Attorney Tip #2 – Think Like a Client

Posted on February 22, 2013 by The Legal Reformer
University of California, Hastings College of ...

University of California, Hastings College of the Law (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Frank H. Wu, Chancellor and Dean of UC Hastings College of the Law, wrote an article for the Huffington Post on February 13, 2013 looking back at his time practicing law from his current perspective as a client.  Mr. Wu offers a handful of realizations of a lawyer turned client, which LPR hopes all attorneys will take to heart:

  • Most of what matters to me as a client was not apparent to me as a lawyer.
  • I am looking for an efficient resolution of matters.
  • If there are uncertainties, I’d like a good prediction with the relevant factors laid out so I can attempt to make the situation better rather than worse.
  • I value reliability and clarity.
  • I care intensely about cost — both the direct costs and the transaction costs as in the legal fees.
  • The lawyers for me ought to have a good sense of our strategic goals in order to offer value.
  • Beyond what is [ethically] required, I want to be able to trust that the lawyer is not only competent but also loyal.

Mr. Wu concludes that “[t]he leading lesson we should impress upon [law] students is that the legal profession is a service profession.”  He confesses that he doesn’t recall being so informed when he was in law school.

This conclusion is so central to the attorney/client relationship that it bears repeating:

THE LEGAL PROFESSION IS A SERVICE PROFESSION

LPR’s Tip #2 to attorneys is to remember that you are a service provider.  Each attorney should always think like a client in all work for, and interactions with, clients and treat them accordingly.

Thinking like a client is a necessary step to better attorney/client relationships.  And, better attorney/client relationships is an integral part of legal practice reform.

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

Kris Humphries’ Lawyer’s Request to Withdraw – A Lesson for Legal Consumers?

Posted on February 16, 2013 by The Legal Reformer
Kris Humphries

Kris Humphries (Photo credit: Keith Allison)

The Associated Press reports that Kris Humphries’ lawyer, Marshall Waller, filed paperwork Thursday seeking to withdraw from representing Humphries in his divorce from Kim Kardashian.  Mr. Waller’s stated reason for filing was “irreconcilable differences.”

Lawyers representing clients in lawsuits may withdraw their representation under certain circumstances.  There are many instances, however, when an attorney threatens or seeks to withdraw representation during litigation that leaves the client in a vulnerable position:

  • Under what circumstances should the client try to stop the lawyer from withdrawing?
  • Will the client be able to find another attorney who will do a good job?
  • How much will it cost to get that attorney up to speed?
  • Will that attorney think the client is difficult because the previous lawyer withdrew?
  • Will the previous lawyer say negative things to the new lawyer?
  • What fees are reasonable to pay the withdrawing attorney?
  • Will the judge think poorly of the client because the attorney withdrew?
  • Will the attorney’s withdrawal have a negative effect on the client’s case?
  • Can the opposing attorney use the attorney’s withdrawal against the client?
  • Who can the client turn to for guidance with these and all other questions?

Being faced with an attorney’s threat or action to “fire” you can be very difficult. Understanding your rights and the different ways to deal with the compromised attorney/client relationship facing you is the best way to navigate to a positive outcome.

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 Reform | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Monday Mornings” – Not Just for Doctors

Posted on February 6, 2013 by The Legal Reformer
David E. Kelley

David E. Kelley (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

David E. Kelley, a lawyer by training, left the law and became a Hollywood writer, producer and creator of many hit TV series. His latest is a medical drama based on Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s book of the same name: Monday Mornings on TNT.  This new series is centered around so called morbidity and mortality conferences in which the Chief of Staff “leads a harsh, closed-door review of the complications encountered and mistakes made during the course of patient care.”  In other words, the doctors are put on trial.

In the pilot episode, the first doctor to face the “M&M” inquiry (Dr. Martin) is called out for failing to perform a full physical examination, order x-rays or order blood work on a runner who presented with a sore hip.  Instead he prescribed extra strength Tylenol and discharged her.  The young woman returned to the hospital four months later with a broken hip.  This time, tests revealed she had stage four bone cancer.  She died within three weeks despite aggressive cancer treatments.

The other doctor on trial in the series pilot is a neurosurgeon (Dr. Wilson) who fails to ask for a full medical history of a seven-year-old patient before operating on him to remove a brain tumor.  The child had uncontrollable bleeding during surgery and died on the operating table.  On cross examination in the M&M meeting, the Chief of Staff asks Dr. Wilson whether he thought to ask for a medical history for the father who was “out of the picture.”  After admitting he did not, Dr. Wilson is handed the father’s medical history, which states the father suffered from von Willebrand’s Disease, a primary symptom of which is uncontrollable bleeding.

The Chief of Staff in the Monday Mornings pilot quite eloquently summed it up:

The boy had a 50/50 chance of being an uncontrollable bleeder. . . . This boy was likely to die soon, but he died yesterday because of a doctor’s arrogance, his unwillingness to seek a consult, his neglecting to get a full and thorough history.  Arrogance.  We are clinicians, scientists.  We observe time honored procedures and analyses, that’s how we are trained.

And this is what happens when we subjugate that training to arrogance.

These morbidity and mortality conferences are not fiction, they actually occur.  And as is portrayed in the TV show, all of the doctors in attendance learn from their colleagues’ cautionary tales.

If only law firms had similar conferences where attorneys’ performance could be examined.  Lawyers get little if any feedback, and poor performances can be easily hidden from colleagues.  Even clients often have no way of knowing whether their attorneys have performed well, much less adequately.

Such conferences would force lawyers to learn from their own mistakes and allow them to learn from other attorneys’ cautionary tales.  If such conferences existed, perhaps some attorneys would be less arrogant, and all attorneys could be better lawyers.

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

Law Students Are “Voting With Their Feet”

Posted on February 1, 2013 by The Legal Reformer
Law School

Law School (Photo credit: Tulane Public Relations)

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that law school applications are nearing a 30-year low, citing high tuition, overwhelming debt, and bleak job opportunities.  The Legal Whiteboard reported on Tuesday that Washington & Lee law school has a surplus of applicants in response to its offering a practical curriculum in the final year of law school – including “real client experience” and law firm experience rather than classroom instruction. Both articles recognize that law students are “voting with their feet,” by walking away from the traditional law school curriculum and toward a more practical one.

What does this mean for legal consumers?  Perhaps this is the beginning of law school reform, which could translate into legal practices reform in years to come.  If so, students will come out of law school with practical experience (much like medical internships and residencies), and will be more able to provide quality and knowledgable legal advice and representation at a reasonable rate.

LPR hopes that this new curriculum takes hold and that all law schools follow suit.   Next up, law school classes to teach client-side manner.

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

Attorneys Can Learn from These Tennessee Teens

Posted on January 24, 2013 by The Legal Reformer

Good Morning America – Homecoming Surprise for Tennessee Teen (ABC News)

We at LPR were so taken by a news piece reported today by Good Morning America that we had to blog about it.  Tennessee Homecoming King Nominees Give Crown to Another Teen reports on three homecoming king nominees who gave the crown to a special needs teen in front of a crowd of cheering high schoolers:

Students Jesse Cooper, Drew Gibbs and Zeke Grissom were all nominated for homecoming king at Community High School’s basketball homecoming ceremony.

The teens got together and decided that the winner would turn over the honor to junior Scotty Maloney, who has Williams Syndrome, a neurological disorder that inhibits learning and speech.

“I’ve been blessed with so many things,” Cooper told ABC News’ Nashville affiliate WKRN-TV. “I just wanted Scotty to experience something great in his high school days.”

These boys’ selfless and thoughtful treatment of their schoolmate should serve as a lesson to all of us, and especially to all attorneys.

Many clients are challenged by the legal system and are vulnerable.  LPR hopes that all attorneys will revisit their ethical obligations to their clients and redouble their efforts to treat each client with the same selflessness and thoughtfulness demonstrated by these high school boys.

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

Lance Armstrong’s Confession – Good for the Soul, or Good for His Lawyers?

Posted on January 19, 2013 by The Legal Reformer
Lance Armstrong

Lance Armstrong (Photo credit: Richard Masoner / Cyclelicious)

This week, Lance Armstrong confessed to Oprah Winfrey that he, in fact, took performance enhancing drugs during his professional cycling career, despite his previous denials.  Speaking to the Today Show’s Savannah Guthrie on Tuesday morning, legal analyst Lisa Bloom spoke about the possible legal implications for Lance Armstrong, both criminal and civil:

  • Criminal charges for perjury
  • Criminal charges for the doping itself if the statute of limitations has not run
  • Federal whistleblower lawsuit brought by Floyd Landis whom Lance Armstrong and his people called a liar
  • Defamation charges
  • Charges for defrauding sponsors like the U.S. Postal Service
  • Recovery action by British newspaper Armstrong sued for calling him a doper ($500,000 judgment, attorney fees and interest)
  • Recovery actions by his corporate sponsors based on his contracts that likely had morals clauses and clauses banning the use of illegal drugs that provided for sponsor dollars to be returned

While Lisa Bloom stated that she’s “sure that all of his attorneys were against [his confession],” Savannah Guthrie opened the segment by stating that:

Lance Armstrong has a team of lawyers, according to the Wall Street Journal not all of them were in agreement about him stepping forward and confessing as NBC has reported.

Whether all of Lance Armstrong’s lawyers advised him against confessing or not . . . Lisa Bloom’s bottom line?

This could keep lawyers in business for many, many years.

So what is the take away for legal consumers?  Think critically about your lawyer’s advice.  Does it make sense to you?  What are the possible outcomes if you heed that advice, and are any of those outcomes in your lawyer’s financial interest?

While many lawyers can resist their own financial interest when advising their clients, not all can.  A smart legal consumer recognizes this possible conflict of interest and keeps it in mind when weighing legal advice.

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 Reform | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New Year’s Resolution (Just ONE) for Lawyers and Judges

Posted on January 10, 2013 by The Legal Reformer
Brigadier General Stanley McChrystal, US Army

Brigadier General Stanley McChrystal, US Army (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On Monday morning, General Stanley McChrystal appeared on NBC’s the Today Show to promote his new book, My Share of the Task, and in speaking with Matt Lauer, dropped a gem that should be the ONE resolution that all lawyers and judges make and keep:

The best leaders are genuine, and they walk a fine line between self-confidence and humility.

When asked if he turned out to be the kind of leader that he admired, the General responded:

I think you work on that every day.  I think there are days when I did very well and days when I didn’t.  But the key is on the days when you didn’t, don’t let that become the new standard.  You have to push yourself back up to where you know you ought to be, every single time.

While General McChrystal’s words speak to “leaders,” they are equally applicable to you, the lawyers and judges who are in positions of trust and authority.  LPR calls on you to be genuine, and to walk the fine line between self-confidence and humility in your dealings with legal consumers.  And on days when you are not the kind of lawyer or judge legal consumers can admire, don’t let that become your new standard . . . push yourself back up.

If all lawyers and judges make this ONE resolution, we will be another step closer to effecting legal reform.

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

Top 10 New Year’s Resolutions for Legal Consumers

Posted on January 5, 2013 by The Legal Reformer
Happy New Year

Happy New Year (Photo credit: James Marvin Phelps)

Finally, New Year’s resolutions that are easy to keep.  Just repeat: “I’m the client, I’m the client.”  While those words ring in your head, read on for LPR’s top 10 New Year’s resolutions for all legal consumers:

  1. Start the New Year by being forthcoming with your attorney and fully discussing your expectations about your matter and the fees and costs you expect to pay.
  2. Ask questions no matter how stupid you think they are – just like when you were (or are) in school, the only stupid question is the one you did not ask.
  3. Tell your attorney, preferably in writing, if you have concerns about his/her work, results and/or billing – and do so promptly.
  4. Don’t be afraid of your attorney or what he/she will think.
  5. Take stock, investigate, and evaluate your attorney – consider whether you should change attorneys or whether your attorney needs a heart to heart talk.
  6. Don’t allow your attorney to disrespect or intimidate you – remember, YOU are the client.
  7. Don’t be a legal victim or doormat.
  8. Don’t just pay your attorney’s bills without reviewing them.  Virtually all attorney letters accompanying bills close with a statement inviting questions or concerns about the billings.  So, if you have an issue with the bill, or any questions or concerns, communicate that to your attorney right away.
  9. Keep an eye on everything your attorney does on your case – be an informed legal consumer.
  10. Expect your attorney to be competent and to provide quality representation at a fair and reasonable price.  Don’t settle for anything less.

Stick to these resolutions, and LPR believes we will be on the path to reforming legal practices.

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

Holiday Wishes

Posted on December 21, 2012 by The Legal Reformer
Official seal of Newtown, Connecticut

Official seal of Newtown, Connecticut (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

LPR is closed through the New Year, but we wanted to wish all legal providers and legal consumers a joyous holiday and a dispute-free New Year.

We also wanted to take this opportunity to offer our most heartfelt condolences to those who lost loved ones in Newtown, Connecticut.  There is no greater loss than that of a child, for the parents and for the entire community.   Our hearts go out to everyone in Newtown, and we hope you find comfort in the thoughts and prayers of so many people throughout the world, and in the blessings of having had your lost loved ones in your lives, no matter how brief.

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

Astonishing Remark from the Bench!

Posted on December 15, 2012 by The Legal Reformer
Flag of County of Orange

Flag of County of Orange (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With one stunning comment, a Southern California judge delivered an astonishing remark about rape victims everywhere. Orange County, California Superior Court Judge Derek Johnson, a former prosecutor in the Orange County district attorney’s sex crimes unit, made the following comment at a 2008 sex crime sentencing:

I’m not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something: If someone doesn’t want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case

although the Associated Press reported that the man Judge Johnson was sentencing had “threatened to mutilate the face and genitals of his ex-girlfriend with a heated screwdriver, beat her with a metal baton and made other violent threats before committing rape, forced oral copulation, and other crimes.”

While reminiscent of Rep. Todd Akin’s comments during the election, coming from a judge who presides over rape cases, this glimpse into this judge’s beliefs is highly concerning. Even more concerning is the response by the California Commission on Judicial Performance, which imposed merely a “public admonishment”:

In the commission’s view, the judge’s remarks reflected outdated, biased and insensitive views about sexual assault victims who do not ‘put up a fight.’ Such comments cannot help but diminish public confidence and trust in the impartiality of the judiciary.

But is this disciplinary sanction enough and is the Commission ignoring what might be a larger problem? Do Judge Johnson’s “remarks” disclose his true beliefs and values? And could these beliefs and values be influencing all of the judge’s rulings and decisions?

Even had Rep. Akin been elected, he would have been one of 100 senators, but trial judges rule alone. Even in cases tried to juries, the judges can have tremendous influence by their rulings and demeanor toward one side or the other. Such potentially far-reaching influence should not be ignored.

In all cases, and especially in cases as important as rape, judges must be impartial. When it comes to light that a judge is not, should that judge be allowed to preside?

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