Attorney Tip #4 – Help “Making Rain”

Posted on September 20, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

To further our mission of leveling the playing field between client and attorney, LPR is always on the lookout for media that can help attorneys better serve and communicate with their clients.  These “Attorney Tips” should also be considered by legal consumers, because the best way to interact with your lawyer is to understand where he/she is coming from.

Debra Forman is a Certified Executive Coach in the Canadian firm Pinstripe Coaching.  She can be seen monthly in webisodes on Canadian Lawyer TV giving advice on “Making Rain.” Last March, Ms. Forman appeared in Episode 37: Lead by example giving insights into client service through case management.  Here are some excerpts:

  1. Lay the foundation – Telling [the assignment’s] story and providing key details.  Working in a vacuum produces piecework.  Understanding the total project produces strategic results.
  2. Dinghy v. cruise ship – Ensure the team understands the scope of project and is consistently addressing the main issue.  What’s the goal?
  3. Prepare and plan – Regardless of how expert you are in your area of law,  preparing and planing will ensure the project’s ultimate success.
  4. Practise in real time – Time management is a misnomer.  Regardless of what you do, time will pass . . . . Set real project deadlines and keep the team focused on meeting those targets.
  5. Build trust and relationships – Demonstrate to the team how open [client] communication leads to trust, how trust needs to be earned, and once earned, how trust needs to be maintained and developed.
  6. Take constant inventory – A strong leader will allow for follow ups, provide constructive feedback and guidance as required, enabling all project members to contribute successfully.  Keep abreast of all aspects of the project.  There should never be any surprises.
  7. Deliver the goods – The client has a lot invested in the project and this importance for them needs to be acknowledged.  For both the client and the team, great client service will create great satisfaction and will further great opportunities through a great relationship.

Ms. Forman’s advice is spot on to help attorneys better their client service.  Legal consumers should take note . . . and expect no less.

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

Alternatives Should Be Considered Before Litigation

Posted on September 14, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

So your lawyer recommends filing a lawsuit to resolve your issue.  The question you need to ask yourself and your lawyer is:

Law, Justice, Legislative, Legal force, Force ...

Law, Justice, Legislative, Legal force, Force of law, Lawsuit, Litigation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Are there any alternatives to consider before resorting to litigation?

To illustrate, imagine you own a home in a neighborhood that has a Home Owners Association (HOA).  And further imagine that one of the homeowners refuses to attend to a glaring maintenance issue on their property that is an eyesore to the community.  The HOA seeks counsel from a reportedly reputable attorney, who advises that the HOA should file a lawsuit.  The lawyer estimates a large fee (note this is only an “estimate”).

Before engaging in what will likely be costly litigation, clients should always ask themselves and their lawyers if there are other ways to resolve the matter.  In our hypothetical, some alternatives to explore might include:

  • Is there a government agency that would intervene, like a local housing authority that conducts inspections for housing code violations?
  • Is there a government sponsored conflict resolution center that provides free or minimal fee mediations or facilitations to residents?
  • Are the any provisions in the HOA bylaws that could be construed or altered to provide a workable solution?

Litigation is a time-consuming, expensive and overall draining, seemingly never-ending process.  And, often, it’s a crap shoot.  Wise legal consumers resort to litigation only when all other alternatives fail, and when walking away is not a smarter option.

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

New Resource On The Horizon For Legal Consumers

Posted on September 6, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

One of the realities for legal consumers has been the dearth of public information available to help them understand the law, their legal rights and responsibilities, and their lawyers.  Now the information age may finally be catching up.

Enter Michael Poulshock whose brainchild, the Hammurabi Project, seeks to computerize the rule-based part of the law, much like Turbo Tax:

There are millions of pages of law – constitutions, statutes, regulations, case law, and interpretive decisions – with which Americans are expected to comply. This mass of material is logically complicated, referentially byzantine, terminologically inaccessible, and difficult to contextualize.

 *     *     *

Though not often thought of this way, law is inherently computational. It is a set of algorithms that prescribe how various computations are to be carried out. What is my standard (tax) deduction? Am I eligible for family and medical leave? On what day did I become liable for unemployment taxes? Determinations such as these are like mathematical functions: given various inputs, they produce corresponding outputs.

Mr. Poulshock explains in his Cornell University Law School blogpost that legal information systems have the potential “to expand public access to law”:

Rule-based systems are ideal for encoding legal principles found in statutes, regulations, and agency decisions — that is, law that’s explicit and knowable, but logically complicated. And there are millions of pages of such law, across thousands of jurisdictions around the world, just waiting to be embedded in rule-based systems.

For legal consumers, the development of this publicly available, easy-to-use system would allow access to information about many simple legal questions without having to hire a lawyer.  It would also allow legal consumers to “brush up” on issues to form a basis of knowledge so that when they speak with their lawyers, they can understand the basic legal concepts at issue and formulate probing questions.  We at LPR applaud Mr. Poulshock’s efforts and look forward to the time when legal consumers can access this system.

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

Why Law School Cost and Curriculum Matter To Legal Consumers

Posted on August 31, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

President Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate and former law school professor, recently weighed in on the debate on the duration of law school, stating:

English: Barack Obama

English: Barack Obama (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I believe that law schools would probably be wise to think about being two years instead of three years. . . . that step alone would reduce the cost for the student.

This set off a flurry of commentary on both sides of the debate.  One in particular caught our eye.  Eric Reed posted an article Friday on Mainstreet.com titled Give Me Back My Third Year of Law School.  After acknowledging that his third year at the University of Michigan Law School allowed him “to think deeply and learn from extraordinary minds,” he did not feel it made him a better lawyer:

Here’s the dirty little secret about modern legal education: it doesn’t prepare students to actually practice law. Being a lawyer is about filing out forms, working within government systems and whatever it is the corporate structuring guys do every day. Some 90% of practice, especially as a junior associate, is about research and writing when it’s not about mind-numbing tedium.

When I graduated from law school I barely knew how to do any of that stuff. None of us did.

Mr. Reed posits that the first year of law school is when students learn to be lawyers, and the second allows students to specialize and interview for summer internships that hopefully lead to jobs after graduation.  The third year is either an intellectual exercise or “an eight-month-long Spring Break.”

Regardless of intellectual merit, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that nothing I learned during those final two semesters that helped to prepare me when it came time to write a research memo, summarize a stack of depositions or spend countless hours at document review.

So why does any of this matter to legal consumers?  Because if you hire a law firm that uses new attorneys, or a new attorney who has hung out a shingle, then you need to be aware of their readiness to practice law, and that they likely have a mountain of law school debt.

While new attorneys can perform certain tasks that more seasoned (and more expensive) attorneys should not charge clients to do, there ought to be proper oversight by senior attorneys.  In the end, the staffing of your case should result in top representation at a cost efficient price.

But law school debt is a factor in the price of legal services.  According to the American Bar Association, last year the average private law school debt was $125,000.  Law firms have to pay large associate salaries so that the associates can pay their law school debts.  This often translates into law firms’ high billable hour requirements and rising hourly rates.  It is important to understand law firm financial dynamics to ensure you are receiving quality legal services at a fair price.

These are important factors to consider when choosing a lawyer (or law firm) . . . and when analyzing legal bills.  At LPR, we understand how these issues can affect representation and billing, and we can help you navigate your attorney/client relationship to avoid undesirable outcomes.

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. 

Related articles

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

Class Action Lawsuits – Do They Benefit Class Plaintiffs?

Posted on August 23, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

According to Senior Circuit Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld, the recent Facebook class action settlement does not benefit the class plaintiffs.  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the settlement, but Judge Kleinfeld wrote a dissenting opinion:

Facebook logo Español: Logotipo de Facebook Fr...

Facebook logo Español: Logotipo de Facebook Français : Logo de Facebook Tiếng Việt: Logo Facebook (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I respectfully dissent. This settlement perverts the class action into a device for depriving victims of remedies for wrongs, while enriching both the wrongdoers and the lawyers purporting to represent the class.

Under the settlement, the class members get no compensation, the class lawyers get approximately $2.3 million, and Facebook would pay approximately $6.5 million to a foundation, basically controlled by Facebook, to protect privacy rights.

The lawsuit was filed in response to Facebook’s 2007 “Beacon” program, which allowed users “friends” to see what they bought from companies that had contracted with Facebook. Users could opt out, but only if they engaged the opt out pop up, which appeared on their screen for only ten seconds.

The lead plaintiff, Sean Lane, purchased a ring for his wife on Overstock.com, which Facebook’s “Beacon” program broadcasted to his more than 700 “friends.”  There were also broadcasts regarding Blockbuster movie rentals (perhaps X-rated) and Zappos purchases (perhaps extravagant), among other disclosures.

Addressing his concerns with the settlement, Judge Kleinfeld explained in his dissent that:

[Class action lawsuits have] obvious attendant risks, because class counsel’s “clients” are not clients at all in the traditional sense; they do not hire the lawyer, they do not agree on a fee with him, and they do not control whether he settles their case. They are in no position to prevent class counsel from pursuing his own interests at their expense.

*     *     *

Defendant and class counsel, in any class action, have incentives to collude in an agreement to bar victims’ claims for little or no compensation to the victims, in exchange for a big enough attorneys’ fee to induce betrayal of the interests of the purported “clients.” The defendant’s agreement not to oppose some amount for the fee creates the same incentive as a payment to a prizefighter to throw a fight. A real client may refuse a settlement that is bad for him but benefits his lawyer, but a large class of unknown individuals lacks the knowledge or authority to say no.

Critics of the settlement, including the Center for Class Action Fairness, recently filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Appellate Court’s upholding of the settlement.

The lesson for legal consumers?  Do your homework before joining any class action lawsuit.  The Center for Legal Practice Reform educates clients so they can decide whether to join class action lawsuits by helping them understand whether the particular lawsuit would be worthwhile for them and further the greater good so that the clients don’t end up with nothing while facilitating a windfall for the class lawyers.

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 Vetting | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Judge Richard Kopf – As Inspirational As The Robber Turned Law Clerk He Sentenced To Prison

Posted on August 14, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kopf has stated in his blog, Hercules and the Umpire, that his criminal sentencing “viscera” in the sentencing of convicted bank robber Shon Hopwood was wrong: “Hopwood proves that my sentencing instincts suck.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_G._Kopf

Shon Hopwood appeared before Judge Kopf in the late 1990s for sentencing following a guilty plea for bank robbery using a fire arm during a crime of violence.  At the time, Judge Kopf sentenced Mr. Hopwood to, among other things, a 147 month prison term.  In prison, Mr. Hopwood became a jailhouse lawyer, authoring a successful petition for certiorari for another inmate to the United States Supreme Court.  After leaving prison, Mr. Hopwood worked at a legal publication printing company, interned for a federal district court judge, worked with a federal public defender’s office, wrote a book, and is currently in his final year at University of Washington School of Law.  Mr. Hopwood made the news this week after being offered a coveted judicial clerkship with U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

Following news of the clerkship, Judge Kopf took to his blog to congratulate Mr. Hopwood, stating that he “deserves all the credit in the world.”

While LPR knows little of Judge Kopf’s courtroom demeanor or rulings during his tenure as a judge, we applaud his apparent self-awareness.  It is inspirational to see someone of power humble enough to question themselves.  We hope all judges take note, step back, and look within.

Related articles
Posted in Reform | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Commentary On Law Firm Life

Posted on August 9, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

In The Female Lawyer Exodus, Marlisse Silver Sweeney shares her experiences inside a law firm.  Appearing in The Daily Beast on July 31, 2013, the article examines the legal industry’s lack of work-life balance and the exit of so many women (and men) from the law.

Addressing the exodus, Ms. Sweeney begins by recounting advice given to her as a law student by a female equity partner – one of only two female partners in their 80-lawyer firm:

[E]ven though she had a nanny, a cook, a husband with an opposite work schedule, parents and in-laws to help out—that it wasn’t until her children reached high school that she finally had time for a hobby. She said—in “can-do” tones—how exhausting it is to be a lawyer and a mother, but that it “can be done.” I started to panic.

But it was Ms. Sweeney’s detailing her average day for a typical law clerk/new attorney that caught our eye:

I was put on a large insurance defense lawsuit. My day would start at 6 a.m., as I groggily clawed for one of eight new suits in my closest (my new uniform), tied my hair in some sort of professional knot or bun, and grabbed anything I could find in my fridge for breakfast, lunch, and dinner—all would be eaten at the firm. . . .

By 8 a.m., I would be in front of my double-monitor computer, in my private office, pouring over the minutiae of case law, trying to decipher whether the agreement in one clause was akin to the wording of another, or whether the case tried by this court had been overturned by that court—constantly tracing and tracking and keeping it altogether in the road map of my mind.

Lunch would be spent huddled over my desk, by myself, or at a firm-wide training session where we’d watch a video about the intricacies of transferring titles to land and smiling at each other over firm-supplied tuna sandwiches, only to return immediately to my desk and continue. Redact. Analyze. Repeat.

The monotony of the day would be punctuated only by the “bing” of an e-mail asking me to take on another assignment, or the knock on my door, telling me to redo, rewrite, relearn—or worse—cancel my long-weekend plans. It was lonely. I wasn’t working in teams or for clients like I had envisioned my legal career. I was hunching alone at a desk for 10, 13, even 16 hours a day. It was equal parts boring and academic. Cooking, exercise, even time for doctors’ appointments became a luxury.

At first glance, the article seems directed at young women thinking about embarking on a legal career.  But Ms. Sweeney’s message should not be overlooked by law firm partners, male and female, who should take a long hard look at their firms, keeping in mind that while not all law firms suffer these ailments, many do, and some don’t even realize it.

And, legal consumers should take note as well.  This commentary pulls back the curtain on the cultures of so many law firms.  Ms. Sweeney’s portrayal of the relationship between partners and associates, where true, ultimately weighs on the quality of the firm’s work and the firm’s attitude toward clients and billing:

In private practice, lawyers bill clients for every minute of work, which promotes spending as much time as possible on one project. Time targets for associates create pressure and decrease efficiency. Under this model, a lawyer who takes four hours to draft a short contract could theoretically be favored over a lawyer who takes only two, even if the end product is equal.

LPR stresses that not all law firms are the sweatshops that Ms. Sweeney portrays.  But, they do exist.  For clients, associates, and partners of those firms – a cautionary tale – and an opportunity to do something about it.

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.

Related articles
Posted in Vetting | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Maybe You Can’t Fight City Hall, But You Can Fight Equifax

Posted on August 1, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

An Oregon woman was awarded $18.6 million against Equifax by an Oregon federal jury last Friday for Equifax’s failure to fix major inaccuracies in her credit report – $180,000 in compensatory damages and $18.4 million in punitive damages.  The Oregonian reported on the verdict on July 26, 2013 in an article titled Equifax Must Pay $18.6 Million After Failing To Fix Oregon Woman’s Credit Report.

Image representing Equifax as depicted in Crun...

Image via CrunchBase

According to the article, after being denied credit by a bank in December 2009, Julie Miller discovered her credit report showed erroneous accounts, incorrect collection attempts, the wrong Social Security number, and a different birthday. She reportedly contacted all of the credit bureaus to notify them of the inaccuracies, and all but Equifax corrected the mistakes.  Ms. Miller contacted Equifax eight times over the next two years, including filling out multiple forms faxed by Equifax seeking information. According to Justin Baxter, her Portland lawyer, information from another Julie Miller had been put on his client’s record, and in one instance, his client’s credit information had been sent to companies inquiring about the other Julie Miller.  Mr. Baxter stated:

There was damage to her reputation, a breach of her privacy and the lost opportunity to seek credit.  She has a brother who is disabled and who can’t get credit on his own, and she wasn’t able to help him.

The article reports that the verdict will likely be appealed.

Perhaps the verdict will be upheld on appeal, and Ms. Miller gets $18 million.  But perhaps the verdict gets overturned, and she gets far less or nothing but a legal bill. While justice seems to have prevailed in this case, the question for legal consumers is . . . does it always, and at what cost?

Litigation is time-consuming, emotionally taxing, and expensive.  And while sometimes you win . . . sometimes you lose.

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.

Related articles
Posted in Vetting | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is NFL Legend Kenny Stabler’s Ex-Wife Really Litigious?

Posted on July 26, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

It’s a common retort: Sue your lawyer for malpractice, and they accuse you of being litigious.  That was the response of Jeff Deen, Rose Burch Stabler’s attorney whom she is suing for malpractice.  But is she really litigious or is she enforcing her rights?

John Madden and Ken Stabler - 1976. Sportsillustrated.cnn.com

John Madden and Ken Stabler – 1976. Sportsillustrated.cnn.com

According to Brendan Kirby’s July 23, 2013 article on al.com titled Kenny Stabler’s Ex-Wife Sues Lawyer in Criminal Case for Legal Malpractice,  after separating from her famous husband, Ms. Stabler fought the federal government to keep the Ono Island marital home that her husband agreed to sell to pay his tax debt.  Ms. Stabler maintained she never signed the agreement to sell and was uninformed of key details of the agreement.  A federal judge ruled against her, and the IRS sold the home at auction.  She then sued the IRS claiming it improperly sold the home, but she did not prevail.

She sued her divorce attorney, Mark Ryan, for malpractice arising out of the IRS lien on the marital home.  In 2009 a judge threw out the malpractice as untimely filed.

Ms. Stabler was in court for a hearing in her fraud suit against Robert Galloway, Kenny Stabler’s attorney in the IRS tax litigation, when the authorities detained her for allegedly using intravenous drugs in the courthouse bathroom.  There was no needle found at the scene, no needle marks on her arms, no drugs in her purse, and her urine test was negative.  Nevertheless, the judge found her guilty of disorderly conduct citing her reaction to the allegations.

And here is where criminal defense attorney Jeff Deen and Ms. Stabler’s allegations of malpractice come in.  The judge who presided over Ms. Stabler’s criminal disorderly case was the same judge who presided over her five-year divorce from Kenny Stabler, which at the time was still on appeal.  Ms. Stabler alleges in her malpractice suit against Mr. Deen that she asked him to challenge the judge’s presiding over her criminal case, but that Deen did not do so.  The malpractice suit further alleges that according to Alabama court procedure, when an assigned judge recuses him/herself, the Alabama Supreme Court or the presiding judge in the local circuit is authorized to appoint another judge.  The suit alleges neither was done, and that Deen failed to raise the issue.  Ms. Stabler, who claims the judge was prejudiced against her because of the divorce case, was found guilty of disorderly conduct and fined.  According to Ms. Stabler’s malpractice attorney:

There is absolutely no way to reopen that criminal case. She’s got a conviction that’s hanging over her for the rest of her life.

So, is Ms. Stabler litigious?  Maybe.  Was she just trying to get justice in the IRS matter? Perhaps.  The only truth is that litigiousness cannot be determined by simply counting the number of lawsuits someone is involved in.  And it certainly cannot be determined by reading an article or blog post that may or may not be slanted.

And what about Kenny Stabler?  According to NBC Sports Pro Football Talk, Mr. Stabler “leads” the concussion lawsuit against the NFL, shadowed by his $265,000 debt to the IRS.  Does that make him litigious?

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

Manhattan Judge Rules For The Legal Consumer

Posted on July 19, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

Manhattan Civil Court Judge Frank P. Nervo recently ordered attorney Ronny Buni to repay his former clients, Gerald and Vivian Klienerman, over $21,000 of the $22,000+ in fees they paid him, plus interest.  Attorney Buni had filed a civil suit to collect an additional $6,200 in outstanding fees for representing the Klienermans in litigation against their co-op board regarding apartment renovations.

The Law Offices of Ronny Buni

In a July 11, 2013 article titled Manhattan Lawyer Who Sued For More Fees Ordered To Pay Back $21,000 To Client, the New York Daily News reports that after three months of representation and over $22,000 in paid fees, Buni refused to do any more work until the Klienermans paid an additional $6,200 in fees.  When they refused to pay the additional fees, Buni refused to continue representing them.  Non-binding fee arbitration followed, and the arbitrator found for the Klienermans, ordering Buni to repay them $5,000 of the fees paid.  Dissatisfied with the ruling, Buni filed a civil suit against the Klienermans in Manhattan Civil Court, Judge Frank P. Nervo presiding.

Judge Nervo found for the Klienermans, ruling Buni improperly charged for: “legal research,” which the judge found was brushing up on basic law that “[Buni] should have known”; “innumerable emails” Buni sent to the Klienermans, some “berating” them for input into their case; hours of arguing with the presiding judge and his clerk over scheduling; and time talking with another lawyer for advice on the case.  In the end, Judge Nervo found the total value of Mr. Buni’s services to be $750.  Judge Nervo stated in his opinion:

Once (Buni) determined that he was incapable of representing defendants, rather than bill these clients for his own lack of legal knowledge, he should have moved to withdraw at that time and not continued to build up legal fees.

Kudos to Judge Nervo for not rubber stamping Mr. Buni’s bills or protecting “one of his own.”  LPR applauds Judge Nervo for taking an unbiased look at the attorney’s billings and for having the courage and conviction to put those findings in writing and into the public domain.

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