If It Can Happen To James Gandolfini . . . It Can Happen To You

Posted on July 12, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

Actor James Gandolfini’s sudden passing at such a young age was tragic, but now it appears the administration of his will adds insult to his family’s emotional injury. According to The New York Daily News, in a July 8, 2013 article titled James Gandolfini Will A Tax ‘Disaster,’ Says Top Estate Lawyer, the language of the will could lead to a $30 million tax bill for the estimated $70 million estate.  The article goes on to report that according to estate lawyer William Zabel, by leaving 80% of the estate to his sisters and infant daughter, the estate’s “death taxes” could run approximately 55% and be due in nine months.

James Gandolfini

James Gandolfini (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We may never know whether Mr. Gandolfini had his will drafted in this way on purpose after being fully advised by his attorney of the ramifications and alternatives, whether this is the result of poor tax lawyering, or whether there is some other scenario (like a change in the estate tax law) that led to this result. Regardless, for legal consumers it is important to see this as a cautionary tale.

Ask your attorney what estate size is subject to “death taxes” and whether that number can change in the future.  Ask him/her how your will would be administered after your passing and whether your estate would be or could be subject to “death taxes.”  Inquire about different methods of setting up your will and how each of those would or could operate.  Find out the benefits and the costs of each methodology.  And, depending on the size and complexity of the estate, consider getting a second, unrelated opinion.

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

Cameras In The Courtroom – Take Two

Posted on July 6, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

The George Zimmerman murder trial taking place in Florida is a perfect example of why there should be cameras in all courtrooms.  As observed by Jeffrey Tobin, The New Yorker writer and CNN legal commentator, in the July 3, 2013 National Journal article, The Political War Over Trayvon Martin, the media appears to be affecting the public perception of Mr. Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence depending on the media outlet being watched.  But if the public watches the trial itself, each can see and hear firsthand what is presented and can come to his/her own conclusions.

2012 Trayvon Martin Case

2012 Trayvon Martin Case (Photo credit: werthmedia)

We at LPR are riveted by the in-courtroom coverage of the trial (and the blow-by-blow HLN online coverage when we cannot watch the trial). While most watching the media coverage and/or the trial are fortified in their opinions of what transpired that fateful night, and many watch with an open mind, LPR is noticing something else. We are struck by being able to observe the performance of the attorneys in the courtroom.

There are the – at times – masterful cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses by Mr. Zimmerman’s attorneys, Mark O’Mara and Don West.  The prosecutors, Bernie de la Rionda and John Guy, have been making the most of the inconsistencies in Mr. Zimmerman’s version of the events while having to work around certain unfavorable testimony from their own witnesses.  The nuances of the presentations, and the moves and counter moves by each side, provide an example of how attorneys should perform, and – at times – how they should not.

From a legal consumer perspective, the opportunity to observe this trial is priceless.

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

If It Can Happen To Paula Deen . . . It Can Happen To You

Posted on June 27, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

There has been much controversy surrounding Paula Deen’s recent admission in deposition that she used the N-word “a very long time” ago, and there has been much personal fallout.  Escaping public scrutiny, however, is whether Ms. Deen’s attorney should have acted to stop that line of questioning, or taken steps to avoid it all together.

Paula Deen holds court

Paula Deen holds court (Photo credit: Bristol Motor Speedway & Dragway)

It all started when Lisa Jackson sued Paula Deen and others for sexual harassment and a racially hostile work environment.  Ms. Jackson, however, is not a minority as reported in the June 24, 2013 abajournal.com article, Lawyer In Paula Deen Case Says White Plaintiff Had No Standing To Pursue Race Claims, Seeks Sanction.  The article reports on a motion filed by the lawyer for Ms. Deen’s co-defendants seeking sanctions against Ms. Jackson’s attorney for, among other things, Ms. Jackson’s lack of standing as a Caucasian to allege racial discrimination.

Last Friday, the Food Network announced it would not renew Ms. Deen’s contract for her cooking show.  Three days ago, Smithfield Foods announced it was dropping Paula Deen as its spokesperson.  Yesterday, Ceasars Entertainment announced it would rebrand four Paula Deen-themed restaurants, and Walmart announced it would not place new orders for Deen’s products.  Target and Home Depot will not place new orders, and diabetes drug maker Novo Nordisk dropped Deen as its spokesperson.  QVC is “reviewing [their] business relationship with Ms. Deen,” as is Random House.

This raises the question whether Ms. Deen’s attorney did anything to avoid this train wreck.  From the transcript of Ms. Deen’s May 17, 2013 deposition, it appears that Ms. Deen was asked and answered the racial questions without any objection from her attorney.

Looking at this situation as a hypothetical, since all of the facts and circumstances leading up to and during the deposition are not known, there are a number of issues all legal consumers should think about, including:

  1. Attorneys should object to arguably irrelevant and potentially problematic questions and, if appropriate, instruct clients not to answer.
  2. Attorneys should mark such deposition transcripts confidential so statements can not be made public.
  3. Attorneys should seek rulings to limit or prohibit any such questioning before depositions.
  4. Attorneys should seek to postpone depositions until rulings can be obtained from courts to avoid irrelevant and potentially problematic questioning.
  5. Attorneys should seek to dismiss irrelevant claims where plaintiffs lack standing.

One of the jobs of litigation attorneys is to protect their clients.  Maybe Paula Deen’s attorney did attempt some or all of these actions; LPR has no way of knowing.  What LPR does know is that good litigation attorneys think of the potential risks and benefits of all possible avenues of action and inaction and of the opposing sides’ possible steps — how each can bite their clients in the derrière down the road.

Perhaps it is not Ms. Deen’s attorney’s fault that she has suffered personal consequences from her deposition testimony.  But, this should be a wake up call for legal consumers. After all, if it can happen to Paula Deen . . . it can happen to you.

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 , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

7 Habits of Smart Legal Consumers

Posted on June 21, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

Based on the book, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey, a guest contributor on Moneyning.com reinterpreted the seven habits for financial frugality in a recent article: 7 Habits of Highly Frugal People.  The list is based upon the premise that “to change your life, you need to change your attitude.”

Cover of "The 7 Habits of Highly Effectiv...

Cover of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

No one else is responsible for what happens to you but you, so you can either complain about the things you don’t like in your life or you can set about changing them.

This advice also relates to legal consumers’ relationships with their attorneys.  Legal consumers can use these same 7 habits to take control of their attorney/client relationship.

Habit One: Be Proactive – Take responsibility for your relationship with your attorney. “[T]hough you can’t control the stimulus, you can control your response.”  Much like training an animal or dealing with children, your words and attitude can guide the interaction.

Habit Two: Begin with the End in Mind – Envision your legal goals so that you won’t be at risk of external circumstances derailing the end result.  Begin every day with an updated vision of your goal and how to accomplish it.

Habit Three: Put First Things First – Define why you are engaged in the legal matter at hand.  It will allow you to determine what course to take and when to “just say no” to your attorney.

Habit Four: Think Win-Win – Try not to think of the relationship with your attorney as adversarial, even if it has become that way.  Express your ideas and questions with courage, and remain cognizant of your attorney’s viewpoint.

Habit Five: Communication – Communicate effectively with your attorney by first listening to him/her and understand their point to find common ground.

Habit Six: Synergize – Work with your attorney to find creative solutions to problems as they arise.

Habit Seven: Sharpen the Saw – Take care of your physical, emotional, mental and spiritual self to develop the strength to undertake the preceding six habits.  Legal matters can be physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually draining, so be sure to fortify yourself.

Follow these seven habits, and you’ll be on your way to becoming a [smart legal consumer].

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

Law School for Legal Consumers?

Posted on June 14, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

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 The Legal Reformer

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 The Legal Reformer

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 The Legal Reformer

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 The Legal Reformer
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 The Legal Reformer

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