January 30th, 2009

The People’s Court Wants Me

Ever wonder where shows like The People’s Court find their subjects? Well, the answer is here: They troll through small claims court looking for filings. (OK, you can learn that at Wikipedia, but stay with me on this one.)

I brought suit a few weeks ago in small claims court, only the 2nd time I’ve needed to do that in 20 years of solo practice. I paid an expert money for a review, and he never did the review. He didn’t say yes to my case, he didn’t say no, he simply put the retainer in his pocket, the records some where else, and then ignored me when I called to find out what was going on.

So I finally got his attention with a suit. (If I have to do this only once very 10 years, then I’ll count myself lucky.)

Enter, stage right in today’s mail, a letter from The People’s Court asking if the two sides would like to have Judge Marilyn Milian arbitrate our case. Lawyer v. Expert.

What do we get if we agree?

1. If I win then they guarantee payment, meaning I wouldn’t have to go through any collection proceedings to satisfy a judgment.

2. If I lose, they still pay me $250 for my time.

3. No waiting time in real court, as they set up a real date and time; and

4. Travel expenses.

What they don’t guarantee is that anyone appearing on such a show will be free of gratuitous humiliation that any judge wishes to dish out. Now I don’t know if that is the style of the show as I haven’t seen it, but if a show isn’t entertaining then the ratings go kaflooie and it drops off the air. And, frankly, I don’t feel like being anyone’s entertainment unless they are under the age of 10 and share my last name.

Why would any rationale person subject themselves to a TV court? It’s not something I can figure out.

Thanks, but I’ll pass. And besides, if it isn’t with Judge Wapner it doesn’t count.

January 14th, 2009

InkJetSuperstore Not So Super

I’m irritated. The web site claims that orders “are usually shipped the same day.” But it took them five days to ship mine. Since this is ink for my printer, that matters.

Over the last 20 years I have done everything as an attorney from answering the phones and filing papers, to taking verdicts and arguing appeals. I’ve also taken care of my office equipment, which inclues the utterly mundane act of ordering ink.

InkJet Superstore has ink. So I ordered it. But when I got an email five days after placing the order that it had just shipped, I was steamed.

I tried to call, but the customer service number was no longer working.
I tried to email, but there was no email address on the site.
I tried “live chat” and got a human, claiming to be named “Jane.” Ah ha! So let’s see what happened to my ink:

info: Please wait for a site operator to respond.
info: You are now chatting with ‘Jane’

Jane: Hi! How can I help you?
you: I ordered my stuff 5 days ago. Why did it take 5 days to ship?
Jane: I do apologise for that delay. Could you tell me your order number so I cna look it up?
you: 683089
Jane: And what is your name please?
you: Eric Turkewitz
Jane: We experienced a severe delay during the weeks from Dec. 29 to January 10th, this is why your order shipped fiveive days later. I apologise for this inconvenience.
you: Your website says:
you: Orders placed before 3pm PST are usually shipped the same day. (Monday – Friday).
you: I tried to call, by the way, and the customer service number on the website has been disconnected.
Jane: Yes, but as I said, we went thourgh a very big, unforseen, delay. Which is why we couldn’t ship a lot of orders within due time.
Jane: Our phone system is down at the moment, we’re trying to solve it.
you: What was the delay?
Jane: We had our anual inventory recount opnthe last week of December, which resulted in a huge delay of orders from that week and the week after it
you: If this was an annual recount, why was it “unforeseen?”
Jane: Because we don’t prevent how many orders we will have delayed
you: ??? (That didn’t seem to make sense)
Jane: The delayed was expected, but we didn’t know it was going to be such a delay. Is there anything else you need us to do for you???
you: If you knew there was a big delay, why didn’t you at least send the stuff to me by next day delivery instead of ground service?
Jane: I’m sorry for the inconveniece, but we weren’t able to do that at the time.
you: That’s not a very good answer to an unhappy customer
Jane: I apologise for this problem I really understand your situation.
you: Saying you have delays due to an annual recount and apologizing for me not sending me the stuff pronto, doesn’t really answer any question that I had
you: Your site says 100% satisfaction guaranteed. As you might guess, I am not satisfied
Jane: What you can do, if you wish, is return the items for a full refund, when you receive them.
you: Where were these goods shipped from?
Jane: Form Bell, CA, 90201
you: Great, so it will take another 5 days to reach New York?
Jane: Yes.
you: Will you be letting your boss know that s/he has lost the business of a customer, not just because of the initial delay, but because the company then caused further delay by shipping it via ground?
Jane: I will. We always report this issued to our boss. I’m sorry for this inconvenience.
you: By the way, you said you couldn’t ship the stuff to me via air after the delay. Why not?
Jane: We can’t change the shipping method a package once the order is shipped.
you: But it only shipped today. You knew many days ago you were having long delays. So why wasn’t it switched before it was sent?
you: I mean, really, is that any way to treat customers? To make them bear the brunt of your delays?
Jane: This was an unusual situation, I’m so sorry about this.
you: You’ve already apologized. I’m not looking for another one. I want to know why steps weren’t taken to immediately rectify the foul-up. Because if the company can’t rectify foul-ups in such a simple manner, there seems to be little reason to trust the company in the future.
you: Hello?
info: Your chat transcript will be sent to [xxxx [at]Turkewitzlaw[dot]com] at the end of your chat.

So there you have it. Delays by the company, and the hope that lots of “I’m sorries” will somehow make the goods appear at my office quicker. I never did get a decent answer as to why an annual recount was unforeseen or why the company didn’t ship delayed items by air to make sure the customers got their goods with as little delay as possible.

OK, you’ve each been warned about this company.

January 5th, 2009

Avvo: "No Concern" Over Convicted Sex Offender

Avvo, the lawyer rating service, says it has “no concern” over a convicted New York sex offender, whose license was suspended last week. Steven J. Lever, a former Kirkland & Ellis associate, was the subject of a sharply divided opinion from New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, with a three judge majority suspending him for three years over the dissent of two others that sought to have him disbarred. The lawyer plead guilty in September 2005 to sex offense charges related to soliciting sex over the internet from what he believed to be a 13-year old girl. (See: Sex Offender Keeps Law License)

The Avvo opinion on Lever gives their definition of “no concern” as follows “We have not found any instances of professional misconduct for this lawyer.” (Pdf version here: Avvo-Lever.pdf)

Avvo also says it has found “no misconduct” regarding the lawyer, with the definition of “no misconduct” being exactly the same as “no concern:”

“We have not found any instances of professional misconduct for this lawyer.”

Avvo has been oft criticized for its ratings because the subjective nature of lawyering isn’t truly amendable to any rating system. Avvo had contended that, while the subjective part was difficult, the objective part of rating attorneys by looking for misconduct actions was something it could do.

While I wouldn’t expect last week’s disciplinary decision to be reported in just one week, the actual criminal action against him was resolved three years ago. And Avvo missed it. (There are also zero comments by others on the Avvo site related to this lawyer.) If it is Avvo’s policy not to research crimes committed by attorneys (and I’m guessing that based on the fact that they didn’t report this sex crime conviction), then even its limited value of analyzing objective data is a failure.

Avvo thus apparently fails not only with the subjective rating system, which defies quantitative analysis, but also with the limited objective analysis of data that it aspires to. Because if you don’t find the data, the analysis isn’t worth squat. Garbage in, garbage out.

Top Ten Reasons To Vote For This Blog

I didn’t want to get down in the muck and politic for votes in the ABA Blawg 100 vanity contest, but the China Law Blog has apparently been stuffing the ballot box in the “regional” category that we’re both in. And L.A. Legal Pad is right there in the mix.

I know that personal injury law fans won’t let this outrage stand, me being in second place and all that, but if you were on the fence as to who to vote for, or how many times to vote, then here are the Top 10 Reasons To Vote For the NY PI Law Blog.

(The South Florida Lawyers Blog and the Texas-based Tex Parte Blog are also nominated in the regional category, but either they haven’t figured out how to stuff the ballot box, or inspire their readership, leaving them in the dust.)

10. I’m offering everyone world peace if I win. Plus a toaster. China Law Blog is offering everyone a half-eaten, food-poisoned, jelly donut, sent to you on a slow boat from you-know-where;

9. I heard that L.A. Legal Pad spent $150,000 for its wardrobe. Do you really want to support that kind of spending?

8. That’s my dog Tucker. A vote for me is a vote for the puppy. Do you want to say no to that face?

7. Tucker can bark Alice’s Restaurant. In four part harmony. With feeling;

6. I’m only 21% evil, far below the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s 65% evil limit for my kind;

5. Jewish lawyers in New York are rare. Please support the species;

4. Rumor has it the China Law Blog is employing child labor to vote, in clear violation of local employment and election laws;

3. New York has better Chinese food;

2. We got the Empire State Building; L.A. has smog. China has worse smog

And the #1 reason to vote for the NY PI Blog:

1. If you can’t trust Paris for an unbiased opinion of law blogs, who can you trust?

You can vote at this link.

(Graphic credit: Dan Turkewitz)

December 1st, 2008

Personal Injury Blogs Make ABA List of Top 100 Blogs

Last year when the ABA put together their list of the top 100 law blogs, personal injury lawyers were noticeably absent. I was sharply critical of the ABA for ignoring this entire field of law. Part of my rant looked like this:

It’s not a question of one blog being picked over another since this is, after all, just another vanity contest that small niche blogs don’t have a shot of winning. No, the significant thing is that the vaunted American Bar Association simply doesn’t think that this field of law is relevant. The decision to ignore a vast segment of the law speaks volumes about the organization.

This year, however, there are two included, mine and Drug and Device Law. Half of the “honorees” in last year’s 100 are gone, replaced by 50 new ones.

Drug and Device, which discusses the field from the defense side and focuses on personal injury cases that tend toward having hundreds or thousands of claimants, is in the niche category that didn’t exist last year. The ABA description is:

From the pharmaceutical and medical-device product liability litigation corner of the blogosphere, there’s no beating this defense-oriented blog. Seasoned defense lawyers Jim Beck of Philadelphia and Mark Herrmann of Chicago, along with authoritative guest contributors, pick apart rulings and explore issues common to this niche practice.

Those guys have stiff competition when you see the niche category with 15 entrants — tough competition because they want people to vote. No matter what happens, they come out smelling like a rose.

I, on the other hand, have thin competition with only five entrants in the regional category. My description looks like this:

Aside from thoughtful posts on New York tort law and insights into tort litigation in general, Eric Turkewitz also gets props for punking the blogosphere. On April 1 he posted a story contending that the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in a fantasy baseball case — and that fantasy-baseball-player Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr. had recused themselves while Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also players in this fantasy story, declined to do so.

Alas, in the early voting I am fighting for last, not first. That means that the small category is a curse and not a blessing if you’re heading for the basement, as it sets me up for big-time abuse from others. Like my family. So please do me a favor in this utterly meaningless vanity contest, and throw me a vote so I don’t come in last.

You can find the whole list here. And remember, it’s all very subjective, both as to quality and category. Voting ends January 2nd.