to lodge complaints with their local officials, and those officials will investigate.  Make no mistake — padding your client bills is a crime — and the punishment can be severe.

You’ve got options.  The Center for Legal Practice Reform can help you navigate the attorney/client relationship and level the playing field.  Call LPR today for a free consultation – (301) 351-7970.

Posted in Tips | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

You Can’t Judge Attorneys By Their Reputations

Posted on May 25, 2013 by

So you’ve hired the most expensive, well-respected lawyer in the city to handle the most important dispute of your life.  Think that guarantees you will be well represented? Think again.

vsb.org

vsb.org

On May 21, 2013, The Washington Post reported that the Virginia Bar disbarred Glenn Lewis, one of the most well-respected, and most expensive (at $850/hour), family law attorneys in the area.  Mr. Lewis, who hosted a cable television show, had been the president of the Virginia Bar Association (the non-licensing, voluntary bar association) and received a lifetime achievement award from the Virginia State Bar’s family law section.  As reported by The Post’s Tom Jackman, Mr. Lewis was disbarred for “dishonesty, mismanaging clients’ funds and failing to fulfill his legal obligations.”

According to The Post, bar complaints started piling up against Mr. Lewis after reporting on his 2009 lawsuit seeking $500,000 in fees against a former client, who was also a lawyer.  Mr. Lewis settled the case for over $100,000 after more than one expert was to testify that his billing had been excessive.  The bar complaints included Mr. Lewis (1) not showing up for a hearing and losing the client’s case and (2) charging a client’s credit card without authorization.  In all, the bar found Mr. Lewis had committed 20 violations of the Virginia ethics rules based on the two bar complaints – violations “concerning reasonable fees, communications with clients, diligence, safekeeping of funds, cooperation with bar investigations, wrongful acts and dishonesty or fraud.”

Unfortunately, in the current legal climate, there is no safe haven where the honest and competent lawyers can be easily identified.  And now, it appears that sky-high fees, stellar reputations, and those self-proclaimed “top attorneys” lists (on which Mr. Lewis routinely appeared) is no guarantee.  The need for legal practices to undergo meaningful reform is stronger than ever.  The dialogue must begin.

You’ve got options.  The Center for Legal Practice Reform can help you navigate the attorney/client relationship and level the playing field.  Call LPR today for a free consultation – (301) 351-7970.

Posted in Reform | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Instructive: United States Trustee Program’s Proposed Billing Guidelines

Posted on May 19, 2013 by
Seal of the United States Department of Justice

Seal of the United States Department of Justice (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The United States Trustee Program (USTP), an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice tasked with “overseeing the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees,” has issued updated proposed guidelines for attorney compensation in chapter 11 cases with $50 million or more in assets and liabilities.  The bankruptcy code includes in Section 330, factors for the court to consider when determining reasonable attorney compensation. These include:

i. The time spent.

ii. The rates charged.

iii. Whether the services were necessary to the administration of, or beneficial towards the completion of, the case at the time they were rendered.

iv. Whether services were performed within a reasonable time commensurate with the complexity, importance, and nature of the problem, issue, or task addressed.

v. The demonstrated skill and experience in bankruptcy of the applicant’s professionals.

vi. Whether compensation is reasonable based on the customary compensation charged by comparably skilled practitioners in cases other than cases under title 11.

The proposed guidelines also provide wide ranging billing requirements, including:

c. Time should be recorded contemporaneously in increments of no more than one tenth of an hour. A disproportionate number of entries billed in half‐or whole‐hour increments may indicate that actions are being lumped or not accurately billed.

d. Services should be described in detail and not combined or “lumped” together, with each service showing a separate time entry. Each timekeeper, however, may record one daily entry that combines tasks for a particular project that total a de minimis amount of time if those tasks do not exceed .5 hours on that day.

e. Entries should give sufficient detail about the work, identifying the subject matter of the communication, hearing, or task and any recipients or participants.

f. If more than one professional attends a hearing or conference, the applicant should explain the need for multiple attendees.

While the USTP’s proposed guidelines are meant for large bankruptcy cases and some of the requirements may not be appropriate for smaller non-bankrutpcy cases, they are instructive for all legal consumers.  LPR encourages legal consumers to read all 57 pages of the proposed guidelines, looking for nuggets that may be applicable to their cases.

You’ve got options.  The Center for Legal Practice Reform can help you navigate the attorney/client relationship and level the playing field.  Call LPR today for a free consultation – (301) 351-7970.

Posted in Billing | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Searchable Databases of Judicial Decisions? It’s Possible!

Posted on May 11, 2013 by

What if there were a searchable database of state court judicial decisions, and you could readily find out how your judge decided cases like yours?  Many state courts have online databases of court case dockets, and some have viewable and downloadable case filings. But searchable data on how a certain judge has ruled on certain types of cases is not readily available, and ascertaining this information usually involves viewing numerous documents online or going through mounds of paper files in a courthouse clerk’s office.

file room

file room (Photo credit: Chris Blakeley)

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), an organization associated with Syracuse University, gathers research regarding the federal government, including federal judges.  On TRAC’s website is a database of caseload information on criminal sentencing decisions of federal judges who have sentenced 50 or more criminal defendants since 2008.  In a March 5, 2012 New York Times article titled Wide Sentencing Disparity Found Among U.S. Judges, author Mosi Secret reported on an analysis by TRAC finding “vast disparities” in federal sentencing by judges in similar cases.  This revelation raises the issue whether the same “vast disparities” occur in civil judicial decisions as well.

Searchable databases of state court judicial decisions, and thus transparency in judicial decision making, would benefit all legal consumers.  It would allow legal consumers to assess on their own how local judges have ruled on similar cases.  This would aid in decisions whether to retain an attorney and pursue litigation.  It would also allow legal consumers to obtain potentially case determinative information before/during litigation, including before/during settlement negotiations.  The more information legal consumers have, the better decisions they can make.

You’ve got options.  The Center for Legal Practice Reform can help you navigate the attorney/client relationship and level the playing field.  Call LPR today for a free consultation – (301) 351-7970.

Posted in Reform | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Criminal Cases Also Need A Level Playing Field

Posted on May 2, 2013 by

A Texas District Attorney reportedly hides evidence and secures a murder conviction. Twenty-five years later DNA evidence exonerates an innocent man, and a Texas judge issues an arrest warrant for the former DA, who is now a judge himself.  Sounds like an episode of Law & Order?  Well, it’s not.

Law & Order: Criminal Intent

Law & Order: Criminal Intent (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Statesman.com reported on April 19, 2013 in an article titled Judge Finds That Anderson Hid Evidence In Morton Murder Trial, that District Judge Louis Sturns issued “a blunt and scathing ruling” finding that former Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson defrauded the innocent man’s lawyers and the presiding court to secure the conviction.

This court cannot think of a more intentionally harmful act than a prosecutor’s conscious choice to hide mitigating evidence so as to create an uneven playing field for a defendant facing a murder charge and a life sentence.

Mr. Anderson reportedly will appeal Judge Sturns’ ruling on the grounds that the judge exceeded his authority, that the findings were untrue, and that the statute of limitations barred the findings since the events took place over 20 years ago.

Although The Legal Reformer reports widely on issues in civil cases, defendants in the criminal system face many of the same issues.   The criminal system, like the civil system, also needs reform to level the playing field.

Posted in Reform | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment