Legal Consumer Tip #4 – Think Like a Lawyer

Posted on September 28, 2012 by The Legal Reformer

One of the best ways to effectively communicate with your lawyer, and to make sure your lawyer is hearing you and working toward your goals, is to put yourself in your lawyer’s shoes.  Understanding how s/he receives your communications — and knowing what influences his or her thinking and perception — allow you to alter your delivery and your attorney’s reception accordingly.

While law school experiences and law firm culture affect attorneys’ behavior toward their clients (what LPR terms “client-side manner”), so does the legal media.  What are the attitudes and teachings of your attorney’s local bar association?  What legal organizations does s/he belong to, and what are their perspectives?  What publications is your attorney reading?

Here are a collection of organizations that most attorneys belong to and/or follow, all of which have journals, blogs, ethics opinions and/or other publications on their websites:

Take a look at your attorney’s bio on his/her website, and Google the bar association(s) that issued his or her law license(s) and the legal organizations they belong to.  Each likely has a publication that your attorney receives, many of which can be found online. Look at the articles and the comments posted by the attorneys who read the articles. Much can be learned about the prevailing attitudes that may be influencing your attorney.

Thinking like a lawyer can help you be on the same wavelength as your attorney.  LPR strongly believes that effective communication between client and attorney and a level playing field is a crucial part of a successful legal consumer experience.

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 Tips | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Attorney Disbarred for Fee Ultimatum to Clients

Posted on September 21, 2012 by The Legal Reformer

The New Hampshire Supreme Court disbarred an attorney this week for giving an ultimatum to his clients in February of 2006: agree to his $2 million fee or he would not represent them in the mediation taking place that same day.  When the clients asked what would happen if they fired him, the attorney responded that the litigation “gets ugly,” and that:

if they terminated his services, he would sue them for his one-third contingency fee and ‘would win.’

The attorney, Timothy O’Meara, represented the husband and wife in a personal injury case arising out of an automobile accident in which the wife’s car was rear-ended by a paving truck while she was stopped at a red light.  The wife sustained a severe spinal cord injury and was left a quadriplegic and dependent on a ventilator.

The Court made a number of factual findings, including that the attorney issued a settlement offer, without the clients’ authorization, for an amount insufficient to cover the wife’s ongoing care.  Whether the paving company’s acceptance of the offer and Mr. O’Meara’s subsequent withdrawal of the offer constituted an enforceable settlement was the subject of the mediation.  The Court also found that after fee renegotiations, in light of the unauthorized settlement debacle, the attorney tried to slip the clients a confirming fee agreement for $2 million rather than a “to be negotiated” fee they had orally agreed upon.

The Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) decided that the attorney’s “most serious violation was lying to the arbitration panel” in the fee dispute with the clients.

The Court disagreed, finding that the last minute fee ultimatum, among other egregious behavior, was equally as serious:

Equally serious, in our view, is O’Meara’s . . . allowing his own interests to interfere with effective representation of [his clients] . . . and, ultimately, by threatening to withdraw from representation on the morning of the mediation unless they acceded to his demand for a $2 million fee.

The PCC recommended that Mr. O’Meara be suspended from the practice of law for three years.  The Court decided that the PCC’s recommended sanction was insufficient and ordered that Mr. O’Meara be disbarred.

LPR applauds the New Hampshire Supreme Court for imposing a stiff sanction upon this attorney who violated his duty to “act in his clients’ best interests.”  The Court noted this is one of the “bedrock duties of the legal profession.”

We hope this ruling sends a chilling message to attorneys who put their own interests above that of their clients, as well as a message to the legal conduct committees in every state that this type of behavior must not be tolerated.

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 Billing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Judge Benched for Treatment of Litigant – Update

Posted on September 14, 2012 by The Legal Reformer

Following up on The Washington Post Editorial Board opinion in LPR’s last blog post, The Baltimore Sun reported on September 11, 2012, in an article titled Judge to Retire Amid Complaints About Domestic Violence Case, that Baltimore County District Court Judge Bruce S. Lamdin “plans to retire” on October 1, in the wake of his treatment of a domestic violence litigant and subsequent assignment to “chambers only” work.

In response to LPR’s posting about the judge’s treatment of the litigant, we received a head’s up from one of LPR’s followers about an attorney who has been taking steps to expose reportedly improper behavior by a Connecticut trial judge.  Attorney Bruce Matzkin wrote an article in the New Haven Register in August titled FORUM: Lawyer Can’t Be Silenced in Fight for Justice.

A judge must apply the law. No lawyer I’ve discussed this with could recall another trial judge issuing two written decisions nearly contemporaneously, governed by the same law, applying the law in one and ignoring it in the other, despite its being prominently cited.

Mr. Matzkin writes that his quest for justice for his client included writing an article in the Connecticut Law Tribune and testifying before the legislature’s Judiciary Committee against the judge’s reappointment.

According to Mr. Matzkin’s article, the response to his speaking out included the reappointment hearings being pulled from airing on cable, being criticized by the Tribune‘s editorial board (chaired by a former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice), and having the Statewide Bar Counsel’s office call for an investigation into whether his Tribune article violated the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct.

Mr. Matzkin appears to have become a target for speaking out.  Speaking out should never result in a manhunt aimed at silencing those brave enough to shed light on injustice.

LPR applauds all attorneys who stand up for legal consumers and advocate for honesty and integrity in the law.

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

Judge Benched for Treatment of Litigant

Posted on September 12, 2012 by The Legal Reformer

The Washington Post Editorial Board posted an opinion on September 9, 2012 titled When Judges Behave Badly, commenting on Baltimore County District Judge Bruce S. Lamdin’s December 12, 2011 treatment of a domestic violence litigant seeking a restraining order against her husband who she testified assaulted her and almost burned the house down:

For 30 minutes, the 33-year-old woman was subjected to blistering questions about her motives and decisions. Reduced to tears, she ultimately was granted the temporary protective order but not before the judge declared it — with the husband looking on — to be ‘nothing more than a piece of paper. You can hold a piece of paper up in front of this gentleman, and he can shoot you right through it.’

The Women’s Law Center, the House of Ruth Maryland, and the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault reportedly filed a complaint against Judge Lamdin with the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities in response to the judge’s treatment of the woman.  According to the Post, Judge Lamdin is currently performing “chambers only” work by order of District Court Chief Judge Ben C. Clyburn while the matter is investigated.

In 2008, Judge Lamdin was suspended for 30 days without pay for violations of multiple Canons of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct.  In a May 13, 2008 opinion, the Maryland Court of Appeals, after quoting numerous statements made by Judge Lamdin in open court, found:

Respondent’s inappropriate demeanor and comments were exhibited in a pattern of behavior over a period of time and in many cases. His conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice, manifested bias towards many groups, and lacked dignity, courtesy, and patience.

Unfortunately, this type of judicial behavior is not limited to judges in Maryland; it occurs all across the country.  For example, see the links below.

The simple truth is that justice is not always just, and judges are not always judicial.  While many judges possess proper judicial temperament and exhibit respect for the attorneys and laypersons who come before them, far too many do not.

This improper behavior pattern often starts before they become judges, while they are practicing attorneys, manifesting as lack of respect for, and mistreatment of, clients.

Judges as well as attorneys who exhibit improper behavior need to be held accountable. LPR urges all legal consumers to speak up and be heard — join the dialogue — which is the first step to effecting 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. 

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

Pressure to Settle: In Your Best Interest . . . or Your Lawyer’s?

Posted on September 7, 2012 by The Legal Reformer

Last week, a Colorado jury handed down a more than $2 million verdict against a Denver law firm for pressuring a client, in a contingency fee case, to settle for less than it was worth.

In her lawsuit, the client portrayed the firm as a “settlement mill,” in which the attorneys in internal e-mails referred to her and her husband as “toothless cooties.”  The client contended, among other things, that the firm “pressured” her to settle rather than go to trial.  The firm disputed many of the client’s claims, insisting it was the client’s decision to settle, citing “buyer’s remorse” that lead to the lawsuit.  The firm suggested the settlement was favorable to the client because there was evidence the client’s injuries may have pre-existed the car accident.

The issue of settlement comes up in virtually every case that is in or bound for litigation. In many cases, the attorney places some degree of pressure on the client to settle.  There can be several reasons for this, including the attorney’s own financial stake in contingency fee cases, or the attorney’s fear in going to trial for lack of experience, among others.

The question each legal consumer, individual or corporate, needs to ask themselves when faced with pressure from the attorney to settle is:

Is the attorney pushing settlement in my best interests . . . or their own?

In an upcoming Tip, LPR will suggest ways legal consumers can better equip themselves to evaluate settlement issues, even from inside the pressure cooker.

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 , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Caveat Emptor – Corporate Clients Need to Beware, Too

Posted on August 31, 2012 by The Legal Reformer

A corporate client filed a legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit on August 27, 2012 against the law firm and attorneys representing it in several securities class action litigations.  The lawsuit includes allegations that the firm and attorneys “engaged in a scheme of massive overbilling for premature and unnecessary legal work . . . that was performed for the sole purpose of padding the bills and seeking to enrich” the law firm.

In the Complaint, the corporation alleges the attorneys ignored repeated instructions to limit legal work, failed to advise of the automatic stay on discovery, and engaged in discovery despite the mandatory stay.

Instead of advising [the corporation] about the . . . discovery stay and heeding their requests to shut down the [law firm] billing machine, [the law firm] ignored [the corporation’s] request that this unnecessary work be stopped and simply continued to intentionally pad the bills.

The corporation further alleges that when it brought these issues to the firm’s attention, the law firm “ran to the Courthouse” on July 25, 2012 and filed suit against the corporation “to collect these unauthorized and improperly billed fees,” attaching as public exhibits the firm’s unredacted billings disclosing the corporation’s “litigation strategies and tactics.”

The law firm reportedly denies any wrong doing and contends that the corporation’s lawsuit is merely a “tactical response” to the collections action the firm filed.

LPR makes no judgment or comment about the competing lawsuits.  We are bringing these events to your attention to raise awareness among corporations that have retained or will retain lawyers to represent them.  Corporate personnel in charge of these legal services should be aware that some lawyers and law firms overcharge and understand how to effectively manage outside counsel to avoid fee disputes.  Ending up in a lawsuit like either of the lawsuits above is entirely avoidable.

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

Legal Consumer Tip #3 . . . Attorney Tip #1 – Attitude Matters

Posted on August 24, 2012 by The Legal Reformer

“Her ingratitude is unbelievable.”

So says a matrimonial attorney, reportedly in practice for more than 50 years, in response to a client’s legal malpractice lawsuit.  The lawsuit includes allegations that the attorney was in cahoots with her husband and reduced her to tears at every meeting. http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp?id=1344772684656& Divorced_womans_bid_to_sue_her_attorney_clears_hurdle&slreturn=20120724103937

Since the attorney denies any wrongdoing, and without any information about the truth of the allegations, LPR makes no comments or judgments about the validity of the lawsuit.  What strikes us as notable, however, is the attorney’s attitude.

It is important in a level attorney-client relationship that the attorney and client have mutual respect for one another.  In this context that means both understand that:

  • Clients pay for attorneys’ services
  • Attorneys are service providers to their clients
  • Clients should expect to be treated like a client who is paying the attorney’s bills
  • Attorneys should treat their clients like a client who is paying their bills

Attorney representation is not a favor, it is a service clients pay for.  Clients do not owe their attorneys any “gratitude.”

Attorneys whose work ethic embraces this notion and who treat their clients accordingly, even in the throes of a dispute, can reap the benefits of a satisfied client, repeat business, and referrals, and are applauded by LPR.

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

Scott Turow Weighs In: The Billable Hour Must Die

Posted on August 14, 2012 by The Legal Reformer

Notable author, Scott Turow, wrote the cover article for the August 2007 issue of the ABA Journal, titled The Billable Hour Must Die: It rewards inefficiency. It makes clients suspicious. And it may be unethical.    

Interestingly, The Billable Hour Must Die has shown up this week as the No. 1 Most Read article on the American Bar Association’s website — five years after its original publication.  Mr. Turow, who wrote Presumed Innocent among a number of other novels, is also a practicing lawyer with a well-known national law firm.  In his article, he pontificates about the problems with the billable hour after overhearing that his daughter wants to become a litigator:

But at the end of the day, my greatest concern is not merely that dollars times hours is bad for the lives of lawyers—even though it demonstrably is—but that it’s worse for clients, bad for the attorney-client relationship, and bad for the image of our profession. Simply put, I have never been at ease with the ethical dilemmas that the dollars-times-hours regime poses, especially for litigators.

Aside from ethical dilemmas generally, Mr. Turow addresses the ABA Model Rule 1.7 and its prohibition on attorney representation when there is a conflict with the client’s interests.  This rule is widely interpreted by lawyers as not representing a client adverse to another client, but Mr. Turow questions the rule’s applicability to the conflict of interest posed by the billable hour:

But from the time I entered private practice to today, I have been unable to figure out how our accepted concepts of conflict of interest can possibly accommodate a system in which the lawyer’s economic interests and the client’s are so diametrically opposed. . . When was the last time any of us actually and explicitly set forth the problems of this system for a client, the way we do with other conflicts? Who ever says to a client that my billing system on its face rewards me at your expense for slow problem-solving, duplication of effort, featherbedding the workforce and compulsiveness—not to mention fuzzy math. Does anybody ever tell a client what the rule seemingly requires?

To the attorneys who read this blog, have any of you had this conversation with any of your clients?  To legal consumers, have any of you ever been approached by your lawyer raising this issue?  LPR suspects the answer in both cases is “no.”

Even Mr. Turow laments this unavoidable conflict of interest and its effect on the legal profession:

If I had only one wish for our profession from the proverbial genie, I would want us to move toward something better than dollars times hours. We have created a zero-sum game in which we are selling our lives, not just our time. We are fostering an environment that doesn’t provide the right incentives for young lawyers to live out the ideals of the profession. And we are feeding misperceptions of our intentions as lawyers that disrupt our relationships with our clients. Somehow, peo­ple as smart and dedicated as we are can do better.

So, to all of the attorneys out there, LPR challenges you to join the dialogue to reform legal practices.  And, to all legal consumers, LPR invites you to voice your experiences and concerns.  If we all work together, we can reform 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 Billing | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Effecting Legal Practice Reform . . . Law Students First

Posted on August 10, 2012 by The Legal Reformer

Perhaps one way to effect legal practice reform is to address it with students before they become members of the legal community.  Like the teaching of bed-side manner to medical students, law students may well be the most willing and able to embrace the new client-side manner.  And, it appears that law schools may be willing to alter current curricula to include this new concept.

In an August 4, 2012 article titled Law School Curricula Are Changing, Survey Shows, Mark Hansen reports on a survey conducted by the American Bar Association, which finds that:

Law schools have dramatically increased all aspects of skills instruction–including clinical, simulation and externships–in the wake of a 2004 change in law school accreditation standards requiring that students receive “substantial instruction” in skills generally regarded as necessary for effective and responsible participation in the legal profession.

In a previous article posted on July 5, 2012, Mr. Hansen reported on the same survey when the Executive Summary was first released: US Law Schools Expanding Clinical, Professionalism Offerings, Survey Shows.  Mr. Hansen noted the comments of Hulett “Bucky” Askew, the American Bar Association’s consultant involved in the survey:

The survey responses reveal a renewed commitment by law schools to review and revise their curricula to produce practice-ready professionals . . . The report illuminates the extent to which faculties and administrations have responded to the evolving needs of their students and to changes in the legal services industry.

Also noted were the remarks of Catherine Carpenter, the survey editor, professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, and Chair of the American Bar Association Curriculum Committee:

Media scrutiny of legal education, and specifically of the law school curriculum, has also fueled the conversation.

So, legal consumers, speak up and be heard.  If your voices are loud and clear, they will resonate with media, and the law schools will respond.  And that can be the first step to effecting 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 Reform | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Legal Consumer Tip #2 – Justice is Not Always Just

Posted on August 3, 2012 by The Legal Reformer

Imagine a case in which person A sues person B, and the case is tried before a judge.  The judge takes all of the evidence under consideration and objectively supports his/her ruling with accurate factual findings based on the evidence presented at trial.  The judge finds that person A is not credible and rules in favor of person B.

Then imagine person A sues person B again on a related matter in the same courthouse, but a different judge presides.  Unlike the first ruling, this judge does not take all of the evidence into consideration and supports his/her ruling with subjectively interpreted findings that are factually inaccurate because they are not based on the evidence presented at trial.  This judge finds that person A is the credible one and person B is not and rules in favor of person A.

Dear legal consumers, it is not just lawyers who need reform, it is the entire legal system. Almost all consumers enter the legal system thinking they will get justice, but few emerge feeling that justice was served.  Anyone entering the legal system needs to understand that the judge presiding over their matter, with a jury or without, has a tremendous amount of power over the ultimate outcome.

Let’s dispel the myth right now: judges are not always just.  A judge is a lawyer in a robe, who likely was once a practicing lawyer.  Judges are susceptible to the same prejudices and predisposed notions that we all are.  The judge assigned to your case may well make the difference between winning and losing.

So, what’s the tip?  Before you embark on litigation, talk to your lawyer or potential lawyer about the judges who may preside over your case and how each may affect the outcome.  LPR suggests questions like:

  • Who are the judges that could be assigned to my case?
  • What is the track record for each; how have they ruled in the past on cases like mine?
  • Do they tend to favor one side versus the other or any particular type of litigant?
  • Which of the judges have you litigated before and what was your experience?
  • What do you think my chances of success are with each judge?

While this list is far from exhaustive, the legal consumer should evaluate for him or herself whether to litigate.  And keep in mind that the judge you get could be a lead weight on the wrong side of the scales of justice.

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